[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www server/gnun/gnun.mk events/.symlinks philos...
|
From: |
Pavel Kharitonov |
|
Subject: |
www server/gnun/gnun.mk events/.symlinks philos... |
|
Date: |
Tue, 15 Sep 2015 05:45:32 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Pavel Kharitonov <ineiev> 15/09/15 05:45:31
Modified files:
server/gnun : gnun.mk
events : .symlinks
Added files:
philosophy/po : rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-diff.html
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-en.html
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.po
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-diff.html
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-en.html
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.po
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pot
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr-en.html
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.po
philosophy : rms-nyu-2001-summary.pt-br.txt
rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.cs.html
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.html
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.html
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pt-br.txt
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.html
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt
Removed files:
events : rms-nyu-2001-summary.pt.txt
rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.cs.html
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.html
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.html
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pt.txt
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.html
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt
events/po : rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-diff.html
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-en.html
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.po
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-diff.html
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-en.html
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.po
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pot
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr-en.html
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.po
Log message:
Move from /events/ to /philosophy/.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/server/gnun/gnun.mk?cvsroot=www&r1=1.411&r2=1.412
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/.symlinks?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=1.2
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/rms-nyu-2001-summary.pt.txt?cvsroot=www&r1=1.2&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.cs.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.63&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.25&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.32&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pt.txt?cvsroot=www&r1=1.2&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.13&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt?cvsroot=www&r1=1.16&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-en.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.44&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.po?cvsroot=www&r1=1.47&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-en.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.19&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.po?cvsroot=www&r1=1.16&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pot?cvsroot=www&r1=1.13&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist?cvsroot=www&r1=1.10&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr-en.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.po?cvsroot=www&r1=1.14&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-en.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.po?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-en.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.po?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pot?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr-en.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.po?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.pt-br.txt?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.cs.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.3
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pt-br.txt?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
Patches:
Index: server/gnun/gnun.mk
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/server/gnun/gnun.mk,v
retrieving revision 1.411
retrieving revision 1.412
diff -u -b -r1.411 -r1.412
--- server/gnun/gnun.mk 10 Aug 2015 05:30:22 -0000 1.411
+++ server/gnun/gnun.mk 15 Sep 2015 05:45:18 -0000 1.412
@@ -191,7 +191,6 @@
first-assoc-members-meeting \
nyc-2004-01 \
porto-tech-city-2001 \
- rms-nyu-2001-transcript \
sco_without_fear \
usenix-2001-lifetime-achievement
@@ -555,6 +554,7 @@
rms-hack \
rms-interview-edinburgh \
rms-kol \
+ rms-nyu-2001-transcript \
rms-on-radio-nz \
rtlinux-patent \
savingeurope \
Index: events/.symlinks
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/events/.symlinks,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -b -r1.1 -r1.2
--- events/.symlinks 31 May 2001 22:45:01 -0000 1.1
+++ events/.symlinks 15 Sep 2015 05:45:18 -0000 1.2
@@ -1 +1,4 @@
events.html index.html
+../philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html
+../philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.pt-br.txt rms-nyu-2001-summary.pt.txt
+../philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pt-br.txt rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pt.txt
Index: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-diff.html
diff -N philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-diff.html 15 Sep 2015 05:45:26
-0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,2141 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist"
-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation</h2>
+
+<p style="text-align: center;">
+Transcript of<br />
+Richard M. Stallman's speech,<br />
+<em>“Free Software: Freedom and
Cooperation”</em><br />
+New York University in New York, New York<br />
+on 29 May 2001</p>
+
+<div class="announcement">
+<blockquote><p>A <a
href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt">plain
+text</a> version of this transcript and
+a <a href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt">summary</a> of
the speech
+are also available.</p></blockquote>
+</div>
+
+<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: I'm Mike Uretsky. I'm over at
the Stern
+School of Business. I'm also one of the Co-Directors of the Center
+for Advanced Technology. And, on behalf of all of us in the Computer
+Science Department, I want to welcome you here. I want to say a few
+comments, before I turn it over to Ed, who is going to introduce the
+speaker.</p>
+
+<p>The role of a university is a place to foster debate and to have
+interesting discussions. And the role of a major university is to
+have particularly interesting discussions. And this particular
+presentation, this seminar falls right into that mold. I find the
+discussion of open source particularly interesting. In a sense
+… <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I do free software. Open
source is a
+different movement. <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: When I first started in the
field in the
+'60's, basically software was free. And we went in cycles. It became
+free, and then software manufacturers, in the need to expand their
+markets, pushed it in other directions. A lot of the developments
+that took place with the entry of the PC moved in exactly the same
+kind of a cycle.</p>
+
+<p>There's a very interesting French philosopher, Pierre Levy, who
+talks about movement to this direction and who talks about the move
+into cyberspace as not only relating to technology but also relating
+to social restructuring, to political restructuring, through a change
+in the kinds of relationships that will improve the well-being of
+mankind. And we're hoping that this debate is a movement in that
+direction, that this debate is something that cuts across a lot of the
+disciplines that normally act as solace within the University. We're
+looking forward to some very interesting discussions. Ed?</p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: I'm Ed Schonberg from the
Computer
+Science Department at the Courant Institute. Let me welcome you all
+to this event. Introducers are usually, and particularly, a useless
+aspect of public presentations, but in this case, actually, they serve
+a useful purpose, as Mike easily demonstrated, because an introducer
+for instance, told him, by making inaccurate comments, can allow him
+to straighten out and correct and <i>[Laughter]</i> sharpen
+considerably the parameters of the debate.</p>
+
+<p>So, let me make the briefest possible introduction to somebody who
+doesn't need one. Richard is the perfect example of somebody who, by
+acting locally, started thinking globally from problems concerning the
+unavailability of source code for printer drivers at the AI Lab many
+years ago. He has developed a coherent philosophy that has forced all
+of us to re-examine our ideas of how software is produced, of what
+intellectual property means, and what the software community actually
+represents. Let me welcome Richard Stallman.
<i>[Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can someone lend me a
+watch? <i>[Laughter]</i> Thank you. So, I'd like to thank
Microsoft
+for providing me the opportunity to <i>[Laughter]</i> be on this
+platform. For the past few weeks, I have felt like an author whose
+book was fortuitously banned somewhere. <i>[Laughter]</i> Except
that
+all the articles about it are giving the wrong author's name, because
+Microsoft describes the GNU GPL as an open source license, and most of
+the press coverage followed suit. Most people, of course just
+innocently don't realize that our work has nothing to do with open
+source, that in fact we did most of it before people even coined the
+term open source.</p>
+
+<p>We are in the free software movement, and I'm going to speak about
+what the free software movement is about, what it means, what we have
+done, and, because this is partly sponsored by a school of business,
+I'll say some things more than I usually do about how free software
+relates to business, and some other areas of social life.</p>
+
+<p>Now, some of you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps
+you cook. And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably
+use recipes. And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the
+experience of getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing
+it. And you've probably also had the experience — unless you're
+a total neophyte — of changing a recipe. You know, it says
+certain things, but you don't have to do exactly that. You can leave
+out some ingredients. Add some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms.
+Put in less salt because your doctor said you should cut down on salt
+— whatever. You can even make bigger changes according to your
+skill. And if you've made changes in a recipe, and you cook it for
+your friends, and they like it, one of your friends might say,
+“Hey, could I have the recipe?” And then, what do you do?
+You could write down your modified version of the recipe and make a
+copy for your friend. These are the natural things to do with
+functionally useful recipes of any kind.</p>
+
+<p>Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program. A computer
+program's a lot like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to
+get some result that you want. So it's just as natural to do those
+same things with computer programs — hand a copy to your friend.
+Make changes in it because the job it was written to do isn't exactly
+what you want. It did a great job for somebody else, but your job is
+a different job. And after you've changed it, that's likely to be
+useful for other people. Maybe they have a job to do that's like the
+job you do. So they ask, “Hey, can I have a copy?” Of
+course, if you're a nice person, you're going to give a copy. That's
+the way to be a decent person.</p>
+
+<p>So imagine what it would be like if recipes were packaged inside
+black boxes. You couldn't see what ingredients they're using, let
+alone change them, and imagine if you made a copy for a friend, they
+would call you a pirate and try to put you in prison for years. That
+world would create tremendous outrage from all the people who are used
+to sharing recipes. But that is exactly what the world of proprietary
+software is like. A world in which common decency towards other
+people is prohibited or prevented.</p>
+
+<p>Now, why did I notice this? I noticed this because I had the good
+fortune in the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who
+shared software. Now, this community could trace its ancestry
+essentially back to the beginning of computing. In the 1970's,
+though, it was a bit rare for there to be a community where people
+shared software. And, in fact, this was sort of an extreme case,
+because in the lab where I worked, the entire operating system was
+software developed by the people in our community, and we'd share any
+of it with anybody. Anybody was welcome to come and take a look, and
+take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do. There were no
+copyright notices on these programs. Cooperation was our way of life.
+And we were secure in that way of life. We didn't fight for it. We
+didn't have to fight for it. We just lived that way. And, as far as
+we knew, we would just keep on living that way. So there was free
+software, but there was no free software movement.</p>
+
+<p>But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that
+happened to it. Ultimately it was wiped out. Ultimately, the PDP-10
+computer which we used for all our work was discontinued. And you
+know, our system — the Incompatible Timesharing System —
+was written starting in the '60's, so it was written in assembler
+language. That's what you used to write an operating system in the
+'60's. So, of course, assembler language is for one particular
+computer architecture; if that gets discontinued, all your work turns
+into dust — it's useless. And that's what happened to us. The
+20 years or so of work of our community turned into dust.</p>
+
+<p>But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me,
+helped me see what to do, helped prepare me to see what to do when
+this happened, because at certain point, Xerox gave the Artificial
+Intelligence Lab, where I worked, a laser printer, and this was a
+really handsome gift, because it was the first time anybody outside
+Xerox had a laser printer. It was very fast, printed a page a second,
+very fine in many respects, but it was unreliable, because it was
+really a high-speed office copier that had been modified into a
+printer. And, you know, copiers jam, but there's somebody there to
+fix them. The printer jammed and nobody saw. So it stayed jammed for
+a long time.</p>
+
+<p>Well, we had an idea for how to deal with this problem. Change it
+so that whenever the printer gets a jam, the machine that runs the
+printer can tell our timesharing machine, and tell the users who are
+waiting for printouts, or something like that, you know, tell them, go
+fix the printer. Because if they only knew it was jammed, of course,
+if you're waiting for a printout and you know that the printer is
+jammed, you don't want to sit and wait forever, you're going to go fix
+it.</p>
+
+<p>But at that point, we were completely stymied, because the software
+that ran that printer was not free software. It had come with the
+printer, and it was just a binary. We couldn't have the source code;
+Xerox wouldn't let us have the source code. So, despite our skill as
+programmers — after all, we had written our own timesharing
+system — we were completely helpless to add this feature to the
+printer software.</p>
+
+<p>And we just had to suffer with waiting. It would take an hour or
+two to get your printout because the machine would be jammed most of
+the time. And only once in a while — you'd wait an hour
+figuring “I know it's going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and
+go collect my printout,” and then you'd see that it had been
+jammed the whole time, and in fact, nobody else had fixed it. So
+you'd fix it and you'd go wait another half hour. Then, you'd come
+back, and you'd see it jammed again — before it got to your
+output. It would print three minutes and be jammed thirty minutes.
+Frustration up the whazzoo. But the thing that made it worse was
+knowing that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his own
+selfishness, was blocking us, obstructing us from improving the
+software. So, of course, we felt some resentment.</p>
+
+<p>And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a
+copy of that software. So I was visiting there later, so I went to
+his office and I said, “Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of
+the printer source code?” And he said “No, I promised not
+to give you a copy.” <i>[Laughter]</i> I was stunned. I was
so
+— I was angry, and I had no idea how I could do justice to it.
+All I could think of was to turn around on my heel and walk out of his
+room. Maybe I slammed the door. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I thought
+about it later on, because I realized that I was seeing not just an
+isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was important and affected
+a lot of people.</p>
+
+<p>This was — for me — I was lucky, I only got a taste of
+it, but other people had to live in this all the time. So I thought
+about it at length. See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with
+us — his colleagues at MIT. He had betrayed us. But he didn't
+just do it to us. Chances are he did it to you too. <i>[Pointing at
+member of audience.]</i> And I think, mostly likely, he did it to you
+too. <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.] [Laughter]</i>
And
+he probably did it to you as well. <i>[Pointing to third member of
+audience.]</i> He probably did it to most of the people here in this
+room — except a few, maybe, who weren't born yet in 1980.
+Because he had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about the
+entire population of the Planet Earth. He had signed a non-disclosure
+agreement.</p>
+
+<p>Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure
+agreement, and it taught me an important lesson — a lesson
+that's important because most programmers never learn it. You see,
+this was my first encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was
+the victim. I, and my whole lab, were the victims. And the lesson it
+taught me was that non-disclosure agreements have victims. They're
+not innocent. They're not harmless. Most programmers first encounter
+a non-disclosure agreement when they're invited to sign one. And
+there's always some temptation — some goody they're going to get
+if they sign. So, they make up excuses. They say, “Well, he's
+never going to get a copy no matter what, so why shouldn't I join the
+conspiracy to deprive him?” They say, “This is the way
+it's always done. Who am I to go against it?” They say,
+“If I don't sign this, someone else will.” Various excuses
+to gag their consciences.</p>
+
+<p>But when somebody invited me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, my
+conscience was already sensitized. It remembered how angry I had
+been, when somebody promised not to help me and my whole lab solve our
+problem. And I couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to
+somebody else who had never done me any harm. You know, if somebody
+asked me to promise not to share some useful information with a hated
+enemy, I would have said yes. You know? If somebody's done something
+bad, he deserves it. But, strangers — they haven't done me any
+harm. How could they deserve that kind of mistreatment? You can't
+let yourself start treating just anybody and everybody badly. Then
+you become a predator on society. So I said, “Thank you very
+much for offering me this nice software package. But I can't accept
+it in good conscience, on the conditions you are demanding, so I will
+do without it. Thank you so much.” And so, I have never
+knowingly signed a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful
+technical information such as software.</p>
+
+<p>Now there are other kinds of information which raise different
+ethical issues. For instance, there's personal information. You
+know, if you wanted to talk with me about what was happening between
+you and your boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody —
+you know, I could keep — I could agree to keep that a secret for
+you, because that's not generally useful technical information. At
+least, it's probably not generally useful.
<i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>There is a small chance — and it's a possibility though
+— that you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex
+technique, <i>[Laughter]</i> and I would then feel a moral
+duty <i>[Laughter]</i> to pass it onto the rest of humanity, so
that
+everyone could get the benefit of it. So, I'd have to put a proviso
+in that promise, you know? If it's just details about who wants this,
+and who's angry at whom, and things like that — soap opera
+— that I can keep private for you, but something that humanity
+could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't withhold. You see,
+the purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information
+for humanity to help people live their lives better. If we promise to
+withhold that information — if we keep it secret — then we
+are betraying the mission of our field. And this, I decided I
+shouldn't do.</p>
+
+<p>But, meanwhile my community had collapsed, and that was collapsing,
+and that left me in a bad situation. You see, the whole Incompatible
+Timesharing System was obsolete, because the PDP-10 was obsolete, and
+so there was no way that I could continue working as an operating
+system developer the way that I had been doing it. That depended on
+being part of the community using the community software and improving
+it. That no longer was a possibility, and that gave me a moral
+dilemma. What was I going to do? Because the most obvious
+possibility meant to go against that decision I had made. The most
+obvious possibility was to adapt myself to the change in the world.
+To accept that things were different, and that I'd just have to give
+up those principles and start signing non-disclosure agreements for
+proprietary operating systems, and most likely writing proprietary
+software as well. But I realized that that way I could have fun
+coding, and I could make money — especially if I did it other
+than at MIT — but at the end, I'd have to look back at my career
+and say, “I've spent my life building walls to divide
+people,” and I would have been ashamed of my life.</p>
+
+<p>So I looked for another alternative, and there was an obvious one.
+I could leave the software field and do something else. Now I had no
+other special noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a
+waiter. <i>[Laughter]</i> Not at a fancy restaurant; they wouldn't
+hire me, <i>[Laughter]</i> but I could be a waiter somewhere. And
+many programmers, they say to me, “The people who hire
+programmers demand this, this and this. If I don't do those things,
+I'll starve.” It's literally the word they use. Well, you know,
+as a waiter, you're not going to starve. <i>[Laughter]</i> So,
+really, they're in no danger. But — and this is important, you
+see — because sometimes you can justify doing something that
+hurts other people by saying otherwise something worse is going to
+happen to me. You know, if you were <em>really</em> going to
starve,
+you'd be justified in writing proprietary software.
<i>[Laughter]</i>
+If somebody's pointing a gun at you, then I would say, it's
+forgivable. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, I had found a way that I could
+survive without doing something unethical, so that excuse was not
+available. So I realized, though, that being a waiter would be no fun
+for me, and it would be wasting my skills as an operating system
+developer. It would avoid misusing my skills. Developing proprietary
+software would be misusing my skills. Encouraging other people to
+live in the world of proprietary software would be misusing my skills.
+So it's better to waste them than misuse them, but it's still not
+really good.</p>
+
+<p>So for those reasons, I decided to look for some other alternative.
+What can an operating system developer do that would actually improve
+the situation, make the world a better place? And I realized that an
+operating system developer was exactly what was needed. The problem,
+the dilemma, existed for me and for everyone else because all of the
+available operating systems for modern computers were proprietary.
+The free operating systems were for old, obsolete computers, right?
+So for the modern computers — if you wanted to get a modern
+computer and use it, you were forced into a proprietary operating
+system. So if an operating system developer wrote another operating
+system, and then said, “Everybody come and share this; you're
+welcome to this” — that would give everybody a way out of
+the dilemma, another alternative. So I realized that there was
+something I could do that would solve the problem. I had just the
+right skills to be able to do it. And it was the most useful thing I
+could possibly imagine that I'd be able to do with my life. And it
+was a problem that no one else was trying to solve. It was just sort
+of sitting there, getting worse, and nobody was there but me. So I
+felt, “I'm elected. I have to work on this. If not me,
+who?” So I decided I would develop a free operating system, or
+die trying … of old age, of course.
<i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>So, of course I had to decide what kind of operating system it
+should be. There are some technical design decisions to be made. I
+decided to make the system compatible with Unix for a number of
+reasons. First of all, I had just seen one operating system that I
+really loved become obsolete because it was written for one particular
+kind of computer. I didn't want that to happen again. We needed to
+have a portable system. Well, Unix was a portable system. So if I
+followed the design of Unix, I had a pretty good chance that I could
+make a system that would also be portable and workable. And
+furthermore, why <i>[Tape unclear]</i> be compatible with it in the
+details. The reason is, users hate incompatible changes. If I had
+just designed the system in my favorite way — which I would have
+loved doing, I'm sure — I would have produced something that was
+incompatible. You know, the details would be different. So, if I
+wrote the system, then the users would have said to me, “Well,
+this is very nice, but it's incompatible. It will be too much work to
+switch. We can't afford that much trouble just to use your system
+instead of Unix, so we'll stay with Unix,” they would have
+said.</p>
+
+<p>Now, if I wanted to actually create a community where there would
+be people in it, people using this free system, and enjoying the
+benefits of liberty and cooperation, I had to make a system people
+would use, a system that they would find easy to switch to, that would
+not have an obstacle making it fail at the very beginning. Now,
+making the system upward compatible with Unix actually made all the
+immediate design decisions, because Unix consists of many pieces, and
+they communicate through interfaces that are more or less documented.
+So if you want to be compatible with Unix, you have to replace each
+piece, one by one, with a compatible piece. So the remaining design
+decisions are inside one piece, and they could be made later by
+whoever decides to write that piece. They didn't have to be made at
+the outset.</p>
+
+<p>So all we had to do to start work was find a name for the system.
+Now, we hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program,
+because thinking of people being amused by the name is half the fun of
+writing the program. <i>[Laughter]</i> And we had a tradition of
+recursive acronyms, to say that the program that you're writing is
+similar to some existing program. You can give it a recursive acronym
+name which says: this one's not the other. So, for instance, there
+were many Tico text editors in the '60's and '70's, and they were
+generally called something-or-other Tico. Then one clever hacker
+called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico — the first recursive
+acronym. In 1975, I developed the first Emacs text editor, and there
+were many imitations of Emacs, and a lot of them were called
+something-or-other Emacs, but one was called Fine, for Fine Is Not
+Emacs, and there was Sine, for Sine Is Not Emacs, and Eine for Ina Is
+Not Emacs, and MINCE for Mince Is Not Complete
+Emacs. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was a stripped down imitation. And
+then, Eine was almost completely rewritten, and the new version was
+called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially.
<i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>So I looked for a recursive acronym for Something is not Unix. And
+I tried all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word.
+<i>[Laughter]</i> Hmm, try another way. I made a contraction.
That
+way I could have a three-letter acronym, for Something's not Unix.
+And I tried letters, and I came across the word “GNU”
+— the word “GNU” is the funniest word in the English
+language. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was it. Of course, the reason
it's
+funny is that according to the dictionary, it's pronounced
+“new”. You see? And so that's why people use it for a
+lot of wordplay. Let me tell you, this is the name of an animal that
+lives in Africa. And the African pronunciation had a click sound in
+it. <i>[Laughter]</i> Maybe still does. And so, the European
+colonists, when they got there, they didn't bother learning to say
+this click sound. So they just left it out, and they wrote a
+“G” which meant “there's another sound that's
+supposed to be here which we are not
+pronouncing.” <i>[Laughter]</i> So, tonight I'm leaving for
+South Africa, and I have begged them, I hope they're going to find
+somebody who can teach me to pronounce click sounds,
<i>[Laughter]</i>
+so that I'll know how to pronounce GNU the correct way, when it's the
+animal.</p>
+
+<p>But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is
+“guh-NEW” — pronounce the hard “G”. If
+you talk about the “new” operating system, you'll get
+people very confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years
+now, so it is not new any more. <i>[Laughter]</i> But it still is,
+and always will be, GNU — no matter how many people call it
+Linux by mistake. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces
+of GNU. They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities
+though. And, at the time, I thought we would write all these pieces,
+and make an entire GNU system, and then we'd say, “Come and get
+it”, and people would start to use it. That's not what
+happened. The first pieces I wrote were just equally good
+replacements, with fewer bugs for some pieces of Unix, but they
+weren't tremendously exciting. Nobody particularly wanted to get them
+and install them. But then, in September 1984, I started writing GNU
+Emacs, which was my second implementation of Emacs, and by early 1985,
+it was working. I could use it for all my editing, which was a big
+relief, because I had no intention of learning to use VI, the Unix
+editor. <i>[Laughter]</i> So, until that time, I did my editing on
+some other machine, and saved the files through the network, so that I
+could test them. But when GNU Emacs was running well enough for me to
+use it, it was also — other people wanted to use it too.</p>
+
+<p>So I had to work out the details of distribution. Of course, I put
+a copy in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people
+who were on the net They could then just pull over a tar file, but a
+lot of programmers then even were not on the net in 1985. They were
+sending me emails saying “How can I get a copy?” I had to
+decide what I would answer them. Well, I could have said, I want to
+spend my time writing more GNU software, not writing tapes, so please
+find a friend who's on the internet and who is willing to download it
+and put it on a tape for you. And I'm sure people would have found
+some friends, sooner or later, you know. They would have got copies.
+But I had no job. In fact, I've never had a job since quitting MIT in
+January 1984. So, I was looking for some way I could make money
+through my work on free software, and therefore I started a free
+software business. I announced, “Send me $150 dollars, and I'll
+mail you a tape of Emacs.” And the orders began dribbling in.
+By the middle of the year they were trickling in.</p>
+
+<p>I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month. And, if necessary, I could
+have lived on just that, because I've always lived cheaply. I live
+like a student, basically. And I like that, because it means that
+money is not telling me what to do. I can do what I think is
+important for me to do. It freed me to do what seemed worth doing.
+So make a real effort to avoid getting sucked into all the expensive
+lifestyle habits of typical Americans. Because if you do that, then
+people with the money will dictate what you do with your life. You
+won't be able to do what's really important to you.</p>
+
+<p>So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, “What do you
+mean it's free software if it costs $150
+dollars?” <i>[Laughter]</i> Well, the reason they asked this
was
+that they were confused by the multiple meanings of the English word
+“free”. One meaning refers to price, and another meaning
+refers to freedom. When I speak of free software, I'm referring to
+freedom, not price. So think of free speech, not free
+beer. <i>[Laughter]</i> Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many
years
+of my life to making sure programmers got less money. That's not my
+goal. I'm a programmer and I don't mind getting money myself. I
+won't dedicate my whole life to getting it, but I don't mind getting
+it. And I'm not — and therefore, ethics is the same for
+everyone. I'm not against some other programmer getting money either.
+I don't want prices to be low. That's not the issue at all. The
+issue is freedom. Freedom for everyone who's using software, whether
+that person be a programmer or not.</p>
+
+<p>So at this point I should give you the definition of free software.
+I better get to some real details, you see, because just saying
+“I believe in freedom” is vacuous. There's so many
+different freedoms you could believe in, and they conflict with each
+other, so the real political question is: Which are the important
+freedoms, the freedoms that we must make sure everybody has?</p>
+
+<p>And now, I will give my answer to that question for the particular
+area of using software. A program is free software for you, a
+particular user, if you have the following freedoms:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>First, Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the program for any
+purpose, any way you like.</li>
+<li>Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
+program to suit your needs.</li>
+<li>Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
+copies of the program.</li>
+<li>And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
+publishing an improved version so others can get the benefit of your
+work.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software,
+for you — and that's crucial. That's why I phrase it that way.
+I'll explain why later, when I talk about the GNU General Public
+License, but right now I'm explaining what free software means, which
+is a more basic question.</p>
+
+<p>So, Freedom Zero's pretty obvious. If you're not even allowed to
+run the program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive
+program. But as it happens, most programs will at least give you
+Freedom Zero. And Freedom Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of
+Freedoms One, Two, and Three — that's the way that copyright law
+works. So the freedoms that distinguish free software from typical
+software are Freedoms One, Two, and Three, so I'll say more about them
+and why they are important.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
+software to suit your needs. This could mean fixing bugs. It could
+mean adding new features. It could mean porting it to a different
+computer system. It could mean translating all the error messages
+into Navajo. Any change you want to make, you should be free to
+make.</p>
+
+<p>Now, it's obvious that professional programmers can make use of
+this freedom very effectively, but not just them. Anybody of
+reasonable intelligence can learn a little programming. You know,
+there are hard jobs, and there are easy jobs, and most people are not
+going to learn enough to do hard jobs. But lots of people can learn
+enough to do easy jobs, just the way, you know, 50 years ago, lots and
+lots of American men learned to repair cars, which is what enabled the
+U.S. to have a motorized army in World War II and win. So, very
+important, having lots of people tinkering.</p>
+
+<p>And if you are a people person, and you really don't want to learn
+technology at all, that probably means that you have a lot of friends,
+and you're good at getting them to owe you favors.
<i>[Laughter]</i>
+Some of them are probably programmers. So you can ask one of your
+programmer friends. “Would you please change this for me? Add
+this feature?” So, lots of people can benefit from it.</p>
+
+<p>Now, if you don't have this freedom, it causes practical, material
+harm to society. It makes you a prisoner of your software. I
+explained what that was like with regard to the laser printer. You
+know, it worked badly for us, and we couldn't fix it, because we were
+prisoners of our software.</p>
+
+<p>But it also affects people's morale. You know if the computer is
+constantly frustrating to use, and people are using it, their lives
+are going to be frustrating, and if they're using it in their jobs,
+their jobs are going to be frustrating; they're going to hate their
+jobs. And you know, people protect themselves from frustration by
+deciding not to care. So you end up with people whose attitude is,
+“Well, I showed up for work today. That's all I have to do. If
+I can't make progress, that's not my problem; that's the boss's
+problem.” And when this happens, it's bad for those people, and
+it's bad for society as a whole. That's Freedom One, the freedom to
+help yourself.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
+copies of the program. Now, for beings that can think and learn,
+sharing useful knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship. When
+these beings use computers, this act of friendship takes the form of
+sharing software. Friends share with each other. Friends help each
+other. This is the nature of friendship. And, in fact, this spirit
+of goodwill — the spirit of helping your neighbor, voluntarily
+— is society's most important resource. It makes the difference
+between a livable society and a dog-eat-dog jungle. Its importance
+has been recognized by the world's major religions for thousands of
+years, and they explicitly try to encourage this attitude.</p>
+
+<p>When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach
+us this attitude — the spirit of sharing — by having us do
+it. They figured if we did it, we'd learn. So they said, “If
+you bring candy to school, you can't keep it all for yourself; you
+have to share some with the other kids.” Teaching us, the
+society was set up to teach, this spirit of cooperation. And why do
+you have to do that? Because people are not totally cooperative.
+That's one part of human nature, and there are other parts of human
+nature. There are lots of parts of human nature. So, if you want a
+better society, you've got to work to encourage the spirit of sharing.
+You know, it'll never get to be 100%. That's understandable. People
+have to take care of themselves too. But if we make it somewhat
+bigger, we're all better off.</p>
+
+<p>Nowadays, according to the U.S. Government, teachers are supposed
+to do the exact opposite. “Oh, Johnny, you brought software to
+school. Well, don't share it. Oh no. Sharing is wrong. Sharing
+means you're a pirate.”</p>
+
+<p>What do they mean when they say “pirate”? They're
+saying that helping your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking
+a ship. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>What would Buddha or Jesus say about that? Now, take your favorite
+religious leader. I don't know, maybe Manson would have said
+something different. <i>[Laughter]</i> Who knows what L. Ron
Hubbard
+would say? But …</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>:
<i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Of course, he's dead. But
they don't
+admit that. What?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: So are the others, also
+dead. <i>[Laughter] [Inaudible]</i> Charles Manson's also
+dead. <i>[Laughter]</i> They're dead, Jesus's dead, Buddha's
+dead…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, that's true.
<i>[Laughter]</i> So
+I guess, in that regard, L. Ron Hubbard is no worse than the
+others. <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway —
<i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: L. Ron always used free
software —
+it freed him from Zanu. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Anyway, so, I think this is
actually the
+most important reason why software should be free: We can't afford to
+pollute society's most important resource. It's true that it's not a
+physical resource like clean air and clean water. It's a
+psycho-social resource, but it's just as real for all that, and it
+makes a tremendous difference to our lives. You see, the actions we
+take influence the thoughts of other people. When we go around
+telling people, “Don't share with each other”, if they
+listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's not a good one.
+That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor.</p>
+
+<p>Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just
+cause this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes
+waste — practical, material harm. If the program has an owner,
+and the owner arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay
+in order to be able to use it, some people are going to say,
+“Never mind, I'll do without it.” And that's waste,
+deliberately inflicted waste. And the interesting thing about
+software, of course, is that fewer users doesn't mean you have to make
+less stuff. You know, if fewer people buy cars, you can make fewer
+cars. There's a saving there. There are resources to be allocated,
+or not allocated, into making cars. So that you can say that having a
+price on a car is a good thing. It prevents people from diverting
+lots of wasted resources into making cars that aren't really needed.
+But if each additional car used no resources, it wouldn't be doing any
+good saving the making of these cars. Well, for physical objects, of
+course, like cars, it is always going to take resources to make an
+additional one of them, each additional exemplar.</p>
+
+<p>But for software that's not true. Anybody can make another copy.
+And it's almost trivial to do it. It takes no resources, except a
+tiny bit of electricity. So there's nothing we can save, no resource
+we're going to allocate better by putting this financial disincentive
+on the use of the software. You often find people taking economic,
+the consequences of economic reasoning, based on premises that don't
+apply to software, and trying to transplant them from other areas of
+life where the premises may apply, and the conclusions may be valid.
+They just take the conclusions and assume that they're valid for
+software too, when the argument is based on nothing, in the case of
+software. The premises don't work in that case. It is very important
+to examine how you reach the conclusion, and what premises it depends
+on, to see where it might be valid. So, that's Freedom Two, the
+freedom to help your neighbor.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
+publishing an improved version of the software. People used to say to
+me, “If the software's free, then nobody will get paid to work
+on it, so why should anybody work on it?” Well, of course, they
+were confusing the two meanings of free, so their reasoning was based
+on a misunderstanding. But, in any case, that was their theory.
+Today, we can compare that theory with empirical fact, and we find
+that hundreds of people are being paid to write free software, and
+over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers. We get lots of people
+working on free software, for various different motives.</p>
+
+<p>When I first released GNU Emacs — the first piece of the GNU
+system that people actually wanted to use — and when it started
+having users, after a while, I got a message saying, “I think I
+saw a bug in the source code, and here's a fix.” And I got
+another message, “Here's code to add a new feature.” And
+another bug fix. And another new feature. And another, and another,
+and another, until they were pouring in on me so fast that just making
+use of all this help I was getting was a big job. Microsoft doesn't
+have this problem. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>Eventually, people noted this phenomenon. You see, in the 1980's a
+lot of us thought that maybe free software wouldn't be as good as the
+non-free software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay
+people. And, of course, people like me, who value freedom and
+community said, “Well, we'll use the free software
+anyway.” It's worth making a little sacrifice in some mere
+technical convenience to have freedom. But what people began to note,
+around 1990 was that our software was actually better. It was more
+powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary alternatives.</p>
+
+<p>In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific
+measurement of reliability of software. Here's what he did. He took
+several sets of comparable programs that did the same jobs — the
+exact same jobs — in different systems. Because there were
+certain basic Unix-like utilities. And the jobs that they did, we
+know, was all, more or less, imitating the same thing, or they were
+following the POSIX spec, so they were all the same in terms of what
+jobs they did, but they were maintained by different people, written
+separately. The code was different. So they said, OK, we'll take
+these programs and run them with random data, and measure how often
+they crash, or hang. So they measured it, and the most reliable set
+of programs was the GNU programs. All the commercial alternatives
+which were proprietary software were less reliable. So he published
+this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he did the
+same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same result.
+The GNU versions were the most reliable. People — you know
+there are cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system,
+because it's so reliable, and reliability is very important to
+them.</p>
+
+<p>Anyway, there's even a group of people who focus on this particular
+benefit as the reason they give, the main reason they give, why users
+should be permitted to do these various things, and to have these
+freedoms. If you've been listening to me, you've noticed, you've seen
+that I, speaking for the free software movement, I talk about issues
+of ethics, and what kind of a society we want to live in, what makes
+for a good society, as well as practical, material benefits. They're
+both important. That's the free software movement.</p>
+
+<p>That other group of people — which is called the open source
+movement — they only cite the practical benefits. They deny
+that this is an issue of principle. They deny that people are
+entitled to the freedom to share with their neighbor and to see what
+the program's doing and change it if they don't like it. They say,
+however, that it's a useful thing to let people do that. So they go
+to companies and say to them, “You know, you might make more
+money if you let people do this.” So, what you can see is that
+to some extent, they lead people in a similar direction, but for
+totally different, for fundamentally different, philosophical
+reasons.</p>
+
+<p>Because on the deepest issue of all, you know, on the ethical
+question, the two movements disagree. You know, in the free software
+movement we say, “You're entitled to these freedoms. People
+shouldn't stop you from doing these things.” In the open source
+movement, they say, “Yes, they can stop you if you want, but
+we'll try to convince them to deign to let you to do these
+things.” Well, they have contributed — they have convinced
+a certain number of businesses to release substantial pieces of
+software as free software in our community. So they, the open source
+movement, has contributed substantially to our community. And so we
+work together on practical projects. But, philosophically, there's a
+tremendous disagreement.</p>
+
+<p>Unfortunately, the open source movement is the one that gets the
+support of business the most, and so most articles about our work
+describe it as open source, and a lot of people just innocently think
+that we're all part of the open source movement. So that's why I'm
+mentioning this distinction. I want you to be aware that the free
+software movement, which brought our community into existence and
+developed the free operating system, is still here — and that we
+still stand for this ethical philosophy. I want you to know about
+this, so that you won't mislead someone else unknowingly.</p>
+
+<p>But also, so that you can think about where you stand.</p>
+
+<p>You know, which movement you support is up to you. You might agree
+with the free software movements and my views. You might agree with
+the open source movement. You might disagree with them both. You
+decide where you stand on these political issues.</p>
+
+<p>But if you agree with the free software movement — if you see
+that there's an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled
+and directed by this decision deserve a say in it — then I hope
+you'll say that you agree with the free software movement, and one way
+you can do that is by using the term free software and just helping
+people know we exist.</p>
+
+<p>So, Freedom Three is very important both practically and
+psycho-socially. If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical
+material harm, because this community development doesn't happen, and
+we don't make powerful, reliable software. But it also causes
+psycho-social harm, which affects the spirit of scientific cooperation
+— the idea that we're working together to advance human
+knowledge. You see, progress in science crucially depends on people
+being able to work together. And nowadays though, you often find each
+little group of scientists acting like it's a war with each other gang
+of scientists and engineers. And if they don't share with each other,
+they're all held back.</p>
+
+<p>So, those are the three freedoms that distinguish free software
+from typical software. Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself,
+making changes to suit your own needs. Freedom Two is the freedom to
+help your neighbor by distributing copies. And Freedom Three is the
+freedom to help build your community by making changes and publishing
+them for other people to use. If you have all of these freedoms, the
+program is free software for you. Now, why do I define it that way in
+terms of a particular user? Is it free software for
+you? <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> Is it free software
for
+you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Is it free
+software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i>
+Yes?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you explain a bit about the
+difference between Freedom Two and Three?
<i>[inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, they certainly relate,
because if
+you don't have freedom to redistribute at all, you certainly don't
+have freedom to distribute a modified version, but they're different
+activities.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Oh.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Freedom Two is, you know, read
it, you
+make an exact copy, and hand it to your friends, so now your friend
+can use it. Or maybe you make exact copies and you sell them to a
+bunch of people, and then they can use it.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom Three is where you make improvements — or at least
+you think they're improvements, and some other people may agree with
+you. So that's the difference. Oh, and by the way, one crucial
+point. Freedoms One and Three depend on your having access to the
+source code. Because changing a binary-only program is extremely
+hard. <i>[Laughter]</i> Even trivial changes like using four
digits
+for the date, <i>[Laughter]</i> if you don't have source. So, for
+compelling, practical reasons, access to the source code is a
+precondition, a requirement, for free software.</p>
+
+<p>So, why do I define it in terms of whether it's free software for
+<em>you</em>? The reason is that sometimes the same program can be
+free software for some people, and non-free for others. Now, that
+might seem like a paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example
+to show you how it happens. A very big example — maybe the
+biggest ever — of this problem was the X Window System which was
+developed at MIT and released under a license that made it free
+software. If you got the MIT version with the MIT license, you had
+Freedoms One, Two, and Three. It was free software for you. But
+among those who got copies were various computer manufacturers that
+distributed Unix systems, and they made the necessary changes in X to
+run on their systems. You know, probably just a few thousand lines
+out of the hundreds of thousands of lines of X. And, then they
+compiled it, and they put the binaries into their Unix system and
+distributed it under the same non-disclosure agreement as the rest of
+the Unix system. And then, millions of people got these copies. They
+had the X Window System, but they had none of these freedoms. It was
+not free software for <em>them</em>.</p>
+
+<p>So, the paradox was that whether X was free software depended on
+where you made the measurement. If you made the measurement coming
+out of the developers' group, you'd say, “I observe all these
+freedoms. It's free software.” If you made the measurements
+among the users you'd say, “Hmm, most users don't have these
+freedoms. It's not free software.” Well, the people who
+developed X didn't consider this a problem, because their goal was
+just popularity, ego, essentially. They wanted a big professional
+success. They wanted to feel, “Ah, lots of people are using our
+software.” And that was true. Lots of people were using their
+software but didn't have freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Well, in the GNU project, if that same thing had happened to GNU
+software, it would have been a failure, because our goal wasn't just
+to be popular; our goal was to give people liberty, and to encourage
+cooperation, to permit people to cooperate. Remember, never force
+anyone to cooperate with any other person, but make sure that
+everybody's allowed to cooperate, everyone has the freedom to do so,
+if he or she wishes. If millions of people were running non-free
+versions of GNU, that wouldn't be success at all. The whole thing
+would have been perverted into nothing like the goal.</p>
+
+<p>So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening. The method I
+came up with is called “copyleft”. It's called copyleft
+because it's sort of like taking copyright and flipping it
+over. <i>[Laughter]</i> Legally, copyleft works based on
copyright.
+We use the existing copyright law, but we use it to achieve a very
+different goal. Here's what we do. We say, “This program is
+copyrighted.” And, of course, by default, that means it's
+prohibited to copy it, or distribute it, or modify it. But then we
+say, “You're authorized to distribute copies of this. You're
+authorized to modify it. You're authorized to distribute modified
+versions and extended versions. Change it any way you
+like.”</p>
+
+<p>But there is a condition. And the condition, of course, is the
+reason why we go to all this trouble, so that we could put the
+condition in. The condition says: Whenever you distribute anything
+that contains any piece of this program, that whole program must be
+distributed under these same terms, no more and no less. So you can
+change the program and distribute a modified version, but when you do,
+the people who get that from you must get the same freedom that you
+got from us. And not just for the parts of it — the excerpts
+that you copied from our program — but also for the other parts
+of that program that they got from you. The whole of that program has
+to be free software for them.</p>
+
+<p>The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become
+inalienable rights — a concept from the Declaration of
+Independence. Rights that we make sure can't be taken away from you.
+And, of course, the specific license that embodies the idea of
+copyleft is the GNU General Public License, a controversial license
+because it actually has the strength to say no to people who would be
+parasites on our community.</p>
+
+<p>There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of
+freedom. And they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done,
+and use it to get a head start in distributing a non-free program and
+tempting people to give up their freedom. And the result would be
+— you know, if we let people do that — that we would be
+developing these free programs, and we'd constantly have to compete
+with improved versions of our own programs. That's no fun.</p>
+
+<p>And, a lot of people also feel — you know, I'm willing to
+volunteer my time to contribute to the community, but why should I
+volunteer my time to contribute to that company's, to improving that
+company's, proprietary program? You know, some people might not even
+think that that's evil, but they want to get paid if they're going to
+do that. I, personally, would rather not do it at all.</p>
+
+<p>But both of these groups of people — both the ones like me
+who say, “I don't want to help that non-free program to get a
+foothold in our community” and the ones that say, “Sure,
+I'd work for them, but then they better pay me” — both of
+us have a good reason to use the GNU General Public License. Because
+that says to that company, “You can't just take my work, and
+distribute it without the freedom.” Whereas, the non-copyleft
+licenses, like the X Windows license, do permit that.</p>
+
+<p>So that is the big division between the two categories of free
+software — license-wise. There are the programs that are
+copylefted so that the license defends the freedom of the software for
+every user. And there are the non-copylefted programs for which
+non-free versions are allowed. Somebody <em>can</em> take those
+programs and strip off the freedom. You may get that program in a
+non-free version.</p>
+
+<p>And that problem exists today. There are still non-free versions
+of X Windows being used on our free operating systems. There is even
+hardware — which is not really supported — except by a
+non-free version of X Windows. And that's a major problem in our
+community. Nonetheless, I wouldn't say that X Windows is a bad thing,
+you know. I'd say that the developers did not do the best possible
+thing that they could have done. But they <em>did</em> release a
lot
+of software that we could all use.</p>
+
+<p>You know, there's a big difference between less than perfect, and
+evil. There are many gradations of good and bad. We have to resist
+the temptation to say, if you didn't do the absolute best possible
+thing, then you're no good. You know, the people that developed X
+Windows made a big contribution to our community. But there's
+something better that they could have done. They could have
+copylefted parts of the program and prevented those freedom-denying
+versions from being distributed by others.</p>
+
+<p>Now, the fact that the GNU General Public License defends your
+freedom, uses copyright law to defend your freedom, is, of course, why
+Microsoft is attacking it today. See, Microsoft would really like to
+be able to take all the code that we wrote and put it into proprietary
+programs, have somebody make some improvements, or even just
+incompatible changes is all they need. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>You know, with Microsoft's marketing clout, they don't need to make
+it better to have their version supplant ours. They just have to make
+it different and incompatible. And then, put it on everybody's
+desktop. So they really don't like the GNU GPL. Because the GNU GPL
+won't let them do that. It doesn't allow “embrace and
+extend”. It says, if you want to share our code in your
+programs, you can. But, you've got to share and share alike. The
+changes that you make we have to be allowed to share. So, it's a
+two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation.</p>
+
+<p>Many companies — even big companies like IBM and HP are
+willing to use our software on this basis. IBM and HP contribute
+substantial improvements to GNU software. And they develop other free
+software. But, Microsoft doesn't want to do that, so they give it out
+that businesses just can't deal with the GPL. Well, if businesses
+don't include IBM, and HP and SUN, then maybe they're
+right. <i>[Laughter]</i> More about that later.</p>
+
+<p>I should finish the historical story. You see, we set out in 1984
+not just to write some free software but to do something much more
+coherent: to develop an operating system that was entirely free
+software. So that meant we had to write piece after piece after
+piece. Of course, we were always looking for shortcuts. The job was
+so big that people said we'd never be able to finish. And, I thought
+that there was at least a chance that we'd finish it but, obviously,
+it's worth looking for shortcuts. So we kept looking around. Is there
+any program that somebody else has written that we could manage to
+adapt, to plug into here, and that way we won't have to write it from
+scratch? For instance, the X Window system. It's true it wasn't
+copylefted, but it was free software, so we could use it.</p>
+
+<p>Now, I had wanted to put a window system into GNU from day one. I
+wrote a couple of window systems at MIT before I started GNU. And so,
+even though Unix had no window system in 1984, I decided that GNU
+would have one. But, we never ended up writing a GNU window system,
+because X came along. And I said, Goody! One big job we don't have
+to do. We'll use X. So I basically said, let's take X, and put it
+into the GNU system. And we'll make the other parts of GNU, you know,
+work with X, when appropriate. And we found other pieces of software
+that had been written by other people, like the text formatter TeX,
+some library code from Berkeley. At that time there was Berkeley
+Unix, but it was not free software. This library code, initially, was
+from a different group at Berkeley, that did research on floating
+point. And, so, we kept, we fit in these pieces.</p>
+
+<p>In October 1985, we founded the Free Software Foundation. So
+please note, the GNU project came first. The Free Software Foundation
+came after, about almost two years after the announcement of the
+Project. And the Free Software Foundation is a tax-exempt charity
+that raises funds to promote the freedom to share and change software.
+And in the 1980's, one of the main things we did with our funds was to
+hire people to write parts of GNU. And essential programs, such as
+the shell and the C library were written this way, as well as parts of
+other programs. The <code>tar</code> program, which is absolutely
+essential, although not exciting at all <i>[Laughter]</i> was
written
+this way. I believe GNU grep was written this way. And so, we're
+approaching our goal.</p>
+
+<p>By 1991, there was just one major piece missing, and that was the
+kernel. Now, why did I put off the kernel? Probably because it
+doesn't really matter what order you do the things in, at least
+technically it doesn't. You've got to do them all anyway. And partly
+because I'd hoped we'd be able to find a start at a kernel somewhere
+else. And we did. We found Mach, which had been developed at
+Carnegie Mellon. And it wasn't the whole kernel; it was the bottom
+half of the kernel. So we had to write the top half, but I figured,
+you know, things like the file system, the network code, and so on.
+But running on top of Mach they're running essentially as user
+programs, which ought to make them easier to debug. You can debug
+with a real source-level debugger running at the same time. And so, I
+thought that way we'd be able to get these, the higher level parts of
+the kernel, done in a short time. It didn't work out that way. These
+asynchronous, multi-threaded processes, sending messages to each other
+turned out to be very hard to debug. And the Mach-based system that
+we were using to bootstrap with had a terrible debugging environment,
+and it was unreliable, and various problems. It took us years and
+years to get the GNU kernel to work.</p>
+
+<p>But, fortunately, our community did not have to wait for the GNU
+kernel. Because in 1991, Linus Torvalds developed another free kernel
+called Linux. And he used the old-fashioned monolithic design and it
+turns out that he got his working much faster than we got ours
+working. So maybe that's one of the mistakes that I made: that design
+decision. Anyway, at first, we didn't know about Linux, because he
+never contacted us to talk about it. Although he did know about the
+GNU Project. But he announced it to other people and other places on
+the net. And so other people then did the work of combining Linux
+with the rest of the GNU system to make a complete free operating
+system. Essentially, to make the GNU plus Linux combination.</p>
+
+<p>But, they didn't realize that's what they were doing. You see,
+they said, We have a kernel — let's look around and see what
+other pieces we can find to put together with the kernel. So, they
+looked around — and lo and behold, everything they needed was
+already available. What good fortune, they said.
<i>[Laughter]</i>
+It's all here. We can find everything we need. Let's just take all
+these different things and put it together, and have a system.</p>
+
+<p>They didn't know that most of what they found was pieces of the GNU
+system. So they didn't realize that they were fitting Linux into the
+gap in the GNU system. They thought they were taking Linux and making
+a system out of Linux. So they called it a Linux system.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>:
<i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can't hear you —
what?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>:
<i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, it's just not —
you know,
+it's provincial.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: But it's more good fortune
then finding
+X and Mach?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. The difference is that
the
+people who developed X and Mach didn't have the goal of making a
+complete free operating system. We're the only ones who had that.
+And, it was our tremendous work that made the system exist. We
+actually did a larger part of the system than any other project. No
+coincidence, because those people — they wrote useful parts of
+the system. But they didn't do it because they wanted the system to
+be finished. They had other reasons.</p>
+
+<p>Now the people who developed X — they thought that designing
+across the network window system would be a good project, and it was.
+And it turned out to help us make a good free operating system. But
+that's not what they hoped for. They didn't even think about that.
+It was an accident. An accidental benefit. Now, I'm not saying that
+what they did was bad. They did a large free software project.
+That's a good thing to do. But they didn't have that ultimate vision.
+The GNU Project is where that vision was.</p>
+
+<p>And, so, we were the ones whose — every little piece that
+didn't get done by somebody else, we did it. Because we knew that we
+wouldn't have a complete system without it. And even if it was
+totally boring and unromantic, like <code>tar</code>
+or <code>mv</code>. <i>[Laughter]</i> We did it. Or
ld, you know
+there's nothing very exciting in <code>ld</code> — but I
wrote
+one. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I did make efforts to have it do a
minimal
+amount of disk I/O so that it would be faster and handle bigger
+programs. But, you know, I like to do a good job. I like to improve
+various things about the program while I'm doing it. But the reason
+that I did it wasn't that I had brilliant ideas for a
+better <code>ld</code>. The reason I did it is that we needed one
+that was free. And we couldn't expect anyone else to do it. So, we
+had to do it, or find someone to do it.</p>
+
+<p>So, although at this point thousands of people in projects have
+contributed to this system, there is one project which is the reason
+that this system exists, and that's the GNU Project. It
<em>is</em>
+basically the GNU System, with other things added since then.</p>
+
+<p>So, however, the practice of calling the system Linux has been a
+great blow to the GNU Project, because we don't normally get credit
+for what we've done. I think Linux, the kernel, is a very useful
+piece of free software, and I have only good things to say about it.
+But, well, actually, I can find a few bad things to say about
+it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, basically, I have good things to say
about
+it. However, the practice of calling the GNU system, Linux, is just a
+mistake. I'd like to ask you please to make the small effort
+necessary to call the system GNU/Linux, and that way to help us get a
+share of the credit.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You need a mascot! Get
yourself a
+stuffed animal! <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have one.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You do?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have an animal — a
+gnu. <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway. So, yes, when you draw a penguin,
+draw a gnu next to it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, let's save the
+questions for the end. I have more to go through.</p>
+
+<p>So, why am I so concerned about this? You know, why do I think it
+is worth bothering you and perhaps giving you a, perhaps lowering your
+opinion of me, <i>[Laughter]</i> to raise this issue of credit?
+Because, you know, some people when I do this, some people think that
+it's because I want my ego to be fed, right? Of course, I'm not
+saying — I'm not asking you to call it “Stallmanix,”
+right? <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p>I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to
+get credit. And there's a very specific reason for that, which is a
+lot more important than anybody getting credit, in and of itself. You
+see, these days, if you look around in our community most of the
+people talking about it and writing about it don't ever mention GNU,
+and they don't ever mention these goals of freedom — these
+political and social ideals, either. Because the place they come from
+is GNU.</p>
+
+<p>The ideas associated with Linux — the philosophy is very
+different. It is basically the apolitical philosophy of Linus
+Torvalds. So, when people think that the whole system is Linux, they
+tend to think: “Oh, it must have been all started by Linux
+Torvalds. His philosophy must be the one that we should look at
+carefully”. And when they hear about the GNU philosophy, they
+say: “Boy, this is so idealistic, this must be awfully
+impractical. I'm a Linux-user, not a
+GNU-user.” <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>What irony! If they only knew! If they knew that the system they
+liked — or, in some cases, love and go wild over — is our
+idealistic, political philosophy made real.</p>
+
+<p>They still wouldn't have to agree with us. But at least they'd see
+a reason to take it seriously, to think about it carefully, to give it
+a chance. They would see how it relates to their lives. You know, if
+they realized, “I'm using the GNU system. Here's the GNU
+philosophy. This philosophy is <em>why</em> this system that I
like
+very much exists,” they'd at least consider it with a much more
+open mind. It doesn't mean that everybody will agree. People think
+different things. That's OK. You know, people should make up their
+own minds. But I want this philosophy to get the benefit of the
+credit for the results it has achieved.</p>
+
+<p>If you look around in our community, you'll find that almost
+everywhere, the institutions are calling the system Linux. You know,
+reporters mostly call it Linux. It's not right, but they do. The
+companies mostly say it that package the system. Oh, and most of
+these reporters, when they write articles, they usually don't look at
+it as a political issue, or social issue. They're usually looking at
+it purely as a business question or what companies are going to
+succeed more or less, which is really a fairly minor question for
+society. And, if you look at the companies that package the GNU/Linux
+system for people to use, well, most of them call it Linux. And they
+<em>all</em> add non-free software to it.</p>
+
+<p>See, the GNU GPL says that if you take code, and some code out of a
+GPL-covered program, and add some more code to make a bigger program,
+that whole program has to be released under the GPL. But you could
+put other separate programs on the same disk (of either kind, hard
+disk, or CD), and they can have other licenses. That's considered
+mere aggregation, and, essentially, just distributing two programs to
+somebody at the same time is not something we have any say over. So,
+in fact, it is not true — sometimes, I wish it were true —
+that if a company uses a GPL-covered program in a product that the
+whole product has to be free software. It's not — it doesn't go
+to that range — that scope. It's the whole program. If there
+are two separate programs that communicate with each other at arm's
+length — like by sending messages to each other — then,
+they're legally separate, in general. So, these companies, by adding
+non-free software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically
+and politically, a very bad idea. They're telling the users,
+“It is OK to use non-free software. We're even putting it on
+this as a bonus.”</p>
+
+<p>If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system,
+most of them have a title like “Linux-something or other”.
+So they're calling the system Linux most of the time. And they're
+filled with ads for non-free software that you could run on top of the
+GNU/Linux system. Now those ads have a common message. They say:
+Non-free Software Is Good For You. It's So Good That You Might Even
+<em>Pay</em> To Get It. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>And they call these things “value-added packages”,
+which makes a statement about their values. They're saying: Value
+practical convenience, not freedom. And, I don't agree with those
+values, so I call them “freedom-subtracted
+packages”. <i>[Laughter]</i> Because if you have installed a
+free operating system, then you now are living in the free world. You
+enjoy the benefits of liberty that we worked for so many years to give
+you. Those packages give you an opportunity to buckle on a chain.</p>
+
+<p>And then if you look at the trade shows — about the use of
+the, dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call
+themselves “Linux” shows. And they're filled with booths
+exhibiting non-free software, essentially putting the seal of approval
+on the non-free software. So, almost everywhere you look in our
+community, the institutions are endorsing the non-free software,
+totalling negating the idea of freedom that GNU was developed for.
+And the only place that people are likely to come across the idea of
+freedom is in connection with GNU, and in connection with free
+software, the term, free software. So this is why I ask you: please
+call the system GNU/Linux. Please make people aware where the system
+came from and why.</p>
+
+<p>Of course, just by using that name, you won't be making an
+explanation of the history. You can type four extra characters and
+write GNU/Linux; you can say two extra syllables. But, GNU/Linux is
+fewer syllables than Windows 2000. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, you're
not
+telling them a lot, but you're preparing them, so that when they hear
+about GNU, and what it's all about, they'll see how that connects to
+them and their lives. And that, indirectly, makes a tremendous
+difference. So please help us.</p>
+
+<p>You'll note that Microsoft called the GPL an “open source
+license”. They don't want people to be thinking in terms of
+freedom as the issue. You'll find that they invite people to think in
+a narrow way, as consumers, and, of course, not even think very
+rationally as consumers, if they're going to choose Microsoft
+products. But they don't want people to think as citizens or
+statesmen. That's inimical to them. At least it's inimical to their
+current business model.</p>
+
+<p>Now, how does free software…well, I can tell you about how
+free software relates to our society. A secondary topic that might be
+of interest to some of you is how free software relates to business.
+Now, in fact, free software is <em>tremendously</em> useful for
+business. After all, most businesses in the advanced countries use
+software. Only a tiny fraction of them develop software.</p>
+
+<p>And free software is tremendously advantageous for any company that
+uses software, because it means that you're in control. Basically,
+free software means the users are in control of what the program does.
+Either individually, if they care enough to be, or, collectively, when
+they care enough to be. Whoever cares enough can exert some
+influence. If you don't care, you don't buy. Then you use what other
+people prefer. But, if you do care, then you have some say. With
+proprietary software, you have essentially no say.</p>
+
+<p>With free software, you can change what you want to change. And it
+doesn't matter that there are no programmers in your company; that's
+fine. You know, if you wanted to move the walls in your building, you
+don't have to be a carpentry company. You just have to be able to go
+find a carpenter and say, “What will you charge to do this
+job?” And if you want to change around the software you use, you
+don't have to be a programming company. You just have to go to a
+programming company and say, “What will you charge to implement
+these features? And when will you have it done?” And if they
+don't do the job, you can go find somebody else.</p>
+
+<p>There's a free market for support. So, any business that cares
+about support will find a tremendous advantage in free software. With
+proprietary software, support is a monopoly, because one company has
+the source code, or maybe a small number of companies that paid a
+gigantic amount of money have the source code, if it's Microsoft's
+shared source program, but, it's very few. And so, there aren't very
+many possible sources of support for you. And that means, that unless
+you're a real giant, they don't care about you. Your company is not
+important enough for them to care if they lose your business, or what
+happens. Once you're using the program, they figure you're locked in
+to getting the support from them, because to switch to a different
+program is a gigantic job. So, you end up with things like paying for
+the privilege of reporting a bug. <i>[Laughter]</i> And once
you've
+paid, they tell you, “Well, OK, we've noted your bug report.
+And in a few months, you can buy an upgrade, and you can see if we've
+fixed it.” <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>Support providers for free software can't get away with that. They
+have to please the customers. Of course, you can get a lot of good
+support gratis. You post your problem on the Internet. You may get
+an answer the next day. But that's not guaranteed, of course. If you
+want to be confident, you better make an arrangement with a company
+and pay them. And this is, of course, one of the ways that free
+software business works.</p>
+
+<p>Another advantage of free software for businesses that use software
+is security and privacy. And this applies to individuals as well, but
+I brought it up in the context of businesses. You see, when a program
+is proprietary, you can't even tell what it really does.</p>
+
+<p>It could have features, deliberately put in that you wouldn't like
+if you knew about them, like it might have a backdoor to let the
+developer get into your machine. It might snoop on what you do and
+send information back. This is not unusual. Some Microsoft software
+did this. But it's not only Microsoft. There are other proprietary
+programs that snoop on the user. And you can't even tell if it does
+this. And, of course, even assuming that the developer's totally
+honest, every programmer makes mistakes. There could be bugs that
+affect your security which are nobody's fault. But the point is: If
+it's not free software, you can't find them. And you can't fix
+them.</p>
+
+<p>Nobody has the time to check the source of every program he runs.
+You're not going to do that. But with free software there's a large
+community, and there are people in that community who are checking
+things. And you get the benefit of their checking, because if there's
+an accidental bug, there surely are, from time to time, in any
+program, they might find it and fix it. And people are much less
+likely to put in a deliberate Trojan horse, or a snooping feature, if
+they think they might get caught. The proprietary software developers
+figure they won't get caught. They'll get away with it undetected.
+But a free software developer has to figure that people will look at
+that and see it's there. So, in our community, we don't feel we can
+get away with ramming a feature down the users' throats that the users
+wouldn't like. So we know that if the users don't like it, they'll
+make a modified version which doesn't have it. And then, they'll all
+start using that version.</p>
+
+<p>In fact, we can all reason enough, we can all figure this out
+enough steps ahead, that we probably won't put in that feature. After
+all, you're writing a free program; you want people to like your
+version; you don't want to put in a thing that you know a lot of
+people are going to hate, and have another modified version catch on
+instead of yours. So you just realize that the user is king in the
+world of free software. In the world of proprietary software, the
+customer is <em>not</em> king. Because you are only a customer.
You
+have no say in the software you use.</p>
+
+<p>In this respect, free software is a new mechanism for democracy to
+operate. Professor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions
+as a kind of law. Whoever gets to write the code that just about
+everybody uses for all intents and purposes is writing the laws that
+run people's lives. With free software, these laws get written in a
+democratic way. Not the classical form of democracy — we don't
+have a big election and say, “Everybody vote which way should
+this feature be done.” <i>[Laughter]</i> Instead we say,
+basically, those of you who want to work on implementing the feature
+this way, do it. And if you want to work on implementing the feature
+that way, do it. And, it gets done one way or the other, you know?
+And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done this way.
+So, in this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by
+simply taking steps in the direction that he wants to go.</p>
+
+<p>And you're free to take as many steps, personally, as you want to
+take. A business is free to commission as many steps as they find
+useful to take. And, after you add all these things up, that says
+which direction the software goes.</p>
+
+<p>And it's often very useful to be able to take pieces out of some
+existing program, presumably usually large pieces, of course, and then
+write a certain amount of code of your own, and make a program that
+does exactly what you need, which would have cost you an arm and a leg
+to develop, if you had to write it all from scratch, if you couldn't
+cannibalize large pieces from some existing free software package.</p>
+
+<p>Another thing that results from the fact that the user is king is
+that we tend to be very good about compatibility and standardization.
+Why? Because users like that. Users are likely to reject a program
+that has gratuitous incompatibilities in it. Now, sometimes there's a
+certain group of users which actually have a need for a certain kind
+of incompatibility, and then they'll have it. That's OK. But when
+users want is to follow a standard, we developers have to follow it,
+and we know that. And we do it. By contrast, if you look at
+proprietary software developers, they often find it advantageous to
+deliberately <em>not</em> follow a standard, and not because they
+think that they're giving the user an advantage that way, but rather
+because they're imposing on the user, locking the user in. And you'll
+even find them making changes in their file formats from time to time,
+just to force people to get the newest version.</p>
+
+<p>Archivists are finding a problem now, that files written on
+computers ten years ago often can't be accessed; they were written
+with proprietary software that's essentially lost now. If it were
+written with free software, then it could be brought up-to-date and
+run. And those things would not, those records would not be lost,
+would not be inaccessible. They were even complaining about this on
+NPR recently in citing free software as a solution. And so, in
+effect, by using a non-free program to store your own data, you are
+putting your head in a noose.</p>
+
+<p>So, I've talked about how free software affects most business. But
+how does it affect that particular narrow area which is software
+business? Well, the answer is mostly not at all. And the reason is
+that 90% of the software industry, from what I'm told, is development
+of custom software, software that's not meant to be released at all.
+For custom software, this issue, or the ethical issue of free or
+proprietary, doesn't arise. You see, the issue is, are you users free
+to change, and redistribute, the software? If there's only one user,
+and that user owns the rights, there's no problem. That
+user <em>is</em> free to do all these things. So, in effect, any
+<em>custom</em> program that was developed by one company for use
+in-house is free software, as long as they have the sense to insist on
+getting the source code and all the rights.</p>
+
+<p>And the issue doesn't really arise for software that goes in a
+watch or a microwave oven or an automobile ignition system. Because
+those are places where you don't download software to install. It's
+not a real computer, as far as the user is concerned. And so, it
+doesn't raise these issues enough for them to be ethically important.
+So, for the most part, the software industry will go along, just as
+it's been going. And the interesting thing is that since such a large
+fraction of the jobs are in that part of the industry, even if there
+were no possibilities for free software business, the developers of
+free software could all get day jobs writing custom
+software. <i>[Laughter]</i> There's so many; the ratio is so
big.</p>
+
+<p>But, as it happens, there is free software business. There are
+free software companies, and at the press conference that I'm going to
+have, people from a couple of them will join us. And, of course,
+there are also companies which are <em>not</em> free software
+businesses but do develop useful pieces of free software to release,
+and the free software that they produce is substantial.</p>
+
+<p>Now, how do free software businesses work? Well, some of them sell
+copies. You know, you're free to copy it but they can still sell
+thousands of copies a month. And others sell support and various
+kinds of services. I, personally, for the second half of the '80's, I
+sold free software support services. Basically I said, for $200 an
+hour, I'll change whatever you want me to change in GNU software that
+I'd written. And, yes, it was a stiff rate, but if it was a program
+that I was the author of, people would figure that I might get the job
+done in a lot fewer hours. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I made a living
that
+way. In fact, I'd made more than I'd ever made before. I also taught
+classes. And I kept doing that until 1990, when I got a big prize and
+I didn't have to do it any more.</p>
+
+<p>But, 1990 was when the first corporation free software business was
+formed, which was Cygnus Support. And their business was to do,
+essentially, the same kind of thing that I'd been doing. I certainly
+could have worked for them, if I had needed to do that. Since I
+didn't need to, I felt it was good for the movement if I remained
+independent of any one company. That way, I could say good and bad
+things about the various free software and non-free software
+companies, without a conflict of interest. I felt that I could serve
+the movement more. But, if I had needed that to make a living, sure,
+I would have worked for them. It's an ethical business to be in. No
+reason I would have felt ashamed to take a job with them. And that
+company was profitable in its first year. It was formed with very
+little capital, just the money its three founders had. And it kept
+growing every year and being profitable every year until they got
+greedy, and looked for outside investors, and then they messed things
+up. But it was several years of success, before they got greedy.</p>
+
+<p>So, this illustrates one of the exciting things about free
+software. Free software demonstrates that you don't need to raise
+capital to develop free software. I mean, it's useful;
+it <em>can</em> help. You know, if you do raise some capital, you
can
+hire people and have them write a bunch of software. But you can get
+a lot done with a small number of people. And, in fact, the
+tremendous efficiency of the process of developing free software is
+one of the reasons it's important for the world to switch to free
+software. And it also belies what Microsoft says when they say the
+GNU GPL is bad, because it makes it harder for them to raise capital
+to develop non-free software and take our free software and put our
+code into their programs that they won't share with us. Basically, we
+don't need to have them raising capital that way. We'll get the job
+done anyway. We are getting the job done.</p>
+
+<p>People used to say we could never do a complete free operating
+system. Now we've done that and a tremendous amount more. And I
+would say that we're about an order of magnitude away from developing
+all the general purpose published software needs of the world. And
+this is in a world where more than 90% of the users don't use our free
+software yet. This is in a world where, although in certain areas of
+business, you know, more than half of all the web servers in the world
+are running on GNU/Linux with Apache as the web server.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i>
… What did you
+say before, Linux?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I said GNU/Linux.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You did?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, if I'm talking about the
kernel, I
+call it Linux. You know, that's it's name. The kernel was written by
+Linus Torvalds, and we should only call it by the name that he chose,
+out of respect for the author.</p>
+
+<p>Anyway, but in general, in business most users are not using it.
+Most home users are not using our system yet. So, when they are, we
+should automatically get 10 times as many volunteers and 10 times as
+many customers for the free software businesses that there will be.
+And so that will take us that order of magnitude. So at this point, I
+am pretty confident that we <em>can</em> do the job.</p>
+
+<p>And, this is important, because Microsoft asks us to feel
+desperate. They say, The only way you can have software to run, the
+only way you can have innovation, is if you give us power. Let us
+dominate you. Let us control what you can do with the software you're
+running, so that we can squeeze a lot of money out of you, and use a
+certain fraction of that to develop software, and take the rest as
+profit.</p>
+
+<p>Well, you shouldn't ever feel that desperate. You shouldn't ever
+feel so desperate that you give up your freedom. That's very
+dangerous.</p>
+
+<p>Another thing that Microsoft, well, not just Microsoft, people who
+don't support free software generally adopt a value system in which
+the only thing that matters is short-term practical benefits: How much
+money am I going to make this year? What job can I get done today?
+Short-term thinking and narrow thinking. Their assumption is that it
+is ridiculous to imagine that anybody ever might make a sacrifice for
+the sake of freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Yesterday, a lot of people were making speeches about Americans who
+made sacrifices for the freedom of their compatriots. Some of them
+made great sacrifices. They even sacrificed their lives for the kinds
+of freedom that everyone in our country has heard about, at least.
+(At least, in some of the cases; I guess we have to ignore the war in
+Vietnam.)</p>
+
+<p><i>[Editor's note: The day before was “Memorial
Day” in
+the USA. Memorial Day is a day where war heros are
+commemorated.]</i></p>
+
+<p>But, fortunately, to maintain our freedom in using software,
+doesn't call for big sacrifices. Just tiny, little sacrifices are
+enough, like learning a command-line interface, if we don't have a GUI
+interface program yet. Like doing the job in this way, because we
+don't have a free software package to do it that way, yet. Like,
+paying some money to a company that's going to develop a certain free
+software package, so that you can have it in a few years. Various
+little sacrifices that we can all make. And, in the long run, even we
+will have benefited from it. You know, it is really an investment
+more than a sacrifice. We just have to have enough long-term view to
+realize it's good for us to invest in improving our society, without
+counting the nickels and dimes of who gets how much of the benefit
+from that investment.</p>
+
+<p>So, at this point, I'm essentially done.</p>
+
+<p>I'd like to mention that there's a new approach to free software
+business being proposed by Tony Stanco, which he calls “Free
+Developers”, which involves a certain business structure which
+hopes eventually to pay out a certain share of the profits to every,
+to all the authors of the free software who've joined the
+organization. And they're looking at the prospects of getting me some
+rather large government software development contracts in India now,
+because they're going to be using free software as the basis, having
+tremendous cost savings that way.</p>
+
+<p>And so now I guess that I should ask for questions.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>:
<i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Could you speak up a bit
louder please?
+I can't really hear you.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: How could a company like
Microsoft
+include a free software contract?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually, Microsoft is
planning to
+shift a lot of its activity into services. And what they're planning
+to do is something dirty and dangerous, which is tie the services to
+the programs, one to the next, in a sort of zigzag, you know? So that
+to use this service, you've got to be using this Microsoft program,
+which is going to mean you need to use this service, to this Microsoft
+program, so it's all tied together. That's their plan.</p>
+
+<p>Now, the interesting thing is that selling those services doesn't
+raise the ethical issue of free software or non-free software. It
+might be perfectly fine for them to have the business for those
+businesses selling those services over the net to exist. However,
+what Microsoft is planning to do is to use them to achieve an even
+greater lock, an even greater monopoly, on the software and the
+services, and this was described in an article, I believe in Business
+Week, recently. And, other people said that it is turning the net
+into the Microsoft Company Town.</p>
+
+<p>And this is relevant because, you know, the trial court in the
+Microsoft antitrust trial recommended breaking up the company,
+Microsoft. But in a way, that makes no sense — it wouldn't do
+any good at all — into the operating part and the applications
+part.</p>
+
+<p>But having seen that article, I now see a useful, effective way to
+split up Microsoft into the services part and the software part, to
+require them to deal with each other only at arm's length, that the
+services must publish their interfaces, so that anybody can write a
+client to talk to those services, and, I guess, that they have to pay
+to get the service. Well, that's OK. That's a totally different
+issue.</p>
+
+<p>If Microsoft is split up in this way […] services and
+software, they will not be able to use their software to crush
+competition with Microsoft services. And they won't be able to use
+the services to crush competition with Microsoft software. And we
+will be able to make the free software, and maybe you people will use
+it to talk to Microsoft services, and we won't mind.</p>
+
+<p>Because, after all, although Microsoft is the proprietary software
+company that has subjugated the most people — the others have
+subjugated fewer people, it's not for want of
+trying. <i>[Laughter]</i> They just haven't succeeded in
subjugating
+as many people. So, the problem is not Microsoft and only Microsoft.
+Microsoft is just the biggest example of the problem we're trying to
+solve, which is proprietary software taking away users' freedom to
+cooperate and form an ethical society. So we shouldn't focus too much
+on Microsoft, you know, even though they did give me the opportunity
+for this platform. That doesn't make them all-important. They're not
+the be-all and end-all.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Earlier, you were discussing
the
+philosophical differences between open source software and free
+software. How do you feel about the current trend of GNU/Linux
+distributions as they head towards supporting only Intel platforms?
+And the fact that it seems that less and less programmers are
+programming correctly, and making software that will compile anywhere?
+And making software that simply works on Intel systems?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I don't see an ethical issue
there.
+Although, in fact, companies that make computers sometimes port the
+GNU/Linux system to it. HP apparently did this recently. And, they
+didn't bother paying for a port of Windows, because that would have
+cost too much. But getting GNU/Linux supported was, I think, five
+engineers for a few months. It was easily doable.</p>
+
+<p>Now, of course, I encourage people to use
<code>autoconf</code>,
+which is a GNU package that makes it easier to make your programs
+portable. I encourage them to do that. Or when somebody else fixes
+the bug that it didn't compile on that version of the system, and
+sends it to you, you should put it in. But I don't see that as an
+ethical issue.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Two comments. One is:
Recently, you
+spoke at MIT. I read the transcript. And someone asked about
+patents, and you said that “patents are a totally different
+issue. I have no comments on that.”</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I actually have a lot
to say
+about patents, but it takes an hour. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I wanted to say this: It seems
to me
+that there is an issue. I mean, there is a reason that companies call
+both patents and copyrights things like hard property in trying to get
+this concept which is, if they want to use the power of the State to
+create a course of monopoly for themselves. And so, what's common
+about these things is not that they revolve around the same issues,
+but that motivation is not really the public service issues but the
+motivation of companies to get a monopoly for their private
+interests.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I understand. But, well, I
want to
+respond because there's not too much time. So I'd like to respond to
+that.</p>
+
+<p>You're right that that's what they want. But there's another
+reason why they want to use the term intellectual property. It's that
+they don't want to encourage people to think carefully about copyright
+issues or patent issues. Because copyright law and patent law are
+totally different, and the effects of software copyrighted and
+software patents are totally different.</p>
+
+<p>Software patents are a restriction on programmers, prohibiting them
+from writing certain kinds of programs, whereas copyright doesn't do
+that. With copyright, at least if you wrote it yourself, you're
+allowed to distribute it. So, it's tremendously important to separate
+these issues.</p>
+
+<p>They have a little bit in common, at a very low level, and
+everything else is different. So, please, to encourage clear
+thinking, discuss copyright or discuss patents. But don't discuss
+intellectual property. I don't have an opinion on intellectual
+property. I have opinions on copyrights and patents and software.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You mentioned at the beginning
that a
+functional language, like recipes, are computer programs. There's a
+cross a little bit different than other kinds of language created on.
+This is also causing a problem in the DVD case.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: The issues are partly similar
but partly
+different, for things that are not functional in nature. Part of the
+issue transfers but not all of it. Unfortunately, that's another hour
+speech. I don't have time to go into it. But I would say that all
+functional works ought to be free in the same sense as software. You
+know, textbooks, manuals, dictionaries, and recipes, and so on.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I was just wondering on online
+music. There are similarities and differences created all through.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I'd say that the
minimum freedom
+that we should have for any kind of published information is the
+freedom to non-commercially redistribute it, verbatim. For functional
+works, we need the freedom to commercially publish a modified version,
+because that's tremendously useful to society. For non-functional
+works, you know, things that are to entertain, or to be aesthetic, or
+to state a certain person's views, you know, perhaps they shouldn't be
+modified. And, perhaps that means that it's OK, to have copyright
+covering all commercial distribution of them.</p>
+
+<p>Please remember that according to the U.S. Constitution, the
+purpose of copyright is to benefit the public. It is to modify the
+behavior of certain private parties, so that they will publish more
+books. And the benefit of this is that society gets to discuss issues
+and learn. And, you know, we have literature. We have scientific
+works. The purpose is encourage that. Copyrights do not exist for
+the sake of authors, let alone for the sake of publishers. They exist
+for the sake of readers and all those who benefit from the
+communication of information that happens when people write and others
+read. And that goal I agree with.</p>
+
+<p>But in the age of the computer networks, the method is no longer
+tenable, because it now requires draconian laws that invade
+everybody's privacy and terrorize everyone. You know, years in prison
+for sharing with your neighbor. It wasn't like that in the age of the
+printing press. Then copyright was an industrial regulation. It
+restricted publishers. Now, it's a restriction imposed by the
+publishers on the public. So, the power relationship is turned around
+180 degrees, even if it's the same law.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: So you can have the same thing
—
+but like in making music from other music?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. That is an interesting
+…</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: And unique, new works, you
know, it's
+still a lot of cooperation.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: It is. And I think that
probably
+requires some kind of fair use concept. Certainly making a few
+seconds of sample and using that in making some musical work,
+obviously that should be fair use. Even the standard idea of fair use
+includes that, if you think about it. Whether courts agree, I'm not
+sure, but they should. That wouldn't be a real change in the system
+as it has existed.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: What do you think about
publishing
+public information in proprietary formats?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, it shouldn't be. I mean,
the
+government should never require citizens to use a non-free program to
+access, to communicate with the government in any way, in either
+direction.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I have been, what I will now
say, a
+GNU/Linux user…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Thank you.
<i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: …for the past four
years. The one
+thing that has been problematical for me and is something that is
+essential, I think, to all of us, is browsing the web.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: One thing that has been
decidedly a
+weakness in using a GNU/Linux system has been browsing the web,
+because the prevailing tool for that, Netscape…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: …is not free
software.</p>
+
+<p>Let me respond to this. I want to get to the point, for the sake
+of getting in more. So, yes. There has been a terrible tendency for
+people to use Netscape Navigator on their GNU/Linux systems. And, in
+fact all the commercially packaged systems come with it. So this is
+an ironic situation: we worked so hard to make a free operating
+system, and now, if you go to the store, and you can find versions of
+GNU/Linux there, most of them are called Linux, and they're not free.
+Oh, well, part of them is. But then, there's Netscape Navigator, and
+maybe other non-free programs as well. So, it's very hard to actually
+find a free system, unless you know what you're doing. Or, of course,
+you can not install Netscape Navigator.</p>
+
+<p>Now, in fact, there have been free web browsers for many years.
+There is a free web browser that I used to use called Lynx. It's a
+free web browser that is non-graphical; it's text-only. This has a
+tremendous advantage, in you don't see the ads. <i>[Laughter]
+[Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p>But anyway, there is a free graphical project called Mozilla, which
+is now getting to the point where you can use it. And I occasionally
+use it.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 has been very
good.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, OK. So that's another free
+graphical browser. So, we're finally solving that problem, I
+guess.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk to me about that
+philosophical/ethical division between free software and open source?
+Do you feel that those are irreconcilable? …</p>
+
+<p><i>[Recording switches tapes; end of question and start of
answer
+is missing]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: … to a freedom, and
ethics. Or
+whether you just say, Well, I hope that you companies will decide it's
+more profitable to let us be allowed to do these things.</p>
+
+<p>But, as I said, in a lot of practical work, it doesn't really
+matter what a person's politics are. When a person offers to help the
+GNU project, we don't say: “You have to agree with our
+politics.” We say that in a GNU package, you've got to call the
+system GNU/Linux, and you've got to call it free software. What you
+say when you're not speaking to the GNU Project, that's up to you.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: The company, IBM, started a
campaign for
+government agencies, to sell their big new machines, that they used
+Linux as selling point, and say Linux.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, of course, it's really the
+GNU/Linux systems. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: That's right! Well, tell the
top sales
+person. He doesn't know anything for GNU.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I have to tell who?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: The top sales person.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh yes. The problem is that
they've
+already carefully decided what they want to say for reasons of their
+advantage. And the issue of what is a more accurate, or fair, or
+correct way to describe it is not the primary issue that matters to a
+company like that. Now, some small companies, yes, there'll be a
+boss. And if the boss is inclined to think about things like that, he
+might make a decision that way. Not a giant corporation though. It's
+a shame, you know.</p>
+
+<p>There's another more important and more substantive issue about
+what IBM is doing. They're saying that they're putting a billion
+dollars into “Linux”. But perhaps, I should also put
+quotes around “into”, as well, because some of that money
+is paying people to develop free software. That really is a
+contribution to our community. But other parts is paying to pay
+people to write proprietary software, or port proprietary software to
+run on top of GNU/Linux, and that is <em>not</em> a contribution to
+our community. But IBM is lumping that altogether into this. Some of
+it might be advertising, which is partly a contribution, even if it's
+partly wrong. So, it's a complicated situation. Some of what they're
+doing is contribution and some is not. And some is sort is somewhat,
+but not exactly. And you can't just lump it altogether and think,
+Wow! Whee! A billion dollars from IBM. <i>[Laughter]</i> That's
+oversimplification.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk a little bit more
about the
+thinking that went into the general public license?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, here's the — I'm
sorry, I'm
+answering his question now. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Do you want to reserve some
time for
+the press conference? Or do you want to continue here?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Who is here for the press
conference?
+Not a lot of press. Oh, three — OK. Can you afford if we
+— if I go on answering everybody's questions for another ten
+minutes or so? OK. So, we'll go on answering everybody's
+questions.</p>
+
+<p>So, the thinking that went into the GNU GPL? Part of it was that I
+wanted to protect the freedom of the community against the phenomena
+that I just described with X Windows, which has happened with other
+free programs as well. In fact, when I was thinking about this issue,
+X Windows was not yet released. But I had seen this problem happen in
+other free programs. For instance, TeX. I wanted to make sure that
+the users would all have freedom. Otherwise, I realized that I might
+write a program, and maybe a lot of people would use the program, but
+they wouldn't have freedom. And what's the point of that?</p>
+
+<p>But the other issue I was thinking about was, I wanted to give the
+community a feeling that it was not a doormat, a feeling that it was
+not prey to any parasite who would wander along. If you don't use
+copyleft, you are essentially saying: <i>[speaking meekly]</i>
+“Take my code. Do what you want. I don't say no.” So,
+anybody can come along and say: <i>[speaking very firmly]</i>
+“Ah, I want to make a non-free version of this. I'll just take
+it.” And, then, of course, they probably make some improvements,
+those non-free versions might appeal to users, and replace the free
+versions. And then, what have you accomplished? You've only made a
+donation to some proprietary software project.</p>
+
+<p>And when people see that that's happening, when people see, other
+people take what I do, and they don't ever give back, it can be
+demoralizing. And, this is not just speculation. I had seen that
+happen. That was part of what happened to wipe out the old community
+that I belonged to the '70's. Some people started becoming
+uncooperative. And we assumed that they were profiting thereby. They
+certainly acted as if they thought they were profiting. And we
+realized that they can just take off cooperation and not give back.
+And there was nothing we could do about it. It was very discouraging.
+We, those of us who didn't like the trend, even had a discussion and
+we couldn't come up with any idea for how we could stop it.</p>
+
+<p>So, the GPL is designed to stop that. And it says, Yes, you are
+welcome to join the community and use this code. You can use it to do
+all sorts of jobs. But, if you release a modified version, you've got
+to release that to our community, as part of our community, as part of
+the free world.</p>
+
+<p>So, in fact, there are still many ways that people can get the
+benefit of our work and not contribute, like you don't have to write
+any software. Lots of people use GNU/Linux and don't write any
+software. There's no requirement that you've got to do anything for
+us. But if you do a certain kind of thing, you've got to contribute
+to it. So what that means is that our community is not a doormat.
+And I think that that helped give people the strength to feel, Yes, we
+won't just be trampled underfoot by everybody. We'll stand up to
+this.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Yes, my question was,
considering free
+but not copylefted software, since anybody can pick it up and make it
+proprietary, is it not possible also for someone to pick it up and
+make some changes and release the whole thing under the GPL?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, it is possible.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Then, that would make all
future copies
+then be GPL'ed.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: From that branch. But here's
why we
+don't do that.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Hmm?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Here's why we don't generally
do that.
+Let me explain.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: OK, yes.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We could, if we wanted to,
take X
+Windows, and make a GPL-covered copy and make changes in that. But
+there's a much larger group of people working on improving X Windows
+and <em>not</em> GPL-ing it. So, if we did that, we would be
forking
+from them. And that's not very nice treatment of them. And, they
+<em>are</em> a part of our community, contributing to our
+community.</p>
+
+<p>Second, it would backfire against us, because they're doing a lot
+more work on X than we would be. So, our version would be inferior to
+theirs, and people wouldn't use it, which means, why go to the trouble
+at all?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Mmm hmm.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: So when a person has written
some
+improvement to X Windows, what I say that person should do is
+cooperate with the X development team. Send it to them and let them
+use it their way. Because they are developing a very important piece
+of free software. It's good for us to cooperate with them.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Except, considering X, in
particular,
+about two years ago, the X Consortium that was far into the non-free
+open source…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually it
<em>wasn't</em> open
+sourced. It wasn't open sourced, either. They may have said it was.
+I can't remember if they said that or not. But it wasn't open
+source. It was restricted. You couldn't commercially distribute, I
+think. Or you couldn't commercially distribute a modified version, or
+something like that. There was a restriction that's considered
+unacceptable by both the Free Software movement and the Open Source
+movement.</p>
+
+<p>And yes, that's what using a non-copyleft license leaves you open
+to. In fact, the X Consortium, they had a very rigid policy. They
+say: If your program if copylefted even a little bit, we won't
+distribute it at all. We won't put it in our distribution.</p>
+
+<p>So, a lot of people were pressured in this way into not
+copylefting. And the result was that all of their software was wide
+open, later on. When the same people who had pressured a developer to
+be too all-permissive, then the X people later said, All right, now we
+can put on restrictions, which wasn't very ethical of them.</p>
+
+<p>But, given the situation, would we really want to scrape up the
+resources to maintain an alternate GPL-covered version of X? And it
+wouldn't make any sense to do that. There are so many other things we
+need to do. Let's do them instead. We can cooperate with the X
+developers.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Do you have a comment, is the
GNU a
+trademark? And is it practical to include it as part of the GNU
+General Public License allowing trademarks?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We are, actually, applying for
trademark
+registration on GNU. But it wouldn't really have anything to do with
+that. It's a long story to explain why.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You could require the
trademark be
+displayed with GPL-covered programs.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: No, I don't think so. The
licenses
+cover individual programs. And when a given program is part of the
+GNU Project, nobody lies about that. The name of the system as a
+whole is a different issue. And this is an aside. It's not worth
+discussing more.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: If there was a button that you
could
+push and force all companies to free their software, would you press
+it?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, I would only use this for
+published software. You know, I think that people have the right to
+write a program privately and use it. And that includes companies.
+This is privacy issue. And it's true, there can be times when it is
+wrong to do that, like if it is tremendously helpful to humanity, and
+you are withholding it from humanity. That is a wrong but that's a
+different kind of wrong. It's a different issue, although it's in the
+same area.</p>
+
+<p>But yes, I think all published software should be free software.
+And remember, when it's not free software, that's because of
+government intervention. The government is intervening to make it
+non-free. The government is creating special legal powers to hand out
+to the owners of the programs, so that they can have the police stop
+us from using the programs in certain ways. So I would certainly like
+to end that. </p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Richard's presentation has
invariably
+generated an enormous amount of intellectual energy. I would suggest
+that some of it should be directed to using, and possibly writing,
+free software.</p>
+
+<p>We should close the proceedings shortly. I want to say that
+Richard has injected into a profession which is known in the general
+public for its terminal apolitical nerditude a level of political and
+moral discussion which is, I think, unprecedented in our profession.
+And we owe him very big for this. I'd like to note to people that
+there is a break.</p>
+
+<p><i>[Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: You are free to leave at any
time, you
+know. <i>[Laughter]</i> I'm not holding you prisoner
here.</p>
+
+<p><i>[Audience adjourns…]</i></p>
+
+<p><i>[overlapping conversations…]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: One final thing. Our website:
+www.gnu.org</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></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"><address@hidden></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">
+ <address@hidden></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>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) 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. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014 Richard M. Stallman</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>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2015/09/15 05:45:26 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-en.html
diff -N philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-en.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-en.html 15 Sep 2015 05:45:26
-0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,2127 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation</h2>
+
+<blockquote><p>Transcript of
+Richard M. Stallman's speech,
+“Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation”,
+given at New York University in New York, NY,
+on 29 May 2001</p></blockquote>
+
+<div class="announcement">
+<blockquote><p>A <a href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt">plain
+text</a> version of this transcript and
+a <a href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt">summary</a> of the speech
+are also available.</p></blockquote>
+</div>
+
+<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: I'm Mike Uretsky. I'm over at the Stern
+School of Business. I'm also one of the Co-Directors of the Center
+for Advanced Technology. And, on behalf of all of us in the Computer
+Science Department, I want to welcome you here. I want to say a few
+comments, before I turn it over to Ed, who is going to introduce the
+speaker.</p>
+
+<p>The role of a university is a place to foster debate and to have
+interesting discussions. And the role of a major university is to
+have particularly interesting discussions. And this particular
+presentation, this seminar falls right into that mold. I find the
+discussion of open source particularly interesting. In a sense
+… <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I do free software. Open source is a
+different movement. <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: When I first started in the field in the
+'60's, basically software was free. And we went in cycles. It became
+free, and then software manufacturers, in the need to expand their
+markets, pushed it in other directions. A lot of the developments
+that took place with the entry of the PC moved in exactly the same
+kind of a cycle.</p>
+
+<p>There's a very interesting French philosopher, Pierre Levy, who
+talks about movement to this direction and who talks about the move
+into cyberspace as not only relating to technology but also relating
+to social restructuring, to political restructuring, through a change
+in the kinds of relationships that will improve the well-being of
+mankind. And we're hoping that this debate is a movement in that
+direction, that this debate is something that cuts across a lot of the
+disciplines that normally act as solace within the University. We're
+looking forward to some very interesting discussions. Ed?</p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: I'm Ed Schonberg from the Computer
+Science Department at the Courant Institute. Let me welcome you all
+to this event. Introducers are usually, and particularly, a useless
+aspect of public presentations, but in this case, actually, they serve
+a useful purpose, as Mike easily demonstrated, because an introducer
+for instance, told him, by making inaccurate comments, can allow him
+to straighten out and correct and <i>[Laughter]</i> sharpen
+considerably the parameters of the debate.</p>
+
+<p>So, let me make the briefest possible introduction to somebody who
+doesn't need one. Richard is the perfect example of somebody who, by
+acting locally, started thinking globally from problems concerning the
+unavailability of source code for printer drivers at the AI Lab many
+years ago. He has developed a coherent philosophy that has forced all
+of us to re-examine our ideas of how software is produced, of what
+intellectual property means, and what the software community actually
+represents. Let me welcome Richard Stallman. <i>[Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can someone lend me a
+watch? <i>[Laughter]</i> Thank you. So, I'd like to thank Microsoft
+for providing me the opportunity to <i>[Laughter]</i> be on this
+platform. For the past few weeks, I have felt like an author whose
+book was fortuitously banned somewhere. <i>[Laughter]</i> Except that
+all the articles about it are giving the wrong author's name, because
+Microsoft describes the GNU GPL as an open source license, and most of
+the press coverage followed suit. Most people, of course just
+innocently don't realize that our work has nothing to do with open
+source, that in fact we did most of it before people even coined the
+term open source.</p>
+
+<p>We are in the free software movement, and I'm going to speak about
+what the free software movement is about, what it means, what we have
+done, and, because this is partly sponsored by a school of business,
+I'll say some things more than I usually do about how free software
+relates to business, and some other areas of social life.</p>
+
+<p>Now, some of you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps
+you cook. And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably
+use recipes. And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the
+experience of getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing
+it. And you've probably also had the experience — unless you're
+a total neophyte — of changing a recipe. You know, it says
+certain things, but you don't have to do exactly that. You can leave
+out some ingredients. Add some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms.
+Put in less salt because your doctor said you should cut down on salt
+— whatever. You can even make bigger changes according to your
+skill. And if you've made changes in a recipe, and you cook it for
+your friends, and they like it, one of your friends might say,
+“Hey, could I have the recipe?” And then, what do you do?
+You could write down your modified version of the recipe and make a
+copy for your friend. These are the natural things to do with
+functionally useful recipes of any kind.</p>
+
+<p>Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program. A computer
+program's a lot like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to
+get some result that you want. So it's just as natural to do those
+same things with computer programs — hand a copy to your friend.
+Make changes in it because the job it was written to do isn't exactly
+what you want. It did a great job for somebody else, but your job is
+a different job. And after you've changed it, that's likely to be
+useful for other people. Maybe they have a job to do that's like the
+job you do. So they ask, “Hey, can I have a copy?” Of
+course, if you're a nice person, you're going to give a copy. That's
+the way to be a decent person.</p>
+
+<p>So imagine what it would be like if recipes were packaged inside
+black boxes. You couldn't see what ingredients they're using, let
+alone change them, and imagine if you made a copy for a friend, they
+would call you a pirate and try to put you in prison for years. That
+world would create tremendous outrage from all the people who are used
+to sharing recipes. But that is exactly what the world of proprietary
+software is like. A world in which common decency towards other
+people is prohibited or prevented.</p>
+
+<p>Now, why did I notice this? I noticed this because I had the good
+fortune in the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who
+shared software. Now, this community could trace its ancestry
+essentially back to the beginning of computing. In the 1970's,
+though, it was a bit rare for there to be a community where people
+shared software. And, in fact, this was sort of an extreme case,
+because in the lab where I worked, the entire operating system was
+software developed by the people in our community, and we'd share any
+of it with anybody. Anybody was welcome to come and take a look, and
+take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do. There were no
+copyright notices on these programs. Cooperation was our way of life.
+And we were secure in that way of life. We didn't fight for it. We
+didn't have to fight for it. We just lived that way. And, as far as
+we knew, we would just keep on living that way. So there was free
+software, but there was no free software movement.</p>
+
+<p>But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that
+happened to it. Ultimately it was wiped out. Ultimately, the PDP-10
+computer which we used for all our work was discontinued. And you
+know, our system — the Incompatible Timesharing System —
+was written starting in the '60's, so it was written in assembler
+language. That's what you used to write an operating system in the
+'60's. So, of course, assembler language is for one particular
+computer architecture; if that gets discontinued, all your work turns
+into dust — it's useless. And that's what happened to us. The
+20 years or so of work of our community turned into dust.</p>
+
+<p>But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me,
+helped me see what to do, helped prepare me to see what to do when
+this happened, because at certain point, Xerox gave the Artificial
+Intelligence Lab, where I worked, a laser printer, and this was a
+really handsome gift, because it was the first time anybody outside
+Xerox had a laser printer. It was very fast, printed a page a second,
+very fine in many respects, but it was unreliable, because it was
+really a high-speed office copier that had been modified into a
+printer. And, you know, copiers jam, but there's somebody there to
+fix them. The printer jammed and nobody saw. So it stayed jammed for
+a long time.</p>
+
+<p>Well, we had an idea for how to deal with this problem. Change it
+so that whenever the printer gets a jam, the machine that runs the
+printer can tell our timesharing machine, and tell the users who are
+waiting for printouts, or something like that, you know, tell them, go
+fix the printer. Because if they only knew it was jammed, of course,
+if you're waiting for a printout and you know that the printer is
+jammed, you don't want to sit and wait forever, you're going to go fix
+it.</p>
+
+<p>But at that point, we were completely stymied, because the software
+that ran that printer was not free software. It had come with the
+printer, and it was just a binary. We couldn't have the source code;
+Xerox wouldn't let us have the source code. So, despite our skill as
+programmers — after all, we had written our own timesharing
+system — we were completely helpless to add this feature to the
+printer software.</p>
+
+<p>And we just had to suffer with waiting. It would take an hour or
+two to get your printout because the machine would be jammed most of
+the time. And only once in a while — you'd wait an hour
+figuring “I know it's going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and
+go collect my printout,” and then you'd see that it had been
+jammed the whole time, and in fact, nobody else had fixed it. So
+you'd fix it and you'd go wait another half hour. Then, you'd come
+back, and you'd see it jammed again — before it got to your
+output. It would print three minutes and be jammed thirty minutes.
+Frustration up the whazzoo. But the thing that made it worse was
+knowing that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his own
+selfishness, was blocking us, obstructing us from improving the
+software. So, of course, we felt some resentment.</p>
+
+<p>And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a
+copy of that software. So I was visiting there later, so I went to
+his office and I said, “Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of
+the printer source code?” And he said “No, I promised not
+to give you a copy.” <i>[Laughter]</i> I was stunned. I was so
+— I was angry, and I had no idea how I could do justice to it.
+All I could think of was to turn around on my heel and walk out of his
+room. Maybe I slammed the door. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I thought
+about it later on, because I realized that I was seeing not just an
+isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was important and affected
+a lot of people.</p>
+
+<p>This was — for me — I was lucky, I only got a taste of
+it, but other people had to live in this all the time. So I thought
+about it at length. See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with
+us — his colleagues at MIT. He had betrayed us. But he didn't
+just do it to us. Chances are he did it to you too. <i>[Pointing at
+member of audience.]</i> And I think, mostly likely, he did it to you
+too. <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.] [Laughter]</i> And
+he probably did it to you as well. <i>[Pointing to third member of
+audience.]</i> He probably did it to most of the people here in this
+room — except a few, maybe, who weren't born yet in 1980.
+Because he had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about the
+entire population of the Planet Earth. He had signed a non-disclosure
+agreement.</p>
+
+<p>Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure
+agreement, and it taught me an important lesson — a lesson
+that's important because most programmers never learn it. You see,
+this was my first encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was
+the victim. I, and my whole lab, were the victims. And the lesson it
+taught me was that non-disclosure agreements have victims. They're
+not innocent. They're not harmless. Most programmers first encounter
+a non-disclosure agreement when they're invited to sign one. And
+there's always some temptation — some goody they're going to get
+if they sign. So, they make up excuses. They say, “Well, he's
+never going to get a copy no matter what, so why shouldn't I join the
+conspiracy to deprive him?” They say, “This is the way
+it's always done. Who am I to go against it?” They say,
+“If I don't sign this, someone else will.” Various excuses
+to gag their consciences.</p>
+
+<p>But when somebody invited me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, my
+conscience was already sensitized. It remembered how angry I had
+been, when somebody promised not to help me and my whole lab solve our
+problem. And I couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to
+somebody else who had never done me any harm. You know, if somebody
+asked me to promise not to share some useful information with a hated
+enemy, I would have said yes. You know? If somebody's done something
+bad, he deserves it. But, strangers — they haven't done me any
+harm. How could they deserve that kind of mistreatment? You can't
+let yourself start treating just anybody and everybody badly. Then
+you become a predator on society. So I said, “Thank you very
+much for offering me this nice software package. But I can't accept
+it in good conscience, on the conditions you are demanding, so I will
+do without it. Thank you so much.” And so, I have never
+knowingly signed a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful
+technical information such as software.</p>
+
+<p>Now there are other kinds of information which raise different
+ethical issues. For instance, there's personal information. You
+know, if you wanted to talk with me about what was happening between
+you and your boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody —
+you know, I could keep — I could agree to keep that a secret for
+you, because that's not generally useful technical information. At
+least, it's probably not generally useful. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>There is a small chance — and it's a possibility though
+— that you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex
+technique, <i>[Laughter]</i> and I would then feel a moral
+duty <i>[Laughter]</i> to pass it onto the rest of humanity, so that
+everyone could get the benefit of it. So, I'd have to put a proviso
+in that promise, you know? If it's just details about who wants this,
+and who's angry at whom, and things like that — soap opera
+— that I can keep private for you, but something that humanity
+could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't withhold. You see,
+the purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information
+for humanity to help people live their lives better. If we promise to
+withhold that information — if we keep it secret — then we
+are betraying the mission of our field. And this, I decided I
+shouldn't do.</p>
+
+<p>But, meanwhile my community had collapsed, and that was collapsing,
+and that left me in a bad situation. You see, the whole Incompatible
+Timesharing System was obsolete, because the PDP-10 was obsolete, and
+so there was no way that I could continue working as an operating
+system developer the way that I had been doing it. That depended on
+being part of the community using the community software and improving
+it. That no longer was a possibility, and that gave me a moral
+dilemma. What was I going to do? Because the most obvious
+possibility meant to go against that decision I had made. The most
+obvious possibility was to adapt myself to the change in the world.
+To accept that things were different, and that I'd just have to give
+up those principles and start signing non-disclosure agreements for
+proprietary operating systems, and most likely writing proprietary
+software as well. But I realized that that way I could have fun
+coding, and I could make money — especially if I did it other
+than at MIT — but at the end, I'd have to look back at my career
+and say, “I've spent my life building walls to divide
+people,” and I would have been ashamed of my life.</p>
+
+<p>So I looked for another alternative, and there was an obvious one.
+I could leave the software field and do something else. Now I had no
+other special noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a
+waiter. <i>[Laughter]</i> Not at a fancy restaurant; they wouldn't
+hire me, <i>[Laughter]</i> but I could be a waiter somewhere. And
+many programmers, they say to me, “The people who hire
+programmers demand this, this and this. If I don't do those things,
+I'll starve.” It's literally the word they use. Well, you know,
+as a waiter, you're not going to starve. <i>[Laughter]</i> So,
+really, they're in no danger. But — and this is important, you
+see — because sometimes you can justify doing something that
+hurts other people by saying otherwise something worse is going to
+happen to me. You know, if you were <em>really</em> going to starve,
+you'd be justified in writing proprietary software. <i>[Laughter]</i>
+If somebody's pointing a gun at you, then I would say, it's
+forgivable. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, I had found a way that I could
+survive without doing something unethical, so that excuse was not
+available. So I realized, though, that being a waiter would be no fun
+for me, and it would be wasting my skills as an operating system
+developer. It would avoid misusing my skills. Developing proprietary
+software would be misusing my skills. Encouraging other people to
+live in the world of proprietary software would be misusing my skills.
+So it's better to waste them than misuse them, but it's still not
+really good.</p>
+
+<p>So for those reasons, I decided to look for some other alternative.
+What can an operating system developer do that would actually improve
+the situation, make the world a better place? And I realized that an
+operating system developer was exactly what was needed. The problem,
+the dilemma, existed for me and for everyone else because all of the
+available operating systems for modern computers were proprietary.
+The free operating systems were for old, obsolete computers, right?
+So for the modern computers — if you wanted to get a modern
+computer and use it, you were forced into a proprietary operating
+system. So if an operating system developer wrote another operating
+system, and then said, “Everybody come and share this; you're
+welcome to this” — that would give everybody a way out of
+the dilemma, another alternative. So I realized that there was
+something I could do that would solve the problem. I had just the
+right skills to be able to do it. And it was the most useful thing I
+could possibly imagine that I'd be able to do with my life. And it
+was a problem that no one else was trying to solve. It was just sort
+of sitting there, getting worse, and nobody was there but me. So I
+felt, “I'm elected. I have to work on this. If not me,
+who?” So I decided I would develop a free operating system, or
+die trying … of old age, of course. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>So, of course I had to decide what kind of operating system it
+should be. There are some technical design decisions to be made. I
+decided to make the system compatible with Unix for a number of
+reasons. First of all, I had just seen one operating system that I
+really loved become obsolete because it was written for one particular
+kind of computer. I didn't want that to happen again. We needed to
+have a portable system. Well, Unix was a portable system. So if I
+followed the design of Unix, I had a pretty good chance that I could
+make a system that would also be portable and workable. And
+furthermore, why <i>[Tape unclear]</i> be compatible with it in the
+details. The reason is, users hate incompatible changes. If I had
+just designed the system in my favorite way — which I would have
+loved doing, I'm sure — I would have produced something that was
+incompatible. You know, the details would be different. So, if I
+wrote the system, then the users would have said to me, “Well,
+this is very nice, but it's incompatible. It will be too much work to
+switch. We can't afford that much trouble just to use your system
+instead of Unix, so we'll stay with Unix,” they would have
+said.</p>
+
+<p>Now, if I wanted to actually create a community where there would
+be people in it, people using this free system, and enjoying the
+benefits of liberty and cooperation, I had to make a system people
+would use, a system that they would find easy to switch to, that would
+not have an obstacle making it fail at the very beginning. Now,
+making the system upward compatible with Unix actually made all the
+immediate design decisions, because Unix consists of many pieces, and
+they communicate through interfaces that are more or less documented.
+So if you want to be compatible with Unix, you have to replace each
+piece, one by one, with a compatible piece. So the remaining design
+decisions are inside one piece, and they could be made later by
+whoever decides to write that piece. They didn't have to be made at
+the outset.</p>
+
+<p>So all we had to do to start work was find a name for the system.
+Now, we hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program,
+because thinking of people being amused by the name is half the fun of
+writing the program. <i>[Laughter]</i> And we had a tradition of
+recursive acronyms, to say that the program that you're writing is
+similar to some existing program. You can give it a recursive acronym
+name which says: this one's not the other. So, for instance, there
+were many Tico text editors in the '60's and '70's, and they were
+generally called something-or-other Tico. Then one clever hacker
+called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico — the first recursive
+acronym. In 1975, I developed the first Emacs text editor, and there
+were many imitations of Emacs, and a lot of them were called
+something-or-other Emacs, but one was called Fine, for Fine Is Not
+Emacs, and there was Sine, for Sine Is Not Emacs, and Eine for Ina Is
+Not Emacs, and MINCE for Mince Is Not Complete
+Emacs. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was a stripped down imitation. And
+then, Eine was almost completely rewritten, and the new version was
+called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>So I looked for a recursive acronym for Something is not Unix. And
+I tried all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word.
+<i>[Laughter]</i> Hmm, try another way. I made a contraction. That
+way I could have a three-letter acronym, for Something's not Unix.
+And I tried letters, and I came across the word “GNU”
+— the word “GNU” is the funniest word in the English
+language. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was it. Of course, the reason it's
+funny is that according to the dictionary, it's pronounced
+“new”. You see? And so that's why people use it for a
+lot of wordplay. Let me tell you, this is the name of an animal that
+lives in Africa. And the African pronunciation had a click sound in
+it. <i>[Laughter]</i> Maybe still does. And so, the European
+colonists, when they got there, they didn't bother learning to say
+this click sound. So they just left it out, and they wrote a
+“G” which meant “there's another sound that's
+supposed to be here which we are not
+pronouncing.” <i>[Laughter]</i> So, tonight I'm leaving for
+South Africa, and I have begged them, I hope they're going to find
+somebody who can teach me to pronounce click sounds, <i>[Laughter]</i>
+so that I'll know how to pronounce GNU the correct way, when it's the
+animal.</p>
+
+<p>But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is
+“guh-NEW” — pronounce the hard “G”. If
+you talk about the “new” operating system, you'll get
+people very confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years
+now, so it is not new any more. <i>[Laughter]</i> But it still is,
+and always will be, GNU — no matter how many people call it
+Linux by mistake. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces
+of GNU. They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities
+though. And, at the time, I thought we would write all these pieces,
+and make an entire GNU system, and then we'd say, “Come and get
+it”, and people would start to use it. That's not what
+happened. The first pieces I wrote were just equally good
+replacements, with fewer bugs for some pieces of Unix, but they
+weren't tremendously exciting. Nobody particularly wanted to get them
+and install them. But then, in September 1984, I started writing GNU
+Emacs, which was my second implementation of Emacs, and by early 1985,
+it was working. I could use it for all my editing, which was a big
+relief, because I had no intention of learning to use VI, the Unix
+editor. <i>[Laughter]</i> So, until that time, I did my editing on
+some other machine, and saved the files through the network, so that I
+could test them. But when GNU Emacs was running well enough for me to
+use it, it was also — other people wanted to use it too.</p>
+
+<p>So I had to work out the details of distribution. Of course, I put
+a copy in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people
+who were on the net They could then just pull over a tar file, but a
+lot of programmers then even were not on the net in 1985. They were
+sending me emails saying “How can I get a copy?” I had to
+decide what I would answer them. Well, I could have said, I want to
+spend my time writing more GNU software, not writing tapes, so please
+find a friend who's on the internet and who is willing to download it
+and put it on a tape for you. And I'm sure people would have found
+some friends, sooner or later, you know. They would have got copies.
+But I had no job. In fact, I've never had a job since quitting MIT in
+January 1984. So, I was looking for some way I could make money
+through my work on free software, and therefore I started a free
+software business. I announced, “Send me $150 dollars, and I'll
+mail you a tape of Emacs.” And the orders began dribbling in.
+By the middle of the year they were trickling in.</p>
+
+<p>I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month. And, if necessary, I could
+have lived on just that, because I've always lived cheaply. I live
+like a student, basically. And I like that, because it means that
+money is not telling me what to do. I can do what I think is
+important for me to do. It freed me to do what seemed worth doing.
+So make a real effort to avoid getting sucked into all the expensive
+lifestyle habits of typical Americans. Because if you do that, then
+people with the money will dictate what you do with your life. You
+won't be able to do what's really important to you.</p>
+
+<p>So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, “What do you
+mean it's free software if it costs $150
+dollars?” <i>[Laughter]</i> Well, the reason they asked this was
+that they were confused by the multiple meanings of the English word
+“free”. One meaning refers to price, and another meaning
+refers to freedom. When I speak of free software, I'm referring to
+freedom, not price. So think of free speech, not free
+beer. <i>[Laughter]</i> Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many years
+of my life to making sure programmers got less money. That's not my
+goal. I'm a programmer and I don't mind getting money myself. I
+won't dedicate my whole life to getting it, but I don't mind getting
+it. And I'm not — and therefore, ethics is the same for
+everyone. I'm not against some other programmer getting money either.
+I don't want prices to be low. That's not the issue at all. The
+issue is freedom. Freedom for everyone who's using software, whether
+that person be a programmer or not.</p>
+
+<p>So at this point I should give you the definition of free software.
+I better get to some real details, you see, because just saying
+“I believe in freedom” is vacuous. There's so many
+different freedoms you could believe in, and they conflict with each
+other, so the real political question is: Which are the important
+freedoms, the freedoms that we must make sure everybody has?</p>
+
+<p>And now, I will give my answer to that question for the particular
+area of using software. A program is free software for you, a
+particular user, if you have the following freedoms:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>First, Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the program for any
+purpose, any way you like.</li>
+<li>Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
+program to suit your needs.</li>
+<li>Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
+copies of the program.</li>
+<li>And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
+publishing an improved version so others can get the benefit of your
+work.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software,
+for you — and that's crucial. That's why I phrase it that way.
+I'll explain why later, when I talk about the GNU General Public
+License, but right now I'm explaining what free software means, which
+is a more basic question.</p>
+
+<p>So, Freedom Zero's pretty obvious. If you're not even allowed to
+run the program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive
+program. But as it happens, most programs will at least give you
+Freedom Zero. And Freedom Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of
+Freedoms One, Two, and Three — that's the way that copyright law
+works. So the freedoms that distinguish free software from typical
+software are Freedoms One, Two, and Three, so I'll say more about them
+and why they are important.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
+software to suit your needs. This could mean fixing bugs. It could
+mean adding new features. It could mean porting it to a different
+computer system. It could mean translating all the error messages
+into Navajo. Any change you want to make, you should be free to
+make.</p>
+
+<p>Now, it's obvious that professional programmers can make use of
+this freedom very effectively, but not just them. Anybody of
+reasonable intelligence can learn a little programming. You know,
+there are hard jobs, and there are easy jobs, and most people are not
+going to learn enough to do hard jobs. But lots of people can learn
+enough to do easy jobs, just the way, you know, 50 years ago, lots and
+lots of American men learned to repair cars, which is what enabled the
+U.S. to have a motorized army in World War II and win. So, very
+important, having lots of people tinkering.</p>
+
+<p>And if you are a people person, and you really don't want to learn
+technology at all, that probably means that you have a lot of friends,
+and you're good at getting them to owe you favors. <i>[Laughter]</i>
+Some of them are probably programmers. So you can ask one of your
+programmer friends. “Would you please change this for me? Add
+this feature?” So, lots of people can benefit from it.</p>
+
+<p>Now, if you don't have this freedom, it causes practical, material
+harm to society. It makes you a prisoner of your software. I
+explained what that was like with regard to the laser printer. You
+know, it worked badly for us, and we couldn't fix it, because we were
+prisoners of our software.</p>
+
+<p>But it also affects people's morale. You know if the computer is
+constantly frustrating to use, and people are using it, their lives
+are going to be frustrating, and if they're using it in their jobs,
+their jobs are going to be frustrating; they're going to hate their
+jobs. And you know, people protect themselves from frustration by
+deciding not to care. So you end up with people whose attitude is,
+“Well, I showed up for work today. That's all I have to do. If
+I can't make progress, that's not my problem; that's the boss's
+problem.” And when this happens, it's bad for those people, and
+it's bad for society as a whole. That's Freedom One, the freedom to
+help yourself.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
+copies of the program. Now, for beings that can think and learn,
+sharing useful knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship. When
+these beings use computers, this act of friendship takes the form of
+sharing software. Friends share with each other. Friends help each
+other. This is the nature of friendship. And, in fact, this spirit
+of goodwill — the spirit of helping your neighbor, voluntarily
+— is society's most important resource. It makes the difference
+between a livable society and a dog-eat-dog jungle. Its importance
+has been recognized by the world's major religions for thousands of
+years, and they explicitly try to encourage this attitude.</p>
+
+<p>When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach
+us this attitude — the spirit of sharing — by having us do
+it. They figured if we did it, we'd learn. So they said, “If
+you bring candy to school, you can't keep it all for yourself; you
+have to share some with the other kids.” Teaching us, the
+society was set up to teach, this spirit of cooperation. And why do
+you have to do that? Because people are not totally cooperative.
+That's one part of human nature, and there are other parts of human
+nature. There are lots of parts of human nature. So, if you want a
+better society, you've got to work to encourage the spirit of sharing.
+You know, it'll never get to be 100%. That's understandable. People
+have to take care of themselves too. But if we make it somewhat
+bigger, we're all better off.</p>
+
+<p>Nowadays, according to the U.S. Government, teachers are supposed
+to do the exact opposite. “Oh, Johnny, you brought software to
+school. Well, don't share it. Oh no. Sharing is wrong. Sharing
+means you're a pirate.”</p>
+
+<p>What do they mean when they say “pirate”? They're
+saying that helping your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking
+a ship. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>What would Buddha or Jesus say about that? Now, take your favorite
+religious leader. I don't know, maybe Manson would have said
+something different. <i>[Laughter]</i> Who knows what L. Ron Hubbard
+would say? But …</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Of course, he's dead. But they don't
+admit that. What?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: So are the others, also
+dead. <i>[Laughter] [Inaudible]</i> Charles Manson's also
+dead. <i>[Laughter]</i> They're dead, Jesus's dead, Buddha's
+dead…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, that's true. <i>[Laughter]</i> So
+I guess, in that regard, L. Ron Hubbard is no worse than the
+others. <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway — <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: L. Ron always used free software —
+it freed him from Zanu. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Anyway, so, I think this is actually the
+most important reason why software should be free: We can't afford to
+pollute society's most important resource. It's true that it's not a
+physical resource like clean air and clean water. It's a
+psycho-social resource, but it's just as real for all that, and it
+makes a tremendous difference to our lives. You see, the actions we
+take influence the thoughts of other people. When we go around
+telling people, “Don't share with each other”, if they
+listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's not a good one.
+That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor.</p>
+
+<p>Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just
+cause this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes
+waste — practical, material harm. If the program has an owner,
+and the owner arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay
+in order to be able to use it, some people are going to say,
+“Never mind, I'll do without it.” And that's waste,
+deliberately inflicted waste. And the interesting thing about
+software, of course, is that fewer users doesn't mean you have to make
+less stuff. You know, if fewer people buy cars, you can make fewer
+cars. There's a saving there. There are resources to be allocated,
+or not allocated, into making cars. So that you can say that having a
+price on a car is a good thing. It prevents people from diverting
+lots of wasted resources into making cars that aren't really needed.
+But if each additional car used no resources, it wouldn't be doing any
+good saving the making of these cars. Well, for physical objects, of
+course, like cars, it is always going to take resources to make an
+additional one of them, each additional exemplar.</p>
+
+<p>But for software that's not true. Anybody can make another copy.
+And it's almost trivial to do it. It takes no resources, except a
+tiny bit of electricity. So there's nothing we can save, no resource
+we're going to allocate better by putting this financial disincentive
+on the use of the software. You often find people taking economic,
+the consequences of economic reasoning, based on premises that don't
+apply to software, and trying to transplant them from other areas of
+life where the premises may apply, and the conclusions may be valid.
+They just take the conclusions and assume that they're valid for
+software too, when the argument is based on nothing, in the case of
+software. The premises don't work in that case. It is very important
+to examine how you reach the conclusion, and what premises it depends
+on, to see where it might be valid. So, that's Freedom Two, the
+freedom to help your neighbor.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
+publishing an improved version of the software. People used to say to
+me, “If the software's free, then nobody will get paid to work
+on it, so why should anybody work on it?” Well, of course, they
+were confusing the two meanings of free, so their reasoning was based
+on a misunderstanding. But, in any case, that was their theory.
+Today, we can compare that theory with empirical fact, and we find
+that hundreds of people are being paid to write free software, and
+over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers. We get lots of people
+working on free software, for various different motives.</p>
+
+<p>When I first released GNU Emacs — the first piece of the GNU
+system that people actually wanted to use — and when it started
+having users, after a while, I got a message saying, “I think I
+saw a bug in the source code, and here's a fix.” And I got
+another message, “Here's code to add a new feature.” And
+another bug fix. And another new feature. And another, and another,
+and another, until they were pouring in on me so fast that just making
+use of all this help I was getting was a big job. Microsoft doesn't
+have this problem. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>Eventually, people noted this phenomenon. You see, in the 1980's a
+lot of us thought that maybe free software wouldn't be as good as the
+non-free software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay
+people. And, of course, people like me, who value freedom and
+community said, “Well, we'll use the free software
+anyway.” It's worth making a little sacrifice in some mere
+technical convenience to have freedom. But what people began to note,
+around 1990 was that our software was actually better. It was more
+powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary alternatives.</p>
+
+<p>In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific
+measurement of reliability of software. Here's what he did. He took
+several sets of comparable programs that did the same jobs — the
+exact same jobs — in different systems. Because there were
+certain basic Unix-like utilities. And the jobs that they did, we
+know, was all, more or less, imitating the same thing, or they were
+following the POSIX spec, so they were all the same in terms of what
+jobs they did, but they were maintained by different people, written
+separately. The code was different. So they said, OK, we'll take
+these programs and run them with random data, and measure how often
+they crash, or hang. So they measured it, and the most reliable set
+of programs was the GNU programs. All the commercial alternatives
+which were proprietary software were less reliable. So he published
+this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he did the
+same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same result.
+The GNU versions were the most reliable. People — you know
+there are cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system,
+because it's so reliable, and reliability is very important to
+them.</p>
+
+<p>Anyway, there's even a group of people who focus on this particular
+benefit as the reason they give, the main reason they give, why users
+should be permitted to do these various things, and to have these
+freedoms. If you've been listening to me, you've noticed, you've seen
+that I, speaking for the free software movement, I talk about issues
+of ethics, and what kind of a society we want to live in, what makes
+for a good society, as well as practical, material benefits. They're
+both important. That's the free software movement.</p>
+
+<p>That other group of people — which is called the open source
+movement — they only cite the practical benefits. They deny
+that this is an issue of principle. They deny that people are
+entitled to the freedom to share with their neighbor and to see what
+the program's doing and change it if they don't like it. They say,
+however, that it's a useful thing to let people do that. So they go
+to companies and say to them, “You know, you might make more
+money if you let people do this.” So, what you can see is that
+to some extent, they lead people in a similar direction, but for
+totally different, for fundamentally different, philosophical
+reasons.</p>
+
+<p>Because on the deepest issue of all, you know, on the ethical
+question, the two movements disagree. You know, in the free software
+movement we say, “You're entitled to these freedoms. People
+shouldn't stop you from doing these things.” In the open source
+movement, they say, “Yes, they can stop you if you want, but
+we'll try to convince them to deign to let you to do these
+things.” Well, they have contributed — they have convinced
+a certain number of businesses to release substantial pieces of
+software as free software in our community. So they, the open source
+movement, has contributed substantially to our community. And so we
+work together on practical projects. But, philosophically, there's a
+tremendous disagreement.</p>
+
+<p>Unfortunately, the open source movement is the one that gets the
+support of business the most, and so most articles about our work
+describe it as open source, and a lot of people just innocently think
+that we're all part of the open source movement. So that's why I'm
+mentioning this distinction. I want you to be aware that the free
+software movement, which brought our community into existence and
+developed the free operating system, is still here — and that we
+still stand for this ethical philosophy. I want you to know about
+this, so that you won't mislead someone else unknowingly.</p>
+
+<p>But also, so that you can think about where you stand.</p>
+
+<p>You know, which movement you support is up to you. You might agree
+with the free software movements and my views. You might agree with
+the open source movement. You might disagree with them both. You
+decide where you stand on these political issues.</p>
+
+<p>But if you agree with the free software movement — if you see
+that there's an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled
+and directed by this decision deserve a say in it — then I hope
+you'll say that you agree with the free software movement, and one way
+you can do that is by using the term free software and just helping
+people know we exist.</p>
+
+<p>So, Freedom Three is very important both practically and
+psycho-socially. If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical
+material harm, because this community development doesn't happen, and
+we don't make powerful, reliable software. But it also causes
+psycho-social harm, which affects the spirit of scientific cooperation
+— the idea that we're working together to advance human
+knowledge. You see, progress in science crucially depends on people
+being able to work together. And nowadays though, you often find each
+little group of scientists acting like it's a war with each other gang
+of scientists and engineers. And if they don't share with each other,
+they're all held back.</p>
+
+<p>So, those are the three freedoms that distinguish free software
+from typical software. Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself,
+making changes to suit your own needs. Freedom Two is the freedom to
+help your neighbor by distributing copies. And Freedom Three is the
+freedom to help build your community by making changes and publishing
+them for other people to use. If you have all of these freedoms, the
+program is free software for you. Now, why do I define it that way in
+terms of a particular user? Is it free software for
+you? <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> Is it free software for
+you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Is it free
+software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i>
+Yes?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you explain a bit about the
+difference between Freedom Two and Three? <i>[inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, they certainly relate, because if
+you don't have freedom to redistribute at all, you certainly don't
+have freedom to distribute a modified version, but they're different
+activities.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Oh.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Freedom Two is, you know, read it, you
+make an exact copy, and hand it to your friends, so now your friend
+can use it. Or maybe you make exact copies and you sell them to a
+bunch of people, and then they can use it.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom Three is where you make improvements — or at least
+you think they're improvements, and some other people may agree with
+you. So that's the difference. Oh, and by the way, one crucial
+point. Freedoms One and Three depend on your having access to the
+source code. Because changing a binary-only program is extremely
+hard. <i>[Laughter]</i> Even trivial changes like using four digits
+for the date, <i>[Laughter]</i> if you don't have source. So, for
+compelling, practical reasons, access to the source code is a
+precondition, a requirement, for free software.</p>
+
+<p>So, why do I define it in terms of whether it's free software for
+<em>you</em>? The reason is that sometimes the same program can be
+free software for some people, and non-free for others. Now, that
+might seem like a paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example
+to show you how it happens. A very big example — maybe the
+biggest ever — of this problem was the X Window System which was
+developed at MIT and released under a license that made it free
+software. If you got the MIT version with the MIT license, you had
+Freedoms One, Two, and Three. It was free software for you. But
+among those who got copies were various computer manufacturers that
+distributed Unix systems, and they made the necessary changes in X to
+run on their systems. You know, probably just a few thousand lines
+out of the hundreds of thousands of lines of X. And, then they
+compiled it, and they put the binaries into their Unix system and
+distributed it under the same non-disclosure agreement as the rest of
+the Unix system. And then, millions of people got these copies. They
+had the X Window System, but they had none of these freedoms. It was
+not free software for <em>them</em>.</p>
+
+<p>So, the paradox was that whether X was free software depended on
+where you made the measurement. If you made the measurement coming
+out of the developers' group, you'd say, “I observe all these
+freedoms. It's free software.” If you made the measurements
+among the users you'd say, “Hmm, most users don't have these
+freedoms. It's not free software.” Well, the people who
+developed X didn't consider this a problem, because their goal was
+just popularity, ego, essentially. They wanted a big professional
+success. They wanted to feel, “Ah, lots of people are using our
+software.” And that was true. Lots of people were using their
+software but didn't have freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Well, in the GNU project, if that same thing had happened to GNU
+software, it would have been a failure, because our goal wasn't just
+to be popular; our goal was to give people liberty, and to encourage
+cooperation, to permit people to cooperate. Remember, never force
+anyone to cooperate with any other person, but make sure that
+everybody's allowed to cooperate, everyone has the freedom to do so,
+if he or she wishes. If millions of people were running non-free
+versions of GNU, that wouldn't be success at all. The whole thing
+would have been perverted into nothing like the goal.</p>
+
+<p>So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening. The method I
+came up with is called “copyleft”. It's called copyleft
+because it's sort of like taking copyright and flipping it
+over. <i>[Laughter]</i> Legally, copyleft works based on copyright.
+We use the existing copyright law, but we use it to achieve a very
+different goal. Here's what we do. We say, “This program is
+copyrighted.” And, of course, by default, that means it's
+prohibited to copy it, or distribute it, or modify it. But then we
+say, “You're authorized to distribute copies of this. You're
+authorized to modify it. You're authorized to distribute modified
+versions and extended versions. Change it any way you
+like.”</p>
+
+<p>But there is a condition. And the condition, of course, is the
+reason why we go to all this trouble, so that we could put the
+condition in. The condition says: Whenever you distribute anything
+that contains any piece of this program, that whole program must be
+distributed under these same terms, no more and no less. So you can
+change the program and distribute a modified version, but when you do,
+the people who get that from you must get the same freedom that you
+got from us. And not just for the parts of it — the excerpts
+that you copied from our program — but also for the other parts
+of that program that they got from you. The whole of that program has
+to be free software for them.</p>
+
+<p>The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become
+inalienable rights — a concept from the Declaration of
+Independence. Rights that we make sure can't be taken away from you.
+And, of course, the specific license that embodies the idea of
+copyleft is the GNU General Public License, a controversial license
+because it actually has the strength to say no to people who would be
+parasites on our community.</p>
+
+<p>There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of
+freedom. And they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done,
+and use it to get a head start in distributing a non-free program and
+tempting people to give up their freedom. And the result would be
+— you know, if we let people do that — that we would be
+developing these free programs, and we'd constantly have to compete
+with improved versions of our own programs. That's no fun.</p>
+
+<p>And, a lot of people also feel — you know, I'm willing to
+volunteer my time to contribute to the community, but why should I
+volunteer my time to contribute to that company's, to improving that
+company's, proprietary program? You know, some people might not even
+think that that's evil, but they want to get paid if they're going to
+do that. I, personally, would rather not do it at all.</p>
+
+<p>But both of these groups of people — both the ones like me
+who say, “I don't want to help that non-free program to get a
+foothold in our community” and the ones that say, “Sure,
+I'd work for them, but then they better pay me” — both of
+us have a good reason to use the GNU General Public License. Because
+that says to that company, “You can't just take my work, and
+distribute it without the freedom.” Whereas, the non-copyleft
+licenses, like the X Windows license, do permit that.</p>
+
+<p>So that is the big division between the two categories of free
+software — license-wise. There are the programs that are
+copylefted so that the license defends the freedom of the software for
+every user. And there are the non-copylefted programs for which
+non-free versions are allowed. Somebody <em>can</em> take those
+programs and strip off the freedom. You may get that program in a
+non-free version.</p>
+
+<p>And that problem exists today. There are still non-free versions
+of X Windows being used on our free operating systems. There is even
+hardware — which is not really supported — except by a
+non-free version of X Windows. And that's a major problem in our
+community. Nonetheless, I wouldn't say that X Windows is a bad thing,
+you know. I'd say that the developers did not do the best possible
+thing that they could have done. But they <em>did</em> release a lot
+of software that we could all use.</p>
+
+<p>You know, there's a big difference between less than perfect, and
+evil. There are many gradations of good and bad. We have to resist
+the temptation to say, if you didn't do the absolute best possible
+thing, then you're no good. You know, the people that developed X
+Windows made a big contribution to our community. But there's
+something better that they could have done. They could have
+copylefted parts of the program and prevented those freedom-denying
+versions from being distributed by others.</p>
+
+<p>Now, the fact that the GNU General Public License defends your
+freedom, uses copyright law to defend your freedom, is, of course, why
+Microsoft is attacking it today. See, Microsoft would really like to
+be able to take all the code that we wrote and put it into proprietary
+programs, have somebody make some improvements, or even just
+incompatible changes is all they need. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>You know, with Microsoft's marketing clout, they don't need to make
+it better to have their version supplant ours. They just have to make
+it different and incompatible. And then, put it on everybody's
+desktop. So they really don't like the GNU GPL. Because the GNU GPL
+won't let them do that. It doesn't allow “embrace and
+extend”. It says, if you want to share our code in your
+programs, you can. But, you've got to share and share alike. The
+changes that you make we have to be allowed to share. So, it's a
+two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation.</p>
+
+<p>Many companies — even big companies like IBM and HP are
+willing to use our software on this basis. IBM and HP contribute
+substantial improvements to GNU software. And they develop other free
+software. But, Microsoft doesn't want to do that, so they give it out
+that businesses just can't deal with the GPL. Well, if businesses
+don't include IBM, and HP and SUN, then maybe they're
+right. <i>[Laughter]</i> More about that later.</p>
+
+<p>I should finish the historical story. You see, we set out in 1984
+not just to write some free software but to do something much more
+coherent: to develop an operating system that was entirely free
+software. So that meant we had to write piece after piece after
+piece. Of course, we were always looking for shortcuts. The job was
+so big that people said we'd never be able to finish. And, I thought
+that there was at least a chance that we'd finish it but, obviously,
+it's worth looking for shortcuts. So we kept looking around. Is there
+any program that somebody else has written that we could manage to
+adapt, to plug into here, and that way we won't have to write it from
+scratch? For instance, the X Window system. It's true it wasn't
+copylefted, but it was free software, so we could use it.</p>
+
+<p>Now, I had wanted to put a window system into GNU from day one. I
+wrote a couple of window systems at MIT before I started GNU. And so,
+even though Unix had no window system in 1984, I decided that GNU
+would have one. But, we never ended up writing a GNU window system,
+because X came along. And I said, Goody! One big job we don't have
+to do. We'll use X. So I basically said, let's take X, and put it
+into the GNU system. And we'll make the other parts of GNU, you know,
+work with X, when appropriate. And we found other pieces of software
+that had been written by other people, like the text formatter TeX,
+some library code from Berkeley. At that time there was Berkeley
+Unix, but it was not free software. This library code, initially, was
+from a different group at Berkeley, that did research on floating
+point. And, so, we kept, we fit in these pieces.</p>
+
+<p>In October 1985, we founded the Free Software Foundation. So
+please note, the GNU project came first. The Free Software Foundation
+came after, about almost two years after the announcement of the
+Project. And the Free Software Foundation is a tax-exempt charity
+that raises funds to promote the freedom to share and change software.
+And in the 1980's, one of the main things we did with our funds was to
+hire people to write parts of GNU. And essential programs, such as
+the shell and the C library were written this way, as well as parts of
+other programs. The <code>tar</code> program, which is absolutely
+essential, although not exciting at all <i>[Laughter]</i> was written
+this way. I believe GNU grep was written this way. And so, we're
+approaching our goal.</p>
+
+<p>By 1991, there was just one major piece missing, and that was the
+kernel. Now, why did I put off the kernel? Probably because it
+doesn't really matter what order you do the things in, at least
+technically it doesn't. You've got to do them all anyway. And partly
+because I'd hoped we'd be able to find a start at a kernel somewhere
+else. And we did. We found Mach, which had been developed at
+Carnegie Mellon. And it wasn't the whole kernel; it was the bottom
+half of the kernel. So we had to write the top half, but I figured,
+you know, things like the file system, the network code, and so on.
+But running on top of Mach they're running essentially as user
+programs, which ought to make them easier to debug. You can debug
+with a real source-level debugger running at the same time. And so, I
+thought that way we'd be able to get these, the higher level parts of
+the kernel, done in a short time. It didn't work out that way. These
+asynchronous, multi-threaded processes, sending messages to each other
+turned out to be very hard to debug. And the Mach-based system that
+we were using to bootstrap with had a terrible debugging environment,
+and it was unreliable, and various problems. It took us years and
+years to get the GNU kernel to work.</p>
+
+<p>But, fortunately, our community did not have to wait for the GNU
+kernel. Because in 1991, Linus Torvalds developed another free kernel
+called Linux. And he used the old-fashioned monolithic design and it
+turns out that he got his working much faster than we got ours
+working. So maybe that's one of the mistakes that I made: that design
+decision. Anyway, at first, we didn't know about Linux, because he
+never contacted us to talk about it. Although he did know about the
+GNU Project. But he announced it to other people and other places on
+the net. And so other people then did the work of combining Linux
+with the rest of the GNU system to make a complete free operating
+system. Essentially, to make the GNU plus Linux combination.</p>
+
+<p>But, they didn't realize that's what they were doing. You see,
+they said, We have a kernel — let's look around and see what
+other pieces we can find to put together with the kernel. So, they
+looked around — and lo and behold, everything they needed was
+already available. What good fortune, they said. <i>[Laughter]</i>
+It's all here. We can find everything we need. Let's just take all
+these different things and put it together, and have a system.</p>
+
+<p>They didn't know that most of what they found was pieces of the GNU
+system. So they didn't realize that they were fitting Linux into the
+gap in the GNU system. They thought they were taking Linux and making
+a system out of Linux. So they called it a Linux system.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can't hear you — what?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, it's just not — you know,
+it's provincial.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: But it's more good fortune then finding
+X and Mach?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. The difference is that the
+people who developed X and Mach didn't have the goal of making a
+complete free operating system. We're the only ones who had that.
+And, it was our tremendous work that made the system exist. We
+actually did a larger part of the system than any other project. No
+coincidence, because those people — they wrote useful parts of
+the system. But they didn't do it because they wanted the system to
+be finished. They had other reasons.</p>
+
+<p>Now the people who developed X — they thought that designing
+across the network window system would be a good project, and it was.
+And it turned out to help us make a good free operating system. But
+that's not what they hoped for. They didn't even think about that.
+It was an accident. An accidental benefit. Now, I'm not saying that
+what they did was bad. They did a large free software project.
+That's a good thing to do. But they didn't have that ultimate vision.
+The GNU Project is where that vision was.</p>
+
+<p>And, so, we were the ones whose — every little piece that
+didn't get done by somebody else, we did it. Because we knew that we
+wouldn't have a complete system without it. And even if it was
+totally boring and unromantic, like <code>tar</code>
+or <code>mv</code>. <i>[Laughter]</i> We did it. Or ld, you know
+there's nothing very exciting in <code>ld</code> — but I wrote
+one. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I did make efforts to have it do a minimal
+amount of disk I/O so that it would be faster and handle bigger
+programs. But, you know, I like to do a good job. I like to improve
+various things about the program while I'm doing it. But the reason
+that I did it wasn't that I had brilliant ideas for a
+better <code>ld</code>. The reason I did it is that we needed one
+that was free. And we couldn't expect anyone else to do it. So, we
+had to do it, or find someone to do it.</p>
+
+<p>So, although at this point thousands of people in projects have
+contributed to this system, there is one project which is the reason
+that this system exists, and that's the GNU Project. It <em>is</em>
+basically the GNU System, with other things added since then.</p>
+
+<p>So, however, the practice of calling the system Linux has been a
+great blow to the GNU Project, because we don't normally get credit
+for what we've done. I think Linux, the kernel, is a very useful
+piece of free software, and I have only good things to say about it.
+But, well, actually, I can find a few bad things to say about
+it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, basically, I have good things to say about
+it. However, the practice of calling the GNU system, Linux, is just a
+mistake. I'd like to ask you please to make the small effort
+necessary to call the system GNU/Linux, and that way to help us get a
+share of the credit.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You need a mascot! Get yourself a
+stuffed animal! <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have one.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You do?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have an animal — a
+gnu. <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway. So, yes, when you draw a penguin,
+draw a gnu next to it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, let's save the
+questions for the end. I have more to go through.</p>
+
+<p>So, why am I so concerned about this? You know, why do I think it
+is worth bothering you and perhaps giving you a, perhaps lowering your
+opinion of me, <i>[Laughter]</i> to raise this issue of credit?
+Because, you know, some people when I do this, some people think that
+it's because I want my ego to be fed, right? Of course, I'm not
+saying — I'm not asking you to call it “Stallmanix,”
+right? <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p>I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to
+get credit. And there's a very specific reason for that, which is a
+lot more important than anybody getting credit, in and of itself. You
+see, these days, if you look around in our community most of the
+people talking about it and writing about it don't ever mention GNU,
+and they don't ever mention these goals of freedom — these
+political and social ideals, either. Because the place they come from
+is GNU.</p>
+
+<p>The ideas associated with Linux — the philosophy is very
+different. It is basically the apolitical philosophy of Linus
+Torvalds. So, when people think that the whole system is Linux, they
+tend to think: “Oh, it must have been all started by Linux
+Torvalds. His philosophy must be the one that we should look at
+carefully”. And when they hear about the GNU philosophy, they
+say: “Boy, this is so idealistic, this must be awfully
+impractical. I'm a Linux-user, not a
+GNU-user.” <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>What irony! If they only knew! If they knew that the system they
+liked — or, in some cases, love and go wild over — is our
+idealistic, political philosophy made real.</p>
+
+<p>They still wouldn't have to agree with us. But at least they'd see
+a reason to take it seriously, to think about it carefully, to give it
+a chance. They would see how it relates to their lives. You know, if
+they realized, “I'm using the GNU system. Here's the GNU
+philosophy. This philosophy is <em>why</em> this system that I like
+very much exists,” they'd at least consider it with a much more
+open mind. It doesn't mean that everybody will agree. People think
+different things. That's OK. You know, people should make up their
+own minds. But I want this philosophy to get the benefit of the
+credit for the results it has achieved.</p>
+
+<p>If you look around in our community, you'll find that almost
+everywhere, the institutions are calling the system Linux. You know,
+reporters mostly call it Linux. It's not right, but they do. The
+companies mostly say it that package the system. Oh, and most of
+these reporters, when they write articles, they usually don't look at
+it as a political issue, or social issue. They're usually looking at
+it purely as a business question or what companies are going to
+succeed more or less, which is really a fairly minor question for
+society. And, if you look at the companies that package the GNU/Linux
+system for people to use, well, most of them call it Linux. And they
+<em>all</em> add non-free software to it.</p>
+
+<p>See, the GNU GPL says that if you take code, and some code out of a
+GPL-covered program, and add some more code to make a bigger program,
+that whole program has to be released under the GPL. But you could
+put other separate programs on the same disk (of either kind, hard
+disk, or CD), and they can have other licenses. That's considered
+mere aggregation, and, essentially, just distributing two programs to
+somebody at the same time is not something we have any say over. So,
+in fact, it is not true — sometimes, I wish it were true —
+that if a company uses a GPL-covered program in a product that the
+whole product has to be free software. It's not — it doesn't go
+to that range — that scope. It's the whole program. If there
+are two separate programs that communicate with each other at arm's
+length — like by sending messages to each other — then,
+they're legally separate, in general. So, these companies, by adding
+non-free software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically
+and politically, a very bad idea. They're telling the users,
+“It is OK to use non-free software. We're even putting it on
+this as a bonus.”</p>
+
+<p>If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system,
+most of them have a title like “Linux-something or other”.
+So they're calling the system Linux most of the time. And they're
+filled with ads for non-free software that you could run on top of the
+GNU/Linux system. Now those ads have a common message. They say:
+Non-free Software Is Good For You. It's So Good That You Might Even
+<em>Pay</em> To Get It. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>And they call these things “value-added packages”,
+which makes a statement about their values. They're saying: Value
+practical convenience, not freedom. And, I don't agree with those
+values, so I call them “freedom-subtracted
+packages”. <i>[Laughter]</i> Because if you have installed a
+free operating system, then you now are living in the free world. You
+enjoy the benefits of liberty that we worked for so many years to give
+you. Those packages give you an opportunity to buckle on a chain.</p>
+
+<p>And then if you look at the trade shows — about the use of
+the, dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call
+themselves “Linux” shows. And they're filled with booths
+exhibiting non-free software, essentially putting the seal of approval
+on the non-free software. So, almost everywhere you look in our
+community, the institutions are endorsing the non-free software,
+totalling negating the idea of freedom that GNU was developed for.
+And the only place that people are likely to come across the idea of
+freedom is in connection with GNU, and in connection with free
+software, the term, free software. So this is why I ask you: please
+call the system GNU/Linux. Please make people aware where the system
+came from and why.</p>
+
+<p>Of course, just by using that name, you won't be making an
+explanation of the history. You can type four extra characters and
+write GNU/Linux; you can say two extra syllables. But, GNU/Linux is
+fewer syllables than Windows 2000. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, you're not
+telling them a lot, but you're preparing them, so that when they hear
+about GNU, and what it's all about, they'll see how that connects to
+them and their lives. And that, indirectly, makes a tremendous
+difference. So please help us.</p>
+
+<p>You'll note that Microsoft called the GPL an “open source
+license”. They don't want people to be thinking in terms of
+freedom as the issue. You'll find that they invite people to think in
+a narrow way, as consumers, and, of course, not even think very
+rationally as consumers, if they're going to choose Microsoft
+products. But they don't want people to think as citizens or
+statesmen. That's inimical to them. At least it's inimical to their
+current business model.</p>
+
+<p>Now, how does free software…well, I can tell you about how
+free software relates to our society. A secondary topic that might be
+of interest to some of you is how free software relates to business.
+Now, in fact, free software is <em>tremendously</em> useful for
+business. After all, most businesses in the advanced countries use
+software. Only a tiny fraction of them develop software.</p>
+
+<p>And free software is tremendously advantageous for any company that
+uses software, because it means that you're in control. Basically,
+free software means the users are in control of what the program does.
+Either individually, if they care enough to be, or, collectively, when
+they care enough to be. Whoever cares enough can exert some
+influence. If you don't care, you don't buy. Then you use what other
+people prefer. But, if you do care, then you have some say. With
+proprietary software, you have essentially no say.</p>
+
+<p>With free software, you can change what you want to change. And it
+doesn't matter that there are no programmers in your company; that's
+fine. You know, if you wanted to move the walls in your building, you
+don't have to be a carpentry company. You just have to be able to go
+find a carpenter and say, “What will you charge to do this
+job?” And if you want to change around the software you use, you
+don't have to be a programming company. You just have to go to a
+programming company and say, “What will you charge to implement
+these features? And when will you have it done?” And if they
+don't do the job, you can go find somebody else.</p>
+
+<p>There's a free market for support. So, any business that cares
+about support will find a tremendous advantage in free software. With
+proprietary software, support is a monopoly, because one company has
+the source code, or maybe a small number of companies that paid a
+gigantic amount of money have the source code, if it's Microsoft's
+shared source program, but, it's very few. And so, there aren't very
+many possible sources of support for you. And that means, that unless
+you're a real giant, they don't care about you. Your company is not
+important enough for them to care if they lose your business, or what
+happens. Once you're using the program, they figure you're locked in
+to getting the support from them, because to switch to a different
+program is a gigantic job. So, you end up with things like paying for
+the privilege of reporting a bug. <i>[Laughter]</i> And once you've
+paid, they tell you, “Well, OK, we've noted your bug report.
+And in a few months, you can buy an upgrade, and you can see if we've
+fixed it.” <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>Support providers for free software can't get away with that. They
+have to please the customers. Of course, you can get a lot of good
+support gratis. You post your problem on the Internet. You may get
+an answer the next day. But that's not guaranteed, of course. If you
+want to be confident, you better make an arrangement with a company
+and pay them. And this is, of course, one of the ways that free
+software business works.</p>
+
+<p>Another advantage of free software for businesses that use software
+is security and privacy. And this applies to individuals as well, but
+I brought it up in the context of businesses. You see, when a program
+is proprietary, you can't even tell what it really does.</p>
+
+<p>It could have features, deliberately put in that you wouldn't like
+if you knew about them, like it might have a backdoor to let the
+developer get into your machine. It might snoop on what you do and
+send information back. This is not unusual. Some Microsoft software
+did this. But it's not only Microsoft. There are other proprietary
+programs that snoop on the user. And you can't even tell if it does
+this. And, of course, even assuming that the developer's totally
+honest, every programmer makes mistakes. There could be bugs that
+affect your security which are nobody's fault. But the point is: If
+it's not free software, you can't find them. And you can't fix
+them.</p>
+
+<p>Nobody has the time to check the source of every program he runs.
+You're not going to do that. But with free software there's a large
+community, and there are people in that community who are checking
+things. And you get the benefit of their checking, because if there's
+an accidental bug, there surely are, from time to time, in any
+program, they might find it and fix it. And people are much less
+likely to put in a deliberate Trojan horse, or a snooping feature, if
+they think they might get caught. The proprietary software developers
+figure they won't get caught. They'll get away with it undetected.
+But a free software developer has to figure that people will look at
+that and see it's there. So, in our community, we don't feel we can
+get away with ramming a feature down the users' throats that the users
+wouldn't like. So we know that if the users don't like it, they'll
+make a modified version which doesn't have it. And then, they'll all
+start using that version.</p>
+
+<p>In fact, we can all reason enough, we can all figure this out
+enough steps ahead, that we probably won't put in that feature. After
+all, you're writing a free program; you want people to like your
+version; you don't want to put in a thing that you know a lot of
+people are going to hate, and have another modified version catch on
+instead of yours. So you just realize that the user is king in the
+world of free software. In the world of proprietary software, the
+customer is <em>not</em> king. Because you are only a customer. You
+have no say in the software you use.</p>
+
+<p>In this respect, free software is a new mechanism for democracy to
+operate. Professor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions
+as a kind of law. Whoever gets to write the code that just about
+everybody uses for all intents and purposes is writing the laws that
+run people's lives. With free software, these laws get written in a
+democratic way. Not the classical form of democracy — we don't
+have a big election and say, “Everybody vote which way should
+this feature be done.” <i>[Laughter]</i> Instead we say,
+basically, those of you who want to work on implementing the feature
+this way, do it. And if you want to work on implementing the feature
+that way, do it. And, it gets done one way or the other, you know?
+And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done this way.
+So, in this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by
+simply taking steps in the direction that he wants to go.</p>
+
+<p>And you're free to take as many steps, personally, as you want to
+take. A business is free to commission as many steps as they find
+useful to take. And, after you add all these things up, that says
+which direction the software goes.</p>
+
+<p>And it's often very useful to be able to take pieces out of some
+existing program, presumably usually large pieces, of course, and then
+write a certain amount of code of your own, and make a program that
+does exactly what you need, which would have cost you an arm and a leg
+to develop, if you had to write it all from scratch, if you couldn't
+cannibalize large pieces from some existing free software package.</p>
+
+<p>Another thing that results from the fact that the user is king is
+that we tend to be very good about compatibility and standardization.
+Why? Because users like that. Users are likely to reject a program
+that has gratuitous incompatibilities in it. Now, sometimes there's a
+certain group of users which actually have a need for a certain kind
+of incompatibility, and then they'll have it. That's OK. But when
+users want is to follow a standard, we developers have to follow it,
+and we know that. And we do it. By contrast, if you look at
+proprietary software developers, they often find it advantageous to
+deliberately <em>not</em> follow a standard, and not because they
+think that they're giving the user an advantage that way, but rather
+because they're imposing on the user, locking the user in. And you'll
+even find them making changes in their file formats from time to time,
+just to force people to get the newest version.</p>
+
+<p>Archivists are finding a problem now, that files written on
+computers ten years ago often can't be accessed; they were written
+with proprietary software that's essentially lost now. If it were
+written with free software, then it could be brought up-to-date and
+run. And those things would not, those records would not be lost,
+would not be inaccessible. They were even complaining about this on
+NPR recently in citing free software as a solution. And so, in
+effect, by using a non-free program to store your own data, you are
+putting your head in a noose.</p>
+
+<p>So, I've talked about how free software affects most business. But
+how does it affect that particular narrow area which is software
+business? Well, the answer is mostly not at all. And the reason is
+that 90% of the software industry, from what I'm told, is development
+of custom software, software that's not meant to be released at all.
+For custom software, this issue, or the ethical issue of free or
+proprietary, doesn't arise. You see, the issue is, are you users free
+to change, and redistribute, the software? If there's only one user,
+and that user owns the rights, there's no problem. That
+user <em>is</em> free to do all these things. So, in effect, any
+<em>custom</em> program that was developed by one company for use
+in-house is free software, as long as they have the sense to insist on
+getting the source code and all the rights.</p>
+
+<p>And the issue doesn't really arise for software that goes in a
+watch or a microwave oven or an automobile ignition system. Because
+those are places where you don't download software to install. It's
+not a real computer, as far as the user is concerned. And so, it
+doesn't raise these issues enough for them to be ethically important.
+So, for the most part, the software industry will go along, just as
+it's been going. And the interesting thing is that since such a large
+fraction of the jobs are in that part of the industry, even if there
+were no possibilities for free software business, the developers of
+free software could all get day jobs writing custom
+software. <i>[Laughter]</i> There's so many; the ratio is so big.</p>
+
+<p>But, as it happens, there is free software business. There are
+free software companies, and at the press conference that I'm going to
+have, people from a couple of them will join us. And, of course,
+there are also companies which are <em>not</em> free software
+businesses but do develop useful pieces of free software to release,
+and the free software that they produce is substantial.</p>
+
+<p>Now, how do free software businesses work? Well, some of them sell
+copies. You know, you're free to copy it but they can still sell
+thousands of copies a month. And others sell support and various
+kinds of services. I, personally, for the second half of the '80's, I
+sold free software support services. Basically I said, for $200 an
+hour, I'll change whatever you want me to change in GNU software that
+I'd written. And, yes, it was a stiff rate, but if it was a program
+that I was the author of, people would figure that I might get the job
+done in a lot fewer hours. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I made a living that
+way. In fact, I'd made more than I'd ever made before. I also taught
+classes. And I kept doing that until 1990, when I got a big prize and
+I didn't have to do it any more.</p>
+
+<p>But, 1990 was when the first corporation free software business was
+formed, which was Cygnus Support. And their business was to do,
+essentially, the same kind of thing that I'd been doing. I certainly
+could have worked for them, if I had needed to do that. Since I
+didn't need to, I felt it was good for the movement if I remained
+independent of any one company. That way, I could say good and bad
+things about the various free software and non-free software
+companies, without a conflict of interest. I felt that I could serve
+the movement more. But, if I had needed that to make a living, sure,
+I would have worked for them. It's an ethical business to be in. No
+reason I would have felt ashamed to take a job with them. And that
+company was profitable in its first year. It was formed with very
+little capital, just the money its three founders had. And it kept
+growing every year and being profitable every year until they got
+greedy, and looked for outside investors, and then they messed things
+up. But it was several years of success, before they got greedy.</p>
+
+<p>So, this illustrates one of the exciting things about free
+software. Free software demonstrates that you don't need to raise
+capital to develop free software. I mean, it's useful;
+it <em>can</em> help. You know, if you do raise some capital, you can
+hire people and have them write a bunch of software. But you can get
+a lot done with a small number of people. And, in fact, the
+tremendous efficiency of the process of developing free software is
+one of the reasons it's important for the world to switch to free
+software. And it also belies what Microsoft says when they say the
+GNU GPL is bad, because it makes it harder for them to raise capital
+to develop non-free software and take our free software and put our
+code into their programs that they won't share with us. Basically, we
+don't need to have them raising capital that way. We'll get the job
+done anyway. We are getting the job done.</p>
+
+<p>People used to say we could never do a complete free operating
+system. Now we've done that and a tremendous amount more. And I
+would say that we're about an order of magnitude away from developing
+all the general purpose published software needs of the world. And
+this is in a world where more than 90% of the users don't use our free
+software yet. This is in a world where, although in certain areas of
+business, you know, more than half of all the web servers in the world
+are running on GNU/Linux with Apache as the web server.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i> … What did you
+say before, Linux?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I said GNU/Linux.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You did?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, if I'm talking about the kernel, I
+call it Linux. You know, that's it's name. The kernel was written by
+Linus Torvalds, and we should only call it by the name that he chose,
+out of respect for the author.</p>
+
+<p>Anyway, but in general, in business most users are not using it.
+Most home users are not using our system yet. So, when they are, we
+should automatically get 10 times as many volunteers and 10 times as
+many customers for the free software businesses that there will be.
+And so that will take us that order of magnitude. So at this point, I
+am pretty confident that we <em>can</em> do the job.</p>
+
+<p>And, this is important, because Microsoft asks us to feel
+desperate. They say, The only way you can have software to run, the
+only way you can have innovation, is if you give us power. Let us
+dominate you. Let us control what you can do with the software you're
+running, so that we can squeeze a lot of money out of you, and use a
+certain fraction of that to develop software, and take the rest as
+profit.</p>
+
+<p>Well, you shouldn't ever feel that desperate. You shouldn't ever
+feel so desperate that you give up your freedom. That's very
+dangerous.</p>
+
+<p>Another thing that Microsoft, well, not just Microsoft, people who
+don't support free software generally adopt a value system in which
+the only thing that matters is short-term practical benefits: How much
+money am I going to make this year? What job can I get done today?
+Short-term thinking and narrow thinking. Their assumption is that it
+is ridiculous to imagine that anybody ever might make a sacrifice for
+the sake of freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Yesterday, a lot of people were making speeches about Americans who
+made sacrifices for the freedom of their compatriots. Some of them
+made great sacrifices. They even sacrificed their lives for the kinds
+of freedom that everyone in our country has heard about, at least.
+(At least, in some of the cases; I guess we have to ignore the war in
+Vietnam.)</p>
+
+<p><i>[Editor's note: The day before was “Memorial Day” in
+the USA. Memorial Day is a day where war heros are
+commemorated.]</i></p>
+
+<p>But, fortunately, to maintain our freedom in using software,
+doesn't call for big sacrifices. Just tiny, little sacrifices are
+enough, like learning a command-line interface, if we don't have a GUI
+interface program yet. Like doing the job in this way, because we
+don't have a free software package to do it that way, yet. Like,
+paying some money to a company that's going to develop a certain free
+software package, so that you can have it in a few years. Various
+little sacrifices that we can all make. And, in the long run, even we
+will have benefited from it. You know, it is really an investment
+more than a sacrifice. We just have to have enough long-term view to
+realize it's good for us to invest in improving our society, without
+counting the nickels and dimes of who gets how much of the benefit
+from that investment.</p>
+
+<p>So, at this point, I'm essentially done.</p>
+
+<p>I'd like to mention that there's a new approach to free software
+business being proposed by Tony Stanco, which he calls “Free
+Developers”, which involves a certain business structure which
+hopes eventually to pay out a certain share of the profits to every,
+to all the authors of the free software who've joined the
+organization. And they're looking at the prospects of getting me some
+rather large government software development contracts in India now,
+because they're going to be using free software as the basis, having
+tremendous cost savings that way.</p>
+
+<p>And so now I guess that I should ask for questions.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Could you speak up a bit louder please?
+I can't really hear you.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: How could a company like Microsoft
+include a free software contract?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually, Microsoft is planning to
+shift a lot of its activity into services. And what they're planning
+to do is something dirty and dangerous, which is tie the services to
+the programs, one to the next, in a sort of zigzag, you know? So that
+to use this service, you've got to be using this Microsoft program,
+which is going to mean you need to use this service, to this Microsoft
+program, so it's all tied together. That's their plan.</p>
+
+<p>Now, the interesting thing is that selling those services doesn't
+raise the ethical issue of free software or non-free software. It
+might be perfectly fine for them to have the business for those
+businesses selling those services over the net to exist. However,
+what Microsoft is planning to do is to use them to achieve an even
+greater lock, an even greater monopoly, on the software and the
+services, and this was described in an article, I believe in Business
+Week, recently. And, other people said that it is turning the net
+into the Microsoft Company Town.</p>
+
+<p>And this is relevant because, you know, the trial court in the
+Microsoft antitrust trial recommended breaking up the company,
+Microsoft. But in a way, that makes no sense — it wouldn't do
+any good at all — into the operating part and the applications
+part.</p>
+
+<p>But having seen that article, I now see a useful, effective way to
+split up Microsoft into the services part and the software part, to
+require them to deal with each other only at arm's length, that the
+services must publish their interfaces, so that anybody can write a
+client to talk to those services, and, I guess, that they have to pay
+to get the service. Well, that's OK. That's a totally different
+issue.</p>
+
+<p>If Microsoft is split up in this way […] services and
+software, they will not be able to use their software to crush
+competition with Microsoft services. And they won't be able to use
+the services to crush competition with Microsoft software. And we
+will be able to make the free software, and maybe you people will use
+it to talk to Microsoft services, and we won't mind.</p>
+
+<p>Because, after all, although Microsoft is the proprietary software
+company that has subjugated the most people — the others have
+subjugated fewer people, it's not for want of
+trying. <i>[Laughter]</i> They just haven't succeeded in subjugating
+as many people. So, the problem is not Microsoft and only Microsoft.
+Microsoft is just the biggest example of the problem we're trying to
+solve, which is proprietary software taking away users' freedom to
+cooperate and form an ethical society. So we shouldn't focus too much
+on Microsoft, you know, even though they did give me the opportunity
+for this platform. That doesn't make them all-important. They're not
+the be-all and end-all.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Earlier, you were discussing the
+philosophical differences between open source software and free
+software. How do you feel about the current trend of GNU/Linux
+distributions as they head towards supporting only Intel platforms?
+And the fact that it seems that less and less programmers are
+programming correctly, and making software that will compile anywhere?
+And making software that simply works on Intel systems?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I don't see an ethical issue there.
+Although, in fact, companies that make computers sometimes port the
+GNU/Linux system to it. HP apparently did this recently. And, they
+didn't bother paying for a port of Windows, because that would have
+cost too much. But getting GNU/Linux supported was, I think, five
+engineers for a few months. It was easily doable.</p>
+
+<p>Now, of course, I encourage people to use <code>autoconf</code>,
+which is a GNU package that makes it easier to make your programs
+portable. I encourage them to do that. Or when somebody else fixes
+the bug that it didn't compile on that version of the system, and
+sends it to you, you should put it in. But I don't see that as an
+ethical issue.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Two comments. One is: Recently, you
+spoke at MIT. I read the transcript. And someone asked about
+patents, and you said that “patents are a totally different
+issue. I have no comments on that.”</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I actually have a lot to say
+about patents, but it takes an hour. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I wanted to say this: It seems to me
+that there is an issue. I mean, there is a reason that companies call
+both patents and copyrights things like hard property in trying to get
+this concept which is, if they want to use the power of the State to
+create a course of monopoly for themselves. And so, what's common
+about these things is not that they revolve around the same issues,
+but that motivation is not really the public service issues but the
+motivation of companies to get a monopoly for their private
+interests.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I understand. But, well, I want to
+respond because there's not too much time. So I'd like to respond to
+that.</p>
+
+<p>You're right that that's what they want. But there's another
+reason why they want to use the term intellectual property. It's that
+they don't want to encourage people to think carefully about copyright
+issues or patent issues. Because copyright law and patent law are
+totally different, and the effects of software copyrighted and
+software patents are totally different.</p>
+
+<p>Software patents are a restriction on programmers, prohibiting them
+from writing certain kinds of programs, whereas copyright doesn't do
+that. With copyright, at least if you wrote it yourself, you're
+allowed to distribute it. So, it's tremendously important to separate
+these issues.</p>
+
+<p>They have a little bit in common, at a very low level, and
+everything else is different. So, please, to encourage clear
+thinking, discuss copyright or discuss patents. But don't discuss
+intellectual property. I don't have an opinion on intellectual
+property. I have opinions on copyrights and patents and software.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You mentioned at the beginning that a
+functional language, like recipes, are computer programs. There's a
+cross a little bit different than other kinds of language created on.
+This is also causing a problem in the DVD case.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: The issues are partly similar but partly
+different, for things that are not functional in nature. Part of the
+issue transfers but not all of it. Unfortunately, that's another hour
+speech. I don't have time to go into it. But I would say that all
+functional works ought to be free in the same sense as software. You
+know, textbooks, manuals, dictionaries, and recipes, and so on.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I was just wondering on online
+music. There are similarities and differences created all through.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I'd say that the minimum freedom
+that we should have for any kind of published information is the
+freedom to non-commercially redistribute it, verbatim. For functional
+works, we need the freedom to commercially publish a modified version,
+because that's tremendously useful to society. For non-functional
+works, you know, things that are to entertain, or to be aesthetic, or
+to state a certain person's views, you know, perhaps they shouldn't be
+modified. And, perhaps that means that it's OK, to have copyright
+covering all commercial distribution of them.</p>
+
+<p>Please remember that according to the U.S. Constitution, the
+purpose of copyright is to benefit the public. It is to modify the
+behavior of certain private parties, so that they will publish more
+books. And the benefit of this is that society gets to discuss issues
+and learn. And, you know, we have literature. We have scientific
+works. The purpose is encourage that. Copyrights do not exist for
+the sake of authors, let alone for the sake of publishers. They exist
+for the sake of readers and all those who benefit from the
+communication of information that happens when people write and others
+read. And that goal I agree with.</p>
+
+<p>But in the age of the computer networks, the method is no longer
+tenable, because it now requires draconian laws that invade
+everybody's privacy and terrorize everyone. You know, years in prison
+for sharing with your neighbor. It wasn't like that in the age of the
+printing press. Then copyright was an industrial regulation. It
+restricted publishers. Now, it's a restriction imposed by the
+publishers on the public. So, the power relationship is turned around
+180 degrees, even if it's the same law.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: So you can have the same thing —
+but like in making music from other music?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. That is an interesting
+…</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: And unique, new works, you know, it's
+still a lot of cooperation.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: It is. And I think that probably
+requires some kind of fair use concept. Certainly making a few
+seconds of sample and using that in making some musical work,
+obviously that should be fair use. Even the standard idea of fair use
+includes that, if you think about it. Whether courts agree, I'm not
+sure, but they should. That wouldn't be a real change in the system
+as it has existed.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: What do you think about publishing
+public information in proprietary formats?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, it shouldn't be. I mean, the
+government should never require citizens to use a non-free program to
+access, to communicate with the government in any way, in either
+direction.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I have been, what I will now say, a
+GNU/Linux user…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Thank you. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: …for the past four years. The one
+thing that has been problematical for me and is something that is
+essential, I think, to all of us, is browsing the web.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: One thing that has been decidedly a
+weakness in using a GNU/Linux system has been browsing the web,
+because the prevailing tool for that, Netscape…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: …is not free software.</p>
+
+<p>Let me respond to this. I want to get to the point, for the sake
+of getting in more. So, yes. There has been a terrible tendency for
+people to use Netscape Navigator on their GNU/Linux systems. And, in
+fact all the commercially packaged systems come with it. So this is
+an ironic situation: we worked so hard to make a free operating
+system, and now, if you go to the store, and you can find versions of
+GNU/Linux there, most of them are called Linux, and they're not free.
+Oh, well, part of them is. But then, there's Netscape Navigator, and
+maybe other non-free programs as well. So, it's very hard to actually
+find a free system, unless you know what you're doing. Or, of course,
+you can not install Netscape Navigator.</p>
+
+<p>Now, in fact, there have been free web browsers for many years.
+There is a free web browser that I used to use called Lynx. It's a
+free web browser that is non-graphical; it's text-only. This has a
+tremendous advantage, in you don't see the ads. <i>[Laughter]
+[Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p>But anyway, there is a free graphical project called Mozilla, which
+is now getting to the point where you can use it. And I occasionally
+use it.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 has been very good.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, OK. So that's another free
+graphical browser. So, we're finally solving that problem, I
+guess.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk to me about that
+philosophical/ethical division between free software and open source?
+Do you feel that those are irreconcilable? …</p>
+
+<p><i>[Recording switches tapes; end of question and start of answer
+is missing]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: … to a freedom, and ethics. Or
+whether you just say, Well, I hope that you companies will decide it's
+more profitable to let us be allowed to do these things.</p>
+
+<p>But, as I said, in a lot of practical work, it doesn't really
+matter what a person's politics are. When a person offers to help the
+GNU project, we don't say: “You have to agree with our
+politics.” We say that in a GNU package, you've got to call the
+system GNU/Linux, and you've got to call it free software. What you
+say when you're not speaking to the GNU Project, that's up to you.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: The company, IBM, started a campaign for
+government agencies, to sell their big new machines, that they used
+Linux as selling point, and say Linux.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, of course, it's really the
+GNU/Linux systems. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: That's right! Well, tell the top sales
+person. He doesn't know anything for GNU.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I have to tell who?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: The top sales person.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh yes. The problem is that they've
+already carefully decided what they want to say for reasons of their
+advantage. And the issue of what is a more accurate, or fair, or
+correct way to describe it is not the primary issue that matters to a
+company like that. Now, some small companies, yes, there'll be a
+boss. And if the boss is inclined to think about things like that, he
+might make a decision that way. Not a giant corporation though. It's
+a shame, you know.</p>
+
+<p>There's another more important and more substantive issue about
+what IBM is doing. They're saying that they're putting a billion
+dollars into “Linux”. But perhaps, I should also put
+quotes around “into”, as well, because some of that money
+is paying people to develop free software. That really is a
+contribution to our community. But other parts is paying to pay
+people to write proprietary software, or port proprietary software to
+run on top of GNU/Linux, and that is <em>not</em> a contribution to
+our community. But IBM is lumping that altogether into this. Some of
+it might be advertising, which is partly a contribution, even if it's
+partly wrong. So, it's a complicated situation. Some of what they're
+doing is contribution and some is not. And some is sort is somewhat,
+but not exactly. And you can't just lump it altogether and think,
+Wow! Whee! A billion dollars from IBM. <i>[Laughter]</i> That's
+oversimplification.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk a little bit more about the
+thinking that went into the general public license?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, here's the — I'm sorry, I'm
+answering his question now. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Do you want to reserve some time for
+the press conference? Or do you want to continue here?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Who is here for the press conference?
+Not a lot of press. Oh, three — OK. Can you afford if we
+— if I go on answering everybody's questions for another ten
+minutes or so? OK. So, we'll go on answering everybody's
+questions.</p>
+
+<p>So, the thinking that went into the GNU GPL? Part of it was that I
+wanted to protect the freedom of the community against the phenomena
+that I just described with X Windows, which has happened with other
+free programs as well. In fact, when I was thinking about this issue,
+X Windows was not yet released. But I had seen this problem happen in
+other free programs. For instance, TeX. I wanted to make sure that
+the users would all have freedom. Otherwise, I realized that I might
+write a program, and maybe a lot of people would use the program, but
+they wouldn't have freedom. And what's the point of that?</p>
+
+<p>But the other issue I was thinking about was, I wanted to give the
+community a feeling that it was not a doormat, a feeling that it was
+not prey to any parasite who would wander along. If you don't use
+copyleft, you are essentially saying: <i>[speaking meekly]</i>
+“Take my code. Do what you want. I don't say no.” So,
+anybody can come along and say: <i>[speaking very firmly]</i>
+“Ah, I want to make a non-free version of this. I'll just take
+it.” And, then, of course, they probably make some improvements,
+those non-free versions might appeal to users, and replace the free
+versions. And then, what have you accomplished? You've only made a
+donation to some proprietary software project.</p>
+
+<p>And when people see that that's happening, when people see, other
+people take what I do, and they don't ever give back, it can be
+demoralizing. And, this is not just speculation. I had seen that
+happen. That was part of what happened to wipe out the old community
+that I belonged to the '70's. Some people started becoming
+uncooperative. And we assumed that they were profiting thereby. They
+certainly acted as if they thought they were profiting. And we
+realized that they can just take off cooperation and not give back.
+And there was nothing we could do about it. It was very discouraging.
+We, those of us who didn't like the trend, even had a discussion and
+we couldn't come up with any idea for how we could stop it.</p>
+
+<p>So, the GPL is designed to stop that. And it says, Yes, you are
+welcome to join the community and use this code. You can use it to do
+all sorts of jobs. But, if you release a modified version, you've got
+to release that to our community, as part of our community, as part of
+the free world.</p>
+
+<p>So, in fact, there are still many ways that people can get the
+benefit of our work and not contribute, like you don't have to write
+any software. Lots of people use GNU/Linux and don't write any
+software. There's no requirement that you've got to do anything for
+us. But if you do a certain kind of thing, you've got to contribute
+to it. So what that means is that our community is not a doormat.
+And I think that that helped give people the strength to feel, Yes, we
+won't just be trampled underfoot by everybody. We'll stand up to
+this.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Yes, my question was, considering free
+but not copylefted software, since anybody can pick it up and make it
+proprietary, is it not possible also for someone to pick it up and
+make some changes and release the whole thing under the GPL?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, it is possible.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Then, that would make all future copies
+then be GPL'ed.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: From that branch. But here's why we
+don't do that.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Hmm?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Here's why we don't generally do that.
+Let me explain.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: OK, yes.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We could, if we wanted to, take X
+Windows, and make a GPL-covered copy and make changes in that. But
+there's a much larger group of people working on improving X Windows
+and <em>not</em> GPL-ing it. So, if we did that, we would be forking
+from them. And that's not very nice treatment of them. And, they
+<em>are</em> a part of our community, contributing to our
+community.</p>
+
+<p>Second, it would backfire against us, because they're doing a lot
+more work on X than we would be. So, our version would be inferior to
+theirs, and people wouldn't use it, which means, why go to the trouble
+at all?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Mmm hmm.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: So when a person has written some
+improvement to X Windows, what I say that person should do is
+cooperate with the X development team. Send it to them and let them
+use it their way. Because they are developing a very important piece
+of free software. It's good for us to cooperate with them.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Except, considering X, in particular,
+about two years ago, the X Consortium that was far into the non-free
+open source…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually it <em>wasn't</em> open
+sourced. It wasn't open sourced, either. They may have said it was.
+I can't remember if they said that or not. But it wasn't open
+source. It was restricted. You couldn't commercially distribute, I
+think. Or you couldn't commercially distribute a modified version, or
+something like that. There was a restriction that's considered
+unacceptable by both the Free Software movement and the Open Source
+movement.</p>
+
+<p>And yes, that's what using a non-copyleft license leaves you open
+to. In fact, the X Consortium, they had a very rigid policy. They
+say: If your program if copylefted even a little bit, we won't
+distribute it at all. We won't put it in our distribution.</p>
+
+<p>So, a lot of people were pressured in this way into not
+copylefting. And the result was that all of their software was wide
+open, later on. When the same people who had pressured a developer to
+be too all-permissive, then the X people later said, All right, now we
+can put on restrictions, which wasn't very ethical of them.</p>
+
+<p>But, given the situation, would we really want to scrape up the
+resources to maintain an alternate GPL-covered version of X? And it
+wouldn't make any sense to do that. There are so many other things we
+need to do. Let's do them instead. We can cooperate with the X
+developers.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Do you have a comment, is the GNU a
+trademark? And is it practical to include it as part of the GNU
+General Public License allowing trademarks?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We are, actually, applying for trademark
+registration on GNU. But it wouldn't really have anything to do with
+that. It's a long story to explain why.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You could require the trademark be
+displayed with GPL-covered programs.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: No, I don't think so. The licenses
+cover individual programs. And when a given program is part of the
+GNU Project, nobody lies about that. The name of the system as a
+whole is a different issue. And this is an aside. It's not worth
+discussing more.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: If there was a button that you could
+push and force all companies to free their software, would you press
+it?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, I would only use this for
+published software. You know, I think that people have the right to
+write a program privately and use it. And that includes companies.
+This is privacy issue. And it's true, there can be times when it is
+wrong to do that, like if it is tremendously helpful to humanity, and
+you are withholding it from humanity. That is a wrong but that's a
+different kind of wrong. It's a different issue, although it's in the
+same area.</p>
+
+<p>But yes, I think all published software should be free software.
+And remember, when it's not free software, that's because of
+government intervention. The government is intervening to make it
+non-free. The government is creating special legal powers to hand out
+to the owners of the programs, so that they can have the police stop
+us from using the programs in certain ways. So I would certainly like
+to end that. </p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Richard's presentation has invariably
+generated an enormous amount of intellectual energy. I would suggest
+that some of it should be directed to using, and possibly writing,
+free software.</p>
+
+<p>We should close the proceedings shortly. I want to say that
+Richard has injected into a profession which is known in the general
+public for its terminal apolitical nerditude a level of political and
+moral discussion which is, I think, unprecedented in our profession.
+And we owe him very big for this. I'd like to note to people that
+there is a break.</p>
+
+<p><i>[Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: You are free to leave at any time, you
+know. <i>[Laughter]</i> I'm not holding you prisoner here.</p>
+
+<p><i>[Audience adjourns…]</i></p>
+
+<p><i>[overlapping conversations…]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: One final thing. Our website:
+www.gnu.org</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></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";><address@hidden></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";>
+ <address@hidden></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>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) 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. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman</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>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2015/09/15 05:45:26 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
Index: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.po
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.po
diff -N philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.po
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.po 15 Sep 2015 05:45:27 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,4469 @@
+# French translation of
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html
+# Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+# This file is distributed under the same license as the original article.
+# Xavier Dumont, 2005.
+# Thérèse Godefroy <godef.th AT free.fr>, 2012.
+#
+msgid ""
+msgstr ""
+"Project-Id-Version: rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html\n"
+"POT-Creation-Date: 2015-02-20 15:55+0000\n"
+"PO-Revision-Date: 2015-02-20 18:09+0100\n"
+"Last-Translator: Thérèse Godefroy <godef.th AT free.fr>\n"
+"Language-Team: French <address@hidden>\n"
+"Language: fr\n"
+"MIME-Version: 1.0\n"
+"Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n"
+"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n"
+"Plural-Forms: \n"
+"X-Generator: Gtranslator 2.91.5\n"
+
+#. type: Content of: <title>
+msgid ""
+"Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation - GNU Project - Free Software "
+"Foundation"
+msgstr ""
+"Logiciel libre : liberté et coopération - Projet GNU - Free Software "
+"Foundation"
+
+#. type: Content of: <h2>
+msgid "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation"
+msgstr "Logiciel libre : liberté et coopération"
+
+#. type: Content of: <blockquote><p>
+msgid ""
+"Transcript of Richard M. Stallman's speech, “Free Software: Freedom "
+"and Cooperation”, given at New York University in New York, NY, on 29 "
+"May 2001"
+msgstr ""
+"Transcription du discours de Richard M. Stallman, « Logiciel libre :
liberté "
+"et coopération », donné à <cite>New York University</cite> (campus de
New "
+"York, NY) le 29 mai 2001."
+
+#. type: Content of: <div><blockquote><p>
+msgid ""
+"A <a href=\"/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt\">plain text</a> version
of "
+"this transcript and a <a
href=\"/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt\">summary</"
+"a> of the speech are also available."
+msgstr ""
+"Une version <a href=\"/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt\">texte</a> de "
+"cette transcription et un <a href=\"/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt"
+"\">résumé</a> du discours sont aussi disponibles en anglais."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>URETSKY</strong>: I'm Mike Uretsky. I'm over at the Stern School of "
+"Business. I'm also one of the Co-Directors of the Center for Advanced "
+"Technology. And, on behalf of all of us in the Computer Science Department, "
+"I want to welcome you here. I want to say a few comments, before I turn it "
+"over to Ed, who is going to introduce the speaker."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>URETSKY</strong> : Je suis Mike Uretsky. Je travaille à la "
+"<cite>Stern Business School</cite> (Ãcole de commerce Stern). Je suis aussi "
+"l'un des codirecteurs du <cite>Center for Advanced Technology</cite> (Centre "
+"pour la technologie de pointe). Et au nom de tout le département "
+"d'informatique, je veux vous souhaiter la bienvenue. Je voudrais faire "
+"quelques commentaires avant de passer la parole à Ed qui présentera "
+"l'orateur."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"The role of a university is a place to foster debate and to have interesting "
+"discussions. And the role of a major university is to have particularly "
+"interesting discussions. And this particular presentation, this seminar "
+"falls right into that mold. I find the discussion of open source "
+"particularly interesting. In a sense … <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Le rôle d'une université est d'être un lieu de débats et de permettre des
"
+"discussions intéressantes. Et le rôle d'une grande université est d'offrir
"
+"des discussions particulièrement intéressantes. Cet exposé particulier, ce
"
+"séminaire, répond parfaitement à cet impératif. Je trouve la discussion
sur "
+"l'open source particulièrement intéressante. D'une certaine
manière… "
+"<i>[rires]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I do free software. Open source is a different "
+"movement. <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Je fais du logiciel libre. L'open source, c'est "
+"un autre mouvement <i>[rires et applaudissements]</i>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>URETSKY</strong>: When I first started in the field in the '60's, "
+"basically software was free. And we went in cycles. It became free, and "
+"then software manufacturers, in the need to expand their markets, pushed it "
+"in other directions. A lot of the developments that took place with the "
+"entry of the PC moved in exactly the same kind of a cycle."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>URETSKY</strong> : Quand j'ai commencer à travailler dans ce
domaine "
+"dans les années 60, en principe les logiciels étaient libres. Puis nous "
+"sommes entrés dans un cycle. Au début ils étaient libres, puis les "
+"fabricants de logiciels, pour étendre leur marché, les ont poussés dans "
+"d'autres directions. Une grande partie du développement qui a eu lieu à "
+"l'arrivée du PC a suivi exactement le même cycle."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"There's a very interesting French philosopher, Pierre Levy, who talks about "
+"movement to this direction and who talks about the move into cyberspace as "
+"not only relating to technology but also relating to social restructuring, "
+"to political restructuring, through a change in the kinds of relationships "
+"that will improve the well-being of mankind. And we're hoping that this "
+"debate is a movement in that direction, that this debate is something that "
+"cuts across a lot of the disciplines that normally act as solace within the "
+"University. We're looking forward to some very interesting discussions. Ed?"
+msgstr ""
+"Il y a un philosophe français très intéressant, Pierre Lévy, qui parle
d'un "
+"mouvement dans cette direction et parle de l'entrée dans le cyberespace, non
"
+"seulement en relation avec la technologie, mais aussi avec la "
+"restructuration sociale et politique, Ã travers un changement des types de "
+"relations qui va améliorer le bien-être de l'humanité. Et nous espérons
que "
+"ce débat est un pas dans cette direction, que ce débat traverse de "
+"nombreuses disciplines qui travaillent généralement en solo Ã
l'université. "
+"Nous espérons donc de très intéressantes discussions. Ed ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: I'm Ed Schonberg from the Computer Science "
+"Department at the Courant Institute. Let me welcome you all to this event. "
+"Introducers are usually, and particularly, a useless aspect of public "
+"presentations, but in this case, actually, they serve a useful purpose, as "
+"Mike easily demonstrated, because an introducer for instance, told him, by "
+"making inaccurate comments, can allow him to straighten out and correct and "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> sharpen considerably the parameters of the debate."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong> : Je suis Ed Schonberg du département "
+"d'informatique de l'Institut Courant. Permettez-moi de vous souhaiter la "
+"bienvenue pour cet événement. Les présentateurs sont, en général et en "
+"particulier, un aspect inutile des présentations publiques, mais dans ce "
+"cas, ils servent un but utile comme le propos de Mike vient facilement de le "
+"prouver. Parce qu'un présentateur, par exemple par des commentaires "
+"inappropriés, peut permettre à l'orateur de corriger <i>[rires]</i> et "
+"préciser considérablement les paramètres du débat."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, let me make the briefest possible introduction to somebody who doesn't "
+"need one. Richard is the perfect example of somebody who, by acting "
+"locally, started thinking globally from problems concerning the "
+"unavailability of source code for printer drivers at the AI Lab many years "
+"ago. He has developed a coherent philosophy that has forced all of us to re-"
+"examine our ideas of how software is produced, of what intellectual property "
+"means, and what the software community actually represents. Let me welcome "
+"Richard Stallman. <i>[Applause]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Aussi permettez-moi de faire la présentation la plus brève possible de "
+"quelqu'un qui n'en a pas besoin. Richard est le parfait exemple de quelqu'un "
+"qui, agissant localement, commença à penser globalement en partant des "
+"problèmes d'inaccessibilité du code source des pilotes d'imprimantes au "
+"Laboratoire d'intelligence artificielle il y a bien des années. Il a "
+"développé une philosophie cohérente qui nous a tous forcés à réexaminer
nos "
+"idées sur la façon dont le logiciel est produit, sur ce que signifie la "
+"propriété intellectuelle et sur ce que représente la communauté du
logiciel. "
+"Bienvenue à Richard Stallman <i>[applaudissements]</i>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can someone lend me a watch? <i>[Laughter]</i> "
+"Thank you. So, I'd like to thank Microsoft for providing me the opportunity "
+"to <i>[Laughter]</i> be on this platform. For the past few weeks, I have "
+"felt like an author whose book was fortuitously banned somewhere. <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i> Except that all the articles about it are giving the wrong "
+"author's name, because Microsoft describes the GNU GPL as an open source "
+"license, and most of the press coverage followed suit. Most people, of "
+"course just innocently don't realize that our work has nothing to do with "
+"open source, that in fact we did most of it before people even coined the "
+"term open source."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Quelqu'un peut-il me prêter une montre ? <i>"
+"[rires]</i> Merci. Bien, je voudrais remercier Microsoft de me donner "
+"l'occasion aujourd'hui <i>[rires]</i> d'être ici. Ces dernières semaines,
je "
+"me sentais comme un auteur dont le livre a été fortuitement interdit
quelque "
+"part <i>[rires]</i>. Sauf que tous les articles le concernant mentionnent un "
+"nom d'auteur erroné, parce que Microsoft décrit la GNU GPL comme une
licence "
+"open source et que la majorité de la couverture de presse a suivi. La "
+"plupart des gens, en toute innocence bien sûr, ne se rendent pas compte que "
+"notre travail n'a rien à voir avec l'open source et qu'en réalité nous en "
+"avons fait la plus grande part avant même que le terme « open source »
ne "
+"soit inventé."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"We are in the free software movement, and I'm going to speak about what the "
+"free software movement is about, what it means, what we have done, and, "
+"because this is partly sponsored by a school of business, I'll say some "
+"things more than I usually do about how free software relates to business, "
+"and some other areas of social life."
+msgstr ""
+"Nous faisons partie du mouvement du logiciel libre et je vais vous parler de "
+"ce qu'est ce mouvement, de ce qu'il signifie, de ce que nous avons fait, et "
+"puisque nous sommes réunis par une école de commerce, je vous en dirai un "
+"peu plus qu'Ã l'habitude sur les relations du logiciel libre avec
l'économie "
+"et avec d'autres champs de la vie en société."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, some of you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps you "
+"cook. And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably use "
+"recipes. And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the experience of "
+"getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing it. And you've "
+"probably also had the experience — unless you're a total neophyte "
+"— of changing a recipe. You know, it says certain things, but you "
+"don't have to do exactly that. You can leave out some ingredients. Add "
+"some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms. Put in less salt because your "
+"doctor said you should cut down on salt — whatever. You can even make "
+"bigger changes according to your skill. And if you've made changes in a "
+"recipe, and you cook it for your friends, and they like it, one of your "
+"friends might say, “Hey, could I have the recipe?” And then, "
+"what do you do? You could write down your modified version of the recipe and "
+"make a copy for your friend. These are the natural things to do with "
+"functionally useful recipes of any kind."
+msgstr ""
+"Certains d'entre vous n'écriront peut-être jamais de logiciels mais vous "
+"cuisinez peut-être. Et si vous cuisinez, à moins que vous ne soyez un grand
"
+"chef, vous utilisez probablement des recettes. Si vous utilisez des "
+"recettes, il vous est probablement déjà arrivé de demander la copie d'une "
+"recette à un ami, qui l'a partagée avec vous. Et il vous est probablement "
+"arrivé â à moins d'être un complet néophyte â de changer cette
recette. Vous "
+"savez, il y a des choses que l'on n'est pas obligé de faire exactement : "
+"vous pouvez laisser tomber certains ingrédients, ajouter des champignons "
+"parce que vous aimez les champignons, mettre un peu moins de sel parce que "
+"votre médecin vous a recommandé de manger moins salé, que sais-je ? Vous "
+"pouvez même faire des changements plus importants selon vos talents. Si vous
"
+"avez fait des changements dans une recette et que vos amis l'ont appréciée,
"
+"l'un d'entre eux vous a peut-être dit : « Dis donc, je pourrais avoir la "
+"recette ? » Et alors, qu'est-ce que vous faites ? Vous mettez par écrit "
+"votre version modifiée et faites une copie pour votre ami. C'est une chose "
+"qu'on fait naturellement avec des recettes de toute sorte."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program. A computer program's a lot "
+"like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to get some result that "
+"you want. So it's just as natural to do those same things with computer "
+"programs — hand a copy to your friend. Make changes in it because the "
+"job it was written to do isn't exactly what you want. It did a great job "
+"for somebody else, but your job is a different job. And after you've "
+"changed it, that's likely to be useful for other people. Maybe they have a "
+"job to do that's like the job you do. So they ask, “Hey, can I have a "
+"copy?” Of course, if you're a nice person, you're going to give a "
+"copy. That's the way to be a decent person."
+msgstr ""
+"En fait, une recette ressemble beaucoup à un programme informatique. Un "
+"programme informatique est comme une recette : une série d'étapes à mener
"
+"pour obtenir le résultat que vous attendez. Alors il est tout naturel de "
+"faire la même chose avec un programme : donner une copie à un ami ;
apporter "
+"des modifications parce que le travail pour lequel il a été écrit n'est
pas "
+"tout à fait ce que vous voulez. Il a bien fonctionné pour quelqu'un d'autre
"
+"mais votre travail est différent. Et une fois que vous avez changé le "
+"programme, il est probable qu'il pourra servir à d'autres. Peut-être qu'ils
"
+"ont à faire un travail comme le vôtre, alors ils vous en demanderont une "
+"copie, et si vous êtes gentil, vous allez la leur donner. C'est comme ça "
+"qu'on doit se comporter."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So imagine what it would be like if recipes were packaged inside black "
+"boxes. You couldn't see what ingredients they're using, let alone change "
+"them, and imagine if you made a copy for a friend, they would call you a "
+"pirate and try to put you in prison for years. That world would create "
+"tremendous outrage from all the people who are used to sharing recipes. But "
+"that is exactly what the world of proprietary software is like. A world in "
+"which common decency towards other people is prohibited or prevented."
+msgstr ""
+"Alors imaginez que les recettes soient enfermées dans des boîtes noires. "
+"Vous ne pourriez pas savoir les ingrédients qu'elles utilisent, encore moins
"
+"les changer. Et imaginez, si vous faisiez une copie pour un ami, qu'on vous "
+"traite de pirate et qu'on essaie de vous mettre en prison pour des années. "
+"Ce serait un énorme tollé de la part de tous ceux qui sont habitués à "
+"partager des recettes de cuisine. Mais c'est exactement ce qui se passe dans "
+"le monde du logiciel privateur<a id=\"TransNote1-rev\" href="
+"\"#TransNote1\"><sup>1</sup></a> â un monde dans lequel on empêche et on "
+"interdit un comportement correct envers les autres personnes."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, why did I notice this? I noticed this because I had the good fortune in "
+"the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who shared software. "
+"Now, this community could trace its ancestry essentially back to the "
+"beginning of computing. In the 1970's, though, it was a bit rare for there "
+"to be a community where people shared software. And, in fact, this was sort "
+"of an extreme case, because in the lab where I worked, the entire operating "
+"system was software developed by the people in our community, and we'd share "
+"any of it with anybody. Anybody was welcome to come and take a look, and "
+"take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do. There were no copyright "
+"notices on these programs. Cooperation was our way of life. And we were "
+"secure in that way of life. We didn't fight for it. We didn't have to "
+"fight for it. We just lived that way. And, as far as we knew, we would "
+"just keep on living that way. So there was free software, but there was no "
+"free software movement."
+msgstr ""
+"Maintenant, pourquoi ai-je remarqué cela ? Je l'ai remarqué parce que j'ai
"
+"eu la bonne fortune dans les années 70 de faire partie d'une communauté "
+"d'informaticiens qui partageaient les logiciels. On pourrait faire remonter "
+"ses racines aux origines de l'informatique, mais dans les années 70 c'était
"
+"plutôt rare de trouver une communauté où les gens partageaient du
logiciel. "
+"En fait c'était en quelque sorte un cas extrême parce que, dans le "
+"laboratoire où je travaillais, l'ensemble du système d'exploitation avait "
+"été développé par les gens de cette communauté et nous le partagions
avec "
+"n'importe qui. Tout un chacun était invité à venir y jeter un Åil et Ã
en "
+"emporter une copie pour faire ce qu'il voulait avec. Il n'y avait pas d'avis "
+"de copyright sur ces programmes. Et rien ne semblait menacer ce mode de vie. "
+"Ce n'était pas le résultat d'une lutte, c'est comme ça que nous vivions. "
+"Nous pensions que cela continuerait. Il y avait du logiciel libre mais pas "
+"de mouvement du logiciel libre."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that happened "
+"to it. Ultimately it was wiped out. Ultimately, the PDP-10 computer which "
+"we used for all our work was discontinued. And you know, our system — "
+"the Incompatible Timesharing System — was written starting in the "
+"'60's, so it was written in assembler language. That's what you used to "
+"write an operating system in the '60's. So, of course, assembler language "
+"is for one particular computer architecture; if that gets discontinued, all "
+"your work turns into dust — it's useless. And that's what happened to "
+"us. The 20 years or so of work of our community turned into dust."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais ensuite notre communauté a été détruite par une série de
calamités. à "
+"la fin elle fut balayée. L'ordinateur PDP-10 que nous utilisions pour tout "
+"notre travail fut abandonné. Notre système d'exploitation, le « système
à "
+"temps partagé incompatible » <cite>[Incompatible Timesharing
System]</cite>, "
+"écrit à partir des années 60, était en langage assembleur. C'est ce qu'on
"
+"utilisait pour écrire les systèmes d'exploitation dans les années 60. "
+"Naturellement, le langage assembleur est spécifique à un type particulier "
+"d'architecture d'ordinateur ; si elle devient obsolète, tout le travail "
+"tombe en poussière. Et c'est ce qui nous est arrivé. Les presque 20 ans de "
+"travail de notre communauté sont tombés en poussière."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me, helped me "
+"see what to do, helped prepare me to see what to do when this happened, "
+"because at certain point, Xerox gave the Artificial Intelligence Lab, where "
+"I worked, a laser printer, and this was a really handsome gift, because it "
+"was the first time anybody outside Xerox had a laser printer. It was very "
+"fast, printed a page a second, very fine in many respects, but it was "
+"unreliable, because it was really a high-speed office copier that had been "
+"modified into a printer. And, you know, copiers jam, but there's somebody "
+"there to fix them. The printer jammed and nobody saw. So it stayed jammed "
+"for a long time."
+msgstr ""
+"Pourtant, avant que cela n'arrive, une expérience m'a préparé et m'a aidé
à "
+"voir ce qu'il fallait faire. Un jour, Xerox a donné au Laboratoire "
+"d'intelligence artificielle, où je travaillais, une imprimante laser ; "
+"c'était un beau cadeau car c'était la première fois qu'en dehors de Xerox "
+"quelqu'un possédait une imprimante laser. Elle était très rapide, une page
à "
+"la seconde, excellente à bien des égards, mais elle n'était pas fiable
parce "
+"qu'en fait c'était un copieur rapide de bureau qui avait été modifié pour
"
+"devenir une imprimante. Vous savez, les copieurs font du bourrage de papier "
+"mais il y a sur place quelqu'un pour les débloquer. L'imprimante bourrait "
+"mais personne ne le remarquait aussi restait-t-elle hors service pendant "
+"longtemps."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Well, we had an idea for how to deal with this problem. Change it so that "
+"whenever the printer gets a jam, the machine that runs the printer can tell "
+"our timesharing machine, and tell the users who are waiting for printouts, "
+"or something like that, you know, tell them, go fix the printer. Because if "
+"they only knew it was jammed, of course, if you're waiting for a printout "
+"and you know that the printer is jammed, you don't want to sit and wait "
+"forever, you're going to go fix it."
+msgstr ""
+"Nous avions bien une idée pour résoudre ce problème : faire en sorte qu'Ã
"
+"chaque bourrage elle avertisse notre machine en temps partagé et les "
+"utilisateurs qui attendaient une sortie d'imprimante. Car bien sûr, si vous "
+"attendez une sortie d'imprimante et que vous savez qu'elle est en panne, "
+"vous n'allez pas rester assis pour l'éternité, vous irez la débloquer."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But at that point, we were completely stymied, because the software that ran "
+"that printer was not free software. It had come with the printer, and it "
+"was just a binary. We couldn't have the source code; Xerox wouldn't let us "
+"have the source code. So, despite our skill as programmers — after "
+"all, we had written our own timesharing system — we were completely "
+"helpless to add this feature to the printer software."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais à ce stade, nous étions dans une impasse totale du fait que le pilote "
+"de l'imprimante n'était pas un logiciel libre. Il était livré avec mais "
+"c'était un programme binaire. Nous n'avions pas le code source. Xerox ne "
+"nous avait pas autorisés à l'avoir. Si bien que malgré nos talents "
+"d'informaticiens (nous avions écrit notre propre système d'exploitation en "
+"temps partagé) nous étions complètement démunis pour ajouter cette
fonction "
+"au pilote d'imprimante."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And we just had to suffer with waiting. It would take an hour or two to get "
+"your printout because the machine would be jammed most of the time. And "
+"only once in a while — you'd wait an hour figuring “I know it's "
+"going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and go collect my printout,” and "
+"then you'd see that it had been jammed the whole time, and in fact, nobody "
+"else had fixed it. So you'd fix it and you'd go wait another half hour. "
+"Then, you'd come back, and you'd see it jammed again — before it got "
+"to your output. It would print three minutes and be jammed thirty minutes. "
+"Frustration up the whazzoo. But the thing that made it worse was knowing "
+"that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his own selfishness, was "
+"blocking us, obstructing us from improving the software. So, of course, we "
+"felt some resentment."
+msgstr ""
+"Nous pouvions seulement prendre notre mal en patience ; cela vous prenait "
+"une ou deux heures pour avoir votre impression car la machine était bloquée
"
+"la plupart du temps. De temps à autre vous attendiez une heure en vous "
+"disant : « Je sais que ça va planter, je vais attendre une heure et aller
"
+"chercher mon texte. » Et alors vous vous aperceviez que la machine était "
+"restée bloquée pendant tout ce temps-là et que personne d'autre ne l'avait
"
+"remise en état. Alors vous faisiez le nécessaire et attendiez une
demi-heure "
+"de plus. Ensuite vous reveniez et vous voyiez qu'elle s'était bloquée de "
+"nouveau â avant même de commencer votre impression. Elle imprimait trois "
+"minutes et se bloquait pendant 30 minutes. Frustration jusque là  ! Le pire "
+"était de savoir que nous aurions pu la réparer mais que quelqu'un, par pur "
+"égoÃsme, nous mettait des bâtons dans les roues en nous empêchant "
+"d'améliorer son programme. D'où notre ressentiment, évidemment…"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a copy of "
+"that software. So I was visiting there later, so I went to his office and I "
+"said, “Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of the printer source "
+"code?” And he said “No, I promised not to give you a copy."
+"” <i>[Laughter]</i> I was stunned. I was so — I was angry, and "
+"I had no idea how I could do justice to it. All I could think of was to "
+"turn around on my heel and walk out of his room. Maybe I slammed the door. "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> And I thought about it later on, because I realized that I "
+"was seeing not just an isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was "
+"important and affected a lot of people."
+msgstr ""
+"Et alors j'ai entendu dire que quelqu'un avait une copie de ce programme à "
+"l'université Carnegie-Mellon. En visite là -bas un peu plus tard, je me
rends "
+"à son bureau et je dis : « Salut, je suis du MIT, pourrais-je avoir une "
+"copie du code source de l'imprimante ? » Et il répond : « Non, j'ai
promis "
+"de ne pas vous donner de copie » <i>[rires]</i>. J'étais soufflé.
J'étais "
+"si… J'étais tellement en colère ! Je ne savais pas quoi faire pour "
+"réparer cette injustice. Tout ce qui m'est venu à l'esprit, c'est de
tourner "
+"les talons et sortir de son bureau. Peut-être que j'ai claqué la "
+"porte… <i>[rires]</i> Et j'y ai repensé plus tard parce que j'ai "
+"réalisé que je n'étais pas simplement en face d'un fait isolé mais d'un "
+"phénomène de société qui était important et affectait beaucoup de gens."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"This was — for me — I was lucky, I only got a taste of it, but "
+"other people had to live in this all the time. So I thought about it at "
+"length. See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with us — his "
+"colleagues at MIT. He had betrayed us. But he didn't just do it to us. "
+"Chances are he did it to you too. <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> "
+"And I think, mostly likely, he did it to you too. <i>[Pointing at another "
+"member of audience.] [Laughter]</i> And he probably did it to you as well. "
+"<i>[Pointing to third member of audience.]</i> He probably did it to most of "
+"the people here in this room — except a few, maybe, who weren't born "
+"yet in 1980. Because he had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about "
+"the entire population of the Planet Earth. He had signed a non-disclosure "
+"agreement."
+msgstr ""
+"Pour moi par chance, ce n'était qu'un échantillon, mais d'autres gens "
+"étaient obligés de vivre avec ça tout le temps. Et j'y ai repensé plus "
+"longuement. Vous voyez, il avait promis de refuser de coopérer avec nous, "
+"ses collègues du MIT. Il nous avait trahis. Mais il ne l'avait pas fait qu'Ã
"
+"nous. Il y a des chances qu'il vous l'ait fait à vous aussi <i>[pointant du "
+"doigt un auditeur]</i>. Et je pense, probablement à vous aussi <i>[pointant "
+"du doigt un autre auditeur â rires]</i> et à vous aussi <i>[pointant du "
+"doigt un troisième auditeur]</i>. Et certainement à une bonne partie de
ceux "
+"qui sont dans cette salle, à l'exception de quelques-uns, peut-être, qui "
+"n'étaient pas encore nés en 1980. Il avait promis de ne pas coopérer avec "
+"l'ensemble de la population de la planète Terre, ou presque. Il avait signé
"
+"un accord de non-divulgation."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, "
+"and it taught me an important lesson — a lesson that's important "
+"because most programmers never learn it. You see, this was my first "
+"encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was the victim. I, and my "
+"whole lab, were the victims. And the lesson it taught me was that non-"
+"disclosure agreements have victims. They're not innocent. They're not "
+"harmless. Most programmers first encounter a non-disclosure agreement when "
+"they're invited to sign one. And there's always some temptation — "
+"some goody they're going to get if they sign. So, they make up excuses. "
+"They say, “Well, he's never going to get a copy no matter what, so why "
+"shouldn't I join the conspiracy to deprive him?” They say, “This "
+"is the way it's always done. Who am I to go against it?” They say, "
+"“If I don't sign this, someone else will.” Various excuses to "
+"gag their consciences."
+msgstr ""
+"C'était ma première confrontation avec un accord de non-divulgation et cela
"
+"m'a appris une importante leçon, une leçon qui est importante parce que la "
+"plupart des programmeurs ne l'apprennent jamais. Vous voyez, c'était ma "
+"première rencontre avec un accord de non-divulgation et j'en étais victime.
"
+"Moi et tout mon laboratoire, nous en étions victimes. Et la leçon que j'ai "
+"apprise c'est que les accords de non-divulgation font des victimes. Ils ne "
+"sont pas innocents, ils ne sont pas inoffensifs. La plupart des programmeurs "
+"rencontrent un accord de non-divulgation lorsqu'ils sont invités à en
signer "
+"un et il y a toujours une sorte de tentation, un bonus qu'ils auront s'ils "
+"signent. Alors ils s'inventent des excuses. Ils disent : « De toute
façon, "
+"il n'aura pas de copie, alors pourquoi ne rejoindrais-je pas la conspiration "
+"pour l'en priver ? » Ils disent : « Ãa se fait toujours comme ça, qui
suis-"
+"je pour m'y opposer ? » Ils disent : « Si je ne signe pas, quelqu'un
d'autre "
+"le fera. » Diverses excuses pour tromper leur conscience."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But when somebody invited me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, my "
+"conscience was already sensitized. It remembered how angry I had been, when "
+"somebody promised not to help me and my whole lab solve our problem. And I "
+"couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to somebody else who had "
+"never done me any harm. You know, if somebody asked me to promise not to "
+"share some useful information with a hated enemy, I would have said yes. "
+"You know? If somebody's done something bad, he deserves it. But, strangers "
+"— they haven't done me any harm. How could they deserve that kind of "
+"mistreatment? You can't let yourself start treating just anybody and "
+"everybody badly. Then you become a predator on society. So I said, “"
+"Thank you very much for offering me this nice software package. But I can't "
+"accept it in good conscience, on the conditions you are demanding, so I will "
+"do without it. Thank you so much.” And so, I have never knowingly "
+"signed a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful technical information "
+"such as software."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais quand on m'a invité à signer un accord de non-divulgation, ma "
+"conscience était déjà en éveil. Elle se rappelait comme j'étais en
colère "
+"lorsque quelqu'un avait promis de ne pas m'aider, moi et mon labo, Ã "
+"résoudre notre problème. Je ne pouvais pas retourner ma veste et faire la "
+"même chose à quelqu'un qui ne m'avait fait aucun mal. Vous savez, si "
+"quelqu'un me demandait de promettre de ne pas partager une information utile "
+"avec un ennemi détesté je le ferais. Si quelqu'un a fait quelque chose de "
+"mal il le mérite. Mais des étrangers… Ils ne m'ont fait aucun mal. "
+"Comment pourraient-ils mériter un mauvais traitement de ce genre ? On ne "
+"peut pas se permettre de mal se comporter avec tout un chacun, sinon on "
+"devient un prédateur de la société. Alors j'ai dit : « Merci de
m'offrir ce "
+"beau logiciel, mais je ne peux l'accepter en bonne conscience aux conditions "
+"que vous exigez, donc je vais m'en passer. Merci beaucoup. » Ainsi, je n'ai
"
+"jamais consciemment signé d'accord de non-divulgation pour de l'information "
+"technique utile comme un programme."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now there are other kinds of information which raise different ethical "
+"issues. For instance, there's personal information. You know, if you "
+"wanted to talk with me about what was happening between you and your "
+"boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody — you know, I could "
+"keep — I could agree to keep that a secret for you, because that's not "
+"generally useful technical information. At least, it's probably not "
+"generally useful. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Cela dit, il y a des informations d'autre nature qui posent d'autres "
+"problèmes éthiques. Par exemple, il y a les informations personnelles. Vous
"
+"savez, si vous voulez me parler de ce qui se passe entre vous et votre petit "
+"ami et que vous me demandez de n'en parler à personne, je peux accepter de "
+"garder le secret pour vous, parce que ce n'est pas une information technique "
+"d'utilité générale. En fait, ce n'est probablement pas d'utilité
générale <i>"
+"[rires]</i>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"There is a small chance — and it's a possibility though — that "
+"you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex technique, <i>[Laughter]</i> "
+"and I would then feel a moral duty <i>[Laughter]</i> to pass it onto the "
+"rest of humanity, so that everyone could get the benefit of it. So, I'd "
+"have to put a proviso in that promise, you know? If it's just details about "
+"who wants this, and who's angry at whom, and things like that — soap "
+"opera — that I can keep private for you, but something that humanity "
+"could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't withhold. You see, the "
+"purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information for "
+"humanity to help people live their lives better. If we promise to withhold "
+"that information — if we keep it secret — then we are betraying "
+"the mission of our field. And this, I decided I shouldn't do."
+msgstr ""
+"Il y a une petite chance, c'est possible, que vous puissiez me révéler une "
+"merveilleuse nouvelle technique sexuelle <i>[rires]</i> et je me sentirais "
+"moralement obligé <i>[rires]</i> de la révéler au reste de l'humanité
pour "
+"que chacun puisse en profiter. Donc je devrais mettre une condition à ma "
+"promesse. Si ce sont juste des détails sur qui veut ceci et qui est en "
+"colère contre untel, des choses comme ça, du feuilleton télé, cela je
peux "
+"le garder confidentiel… Mais une connaissance dont l'humanité "
+"tirerait un énorme bénéfice, je ne dois pas la garder pour moi. Vous
voyez, "
+"le but de la science et de la technologie est de produire de l'information "
+"utile pour l'humanité qui aidera les gens à vivre une vie meilleure. Si
nous "
+"promettons de cacher cette information, si nous la gardons secrète, nous "
+"trahissons la mission de notre discipline. Et ceci, j'ai décidé de ne pas
le "
+"faire."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, meanwhile my community had collapsed, and that was collapsing, and that "
+"left me in a bad situation. You see, the whole Incompatible Timesharing "
+"System was obsolete, because the PDP-10 was obsolete, and so there was no "
+"way that I could continue working as an operating system developer the way "
+"that I had been doing it. That depended on being part of the community "
+"using the community software and improving it. That no longer was a "
+"possibility, and that gave me a moral dilemma. What was I going to do? "
+"Because the most obvious possibility meant to go against that decision I had "
+"made. The most obvious possibility was to adapt myself to the change in the "
+"world. To accept that things were different, and that I'd just have to give "
+"up those principles and start signing non-disclosure agreements for "
+"proprietary operating systems, and most likely writing proprietary software "
+"as well. But I realized that that way I could have fun coding, and I could "
+"make money — especially if I did it other than at MIT — but at "
+"the end, I'd have to look back at my career and say, “I've spent my "
+"life building walls to divide people,” and I would have been ashamed "
+"of my life."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais en attendant, ma communauté s'était effondrée et c'était terrible ;
"
+"cela me mettait en mauvaise posture. Vous voyez, le système à temps
partagé "
+"incompatible était obsolète parce que le PDP-10 était obsolète. Donc je
ne "
+"pouvais plus travailler en tant que développeur de systèmes d'exploitation "
+"comme je l'avais fait. C'était conditionné à mon appartenance à la "
+"communauté qui utilisait ce logiciel pour l'améliorer. Cela n'était plus "
+"possible et cela m'amena à un dilemme moral. Qu'allais-je faire ? Parce que
"
+"la possibilité la plus évidente impliquait de faire le contraire de ce que "
+"j'avais décidé. La possibilité la plus évidente était de m'adapter au "
+"changement du monde ; accepter le fait que les choses étaient différentes,
"
+"que je n'avais qu'à abandonner ces principes et commencer à signer des "
+"accords de non-divulgation pour des systèmes d'exploitation privateurs, et "
+"probablement écrire des logiciels privateurs à mon tour. Mais j'ai
réalisé "
+"que, même si de cette façon j'avais un moyen de m'amuser à coder et de "
+"gagner de l'argent en même temps, surtout si je faisais ça ailleurs qu'au "
+"MIT, à la fin j'aurais dû me retourner sur ma carrière et dire : « J'ai
"
+"passé ma vie à construire des murs pour diviser les gens. » Et j'aurais
eu "
+"honte de ma vie."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So I looked for another alternative, and there was an obvious one. I could "
+"leave the software field and do something else. Now I had no other special "
+"noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a waiter. <i>[Laughter]"
+"</i> Not at a fancy restaurant; they wouldn't hire me, <i>[Laughter]</i> but "
+"I could be a waiter somewhere. And many programmers, they say to me, “"
+"The people who hire programmers demand this, this and this. If I don't do "
+"those things, I'll starve.” It's literally the word they use. Well, "
+"you know, as a waiter, you're not going to starve. <i>[Laughter]</i> So, "
+"really, they're in no danger. But — and this is important, you see "
+"— because sometimes you can justify doing something that hurts other "
+"people by saying otherwise something worse is going to happen to me. You "
+"know, if you were <em>really</em> going to starve, you'd be justified in "
+"writing proprietary software. <i>[Laughter]</i> If somebody's pointing a "
+"gun at you, then I would say, it's forgivable. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, I had "
+"found a way that I could survive without doing something unethical, so that "
+"excuse was not available. So I realized, though, that being a waiter would "
+"be no fun for me, and it would be wasting my skills as an operating system "
+"developer. It would avoid misusing my skills. Developing proprietary "
+"software would be misusing my skills. Encouraging other people to live in "
+"the world of proprietary software would be misusing my skills. So it's "
+"better to waste them than misuse them, but it's still not really good."
+msgstr ""
+"Alors j'ai cherché une alternative, et il y en avait une évidente : je "
+"pouvais quitter l'informatique et faire autre chose. Je n'avais aucun autre "
+"talent remarquable mais je suis sûr que j'aurais pu être serveur
<i>[rires]</"
+"i>. Pas dans un restaurant chic, ils n'auraient pas voulu de moi <i>[rires]</"
+"i>, mais j'aurais pu être serveur quelque part. De nombreux programmeurs me "
+"disent : « Les employeurs exigent ceci, cela, si je ne le fais pas je "
+"mourrai de faim. » C'est le mot exact qu'ils utilisent. Bon, comme serveur "
+"je ne risquais pas de mourir de faim <i>[rires]</i>. En réalité, les "
+"programmeurs ne courent aucun danger. Et c'est important voyez-vous, car "
+"vous pouvez quelquefois vous justifier de faire quelque chose qui blesse "
+"autrui en disant « sinon quelque chose de pire va m'arriver ». Si vous
êtes "
+"<em>vraiment</em> sur le point de crever de faim, vous pouvez vous justifier "
+"d'écrire du logiciel privateur <i>[rires]</i> ; et si quelqu'un vous menace
"
+"d'une arme je dirais même que c'est pardonnable <i>[rires]</i>. Mais j'avais
"
+"trouvé une façon de survivre sans enfreindre mon éthique, aussi cette
excuse "
+"était-elle irrecevable. Cependant, je réalisais qu'être serveur ne serait "
+"pas drôle pour moi et que ce serait gâcher mes talents de programmeur. Je "
+"devais éviter de mal utiliser mes talents. Ãcrire des logiciels privateurs "
+"aurait été mal utiliser mes talents. Encourager les autres à vivre dans un
"
+"monde de logiciels privateurs aurait signifié mal utiliser mes talents. "
+"Aussi valait-il mieux les gâcher que les utiliser à mauvais escient, mais
ce "
+"n'était toujours pas la bonne solution."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So for those reasons, I decided to look for some other alternative. What "
+"can an operating system developer do that would actually improve the "
+"situation, make the world a better place? And I realized that an operating "
+"system developer was exactly what was needed. The problem, the dilemma, "
+"existed for me and for everyone else because all of the available operating "
+"systems for modern computers were proprietary. The free operating systems "
+"were for old, obsolete computers, right? So for the modern computers — "
+"if you wanted to get a modern computer and use it, you were forced into a "
+"proprietary operating system. So if an operating system developer wrote "
+"another operating system, and then said, “Everybody come and share "
+"this; you're welcome to this” — that would give everybody a way "
+"out of the dilemma, another alternative. So I realized that there was "
+"something I could do that would solve the problem. I had just the right "
+"skills to be able to do it. And it was the most useful thing I could "
+"possibly imagine that I'd be able to do with my life. And it was a problem "
+"that no one else was trying to solve. It was just sort of sitting there, "
+"getting worse, and nobody was there but me. So I felt, “I'm elected. "
+"I have to work on this. If not me, who?” So I decided I would develop "
+"a free operating system, or die trying … of old age, of course. <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"C'est pourquoi j'ai cherché une autre possibilité. Que pouvait faire un "
+"développeur de systèmes d'exploitation pour améliorer la situation, pour "
+"rendre le monde meilleur ? J'ai réalisé qu'un développeur de systèmes "
+"d'exploitation, c'était exactement ce qu'il fallait. Comme tous les autres, "
+"j'étais placé devant un problème, un dilemme, parce que tous les systèmes
"
+"d'exploitation disponibles pour les ordinateurs modernes étaient privateurs.
"
+"Les systèmes d'exploitation libres étaient pour de vieux ordinateurs "
+"obsolètes, n'est-ce pas ? Si vous vouliez un ordinateur moderne, vous
étiez "
+"obligé d'adopter un système d'exploitation privateur. Cependant, si un "
+"développeur écrivait un autre système d'exploitation et disait « Venez
tous "
+"partager ceci, vous êtes les bienvenus », cela permettrait à chacun de "
+"sortir du dilemme, cela offrirait une alternative. Je me suis alors rendu "
+"compte que je pouvais faire quelque chose qui résoudrait le problème. "
+"J'avais les talents requis, c'était la chose la plus utile que je puisse "
+"faire de ma vie et c'était un problème que personne d'autre n'essayait de "
+"résoudre. J'étais assis là , de plus en plus mal dans ma peau, et j'étais "
+"seul. Alors un sentiment m'a envahi : « Je suis élu. C'est là -dessus que
je "
+"dois travailler. Si ce n'est pas moi, qui d'autre ? » J'ai donc décidé
de "
+"développer un système d'exploitation libre ou de mourir… de "
+"vieillesse, bien sûr <i>[rires]</i>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, of course I had to decide what kind of operating system it should be. "
+"There are some technical design decisions to be made. I decided to make the "
+"system compatible with Unix for a number of reasons. First of all, I had "
+"just seen one operating system that I really loved become obsolete because "
+"it was written for one particular kind of computer. I didn't want that to "
+"happen again. We needed to have a portable system. Well, Unix was a "
+"portable system. So if I followed the design of Unix, I had a pretty good "
+"chance that I could make a system that would also be portable and workable. "
+"And furthermore, why <i>[Tape unclear]</i> be compatible with it in the "
+"details. The reason is, users hate incompatible changes. If I had just "
+"designed the system in my favorite way — which I would have loved "
+"doing, I'm sure — I would have produced something that was "
+"incompatible. You know, the details would be different. So, if I wrote the "
+"system, then the users would have said to me, “Well, this is very "
+"nice, but it's incompatible. It will be too much work to switch. We can't "
+"afford that much trouble just to use your system instead of Unix, so we'll "
+"stay with Unix,” they would have said."
+msgstr ""
+"Il fallait évidemment décider quelle sorte de système d'exploitation ce "
+"serait, faire quelques choix techniques. J'ai décidé de rendre le système "
+"compatible avec Unix pour plusieurs raisons. La principale, c'est que je "
+"venais de voir un système que j'adorais devenir obsolète parce qu'il était
"
+"écrit pour un type particulier d'ordinateur et je ne voulais pas que cela se
"
+"reproduise. Nous avions besoin d'un système portable. Si je suivais le "
+"schéma d'Unix, j'avais toute chance de faire un système portable et "
+"utilisable. Mieux, [les deux systèmes devaient être] compatibles dans les "
+"moindres détails. Les utilisateurs détestent en effet les changements "
+"incompatibles. Si j'avais conçu le système de la façon que je préfère
â ce "
+"que j'aurais adoré, j'en suis sûr â j'aurais produit quelque chose "
+"d'incompatible. Les détails auraient été différents. Donc, si j'avais
conçu "
+"le système ainsi les gens m'auraient dit : « Bon, c'est très joli mais
c'est "
+"incompatible. Ãa nous demandera trop de travail de changer. Nous ne pouvons "
+"nous permettre tant d'efforts pour utiliser votre système à la place
d'Unix, "
+"alors nous garderons Unix. » Voilà ce qu'ils auraient dit."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, if I wanted to actually create a community where there would be people "
+"in it, people using this free system, and enjoying the benefits of liberty "
+"and cooperation, I had to make a system people would use, a system that they "
+"would find easy to switch to, that would not have an obstacle making it fail "
+"at the very beginning. Now, making the system upward compatible with Unix "
+"actually made all the immediate design decisions, because Unix consists of "
+"many pieces, and they communicate through interfaces that are more or less "
+"documented. So if you want to be compatible with Unix, you have to replace "
+"each piece, one by one, with a compatible piece. So the remaining design "
+"decisions are inside one piece, and they could be made later by whoever "
+"decides to write that piece. They didn't have to be made at the outset."
+msgstr ""
+"Si je voulais créer une communauté où il y aurait des gens, des gens "
+"utilisant ce nouveau système et bénéficiant de la liberté et de la "
+"coopération, je devais faire un système que les gens utiliseraient, qu'ils "
+"trouveraient facile à adopter, qui ne serait pas en échec dès le départ. "
+"Rendre ce système rétrocompatible avec Unix revenait en fait à prendre les
"
+"premières décisions concernant la conception du projet, parce qu'Unix "
+"consiste en de nombreux morceaux et qu'ils communiquent à travers des "
+"interfaces plus ou moins documentées. Alors si vous voulez être compatible "
+"avec Unix, il vous faut remplacer chaque morceau, l'un après l'autre, par un
"
+"morceau compatible. Les décisions concernant la suite sont contenues dans "
+"chacun des morceaux. Elles peuvent donc être prises plus tard par quiconque "
+"décidera de l'écrire. Elles n'ont pas à être prises dès le départ."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So all we had to do to start work was find a name for the system. Now, we "
+"hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program, because "
+"thinking of people being amused by the name is half the fun of writing the "
+"program. <i>[Laughter]</i> And we had a tradition of recursive acronyms, to "
+"say that the program that you're writing is similar to some existing "
+"program. You can give it a recursive acronym name which says: this one's not "
+"the other. So, for instance, there were many Tico text editors in the '60's "
+"and '70's, and they were generally called something-or-other Tico. Then one "
+"clever hacker called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico — the first "
+"recursive acronym. In 1975, I developed the first Emacs text editor, and "
+"there were many imitations of Emacs, and a lot of them were called something-"
+"or-other Emacs, but one was called Fine, for Fine Is Not Emacs, and there "
+"was Sine, for Sine Is Not Emacs, and Eine for Ina Is Not Emacs, and MINCE "
+"for Mince Is Not Complete Emacs. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was a stripped down "
+"imitation. And then, Eine was almost completely rewritten, and the new "
+"version was called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Tout ce que nous avions à faire pour commencer le travail était de trouver "
+"un nom pour le système. Nous, les hackers, cherchons toujours des noms "
+"drôles ou méchants pour un programme, parce que penser aux gens qui "
+"s'amusent du nom, c'est la moitié du plaisir de l'écriture <i>[rires].</i> "
+"Nous avions aussi une tradition d'acronymes récursifs consistant à dire que
"
+"le programme créé est similaire à un programme existant. On peut lui
donner "
+"un nom récursif disant que celui-ci n'est pas celui-là . Par exemple, il y "
+"avait beaucoup d'éditeurs de texte <acronym title=\"Text Editor and
COrrector"
+"\">TECO</acronym> dans les années 60 et 70 et ils étaient généralement "
+"appelés « quelque-chose-TECO ». à cette époque, un hacker malin appela
le "
+"sien TINT, pour <cite>Tint Is Not Teco</cite>, le premier acronyme récursif.
"
+"En 1975, j'ai développé le premier éditeur de texte Emacs et il y eut de "
+"nombreuses imitations. Beaucoup s'appelaient quelque-chose-Emacs, mais l'une "
+"d'elles était nommée FINE<a id=\"TransNote2-rev\" href="
+"\"#TransNote2\"><sup>2</sup></a> pour <cite>Fine is not Emacs</cite>. Puis "
+"il y eut SINE pour <cite>Sine is not Emacs</cite>, et EINE pour <cite>Eine "
+"Is Not Emacs</cite>, et il eut MINCE pour <cite>Mince Is Not Complete Emacs</"
+"cite> <i>[rires]</i>, c'était une imitation incomplète. Ensuite EINE fut "
+"complètement réécrit et la nouvelle version s'appela ZWEI pour <cite>Zwei "
+"Was Eine Initially</cite><a id=\"TransNote3-rev\" href="
+"\"#TransNote3\"><sup>3</sup></a> <i>[rires]</i>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So I looked for a recursive acronym for Something is not Unix. And I tried "
+"all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word. <i>[Laughter]</"
+"i> Hmm, try another way. I made a contraction. That way I could have a "
+"three-letter acronym, for Something's not Unix. And I tried letters, and I "
+"came across the word “GNU” — the word “GNU” is "
+"the funniest word in the English language. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was it. "
+"Of course, the reason it's funny is that according to the dictionary, it's "
+"pronounced “new”. You see? And so that's why people use it for "
+"a lot of wordplay. Let me tell you, this is the name of an animal that "
+"lives in Africa. And the African pronunciation had a click sound in it. <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i> Maybe still does. And so, the European colonists, when they "
+"got there, they didn't bother learning to say this click sound. So they "
+"just left it out, and they wrote a “G” which meant “"
+"there's another sound that's supposed to be here which we are not "
+"pronouncing.” <i>[Laughter]</i> So, tonight I'm leaving for South "
+"Africa, and I have begged them, I hope they're going to find somebody who "
+"can teach me to pronounce click sounds, <i>[Laughter]</i> so that I'll know "
+"how to pronounce GNU the correct way, when it's the animal."
+msgstr ""
+"J'ai donc cherché un acronyme récursif pour <cite>Something is not Unix</"
+"cite> (quelque chose n'est pas Unix). J'ai essayé les 26 lettres mais aucune
"
+"ne donnait un mot <i>[rires]</i>. Hum, essayons autre chose. J'ai fait une "
+"contraction. De cette façon, je pouvais avoir un acronyme de trois lettres "
+"pour <cite>Something's Not Unix</cite>. J'ai essayé des lettres et suis "
+"arrivé au mot <cite>GNU</cite> (gnou). C'est le plus drôle de la langue "
+"anglaise <i>[rires]</i>. C'était ça ! Bien sûr, la raison de cette
drôlerie "
+"vient du fait que, selon le dictionnaire, il doit se prononcer <cite>new</"
+"cite>.<a id=\"TransNote4-rev\" href=\"#TransNote4\"><sup>4</sup></a> Vous "
+"voyez ? C'est pourquoi les gens l'utilisent pour de nombreux jeux de mots. "
+"Laissez-moi vous dire que c'est le nom d'un animal d'Afrique. Et la "
+"prononciation africaine a un clic à l'intérieur <i>[rires]</i>. Les "
+"colonisateurs européens, quand ils arrivèrent là -bas, n'ont pas pris la "
+"peine d'apprendre à prononcer le clic. Alors ils l'ont laissé de côté et
ont "
+"mis un <em>g</em> qui signifiait : « Il y a un autre son qui est censé
être "
+"là mais que nous ne prononçons pas. » <i>[rires]</i> Ce soir, je pars
pour "
+"l'Afrique du Sud et je leur ai demandé de me trouver quelqu'un qui puisse "
+"m'apprendre à prononcer les clics <i>[rires]</i>. Ainsi je saurai prononcer "
+"correctement <cite>GNU</cite> quand il s'agit de l'animal."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is “"
+"guh-NEW” — pronounce the hard “G”. If you talk "
+"about the “new” operating system, you'll get people very "
+"confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years now, so it is not "
+"new any more. <i>[Laughter]</i> But it still is, and always will be, GNU "
+"— no matter how many people call it Linux by mistake. <i>[Laughter]</"
+"i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Mais en ce qui concerne le nom de notre système la prononciation correcte "
+"est Gueu-nou, prononcez le <em>g</em> dur. Si vous parlez du <cite>new "
+"operating system</cite><a id=\"TransNote5-rev\" href=\"#TransNote5\"><sup>5</"
+"sup></a>, vous embrouillez l'esprit des gens, parce que cela fait 17Â ans que
"
+"nous travaillons dessus et qu'il n'est plus du tout <cite>new</cite>Â ! Mais "
+"il est toujours et sera toujours GNUÂ ; peu importe le nombre de gens qui "
+"l'appellent Linux par erreur <i>[rires]</i>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces of GNU. "
+"They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities though. And, at "
+"the time, I thought we would write all these pieces, and make an entire GNU "
+"system, and then we'd say, “Come and get it”, and people would "
+"start to use it. That's not what happened. The first pieces I wrote were "
+"just equally good replacements, with fewer bugs for some pieces of Unix, but "
+"they weren't tremendously exciting. Nobody particularly wanted to get them "
+"and install them. But then, in September 1984, I started writing GNU Emacs, "
+"which was my second implementation of Emacs, and by early 1985, it was "
+"working. I could use it for all my editing, which was a big relief, because "
+"I had no intention of learning to use VI, the Unix editor. <i>[Laughter]</i> "
+"So, until that time, I did my editing on some other machine, and saved the "
+"files through the network, so that I could test them. But when GNU Emacs "
+"was running well enough for me to use it, it was also — other people "
+"wanted to use it too."
+msgstr ""
+"Ainsi en janvier 84, je quitte mon job au MIT pour commencer à écrire des "
+"morceaux de GNU. Tout de même, ils ont été assez sympa pour me laisser "
+"utiliser leurs installations. à cette époque, je croyais que j'écrirais
tous "
+"les morceaux du système GNU complet, que je dirais « Venez vous servir !Â
» "
+"et que les gens commenceraient à l'utiliser. Ce n'est pas comme ça que ça "
+"s'est passé. Les premiers morceaux que j'ai écrits étaient tout aussi bons
"
+"que les originaux, avec moins de bogues, mais ils n'étaient pas terriblement
"
+"excitants. Personne ne souhaitait particulièrement se les procurer pour les "
+"installer. Mais en septembre 84, j'ai commencé à écrire GNU Emacs, qui
était "
+"ma seconde implémentation d'Emacs, et début 85 il fonctionnait. Je pouvais
"
+"l'utiliser pour mon travail d'édition, ce qui était un soulagement car je "
+"n'avais aucune intention d'utiliser VI, l'éditeur d'Unix <i>[rires]</i>. "
+"Avant cela, je faisais ce travail sur une autre machine et je sauvegardais "
+"les fichiers sur le réseau pour pouvoir les tester. Mais quand GNU Emacs a "
+"fonctionné assez bien pour que je puisse l'utiliser, d'autres personnes ont "
+"voulu l'utiliser également."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So I had to work out the details of distribution. Of course, I put a copy "
+"in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people who were on the "
+"net They could then just pull over a tar file, but a lot of programmers then "
+"even were not on the net in 1985. They were sending me emails saying “"
+"How can I get a copy?” I had to decide what I would answer them. "
+"Well, I could have said, I want to spend my time writing more GNU software, "
+"not writing tapes, so please find a friend who's on the internet and who is "
+"willing to download it and put it on a tape for you. And I'm sure people "
+"would have found some friends, sooner or later, you know. They would have "
+"got copies. But I had no job. In fact, I've never had a job since quitting "
+"MIT in January 1984. So, I was looking for some way I could make money "
+"through my work on free software, and therefore I started a free software "
+"business. I announced, “Send me $150 dollars, and I'll mail you a "
+"tape of Emacs.” And the orders began dribbling in. By the middle of "
+"the year they were trickling in."
+msgstr ""
+"J'ai dû travailler les détails de la distribution. Naturellement, j'ai mis "
+"une copie sur le FTP anonyme et c'était bien pour les gens qui étaient sur "
+"le net (ils pouvaient télécharger un fichier tar) mais beaucoup de "
+"programmeurs n'étaient pas sur le net en 85. Ils m'envoyaient des "
+"courriels : « Puis-je en avoir une copie ? » Je devais décider quoi
leur "
+"répondre. J'aurais pu dire : « Je veux passer mon temps à écrire
d'autres "
+"logiciels GNU plutôt qu'à enregistrer des bandes ; trouvez-vous un ami
avec "
+"un accès au net qui vous le téléchargera et vous l'enregistrera sur
bande. » "
+"Et je suis sûr que les gens auraient trouvé ces amis tôt ou tard, vous "
+"savez. Ils auraient eu des copies. Mais, je n'avais pas de travail. En fait, "
+"je n'ai eu aucune profession depuis mon départ du MIT en 84. Je cherchais "
+"une façon de gagner de l'argent par mon travail sur le logiciel libre et "
+"donc j'ai fondé une entreprise de logiciel libre. J'ai annoncé : «Â
Envoyez-"
+"moi 150 dollars et je vous posterai une bande d'Emacs. » Les commandes ont
"
+"commencé à tomber et vers le milieu de l'année il en pleuvait
régulièrement."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month. And, if necessary, I could have lived "
+"on just that, because I've always lived cheaply. I live like a student, "
+"basically. And I like that, because it means that money is not telling me "
+"what to do. I can do what I think is important for me to do. It freed me "
+"to do what seemed worth doing. So make a real effort to avoid getting "
+"sucked into all the expensive lifestyle habits of typical Americans. "
+"Because if you do that, then people with the money will dictate what you do "
+"with your life. You won't be able to do what's really important to you."
+msgstr ""
+"Je recevais 8 Ã 10 commandes par mois. J'aurais pu au besoin en vivre, parce
"
+"que j'ai toujours vécu simplement. En gros, je vis comme un étudiant. Et "
+"j'aime ça car cela signifie que l'argent ne me dicte pas ce que je dois "
+"faire ; je peux faire ce qui me paraît important. Cela m'a libéré pour
faire "
+"ce qui semble en valoir la peine. Alors faites un effort pour éviter d'être
"
+"englués dans les habitudes dispendieuses de l'<cite>American way of life</"
+"cite>, parce qu'autrement ceux qui possèdent l'argent vous dicteront quoi "
+"faire de votre vie et vous ne pourrez pas faire ce qui est réellement "
+"important pour vous."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, “What do you mean it's "
+"free software if it costs $150 dollars?” <i>[Laughter]</i> Well, the "
+"reason they asked this was that they were confused by the multiple meanings "
+"of the English word “free”. One meaning refers to price, and "
+"another meaning refers to freedom. When I speak of free software, I'm "
+"referring to freedom, not price. So think of free speech, not free beer. "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many years of my life to "
+"making sure programmers got less money. That's not my goal. I'm a "
+"programmer and I don't mind getting money myself. I won't dedicate my whole "
+"life to getting it, but I don't mind getting it. And I'm not — and "
+"therefore, ethics is the same for everyone. I'm not against some other "
+"programmer getting money either. I don't want prices to be low. That's not "
+"the issue at all. The issue is freedom. Freedom for everyone who's using "
+"software, whether that person be a programmer or not."
+msgstr ""
+"Tout allait bien, mais les gens me disaient : « Qu'entendez vous par "
+"<cite>free software</cite> si cela coûte 150 dollars ? » <i>[rires]</i>
La "
+"raison de cette question était la confusion induite par l'ambiguïté du mot
"
+"anglais <cite>free</cite>. Une des significations se réfère au prix et une "
+"autre se réfère à la liberté. Quand je parle de logiciel libre, je me
réfère "
+"à la liberté et non au prix. Pensez à « libre expression » <cite>[free
"
+"speech]</cite>, pas à « bière gratuite » <cite>[free beer]</cite><a id="
+"\"TransNote6-rev\" href=\"#TransNote6\"><sup>6</sup></a> <i>[rires]</i>. En "
+"tout cas je n'aurais pas passé autant d'années de ma vie pour faire gagner "
+"moins d'argent aux programmeurs. Ce n'est pas mon but. Je suis moi-même "
+"programmeur et je ne m'offusque pas de gagner de l'argent. Je ne passerais "
+"pas ma vie à en gagner mais je ne refuse pas d'en gagner. Et je ne suis pas
â"
+" l'éthique est la même pour tous â je ne suis pas contre le fait qu'un
autre "
+"programmeur en gagne. Je ne veux pas faire baisser les prix, ce n'est pas du "
+"tout le problème. L'enjeu, c'est la liberté, la liberté de chaque personne
"
+"qui utilise un logiciel, qu'elle sache programmer ou non."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So at this point I should give you the definition of free software. I "
+"better get to some real details, you see, because just saying “I "
+"believe in freedom” is vacuous. There's so many different freedoms "
+"you could believe in, and they conflict with each other, so the real "
+"political question is: Which are the important freedoms, the freedoms that "
+"we must make sure everybody has?"
+msgstr ""
+"à ce stade je dois vous donner une définition de ce qu'est le logiciel "
+"libre. Je préfère aller au concret car dire simplement « Je crois en la "
+"liberté » est vide de sens. Il y a tant de libertés différentes en "
+"lesquelles croire, et qui sont en conflit l'une avec l'autre, que la vraie "
+"question politique est : « Quelles sont les libertés importantes, celles "
+"dont on doit s'assurer que tout le monde les possède ? »"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And now, I will give my answer to that question for the particular area of "
+"using software. A program is free software for you, a particular user, if "
+"you have the following freedoms:"
+msgstr ""
+"Maintenant je vais vous donner ma réponse dans ce domaine particulier qu'est
"
+"l'usage du logiciel. Un programme est libre pour vous, utilisateur "
+"particulier, si vous bénéficiez des libertés suivantes :"
+
+#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
+msgid ""
+"First, Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the program for any purpose, any "
+"way you like."
+msgstr ""
+"d'abord, la liberté 0 : la liberté d'utiliser un logiciel pour n'importe "
+"quel usage, à votre convenance ;"
+
+#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the program to suit "
+"your needs."
+msgstr ""
+"la liberté 1 : la liberté de vous aider vous-même en modifiant le
programme "
+"pour répondre à vos besoins ;"
+
+#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing copies of "
+"the program."
+msgstr ""
+"la liberté 2 : celle d'aider votre prochain en distribuant des copies du "
+"programme ;"
+
+#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
+msgid ""
+"And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by publishing "
+"an improved version so others can get the benefit of your work."
+msgstr ""
+"et la liberté 3 : celle d'aider à bâtir votre communauté en publiant
une "
+"version améliorée pour que les autres puissent bénéficier de votre
travail."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software, for you "
+"— and that's crucial. That's why I phrase it that way. I'll explain "
+"why later, when I talk about the GNU General Public License, but right now "
+"I'm explaining what free software means, which is a more basic question."
+msgstr ""
+"Si vous avez toutes ces libertés, le programme est un logiciel libre…
"
+"<em>pour vous</em>, et c'est crucial, c'est pourquoi je le formule de cette "
+"façon. J'expliquerai pourquoi plus tard quand je parlerai de la licence "
+"publique générale GNU, mais pour le moment j'en suis à une question plus "
+"basique, la définition du logiciel libre."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, Freedom Zero's pretty obvious. If you're not even allowed to run the "
+"program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive program. But as it "
+"happens, most programs will at least give you Freedom Zero. And Freedom "
+"Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of Freedoms One, Two, and Three "
+"— that's the way that copyright law works. So the freedoms that "
+"distinguish free software from typical software are Freedoms One, Two, and "
+"Three, so I'll say more about them and why they are important."
+msgstr ""
+"La liberté 0 est assez évidente. Si vous n'êtes même pas autorisé Ã
faire "
+"fonctionner le programme comme vous le souhaitez, c'est un programme "
+"sacrément restrictif ! La plupart des programmes vous donnent la libertéÂ
0 "
+"et la liberté 0 découle, juridiquement, des libertés 1, 2 et 3 ; c'est
de "
+"cette façon que fonctionne le droit du copyright. Ainsi les libertés qui "
+"distinguent le logiciel libre du logiciel ordinaire sont les libertés 1, 2 "
+"et 3 ; je vais donc en parler plus en détail et je dirai en quoi elles
sont "
+"importantes."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the software to suit "
+"your needs. This could mean fixing bugs. It could mean adding new "
+"features. It could mean porting it to a different computer system. It "
+"could mean translating all the error messages into Navajo. Any change you "
+"want to make, you should be free to make."
+msgstr ""
+"La liberté 1 est celle de modifier le logiciel pour l'adapter à vos
besoins. "
+"Cela peut signifier corriger des bogues. Cela peut signifier ajouter de "
+"nouvelles fonctionnalités. Cela peut signifier porter le logiciel sur un "
+"autre système informatique. Cela peut signifier traduire tous les messages "
+"d'erreur en navajo. Vous devez pouvoir apporter toutes les modifications que "
+"vous voulez, librement."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, it's obvious that professional programmers can make use of this freedom "
+"very effectively, but not just them. Anybody of reasonable intelligence can "
+"learn a little programming. You know, there are hard jobs, and there are "
+"easy jobs, and most people are not going to learn enough to do hard jobs. "
+"But lots of people can learn enough to do easy jobs, just the way, you know, "
+"50 years ago, lots and lots of American men learned to repair cars, which is "
+"what enabled the U.S. to have a motorized army in World War II and win. So, "
+"very important, having lots of people tinkering."
+msgstr ""
+"Il est évident que les programmeurs professionnels peuvent utiliser cette "
+"liberté de façon très effective, mais ils ne sont pas les seuls. N'importe
"
+"quelle personne d'intelligence normale peut apprendre un peu de "
+"programmation. Vous savez, il y a des travaux difficiles et des travaux "
+"faciles. Tout le monde n'apprend pas suffisamment pour faire les travaux "
+"difficiles, mais beaucoup peuvent apprendre assez pour faire des travaux "
+"faciles, de la même façon qu'il y a 50 ans, beaucoup, vraiment beaucoup "
+"d'Américains apprenaient à réparer une voiture, ce qui a permis aux
Ãtats-"
+"Unis d'avoir une armée motorisée pendant la seconde guerre mondiale et de "
+"gagner. Alors, chose très importante, avoir beaucoup de bricoleurs."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And if you are a people person, and you really don't want to learn "
+"technology at all, that probably means that you have a lot of friends, and "
+"you're good at getting them to owe you favors. <i>[Laughter]</i> Some of "
+"them are probably programmers. So you can ask one of your programmer "
+"friends. “Would you please change this for me? Add this feature?"
+"” So, lots of people can benefit from it."
+msgstr ""
+"Et si vous refusez d'apprendre la technologie, cela veut dire que vous avez "
+"probablement beaucoup d'amis et que vous êtes doué dans l'art de les
obliger "
+"Ã vous rendre service <i>[rires]</i>. Certains d'entre eux sont probablement
"
+"informaticiens. Alors vous pouvez demander à l'un de vos amis "
+"informaticiens : « Pourrais-tu changer ceci pour moi ? Ajouter cette "
+"fonction ? » Beaucoup de gens peuvent donc bénéficier de la liberté 1."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, if you don't have this freedom, it causes practical, material harm to "
+"society. It makes you a prisoner of your software. I explained what that "
+"was like with regard to the laser printer. You know, it worked badly for "
+"us, and we couldn't fix it, because we were prisoners of our software."
+msgstr ""
+"Si vous n'avez pas cette liberté, cela cause un préjudice pratique,
matériel "
+"à la société ; cela fait de vous un prisonnier de votre logiciel. J'ai "
+"expliqué comment c'était dans le cas de l'imprimante laser. Vous savez,
elle "
+"marchait mal et nous ne pouvions la réparer parce que nous étions "
+"prisonniers de notre logiciel."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But it also affects people's morale. You know if the computer is constantly "
+"frustrating to use, and people are using it, their lives are going to be "
+"frustrating, and if they're using it in their jobs, their jobs are going to "
+"be frustrating; they're going to hate their jobs. And you know, people "
+"protect themselves from frustration by deciding not to care. So you end up "
+"with people whose attitude is, “Well, I showed up for work today. "
+"That's all I have to do. If I can't make progress, that's not my problem; "
+"that's the boss's problem.” And when this happens, it's bad for those "
+"people, and it's bad for society as a whole. That's Freedom One, the "
+"freedom to help yourself."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais cela affecte aussi le moral des gens. Si l'ordinateur est constamment "
+"frustrant et qu'ils l'utilisent, leur vies vont devenir frustrantes. Et "
+"s'ils l'utilisent dans leur métier, leur métier va devenir frustrant ; ils
"
+"vont détester leur métier. Vous savez, les gens se protègent de la "
+"frustration en décidant de s'en moquer. Ils en arrivent à dire : « Bon,
j'ai "
+"fait acte de présence au boulot, c'est tout ce que j'ai à faire. Si je ne "
+"peux pas progresser ce n'est pas mon affaire, c'est l'affaire du patron. » "
+"Et quand ça arrive, c'est mauvais pour eux et c'est mauvais pour la
société "
+"toute entière. C'est la liberté 1, la liberté de s'aider soi-même."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing copies of "
+"the program. Now, for beings that can think and learn, sharing useful "
+"knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship. When these beings use "
+"computers, this act of friendship takes the form of sharing software. "
+"Friends share with each other. Friends help each other. This is the nature "
+"of friendship. And, in fact, this spirit of goodwill — the spirit of "
+"helping your neighbor, voluntarily — is society's most important "
+"resource. It makes the difference between a livable society and a dog-eat-"
+"dog jungle. Its importance has been recognized by the world's major "
+"religions for thousands of years, and they explicitly try to encourage this "
+"attitude."
+msgstr ""
+"La liberté 2 est celle d'aider votre prochain en distribuant des copies du "
+"programme. Pour des êtres qui pensent et qui s'instruisent, partager un "
+"savoir utile est un acte fondamental d'amitié. Quand ces êtres utilisent
des "
+"ordinateurs, cet acte d'amitié prend la forme d'un partage de logiciel. Les "
+"amis partagent entre eux, les amis s'aident mutuellement. C'est la nature de "
+"l'amitié. Et de fait, l'esprit d'entraide â la disposition à vouloir
aider "
+"son prochain volontairement â est la ressource la plus importante de la "
+"société. Elle fait la différence entre une société vivable et une jungle
où "
+"chacun s'entredévore. Cette importance a été reconnue par les grandes "
+"religions du monde depuis des milliers d'années et elles essaient "
+"explicitement d'encourager cette attitude."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach us this "
+"attitude — the spirit of sharing — by having us do it. They "
+"figured if we did it, we'd learn. So they said, “If you bring candy "
+"to school, you can't keep it all for yourself; you have to share some with "
+"the other kids.” Teaching us, the society was set up to teach, this "
+"spirit of cooperation. And why do you have to do that? Because people are "
+"not totally cooperative. That's one part of human nature, and there are "
+"other parts of human nature. There are lots of parts of human nature. So, "
+"if you want a better society, you've got to work to encourage the spirit of "
+"sharing. You know, it'll never get to be 100%. That's understandable. "
+"People have to take care of themselves too. But if we make it somewhat "
+"bigger, we're all better off."
+msgstr ""
+"Quand j'allais à la maternelle, les institutrices essayaient de nous "
+"apprendre cette attitude, l'esprit de partage, en nous la faisant pratiquer. "
+"Elles pensaient qu'on apprend en faisant. Alors elles disaient : « Si tu "
+"apportes des bonbons à l'école, tu ne peux pas tout garder pour toi, tu
dois "
+"les partager avec les autres enfants. » En nous éduquant, la société a
fait "
+"en sorte de nous apprendre cet esprit de coopération. Et pourquoi faut-il "
+"faire cela ? Parce que les gens ne sont pas totalement coopératifs. C'est
un "
+"aspect de la nature humaine mais il y en a d'autres. Il y en a beaucoup. "
+"Alors, si vous voulez une société meilleure, vous devez travailler à "
+"encourager l'esprit de partage. Vous savez, ce ne sera jamais à 100%. Ãa se
"
+"comprend, les gens doivent aussi prendre soin d'eux-mêmes. Mais si nous le "
+"rendons plus fort, nous nous en porterons tous mieux."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Nowadays, according to the U.S. Government, teachers are supposed to do the "
+"exact opposite. “Oh, Johnny, you brought software to school. Well, "
+"don't share it. Oh no. Sharing is wrong. Sharing means you're a pirate."
+"”"
+msgstr ""
+"De nos jours, selon le gouvernement des Ãtats-Unis, les enseignants sont "
+"censés faire exactement le contraire. « Oh Johnny, tu as apporté un "
+"programme à l'école ! Eh bien, ne le partage pas. Oh non ! Le partage
c'est "
+"mal ; le partage, ça veut dire que tu es un pirate. »"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"What do they mean when they say “pirate”? They're saying that "
+"helping your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship. <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Qu'entendent-ils par le mot « pirate » ? Qu'aider son voisin est "
+"l'équivalent moral d'une attaque de bateau <i>[rires]</i>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"What would Buddha or Jesus say about that? Now, take your favorite religious "
+"leader. I don't know, maybe Manson would have said something different. <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i> Who knows what L. Ron Hubbard would say? But …"
+msgstr ""
+"Que diraient Jésus et Bouddha à ce sujet ? Prenez vos chefs religieux "
+"favoris. Je ne sais pas, peut-être Manson aurait dit quelque chose de "
+"différent <i>[rires]</i>. Qui sait ce que L. Ron Hubbard aurait dit, "
+"mais…"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i>"
+msgstr "<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : <i>[inaudible]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Of course, he's dead. But they don't admit "
+"that. What?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Bien sûr, il est mort. Mais il ne l'admettent "
+"pas. Quoi ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: So are the others, also dead. <i>[Laughter] "
+"[Inaudible]</i> Charles Manson's also dead. <i>[Laughter]</i> They're dead, "
+"Jesus's dead, Buddha's dead…"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Les autres aussi sont morts.. <i>[rires]</i>. "
+"Charles Manson aussi est mort <i>[rires]</i>. Ils sont morts, Jésus est "
+"mort, Bouddha est mort…"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, that's true. <i>[Laughter]</i> So I guess, "
+"in that regard, L. Ron Hubbard is no worse than the others. <i>[Laughter]</"
+"i> Anyway — <i>[Inaudible]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Oui, c'est vrai <i>[rires]</i>. De ce point de "
+"vue Ron Hubbard n'est pas pire que les autres <i>[rires]</i>. De toute "
+"façon… <i>[inaudible]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: L. Ron always used free software — it freed "
+"him from Zanu. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : L. Ron utilisait du logiciel libre ; ça l'a "
+"libéré de Zanu <i>[rires]</i>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Anyway, so, I think this is actually the most "
+"important reason why software should be free: We can't afford to pollute "
+"society's most important resource. It's true that it's not a physical "
+"resource like clean air and clean water. It's a psycho-social resource, but "
+"it's just as real for all that, and it makes a tremendous difference to our "
+"lives. You see, the actions we take influence the thoughts of other "
+"people. When we go around telling people, “Don't share with each "
+"other”, if they listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's "
+"not a good one. That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Bon, quoi qu'il en soit, je pense que c'est "
+"vraiment la raison la plus importante pour laquelle les logiciels doivent "
+"être libres. Nous ne pouvons nous permettre de polluer la ressource la plus "
+"importante de la société. C'est vrai que ce n'est pas une ressource
physique "
+"comme l'air propre et l'eau propre. C'est une ressource psychosociale, mais "
+"c'est tout aussi réel et cela fait une formidable différence pour nos vies.
"
+"Les actions que nous menons influencent les pensées des autres. Quand nous "
+"clamons alentour « Ne partagez pas avec les autres ! », s'ils nous
entendent "
+"nous avons eu un effet sur la société, et pas un bon effet. C'est la "
+"liberté 2, celle d'aider son voisin."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just cause "
+"this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes waste — "
+"practical, material harm. If the program has an owner, and the owner "
+"arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay in order to be able "
+"to use it, some people are going to say, “Never mind, I'll do without "
+"it.” And that's waste, deliberately inflicted waste. And the "
+"interesting thing about software, of course, is that fewer users doesn't "
+"mean you have to make less stuff. You know, if fewer people buy cars, you "
+"can make fewer cars. There's a saving there. There are resources to be "
+"allocated, or not allocated, into making cars. So that you can say that "
+"having a price on a car is a good thing. It prevents people from diverting "
+"lots of wasted resources into making cars that aren't really needed. But if "
+"each additional car used no resources, it wouldn't be doing any good saving "
+"the making of these cars. Well, for physical objects, of course, like cars, "
+"it is always going to take resources to make an additional one of them, each "
+"additional exemplar."
+msgstr ""
+"Oh, j'oubliais, si vous n'avez pas cette liberté, cela ne cause pas "
+"seulement un préjudice à cette ressource psychosociale, c'est du gâchis
â un "
+"préjudice pratique, matériel. Si le programme a un propriétaire et que le "
+"propriétaire s'arrange pour que chaque utilisateur doive payer pour s'en "
+"servir, certaines personnes diront : « Pas d'importance, je m'en
passerai. » "
+"Et c'est du gâchis, du gâchis délibéré. Ce qui est intéressant avec les
"
+"logiciels c'est que ce n'est pas parce que vous avez moins d'utilisateurs "
+"que vous devez en produire moins. Si moins de gens achètent des voitures, "
+"vous fabriquerez moins de voitures. Là il y a une économie. Il y a des "
+"ressources à allouer ou non à la fabrication des voitures. Aussi vous
pouvez "
+"dire qu'avoir un prix pour une voiture est une bonne chose. Cela évite que "
+"les gens ne gaspillent leurs ressources dans l'achat de voitures dont ils "
+"n'ont pas vraiment besoin. Mais si fabriquer une voiture supplémentaire "
+"n'utilisait aucune ressource, on n'aurait aucun intérêt à économiser sur
la "
+"fabrication des voitures. Ainsi, pour les objets physiques, comme les "
+"voitures, il faudra toujours des ressources pour en faire un de plus âÂ
pour "
+"chaque exemplaire supplémentaire."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But for software that's not true. Anybody can make another copy. And it's "
+"almost trivial to do it. It takes no resources, except a tiny bit of "
+"electricity. So there's nothing we can save, no resource we're going to "
+"allocate better by putting this financial disincentive on the use of the "
+"software. You often find people taking economic, the consequences of "
+"economic reasoning, based on premises that don't apply to software, and "
+"trying to transplant them from other areas of life where the premises may "
+"apply, and the conclusions may be valid. They just take the conclusions and "
+"assume that they're valid for software too, when the argument is based on "
+"nothing, in the case of software. The premises don't work in that case. It "
+"is very important to examine how you reach the conclusion, and what premises "
+"it depends on, to see where it might be valid. So, that's Freedom Two, the "
+"freedom to help your neighbor."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais pour les logiciels ce n'est pas vrai. N'importe qui peut en faire une "
+"copie, et c'est presque banal de le faire. Cela ne consomme aucune ressource "
+"sauf un tout petit peu d'électricité. Il n'y a rien à économiser ;
aucune "
+"ressource ne serait mieux utilisée si nous appliquions cette désincitation "
+"financière à l'usage du logiciel. Vous trouvez souvent des gens qui
prennent "
+"les conséquences d'un raisonnement économique valable pour les autres "
+"activités et prétendent les transposer au logiciel â où les prémisses
de ce "
+"raisonnement ne s'appliquent pas â tout en supposant que les résultats "
+"resteront valables, bien que l'argument n'ait aucune base dans le domaine du "
+"logiciel. Les prémisses ne marchent pas dans ce cas-là . C'est très
important "
+"de voir comment on arrive à une conclusion et de quelles prémisses elle "
+"dépend pour voir si elle est valide. Donc, liberté 2, la liberté d'aider
son "
+"voisin."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by publishing an "
+"improved version of the software. People used to say to me, “If the "
+"software's free, then nobody will get paid to work on it, so why should "
+"anybody work on it?” Well, of course, they were confusing the two "
+"meanings of free, so their reasoning was based on a misunderstanding. But, "
+"in any case, that was their theory. Today, we can compare that theory with "
+"empirical fact, and we find that hundreds of people are being paid to write "
+"free software, and over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers. We get lots of "
+"people working on free software, for various different motives."
+msgstr ""
+"La liberté 3 est celle d'aider à bâtir votre communauté en publiant une "
+"version améliorée du logiciel. Au début les gens me disaient souvent :
« Si "
+"le logiciel est gratuit, personne ne sera payé, alors pourquoi "
+"travailler ? » Naturellement, ils confondaient les deux significations de "
+"<cite>free</cite>, donc leur raisonnement était basé sur un malentendu. "
+"Aujourd'hui nous pouvons comparer cette théorie avec les faits empiriques et
"
+"constater que des centaines de gens sont payés pour faire du logiciel libre "
+"et que plus de 100 000 le font bénévolement. Il y a plein de gens qui font
"
+"des logiciels libres pour différentes raisons."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"When I first released GNU Emacs — the first piece of the GNU system "
+"that people actually wanted to use — and when it started having users, "
+"after a while, I got a message saying, “I think I saw a bug in the "
+"source code, and here's a fix.” And I got another message, “"
+"Here's code to add a new feature.” And another bug fix. And another "
+"new feature. And another, and another, and another, until they were pouring "
+"in on me so fast that just making use of all this help I was getting was a "
+"big job. Microsoft doesn't have this problem. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Quand j'ai publié le premier GNU Emacs â le premier morceau de GNU que
les "
+"gens ont réellement voulu utiliser â et qu'il a commencé à avoir des "
+"utilisateurs, après un certain temps j'ai eu un message disant : « Je
pense "
+"que j'ai vu un bogue dans le code source et voici une solution. » Et j'ai
eu "
+"un autre message : « Voici du code pour ajouter une nouvelle fonction. »
Et "
+"une nouvelle correction, et une nouvelle fonction. Et une autre, et une "
+"autre, jusqu'à ce qu'elles se déversent sur moi si vite qu'utiliser toute "
+"cette aide devenait un gros travail. Microsoft n'a pas ce problème
<i>[rires]"
+"</i>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Eventually, people noted this phenomenon. You see, in the 1980's a lot of "
+"us thought that maybe free software wouldn't be as good as the non-free "
+"software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay people. And, of "
+"course, people like me, who value freedom and community said, “Well, "
+"we'll use the free software anyway.” It's worth making a little "
+"sacrifice in some mere technical convenience to have freedom. But what "
+"people began to note, around 1990 was that our software was actually "
+"better. It was more powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary "
+"alternatives."
+msgstr ""
+"En fin de compte, des gens ont remarqué ce phénomène. Vous voyez, dans les
"
+"années 80, beaucoup parmi nous pensaient que le logiciel libre ne serait "
+"peut-être pas aussi bon que le non libre parce que nous n'aurions pas assez "
+"d'argent pour payer des gens. Et bien sûr, les gens qui comme moi accordent "
+"de la valeur à la communauté et à la liberté ont dit : « Nous
utiliserons "
+"des logiciels libres tout de même. » Cela vaut le coup de faire un petit "
+"sacrifice au niveau de la simple commodité technique pour avoir la liberté.
"
+"Mais ce que les gens ont constaté vers 1990, c'est que nos logiciels
étaient "
+"en fait meilleurs, qu'ils étaient plus puissants et plus fiables que les "
+"alternatives privatrices."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific measurement of "
+"reliability of software. Here's what he did. He took several sets of "
+"comparable programs that did the same jobs — the exact same jobs "
+"— in different systems. Because there were certain basic Unix-like "
+"utilities. And the jobs that they did, we know, was all, more or less, "
+"imitating the same thing, or they were following the POSIX spec, so they "
+"were all the same in terms of what jobs they did, but they were maintained "
+"by different people, written separately. The code was different. So they "
+"said, OK, we'll take these programs and run them with random data, and "
+"measure how often they crash, or hang. So they measured it, and the most "
+"reliable set of programs was the GNU programs. All the commercial "
+"alternatives which were proprietary software were less reliable. So he "
+"published this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he did "
+"the same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same result. "
+"The GNU versions were the most reliable. People — you know there are "
+"cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system, because it's so "
+"reliable, and reliability is very important to them."
+msgstr ""
+"Au début des années 90 quelqu'un a trouvé un moyen de mesurer "
+"scientifiquement la fiabilité d'un logiciel. Voilà ce qu'il a fait. Il a "
+"pris plusieurs logiciels qui faisaient les mêmes tâches, exactement les "
+"mêmes tâches, sur différents systèmes. Parce qu'il y a certains
utilitaires "
+"de base sur tous les systèmes Unix. Et les tâches qu'ils effectuent, nous
le "
+"savons, se ressemblent beaucoup, ou bien elles suivent les spécifications "
+"POSIX. Les logiciels étaient donc tous les mêmes en termes de tâche "
+"effectuée, mais ils étaient écrits et maintenus par des gens différents,
et "
+"développés séparément ; leur code était différent. Le chercheur a
décidé "
+"d'introduire des données aléatoires dans ces programmes et de mesurer quand
"
+"ils plantaient ou se bloquaient. Il a fait les mesures, et les programmes "
+"les plus fiables étaient les programmes GNU. Toutes les alternatives "
+"privatrices étaient moins fiables. Alors il a publié ça et l'a dit à tous
"
+"les développeurs, et quelques années plus tard il a fait la même
expérience "
+"avec les dernières versions et a obtenu le même résultat : les versions
GNU "
+"étaient les plus fiables. Vous savez, il y a des cliniques pour le cancer et
"
+"des services d'urgence <cite>[911]</cite> qui utilisent le système GNU parce
"
+"qu'il est très fiable et que la fiabilité est très importante pour eux."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Anyway, there's even a group of people who focus on this particular benefit "
+"as the reason they give, the main reason they give, why users should be "
+"permitted to do these various things, and to have these freedoms. If you've "
+"been listening to me, you've noticed, you've seen that I, speaking for the "
+"free software movement, I talk about issues of ethics, and what kind of a "
+"society we want to live in, what makes for a good society, as well as "
+"practical, material benefits. They're both important. That's the free "
+"software movement."
+msgstr ""
+"Quoi qu'il en soit, il y a même un groupe de gens qui se concentrent sur cet
"
+"avantage particulier et en font la raison la plus importante pour que les "
+"utilisateurs puissent faire ces diverses choses et avoir ces libertés. Si "
+"vous m'avez écouté, vous aurez noté, vous aurez vu que lorsque je parle du
"
+"mouvement du logiciel libre, je parle d'enjeux éthiques et du type de "
+"société où nous voulons vivre, de ce qui fait une bonne société, autant
que "
+"des avantages matériels. Les deux sont importants. C'est cela le mouvement "
+"du logiciel libre."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"That other group of people — which is called the open source movement "
+"— they only cite the practical benefits. They deny that this is an "
+"issue of principle. They deny that people are entitled to the freedom to "
+"share with their neighbor and to see what the program's doing and change it "
+"if they don't like it. They say, however, that it's a useful thing to let "
+"people do that. So they go to companies and say to them, “You know, "
+"you might make more money if you let people do this.” So, what you can "
+"see is that to some extent, they lead people in a similar direction, but for "
+"totally different, for fundamentally different, philosophical reasons."
+msgstr ""
+"Cet autre groupe de gens, qui est appelé mouvement open source, ne parle que
"
+"d'avantages pratiques. Ils refusent d'en faire une question de principe. Ils "
+"ne considèrent pas comme un droit que les gens aient la liberté de partager
"
+"avec leur prochain, de voir ce que le programme fait et de le modifier s'il "
+"ne leur plaît pas. Ils disent cependant que c'est utile que les gens aient "
+"ces droits. Alors ils vont voir des entreprises et leur disent : « Vous "
+"savez, vous pourriez gagner plus d'argent si vous laissiez les gens faire "
+"tout ça. » Ainsi vous voyez que, jusqu'à un certain point, ils mènent
les "
+"gens dans la même direction, mais pour des raisons philosophiques "
+"complètement, fondamentalement différentes."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Because on the deepest issue of all, you know, on the ethical question, the "
+"two movements disagree. You know, in the free software movement we say, "
+"“You're entitled to these freedoms. People shouldn't stop you from "
+"doing these things.” In the open source movement, they say, “"
+"Yes, they can stop you if you want, but we'll try to convince them to deign "
+"to let you to do these things.” Well, they have contributed — "
+"they have convinced a certain number of businesses to release substantial "
+"pieces of software as free software in our community. So they, the open "
+"source movement, has contributed substantially to our community. And so we "
+"work together on practical projects. But, philosophically, there's a "
+"tremendous disagreement."
+msgstr ""
+"Parce que sur l'enjeu de fond, l'enjeu éthique, les deux mouvements ne sont "
+"pas d'accord. Dans le mouvement du logiciel libre on dit : « Vous avez
droit "
+"à ces libertés ; personne ne doit vous empêcher de faire ces choses. »
Dans "
+"le mouvement open source on dit : « Oui, on peut vous les interdire mais "
+"nous allons essayer de les convaincre de daigner vous les laisser faire. » "
+"D'accord, ils ont apporté leur contribution, ils ont convaincu un certain "
+"nombre d'entreprises d'apporter des logiciels importants à la communauté du
"
+"libre. Le mouvement open source a donc contribué à notre communauté de "
+"manière considérable. Nous travaillons ensemble sur des projets pratiques, "
+"mais philosophiquement il y a un désaccord énorme."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Unfortunately, the open source movement is the one that gets the support of "
+"business the most, and so most articles about our work describe it as open "
+"source, and a lot of people just innocently think that we're all part of the "
+"open source movement. So that's why I'm mentioning this distinction. I "
+"want you to be aware that the free software movement, which brought our "
+"community into existence and developed the free operating system, is still "
+"here — and that we still stand for this ethical philosophy. I want "
+"you to know about this, so that you won't mislead someone else unknowingly."
+msgstr ""
+"Malheureusement, c'est le mouvement open source qui reçoit le plus d'aide de
"
+"l'industrie. Beaucoup d'articles sur notre travail le décrivent comme open "
+"source et beaucoup de gens pensent innocemment que nous faisons tous partie "
+"du mouvement open source. C'est pour cela que je mentionne cette "
+"distinction, je veux que vous soyez conscients que le mouvement du logiciel "
+"libre, qui a amené notre communauté à l'existence et développé le
système "
+"d'exploitation libre, est toujours là , et que nous défendons toujours cette
"
+"philosophie éthique. Je tiens à ce que vous le sachiez pour éviter que
vous "
+"ne désinformiez quelqu'un d'autre sans vous en apercevoir."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "But also, so that you can think about where you stand."
+msgstr "Mais c'est aussi pour que vous puissiez vous situer."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"You know, which movement you support is up to you. You might agree with the "
+"free software movements and my views. You might agree with the open source "
+"movement. You might disagree with them both. You decide where you stand on "
+"these political issues."
+msgstr ""
+"Vous savez, c'est à vous de voir quel mouvement vous soutenez. Vous serez "
+"peut-être d'accord avec le mouvement du logiciel libre et avec mes vues. "
+"Vous serez peut-être d'accord avec le mouvement open source. Vous serez
peut-"
+"être en désaccord avec les deux. C'est à vous de décider quelle est votre
"
+"position sur ces enjeux politiques."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But if you agree with the free software movement — if you see that "
+"there's an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled and "
+"directed by this decision deserve a say in it — then I hope you'll say "
+"that you agree with the free software movement, and one way you can do that "
+"is by using the term free software and just helping people know we exist."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais si vous êtes d'accord avec le mouvement du logiciel libre â si vous "
+"voyez qu'il y a là un enjeu, que les gens dont les vies sont contrôlées et
"
+"dirigées par cette décision ont aussi leur mot à dire â alors j'espère
que "
+"vous exprimerez votre accord avec le mouvement du logiciel libre. Une façon "
+"de le faire est d'utiliser le terme « logiciel libre », ne serait-ce que "
+"pour aider les gens à savoir qu'il existe."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, Freedom Three is very important both practically and psycho-socially. "
+"If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical material harm, because "
+"this community development doesn't happen, and we don't make powerful, "
+"reliable software. But it also causes psycho-social harm, which affects the "
+"spirit of scientific cooperation — the idea that we're working "
+"together to advance human knowledge. You see, progress in science crucially "
+"depends on people being able to work together. And nowadays though, you "
+"often find each little group of scientists acting like it's a war with each "
+"other gang of scientists and engineers. And if they don't share with each "
+"other, they're all held back."
+msgstr ""
+"La liberté 3 est donc très importante pratiquement et sur le plan "
+"psychosocial. Si vous n'avez pas cette liberté, cela cause un préjudice "
+"pratique et matériel parce que la communauté ne se développe pas et que
nous "
+"ne pouvons pas faire de logiciels puissants et fiables. Mais cela cause "
+"aussi un préjudice psychosocial qui affecte l'esprit de coopération "
+"scientifique â l'idée que nous travaillons ensemble à l'avancement du
savoir "
+"humain. Vous savez, le progrès scientifique dépend de façon cruciale de la
"
+"capacité des gens à travailler ensemble. Et pourtant, même de nos jours, "
+"vous voyez souvent chaque petit groupe de scientifiques agir comme s'il "
+"était en guerre avec chacun des autres gangs de scientifiques et "
+"d'ingénieurs. Et s'ils ne partagent pas les uns avec les autres, c'est un "
+"frein pour tous."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, those are the three freedoms that distinguish free software from typical "
+"software. Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself, making changes to "
+"suit your own needs. Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by "
+"distributing copies. And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your "
+"community by making changes and publishing them for other people to use. If "
+"you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software for you. Now, "
+"why do I define it that way in terms of a particular user? Is it free "
+"software for you? <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> Is it free "
+"software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Is it "
+"free software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Yes?"
+msgstr ""
+"Nous venons de voir les trois libertés qui distinguent le logiciel libre du "
+"logiciel ordinaire. La Liberté 1 est celle de s'aider soi même, d'apporter
"
+"des changements en fonction de ses besoins propres. La liberté 2 est celle "
+"d'aider son prochain en distribuant des copies. Et la liberté 3 est la "
+"liberté d'aider à construire sa communauté en apportant des modifications
et "
+"en les publiant à l'usage des autres. Si vous avez toutes ces libertés, ce "
+"logiciel est libre pour vous. Maintenant pourquoi est-ce que je définis cela
"
+"en terme d'utilisateur particulier ? Est ce que c'est du logiciel libre pour
"
+"vous (<i>en désignant un membre du public</i>) ? Est-ce que c'est du "
+"logiciel libre pour vous (<i>en désignant un autre membre du public</i>) ?
"
+"Est-ce que c'est du logiciel libre pour vous (<i>en désignant encore un "
+"autre membre du public</i>) ? Oui ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you explain a bit about the difference "
+"between Freedom Two and Three? <i>[inaudible]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Pouvez-vous expliquer un peu la différence
entre "
+"les libertés 2 et 3 ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, they certainly relate, because if you don't "
+"have freedom to redistribute at all, you certainly don't have freedom to "
+"distribute a modified version, but they're different activities."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Eh bien, elles sont certainement liées. Parce "
+"que si vous n'avez pas la liberté de redistribuer vous avez encore moins la "
+"liberté de distribuer une version modifiée. Mais ce sont des activités "
+"différentes."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Oh."
+msgstr "<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Oh."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Freedom Two is, you know, read it, you make an "
+"exact copy, and hand it to your friends, so now your friend can use it. Or "
+"maybe you make exact copies and you sell them to a bunch of people, and then "
+"they can use it."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : La liberté 2 c'est, vous le savez, lisez-le,
que "
+"vous pouvez faire une copie exacte et la donner à vos amis de sorte que vos "
+"amis puissent l'utiliser. Ou bien vous faites des copies exactes et vous les "
+"vendez à tout un tas de gens pour qu'ils puissent les utiliser."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom Three is where you make improvements — or at least you think "
+"they're improvements, and some other people may agree with you. So that's "
+"the difference. Oh, and by the way, one crucial point. Freedoms One and "
+"Three depend on your having access to the source code. Because changing a "
+"binary-only program is extremely hard. <i>[Laughter]</i> Even trivial "
+"changes like using four digits for the date, <i>[Laughter]</i> if you don't "
+"have source. So, for compelling, practical reasons, access to the source "
+"code is a precondition, a requirement, for free software."
+msgstr ""
+"La liberté 3, c'est quand vous apportez des améliorations ou du moins
quand "
+"vous pensez que c'est des améliorations et que d'autres personnes sont "
+"d'accord avec vous. Voilà , c'est cela la différence. Oh, j'oubliais un
point "
+"essentiel. Les libertés 1 et 3 dépendent de l'accès au code source. Parce
"
+"que modifier un programme binaire c'est extrêmement difficile <i>[rires]</i>
"
+"â même des changements très insignifiants comme d'utiliser quatre
chiffres "
+"pour la date <i>[rires]</i>, si vous n'avez pas le source. Aussi pour des "
+"raisons pratiques l'accès au code source est une condition préalable, un "
+"prérequis du logiciel libre."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, why do I define it in terms of whether it's free software for <em>you</"
+"em>? The reason is that sometimes the same program can be free software for "
+"some people, and non-free for others. Now, that might seem like a "
+"paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example to show you how it "
+"happens. A very big example — maybe the biggest ever — of this "
+"problem was the X Window System which was developed at MIT and released "
+"under a license that made it free software. If you got the MIT version with "
+"the MIT license, you had Freedoms One, Two, and Three. It was free software "
+"for you. But among those who got copies were various computer manufacturers "
+"that distributed Unix systems, and they made the necessary changes in X to "
+"run on their systems. You know, probably just a few thousand lines out of "
+"the hundreds of thousands of lines of X. And, then they compiled it, and "
+"they put the binaries into their Unix system and distributed it under the "
+"same non-disclosure agreement as the rest of the Unix system. And then, "
+"millions of people got these copies. They had the X Window System, but they "
+"had none of these freedoms. It was not free software for <em>them</em>."
+msgstr ""
+"Pourquoi définir le logiciel libre comme logiciel libre <em>pour vous</em>Â
? "
+"La raison en est que le même programme peut être libre pour certaines "
+"personnes et non libres pour d'autres. Cela pourrait sembler paradoxal, mais "
+"laissez-moi vous donnez un exemple de cette situation. Un très grand "
+"exemple, peut-être le plus grand exemple de ce problème, est le système "
+"X Window qui a été développé au MIT et publié sous une licence qui en a
fait "
+"un logiciel libre. Si vous aviez la version MIT avec la licence MIT, vous "
+"aviez les libertés 1, 2 et 3. C'était du logiciel libre pour vous. Mais "
+"parmi ceux qui avaient des copies, il y avait divers fabricants "
+"d'ordinateurs qui distribuaient des systèmes Unix. Ils ont fait les "
+"changements nécessaires pour que X fonctionne sur leurs systèmes ; vous "
+"savez, probablement quelques centaines de lignes sur les centaines de "
+"milliers de lignes de X. Ensuite ils l'ont compilé, ils ont placé les "
+"binaires dans leur système Unix et ils ont distribué le tout avec la même "
+"clause de non-divulgation. Alors des milliers de gens ont eu ces copies. Ils "
+"avaient le système X Window mais aucune de ces libertés. Ce n'était pas
du "
+"logiciel libre <em>pour eux</em>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, the paradox was that whether X was free software depended on where you "
+"made the measurement. If you made the measurement coming out of the "
+"developers' group, you'd say, “I observe all these freedoms. It's "
+"free software.” If you made the measurements among the users you'd "
+"say, “Hmm, most users don't have these freedoms. It's not free "
+"software.” Well, the people who developed X didn't consider this a "
+"problem, because their goal was just popularity, ego, essentially. They "
+"wanted a big professional success. They wanted to feel, “Ah, lots of "
+"people are using our software.” And that was true. Lots of people "
+"were using their software but didn't have freedom."
+msgstr ""
+"Il y avait donc un paradoxe : qu'X soit libre ou non dépendait de l'endroit
"
+"où l'on faisait la mesure. Si vous faisiez la mesure à la sortie du groupe "
+"de développeurs, vous disiez : « J'ai observé toutes ces libertés,
c'est du "
+"logiciel libre. » Si vous faisiez la mesure parmi les utilisateurs, vous "
+"disiez : « Hum, la plupart des utilisateurs n'ont pas ces libertés, ce
n'est "
+"pas du logiciel libre. » Les gens qui développaient X n'y voyaient aucun "
+"problème car leur principal souci était essentiellement la popularité, "
+"l'ego. Ils voulaient un grand succès professionnel. Ils voulaient pouvoir se
"
+"dire : « Aah, un tas de gens utilisent nos logiciels ! » Et c'était
vrai, un "
+"tas de gens utilisaient leurs logiciels, mais ils n'avaient pas la liberté."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Well, in the GNU project, if that same thing had happened to GNU software, "
+"it would have been a failure, because our goal wasn't just to be popular; "
+"our goal was to give people liberty, and to encourage cooperation, to permit "
+"people to cooperate. Remember, never force anyone to cooperate with any "
+"other person, but make sure that everybody's allowed to cooperate, everyone "
+"has the freedom to do so, if he or she wishes. If millions of people were "
+"running non-free versions of GNU, that wouldn't be success at all. The whole "
+"thing would have been perverted into nothing like the goal."
+msgstr ""
+"Au projet GNU en revanche, ce serait un échec si la même chose arrivait Ã
un "
+"logiciel GNU, car notre but n'est pas simplement d'être populaires. Notre "
+"but est de donner aux gens la liberté, d'encourager la coopération et de "
+"permettre aux gens de coopérer. Souvenez-vous, ne forcez jamais personne à "
+"coopérer mais faites en sorte que chacun(e) ait la permission de coopérer, "
+"que chacun(e) ait la liberté de le faire si il ou elle le souhaite. Si des "
+"millions de personnes utilisaient des versions non libres de GNU, ce ne "
+"serait pas du tout un succès, l'ensemble aurait été perverti et détourné
de "
+"son but."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening. The method I came up "
+"with is called “copyleft”. It's called copyleft because it's "
+"sort of like taking copyright and flipping it over. <i>[Laughter]</i> "
+"Legally, copyleft works based on copyright. We use the existing copyright "
+"law, but we use it to achieve a very different goal. Here's what we do. We "
+"say, “This program is copyrighted.” And, of course, by default, "
+"that means it's prohibited to copy it, or distribute it, or modify it. But "
+"then we say, “You're authorized to distribute copies of this. You're "
+"authorized to modify it. You're authorized to distribute modified versions "
+"and extended versions. Change it any way you like.”"
+msgstr ""
+"J'ai donc cherché un moyen d'empêcher que cela n'arrive. La méthode que
j'ai "
+"trouvée est appelée « copyleft ». Ãa s'appelle copyleft car c'est un
peu "
+"comme prendre un copyright et le retourner <i>[rires]</i>. Juridiquement le "
+"copyleft fonctionne sur la base du copyright. Nous utilisons le droit du "
+"copyright tel qu'il existe, mais nous l'utilisons pour atteindre un but très
"
+"différent. Voici ce que nous faisons. Nous disons : « Ce programme est
sous "
+"copyright. » Et bien sûr, par défaut, cela signifie qu'il est interdit de
le "
+"copier, de le distribuer et de le modifier. Mais alors nous disons : «Â
Vous "
+"êtes autorisé à en distribuer des copies. Vous êtes autorisé à le
modifier. "
+"Vous êtes autorisé à en distribuer des copies modifiées et étendues.
Changez-"
+"le comme vous le souhaitez. »"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But there is a condition. And the condition, of course, is the reason why "
+"we go to all this trouble, so that we could put the condition in. The "
+"condition says: Whenever you distribute anything that contains any piece of "
+"this program, that whole program must be distributed under these same terms, "
+"no more and no less. So you can change the program and distribute a "
+"modified version, but when you do, the people who get that from you must get "
+"the same freedom that you got from us. And not just for the parts of it "
+"— the excerpts that you copied from our program — but also for "
+"the other parts of that program that they got from you. The whole of that "
+"program has to be free software for them."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais il y a une condition. Cette condition est évidemment la raison pour "
+"laquelle nous nous sommes donnés tout ce mal â pour pouvoir l'introduire.
"
+"Cette condition dit : « Chaque fois que vous distribuez quelque chose qui "
+"contient un morceau de ce programme, vous devez distribuer le tout aux mêmes
"
+"conditions, ni plus, ni moins. Vous pouvez donc modifier le programme et le "
+"distribuer, mais les gens qui l'auront reçu de vous bénéficieront de toute
"
+"la liberté que vous avez reçue de nous. Pas seulement pour certaines
parties "
+"de ce programme â les extraits que vous avez pris â mais aussi pour
tous les "
+"autres morceaux du programme qu'ils ont reçu de vous. L'intégralité de ce "
+"programme doit être libre pour eux. »"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become inalienable "
+"rights — a concept from the Declaration of Independence. Rights that "
+"we make sure can't be taken away from you. And, of course, the specific "
+"license that embodies the idea of copyleft is the GNU General Public "
+"License, a controversial license because it actually has the strength to say "
+"no to people who would be parasites on our community."
+msgstr ""
+"Les libertés de redistribuer et de modifier le programme deviennent des "
+"droits inaliénables â un concept hérité de la Déclaration
d'indépendance<a "
+"id=\"TransNote7-rev\" href=\"#TransNote7\"><sup>7</sup></a>Â ; des droits "
+"dont nous nous assurons qu'ils ne peuvent vous être retirés. Et bien sûr
la "
+"licence spécifique qui incarne l'idée du copyleft est la « licence
publique "
+"générale GNU » (GNU <acronym title=\"General Public License\">GPL</"
+"acronym>), une licence controversée car elle a la force de dire non à ceux "
+"qui voudraient parasiter notre communauté."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of freedom. And "
+"they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done, and use it to get a "
+"head start in distributing a non-free program and tempting people to give up "
+"their freedom. And the result would be — you know, if we let people "
+"do that — that we would be developing these free programs, and we'd "
+"constantly have to compete with improved versions of our own programs. "
+"That's no fun."
+msgstr ""
+"Il y a beaucoup de gens qui n'apprécient pas nos idéaux de liberté. Ils "
+"seraient très contents de prendre le travail que nous avons fait, d'en faire
"
+"une base pour la distribution de logiciel non libre et d'inciter les gens à "
+"abandonner leur liberté. Le résultat, si nous les laissions faire, serait "
+"que nous ne développerions des programmes libres que pour être constamment "
+"concurrencés par des versions améliorées de nos propres programmes. Ãa ne
"
+"serait pas drôle."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And, a lot of people also feel — you know, I'm willing to volunteer my "
+"time to contribute to the community, but why should I volunteer my time to "
+"contribute to that company's, to improving that company's, proprietary "
+"program? You know, some people might not even think that that's evil, but "
+"they want to get paid if they're going to do that. I, personally, would "
+"rather not do it at all."
+msgstr ""
+"Et beaucoup de gens penseraient : « Je suis volontaire pour donner de mon "
+"temps afin de contribuer à ma communauté, mais pourquoi contribuer à un "
+"programme privateur de telle ou telle société ? » Vous savez, certaines "
+"personnes ne trouvent pas ça forcément mal, mais elles veulent être "
+"rétribuées si elles le font. Moi, je préférerais ne pas le faire du tout."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But both of these groups of people — both the ones like me who say, "
+"“I don't want to help that non-free program to get a foothold in our "
+"community” and the ones that say, “Sure, I'd work for them, but "
+"then they better pay me” — both of us have a good reason to use "
+"the GNU General Public License. Because that says to that company, “"
+"You can't just take my work, and distribute it without the freedom.” "
+"Whereas, the non-copyleft licenses, like the X Windows license, do permit "
+"that."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais les deux groupes de gens â ceux qui comme moi disent « Je ne veux
pas "
+"aider un programme non libre à prendre pied dans notre communauté » et
ceux "
+"qui pensent « Je veux bien améliorer un programme non libre, mais ils ont "
+"intérêt à me payer » â ont une bonne raison d'utiliser la licence
GPL. Parce "
+"que cela dit à ces sociétés « Vous ne pouvez pas juste prendre mon
travail "
+"et le redistribuer sans la liberté », ce que permettent les licences sans "
+"copyleft comme la licence de XÂ Windows.<a id=\"TransNote8-rev\" href="
+"\"#TransNote8\"><sup>8</sup></a>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So that is the big division between the two categories of free software "
+"— license-wise. There are the programs that are copylefted so that "
+"the license defends the freedom of the software for every user. And there "
+"are the non-copylefted programs for which non-free versions are allowed. "
+"Somebody <em>can</em> take those programs and strip off the freedom. You "
+"may get that program in a non-free version."
+msgstr ""
+"C'est ça la grande distinction entre les deux catégories de logiciel libreÂ
; "
+"elle porte sur la licence. Il y a les programmes placés sous copyleft afin "
+"que la licence défende la liberté du logiciel pour chaque utilisateur, et
il "
+"y a les programmes sans copyleft, pour lesquels des versions non libres sont "
+"permises. Quelqu'un <em>a la possibilité</em> de prendre ces programmes et "
+"d'en ôter la liberté ; on peut donc les obtenir dans une version non
libre."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And that problem exists today. There are still non-free versions of X "
+"Windows being used on our free operating systems. There is even hardware "
+"— which is not really supported — except by a non-free version "
+"of X Windows. And that's a major problem in our community. Nonetheless, I "
+"wouldn't say that X Windows is a bad thing, you know. I'd say that the "
+"developers did not do the best possible thing that they could have done. "
+"But they <em>did</em> release a lot of software that we could all use."
+msgstr ""
+"Et ce problème persiste. Il existe encore des versions non libres de "
+"X Windows qui sont utilisées sur nos systèmes d'exploitation libres. Il y
a "
+"même des matériels qui ne sont gérés que par des versions non libres et "
+"c'est un problème majeur dans notre communauté. Cependant, je ne dirais pas
"
+"que X Windows soit une mauvaise chose ; je dirais que les développeurs
n'ont "
+"pas fait du mieux qu'il pouvaient, mais ils ont <em>effectivement</em> "
+"publié une grande quantité de logiciel que nous pouvons tous utiliser."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"You know, there's a big difference between less than perfect, and evil. "
+"There are many gradations of good and bad. We have to resist the temptation "
+"to say, if you didn't do the absolute best possible thing, then you're no "
+"good. You know, the people that developed X Windows made a big contribution "
+"to our community. But there's something better that they could have done. "
+"They could have copylefted parts of the program and prevented those freedom-"
+"denying versions from being distributed by others."
+msgstr ""
+"Il y a une grande différence entre imparfait et mauvais, vous savez. Il y a "
+"de nombreux degrés entre le bien et le mal. Nous devons résister à la "
+"tentation de dire : « Si vous n'avez pas fait absolument du mieux
possible, "
+"vous ne valez rien. » Les gens qui ont développé X Windows ont fait une "
+"grande contribution à notre communauté, mais ils auraient pu mieux faire. "
+"Ils auraient pu mettre des morceaux du programme sous copyleft et cela "
+"aurait empêché ces versions non libres d'être distribuées par d'autres."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, the fact that the GNU General Public License defends your freedom, uses "
+"copyright law to defend your freedom, is, of course, why Microsoft is "
+"attacking it today. See, Microsoft would really like to be able to take all "
+"the code that we wrote and put it into proprietary programs, have somebody "
+"make some improvements, or even just incompatible changes is all they need. "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Cela dit, le fait que la GPL défende votre liberté â utilise le droit du
"
+"copyright pour défendre cette liberté â est la raison pour laquelle "
+"Microsoft l'attaque aujourd'hui. Voyez, Microsoft voudrait vraiment prendre "
+"tout ce code que nous avons écrit et le mettre dans des programmes "
+"privateurs. Faire ajouter quelques améliorations ou simplement des "
+"changements incompatibles par quelqu'un, cela suffirait. <i>[rires]</i>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"You know, with Microsoft's marketing clout, they don't need to make it "
+"better to have their version supplant ours. They just have to make it "
+"different and incompatible. And then, put it on everybody's desktop. So "
+"they really don't like the GNU GPL. Because the GNU GPL won't let them do "
+"that. It doesn't allow “embrace and extend”. It says, if you "
+"want to share our code in your programs, you can. But, you've got to share "
+"and share alike. The changes that you make we have to be allowed to share. "
+"So, it's a two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation."
+msgstr ""
+"Vous savez, avec leur puissance marketing, les gens de chez Microsoft n'ont "
+"pas vraiment besoin de faire une version meilleure pour nous supplanter. Ils "
+"ont juste besoin de la rendre différente et incompatible, et ensuite de la "
+"mettre sur le bureau de tout le monde. Donc ils n'aiment pas du tout la GPL, "
+"parce que la GNU GPL ne leur permet pas de le faire. Elle n'autorise pas la "
+"stratégie de la pieuvre <cite>[embrace and extend]</cite>. Elle dit : «Â
Si "
+"vous voulez vous servir de notre code dans vos programmes, vous pouvez, mais "
+"vous devrez aussi partager, et partager à l'identique. Les changements que "
+"vous avez faits devront pouvoir être partagés. » C'est une coopération
dans "
+"les deux sens, une vraie coopération."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Many companies — even big companies like IBM and HP are willing to use "
+"our software on this basis. IBM and HP contribute substantial improvements "
+"to GNU software. And they develop other free software. But, Microsoft "
+"doesn't want to do that, so they give it out that businesses just can't deal "
+"with the GPL. Well, if businesses don't include IBM, and HP and SUN, then "
+"maybe they're right. <i>[Laughter]</i> More about that later."
+msgstr ""
+"Beaucoup d'entreprises, même de grosses sociétés comme IBM et HP, sont "
+"d'accord pour utiliser nos logiciels dans cet esprit. IBM et HP contribuent "
+"à de substantielles améliorations des logiciels GNU et développent
d'autres "
+"logiciels libres. Mais Microsoft ne veut pas de ça. Ils prétendent que le "
+"business est incompatible avec la GPL. Eh bien, si le business n'inclut pas "
+"IBM, et HP, et SUN, peut-être qu'ils ont raison <i>[rires]</i>. J'en dirai "
+"plus ultérieurement sur le sujet."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"I should finish the historical story. You see, we set out in 1984 not just "
+"to write some free software but to do something much more coherent: to "
+"develop an operating system that was entirely free software. So that meant "
+"we had to write piece after piece after piece. Of course, we were always "
+"looking for shortcuts. The job was so big that people said we'd never be "
+"able to finish. And, I thought that there was at least a chance that we'd "
+"finish it but, obviously, it's worth looking for shortcuts. So we kept "
+"looking around. Is there any program that somebody else has written that we "
+"could manage to adapt, to plug into here, and that way we won't have to "
+"write it from scratch? For instance, the X Window system. It's true it "
+"wasn't copylefted, but it was free software, so we could use it."
+msgstr ""
+"Je dois d'abord terminer l'exposé historique. En 1984 nous avons entrepris, "
+"non seulement d'écrire du logiciel libre, mais de faire quelque chose de "
+"plus cohérent : développer un système d'exploitation libre qui ne
comprenne "
+"que des logiciels libres. Cela signifiait que nous devions l'écrire morceau "
+"par morceau. Bien sûr, nous cherchions en permanence des raccourcis.
C'était "
+"un tel travail que les gens disaient que nous ne pourrions pas y arriver. Je "
+"pensais qu'il y avait tout de même une chance mais que ça valait la peine "
+"d'essayer des raccourcis. Alors nous avons continué à chercher. Y a-t-il un
"
+"programme déjà écrit que nous pouvons adapter et intégrer, de sorte qu'il
"
+"n'ait pas à être réécrit en entier ? Par exemple le système X Window.
C'est "
+"vrai qu'il n'était pas sous copyleft, mais il était libre et donc nous "
+"pouvions l'utiliser."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, I had wanted to put a window system into GNU from day one. I wrote a "
+"couple of window systems at MIT before I started GNU. And so, even though "
+"Unix had no window system in 1984, I decided that GNU would have one. But, "
+"we never ended up writing a GNU window system, because X came along. And I "
+"said, Goody! One big job we don't have to do. We'll use X. So I basically "
+"said, let's take X, and put it into the GNU system. And we'll make the "
+"other parts of GNU, you know, work with X, when appropriate. And we found "
+"other pieces of software that had been written by other people, like the "
+"text formatter TeX, some library code from Berkeley. At that time there was "
+"Berkeley Unix, but it was not free software. This library code, initially, "
+"was from a different group at Berkeley, that did research on floating "
+"point. And, so, we kept, we fit in these pieces."
+msgstr ""
+"En fait j'ai toujours voulu inclure un système de fenêtrage. J'en avais "
+"écrit deux quand j'étais au MIT, avant de commencer GNU. C'est pourquoi, "
+"bien qu'en 1984 Unix n'ait pas été doté d'un système de fenêtrage, j'ai "
+"décidé que GNU en aurait un. Mais nous n'avons jamais eu l'occasion de "
+"l'écrire car X Window est arrivé et j'ai dit : « Super ! Un gros
travail que "
+"nous n'aurons pas à faire. Utilisons X et nous ferons marcher les autres "
+"morceaux de GNU avec X le moment venu. » Nous avons aussi trouvé d'autres "
+"logiciels qui avaient été écrits par d'autres personnes, comme le
formateur "
+"de texte TeX et une bibliothèque provenant de Berkeley. En ce temps-là il y
"
+"avait l'Unix de Berkeley, mais ce n'était pas un logiciel libre. Cette "
+"bibliothèque venait d'un autre groupe de Berkeley, qui faisait des "
+"recherches sur la virgule flottante. Nous avons donc agencé ces morceaux."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"In October 1985, we founded the Free Software Foundation. So please note, "
+"the GNU project came first. The Free Software Foundation came after, about "
+"almost two years after the announcement of the Project. And the Free "
+"Software Foundation is a tax-exempt charity that raises funds to promote the "
+"freedom to share and change software. And in the 1980's, one of the main "
+"things we did with our funds was to hire people to write parts of GNU. And "
+"essential programs, such as the shell and the C library were written this "
+"way, as well as parts of other programs. The <code>tar</code> program, "
+"which is absolutely essential, although not exciting at all <i>[Laughter]</"
+"i> was written this way. I believe GNU grep was written this way. And so, "
+"we're approaching our goal."
+msgstr ""
+"En octobre 85, nous avons fondé la <cite>Free Software Foundation</cite> "
+"(Fondation pour le logiciel libre). Veuillez donc noter que le projet GNU "
+"est venu avant. La FSF est venue après, presque deux ans après l'annonce du
"
+"projet. La FSF est une fondation à but non lucratif qui lève des fonds pour
"
+"promouvoir la liberté de partager et modifier les logiciels. Dans les "
+"années 80, une des choses principales que nous avons faites avec nos fonds "
+"fut de recruter des gens pour écrire des morceaux de GNU. Des programmes "
+"essentiels comme le shell et la bibliothèque C ont été écrits comme cela,
"
+"ainsi que des parties d'autres programmes. Le programme <code>tar</code>, "
+"qui est absolument essentiel bien que pas du tout passionnant, fut écrit "
+"comme ça <i>[rires]</i>. Je crois que GNU grep a été écrit comme ça "
+"également. Si bien que nous approchions du but."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"By 1991, there was just one major piece missing, and that was the kernel. "
+"Now, why did I put off the kernel? Probably because it doesn't really matter "
+"what order you do the things in, at least technically it doesn't. You've "
+"got to do them all anyway. And partly because I'd hoped we'd be able to "
+"find a start at a kernel somewhere else. And we did. We found Mach, which "
+"had been developed at Carnegie Mellon. And it wasn't the whole kernel; it "
+"was the bottom half of the kernel. So we had to write the top half, but I "
+"figured, you know, things like the file system, the network code, and so "
+"on. But running on top of Mach they're running essentially as user "
+"programs, which ought to make them easier to debug. You can debug with a "
+"real source-level debugger running at the same time. And so, I thought that "
+"way we'd be able to get these, the higher level parts of the kernel, done in "
+"a short time. It didn't work out that way. These asynchronous, multi-"
+"threaded processes, sending messages to each other turned out to be very "
+"hard to debug. And the Mach-based system that we were using to bootstrap "
+"with had a terrible debugging environment, and it was unreliable, and "
+"various problems. It took us years and years to get the GNU kernel to work."
+msgstr ""
+"Vers 1991, il ne manquait plus qu'un morceau essentiel, le noyau. Pourquoi "
+"ai-je tardé à m'occuper du noyau ? Probablement parce que l'ordre dans "
+"lequel vous mettez les choses n'a pas d'importance, du moins techniquement. "
+"Il faut tout faire de toute façon. Et aussi parce que nous pensions trouver "
+"un début de noyau ailleurs. C'est ce qui s'est passé. Nous avons trouvé
Mach "
+"qui avait été développé à Carnegie-Mellon. Ce n'était pas le noyau
complet "
+"mais sa moitié inférieure, son socle. Il nous fallait écrire la partie "
+"supérieure, des choses comme le système de fichiers, le code réseau, etc. "
+"Fonctionnant au-dessus de Mach comme programmes utilisateur, ils étaient en "
+"principe plus faciles à déboguer. On pouvait utiliser un vrai débogueur de
"
+"code source qui s'exécutait en même temps. Je pensais qu'ainsi nous serions
"
+"capables de faire cette partie supérieure en peu de temps. Mais cela n'a pas
"
+"marché comme prévu. Ces processus asynchrones et
<cite>multi-threads</cite>, "
+"s'envoyant des messages les uns aux autres, se sont révélés très
difficiles "
+"à déboguer et le système basé sur Mach, sur lequel nous démarrions, "
+"possédait un environnement de débogage calamiteux. Il n'était pas fiable
et "
+"avait divers problèmes. Cela nous a pris des années et des années pour
faire "
+"fonctionner le noyau GNU."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, fortunately, our community did not have to wait for the GNU kernel. "
+"Because in 1991, Linus Torvalds developed another free kernel called Linux. "
+"And he used the old-fashioned monolithic design and it turns out that he got "
+"his working much faster than we got ours working. So maybe that's one of "
+"the mistakes that I made: that design decision. Anyway, at first, we didn't "
+"know about Linux, because he never contacted us to talk about it. Although "
+"he did know about the GNU Project. But he announced it to other people and "
+"other places on the net. And so other people then did the work of combining "
+"Linux with the rest of the GNU system to make a complete free operating "
+"system. Essentially, to make the GNU plus Linux combination."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais heureusement notre communauté n'a pas eu à attendre le noyau GNU,
parce "
+"qu'en 1991 Linus Torvalds développa un autre noyau libre appelé Linux. Il "
+"utilisait le vieux schéma du noyau monolithique et il se trouve qu'il "
+"réussit à le faire marcher beaucoup plus vite que nous le nôtre. C'est "
+"probablement une erreur que j'ai faite, le choix de cette architecture. De "
+"toute façon, au début on ne savait rien de Linux car il ne nous a jamais "
+"contacté pour en parler bien qu'il ait été au courant du projet GNU. Mais
il "
+"l'a annoncé à d'autres gens et à d'autres endroits sur le net. Alors "
+"d'autres gens ont fait le travail de combiner Linux avec le reste du système
"
+"GNU pour en faire un système d'exploitation libre complet ; essentiellement
"
+"pour faire la combinaison GNU plus Linux."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, they didn't realize that's what they were doing. You see, they said, "
+"We have a kernel — let's look around and see what other pieces we can "
+"find to put together with the kernel. So, they looked around — and lo "
+"and behold, everything they needed was already available. What good "
+"fortune, they said. <i>[Laughter]</i> It's all here. We can find "
+"everything we need. Let's just take all these different things and put it "
+"together, and have a system."
+msgstr ""
+"Toutefois ils l'ont fait sans s'en rendre compte. « Vous voyez, »
disaient-"
+"ils, « nous avons un noyau. Allons à la recherche de morceaux qui puissent
"
+"s'assembler avec lui. » Alors ils ont regardé partout, et surprise…
"
+"tout ce dont ils avaient besoin était disponible ! « Quelle bonne
fortune, » "
+"dirent-ils, <i>[rires]</i> « tout est là . Il y a tout ce dont nous avons "
+"besoin. Prenons simplement tous ces morceaux et mettons-les ensemble, ainsi "
+"nous aurons un système complet. »"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"They didn't know that most of what they found was pieces of the GNU system. "
+"So they didn't realize that they were fitting Linux into the gap in the GNU "
+"system. They thought they were taking Linux and making a system out of "
+"Linux. So they called it a Linux system."
+msgstr ""
+"Ils ne savaient pas que la plus grande partie de ce qu'ils trouvaient, "
+"c'était des morceaux du système GNU. Ils n'ont pas compris qu'ils
plaçaient "
+"Linux dans le dernier trou du système GNU. Ils pensaient qu'ils prenaient "
+"Linux et qu'ils en faisaient un système. Alors ils l'ont appelé «Â
système "
+"Linux »."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can't hear you — what?"
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Vous entends pas… Quoi ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, it's just not — you know, it's "
+"provincial."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Bien je crois que ce n'est pas vraiment… "
+"C'est provincial, vous savez."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: But it's more good fortune then finding X and "
+"Mach?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Mais c'est plus une bonne fortune que de trouver
"
+"X et Mach ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. The difference is that the people who "
+"developed X and Mach didn't have the goal of making a complete free "
+"operating system. We're the only ones who had that. And, it was our "
+"tremendous work that made the system exist. We actually did a larger part "
+"of the system than any other project. No coincidence, because those people "
+"— they wrote useful parts of the system. But they didn't do it "
+"because they wanted the system to be finished. They had other reasons."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Exact. La différence, c'est que les gens qui
ont "
+"développé X et Mach n'avaient pas pour but de faire un système "
+"d'exploitation libre complet. Nous étions les seuls à avoir ce but et c'est
"
+"notre travail acharné qui a fait que le système existe. Nous avons en "
+"réalité fait plus de travail que n'importe quel autre projet. Ce n'est pas "
+"une coïncidence car ces gens… ils ont écrit des parties utiles du "
+"système, mais ne l'ont pas fait parce qu'ils voulaient finir le système.
Ils "
+"avaient d'autres raisons."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now the people who developed X — they thought that designing across "
+"the network window system would be a good project, and it was. And it "
+"turned out to help us make a good free operating system. But that's not "
+"what they hoped for. They didn't even think about that. It was an "
+"accident. An accidental benefit. Now, I'm not saying that what they did "
+"was bad. They did a large free software project. That's a good thing to "
+"do. But they didn't have that ultimate vision. The GNU Project is where "
+"that vision was."
+msgstr ""
+"Les gens qui ont développé X pensaient que de mettre au point un système
de "
+"fenêtrage sur le réseau serait une bonne chose, et ça l'était. Et il se "
+"trouve que cela nous a aidé à faire un bon système d'exploitation libre. "
+"Mais ils n'y pensaient même pas ; c'était un accident, un bonus fortuit.
Je "
+"ne dis pas que ce qu'ils ont fait était mauvais, ils ont fait un grand "
+"projet libre. C'est une bonne chose, mais ils n'avaient pas la vision "
+"ultime. C'est le projet GNU qui avait cette vision."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And, so, we were the ones whose — every little piece that didn't get "
+"done by somebody else, we did it. Because we knew that we wouldn't have a "
+"complete system without it. And even if it was totally boring and "
+"unromantic, like <code>tar</code> or <code>mv</code>. <i>[Laughter]</i> We "
+"did it. Or ld, you know there's nothing very exciting in <code>ld</code> "
+"— but I wrote one. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I did make efforts to have "
+"it do a minimal amount of disk I/O so that it would be faster and handle "
+"bigger programs. But, you know, I like to do a good job. I like to improve "
+"various things about the program while I'm doing it. But the reason that I "
+"did it wasn't that I had brilliant ideas for a better <code>ld</code>. The "
+"reason I did it is that we needed one that was free. And we couldn't expect "
+"anyone else to do it. So, we had to do it, or find someone to do it."
+msgstr ""
+"Et donc, nous sommes ceux… tous les morceaux qui n'ont pas été faits
"
+"par d'autres, nous les avons faits. Sinon nous n'aurions pas eu un système "
+"complet. Même quand ils étaient parfaitement fastidieux et pas du tout "
+"romantiques comme <code>tar</code> ou <code>mv</code> <i>[rires]</i>, nous "
+"les avons fait. Ou <code>ld</code> ; vous savez, il n'y a rien de très "
+"passionnant dans <code>ld</code>, mais j'en ai fait un <i>[rires]</i>, et je "
+"me suis donné du mal pour qu'il utilise un minimum d'entrées-sorties sur "
+"disque afin qu'il soit plus rapide et qu'il gère de plus gros programmes. "
+"Vous voyez, j'aime bien faire du bon boulot, j'aime bien améliorer "
+"différentes choses du programme pendant que je le réalise. Mais la raison "
+"pour laquelle je l'ai fait n'est pas que j'avais des idées brillantes pour "
+"un meilleur <code>ld</code>. La raison était que j'avais besoin d'un "
+"<code>ld</code> qui soit libre. Et nous ne pouvions attendre de personne "
+"d'autre qu'il le fasse. Il nous fallait donc le faire ou trouver quelqu'un "
+"pour le faire."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, although at this point thousands of people in projects have contributed "
+"to this system, there is one project which is the reason that this system "
+"exists, and that's the GNU Project. It <em>is</em> basically the GNU "
+"System, with other things added since then."
+msgstr ""
+"Aussi, bien qu'à ce stade des milliers de gens impliqués dans différents "
+"projets aient contribué à ce système, il doit son existence à un seul "
+"projet, qui est le projet GNU. <em>C'est</em> fondamentalement le système "
+"GNU, avec d'autres choses ajoutées par la suite."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, however, the practice of calling the system Linux has been a great blow "
+"to the GNU Project, because we don't normally get credit for what we've "
+"done. I think Linux, the kernel, is a very useful piece of free software, "
+"and I have only good things to say about it. But, well, actually, I can "
+"find a few bad things to say about it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, basically, I "
+"have good things to say about it. However, the practice of calling the GNU "
+"system, Linux, is just a mistake. I'd like to ask you please to make the "
+"small effort necessary to call the system GNU/Linux, and that way to help us "
+"get a share of the credit."
+msgstr ""
+"Quoi qu'il en soit, le fait d'appeler ce système Linux a fait du mal au "
+"projet GNU car d'habitude nous ne sommes pas reconnus pour le travail que "
+"nous avons fait. Je pense que Linux, le noyau, est un logiciel libre très "
+"utile et je n'ai que de bonnes choses à en dire. Bon, en fait, je pourrais "
+"trouver un peu de mal à en dire <i>[rires]</i>, mais pour l'essentiel j'en "
+"dis du bien. Toutefois, appeler le système GNU « Linux » est juste une "
+"erreur. Je vous demanderai de faire le petit effort nécessaire pour appeler "
+"ce système « GNU/Linux », et de cette façon nous aider à en partager
le "
+"crédit."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You need a mascot! Get yourself a stuffed animal! "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Vous avez besoin d'une mascotte ! Trouvez-vous "
+"un animal en peluche ! <i>[rires]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have one."
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Nous en avons un."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You do?"
+msgstr "<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Ah bon ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have an animal — a gnu. <i>[Laughter]</"
+"i> Anyway. So, yes, when you draw a penguin, draw a gnu next to it. <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i> But, let's save the questions for the end. I have more to go "
+"through."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Nous avons un animal : un gnou <i>[rires]</i>. "
+"Alors, oui, lorsque vous dessinez un manchot, dessinez un gnou à côté <i>"
+"[rires]</i>. Mais gardons les questions pour la fin. Je dois encore avancer."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, why am I so concerned about this? You know, why do I think it is worth "
+"bothering you and perhaps giving you a, perhaps lowering your opinion of me, "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> to raise this issue of credit? Because, you know, some "
+"people when I do this, some people think that it's because I want my ego to "
+"be fed, right? Of course, I'm not saying — I'm not asking you to call "
+"it “Stallmanix,” right? <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Pourquoi est-ce que je me préoccupe tant de cela ? Pourquoi est-ce que je "
+"pense que cela vaut la peine de vous ennuyer et peut-être de vous donner une
"
+"piètre opinion de moi-même <i>[rires]</i> pour poser le problème de la "
+"reconnaissance ? Parce que certaines personnes, quand je parle de ça, "
+"certaines personnes pensent que je le fais pour nourrir mon ego. Bien sûr, "
+"je ne vous demande pas de l'appeler « Stallmanix », n'est ce pas ?
<i>[rires "
+"et applaudissements]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to get "
+"credit. And there's a very specific reason for that, which is a lot more "
+"important than anybody getting credit, in and of itself. You see, these "
+"days, if you look around in our community most of the people talking about "
+"it and writing about it don't ever mention GNU, and they don't ever mention "
+"these goals of freedom — these political and social ideals, either. "
+"Because the place they come from is GNU."
+msgstr ""
+"Je vous demande de l'appeler GNU parce que je veux que le projet GNU en ait "
+"le crédit. Il y a une raison très particulière, beaucoup plus importante
que "
+"le simple fait d'être reconnu. Vous voyez, de nos jours â regardez autour
de "
+"vous dans notre communauté â la plupart des gens qui en parlent ou
écrivent "
+"à son sujet ne mentionnent même pas GNU, ni ses objectifs de liberté, ni "
+"d'ailleurs ses idéaux politiques et sociétaux. Parce que c'est de GNU que "
+"tout cela provient."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"The ideas associated with Linux — the philosophy is very different. "
+"It is basically the apolitical philosophy of Linus Torvalds. So, when "
+"people think that the whole system is Linux, they tend to think: “Oh, "
+"it must have been all started by Linux Torvalds. His philosophy must be the "
+"one that we should look at carefully”. And when they hear about the "
+"GNU philosophy, they say: “Boy, this is so idealistic, this must be "
+"awfully impractical. I'm a Linux-user, not a GNU-user.” <i>[Laughter]"
+"</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Les idées associées à Linux… leur philosophie est très
différente. "
+"C'est fondamentalement la philosophie apolitique de Linus Torvalds. Ainsi "
+"quand les gens pensent que l'ensemble du système est Linux, ils tendent à "
+"penser : « Oh, c'est Linus Torvalds qui a dû mettre tout ça en route.
C'est "
+"sa philosophie que nous devons examiner attentivement. » Et quand ils "
+"entendent parler de la philosophie GNU ils disent : « Mon Dieu, que c'est "
+"idéaliste ! Cela semble bien peu réaliste. Je suis un utilisateur de
Linux, "
+"pas de GNU. » <i>[rires]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"What irony! If they only knew! If they knew that the system they liked "
+"— or, in some cases, love and go wild over — is our idealistic, "
+"political philosophy made real."
+msgstr ""
+"Quelle ironie ! Si seulement ils savaient ! S'ils savaient que le système "
+"qu'ils apprécient et dans certains cas aiment à la folie, c'est notre "
+"philosophie politique idéaliste devenue réalité."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"They still wouldn't have to agree with us. But at least they'd see a reason "
+"to take it seriously, to think about it carefully, to give it a chance. "
+"They would see how it relates to their lives. You know, if they realized, "
+"“I'm using the GNU system. Here's the GNU philosophy. This philosophy "
+"is <em>why</em> this system that I like very much exists,” they'd at "
+"least consider it with a much more open mind. It doesn't mean that "
+"everybody will agree. People think different things. That's OK. You know, "
+"people should make up their own minds. But I want this philosophy to get "
+"the benefit of the credit for the results it has achieved."
+msgstr ""
+"Ce n'est pas qu'ils devraient être d'accord avec nous, mais au moins ils "
+"verraient une raison de la prendre un peu au sérieux, de l'examiner "
+"attentivement, de lui donner une chance. Ils verraient comme c'est lié à "
+"leur vie. Vous savez, s'ils se disaient « J'utilise le système GNU, voici
la "
+"philosophie GNU, c'est <em>grâce à cette philosophie</em> que le système
que "
+"j'apprécie existe », ils la considéreraient avec un esprit beaucoup plus "
+"ouvert. Ãa ne veut pas dire que tout le monde serait d'accord. Chacun a ses "
+"idées. C'est bien, Les gens doivent se faire leur propre opinion. Mais je "
+"veux que cette philosophie soit créditée des résultats qu'elle a obtenus."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"If you look around in our community, you'll find that almost everywhere, the "
+"institutions are calling the system Linux. You know, reporters mostly call "
+"it Linux. It's not right, but they do. The companies mostly say it that "
+"package the system. Oh, and most of these reporters, when they write "
+"articles, they usually don't look at it as a political issue, or social "
+"issue. They're usually looking at it purely as a business question or what "
+"companies are going to succeed more or less, which is really a fairly minor "
+"question for society. And, if you look at the companies that package the "
+"GNU/Linux system for people to use, well, most of them call it Linux. And "
+"they <em>all</em> add non-free software to it."
+msgstr ""
+"Si vous regardez autour de vous dans notre communauté, vous verrez que "
+"presque partout les institutions appellent notre système Linux. Les "
+"journalistes l'appellent le plus souvent Linux. Ce n'est pas juste mais ils "
+"le font. Les entreprises qui mettent le système sous forme de paquets "
+"installables le font la plupart du temps. La plupart de ces journalistes, "
+"quand ils écrivent des articles, ne l'envisagent pas comme un sujet "
+"politique ni un sujet de société. Ils l'envisagent habituellement du point "
+"de vue économique ou s'intéressent au succès plus ou moins grand des "
+"entreprises, ce qui est une question mineure pour la société. Et si vous "
+"regardez les entreprises qui empaquettent le système GNU/Linux pour les "
+"utilisateurs, la plupart d'entre elles l'appellent Linux et elles y ajoutent "
+"<em>toutes</em> des logiciels non libres."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"See, the GNU GPL says that if you take code, and some code out of a GPL-"
+"covered program, and add some more code to make a bigger program, that whole "
+"program has to be released under the GPL. But you could put other separate "
+"programs on the same disk (of either kind, hard disk, or CD), and they can "
+"have other licenses. That's considered mere aggregation, and, essentially, "
+"just distributing two programs to somebody at the same time is not something "
+"we have any say over. So, in fact, it is not true — sometimes, I wish "
+"it were true — that if a company uses a GPL-covered program in a "
+"product that the whole product has to be free software. It's not — it "
+"doesn't go to that range — that scope. It's the whole program. If "
+"there are two separate programs that communicate with each other at arm's "
+"length — like by sending messages to each other — then, they're "
+"legally separate, in general. So, these companies, by adding non-free "
+"software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically and "
+"politically, a very bad idea. They're telling the users, “It is OK to "
+"use non-free software. We're even putting it on this as a bonus.”"
+msgstr ""
+"Voyez, la GNU GPL stipule que si vous prenez du code d'un programme sous GPL "
+"et que vous lui ajoutez du code pour en faire un programme plus grand, "
+"l'ensemble de ce programme devra être publié sous GPL. Mais vous pourriez "
+"mettre d'autres programmes séparés sur le même disque (soit disque dur,
soit "
+"CD) et ils pourraient être sous d'autres licences ; c'est considéré comme
"
+"une simple agrégation. Pour l'essentiel, nous n'avons rien à redire au
fait "
+"de simplement distribuer deux programmes à quelqu'un en même temps. Donc,
en "
+"fait ce n'est pas vrai â j'aimerais quelquefois que ça soit vrai â que
si "
+"une entreprise utilise un programme sous GPL dans un produit, l'ensemble du "
+"produit doive être du logiciel libre. Ãa ne va pas jusque là . Il s'agit de
"
+"l'ensemble du <em>programme</em>. S'il y a deux programmes séparés qui "
+"communiquent l'un avec l'autre à bout de bras, par exemple en s'envoyant des
"
+"messages, ils sont en général juridiquement séparés. Ainsi ces
entreprises, "
+"en ajoutant des logiciels non libres au système, donnent aux utilisateurs "
+"une très mauvaise idée, philosophiquement et politiquement. Elles disent
aux "
+"utilisateurs : « C'est bien d'utiliser des logiciels non libres. Nous les "
+"ajoutons même en prime. »"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system, most of "
+"them have a title like “Linux-something or other”. So they're "
+"calling the system Linux most of the time. And they're filled with ads for "
+"non-free software that you could run on top of the GNU/Linux system. Now "
+"those ads have a common message. They say: Non-free Software Is Good For "
+"You. It's So Good That You Might Even <em>Pay</em> To Get It. <i>[Laughter]"
+"</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Si vous regardez les magazines sur l'utilisation du système GNU/Linux, la "
+"plupart ont un titre comme « Linux ceci » ou « Linux cela ». Ainsi la
"
+"plupart du temps, ils appellent le système « Linux ». Et ils sont
remplis de "
+"publicités pour des programmes non libres que vous pouvez faire fonctionner "
+"sur le système GNU/Linux. Ces publicités ont un message commun : « Le "
+"logiciel non libre est bon pour vous, tellement bon que vous pourriez même "
+"<em>payer</em> pour l'avoir. » <i>[rires]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And they call these things “value-added packages”, which makes a "
+"statement about their values. They're saying: Value practical convenience, "
+"not freedom. And, I don't agree with those values, so I call them “"
+"freedom-subtracted packages”. <i>[Laughter]</i> Because if you have "
+"installed a free operating system, then you now are living in the free "
+"world. You enjoy the benefits of liberty that we worked for so many years "
+"to give you. Those packages give you an opportunity to buckle on a chain."
+msgstr ""
+"Ils donnent à ces choses le nom de « paquets à valeur ajoutée », ce
qui en "
+"dit long sur leurs valeurs. Ils disent : « Accordez de la valeur au côté
"
+"pratique, pas à la liberté. » Je n'adhère pas à ces valeurs, aussi je
les "
+"appelle « paquets à liberté soustraite » <i>[rires]</i>. Parce que si
vous "
+"avez installé un système d'exploitation libre, vous vivez maintenant dans
le "
+"monde du libre. Vous bénéficiez de la liberté que nous avons travaillé "
+"pendant tant d'années à vous donner. Ces paquets vous donnent l'occasion de
"
+"vous attacher à une chaîne."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And then if you look at the trade shows — about the use of the, "
+"dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call themselves "
+"“Linux” shows. And they're filled with booths exhibiting non-"
+"free software, essentially putting the seal of approval on the non-free "
+"software. So, almost everywhere you look in our community, the institutions "
+"are endorsing the non-free software, totalling negating the idea of freedom "
+"that GNU was developed for. And the only place that people are likely to "
+"come across the idea of freedom is in connection with GNU, and in connection "
+"with free software, the term, free software. So this is why I ask you: "
+"please call the system GNU/Linux. Please make people aware where the system "
+"came from and why."
+msgstr ""
+"Si vous regardez les expositions commerciales autour du système GNU/Linux, "
+"elles s'appellent toutes « Linux »-expo. Et elles sont remplies de stands
"
+"exposant des logiciels non libres, donnant le sceau de l'approbation à du "
+"logiciel non libre. Ainsi, où que vous regardiez dans notre communauté, à "
+"peu de choses près, les institutions renforcent le logiciel non libre, niant
"
+"totalement l'idée de liberté pour laquelle GNU a été développé. La
seule "
+"occasion qu'ont les gens de rencontrer l'idée de liberté est la référence
à "
+"GNU et l'utilisation du terme « logiciel libre ». C'est pourquoi je vous "
+"demande d'appeler le système « GNU/Linux ». S'il vous plaît, faites
prendre "
+"conscience aux gens de l'origine et de la raison d'être du système."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Of course, just by using that name, you won't be making an explanation of "
+"the history. You can type four extra characters and write GNU/Linux; you "
+"can say two extra syllables. But, GNU/Linux is fewer syllables than Windows "
+"2000. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, you're not telling them a lot, but you're "
+"preparing them, so that when they hear about GNU, and what it's all about, "
+"they'll see how that connects to them and their lives. And that, "
+"indirectly, makes a tremendous difference. So please help us."
+msgstr ""
+"Bien sûr, en utilisant simplement ce nom vous ne donnerez pas une "
+"explication historique. Vous pouvez taper quatre lettres supplémentaires et "
+"écrire « GNU/Linux ». Vous pouvez dire deux syllabes de plus. GNU/Linux,
"
+"c'est moins de syllabes que Windows 2000 <i>[rires]</i>. Vous n'en dites pas
"
+"vraiment beaucoup mais vous les préparez pour le jour où ils entendront "
+"parler de GNU et de ce qu'il représente. Ils verront alors comment ça se "
+"rattache à leur vie. Et cela, indirectement, fait une différence énorme. "
+"Alors s'il vous plaît, aidez-nous."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"You'll note that Microsoft called the GPL an “open source "
+"license”. They don't want people to be thinking in terms of freedom "
+"as the issue. You'll find that they invite people to think in a narrow way, "
+"as consumers, and, of course, not even think very rationally as consumers, "
+"if they're going to choose Microsoft products. But they don't want people "
+"to think as citizens or statesmen. That's inimical to them. At least it's "
+"inimical to their current business model."
+msgstr ""
+"Vous noterez que Microsoft qualifie la GPL de « licence open source ».
Ils "
+"ne veulent pas que les gens pensent en termes de liberté. Ils incitent les "
+"gens à penser étroitement, en tant que consommateurs (et en plus pas très "
+"rationnels, comme consommateurs, s'ils choisissent les produits Microsoft). "
+"Mais ils ne veulent pas que les gens pensent en tant que citoyens ou hommes "
+"d'Ãtat. Ãa leur est défavorable, du moins c'est défavorable à leur
modèle "
+"économique actuel."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, how does free software…well, I can tell you about how free "
+"software relates to our society. A secondary topic that might be of "
+"interest to some of you is how free software relates to business. Now, in "
+"fact, free software is <em>tremendously</em> useful for business. After "
+"all, most businesses in the advanced countries use software. Only a tiny "
+"fraction of them develop software."
+msgstr ""
+"Je peux vous expliquer comment le logiciel libre est lié à notre société.
Un "
+"sujet secondaire, qui pourrait intéresser certains d'entre vous, c'est son "
+"rapport à l'économie. En réalité, le logiciel libre est
<em>extrêmement</em> "
+"utile à l'économie. Après tout, la plupart des entreprises utilisent du "
+"logiciel dans les pays avancés mais seule une minuscule fraction en "
+"développe."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And free software is tremendously advantageous for any company that uses "
+"software, because it means that you're in control. Basically, free software "
+"means the users are in control of what the program does. Either "
+"individually, if they care enough to be, or, collectively, when they care "
+"enough to be. Whoever cares enough can exert some influence. If you don't "
+"care, you don't buy. Then you use what other people prefer. But, if you do "
+"care, then you have some say. With proprietary software, you have "
+"essentially no say."
+msgstr ""
+"Le logiciel libre offre un avantage considérable à toute entreprise qui "
+"utilise des logiciels car cela veut dire que c'est elle qui en a le "
+"contrôle. En gros, un logiciel est libre si l'utilisateur a le contrôle de "
+"ce que fait le programme, soit individuellement soit collectivement, Ã "
+"condition de s'y intéresser suffisamment. N'importe quelle personne qui s'y "
+"intéresse peut exercer quelque influence. Si cela ne vous intéresse pas, "
+"vous n'achetez pas, alors vous utilisez ce que d'autres préfèrent. Mais si "
+"vous vous y intéressez, alors vous avez votre mot à dire. Avec les
logiciels "
+"privateurs, pour l'essentiel, vous n'avez rien à dire. "
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"With free software, you can change what you want to change. And it doesn't "
+"matter that there are no programmers in your company; that's fine. You "
+"know, if you wanted to move the walls in your building, you don't have to be "
+"a carpentry company. You just have to be able to go find a carpenter and "
+"say, “What will you charge to do this job?” And if you want to "
+"change around the software you use, you don't have to be a programming "
+"company. You just have to go to a programming company and say, “What "
+"will you charge to implement these features? And when will you have it done?"
+"” And if they don't do the job, you can go find somebody else."
+msgstr ""
+"Avec le logiciel libre vous pouvez modifier ce que vous voulez. Et peu "
+"importe qu'il n'y ait pas de programmeur dans votre entreprise, ça marche "
+"quand même. Vous savez, si vous voulez bouger les cloisons de votre "
+"appartement, vous n'avez pas besoin d'être une entreprise de maçonnerie, "
+"vous n'avez qu'à trouver un maçon et lui demander « Combien prenez-vous
pour "
+"faire ce travail ? » Et si vous voulez changer les logiciels que vous "
+"utilisez vous n'avez pas besoin d'être une entreprise d'informatique, il "
+"vous suffit d'aller dans une entreprise d'informatique et de leur dire : "
+"« Combien demandez-vous pour mettre en Åuvre ces fonctionnalités ? Et
pour "
+"quand pouvez-vous le faire ? » Et si la réponse ne vous convient pas,
vous "
+"allez voir quelqu'un d'autre."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"There's a free market for support. So, any business that cares about "
+"support will find a tremendous advantage in free software. With proprietary "
+"software, support is a monopoly, because one company has the source code, or "
+"maybe a small number of companies that paid a gigantic amount of money have "
+"the source code, if it's Microsoft's shared source program, but, it's very "
+"few. And so, there aren't very many possible sources of support for you. "
+"And that means, that unless you're a real giant, they don't care about you. "
+"Your company is not important enough for them to care if they lose your "
+"business, or what happens. Once you're using the program, they figure "
+"you're locked in to getting the support from them, because to switch to a "
+"different program is a gigantic job. So, you end up with things like paying "
+"for the privilege of reporting a bug. <i>[Laughter]</i> And once you've "
+"paid, they tell you, “Well, OK, we've noted your bug report. And in a "
+"few months, you can buy an upgrade, and you can see if we've fixed it."
+"” <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Il y a un marché libre pour le service. Alors une entreprise qui
s'intéresse "
+"au service trouvera un avantage énorme dans le logiciel libre. Dans le "
+"logiciel privateur, le service est un monopole. Parce qu'une seule société "
+"possède le code source, ou peut-être quelques sociétés qui ont payé des "
+"sommes faramineuses, si c'est un <cite>shared source</cite> de Microsoft. "
+"Mais elles sont très peu nombreuses. Par conséquent vous n'avez pas mille "
+"prestataires de service à votre disposition. Cela veut dire, sauf si vous "
+"êtes un géant, qu'ils n'en ont rien à faire de vous. Votre entreprise
n'est "
+"pas assez importante pour qu'ils tiennent à vous avoir comme client. Une "
+"fois que vous utilisez le programme, vous êtes obligé de passer par eux
pour "
+"l'assistance, parce que migrer vers un autre logiciel est un travail énorme.
"
+"Alors vous finissez par payer pour avoir le privilège de signaler un bogue "
+"<i>[rires]</i>. Et une fois que vous avez payé ils vous disent : « OK,
nous "
+"avons noté le bogue. Dans quelques mois vous pourrez acheter une mise Ã
jour "
+"et vous verrez si nous l'avons réparé. » <i>[rires]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Support providers for free software can't get away with that. They have to "
+"please the customers. Of course, you can get a lot of good support gratis. "
+"You post your problem on the Internet. You may get an answer the next day. "
+"But that's not guaranteed, of course. If you want to be confident, you "
+"better make an arrangement with a company and pay them. And this is, of "
+"course, one of the ways that free software business works."
+msgstr ""
+"Les sociétés de service dans le logiciel libre ne peuvent pas s'en tirer "
+"comme ça. Elles doivent satisfaire les consommateurs. Bien sûr vous pouvez "
+"avoir beaucoup d'assistance gratis. Vous posez votre problème sur Internet "
+"et vous pouvez recevoir une réponse le lendemain. Mais ça n'est bien sûr
pas "
+"garanti. Si vous voulez être sûr, vous avez intérêt à conclure un accord
"
+"avec une société et à la payer. Et c'est naturellement l'une des façons
dont "
+"l'économie du logiciel libre fonctionne."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Another advantage of free software for businesses that use software is "
+"security and privacy. And this applies to individuals as well, but I "
+"brought it up in the context of businesses. You see, when a program is "
+"proprietary, you can't even tell what it really does."
+msgstr ""
+"Un des autres avantages du logiciel libre pour les entreprises, c'est la "
+"sécurité et la protection de la vie privée (cela s'applique aussi aux "
+"particuliers, mais je me suis placé dans le contexte des entreprises). Quand
"
+"un programme est privateur, vous voyez, on ne peut pas dire ce qu'il fait "
+"vraiment."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"It could have features, deliberately put in that you wouldn't like if you "
+"knew about them, like it might have a backdoor to let the developer get into "
+"your machine. It might snoop on what you do and send information back. "
+"This is not unusual. Some Microsoft software did this. But it's not only "
+"Microsoft. There are other proprietary programs that snoop on the user. "
+"And you can't even tell if it does this. And, of course, even assuming that "
+"the developer's totally honest, every programmer makes mistakes. There "
+"could be bugs that affect your security which are nobody's fault. But the "
+"point is: If it's not free software, you can't find them. And you can't fix "
+"them."
+msgstr ""
+"Il pourrait avoir des fonctionnalités, implantées délibérément, que vous
"
+"n'aimeriez pas si vous étiez au courant de leur existence. Par exemple il "
+"pourrait avoir une « porte dérobée » <cite>[backdoor]</cite> pour
laisser le "
+"développeur rentrer dans votre machine. Elle pourrait vous espionner et lui "
+"renvoyer des informations. Ce n'est pas inhabituel. Certains programmes de "
+"Microsoft le faisaient, mais pas seulement ceux de Microsoft. Il y a "
+"d'autres programmes privateurs qui espionnent l'utilisateur et vous ne "
+"pouvez même pas le savoir. Et, bien sûr, à supposer même que le
développeur "
+"soit parfaitement honnête, tout programmeur peut commettre des erreurs. Il "
+"pourrait y avoir des bogues qui affectent votre sécurité, ce qui n'est la "
+"faute de personne. Mais le point important est que si ce n'est pas du "
+"logiciel libre, vous ne pouvez pas trouver les erreurs ni les réparer."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Nobody has the time to check the source of every program he runs. You're "
+"not going to do that. But with free software there's a large community, and "
+"there are people in that community who are checking things. And you get the "
+"benefit of their checking, because if there's an accidental bug, there "
+"surely are, from time to time, in any program, they might find it and fix "
+"it. And people are much less likely to put in a deliberate Trojan horse, or "
+"a snooping feature, if they think they might get caught. The proprietary "
+"software developers figure they won't get caught. They'll get away with it "
+"undetected. But a free software developer has to figure that people will "
+"look at that and see it's there. So, in our community, we don't feel we can "
+"get away with ramming a feature down the users' throats that the users "
+"wouldn't like. So we know that if the users don't like it, they'll make a "
+"modified version which doesn't have it. And then, they'll all start using "
+"that version."
+msgstr ""
+"Personne n'a le temps de vérifier le code source de chaque programme qu'il "
+"utilise. Ce n'est pas vous qui allez le faire. Mais, avec les logiciels "
+"libres il y a une grande communauté. Dans cette communauté il y a des gens "
+"qui vérifient et vous bénéficiez de leurs vérifications, parce que s'il y
a "
+"un bogue accidentel (et il y en a de temps en temps dans n'importe quel "
+"programme), ils pourront le trouver et le corriger. Il est donc peu probable "
+"que quelqu'un place délibérément un cheval de Troie ou une fonction "
+"d'espionnage dans le programme s'il pense qu'il peut être découvert. Les "
+"développeurs de logiciel privateur pensent qu'ils ne seront pas pris, que "
+"cela passera sans être détecté. Mais un développeur du libre devra se
dire "
+"que les gens rechercheront ce genre de chose et le trouveront. De même, dans
"
+"notre communauté nous ne pouvons pas faire avaler aux utilisateurs une "
+"fonction qu'ils n'aimeraient pas, car nous savons que s'ils ne l'aiment pas "
+"ils feront une version modifiée sans cette fonction, puis ils se mettront "
+"tous à utiliser la version modifiée."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"In fact, we can all reason enough, we can all figure this out enough steps "
+"ahead, that we probably won't put in that feature. After all, you're "
+"writing a free program; you want people to like your version; you don't want "
+"to put in a thing that you know a lot of people are going to hate, and have "
+"another modified version catch on instead of yours. So you just realize "
+"that the user is king in the world of free software. In the world of "
+"proprietary software, the customer is <em>not</em> king. Because you are "
+"only a customer. You have no say in the software you use."
+msgstr ""
+"En fait nous sommes tous capables de réfléchir et de nous projeter "
+"suffisamment pour ne pas introduire cette fonction. Après tout, si vous "
+"écrivez un programme libre, vous voulez que les gens apprécient votre "
+"version. Vous ne voulez pas y mettre quelque chose que les gens vont "
+"détester et voir une version modifiée prendre le dessus. Vous comprenez que
"
+"l'utilisateur est roi, dans le monde du libre. Dans le monde privateur par "
+"contre, l'utilisateur <em>n'est pas</em> roi. Il n'est qu'un consommateur, "
+"il n'a pas son mot à dire sur le logiciel qu'il utilise."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"In this respect, free software is a new mechanism for democracy to operate. "
+"Professor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions as a kind of "
+"law. Whoever gets to write the code that just about everybody uses for all "
+"intents and purposes is writing the laws that run people's lives. With free "
+"software, these laws get written in a democratic way. Not the classical "
+"form of democracy — we don't have a big election and say, “"
+"Everybody vote which way should this feature be done.” <i>[Laughter]</"
+"i> Instead we say, basically, those of you who want to work on implementing "
+"the feature this way, do it. And if you want to work on implementing the "
+"feature that way, do it. And, it gets done one way or the other, you know? "
+"And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done this way. So, "
+"in this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by simply taking "
+"steps in the direction that he wants to go."
+msgstr ""
+"De ce point de vue, le logiciel libre est un nouveau mécanisme
démocratique. "
+"Le professeur Lessig, qui est maintenant à Stanford, a remarqué que le code
"
+"fonctionne comme une sorte de loi. Celui qui écrit un code dont presque tout
"
+"le monde se sert à toutes fins utiles écrit les lois qui régissent la vie "
+"des gens. Avec le logiciel libre, ces lois sont écrites d'une façon "
+"démocratique. Pas comme la démocratie traditionnelle â il n'y a pas de
grand "
+"référendum où l'on demande : « Comment voulez-vous implémenter cette "
+"nouvelle fonctionnalité ? » <i>[rires]</i> à la place nous disons : «Â
Que "
+"ceux qui veulent travailler à mettre en Åuvre telle fonctionnalité, de
telle "
+"façon, le fassent ; et si vous voulez le faire autrement, allez-y. » Et
cela "
+"se fait d'une manière ou d'une autre. Si beaucoup de gens veulent le faire "
+"de cette façon, c'est comme cela que ça se fait. Ainsi, tout le monde "
+"contribue à la décision de la société simplement en avançant dans la "
+"direction où l'on veut aller."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And you're free to take as many steps, personally, as you want to take. A "
+"business is free to commission as many steps as they find useful to take. "
+"And, after you add all these things up, that says which direction the "
+"software goes."
+msgstr ""
+"Et vous êtes, personnellement, libre d'aller aussi loin que vous voulez. Une
"
+"entreprise est libre d'avancer dans une direction autant qu'elle le veut. "
+"Après, vous additionnez toutes ces choses et cela donne la direction où va "
+"le logiciel."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And it's often very useful to be able to take pieces out of some existing "
+"program, presumably usually large pieces, of course, and then write a "
+"certain amount of code of your own, and make a program that does exactly "
+"what you need, which would have cost you an arm and a leg to develop, if you "
+"had to write it all from scratch, if you couldn't cannibalize large pieces "
+"from some existing free software package."
+msgstr ""
+"C'est souvent très utile de pouvoir prendre des morceaux d'un programme "
+"existant, de gros morceaux la plupart du temps, et ensuite d'écrire une "
+"certaine quantité de code de votre cru pour créer un programme qui fasse "
+"exactement ce dont vous avez besoin, et qui vous aurait coûté les yeux de
la "
+"tête à développer vous-même de zéro si vous n'aviez pu cannibaliser de
gros "
+"morceaux d'un programme libre existant."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Another thing that results from the fact that the user is king is that we "
+"tend to be very good about compatibility and standardization. Why? Because "
+"users like that. Users are likely to reject a program that has gratuitous "
+"incompatibilities in it. Now, sometimes there's a certain group of users "
+"which actually have a need for a certain kind of incompatibility, and then "
+"they'll have it. That's OK. But when users want is to follow a standard, we "
+"developers have to follow it, and we know that. And we do it. By contrast, "
+"if you look at proprietary software developers, they often find it "
+"advantageous to deliberately <em>not</em> follow a standard, and not because "
+"they think that they're giving the user an advantage that way, but rather "
+"because they're imposing on the user, locking the user in. And you'll even "
+"find them making changes in their file formats from time to time, just to "
+"force people to get the newest version."
+msgstr ""
+"Un autre résultat de la puissance de l'utilisateur, c'est que nous tendons Ã
"
+"être bons en matière de normalisation et de compatibilité. Pourquoi ?
Parce "
+"que les utilisateurs aiment ça ! Les utilisateurs rejetteront "
+"vraisemblablement un programme qui est délibérément incompatible avec les "
+"autres. Cela dit, certains groupes d'utilisateurs ont besoin d'une certaine "
+"incompatibilité, et ils l'obtiennent ; c'est très bien. Mais quand le "
+"souhait des utilisateurs est de respecter une norme, nous les développeurs "
+"devons la respecter. Nous le savons et nous le faisons. Par contre, si vous "
+"regardez les développeurs de logiciel privateur, ils trouvent souvent "
+"avantage à <em>ne pas</em> respecter de norme, délibérément â pas
parce "
+"qu'ils pensent que cela bénéficiera à l'utilisateur, mais plutôt pour "
+"s'imposer à lui, pour l'enfermer. Vous en trouverez même qui modifient
leurs "
+"formats de fichiers de temps à autre, juste pour obliger les utilisateurs Ã
"
+"se procurer la dernière version."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Archivists are finding a problem now, that files written on computers ten "
+"years ago often can't be accessed; they were written with proprietary "
+"software that's essentially lost now. If it were written with free "
+"software, then it could be brought up-to-date and run. And those things "
+"would not, those records would not be lost, would not be inaccessible. They "
+"were even complaining about this on NPR recently in citing free software as "
+"a solution. And so, in effect, by using a non-free program to store your "
+"own data, you are putting your head in a noose."
+msgstr ""
+"Les archivistes ont un problème actuellement parce que des fichiers écrits "
+"sur ordinateur il y a des années ne sont plus accessibles. Ils ont été "
+"écrits avec des programmes privateurs qui sont maintenant perdus, ou tout "
+"comme. S'ils avaient été écrits avec des logiciels libres, ces programmes "
+"pourraient être mis à jour et fonctionner. Et ces choses, ces archives, ne "
+"seraient plus inaccessibles. Il y a eu des gens pour s'en plaindre sur NPR<a "
+"id=\"TransNote9-rev\" href=\"#TransNote9\"><sup>9</sup></a> récemment et "
+"pour citer le logiciel libre comme solution. Donc en réalité, en utilisant "
+"un logiciel privateur pour stocker vos données, vous mettez la tête dans un
"
+"nÅud coulant."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, I've talked about how free software affects most business. But how does "
+"it affect that particular narrow area which is software business? Well, the "
+"answer is mostly not at all. And the reason is that 90% of the software "
+"industry, from what I'm told, is development of custom software, software "
+"that's not meant to be released at all. For custom software, this issue, or "
+"the ethical issue of free or proprietary, doesn't arise. You see, the issue "
+"is, are you users free to change, and redistribute, the software? If there's "
+"only one user, and that user owns the rights, there's no problem. That user "
+"<em>is</em> free to do all these things. So, in effect, any <em>custom</em> "
+"program that was developed by one company for use in-house is free software, "
+"as long as they have the sense to insist on getting the source code and all "
+"the rights."
+msgstr ""
+"J'ai donc parlé de la façon dont le logiciel libre affecte la majeure
partie "
+"de l'économie. Mais comment affecte-t-il le domaine plus particulier de "
+"l'industrie du logiciel ? Eh bien, la réponse est : pratiquement pas. Et
la "
+"raison, c'est que 90% de l'industrie du logiciel (d'après ce que j'entends "
+"dire) développe du logiciel sur mesure, du logiciel qui n'est pas destiné Ã
"
+"la diffusion. Pour le logiciel sur mesure, la question éthique, libre ou "
+"privateur, ne se pose pas. Vous voyez, la question est de savoir si, en tant "
+"qu'utilisateur, vous pouvez modifier et redistribuer le logiciel. S'il n'y a "
+"qu'un utilisateur et qu'il a ces droits, il n'y a pas de problème. Cet "
+"utilisateur <em>est libre</em> de faire tout ça. Par conséquent un
programme "
+"<em>sur mesure</em> qui a été développé par une entreprise pour usage "
+"interne est un logiciel libre, du moins s'ils ont assez de bon sens pour "
+"réclamer le code source avec tous les droits."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And the issue doesn't really arise for software that goes in a watch or a "
+"microwave oven or an automobile ignition system. Because those are places "
+"where you don't download software to install. It's not a real computer, as "
+"far as the user is concerned. And so, it doesn't raise these issues enough "
+"for them to be ethically important. So, for the most part, the software "
+"industry will go along, just as it's been going. And the interesting thing "
+"is that since such a large fraction of the jobs are in that part of the "
+"industry, even if there were no possibilities for free software business, "
+"the developers of free software could all get day jobs writing custom "
+"software. <i>[Laughter]</i> There's so many; the ratio is so big."
+msgstr ""
+"Cet enjeu n'existe pas pour un logiciel embarqué dans une montre ou un four "
+"à microonde, ou dans le système d'allumage d'une voiture, parce que ce ne "
+"sont pas des endroits où l'on télécharge des logiciels pour les installer.
"
+"Du point de vue de l'utilisateur, ce ne sont pas de vrais ordinateurs. Les "
+"questions éthiques ne les concernent pas suffisamment pour qu'ils soient un "
+"enjeu important. Donc, pour l'essentiel, l'industrie du logiciel continuera "
+"comme auparavant. Ce qui est intéressant c'est que, la plupart des emplois "
+"étant dans cette fraction de l'industrie, même s'il n'était pas possible "
+"d'avoir une économie du libre les développeurs de logiciel libre pourraient
"
+"quand même trouver un emploi dans le sur mesure <i>[rires]</i>. Il y en a "
+"tellement, une si grande proportion !"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, as it happens, there is free software business. There are free "
+"software companies, and at the press conference that I'm going to have, "
+"people from a couple of them will join us. And, of course, there are also "
+"companies which are <em>not</em> free software businesses but do develop "
+"useful pieces of free software to release, and the free software that they "
+"produce is substantial."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais il se trouve qu'il existe une industrie du logiciel libre. Il y a des "
+"entreprises de logiciel libre. à la conférence de presse que je vais faire,
"
+"des représentants de quelques unes d'entre elles vont se joindre à nous. Et
"
+"naturellement, il y a des sociétés qui <em>ne sont pas</em> des entreprises
"
+"de logiciel libre mais qui néanmoins développent et publient des logiciels "
+"libres très utiles en quantité considérable."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, how do free software businesses work? Well, some of them sell copies. "
+"You know, you're free to copy it but they can still sell thousands of copies "
+"a month. And others sell support and various kinds of services. I, "
+"personally, for the second half of the '80's, I sold free software support "
+"services. Basically I said, for $200 an hour, I'll change whatever you want "
+"me to change in GNU software that I'd written. And, yes, it was a stiff "
+"rate, but if it was a program that I was the author of, people would figure "
+"that I might get the job done in a lot fewer hours. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I "
+"made a living that way. In fact, I'd made more than I'd ever made before. "
+"I also taught classes. And I kept doing that until 1990, when I got a big "
+"prize and I didn't have to do it any more."
+msgstr ""
+"Comment travaille l'industrie du libre ? Eh bien, certains vendent des "
+"copies. On est libre de copier un programme mais ils arrivent quand même à "
+"vendre des centaines d'exemplaires par mois. Et d'autres vendent de "
+"l'assistance et des services variés. Personnellement dans les années 80, "
+"j'ai vendu de l'assistance sur les logiciels libres. En gros, pour 200Â $ de "
+"l'heure je changeais ce que vous vouliez dans les programmes GNU que j'avais "
+"écrits. Oui, c'était un tarif élevé, mais c'était pour des programmes
que "
+"j'avais écrits et les gens pensaient que j'y passerais moins de temps <i>"
+"[rires]</i>. Et j'ai gagné ma vie avec ça. En fait, j'ai gagné plus que "
+"jamais auparavant. J'ai aussi enseigné. J'ai continué jusqu'en 1990 où
j'ai "
+"obtenu une récompense importante ; alors je n'ai plus eu à le faire."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, 1990 was when the first corporation free software business was formed, "
+"which was Cygnus Support. And their business was to do, essentially, the "
+"same kind of thing that I'd been doing. I certainly could have worked for "
+"them, if I had needed to do that. Since I didn't need to, I felt it was "
+"good for the movement if I remained independent of any one company. That "
+"way, I could say good and bad things about the various free software and non-"
+"free software companies, without a conflict of interest. I felt that I "
+"could serve the movement more. But, if I had needed that to make a living, "
+"sure, I would have worked for them. It's an ethical business to be in. No "
+"reason I would have felt ashamed to take a job with them. And that company "
+"was profitable in its first year. It was formed with very little capital, "
+"just the money its three founders had. And it kept growing every year and "
+"being profitable every year until they got greedy, and looked for outside "
+"investors, and then they messed things up. But it was several years of "
+"success, before they got greedy."
+msgstr ""
+"C'est en 1990 que la première entreprise de logiciel libre a été formée, "
+"<cite>Cygnus Support</cite>. Leur travail était essentiellement le même que
"
+"le mien. J'aurais certainement pu travailler pour eux si j'en avais eu "
+"besoin. Comme ce n'était pas le cas, j'ai pensé qu'il était bon pour le "
+"mouvement que je reste indépendant. De cette façon je pouvais dire du bien "
+"et du mal des différentes entreprises de logiciel, libre ou non, sans "
+"conflit d'intérêt. Je pensais que cela servirait mieux le mouvement. Mais
si "
+"j'avais dû en vivre j'aurais travaillé pour eux. C'est un travail éthique,
"
+"il n'y aurait eu aucune raison d'en avoir honte. Et cette société a été "
+"rentable dès la première année. Elle a été fondée avec très peu de
capital, "
+"juste l'argent de ses trois fondateurs. Elle a grossi chaque année et est "
+"restée rentable jusqu'à ce qu'ils soient trop cupides et cherchent des "
+"investisseurs extérieurs ; alors ils se sont plantés. Mais elle a eu "
+"plusieurs années de succès avant qu'ils ne soient trop gourmands."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, this illustrates one of the exciting things about free software. Free "
+"software demonstrates that you don't need to raise capital to develop free "
+"software. I mean, it's useful; it <em>can</em> help. You know, if you do "
+"raise some capital, you can hire people and have them write a bunch of "
+"software. But you can get a lot done with a small number of people. And, "
+"in fact, the tremendous efficiency of the process of developing free "
+"software is one of the reasons it's important for the world to switch to "
+"free software. And it also belies what Microsoft says when they say the GNU "
+"GPL is bad, because it makes it harder for them to raise capital to develop "
+"non-free software and take our free software and put our code into their "
+"programs that they won't share with us. Basically, we don't need to have "
+"them raising capital that way. We'll get the job done anyway. We are "
+"getting the job done."
+msgstr ""
+"Cela illustre une des choses intéressantes sur le logiciel libre : on n'a "
+"pas besoin de lever du capital pour le développer. J'admets que c'est utile,
"
+"que cela <em>peut</em> aider ; si vous levez du capital, vous pouvez "
+"recruter des gens et leur faire écrire un tas de logiciel. Mais vous pouvez "
+"faire beaucoup avec peu de gens. Et en fait, la formidable efficacité du "
+"processus de développement du logiciel libre est une des raisons pour "
+"lesquelles il est important que le monde passe au libre. De plus, cela "
+"démentit ce que dit Microsoft quand ils prétendent que la GNU GPL est "
+"mauvaise parce qu'elle leur rend difficile l'appel au capital pour "
+"développer du logiciel non libre â prendre notre logiciel libre puis
mettre "
+"notre code dans leurs programmes qu'ils ne partageront pas avec nous. En "
+"réalité nous n'avons pas besoin qu'ils lèvent du capital de cette
manière. "
+"Nous ferons le travail de toute façon. Nous sommes en train de le faire."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"People used to say we could never do a complete free operating system. Now "
+"we've done that and a tremendous amount more. And I would say that we're "
+"about an order of magnitude away from developing all the general purpose "
+"published software needs of the world. And this is in a world where more "
+"than 90% of the users don't use our free software yet. This is in a world "
+"where, although in certain areas of business, you know, more than half of "
+"all the web servers in the world are running on GNU/Linux with Apache as the "
+"web server."
+msgstr ""
+"Les gens disaient que nous ne pourrions jamais faire un système "
+"d'exploitation libre complet. Maintenant nous l'avons fait, et beaucoup plus "
+"encore. Je dirais que nous sommes à peu près à un ordre de grandeur de "
+"couvrir l'ensemble des besoins de la planète en développement de logiciels "
+"publiés d'usage courant, et ceci dans un monde où 90% des utilisateurs ne
se "
+"servent pas encore de nos logiciels libres ; ceci dans un monde où âÂ
bien "
+"que ce soit dans certains secteurs de l'économie â plus de la moitié des
"
+"serveurs web tournent sous GNU/Linux avec Apache."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i> … What did you say "
+"before, Linux?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : <i>[inaudible]</i> Qu'avez vous dit avant LinuxÂ
?"
+"…"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I said GNU/Linux."
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : J'ai dit GNU/Linux."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You did?"
+msgstr "<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Ah bon ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, if I'm talking about the kernel, I call it "
+"Linux. You know, that's it's name. The kernel was written by Linus "
+"Torvalds, and we should only call it by the name that he chose, out of "
+"respect for the author."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Oui, si je parle du noyau je dis Linux. Comme "
+"vous savez, c'est son nom. Le noyau a été écrit par Linus Torvalds et nous
"
+"devons l'appeler du nom qu'il a choisi, par respect pour l'auteur."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Anyway, but in general, in business most users are not using it. Most home "
+"users are not using our system yet. So, when they are, we should "
+"automatically get 10 times as many volunteers and 10 times as many customers "
+"for the free software businesses that there will be. And so that will take "
+"us that order of magnitude. So at this point, I am pretty confident that we "
+"<em>can</em> do the job."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais la plupart des utilisateurs professionnels ne s'en servent
généralement "
+"pas et la plupart des particuliers n'utilisent pas encore notre système. "
+"Lorsqu'ils l'utiliseront, nous devrions avoir automatiquement dix fois plus "
+"de bénévoles et dix fois plus de clients pour l'industrie du logiciel libre
"
+"qui existera alors. Ainsi nous obtiendrons cette croissance d'un ordre de "
+"grandeur. Au point où nous en sommes, je suis très confiant dans le fait
que "
+"nous <em>pouvons</em> y arriver."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And, this is important, because Microsoft asks us to feel desperate. They "
+"say, The only way you can have software to run, the only way you can have "
+"innovation, is if you give us power. Let us dominate you. Let us control "
+"what you can do with the software you're running, so that we can squeeze a "
+"lot of money out of you, and use a certain fraction of that to develop "
+"software, and take the rest as profit."
+msgstr ""
+"C'est très important, parce que Microsoft nous demande de céder au "
+"désespoir. Ils disent : « La seule façon d'avoir des logiciels à faire "
+"fonctionner, la seule façon d'avoir des innovations, c'est de nous donner le
"
+"pouvoir. Laissez-nous vous dominer. Laissez-nous contrôler ce que vous "
+"pouvez faire avec les programmes que vous utilisez de façon à pouvoir vous "
+"soutirer beaucoup d'argent, utiliser une certaine fraction de cet argent "
+"pour développer et garder le reste comme profit. »"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Well, you shouldn't ever feel that desperate. You shouldn't ever feel so "
+"desperate that you give up your freedom. That's very dangerous."
+msgstr ""
+"Eh bien nous ne devons pas être aussi désespérés. Il ne faut pas être "
+"désespéré au point d'abandonner sa liberté. C'est très dangereux."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Another thing that Microsoft, well, not just Microsoft, people who don't "
+"support free software generally adopt a value system in which the only thing "
+"that matters is short-term practical benefits: How much money am I going to "
+"make this year? What job can I get done today? Short-term thinking and "
+"narrow thinking. Their assumption is that it is ridiculous to imagine that "
+"anybody ever might make a sacrifice for the sake of freedom."
+msgstr ""
+"Un autre problème, c'est que Microsoft… en fait pas seulement "
+"Microsoft, les gens qui n'encouragent pas le logiciel libre adoptent en "
+"général un système de valeurs où seuls comptent les bénéfices à court "
+"terme : « Combien d'argent gagnerons-nous cette année ? Quel travail
puis-je "
+"faire aujourd'hui ? » Pensée à court terme et pensée étroite. Ils
estiment "
+"ridicule d'imaginer que quiconque puisse jamais faire un sacrifice pour la "
+"liberté."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Yesterday, a lot of people were making speeches about Americans who made "
+"sacrifices for the freedom of their compatriots. Some of them made great "
+"sacrifices. They even sacrificed their lives for the kinds of freedom that "
+"everyone in our country has heard about, at least. (At least, in some of "
+"the cases; I guess we have to ignore the war in Vietnam.)"
+msgstr ""
+"Pas plus tard qu'hier, beaucoup de gens faisaient des discours sur les "
+"Américains qui ont fait des sacrifices pour la liberté de leurs "
+"compatriotes, de grands sacrifices pour certains. Ils ont été jusqu'à "
+"sacrifier leur vie pour ces liberté dont tout le monde dans notre pays a au "
+"moins entendu parler (du moins dans certains cas ; je suppose qu'il faut "
+"oublier la guerre du Vietnam)."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<i>[Editor's note: The day before was “Memorial Day” in the "
+"USA. Memorial Day is a day where war heros are commemorated.]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<i>[Note de l'éditeur : la veille, c'était le Memorial Day aux
Ãtats-Unis, "
+"le jour où l'on commémore les héros des guerres.]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, fortunately, to maintain our freedom in using software, doesn't call "
+"for big sacrifices. Just tiny, little sacrifices are enough, like learning a "
+"command-line interface, if we don't have a GUI interface program yet. Like "
+"doing the job in this way, because we don't have a free software package to "
+"do it that way, yet. Like, paying some money to a company that's going to "
+"develop a certain free software package, so that you can have it in a few "
+"years. Various little sacrifices that we can all make. And, in the long "
+"run, even we will have benefited from it. You know, it is really an "
+"investment more than a sacrifice. We just have to have enough long-term "
+"view to realize it's good for us to invest in improving our society, without "
+"counting the nickels and dimes of who gets how much of the benefit from that "
+"investment."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais heureusement, garder notre liberté dans l'utilisation des logiciels "
+"n'exige pas de grands sacrifices. Juste de petits sacrifices minuscules, "
+"comme apprendre à utiliser la ligne de commande si l'on n'a pas encore "
+"d'interface graphique. Comme faire le travail de cette façon-ci parce qu'on "
+"n'a pas encore de logiciel libre pour le faire de cette façon-là . Comme "
+"payer une société pour développer tel logiciel libre pour que nous
puissions "
+"en disposer dans quelques années. Divers petits sacrifices que nous pouvons "
+"tous faire. Et dans le long terme, nous en tirerons même avantage ! En "
+"réalité c'est plus un investissement qu'un sacrifice. Il nous faut
seulement "
+"voir assez loin pour réaliser qu'il est bon de travailler à l'amélioration
"
+"de la société, sans compter les centimes et les francs du retour sur "
+"investissement ni se préoccuper de qui en bénéficie."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "So, at this point, I'm essentially done."
+msgstr "Maintenant j'ai à peu près fini."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"I'd like to mention that there's a new approach to free software business "
+"being proposed by Tony Stanco, which he calls “Free Developers”, "
+"which involves a certain business structure which hopes eventually to pay "
+"out a certain share of the profits to every, to all the authors of the free "
+"software who've joined the organization. And they're looking at the "
+"prospects of getting me some rather large government software development "
+"contracts in India now, because they're going to be using free software as "
+"the basis, having tremendous cost savings that way."
+msgstr ""
+"Je voudrais mentionner qu'il existe une autre approche de l'économie du "
+"logiciel libre qui a été proposée par Tony Stanco et qu'il appelle "
+"<cite>Free Developers</cite> (les développeurs libres). Elle implique une "
+"certaine structure économique qui espère un jour verser un certaine partie "
+"de ses profits à chacun des auteurs de logiciels libres qui auront rejoint "
+"cette organisation. Et ils espèrent m'obtenir de grands contrats publics de "
+"développement logiciel en Inde, parce qu'ils vont utiliser des logiciels "
+"libres là -bas, ce qui leur fera faire des économies de coût
considérables."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "And so now I guess that I should ask for questions."
+msgstr "Je vais donc maintenant passer aux questions."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Could you speak up a bit louder please? I can't "
+"really hear you."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Pourriez-vous parler plus fort s'il vous plaîtÂ
? "
+"Je ne peux vraiment pas vous entendre."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: How could a company like Microsoft include a free "
+"software contract?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Comment une société comme Microsoft pourrait-"
+"elle inclure un contrat pour du logiciel libre ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually, Microsoft is planning to shift a "
+"lot of its activity into services. And what they're planning to do is "
+"something dirty and dangerous, which is tie the services to the programs, "
+"one to the next, in a sort of zigzag, you know? So that to use this service, "
+"you've got to be using this Microsoft program, which is going to mean you "
+"need to use this service, to this Microsoft program, so it's all tied "
+"together. That's their plan."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Eh bien en réalité, Microsoft prévoit de "
+"transformer beaucoup de ses activités en services. Et ce qu'ils nous "
+"préparent, c'est un sale coup et c'est dangereux. En effet ils veulent "
+"associer les services aux programmes, dans une sorte de zig-zag, vous "
+"voyez ? Si bien que pour utiliser tel service, vous devrez utiliser tel "
+"programme Microsoft, ce qui veut dire que vous aurez besoin d'utiliser ce "
+"service dédié pour faire tourner le programme Microsoft ; ainsi tout est "
+"lié. Voilà leur projet."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, the interesting thing is that selling those services doesn't raise the "
+"ethical issue of free software or non-free software. It might be perfectly "
+"fine for them to have the business for those businesses selling those "
+"services over the net to exist. However, what Microsoft is planning to do "
+"is to use them to achieve an even greater lock, an even greater monopoly, on "
+"the software and the services, and this was described in an article, I "
+"believe in Business Week, recently. And, other people said that it is "
+"turning the net into the Microsoft Company Town."
+msgstr ""
+"Ce qu'il y a d'intéressant, c'est que vendre ces services n'engage pas la "
+"question éthique du logiciel libre ou non libre. Ãa pourrait être très
bien "
+"de proposer cette activité aux entreprises qui vendent leurs services sur le
"
+"net. Mais ce qu'ils essaient d'obtenir avec ce système, c'est un "
+"verrouillage encore plus fort, un renforcement de leur monopole sur les "
+"logiciels et les services. Cela a été décrit récemment dans un article,
de "
+"<cite>Business Week</cite>, je crois. Et d'autre ont dit que cela allait "
+"transformer le net en « Microsoft-Ville »."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And this is relevant because, you know, the trial court in the Microsoft "
+"antitrust trial recommended breaking up the company, Microsoft. But in a "
+"way, that makes no sense — it wouldn't do any good at all — into "
+"the operating part and the applications part."
+msgstr ""
+"C'est pertinent car, vous le savez, au procès antitrust contre Microsoft le "
+"tribunal a recommandé de couper la société en deux â mais d'une
certaine "
+"manière cela n'a pas de sens, cela ne donnerait rien de bon du tout â une
"
+"partie système d'exploitation et une partie applications."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But having seen that article, I now see a useful, effective way to split up "
+"Microsoft into the services part and the software part, to require them to "
+"deal with each other only at arm's length, that the services must publish "
+"their interfaces, so that anybody can write a client to talk to those "
+"services, and, I guess, that they have to pay to get the service. Well, "
+"that's OK. That's a totally different issue."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais ayant lu cet article, je vois une autre façon, efficace celle-là , de "
+"diviser Microsoft. On mettrait d'un côté les services et de l'autre le "
+"logiciel et on les obligerait à garder leurs distances. La division services
"
+"devrait publier ses interfaces afin que n'importe qui puisse écrire un "
+"programme client pour ces services. Je suppose qu'on devrait payer pour ces "
+"services. Rien à dire contre ça, il s'agit d'un problème tout à fait "
+"différent."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"If Microsoft is split up in this way […] services and software, they "
+"will not be able to use their software to crush competition with Microsoft "
+"services. And they won't be able to use the services to crush competition "
+"with Microsoft software. And we will be able to make the free software, and "
+"maybe you people will use it to talk to Microsoft services, and we won't "
+"mind."
+msgstr ""
+"Si Microsoft est divisée en deux de cette façon […] services et "
+"logiciel, ils ne pourront pas utiliser leurs logiciels pour écraser la "
+"concurrence avec leurs services et ils ne pourront pas utiliser les services "
+"pour écraser la concurrence avec les logiciels Microsoft. Ainsi nous "
+"pourrons faire des logiciels libres, que vous autres utiliserez peut-être "
+"pour accéder aux services de Microsoft sans que nous y trouvions à redire."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Because, after all, although Microsoft is the proprietary software company "
+"that has subjugated the most people — the others have subjugated fewer "
+"people, it's not for want of trying. <i>[Laughter]</i> They just haven't "
+"succeeded in subjugating as many people. So, the problem is not Microsoft "
+"and only Microsoft. Microsoft is just the biggest example of the problem "
+"we're trying to solve, which is proprietary software taking away users' "
+"freedom to cooperate and form an ethical society. So we shouldn't focus too "
+"much on Microsoft, you know, even though they did give me the opportunity "
+"for this platform. That doesn't make them all-important. They're not the be-"
+"all and end-all."
+msgstr ""
+"Parce qu'après tout, bien que Microsoft soit la société de logiciel "
+"privateur qui a sous sa coupe le plus de monde, si les autres n'en ont pas "
+"autant ce n'est pas faute d'avoir essayé <i>[rires]</i>. Simplement ils "
+"n'ont pas si bien réussi. Donc le problème n'est pas Microsoft et
uniquement "
+"Microsoft. Microsoft est seulement le plus grand exemple du problème que "
+"nous voulons résoudre, à savoir que le logiciel privateur éloigne les "
+"utilisateurs de la liberté de coopérer et de former une société éthique.
"
+"Aussi ne faut-il pas trop se focaliser sur Microsoft. Vous savez, bien "
+"qu'ils m'aient donné l'occasion d'être ici, ça ne les rend pas plus "
+"importants. Ils ne sont pas l'alpha et l'oméga."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Earlier, you were discussing the philosophical "
+"differences between open source software and free software. How do you feel "
+"about the current trend of GNU/Linux distributions as they head towards "
+"supporting only Intel platforms? And the fact that it seems that less and "
+"less programmers are programming correctly, and making software that will "
+"compile anywhere? And making software that simply works on Intel systems?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Plus tôt, vous avez expliqué les différences "
+"entre le logiciel open source et le logiciel libre. Que pensez-vous de la "
+"tendance actuelle des distributions GNU/Linux à se limiter à la plateforme "
+"Intel ? Et du fait que, semble-t-il, de moins en moins de programmeurs "
+"programment correctement et font des logiciels qui compilent partout ? Et "
+"font des logiciels qui fonctionnent seulement sur les systèmes Intel ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I don't see an ethical issue there. Although, in "
+"fact, companies that make computers sometimes port the GNU/Linux system to "
+"it. HP apparently did this recently. And, they didn't bother paying for a "
+"port of Windows, because that would have cost too much. But getting GNU/"
+"Linux supported was, I think, five engineers for a few months. It was "
+"easily doable."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Je ne vois pas là d'enjeu éthique, bien qu'en "
+"fait les sociétés qui fabriquent des ordinateurs réalisent parfois des "
+"portages de GNU/Linux. HP semble avoir fait cela récemment. Ils n'ont pas "
+"cherché à porter Windows car cela aurait coûté trop cher, mais adapter
GNU/"
+"Linux était l'affaire de cinq ingénieurs pendant quelques mois, je crois. "
+"C'était tout à fait faisable."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, of course, I encourage people to use <code>autoconf</code>, which is a "
+"GNU package that makes it easier to make your programs portable. I "
+"encourage them to do that. Or when somebody else fixes the bug that it "
+"didn't compile on that version of the system, and sends it to you, you "
+"should put it in. But I don't see that as an ethical issue."
+msgstr ""
+"Maintenant, bien sûr, j'encourage les gens à utiliser
<code>autoconf</code>, "
+"un logiciel GNU qui vous aide à rendre vos programmes portables. Je les y "
+"encourage. Ou bien si quelqu'un corrige le bogue qui empêche de compiler sur
"
+"cette version du système et vous envoie le correctif, vous devriez "
+"l'incorporer. Mais je ne vois pas là d'enjeu éthique."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Two comments. One is: Recently, you spoke at "
+"MIT. I read the transcript. And someone asked about patents, and you said "
+"that “patents are a totally different issue. I have no comments on "
+"that.”"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Deux commentaires. Primo : récemment vous avez
"
+"parlé au MIT. J'ai lu la transcription. Quelqu'un vous a interpellé sur les
"
+"brevets et vous avez dit : « Les brevets sont un tout autre problème ;
je "
+"n'ai pas de commentaire là -dessus. »"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I actually have a lot to say about "
+"patents, but it takes an hour. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Exact. En réalité j'ai beaucoup à dire sur
les "
+"brevets. Ãa prendrait une heure <i>[rires]</i>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: I wanted to say this: It seems to me that there "
+"is an issue. I mean, there is a reason that companies call both patents and "
+"copyrights things like hard property in trying to get this concept which is, "
+"if they want to use the power of the State to create a course of monopoly "
+"for themselves. And so, what's common about these things is not that they "
+"revolve around the same issues, but that motivation is not really the public "
+"service issues but the motivation of companies to get a monopoly for their "
+"private interests."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Je voulais dire ceci. Il me semble qu'il y a un "
+"problème. Il y a une raison pour que les entreprises appellent les brevets "
+"et le copyright quelque chose comme de la « propriété concrète ».
Elles "
+"veulent utiliser le pouvoir de l'Ãtat pour leur assurer un monopole. Ce "
+"qu'il y a de commun n'est pas que ces sujets tournent autour des mêmes "
+"enjeux, mais que la motivation des entreprises à leur égard ne soit pas "
+"vraiment le service public, mais plutôt l'intérêt privé des sociétés
dans "
+"l'obtention d'un monopole."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I understand. But, well, I want to respond "
+"because there's not too much time. So I'd like to respond to that."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Je comprends. Mais bon, il ne reste pas beaucoup
"
+"de temps, alors tant qu'à faire je voudrais répondre à ça."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"You're right that that's what they want. But there's another reason why "
+"they want to use the term intellectual property. It's that they don't want "
+"to encourage people to think carefully about copyright issues or patent "
+"issues. Because copyright law and patent law are totally different, and the "
+"effects of software copyrighted and software patents are totally different."
+msgstr ""
+"Vous avez raison de dire que c'est ce qu'elles veulent. Mais il y a une "
+"autre raison pour qu'elles veuillent utiliser le terme « propriété "
+"intellectuelle », c'est qu'elles ne veulent pas que les gens
réfléchissent "
+"convenablement sur les questions du copyright ou sur les questions des "
+"brevets. Parce que le droit du copyright n'est pas du tout le même que le "
+"droit des brevets. Leurs effets sur le logiciel sont totalement différents."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Software patents are a restriction on programmers, prohibiting them from "
+"writing certain kinds of programs, whereas copyright doesn't do that. With "
+"copyright, at least if you wrote it yourself, you're allowed to distribute "
+"it. So, it's tremendously important to separate these issues."
+msgstr ""
+"Les brevets logiciels sont des restrictions pour les programmeurs qui leur "
+"interdisent d'écrire certaines sortes de programmes, tandis que le copyright
"
+"ne fait pas cela. Avec le copyright, du moins si vous les avez écrits vous-"
+"même, vous pouvez les distribuer. Donc il est terriblement important de "
+"séparer ces deux questions."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"They have a little bit in common, at a very low level, and everything else "
+"is different. So, please, to encourage clear thinking, discuss copyright or "
+"discuss patents. But don't discuss intellectual property. I don't have an "
+"opinion on intellectual property. I have opinions on copyrights and patents "
+"and software."
+msgstr ""
+"Elles ont un petit quelque chose en commun à un très bas niveau et tout le "
+"reste est différent. Alors, s'il vous plaît, pour rendre la discussion plus
"
+"claire, discutez du copyright ou discutez des brevets mais ne parlez pas de "
+"« propriété intellectuelle ». J'ai des opinions sur le copyright, et
sur les "
+"brevets, et sur le logiciel."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You mentioned at the beginning that a functional "
+"language, like recipes, are computer programs. There's a cross a little bit "
+"different than other kinds of language created on. This is also causing a "
+"problem in the DVD case."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Vous avez mentionné au début les travaux "
+"fonctionnels, comme les recettes et les programmes d'ordinateurs. C'est "
+"évidemment un peu différent des autres sortes de travaux créatifs. Ceci
pose "
+"aussi problème dans le cas des DVD.<a id=\"TransNote10-rev\" href="
+"\"#TransNote10\"><sup>10</sup></a>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: The issues are partly similar but partly "
+"different, for things that are not functional in nature. Part of the issue "
+"transfers but not all of it. Unfortunately, that's another hour speech. I "
+"don't have time to go into it. But I would say that all functional works "
+"ought to be free in the same sense as software. You know, textbooks, "
+"manuals, dictionaries, and recipes, and so on."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Les problèmes sont en partie similaires, mais "
+"aussi en partie différents, pour des choses qui ne sont pas de nature "
+"fonctionnelle. Une partie est commune aux deux, mais pas tout. "
+"Malheureusement, il faudrait une heure de plus pour en parler. Je n'ai pas "
+"le temps de rentrer dans les détails, mais je dirais que les Åuvres "
+"fonctionnelles devraient être libres dans le même sens que les logiciels. "
+"Vous savez, les cours, les manuels, les dictionnaires, les recettes, etc."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: I was just wondering on online music. There are "
+"similarities and differences created all through."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Je m'interrogeais sur la musique en ligne. Il y "
+"a des similarités et des différences à travers toute la création."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I'd say that the minimum freedom that we "
+"should have for any kind of published information is the freedom to non-"
+"commercially redistribute it, verbatim. For functional works, we need the "
+"freedom to commercially publish a modified version, because that's "
+"tremendously useful to society. For non-functional works, you know, things "
+"that are to entertain, or to be aesthetic, or to state a certain person's "
+"views, you know, perhaps they shouldn't be modified. And, perhaps that "
+"means that it's OK, to have copyright covering all commercial distribution "
+"of them."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Exact. Je dirais que la liberté minimum, celle "
+"dont nous devons disposer pour toute information publiée, est le droit de la
"
+"redistribuer non commercialement, sous forme de copie intégrale. Pour les "
+"Åuvres fonctionnelles, nous avons besoin de la liberté d'en redistribuer "
+"commercialement des versions modifiées, parce que c'est extrêmement utile Ã
"
+"la société. Quant aux Åuvres non fonctionnelles, vous savez, les choses "
+"destinées à être divertissantes ou esthétiques, ou à refléter les vues
d'une "
+"personne, peut-être qu'elles ne doivent pas être modifiés. Et cela veut
peut-"
+"être dire que c'est justifié d'avoir un copyright qui couvre toute "
+"distribution commerciale."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Please remember that according to the U.S. Constitution, the purpose of "
+"copyright is to benefit the public. It is to modify the behavior of certain "
+"private parties, so that they will publish more books. And the benefit of "
+"this is that society gets to discuss issues and learn. And, you know, we "
+"have literature. We have scientific works. The purpose is encourage that. "
+"Copyrights do not exist for the sake of authors, let alone for the sake of "
+"publishers. They exist for the sake of readers and all those who benefit "
+"from the communication of information that happens when people write and "
+"others read. And that goal I agree with."
+msgstr ""
+"Rappelez-vous que selon la Constitution des Ãtats-Unis, la raison d'être du
"
+"copyright est de bénéficier au public, de modifier la conduite de certaines
"
+"entités privées pour qu'elles publient plus de livres. Le bénéfice, c'est
"
+"que le public se mette à discuter des différentes questions et à "
+"s'instruire. Ainsi nous avons la littérature, nous avons les écrits "
+"scientifiques. Le but est d'encourager cela. Le copyright n'a pas été
créé "
+"pour les auteurs ni les éditeurs, mais pour les lecteurs et tous ceux qui "
+"bénéficient de la transmission d'information qui se produit quand des gens "
+"écrivent et d'autres lisent. Et cet objectif, je l'approuve !"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But in the age of the computer networks, the method is no longer tenable, "
+"because it now requires draconian laws that invade everybody's privacy and "
+"terrorize everyone. You know, years in prison for sharing with your "
+"neighbor. It wasn't like that in the age of the printing press. Then "
+"copyright was an industrial regulation. It restricted publishers. Now, "
+"it's a restriction imposed by the publishers on the public. So, the power "
+"relationship is turned around 180 degrees, even if it's the same law."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais à l'âge des réseaux informatiques la méthode n'est plus appropriée,
"
+"parce qu'elle exige des lois draconiennes qui envahissent l'intimité de "
+"chacun et terrorisent tout le monde. Vous savez, des années de prison pour "
+"avoir partagé avec son voisin. Ce n'était pas la même chose du temps de la
"
+"presse à imprimer. Le copyright était alors une réglementation
industrielle "
+"qui s'appliquait aux éditeurs. Maintenant, c'est une restriction imposée
par "
+"les éditeurs au public. Ainsi la relation de pouvoir a viré à 180°, bien
que "
+"ce soit la même loi."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: So you can have the same thing — but like "
+"in making music from other music?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Ainsi on peut avoir la même chose â comme "
+"lorsqu'on fait de la musique à partir d'une autre musique ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. That is an interesting …"
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Exact. C'est intéressant…"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: And unique, new works, you know, it's still a lot "
+"of cooperation."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Et unique. De nouvelles Åuvres, c'est encore "
+"beaucoup de coopération."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: It is. And I think that probably requires some "
+"kind of fair use concept. Certainly making a few seconds of sample and "
+"using that in making some musical work, obviously that should be fair use. "
+"Even the standard idea of fair use includes that, if you think about it. "
+"Whether courts agree, I'm not sure, but they should. That wouldn't be a "
+"real change in the system as it has existed."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Tout à fait. Et je suppose que cela demande une
"
+"sorte de concept d'« usage raisonnable » <cite>[fair use]</cite>.<a id="
+"\"TransNote11-rev\" href=\"#TransNote11\"><sup>11</sup></a> Certainement "
+"faire un sample de quelques secondes et l'utiliser pour faire une Åuvre "
+"musicale, ce doit être un usage raisonnable. Même l'idée ordinaire d'usage
"
+"raisonnable renferme cela, si vous y réfléchissez. Je ne sais pas si les "
+"tribunaux seraient d'accord mais ils le devraient. Ce ne serait pas un vrai "
+"changement du système tel qu'il existe."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: What do you think about publishing public "
+"information in proprietary formats?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Que pensez-vous de la publication des données "
+"publiques dans des formats privateurs ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, it shouldn't be. I mean, the government "
+"should never require citizens to use a non-free program to access, to "
+"communicate with the government in any way, in either direction."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Oh, c'est à proscrire. L'Ãtat ne doit jamais "
+"exiger des citoyens qu'ils utilisent un programme non libre pour accéder aux
"
+"services publics ou pour communiquer avec eux, que ce soit en émission ou en
"
+"réception, quel qu'en soit le moyen."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: I have been, what I will now say, a GNU/Linux "
+"user…"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Je suis, comment diriez-vous, un utilisateur de "
+"GNU/Linux…"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Thank you. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Merci <i>[rires]</i>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: …for the past four years. The one thing "
+"that has been problematical for me and is something that is essential, I "
+"think, to all of us, is browsing the web."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : …Â depuis quatre ans. La seule chose qui "
+"m'ait parue problématique et qui est quelque chose d'essentiel, je crois, "
+"pour nous tous, c'est de surfer sur le web."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes."
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Oui."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: One thing that has been decidedly a weakness in "
+"using a GNU/Linux system has been browsing the web, because the prevailing "
+"tool for that, Netscape…"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Une chose qui est décidément une faiblesse de "
+"GNU/Linux est la navigation sur le web, parce que le principal outil pour "
+"cela, Netscape…"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: …is not free software."
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : …Â n'est pas un logiciel libre."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Let me respond to this. I want to get to the point, for the sake of getting "
+"in more. So, yes. There has been a terrible tendency for people to use "
+"Netscape Navigator on their GNU/Linux systems. And, in fact all the "
+"commercially packaged systems come with it. So this is an ironic situation: "
+"we worked so hard to make a free operating system, and now, if you go to the "
+"store, and you can find versions of GNU/Linux there, most of them are called "
+"Linux, and they're not free. Oh, well, part of them is. But then, there's "
+"Netscape Navigator, and maybe other non-free programs as well. So, it's "
+"very hard to actually find a free system, unless you know what you're "
+"doing. Or, of course, you can not install Netscape Navigator."
+msgstr ""
+"Laissez moi répondre à cela. Je veux mettre les choses au point. Donc oui, "
+"il y a une tendance déplorable chez les utilisateurs de GNU/Linux Ã
utiliser "
+"Netscape Navigator sur leur système GNU/Linux. Et en fait les distributions "
+"commerciales viennent avec. Voilà bien une situation ironique : nous avons "
+"travaillé dur pour faire un système d'exploitation libre, et maintenant, si
"
+"vous allez dans un magasin, vous pouvez trouver des versions de GNU/Linux "
+"(la plupart d'entre elles appelées Linux) qui ne sont pas libres, du moins "
+"en partie. Il y a Netscape Navigator et peut-être d'autres logiciels non "
+"libres. Donc il est très difficile de trouver un système libre, sauf si
vous "
+"savez ce que vous faites. Ou bien naturellement vous pouvez ne pas installer "
+"Netscape Navigator."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, in fact, there have been free web browsers for many years. There is a "
+"free web browser that I used to use called Lynx. It's a free web browser "
+"that is non-graphical; it's text-only. This has a tremendous advantage, in "
+"you don't see the ads. <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Cela dit, il y a des navigateurs libres depuis de nombreuses années. Il y en
"
+"a un que j'utilise et qui s'appelle Lynx. Il n'est pas graphique, il est en "
+"mode texte. Il a l'extraordinaire avantage de ne pas afficher les publicités
"
+"<i>[rires et applaudissements]</i>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But anyway, there is a free graphical project called Mozilla, which is now "
+"getting to the point where you can use it. And I occasionally use it."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais de toute façon il y a un projet libre de navigateur graphique appelé "
+"Mozilla, qui est pratiquement au point. Et je l'utilise à l'occasion."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 has been very good."
+msgstr "<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Konqueror 2.01 est très bon aussi."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, OK. So that's another free graphical "
+"browser. So, we're finally solving that problem, I guess."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Très bien. Voila donc un autre navigateur "
+"graphique libre. Donc nous sommes finalement en train de résoudre ce "
+"problème, je suppose."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk to me about that philosophical/"
+"ethical division between free software and open source? Do you feel that "
+"those are irreconcilable? …"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Pouvez-vous me parler de la différence "
+"philosophique ou éthique entre le logiciel libre et l'open source ? Pensez-"
+"vous que les deux soient irréconciliables ? […]"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<i>[Recording switches tapes; end of question and start of answer is missing]"
+"</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<i>[la fin de la question et le début de la réponse ont sauté au
changement "
+"de cassette.]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: … to a freedom, and ethics. Or whether "
+"you just say, Well, I hope that you companies will decide it's more "
+"profitable to let us be allowed to do these things."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : […] à une liberté et à une éthique,
ou "
+"bien si on dit seulement : « Eh bien, j'espère que vous, les entreprises,
"
+"déciderez qu'il est plus profitable de nous autoriser à faire tout ça. »"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, as I said, in a lot of practical work, it doesn't really matter what a "
+"person's politics are. When a person offers to help the GNU project, we "
+"don't say: “You have to agree with our politics.” We say that in "
+"a GNU package, you've got to call the system GNU/Linux, and you've got to "
+"call it free software. What you say when you're not speaking to the GNU "
+"Project, that's up to you."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais comme je le disais, dans une grande partie du travail concret, les "
+"opinions de chacun ne comptent pas. Quand une personne offre son aide au "
+"projet GNU, nous ne lui disons pas : « Vous devez être d'accord avec
notre "
+"politique. » Nous disons que dans un paquet GNU il faut appeler le système
"
+"« GNU/Linux » et le paquet lui-même « logiciel libre ». Ce que vous
dites à "
+"l'extérieur du projet GNU, ça vous regarde."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: The company, IBM, started a campaign for "
+"government agencies, to sell their big new machines, that they used Linux as "
+"selling point, and say Linux."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : IBM a commencé une campagne adressée aux "
+"services de l'Ãtat pour vendre leurs nouvelles grosses machines en utilisant
"
+"Linux comme argument de vente, en disant « Linux »."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, of course, it's really the GNU/Linux "
+"systems. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Oui, bien sûr c'est en réalité le système
GNU/"
+"Linux <i>[rires]</i>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: That's right! Well, tell the top sales person. "
+"He doesn't know anything for GNU."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : C'est vrai. Eh bien le responsable des ventes, "
+"il n'y connaît rien à GNU."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I have to tell who?"
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Je dois le dire à qui ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: The top sales person."
+msgstr "<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Au responsable des ventes."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh yes. The problem is that they've already "
+"carefully decided what they want to say for reasons of their advantage. And "
+"the issue of what is a more accurate, or fair, or correct way to describe it "
+"is not the primary issue that matters to a company like that. Now, some "
+"small companies, yes, there'll be a boss. And if the boss is inclined to "
+"think about things like that, he might make a decision that way. Not a "
+"giant corporation though. It's a shame, you know."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Oh oui. Le problème c'est qu'ils ont déjà "
+"préparé soigneusement ce qu'ils voulaient mettre en avant comme arguments
de "
+"vente. Et la question de savoir ce qu'est une description précise, juste ou "
+"correcte n'est pas primordiale pour une société comme celle-là . Dans une "
+"petite entreprise, oui, il y a un patron. Si le patron est enclin à "
+"réfléchir sur ce genre de choses, il peut prendre une décision de cette "
+"façon. Mais pas une société géante. C'est dommage, vous savez."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"There's another more important and more substantive issue about what IBM is "
+"doing. They're saying that they're putting a billion dollars into “"
+"Linux”. But perhaps, I should also put quotes around “"
+"into”, as well, because some of that money is paying people to develop "
+"free software. That really is a contribution to our community. But other "
+"parts is paying to pay people to write proprietary software, or port "
+"proprietary software to run on top of GNU/Linux, and that is <em>not</em> a "
+"contribution to our community. But IBM is lumping that altogether into "
+"this. Some of it might be advertising, which is partly a contribution, even "
+"if it's partly wrong. So, it's a complicated situation. Some of what "
+"they're doing is contribution and some is not. And some is sort is "
+"somewhat, but not exactly. And you can't just lump it altogether and think, "
+"Wow! Whee! A billion dollars from IBM. <i>[Laughter]</i> That's "
+"oversimplification."
+msgstr ""
+"Il y a un autre question plus tangible à propos de ce que fait IBM. Ils "
+"disent qu'ils mettent un milliard de dollars dans « Linux ». Mais
peut-être "
+"faut-il aussi mettre « dans » entre guillemets. Parce qu'une partie de
cet "
+"argent sert à payer des gens pour faire des logiciels libres ; c'est "
+"réellement une contribution à notre communauté. Mais une autre partie sert
à "
+"créer du logiciel privateur ou à porter des logiciels privateurs vers GNU/"
+"Linux et ce n'est <em>pas</em> une contribution à notre communauté. "
+"Cependant IBM mélange tout ça. Il pourrait y avoir une part de publicité, "
+"qui est une contribution même si elle est en partie fausse. Donc c'est une "
+"situation compliquée. Une partie de ce qu'ils font est une contribution, une
"
+"autre non et une troisième est entre les deux. On ne peut pas mélanger tout
"
+"ça et penser « Ouah ! Un milliard de dollars d'IBM ! » <i>[rires]</i>
C'est "
+"simplifier à outrance !"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk a little bit more about the thinking "
+"that went into the general public license?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Pouvez-vous en dire plus sur la pensée qui
sous-"
+"tend la licence GNU GPLÂ ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, here's the — I'm sorry, I'm answering "
+"his question now. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Bon, voici le… Je suis désolé, je suis en
"
+"train de répondre à sa question <i>[rires]</i>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Do you want to reserve some time for the press "
+"conference? Or do you want to continue here?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Voulez-vous réserver du temps pour la
conférence "
+"de presse ? Ou souhaitez-vous continuer ici ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Who is here for the press conference? Not a lot "
+"of press. Oh, three — OK. Can you afford if we — if I go on "
+"answering everybody's questions for another ten minutes or so? OK. So, "
+"we'll go on answering everybody's questions."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Qui est ici pour la conférence de presse ? Pas "
+"beaucoup de journalistes. Oh, trois… OK. Est-ce que cela vous dérange
"
+"si nous… si je continue à répondre aux questions pendant encore dix "
+"minutes ? Parfait. Donc nous continuons à répondre aux questions de tout
le "
+"monde."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, the thinking that went into the GNU GPL? Part of it was that I wanted to "
+"protect the freedom of the community against the phenomena that I just "
+"described with X Windows, which has happened with other free programs as "
+"well. In fact, when I was thinking about this issue, X Windows was not yet "
+"released. But I had seen this problem happen in other free programs. For "
+"instance, TeX. I wanted to make sure that the users would all have "
+"freedom. Otherwise, I realized that I might write a program, and maybe a "
+"lot of people would use the program, but they wouldn't have freedom. And "
+"what's the point of that?"
+msgstr ""
+"La pensée qui sous-tend la licence GNU GPL ? C'est en partie que je voulais
"
+"protéger la liberté de la communauté des phénomènes que j'ai décrits Ã
"
+"propos de XÂ Windows et qui se sont produits avec d'autres logiciels libres. "
+"En fait, quand j'ai pensé à cette question, X Windows n'était pas encore "
+"sorti mais j'avais vu le problème se poser avec d'autres programmes libres, "
+"par exemple TeX. Je voulais être sûr que les utilisateurs auraient tous la "
+"liberté. Je me suis rendu compte que, sinon, je pourrais écrire un
programme "
+"que peut-être beaucoup de gens utiliseraient, mais qu'ils n'auraient pas la "
+"liberté. Alors à quoi bon ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But the other issue I was thinking about was, I wanted to give the community "
+"a feeling that it was not a doormat, a feeling that it was not prey to any "
+"parasite who would wander along. If you don't use copyleft, you are "
+"essentially saying: <i>[speaking meekly]</i> “Take my code. Do what "
+"you want. I don't say no.” So, anybody can come along and say: <i>"
+"[speaking very firmly]</i> “Ah, I want to make a non-free version of "
+"this. I'll just take it.” And, then, of course, they probably make "
+"some improvements, those non-free versions might appeal to users, and "
+"replace the free versions. And then, what have you accomplished? You've "
+"only made a donation to some proprietary software project."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais l'autre raison, c'est que je voulais donner le sentiment à la "
+"communauté qu'elle n'était pas un paillasson, le sentiment qu'elle ne
serait "
+"pas la proie du premier parasite venu. Si vous n'utilisez pas le copyleft, "
+"vous dites en substance : <i>[voix mièvre]</i> « Prenez mon code. Faites
ce "
+"que vous voulez. Je ne dis pas non. » Alors n'importe qui peut arriver en "
+"disant : <i>[voix très ferme]</i> « Aah ! je veux en faire une version
non "
+"libre. Je le prends. » Puis il va très probablement faire quelques "
+"améliorations. Ces versions non libres intéresseront les utilisateurs et "
+"remplaceront les versions libres. Au final, qu'est-ce que vous aurez "
+"accompli ? Vous aurez simplement fait une donation à un projet de logiciel "
+"privateur."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And when people see that that's happening, when people see, other people "
+"take what I do, and they don't ever give back, it can be demoralizing. And, "
+"this is not just speculation. I had seen that happen. That was part of "
+"what happened to wipe out the old community that I belonged to the '70's. "
+"Some people started becoming uncooperative. And we assumed that they were "
+"profiting thereby. They certainly acted as if they thought they were "
+"profiting. And we realized that they can just take off cooperation and not "
+"give back. And there was nothing we could do about it. It was very "
+"discouraging. We, those of us who didn't like the trend, even had a "
+"discussion and we couldn't come up with any idea for how we could stop it."
+msgstr ""
+"Et quand les gens verront ce qui s'est produit, quand des gens verront que "
+"les autres prennent et ne donnent jamais, ça peut les démoraliser. Ce n'est
"
+"pas pure spéculation, je l'ai constaté. Cela a participé à la disparition
de "
+"l'ancienne communauté dont je faisait partie dans les années 70.
Certaines "
+"personnes sont devenues non coopératives et nous avons supposé qu'elles en "
+"tiraient profit. En tout cas elles agissaient comme si elles pensaient "
+"qu'elles en tiraient profit. Et nous nous sommes rendu compte qu'on pouvait "
+"coopérer à sens unique : prendre sans rien donner en retour. Nous ne "
+"pouvions rien y faire, c'était très décourageant. Nous qui ne suivions pas
"
+"la tendance, nous en avons discuté et ne sommes pas arrivés à trouver une "
+"idée pour arrêter ça."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, the GPL is designed to stop that. And it says, Yes, you are welcome to "
+"join the community and use this code. You can use it to do all sorts of "
+"jobs. But, if you release a modified version, you've got to release that to "
+"our community, as part of our community, as part of the free world."
+msgstr ""
+"Donc la GPL est conçue pour éviter cela. Elle dit : « Vous êtes invité
à "
+"vous joindre à la communauté et à utiliser ce code. Vous pouvez l'utiliser
"
+"de toutes les façons possibles, mais si vous publiez une version modifiée, "
+"vous devez la publier pour notre communauté, comme participation à notre "
+"communauté, au monde du libre. »"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, in fact, there are still many ways that people can get the benefit of "
+"our work and not contribute, like you don't have to write any software. "
+"Lots of people use GNU/Linux and don't write any software. There's no "
+"requirement that you've got to do anything for us. But if you do a certain "
+"kind of thing, you've got to contribute to it. So what that means is that "
+"our community is not a doormat. And I think that that helped give people "
+"the strength to feel, Yes, we won't just be trampled underfoot by "
+"everybody. We'll stand up to this."
+msgstr ""
+"En fait, il reste bien des façons pour les gens de profiter de notre travail
"
+"sans y contribuer, comme ne pas écrire de logiciels. Bien des gens utilisent
"
+"GNU/Linux et n'écrivent pas de logiciels. Il n'y a aucune obligation Ã
faire "
+"quelque chose pour nous, mais si vous faites certaines choses vous devez "
+"contribuer. Ãa signifie que notre communauté n'est pas un paillasson. Et je
"
+"pense que cela donne aux gens un sentiment de force : « Oui, nous ne
serons "
+"pas piétinés par n'importe qui. Nous tiendrons. »"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Yes, my question was, considering free but not "
+"copylefted software, since anybody can pick it up and make it proprietary, "
+"is it not possible also for someone to pick it up and make some changes and "
+"release the whole thing under the GPL?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Oui, ma question portait sur le logiciel libre, "
+"mais sans copyleft. Puisque tout le monde peut le prendre et en faire du "
+"logiciel privateur, n'est-il pas également possible de le prendre, de faire "
+"quelques modifications et de le placer sous GPLÂ ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, it is possible."
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Oui, c'est possible."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Then, that would make all future copies then be "
+"GPL'ed."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Ãa placerait toutes les copies futures sous
GPL."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: From that branch. But here's why we don't do "
+"that."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Ã partir de cette branche. Mais voici pourquoi "
+"nous ne le faisons pas."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Hmm?"
+msgstr "<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Hein ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Here's why we don't generally do that. Let me "
+"explain."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Nous ne faisons pas cela généralement.
Laissez-"
+"moi vous expliquer pourquoi."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: OK, yes."
+msgstr "<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Oui d'accord."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We could, if we wanted to, take X Windows, and "
+"make a GPL-covered copy and make changes in that. But there's a much larger "
+"group of people working on improving X Windows and <em>not</em> GPL-ing it. "
+"So, if we did that, we would be forking from them. And that's not very nice "
+"treatment of them. And, they <em>are</em> a part of our community, "
+"contributing to our community."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Nous pourrions si nous le voulions prendre "
+"XÂ Windows, faire une copie sous GPL et faire des modifications. Mais il y a "
+"un groupe beaucoup plus important de gens qui travaillent à son
amélioration "
+"et qui ne veulent <em>pas</em> le placer sous GPL. Si nous faisions cela "
+"nous créerions une branche, et ce n'est pas très sympa vis-à -vis d'eux.
Ils "
+"<em>font partie</em> de notre communauté ; ils contribuent à notre "
+"communauté."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Second, it would backfire against us, because they're doing a lot more work "
+"on X than we would be. So, our version would be inferior to theirs, and "
+"people wouldn't use it, which means, why go to the trouble at all?"
+msgstr ""
+"Deuxièmement, cela se retournerait contre nous, parce qu'ils ont fait "
+"beaucoup plus de travail sur X que nous n'en ferions. Notre version serait "
+"inférieure à la leur et les gens ne l'utiliseraient pas, alors à quoi bonÂ
?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Mmm hmm."
+msgstr "<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Mmm hmm."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: So when a person has written some improvement to "
+"X Windows, what I say that person should do is cooperate with the X "
+"development team. Send it to them and let them use it their way. Because "
+"they are developing a very important piece of free software. It's good for "
+"us to cooperate with them."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Alors quand une personne apporte une "
+"amélioration à X, je dis à cette personne : coopérez avec l'équipe de "
+"développement de X Windows. Envoyez-leur votre travail et laissez-les s'en "
+"servir, parce qu'ils développent un logiciel libre très important. C'est
bon "
+"pour nous de coopérer avec eux."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Except, considering X, in particular, about two "
+"years ago, the X Consortium that was far into the non-free open "
+"source…"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Sauf que, si on considère X en particulier, il
y "
+"a deux ans le Consortium X qui était allé très loin dans l'open source non
"
+"libre…"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually it <em>wasn't</em> open sourced. "
+"It wasn't open sourced, either. They may have said it was. I can't "
+"remember if they said that or not. But it wasn't open source. It was "
+"restricted. You couldn't commercially distribute, I think. Or you couldn't "
+"commercially distribute a modified version, or something like that. There "
+"was a restriction that's considered unacceptable by both the Free Software "
+"movement and the Open Source movement."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : En fait ce <em>n'était pas</em> vraiment open "
+"source. Ils ont peut-être dit que ça l'était, je ne peux pas me rappeler "
+"s'ils l'ont dit ou non. Mais ce n'était pas open source, Il y avait des "
+"restrictions. On ne pouvait pas distribuer commercialement, je crois. Ou on "
+"ne pouvait pas distribuer commercialement une version modifiée, ou quelque "
+"chose comme ça. Il y avait une restriction considérée comme inacceptable Ã
"
+"la fois par la Free Software Foundation et par le mouvement Open Source."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And yes, that's what using a non-copyleft license leaves you open to. In "
+"fact, the X Consortium, they had a very rigid policy. They say: If your "
+"program if copylefted even a little bit, we won't distribute it at all. We "
+"won't put it in our distribution."
+msgstr ""
+"Oui, c'est à cela que mène l'utilisation d'une licence sans copyleft. En "
+"fait, le consortium X avait une politique très rigide. Ils disaient : «Â
Si "
+"votre programme est sous copyleft, nous ne le distribuerons pas du tout. "
+"Nous ne le mettrons pas dans notre distribution. »"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, a lot of people were pressured in this way into not copylefting. And "
+"the result was that all of their software was wide open, later on. When the "
+"same people who had pressured a developer to be too all-permissive, then the "
+"X people later said, All right, now we can put on restrictions, which wasn't "
+"very ethical of them."
+msgstr ""
+"Alors un grand nombre de personnes ont été poussées à ne pas utiliser le "
+"copyleft. Le résultat, c'est que tous leurs logiciels étaient grands "
+"ouverts. Puis après avoir demandé aux gens d'être trop permissifs, ils ont
"
+"dit : « Maintenant nous pouvons mettre des restrictions. » Ce n'était
pas "
+"très éthique de leur part."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, given the situation, would we really want to scrape up the resources to "
+"maintain an alternate GPL-covered version of X? And it wouldn't make any "
+"sense to do that. There are so many other things we need to do. Let's do "
+"them instead. We can cooperate with the X developers."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais, la situation étant ce qu'elle est, allons-nous gaspiller des "
+"ressources pour maintenir une version GPL de XÂ ? Ãa n'aurait aucun sens. Il
"
+"y a tant d'autres choses à faire. Laissons-les faire plutôt. Nous pouvons "
+"coopérer avec les développeurs de X."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Do you have a comment, is the GNU a trademark? "
+"And is it practical to include it as part of the GNU General Public License "
+"allowing trademarks?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Avez-vous un commentaire, GNU est-il une marque "
+"déposée ? Et est-ce faisable de l'inclure dans une partie de la licence "
+"publique générale GNU autorisant les marques ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We are, actually, applying for trademark "
+"registration on GNU. But it wouldn't really have anything to do with that. "
+"It's a long story to explain why."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Nous cherchons effectivement à déposer GNU
comme "
+"marque, mais cela n'aurait rien à voir avec la GPL ; c'est une longue "
+"histoire d'expliquer pourquoi."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You could require the trademark be displayed with "
+"GPL-covered programs."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Vous pourriez exiger que la marque déposée
soit "
+"affichée dans les programmes sous GPL."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: No, I don't think so. The licenses cover "
+"individual programs. And when a given program is part of the GNU Project, "
+"nobody lies about that. The name of the system as a whole is a different "
+"issue. And this is an aside. It's not worth discussing more."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Non, je ne pense pas. Les licences ne couvrent "
+"que les programmes individuels, et quand un programme fait partie du projet "
+"GNU personne ne cherche à le cacher. Mais le nom du système dans son "
+"ensemble, c'est une autre question. C'est un à -côté, cela ne vaut pas la "
+"peine d'en discuter plus longtemps."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: If there was a button that you could push and "
+"force all companies to free their software, would you press it?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : S'il y avait un bouton qui forçait toutes les "
+"sociétés à libérer leurs logiciels, l'utiliseriez-vous ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, I would only use this for published "
+"software. You know, I think that people have the right to write a program "
+"privately and use it. And that includes companies. This is privacy issue. "
+"And it's true, there can be times when it is wrong to do that, like if it is "
+"tremendously helpful to humanity, and you are withholding it from humanity. "
+"That is a wrong but that's a different kind of wrong. It's a different "
+"issue, although it's in the same area."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Je ne l'utiliserais que pour les logiciels "
+"publiés. Vous savez, je pense que les gens ont le droit d'écrire des "
+"logiciels privés et de les utiliser, et cela inclut les entreprises. C'est "
+"une question de vie privée. Il peut y avoir des moments, c'est vrai, où il "
+"est mal de garder par devers soi quelque chose de très utile à l'humanité.
"
+"Mais c'est une autre sorte de préjudice, même si cela concerne le même "
+"secteur."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But yes, I think all published software should be free software. And "
+"remember, when it's not free software, that's because of government "
+"intervention. The government is intervening to make it non-free. The "
+"government is creating special legal powers to hand out to the owners of the "
+"programs, so that they can have the police stop us from using the programs "
+"in certain ways. So I would certainly like to end that."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais oui, je pense que tout logiciel publié doit être libre. Et rappelez-"
+"vous, quand ce n'est pas un logiciel libre, c'est à cause de l'intervention "
+"du gouvernement. Le gouvernement intervient pour faire du non libre. Il crée
"
+"des pouvoirs juridiques particuliers qu'il délègue aux propriétaires de "
+"programmes, de sorte qu'ils puissent se servir de la police pour nous "
+"empêcher d'utiliser les programmes de certaines façons. Je voudrais mettre "
+"un terme à cela, c'est certain."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Richard's presentation has invariably generated "
+"an enormous amount of intellectual energy. I would suggest that some of it "
+"should be directed to using, and possibly writing, free software."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong> : Les interventions de Richard génèrent "
+"invariablement une quantité énorme d'énergie intellectuelle. Je suggère "
+"qu'une partie soit consacrée à utiliser des logiciels libres, et peut-être
à "
+"en écrire."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"We should close the proceedings shortly. I want to say that Richard has "
+"injected into a profession which is known in the general public for its "
+"terminal apolitical nerditude a level of political and moral discussion "
+"which is, I think, unprecedented in our profession. And we owe him very big "
+"for this. I'd like to note to people that there is a break."
+msgstr ""
+"Nous allons bientôt nous interrompre. Je voulais dire que Richard a injecté
"
+"dans la profession, qui est connue dans le public pour son attitude "
+"apolitique, un niveau de discussion morale et politique sans précédent. Et "
+"nous lui devons beaucoup pour cela. Je voudrais signaler au public qu'il y a "
+"maintenant une pause."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<i>[Applause]</i>"
+msgstr "<i>[applaudissements]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: You are free to leave at any time, you know. <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i> I'm not holding you prisoner here."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Vous êtes libres de sortir quand vous voulez
<i>"
+"[rires]</i>. Je ne vous retiens pas prisonniers ici, vous savez."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<i>[Audience adjourns…]</i>"
+msgstr "<i>[Le public sort…]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<i>[overlapping conversations…]</i>"
+msgstr "<i>[Conversations diffuses…]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: One final thing. Our website: www.gnu.org"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Un dernier mot, notre site web : www.gnu.org."
+
+#. TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes.
+#. type: Content of: <div>
+msgid "*GNUN-SLOT: TRANSLATOR'S NOTES*"
+msgstr ""
+"<hr /><b>Notes de traduction</b><ol>\n"
+"<li id=\"TransNote1\"><cite>Proprietary software</cite> se traduit souvent "
+"par « logiciel propriétaire ». « Privateur » est un néologisme
inventé par "
+"RMS pour exprimer la notion que les logiciels propriétaires privent "
+"l'utilisateur de ses libertés. <a href=\"#TransNote1-rev\" class="
+"\"nounderline\">↑</a></li>\n"
+"<li id=\"TransNote2\">Traduction : Bien ! <a
href=\"#TransNote2-rev\">↑"
+"</a></li>\n"
+"<li id=\"TransNote3\">Zwei était Eine à l'origine. <a
href=\"#TransNote3-rev"
+"\" class=\"nounderline\">↑</a></li>\n"
+"<li id=\"TransNote4\">Prononcer « nou » ; traduction : nouveau. <a
href="
+"\"#TransNote4-rev\" class=\"nounderline\">↑</a></li>\n"
+"<li id=\"TransNote5\">Nouveau système d'exploitation. <a
href=\"#TransNote5-"
+"rev\" class=\"nounderline\">↑</a></li>\n"
+"<li id=\"TransNote6\">Le mot français « libre » n'a pas cette
ambiguïté car "
+"« entrée libre » est à peu près le seul cas où l'on peut lui donner
le sens "
+"de « gratuit ». On constate malgré tout que le logiciel libre est
souvent "
+"assimilé (par erreur) à du logiciel gratuit. <a href=\"#TransNote6-rev\" "
+"class=\"nounderline\">↑</a></li>\n"
+"<li id=\"TransNote7\">Déclaration d'indépendance <em>américaine</em>. <a "
+"href=\"#TransNote7-rev\" class=\"nounderline\">↑</a></li>\n"
+"<li id=\"TransNote8\">« X Windows » est une abréviation de « système
X "
+"Window ». Cela n'a rien à voir avec un système d'exploitation privateur
bien "
+"connu. <a href=\"#TransNote8-rev\" class=\"nounderline\">↑</a></li>\n"
+"<li id=\"TransNote9\">Anciennement <cite>National Public Radio</cite>Â : "
+"fédération de radios locales non commerciales, produisant des programmes "
+"culturels ou d'actualité diffusés sur tout le territoire des Ãtats-Unis.Â
<a "
+"href=\"#TransNote9-rev\" class=\"nounderline\">↑</a></li>\n"
+"<li id=\"TransNote10\">L'enregistrement de ce paragraphe était probablement "
+"difficile à comprendre, ce qui a donné une transcription à peu près "
+"intraduisible. Nous en avons fait une interprétation très libre. <a href="
+"\"#TransNote10-rev\" class=\"nounderline\">↑</a></li>\n"
+"<li id=\"TransNote11\">Un concept juridique propre au copyright "
+"américain. <a href=\"#TransNote11-rev\" class=\"nounderline\">↑</a></"
+"li>\n"
+"</ol>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <div><div><p>
+msgid ""
+"Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
href=\"mailto:address@hidden";
+"\"><address@hidden></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";><address@hidden"
+"org></a>."
+msgstr ""
+"Veuillez envoyer les requêtes concernant la FSF et GNU à <a href=\"mailto:";
+"address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>. Il existe aussi <a
href=\"/contact/"
+"\">d'autres moyens de contacter</a> la FSF. Les liens orphelins et autres "
+"corrections ou suggestions peuvent être signalés à <a href=\"mailto:";
+"address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>."
+
+#. 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";>
+#. <address@hidden></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><div><p>
+msgid ""
+"Please see the <a href=\"/server/standards/README.translations.html"
+"\">Translations README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting "
+"translations of this article."
+msgstr ""
+"Nous faisons le maximum pour proposer des traductions fidèles et de bonne "
+"qualité, mais nous ne sommes pas parfaits. Merci d'adresser vos commentaires
"
+"sur cette page, ainsi que vos suggestions d'ordre général sur les "
+"traductions, Ã <a href=\"mailto:address@hidden";> <web-"
+"address@hidden></a>.</p>\n"
+"<p>Pour tout renseignement sur la coordination et la soumission des "
+"traductions de nos pages web, reportez-vous au <a href=\"/server/standards/"
+"README.translations.html\">guide de traduction</a>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <div><p>
+msgid "Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman"
+msgstr "Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman"
+
+#. 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 ""
+"Cette page peut être utilisée suivant les conditions de la licence <a rel="
+"\"license\" href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/deed.fr";
+"\">Creative Commons attribution de paternité, pas de modification, 3.0Â
Ãtats-"
+"Unis (CCÂ BY-ND 3.0Â US)</a>."
+
+#. TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.
+#. type: Content of: <div><div>
+msgid "*GNUN-SLOT: TRANSLATOR'S CREDITS*"
+msgstr ""
+"Traduction : Xavier Dumont.<br />Révision : <a href=\"mailto:trad-gnu@";
+"april.org\">trad-gnu@april.org</a>"
+
+#. timestamp start
+#. type: Content of: <div><p>
+msgid "Updated:"
+msgstr "Dernière mise à jour :"
Index: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-diff.html
diff -N philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-diff.html 15 Sep 2015 05:45:27
-0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,2144 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist"
-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation</h2>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p style="text-align: center;">
+Transcript of<br /></strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><blockquote><p>Transcript
of</em></ins></span>
+Richard M. Stallman's <span class="removed"><del><strong>speech,<br />
+<em>“Free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>speech,
+“Free</em></ins></span> Software: Freedom and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Cooperation”</em><br
/></strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Cooperation”,
+given at</em></ins></span> New York University in New York, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>New York<br /></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>NY,</em></ins></span>
+on 29 May <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2001</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2001</p></blockquote></em></ins></span>
+
+<div class="announcement">
+<blockquote><p>A <a
href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt">plain
+text</a> version of this transcript and
+a <a href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt">summary</a> of
the speech
+are also available.</p></blockquote>
+</div>
+
+<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: I'm Mike Uretsky. I'm over at
the Stern
+School of Business. I'm also one of the Co-Directors of the Center
+for Advanced Technology. And, on behalf of all of us in the Computer
+Science Department, I want to welcome you here. I want to say a few
+comments, before I turn it over to Ed, who is going to introduce the
+speaker.</p>
+
+<p>The role of a university is a place to foster debate and to have
+interesting discussions. And the role of a major university is to
+have particularly interesting discussions. And this particular
+presentation, this seminar falls right into that mold. I find the
+discussion of open source particularly interesting. In a sense
+… <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I do free software. Open
source is a
+different movement. <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: When I first started in the
field in the
+'60's, basically software was free. And we went in cycles. It became
+free, and then software manufacturers, in the need to expand their
+markets, pushed it in other directions. A lot of the developments
+that took place with the entry of the PC moved in exactly the same
+kind of a cycle.</p>
+
+<p>There's a very interesting French philosopher, Pierre Levy, who
+talks about movement to this direction and who talks about the move
+into cyberspace as not only relating to technology but also relating
+to social restructuring, to political restructuring, through a change
+in the kinds of relationships that will improve the well-being of
+mankind. And we're hoping that this debate is a movement in that
+direction, that this debate is something that cuts across a lot of the
+disciplines that normally act as solace within the University. We're
+looking forward to some very interesting discussions. Ed?</p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: I'm Ed Schonberg from the
Computer
+Science Department at the Courant Institute. Let me welcome you all
+to this event. Introducers are usually, and particularly, a useless
+aspect of public presentations, but in this case, actually, they serve
+a useful purpose, as Mike easily demonstrated, because an introducer
+for instance, told him, by making inaccurate comments, can allow him
+to straighten out and correct and <i>[Laughter]</i> sharpen
+considerably the parameters of the debate.</p>
+
+<p>So, let me make the briefest possible introduction to somebody who
+doesn't need one. Richard is the perfect example of somebody who, by
+acting locally, started thinking globally from problems concerning the
+unavailability of source code for printer drivers at the AI Lab many
+years ago. He has developed a coherent philosophy that has forced all
+of us to re-examine our ideas of how software is produced, of what
+intellectual property means, and what the software community actually
+represents. Let me welcome Richard Stallman.
<i>[Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can someone lend me a
+watch? <i>[Laughter]</i> Thank you. So, I'd like to thank
Microsoft
+for providing me the opportunity to <i>[Laughter]</i> be on this
+platform. For the past few weeks, I have felt like an author whose
+book was fortuitously banned somewhere. <i>[Laughter]</i> Except
that
+all the articles about it are giving the wrong author's name, because
+Microsoft describes the GNU GPL as an open source license, and most of
+the press coverage followed suit. Most people, of course just
+innocently don't realize that our work has nothing to do with open
+source, that in fact we did most of it before people even coined the
+term open source.</p>
+
+<p>We are in the free software movement, and I'm going to speak about
+what the free software movement is about, what it means, what we have
+done, and, because this is partly sponsored by a school of business,
+I'll say some things more than I usually do about how free software
+relates to business, and some other areas of social life.</p>
+
+<p>Now, some of you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps
+you cook. And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably
+use recipes. And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the
+experience of getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing
+it. And you've probably also had the experience — unless you're
+a total neophyte — of changing a recipe. You know, it says
+certain things, but you don't have to do exactly that. You can leave
+out some ingredients. Add some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms.
+Put in less salt because your doctor said you should cut down on salt
+— whatever. You can even make bigger changes according to your
+skill. And if you've made changes in a recipe, and you cook it for
+your friends, and they like it, one of your friends might say,
+“Hey, could I have the recipe?” And then, what do you do?
+You could write down your modified version of the recipe and make a
+copy for your friend. These are the natural things to do with
+functionally useful recipes of any kind.</p>
+
+<p>Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program. A computer
+program's a lot like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to
+get some result that you want. So it's just as natural to do those
+same things with computer programs — hand a copy to your friend.
+Make changes in it because the job it was written to do isn't exactly
+what you want. It did a great job for somebody else, but your job is
+a different job. And after you've changed it, that's likely to be
+useful for other people. Maybe they have a job to do that's like the
+job you do. So they ask, “Hey, can I have a copy?” Of
+course, if you're a nice person, you're going to give a copy. That's
+the way to be a decent person.</p>
+
+<p>So imagine what it would be like if recipes were packaged inside
+black boxes. You couldn't see what ingredients they're using, let
+alone change them, and imagine if you made a copy for a friend, they
+would call you a pirate and try to put you in prison for years. That
+world would create tremendous outrage from all the people who are used
+to sharing recipes. But that is exactly what the world of proprietary
+software is like. A world in which common decency towards other
+people is prohibited or prevented.</p>
+
+<p>Now, why did I notice this? I noticed this because I had the good
+fortune in the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who
+shared software. Now, this community could trace its ancestry
+essentially back to the beginning of computing. In the 1970's,
+though, it was a bit rare for there to be a community where people
+shared software. And, in fact, this was sort of an extreme case,
+because in the lab where I worked, the entire operating system was
+software developed by the people in our community, and we'd share any
+of it with anybody. Anybody was welcome to come and take a look, and
+take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do. There were no
+copyright notices on these programs. Cooperation was our way of life.
+And we were secure in that way of life. We didn't fight for it. We
+didn't have to fight for it. We just lived that way. And, as far as
+we knew, we would just keep on living that way. So there was free
+software, but there was no free software movement.</p>
+
+<p>But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that
+happened to it. Ultimately it was wiped out. Ultimately, the PDP-10
+computer which we used for all our work was discontinued. And you
+know, our system — the Incompatible Timesharing System —
+was written starting in the '60's, so it was written in assembler
+language. That's what you used to write an operating system in the
+'60's. So, of course, assembler language is for one particular
+computer architecture; if that gets discontinued, all your work turns
+into dust — it's useless. And that's what happened to us. The
+20 years or so of work of our community turned into dust.</p>
+
+<p>But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me,
+helped me see what to do, helped prepare me to see what to do when
+this happened, because at certain point, Xerox gave the Artificial
+Intelligence Lab, where I worked, a laser printer, and this was a
+really handsome gift, because it was the first time anybody outside
+Xerox had a laser printer. It was very fast, printed a page a second,
+very fine in many respects, but it was unreliable, because it was
+really a high-speed office copier that had been modified into a
+printer. And, you know, copiers jam, but there's somebody there to
+fix them. The printer jammed and nobody saw. So it stayed jammed for
+a long time.</p>
+
+<p>Well, we had an idea for how to deal with this problem. Change it
+so that whenever the printer gets a jam, the machine that runs the
+printer can tell our timesharing machine, and tell the users who are
+waiting for printouts, or something like that, you know, tell them, go
+fix the printer. Because if they only knew it was jammed, of course,
+if you're waiting for a printout and you know that the printer is
+jammed, you don't want to sit and wait forever, you're going to go fix
+it.</p>
+
+<p>But at that point, we were completely stymied, because the software
+that ran that printer was not free software. It had come with the
+printer, and it was just a binary. We couldn't have the source code;
+Xerox wouldn't let us have the source code. So, despite our skill as
+programmers — after all, we had written our own timesharing
+system — we were completely helpless to add this feature to the
+printer software.</p>
+
+<p>And we just had to suffer with waiting. It would take an hour or
+two to get your printout because the machine would be jammed most of
+the time. And only once in a while — you'd wait an hour
+figuring “I know it's going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and
+go collect my printout,” and then you'd see that it had been
+jammed the whole time, and in fact, nobody else had fixed it. So
+you'd fix it and you'd go wait another half hour. Then, you'd come
+back, and you'd see it jammed again — before it got to your
+output. It would print three minutes and be jammed thirty minutes.
+Frustration up the whazzoo. But the thing that made it worse was
+knowing that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his own
+selfishness, was blocking us, obstructing us from improving the
+software. So, of course, we felt some resentment.</p>
+
+<p>And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a
+copy of that software. So I was visiting there later, so I went to
+his office and I said, “Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of
+the printer source code?” And he said “No, I promised not
+to give you a copy.” <i>[Laughter]</i> I was stunned. I was
so
+— I was angry, and I had no idea how I could do justice to it.
+All I could think of was to turn around on my heel and walk out of his
+room. Maybe I slammed the door. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I thought
+about it later on, because I realized that I was seeing not just an
+isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was important and affected
+a lot of people.</p>
+
+<p>This was — for me — I was lucky, I only got a taste of
+it, but other people had to live in this all the time. So I thought
+about it at length. See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with
+us — his colleagues at MIT. He had betrayed us. But he didn't
+just do it to us. Chances are he did it to you too. <i>[Pointing at
+member of audience.]</i> And I think, mostly likely, he did it to you
+too. <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.] [Laughter]</i>
And
+he probably did it to you as well. <i>[Pointing to third member of
+audience.]</i> He probably did it to most of the people here in this
+room — except a few, maybe, who weren't born yet in 1980.
+Because he had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about the
+entire population of the Planet Earth. He had signed a non-disclosure
+agreement.</p>
+
+<p>Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure
+agreement, and it taught me an important lesson — a lesson
+that's important because most programmers never learn it. You see,
+this was my first encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was
+the victim. I, and my whole lab, were the victims. And the lesson it
+taught me was that non-disclosure agreements have victims. They're
+not innocent. They're not harmless. Most programmers first encounter
+a non-disclosure agreement when they're invited to sign one. And
+there's always some temptation — some goody they're going to get
+if they sign. So, they make up excuses. They say, “Well, he's
+never going to get a copy no matter what, so why shouldn't I join the
+conspiracy to deprive him?” They say, “This is the way
+it's always done. Who am I to go against it?” They say,
+“If I don't sign this, someone else will.” Various excuses
+to gag their consciences.</p>
+
+<p>But when somebody invited me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, my
+conscience was already sensitized. It remembered how angry I had
+been, when somebody promised not to help me and my whole lab solve our
+problem. And I couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to
+somebody else who had never done me any harm. You know, if somebody
+asked me to promise not to share some useful information with a hated
+enemy, I would have said yes. You know? If somebody's done something
+bad, he deserves it. But, strangers — they haven't done me any
+harm. How could they deserve that kind of mistreatment? You can't
+let yourself start treating just anybody and everybody badly. Then
+you become a predator on society. So I said, “Thank you very
+much for offering me this nice software package. But I can't accept
+it in good conscience, on the conditions you are demanding, so I will
+do without it. Thank you so much.” And so, I have never
+knowingly signed a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful
+technical information such as software.</p>
+
+<p>Now there are other kinds of information which raise different
+ethical issues. For instance, there's personal information. You
+know, if you wanted to talk with me about what was happening between
+you and your boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody —
+you know, I could keep — I could agree to keep that a secret for
+you, because that's not generally useful technical information. At
+least, it's probably not generally useful.
<i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>There is a small chance — and it's a possibility though
+— that you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex
+technique, <i>[Laughter]</i> and I would then feel a moral
+duty <i>[Laughter]</i> to pass it onto the rest of humanity, so
that
+everyone could get the benefit of it. So, I'd have to put a proviso
+in that promise, you know? If it's just details about who wants this,
+and who's angry at whom, and things like that — soap opera
+— that I can keep private for you, but something that humanity
+could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't withhold. You see,
+the purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information
+for humanity to help people live their lives better. If we promise to
+withhold that information — if we keep it secret — then we
+are betraying the mission of our field. And this, I decided I
+shouldn't do.</p>
+
+<p>But, meanwhile my community had collapsed, and that was collapsing,
+and that left me in a bad situation. You see, the whole Incompatible
+Timesharing System was obsolete, because the PDP-10 was obsolete, and
+so there was no way that I could continue working as an operating
+system developer the way that I had been doing it. That depended on
+being part of the community using the community software and improving
+it. That no longer was a possibility, and that gave me a moral
+dilemma. What was I going to do? Because the most obvious
+possibility meant to go against that decision I had made. The most
+obvious possibility was to adapt myself to the change in the world.
+To accept that things were different, and that I'd just have to give
+up those principles and start signing non-disclosure agreements for
+proprietary operating systems, and most likely writing proprietary
+software as well. But I realized that that way I could have fun
+coding, and I could make money — especially if I did it other
+than at MIT — but at the end, I'd have to look back at my career
+and say, “I've spent my life building walls to divide
+people,” and I would have been ashamed of my life.</p>
+
+<p>So I looked for another alternative, and there was an obvious one.
+I could leave the software field and do something else. Now I had no
+other special noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a
+waiter. <i>[Laughter]</i> Not at a fancy restaurant; they wouldn't
+hire me, <i>[Laughter]</i> but I could be a waiter somewhere. And
+many programmers, they say to me, “The people who hire
+programmers demand this, this and this. If I don't do those things,
+I'll starve.” It's literally the word they use. Well, you know,
+as a waiter, you're not going to starve. <i>[Laughter]</i> So,
+really, they're in no danger. But — and this is important, you
+see — because sometimes you can justify doing something that
+hurts other people by saying otherwise something worse is going to
+happen to me. You know, if you were <em>really</em> going to
starve,
+you'd be justified in writing proprietary software.
<i>[Laughter]</i>
+If somebody's pointing a gun at you, then I would say, it's
+forgivable. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, I had found a way that I could
+survive without doing something unethical, so that excuse was not
+available. So I realized, though, that being a waiter would be no fun
+for me, and it would be wasting my skills as an operating system
+developer. It would avoid misusing my skills. Developing proprietary
+software would be misusing my skills. Encouraging other people to
+live in the world of proprietary software would be misusing my skills.
+So it's better to waste them than misuse them, but it's still not
+really good.</p>
+
+<p>So for those reasons, I decided to look for some other alternative.
+What can an operating system developer do that would actually improve
+the situation, make the world a better place? And I realized that an
+operating system developer was exactly what was needed. The problem,
+the dilemma, existed for me and for everyone else because all of the
+available operating systems for modern computers were proprietary.
+The free operating systems were for old, obsolete computers, right?
+So for the modern computers — if you wanted to get a modern
+computer and use it, you were forced into a proprietary operating
+system. So if an operating system developer wrote another operating
+system, and then said, “Everybody come and share this; you're
+welcome to this” — that would give everybody a way out of
+the dilemma, another alternative. So I realized that there was
+something I could do that would solve the problem. I had just the
+right skills to be able to do it. And it was the most useful thing I
+could possibly imagine that I'd be able to do with my life. And it
+was a problem that no one else was trying to solve. It was just sort
+of sitting there, getting worse, and nobody was there but me. So I
+felt, “I'm elected. I have to work on this. If not me,
+who?” So I decided I would develop a free operating system, or
+die trying … of old age, of course.
<i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>So, of course I had to decide what kind of operating system it
+should be. There are some technical design decisions to be made. I
+decided to make the system compatible with Unix for a number of
+reasons. First of all, I had just seen one operating system that I
+really loved become obsolete because it was written for one particular
+kind of computer. I didn't want that to happen again. We needed to
+have a portable system. Well, Unix was a portable system. So if I
+followed the design of Unix, I had a pretty good chance that I could
+make a system that would also be portable and workable. And
+furthermore, why <i>[Tape unclear]</i> be compatible with it in the
+details. The reason is, users hate incompatible changes. If I had
+just designed the system in my favorite way — which I would have
+loved doing, I'm sure — I would have produced something that was
+incompatible. You know, the details would be different. So, if I
+wrote the system, then the users would have said to me, “Well,
+this is very nice, but it's incompatible. It will be too much work to
+switch. We can't afford that much trouble just to use your system
+instead of Unix, so we'll stay with Unix,” they would have
+said.</p>
+
+<p>Now, if I wanted to actually create a community where there would
+be people in it, people using this free system, and enjoying the
+benefits of liberty and cooperation, I had to make a system people
+would use, a system that they would find easy to switch to, that would
+not have an obstacle making it fail at the very beginning. Now,
+making the system upward compatible with Unix actually made all the
+immediate design decisions, because Unix consists of many pieces, and
+they communicate through interfaces that are more or less documented.
+So if you want to be compatible with Unix, you have to replace each
+piece, one by one, with a compatible piece. So the remaining design
+decisions are inside one piece, and they could be made later by
+whoever decides to write that piece. They didn't have to be made at
+the outset.</p>
+
+<p>So all we had to do to start work was find a name for the system.
+Now, we hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program,
+because thinking of people being amused by the name is half the fun of
+writing the program. <i>[Laughter]</i> And we had a tradition of
+recursive acronyms, to say that the program that you're writing is
+similar to some existing program. You can give it a recursive acronym
+name which says: this one's not the other. So, for instance, there
+were many Tico text editors in the '60's and '70's, and they were
+generally called something-or-other Tico. Then one clever hacker
+called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico — the first recursive
+acronym. In 1975, I developed the first Emacs text editor, and there
+were many imitations of Emacs, and a lot of them were called
+something-or-other Emacs, but one was called Fine, for Fine Is Not
+Emacs, and there was Sine, for Sine Is Not Emacs, and Eine for Ina Is
+Not Emacs, and MINCE for Mince Is Not Complete
+Emacs. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was a stripped down imitation. And
+then, Eine was almost completely rewritten, and the new version was
+called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially.
<i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>So I looked for a recursive acronym for Something is not Unix. And
+I tried all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word.
+<i>[Laughter]</i> Hmm, try another way. I made a contraction.
That
+way I could have a three-letter acronym, for Something's not Unix.
+And I tried letters, and I came across the word “GNU”
+— the word “GNU” is the funniest word in the English
+language. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was it. Of course, the reason
it's
+funny is that according to the dictionary, it's pronounced
+“new”. You see? And so that's why people use it for a
+lot of wordplay. Let me tell you, this is the name of an animal that
+lives in Africa. And the African pronunciation had a click sound in
+it. <i>[Laughter]</i> Maybe still does. And so, the European
+colonists, when they got there, they didn't bother learning to say
+this click sound. So they just left it out, and they wrote a
+“G” which meant “there's another sound that's
+supposed to be here which we are not
+pronouncing.” <i>[Laughter]</i> So, tonight I'm leaving for
+South Africa, and I have begged them, I hope they're going to find
+somebody who can teach me to pronounce click sounds,
<i>[Laughter]</i>
+so that I'll know how to pronounce GNU the correct way, when it's the
+animal.</p>
+
+<p>But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is
+“guh-NEW” — pronounce the hard “G”. If
+you talk about the “new” operating system, you'll get
+people very confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years
+now, so it is not new any more. <i>[Laughter]</i> But it still is,
+and always will be, GNU — no matter how many people call it
+Linux by mistake. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces
+of GNU. They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities
+though. And, at the time, I thought we would write all these pieces,
+and make an entire GNU system, and then we'd say, “Come and get
+it”, and people would start to use it. That's not what
+happened. The first pieces I wrote were just equally good
+replacements, with fewer bugs for some pieces of Unix, but they
+weren't tremendously exciting. Nobody particularly wanted to get them
+and install them. But then, in September 1984, I started writing GNU
+Emacs, which was my second implementation of Emacs, and by early 1985,
+it was working. I could use it for all my editing, which was a big
+relief, because I had no intention of learning to use VI, the Unix
+editor. <i>[Laughter]</i> So, until that time, I did my editing on
+some other machine, and saved the files through the network, so that I
+could test them. But when GNU Emacs was running well enough for me to
+use it, it was also — other people wanted to use it too.</p>
+
+<p>So I had to work out the details of distribution. Of course, I put
+a copy in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people
+who were on the net They could then just pull over a tar file, but a
+lot of programmers then even were not on the net in 1985. They were
+sending me emails saying “How can I get a copy?” I had to
+decide what I would answer them. Well, I could have said, I want to
+spend my time writing more GNU software, not writing tapes, so please
+find a friend who's on the internet and who is willing to download it
+and put it on a tape for you. And I'm sure people would have found
+some friends, sooner or later, you know. They would have got copies.
+But I had no job. In fact, I've never had a job since quitting MIT in
+January 1984. So, I was looking for some way I could make money
+through my work on free software, and therefore I started a free
+software business. I announced, “Send me $150 dollars, and I'll
+mail you a tape of Emacs.” And the orders began dribbling in.
+By the middle of the year they were trickling in.</p>
+
+<p>I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month. And, if necessary, I could
+have lived on just that, because I've always lived cheaply. I live
+like a student, basically. And I like that, because it means that
+money is not telling me what to do. I can do what I think is
+important for me to do. It freed me to do what seemed worth doing.
+So make a real effort to avoid getting sucked into all the expensive
+lifestyle habits of typical Americans. Because if you do that, then
+people with the money will dictate what you do with your life. You
+won't be able to do what's really important to you.</p>
+
+<p>So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, “What do you
+mean it's free software if it costs $150
+dollars?” <i>[Laughter]</i> Well, the reason they asked this
was
+that they were confused by the multiple meanings of the English word
+“free”. One meaning refers to price, and another meaning
+refers to freedom. When I speak of free software, I'm referring to
+freedom, not price. So think of free speech, not free
+beer. <i>[Laughter]</i> Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many
years
+of my life to making sure programmers got less money. That's not my
+goal. I'm a programmer and I don't mind getting money myself. I
+won't dedicate my whole life to getting it, but I don't mind getting
+it. And I'm not — and therefore, ethics is the same for
+everyone. I'm not against some other programmer getting money either.
+I don't want prices to be low. That's not the issue at all. The
+issue is freedom. Freedom for everyone who's using software, whether
+that person be a programmer or not.</p>
+
+<p>So at this point I should give you the definition of free software.
+I better get to some real details, you see, because just saying
+“I believe in freedom” is vacuous. There's so many
+different freedoms you could believe in, and they conflict with each
+other, so the real political question is: Which are the important
+freedoms, the freedoms that we must make sure everybody has?</p>
+
+<p>And now, I will give my answer to that question for the particular
+area of using software. A program is free software for you, a
+particular user, if you have the following freedoms:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>First, Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the program for any
+purpose, any way you like.</li>
+<li>Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
+program to suit your needs.</li>
+<li>Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
+copies of the program.</li>
+<li>And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
+publishing an improved version so others can get the benefit of your
+work.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software,
+for you — and that's crucial. That's why I phrase it that way.
+I'll explain why later, when I talk about the GNU General Public
+License, but right now I'm explaining what free software means, which
+is a more basic question.</p>
+
+<p>So, Freedom Zero's pretty obvious. If you're not even allowed to
+run the program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive
+program. But as it happens, most programs will at least give you
+Freedom Zero. And Freedom Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of
+Freedoms One, Two, and Three — that's the way that copyright law
+works. So the freedoms that distinguish free software from typical
+software are Freedoms One, Two, and Three, so I'll say more about them
+and why they are important.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
+software to suit your needs. This could mean fixing bugs. It could
+mean adding new features. It could mean porting it to a different
+computer system. It could mean translating all the error messages
+into Navajo. Any change you want to make, you should be free to
+make.</p>
+
+<p>Now, it's obvious that professional programmers can make use of
+this freedom very effectively, but not just them. Anybody of
+reasonable intelligence can learn a little programming. You know,
+there are hard jobs, and there are easy jobs, and most people are not
+going to learn enough to do hard jobs. But lots of people can learn
+enough to do easy jobs, just the way, you know, 50 years ago, lots and
+lots of American men learned to repair cars, which is what enabled the
+U.S. to have a motorized army in World War II and win. So, very
+important, having lots of people tinkering.</p>
+
+<p>And if you are a people person, and you really don't want to learn
+technology at all, that probably means that you have a lot of friends,
+and you're good at getting them to owe you favors.
<i>[Laughter]</i>
+Some of them are probably programmers. So you can ask one of your
+programmer friends. “Would you please change this for me? Add
+this feature?” So, lots of people can benefit from it.</p>
+
+<p>Now, if you don't have this freedom, it causes practical, material
+harm to society. It makes you a prisoner of your software. I
+explained what that was like with regard to the laser printer. You
+know, it worked badly for us, and we couldn't fix it, because we were
+prisoners of our software.</p>
+
+<p>But it also affects people's morale. You know if the computer is
+constantly frustrating to use, and people are using it, their lives
+are going to be frustrating, and if they're using it in their jobs,
+their jobs are going to be frustrating; they're going to hate their
+jobs. And you know, people protect themselves from frustration by
+deciding not to care. So you end up with people whose attitude is,
+“Well, I showed up for work today. That's all I have to do. If
+I can't make progress, that's not my problem; that's the boss's
+problem.” And when this happens, it's bad for those people, and
+it's bad for society as a whole. That's Freedom One, the freedom to
+help yourself.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
+copies of the program. Now, for beings that can think and learn,
+sharing useful knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship. When
+these beings use computers, this act of friendship takes the form of
+sharing software. Friends share with each other. Friends help each
+other. This is the nature of friendship. And, in fact, this spirit
+of goodwill — the spirit of helping your neighbor, voluntarily
+— is society's most important resource. It makes the difference
+between a livable society and a dog-eat-dog jungle. Its importance
+has been recognized by the world's major religions for thousands of
+years, and they explicitly try to encourage this attitude.</p>
+
+<p>When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach
+us this attitude — the spirit of sharing — by having us do
+it. They figured if we did it, we'd learn. So they said, “If
+you bring candy to school, you can't keep it all for yourself; you
+have to share some with the other kids.” Teaching us, the
+society was set up to teach, this spirit of cooperation. And why do
+you have to do that? Because people are not totally cooperative.
+That's one part of human nature, and there are other parts of human
+nature. There are lots of parts of human nature. So, if you want a
+better society, you've got to work to encourage the spirit of sharing.
+You know, it'll never get to be 100%. That's understandable. People
+have to take care of themselves too. But if we make it somewhat
+bigger, we're all better off.</p>
+
+<p>Nowadays, according to the U.S. Government, teachers are supposed
+to do the exact opposite. “Oh, Johnny, you brought software to
+school. Well, don't share it. Oh no. Sharing is wrong. Sharing
+means you're a pirate.”</p>
+
+<p>What do they mean when they say “pirate”? They're
+saying that helping your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking
+a ship. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>What would Buddha or Jesus say about that? Now, take your favorite
+religious leader. I don't know, maybe Manson would have said
+something different. <i>[Laughter]</i> Who knows what L. Ron
Hubbard
+would say? But …</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>:
<i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Of course, he's dead. But
they don't
+admit that. What?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: So are the others, also
+dead. <i>[Laughter] [Inaudible]</i> Charles Manson's also
+dead. <i>[Laughter]</i> They're dead, Jesus's dead, Buddha's
+dead…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, that's true.
<i>[Laughter]</i> So
+I guess, in that regard, L. Ron Hubbard is no worse than the
+others. <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway —
<i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: L. Ron always used free
software —
+it freed him from Zanu. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Anyway, so, I think this is
actually the
+most important reason why software should be free: We can't afford to
+pollute society's most important resource. It's true that it's not a
+physical resource like clean air and clean water. It's a
+psycho-social resource, but it's just as real for all that, and it
+makes a tremendous difference to our lives. You see, the actions we
+take influence the thoughts of other people. When we go around
+telling people, “Don't share with each other”, if they
+listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's not a good one.
+That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor.</p>
+
+<p>Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just
+cause this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes
+waste — practical, material harm. If the program has an owner,
+and the owner arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay
+in order to be able to use it, some people are going to say,
+“Never mind, I'll do without it.” And that's waste,
+deliberately inflicted waste. And the interesting thing about
+software, of course, is that fewer users doesn't mean you have to make
+less stuff. You know, if fewer people buy cars, you can make fewer
+cars. There's a saving there. There are resources to be allocated,
+or not allocated, into making cars. So that you can say that having a
+price on a car is a good thing. It prevents people from diverting
+lots of wasted resources into making cars that aren't really needed.
+But if each additional car used no resources, it wouldn't be doing any
+good saving the making of these cars. Well, for physical objects, of
+course, like cars, it is always going to take resources to make an
+additional one of them, each additional exemplar.</p>
+
+<p>But for software that's not true. Anybody can make another copy.
+And it's almost trivial to do it. It takes no resources, except a
+tiny bit of electricity. So there's nothing we can save, no resource
+we're going to allocate better by putting this financial disincentive
+on the use of the software. You often find people taking economic,
+the consequences of economic reasoning, based on premises that don't
+apply to software, and trying to transplant them from other areas of
+life where the premises may apply, and the conclusions may be valid.
+They just take the conclusions and assume that they're valid for
+software too, when the argument is based on nothing, in the case of
+software. The premises don't work in that case. It is very important
+to examine how you reach the conclusion, and what premises it depends
+on, to see where it might be valid. So, that's Freedom Two, the
+freedom to help your neighbor.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
+publishing an improved version of the software. People used to say to
+me, “If the software's free, then nobody will get paid to work
+on it, so why should anybody work on it?” Well, of course, they
+were confusing the two meanings of free, so their reasoning was based
+on a misunderstanding. But, in any case, that was their theory.
+Today, we can compare that theory with empirical fact, and we find
+that hundreds of people are being paid to write free software, and
+over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers. We get lots of people
+working on free software, for various different motives.</p>
+
+<p>When I first released GNU Emacs — the first piece of the GNU
+system that people actually wanted to use — and when it started
+having users, after a while, I got a message saying, “I think I
+saw a bug in the source code, and here's a fix.” And I got
+another message, “Here's code to add a new feature.” And
+another bug fix. And another new feature. And another, and another,
+and another, until they were pouring in on me so fast that just making
+use of all this help I was getting was a big job. Microsoft doesn't
+have this problem. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>Eventually, people noted this phenomenon. You see, in the 1980's a
+lot of us thought that maybe free software wouldn't be as good as the
+non-free software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay
+people. And, of course, people like me, who value freedom and
+community said, “Well, we'll use the free software
+anyway.” It's worth making a little sacrifice in some mere
+technical convenience to have freedom. But what people began to note,
+around 1990 was that our software was actually better. It was more
+powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary alternatives.</p>
+
+<p>In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific
+measurement of reliability of software. Here's what he did. He took
+several sets of comparable programs that did the same jobs — the
+exact same jobs — in different systems. Because there were
+certain basic Unix-like utilities. And the jobs that they did, we
+know, was all, more or less, imitating the same thing, or they were
+following the POSIX spec, so they were all the same in terms of what
+jobs they did, but they were maintained by different people, written
+separately. The code was different. So they said, OK, we'll take
+these programs and run them with random data, and measure how often
+they crash, or hang. So they measured it, and the most reliable set
+of programs was the GNU programs. All the commercial alternatives
+which were proprietary software were less reliable. So he published
+this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he did the
+same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same result.
+The GNU versions were the most reliable. People — you know
+there are cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system,
+because it's so reliable, and reliability is very important to
+them.</p>
+
+<p>Anyway, there's even a group of people who focus on this particular
+benefit as the reason they give, the main reason they give, why users
+should be permitted to do these various things, and to have these
+freedoms. If you've been listening to me, you've noticed, you've seen
+that I, speaking for the free software movement, I talk about issues
+of ethics, and what kind of a society we want to live in, what makes
+for a good society, as well as practical, material benefits. They're
+both important. That's the free software movement.</p>
+
+<p>That other group of people — which is called the open source
+movement — they only cite the practical benefits. They deny
+that this is an issue of principle. They deny that people are
+entitled to the freedom to share with their neighbor and to see what
+the program's doing and change it if they don't like it. They say,
+however, that it's a useful thing to let people do that. So they go
+to companies and say to them, “You know, you might make more
+money if you let people do this.” So, what you can see is that
+to some extent, they lead people in a similar direction, but for
+totally different, for fundamentally different, philosophical
+reasons.</p>
+
+<p>Because on the deepest issue of all, you know, on the ethical
+question, the two movements disagree. You know, in the free software
+movement we say, “You're entitled to these freedoms. People
+shouldn't stop you from doing these things.” In the open source
+movement, they say, “Yes, they can stop you if you want, but
+we'll try to convince them to deign to let you to do these
+things.” Well, they have contributed — they have convinced
+a certain number of businesses to release substantial pieces of
+software as free software in our community. So they, the open source
+movement, has contributed substantially to our community. And so we
+work together on practical projects. But, philosophically, there's a
+tremendous disagreement.</p>
+
+<p>Unfortunately, the open source movement is the one that gets the
+support of business the most, and so most articles about our work
+describe it as open source, and a lot of people just innocently think
+that we're all part of the open source movement. So that's why I'm
+mentioning this distinction. I want you to be aware that the free
+software movement, which brought our community into existence and
+developed the free operating system, is still here — and that we
+still stand for this ethical philosophy. I want you to know about
+this, so that you won't mislead someone else unknowingly.</p>
+
+<p>But also, so that you can think about where you stand.</p>
+
+<p>You know, which movement you support is up to you. You might agree
+with the free software movements and my views. You might agree with
+the open source movement. You might disagree with them both. You
+decide where you stand on these political issues.</p>
+
+<p>But if you agree with the free software movement — if you see
+that there's an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled
+and directed by this decision deserve a say in it — then I hope
+you'll say that you agree with the free software movement, and one way
+you can do that is by using the term free software and just helping
+people know we exist.</p>
+
+<p>So, Freedom Three is very important both practically and
+psycho-socially. If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical
+material harm, because this community development doesn't happen, and
+we don't make powerful, reliable software. But it also causes
+psycho-social harm, which affects the spirit of scientific cooperation
+— the idea that we're working together to advance human
+knowledge. You see, progress in science crucially depends on people
+being able to work together. And nowadays though, you often find each
+little group of scientists acting like it's a war with each other gang
+of scientists and engineers. And if they don't share with each other,
+they're all held back.</p>
+
+<p>So, those are the three freedoms that distinguish free software
+from typical software. Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself,
+making changes to suit your own needs. Freedom Two is the freedom to
+help your neighbor by distributing copies. And Freedom Three is the
+freedom to help build your community by making changes and publishing
+them for other people to use. If you have all of these freedoms, the
+program is free software for you. Now, why do I define it that way in
+terms of a particular user? Is it free software for
+you? <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> Is it free software
for
+you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Is it free
+software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i>
+Yes?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you explain a bit about the
+difference between Freedom Two and Three?
<i>[inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, they certainly relate,
because if
+you don't have freedom to redistribute at all, you certainly don't
+have freedom to distribute a modified version, but they're different
+activities.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Oh.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Freedom Two is, you know, read
it, you
+make an exact copy, and hand it to your friends, so now your friend
+can use it. Or maybe you make exact copies and you sell them to a
+bunch of people, and then they can use it.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom Three is where you make improvements — or at least
+you think they're improvements, and some other people may agree with
+you. So that's the difference. Oh, and by the way, one crucial
+point. Freedoms One and Three depend on your having access to the
+source code. Because changing a binary-only program is extremely
+hard. <i>[Laughter]</i> Even trivial changes like using four
digits
+for the date, <i>[Laughter]</i> if you don't have source. So, for
+compelling, practical reasons, access to the source code is a
+precondition, a requirement, for free software.</p>
+
+<p>So, why do I define it in terms of whether it's free software for
+<em>you</em>? The reason is that sometimes the same program can be
+free software for some people, and non-free for others. Now, that
+might seem like a paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example
+to show you how it happens. A very big example — maybe the
+biggest ever — of this problem was the X Window System which was
+developed at MIT and released under a license that made it free
+software. If you got the MIT version with the MIT license, you had
+Freedoms One, Two, and Three. It was free software for you. But
+among those who got copies were various computer manufacturers that
+distributed Unix systems, and they made the necessary changes in X to
+run on their systems. You know, probably just a few thousand lines
+out of the hundreds of thousands of lines of X. And, then they
+compiled it, and they put the binaries into their Unix system and
+distributed it under the same non-disclosure agreement as the rest of
+the Unix system. And then, millions of people got these copies. They
+had the X Window System, but they had none of these freedoms. It was
+not free software for <em>them</em>.</p>
+
+<p>So, the paradox was that whether X was free software depended on
+where you made the measurement. If you made the measurement coming
+out of the developers' group, you'd say, “I observe all these
+freedoms. It's free software.” If you made the measurements
+among the users you'd say, “Hmm, most users don't have these
+freedoms. It's not free software.” Well, the people who
+developed X didn't consider this a problem, because their goal was
+just popularity, ego, essentially. They wanted a big professional
+success. They wanted to feel, “Ah, lots of people are using our
+software.” And that was true. Lots of people were using their
+software but didn't have freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Well, in the GNU project, if that same thing had happened to GNU
+software, it would have been a failure, because our goal wasn't just
+to be popular; our goal was to give people liberty, and to encourage
+cooperation, to permit people to cooperate. Remember, never force
+anyone to cooperate with any other person, but make sure that
+everybody's allowed to cooperate, everyone has the freedom to do so,
+if he or she wishes. If millions of people were running non-free
+versions of GNU, that wouldn't be success at all. The whole thing
+would have been perverted into nothing like the goal.</p>
+
+<p>So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening. The method I
+came up with is called “copyleft”. It's called copyleft
+because it's sort of like taking copyright and flipping it
+over. <i>[Laughter]</i> Legally, copyleft works based on
copyright.
+We use the existing copyright law, but we use it to achieve a very
+different goal. Here's what we do. We say, “This program is
+copyrighted.” And, of course, by default, that means it's
+prohibited to copy it, or distribute it, or modify it. But then we
+say, “You're authorized to distribute copies of this. You're
+authorized to modify it. You're authorized to distribute modified
+versions and extended versions. Change it any way you
+like.”</p>
+
+<p>But there is a condition. And the condition, of course, is the
+reason why we go to all this trouble, so that we could put the
+condition in. The condition says: Whenever you distribute anything
+that contains any piece of this program, that whole program must be
+distributed under these same terms, no more and no less. So you can
+change the program and distribute a modified version, but when you do,
+the people who get that from you must get the same freedom that you
+got from us. And not just for the parts of it — the excerpts
+that you copied from our program — but also for the other parts
+of that program that they got from you. The whole of that program has
+to be free software for them.</p>
+
+<p>The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become
+inalienable rights — a concept from the Declaration of
+Independence. Rights that we make sure can't be taken away from you.
+And, of course, the specific license that embodies the idea of
+copyleft is the GNU General Public License, a controversial license
+because it actually has the strength to say no to people who would be
+parasites on our community.</p>
+
+<p>There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of
+freedom. And they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done,
+and use it to get a head start in distributing a non-free program and
+tempting people to give up their freedom. And the result would be
+— you know, if we let people do that — that we would be
+developing these free programs, and we'd constantly have to compete
+with improved versions of our own programs. That's no fun.</p>
+
+<p>And, a lot of people also feel — you know, I'm willing to
+volunteer my time to contribute to the community, but why should I
+volunteer my time to contribute to that company's, to improving that
+company's, proprietary program? You know, some people might not even
+think that that's evil, but they want to get paid if they're going to
+do that. I, personally, would rather not do it at all.</p>
+
+<p>But both of these groups of people — both the ones like me
+who say, “I don't want to help that non-free program to get a
+foothold in our community” and the ones that say, “Sure,
+I'd work for them, but then they better pay me” — both of
+us have a good reason to use the GNU General Public License. Because
+that says to that company, “You can't just take my work, and
+distribute it without the freedom.” Whereas, the non-copyleft
+licenses, like the X Windows license, do permit that.</p>
+
+<p>So that is the big division between the two categories of free
+software — license-wise. There are the programs that are
+copylefted so that the license defends the freedom of the software for
+every user. And there are the non-copylefted programs for which
+non-free versions are allowed. Somebody <em>can</em> take those
+programs and strip off the freedom. You may get that program in a
+non-free version.</p>
+
+<p>And that problem exists today. There are still non-free versions
+of X Windows being used on our free operating systems. There is even
+hardware — which is not really supported — except by a
+non-free version of X Windows. And that's a major problem in our
+community. Nonetheless, I wouldn't say that X Windows is a bad thing,
+you know. I'd say that the developers did not do the best possible
+thing that they could have done. But they <em>did</em> release a
lot
+of software that we could all use.</p>
+
+<p>You know, there's a big difference between less than perfect, and
+evil. There are many gradations of good and bad. We have to resist
+the temptation to say, if you didn't do the absolute best possible
+thing, then you're no good. You know, the people that developed X
+Windows made a big contribution to our community. But there's
+something better that they could have done. They could have
+copylefted parts of the program and prevented those freedom-denying
+versions from being distributed by others.</p>
+
+<p>Now, the fact that the GNU General Public License defends your
+freedom, uses copyright law to defend your freedom, is, of course, why
+Microsoft is attacking it today. See, Microsoft would really like to
+be able to take all the code that we wrote and put it into proprietary
+programs, have somebody make some improvements, or even just
+incompatible changes is all they need. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>You know, with Microsoft's marketing clout, they don't need to make
+it better to have their version supplant ours. They just have to make
+it different and incompatible. And then, put it on everybody's
+desktop. So they really don't like the GNU GPL. Because the GNU GPL
+won't let them do that. It doesn't allow “embrace and
+extend”. It says, if you want to share our code in your
+programs, you can. But, you've got to share and share alike. The
+changes that you make we have to be allowed to share. So, it's a
+two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation.</p>
+
+<p>Many companies — even big companies like IBM and HP are
+willing to use our software on this basis. IBM and HP contribute
+substantial improvements to GNU software. And they develop other free
+software. But, Microsoft doesn't want to do that, so they give it out
+that businesses just can't deal with the GPL. Well, if businesses
+don't include IBM, and HP and SUN, then maybe they're
+right. <i>[Laughter]</i> More about that later.</p>
+
+<p>I should finish the historical story. You see, we set out in 1984
+not just to write some free software but to do something much more
+coherent: to develop an operating system that was entirely free
+software. So that meant we had to write piece after piece after
+piece. Of course, we were always looking for shortcuts. The job was
+so big that people said we'd never be able to finish. And, I thought
+that there was at least a chance that we'd finish it but, obviously,
+it's worth looking for shortcuts. So we kept looking around. Is there
+any program that somebody else has written that we could manage to
+adapt, to plug into here, and that way we won't have to write it from
+scratch? For instance, the X Window system. It's true it wasn't
+copylefted, but it was free software, so we could use it.</p>
+
+<p>Now, I had wanted to put a window system into GNU from day one. I
+wrote a couple of window systems at MIT before I started GNU. And so,
+even though Unix had no window system in 1984, I decided that GNU
+would have one. But, we never ended up writing a GNU window system,
+because X came along. And I said, Goody! One big job we don't have
+to do. We'll use X. So I basically said, let's take X, and put it
+into the GNU system. And we'll make the other parts of GNU, you know,
+work with X, when appropriate. And we found other pieces of software
+that had been written by other people, like the text formatter TeX,
+some library code from Berkeley. At that time there was Berkeley
+Unix, but it was not free software. This library code, initially, was
+from a different group at Berkeley, that did research on floating
+point. And, so, we kept, we fit in these pieces.</p>
+
+<p>In October 1985, we founded the Free Software Foundation. So
+please note, the GNU project came first. The Free Software Foundation
+came after, about almost two years after the announcement of the
+Project. And the Free Software Foundation is a tax-exempt charity
+that raises funds to promote the freedom to share and change software.
+And in the 1980's, one of the main things we did with our funds was to
+hire people to write parts of GNU. And essential programs, such as
+the shell and the C library were written this way, as well as parts of
+other programs. The <code>tar</code> program, which is absolutely
+essential, although not exciting at all <i>[Laughter]</i> was
written
+this way. I believe GNU grep was written this way. And so, we're
+approaching our goal.</p>
+
+<p>By 1991, there was just one major piece missing, and that was the
+kernel. Now, why did I put off the kernel? Probably because it
+doesn't really matter what order you do the things in, at least
+technically it doesn't. You've got to do them all anyway. And partly
+because I'd hoped we'd be able to find a start at a kernel somewhere
+else. And we did. We found Mach, which had been developed at
+Carnegie Mellon. And it wasn't the whole kernel; it was the bottom
+half of the kernel. So we had to write the top half, but I figured,
+you know, things like the file system, the network code, and so on.
+But running on top of Mach they're running essentially as user
+programs, which ought to make them easier to debug. You can debug
+with a real source-level debugger running at the same time. And so, I
+thought that way we'd be able to get these, the higher level parts of
+the kernel, done in a short time. It didn't work out that way. These
+asynchronous, multi-threaded processes, sending messages to each other
+turned out to be very hard to debug. And the Mach-based system that
+we were using to bootstrap with had a terrible debugging environment,
+and it was unreliable, and various problems. It took us years and
+years to get the GNU kernel to work.</p>
+
+<p>But, fortunately, our community did not have to wait for the GNU
+kernel. Because in 1991, Linus Torvalds developed another free kernel
+called Linux. And he used the old-fashioned monolithic design and it
+turns out that he got his working much faster than we got ours
+working. So maybe that's one of the mistakes that I made: that design
+decision. Anyway, at first, we didn't know about Linux, because he
+never contacted us to talk about it. Although he did know about the
+GNU Project. But he announced it to other people and other places on
+the net. And so other people then did the work of combining Linux
+with the rest of the GNU system to make a complete free operating
+system. Essentially, to make the GNU plus Linux combination.</p>
+
+<p>But, they didn't realize that's what they were doing. You see,
+they said, We have a kernel — let's look around and see what
+other pieces we can find to put together with the kernel. So, they
+looked around — and lo and behold, everything they needed was
+already available. What good fortune, they said.
<i>[Laughter]</i>
+It's all here. We can find everything we need. Let's just take all
+these different things and put it together, and have a system.</p>
+
+<p>They didn't know that most of what they found was pieces of the GNU
+system. So they didn't realize that they were fitting Linux into the
+gap in the GNU system. They thought they were taking Linux and making
+a system out of Linux. So they called it a Linux system.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>:
<i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can't hear you —
what?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>:
<i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, it's just not —
you know,
+it's provincial.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: But it's more good fortune
then finding
+X and Mach?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. The difference is that
the
+people who developed X and Mach didn't have the goal of making a
+complete free operating system. We're the only ones who had that.
+And, it was our tremendous work that made the system exist. We
+actually did a larger part of the system than any other project. No
+coincidence, because those people — they wrote useful parts of
+the system. But they didn't do it because they wanted the system to
+be finished. They had other reasons.</p>
+
+<p>Now the people who developed X — they thought that designing
+across the network window system would be a good project, and it was.
+And it turned out to help us make a good free operating system. But
+that's not what they hoped for. They didn't even think about that.
+It was an accident. An accidental benefit. Now, I'm not saying that
+what they did was bad. They did a large free software project.
+That's a good thing to do. But they didn't have that ultimate vision.
+The GNU Project is where that vision was.</p>
+
+<p>And, so, we were the ones whose — every little piece that
+didn't get done by somebody else, we did it. Because we knew that we
+wouldn't have a complete system without it. And even if it was
+totally boring and unromantic, like <code>tar</code>
+or <code>mv</code>. <i>[Laughter]</i> We did it. Or
ld, you know
+there's nothing very exciting in <code>ld</code> — but I
wrote
+one. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I did make efforts to have it do a
minimal
+amount of disk I/O so that it would be faster and handle bigger
+programs. But, you know, I like to do a good job. I like to improve
+various things about the program while I'm doing it. But the reason
+that I did it wasn't that I had brilliant ideas for a
+better <code>ld</code>. The reason I did it is that we needed one
+that was free. And we couldn't expect anyone else to do it. So, we
+had to do it, or find someone to do it.</p>
+
+<p>So, although at this point thousands of people in projects have
+contributed to this system, there is one project which is the reason
+that this system exists, and that's the GNU Project. It
<em>is</em>
+basically the GNU System, with other things added since then.</p>
+
+<p>So, however, the practice of calling the system Linux has been a
+great blow to the GNU Project, because we don't normally get credit
+for what we've done. I think Linux, the kernel, is a very useful
+piece of free software, and I have only good things to say about it.
+But, well, actually, I can find a few bad things to say about
+it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, basically, I have good things to say
about
+it. However, the practice of calling the GNU system, Linux, is just a
+mistake. I'd like to ask you please to make the small effort
+necessary to call the system GNU/Linux, and that way to help us get a
+share of the credit.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You need a mascot! Get
yourself a
+stuffed animal! <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have one.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You do?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have an animal — a
+gnu. <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway. So, yes, when you draw a penguin,
+draw a gnu next to it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, let's save the
+questions for the end. I have more to go through.</p>
+
+<p>So, why am I so concerned about this? You know, why do I think it
+is worth bothering you and perhaps giving you a, perhaps lowering your
+opinion of me, <i>[Laughter]</i> to raise this issue of credit?
+Because, you know, some people when I do this, some people think that
+it's because I want my ego to be fed, right? Of course, I'm not
+saying — I'm not asking you to call it “Stallmanix,”
+right? <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p>I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to
+get credit. And there's a very specific reason for that, which is a
+lot more important than anybody getting credit, in and of itself. You
+see, these days, if you look around in our community most of the
+people talking about it and writing about it don't ever mention GNU,
+and they don't ever mention these goals of freedom — these
+political and social ideals, either. Because the place they come from
+is GNU.</p>
+
+<p>The ideas associated with Linux — the philosophy is very
+different. It is basically the apolitical philosophy of Linus
+Torvalds. So, when people think that the whole system is Linux, they
+tend to think: “Oh, it must have been all started by Linux
+Torvalds. His philosophy must be the one that we should look at
+carefully”. And when they hear about the GNU philosophy, they
+say: “Boy, this is so idealistic, this must be awfully
+impractical. I'm a Linux-user, not a
+GNU-user.” <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>What irony! If they only knew! If they knew that the system they
+liked — or, in some cases, love and go wild over — is our
+idealistic, political philosophy made real.</p>
+
+<p>They still wouldn't have to agree with us. But at least they'd see
+a reason to take it seriously, to think about it carefully, to give it
+a chance. They would see how it relates to their lives. You know, if
+they realized, “I'm using the GNU system. Here's the GNU
+philosophy. This philosophy is <em>why</em> this system that I
like
+very much exists,” they'd at least consider it with a much more
+open mind. It doesn't mean that everybody will agree. People think
+different things. That's OK. You know, people should make up their
+own minds. But I want this philosophy to get the benefit of the
+credit for the results it has achieved.</p>
+
+<p>If you look around in our community, you'll find that almost
+everywhere, the institutions are calling the system Linux. You know,
+reporters mostly call it Linux. It's not right, but they do. The
+companies mostly say it that package the system. Oh, and most of
+these reporters, when they write articles, they usually don't look at
+it as a political issue, or social issue. They're usually looking at
+it purely as a business question or what companies are going to
+succeed more or less, which is really a fairly minor question for
+society. And, if you look at the companies that package the GNU/Linux
+system for people to use, well, most of them call it Linux. And they
+<em>all</em> add non-free software to it.</p>
+
+<p>See, the GNU GPL says that if you take code, and some code out of a
+GPL-covered program, and add some more code to make a bigger program,
+that whole program has to be released under the GPL. But you could
+put other separate programs on the same disk (of either kind, hard
+disk, or CD), and they can have other licenses. That's considered
+mere aggregation, and, essentially, just distributing two programs to
+somebody at the same time is not something we have any say over. So,
+in fact, it is not true — sometimes, I wish it were true —
+that if a company uses a GPL-covered program in a product that the
+whole product has to be free software. It's not — it doesn't go
+to that range — that scope. It's the whole program. If there
+are two separate programs that communicate with each other at arm's
+length — like by sending messages to each other — then,
+they're legally separate, in general. So, these companies, by adding
+non-free software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically
+and politically, a very bad idea. They're telling the users,
+“It is OK to use non-free software. We're even putting it on
+this as a bonus.”</p>
+
+<p>If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system,
+most of them have a title like “Linux-something or other”.
+So they're calling the system Linux most of the time. And they're
+filled with ads for non-free software that you could run on top of the
+GNU/Linux system. Now those ads have a common message. They say:
+Non-free Software Is Good For You. It's So Good That You Might Even
+<em>Pay</em> To Get It. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>And they call these things “value-added packages”,
+which makes a statement about their values. They're saying: Value
+practical convenience, not freedom. And, I don't agree with those
+values, so I call them “freedom-subtracted
+packages”. <i>[Laughter]</i> Because if you have installed a
+free operating system, then you now are living in the free world. You
+enjoy the benefits of liberty that we worked for so many years to give
+you. Those packages give you an opportunity to buckle on a chain.</p>
+
+<p>And then if you look at the trade shows — about the use of
+the, dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call
+themselves “Linux” shows. And they're filled with booths
+exhibiting non-free software, essentially putting the seal of approval
+on the non-free software. So, almost everywhere you look in our
+community, the institutions are endorsing the non-free software,
+totalling negating the idea of freedom that GNU was developed for.
+And the only place that people are likely to come across the idea of
+freedom is in connection with GNU, and in connection with free
+software, the term, free software. So this is why I ask you: please
+call the system GNU/Linux. Please make people aware where the system
+came from and why.</p>
+
+<p>Of course, just by using that name, you won't be making an
+explanation of the history. You can type four extra characters and
+write GNU/Linux; you can say two extra syllables. But, GNU/Linux is
+fewer syllables than Windows 2000. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, you're
not
+telling them a lot, but you're preparing them, so that when they hear
+about GNU, and what it's all about, they'll see how that connects to
+them and their lives. And that, indirectly, makes a tremendous
+difference. So please help us.</p>
+
+<p>You'll note that Microsoft called the GPL an “open source
+license”. They don't want people to be thinking in terms of
+freedom as the issue. You'll find that they invite people to think in
+a narrow way, as consumers, and, of course, not even think very
+rationally as consumers, if they're going to choose Microsoft
+products. But they don't want people to think as citizens or
+statesmen. That's inimical to them. At least it's inimical to their
+current business model.</p>
+
+<p>Now, how does free software…well, I can tell you about how
+free software relates to our society. A secondary topic that might be
+of interest to some of you is how free software relates to business.
+Now, in fact, free software is <em>tremendously</em> useful for
+business. After all, most businesses in the advanced countries use
+software. Only a tiny fraction of them develop software.</p>
+
+<p>And free software is tremendously advantageous for any company that
+uses software, because it means that you're in control. Basically,
+free software means the users are in control of what the program does.
+Either individually, if they care enough to be, or, collectively, when
+they care enough to be. Whoever cares enough can exert some
+influence. If you don't care, you don't buy. Then you use what other
+people prefer. But, if you do care, then you have some say. With
+proprietary software, you have essentially no say.</p>
+
+<p>With free software, you can change what you want to change. And it
+doesn't matter that there are no programmers in your company; that's
+fine. You know, if you wanted to move the walls in your building, you
+don't have to be a carpentry company. You just have to be able to go
+find a carpenter and say, “What will you charge to do this
+job?” And if you want to change around the software you use, you
+don't have to be a programming company. You just have to go to a
+programming company and say, “What will you charge to implement
+these features? And when will you have it done?” And if they
+don't do the job, you can go find somebody else.</p>
+
+<p>There's a free market for support. So, any business that cares
+about support will find a tremendous advantage in free software. With
+proprietary software, support is a monopoly, because one company has
+the source code, or maybe a small number of companies that paid a
+gigantic amount of money have the source code, if it's Microsoft's
+shared source program, but, it's very few. And so, there aren't very
+many possible sources of support for you. And that means, that unless
+you're a real giant, they don't care about you. Your company is not
+important enough for them to care if they lose your business, or what
+happens. Once you're using the program, they figure you're locked in
+to getting the support from them, because to switch to a different
+program is a gigantic job. So, you end up with things like paying for
+the privilege of reporting a bug. <i>[Laughter]</i> And once
you've
+paid, they tell you, “Well, OK, we've noted your bug report.
+And in a few months, you can buy an upgrade, and you can see if we've
+fixed it.” <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>Support providers for free software can't get away with that. They
+have to please the customers. Of course, you can get a lot of good
+support gratis. You post your problem on the Internet. You may get
+an answer the next day. But that's not guaranteed, of course. If you
+want to be confident, you better make an arrangement with a company
+and pay them. And this is, of course, one of the ways that free
+software business works.</p>
+
+<p>Another advantage of free software for businesses that use software
+is security and privacy. And this applies to individuals as well, but
+I brought it up in the context of businesses. You see, when a program
+is proprietary, you can't even tell what it really does.</p>
+
+<p>It could have features, deliberately put in that you wouldn't like
+if you knew about them, like it might have a backdoor to let the
+developer get into your machine. It might snoop on what you do and
+send information back. This is not unusual. Some Microsoft software
+did this. But it's not only Microsoft. There are other proprietary
+programs that snoop on the user. And you can't even tell if it does
+this. And, of course, even assuming that the developer's totally
+honest, every programmer makes mistakes. There could be bugs that
+affect your security which are nobody's fault. But the point is: If
+it's not free software, you can't find them. And you can't fix
+them.</p>
+
+<p>Nobody has the time to check the source of every program he runs.
+You're not going to do that. But with free software there's a large
+community, and there are people in that community who are checking
+things. And you get the benefit of their checking, because if there's
+an accidental bug, there surely are, from time to time, in any
+program, they might find it and fix it. And people are much less
+likely to put in a deliberate Trojan horse, or a snooping feature, if
+they think they might get caught. The proprietary software developers
+figure they won't get caught. They'll get away with it undetected.
+But a free software developer has to figure that people will look at
+that and see it's there. So, in our community, we don't feel we can
+get away with ramming a feature down the users' throats that the users
+wouldn't like. So we know that if the users don't like it, they'll
+make a modified version which doesn't have it. And then, they'll all
+start using that version.</p>
+
+<p>In fact, we can all reason enough, we can all figure this out
+enough steps ahead, that we probably won't put in that feature. After
+all, you're writing a free program; you want people to like your
+version; you don't want to put in a thing that you know a lot of
+people are going to hate, and have another modified version catch on
+instead of yours. So you just realize that the user is king in the
+world of free software. In the world of proprietary software, the
+customer is <em>not</em> king. Because you are only a customer.
You
+have no say in the software you use.</p>
+
+<p>In this respect, free software is a new mechanism for democracy to
+operate. Professor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions
+as a kind of law. Whoever gets to write the code that just about
+everybody uses for all intents and purposes is writing the laws that
+run people's lives. With free software, these laws get written in a
+democratic way. Not the classical form of democracy — we don't
+have a big election and say, “Everybody vote which way should
+this feature be done.” <i>[Laughter]</i> Instead we say,
+basically, those of you who want to work on implementing the feature
+this way, do it. And if you want to work on implementing the feature
+that way, do it. And, it gets done one way or the other, you know?
+And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done this way.
+So, in this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by
+simply taking steps in the direction that he wants to go.</p>
+
+<p>And you're free to take as many steps, personally, as you want to
+take. A business is free to commission as many steps as they find
+useful to take. And, after you add all these things up, that says
+which direction the software goes.</p>
+
+<p>And it's often very useful to be able to take pieces out of some
+existing program, presumably usually large pieces, of course, and then
+write a certain amount of code of your own, and make a program that
+does exactly what you need, which would have cost you an arm and a leg
+to develop, if you had to write it all from scratch, if you couldn't
+cannibalize large pieces from some existing free software package.</p>
+
+<p>Another thing that results from the fact that the user is king is
+that we tend to be very good about compatibility and standardization.
+Why? Because users like that. Users are likely to reject a program
+that has gratuitous incompatibilities in it. Now, sometimes there's a
+certain group of users which actually have a need for a certain kind
+of incompatibility, and then they'll have it. That's OK. But when
+users want is to follow a standard, we developers have to follow it,
+and we know that. And we do it. By contrast, if you look at
+proprietary software developers, they often find it advantageous to
+deliberately <em>not</em> follow a standard, and not because they
+think that they're giving the user an advantage that way, but rather
+because they're imposing on the user, locking the user in. And you'll
+even find them making changes in their file formats from time to time,
+just to force people to get the newest version.</p>
+
+<p>Archivists are finding a problem now, that files written on
+computers ten years ago often can't be accessed; they were written
+with proprietary software that's essentially lost now. If it were
+written with free software, then it could be brought up-to-date and
+run. And those things would not, those records would not be lost,
+would not be inaccessible. They were even complaining about this on
+NPR recently in citing free software as a solution. And so, in
+effect, by using a non-free program to store your own data, you are
+putting your head in a noose.</p>
+
+<p>So, I've talked about how free software affects most business. But
+how does it affect that particular narrow area which is software
+business? Well, the answer is mostly not at all. And the reason is
+that 90% of the software industry, from what I'm told, is development
+of custom software, software that's not meant to be released at all.
+For custom software, this issue, or the ethical issue of free or
+proprietary, doesn't arise. You see, the issue is, are you users free
+to change, and redistribute, the software? If there's only one user,
+and that user owns the rights, there's no problem. That
+user <em>is</em> free to do all these things. So, in effect, any
+<em>custom</em> program that was developed by one company for use
+in-house is free software, as long as they have the sense to insist on
+getting the source code and all the rights.</p>
+
+<p>And the issue doesn't really arise for software that goes in a
+watch or a microwave oven or an automobile ignition system. Because
+those are places where you don't download software to install. It's
+not a real computer, as far as the user is concerned. And so, it
+doesn't raise these issues enough for them to be ethically important.
+So, for the most part, the software industry will go along, just as
+it's been going. And the interesting thing is that since such a large
+fraction of the jobs are in that part of the industry, even if there
+were no possibilities for free software business, the developers of
+free software could all get day jobs writing custom
+software. <i>[Laughter]</i> There's so many; the ratio is so
big.</p>
+
+<p>But, as it happens, there is free software business. There are
+free software companies, and at the press conference that I'm going to
+have, people from a couple of them will join us. And, of course,
+there are also companies which are <em>not</em> free software
+businesses but do develop useful pieces of free software to release,
+and the free software that they produce is substantial.</p>
+
+<p>Now, how do free software businesses work? Well, some of them sell
+copies. You know, you're free to copy it but they can still sell
+thousands of copies a month. And others sell support and various
+kinds of services. I, personally, for the second half of the '80's, I
+sold free software support services. Basically I said, for $200 an
+hour, I'll change whatever you want me to change in GNU software that
+I'd written. And, yes, it was a stiff rate, but if it was a program
+that I was the author of, people would figure that I might get the job
+done in a lot fewer hours. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I made a living
that
+way. In fact, I'd made more than I'd ever made before. I also taught
+classes. And I kept doing that until 1990, when I got a big prize and
+I didn't have to do it any more.</p>
+
+<p>But, 1990 was when the first corporation free software business was
+formed, which was Cygnus Support. And their business was to do,
+essentially, the same kind of thing that I'd been doing. I certainly
+could have worked for them, if I had needed to do that. Since I
+didn't need to, I felt it was good for the movement if I remained
+independent of any one company. That way, I could say good and bad
+things about the various free software and non-free software
+companies, without a conflict of interest. I felt that I could serve
+the movement more. But, if I had needed that to make a living, sure,
+I would have worked for them. It's an ethical business to be in. No
+reason I would have felt ashamed to take a job with them. And that
+company was profitable in its first year. It was formed with very
+little capital, just the money its three founders had. And it kept
+growing every year and being profitable every year until they got
+greedy, and looked for outside investors, and then they messed things
+up. But it was several years of success, before they got greedy.</p>
+
+<p>So, this illustrates one of the exciting things about free
+software. Free software demonstrates that you don't need to raise
+capital to develop free software. I mean, it's useful;
+it <em>can</em> help. You know, if you do raise some capital, you
can
+hire people and have them write a bunch of software. But you can get
+a lot done with a small number of people. And, in fact, the
+tremendous efficiency of the process of developing free software is
+one of the reasons it's important for the world to switch to free
+software. And it also belies what Microsoft says when they say the
+GNU GPL is bad, because it makes it harder for them to raise capital
+to develop non-free software and take our free software and put our
+code into their programs that they won't share with us. Basically, we
+don't need to have them raising capital that way. We'll get the job
+done anyway. We are getting the job done.</p>
+
+<p>People used to say we could never do a complete free operating
+system. Now we've done that and a tremendous amount more. And I
+would say that we're about an order of magnitude away from developing
+all the general purpose published software needs of the world. And
+this is in a world where more than 90% of the users don't use our free
+software yet. This is in a world where, although in certain areas of
+business, you know, more than half of all the web servers in the world
+are running on GNU/Linux with Apache as the web server.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i>
… What did you
+say before, Linux?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I said GNU/Linux.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You did?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, if I'm talking about the
kernel, I
+call it Linux. You know, that's it's name. The kernel was written by
+Linus Torvalds, and we should only call it by the name that he chose,
+out of respect for the author.</p>
+
+<p>Anyway, but in general, in business most users are not using it.
+Most home users are not using our system yet. So, when they are, we
+should automatically get 10 times as many volunteers and 10 times as
+many customers for the free software businesses that there will be.
+And so that will take us that order of magnitude. So at this point, I
+am pretty confident that we <em>can</em> do the job.</p>
+
+<p>And, this is important, because Microsoft asks us to feel
+desperate. They say, The only way you can have software to run, the
+only way you can have innovation, is if you give us power. Let us
+dominate you. Let us control what you can do with the software you're
+running, so that we can squeeze a lot of money out of you, and use a
+certain fraction of that to develop software, and take the rest as
+profit.</p>
+
+<p>Well, you shouldn't ever feel that desperate. You shouldn't ever
+feel so desperate that you give up your freedom. That's very
+dangerous.</p>
+
+<p>Another thing that Microsoft, well, not just Microsoft, people who
+don't support free software generally adopt a value system in which
+the only thing that matters is short-term practical benefits: How much
+money am I going to make this year? What job can I get done today?
+Short-term thinking and narrow thinking. Their assumption is that it
+is ridiculous to imagine that anybody ever might make a sacrifice for
+the sake of freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Yesterday, a lot of people were making speeches about Americans who
+made sacrifices for the freedom of their compatriots. Some of them
+made great sacrifices. They even sacrificed their lives for the kinds
+of freedom that everyone in our country has heard about, at least.
+(At least, in some of the cases; I guess we have to ignore the war in
+Vietnam.)</p>
+
+<p><i>[Editor's note: The day before was “Memorial
Day” in
+the USA. Memorial Day is a day where war heros are
+commemorated.]</i></p>
+
+<p>But, fortunately, to maintain our freedom in using software,
+doesn't call for big sacrifices. Just tiny, little sacrifices are
+enough, like learning a command-line interface, if we don't have a GUI
+interface program yet. Like doing the job in this way, because we
+don't have a free software package to do it that way, yet. Like,
+paying some money to a company that's going to develop a certain free
+software package, so that you can have it in a few years. Various
+little sacrifices that we can all make. And, in the long run, even we
+will have benefited from it. You know, it is really an investment
+more than a sacrifice. We just have to have enough long-term view to
+realize it's good for us to invest in improving our society, without
+counting the nickels and dimes of who gets how much of the benefit
+from that investment.</p>
+
+<p>So, at this point, I'm essentially done.</p>
+
+<p>I'd like to mention that there's a new approach to free software
+business being proposed by Tony Stanco, which he calls “Free
+Developers”, which involves a certain business structure which
+hopes eventually to pay out a certain share of the profits to every,
+to all the authors of the free software who've joined the
+organization. And they're looking at the prospects of getting me some
+rather large government software development contracts in India now,
+because they're going to be using free software as the basis, having
+tremendous cost savings that way.</p>
+
+<p>And so now I guess that I should ask for questions.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>:
<i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Could you speak up a bit
louder please?
+I can't really hear you.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: How could a company like
Microsoft
+include a free software contract?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually, Microsoft is
planning to
+shift a lot of its activity into services. And what they're planning
+to do is something dirty and dangerous, which is tie the services to
+the programs, one to the next, in a sort of zigzag, you know? So that
+to use this service, you've got to be using this Microsoft program,
+which is going to mean you need to use this service, to this Microsoft
+program, so it's all tied together. That's their plan.</p>
+
+<p>Now, the interesting thing is that selling those services doesn't
+raise the ethical issue of free software or non-free software. It
+might be perfectly fine for them to have the business for those
+businesses selling those services over the net to exist. However,
+what Microsoft is planning to do is to use them to achieve an even
+greater lock, an even greater monopoly, on the software and the
+services, and this was described in an article, I believe in Business
+Week, recently. And, other people said that it is turning the net
+into the Microsoft Company Town.</p>
+
+<p>And this is relevant because, you know, the trial court in the
+Microsoft antitrust trial recommended breaking up the company,
+Microsoft. But in a way, that makes no sense — it wouldn't do
+any good at all — into the operating part and the applications
+part.</p>
+
+<p>But having seen that article, I now see a useful, effective way to
+split up Microsoft into the services part and the software part, to
+require them to deal with each other only at arm's length, that the
+services must publish their interfaces, so that anybody can write a
+client to talk to those services, and, I guess, that they have to pay
+to get the service. Well, that's OK. That's a totally different
+issue.</p>
+
+<p>If Microsoft is split up in this way […] services and
+software, they will not be able to use their software to crush
+competition with Microsoft services. And they won't be able to use
+the services to crush competition with Microsoft software. And we
+will be able to make the free software, and maybe you people will use
+it to talk to Microsoft services, and we won't mind.</p>
+
+<p>Because, after all, although Microsoft is the proprietary software
+company that has subjugated the most people — the others have
+subjugated fewer people, it's not for want of
+trying. <i>[Laughter]</i> They just haven't succeeded in
subjugating
+as many people. So, the problem is not Microsoft and only Microsoft.
+Microsoft is just the biggest example of the problem we're trying to
+solve, which is proprietary software taking away users' freedom to
+cooperate and form an ethical society. So we shouldn't focus too much
+on Microsoft, you know, even though they did give me the opportunity
+for this platform. That doesn't make them all-important. They're not
+the be-all and end-all.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Earlier, you were discussing
the
+philosophical differences between open source software and free
+software. How do you feel about the current trend of GNU/Linux
+distributions as they head towards supporting only Intel platforms?
+And the fact that it seems that less and less programmers are
+programming correctly, and making software that will compile anywhere?
+And making software that simply works on Intel systems?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I don't see an ethical issue
there.
+Although, in fact, companies that make computers sometimes port the
+GNU/Linux system to it. HP apparently did this recently. And, they
+didn't bother paying for a port of Windows, because that would have
+cost too much. But getting GNU/Linux supported was, I think, five
+engineers for a few months. It was easily doable.</p>
+
+<p>Now, of course, I encourage people to use
<code>autoconf</code>,
+which is a GNU package that makes it easier to make your programs
+portable. I encourage them to do that. Or when somebody else fixes
+the bug that it didn't compile on that version of the system, and
+sends it to you, you should put it in. But I don't see that as an
+ethical issue.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Two comments. One is:
Recently, you
+spoke at MIT. I read the transcript. And someone asked about
+patents, and you said that “patents are a totally different
+issue. I have no comments on that.”</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I actually have a lot
to say
+about patents, but it takes an hour. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I wanted to say this: It seems
to me
+that there is an issue. I mean, there is a reason that companies call
+both patents and copyrights things like hard property in trying to get
+this concept which is, if they want to use the power of the State to
+create a course of monopoly for themselves. And so, what's common
+about these things is not that they revolve around the same issues,
+but that motivation is not really the public service issues but the
+motivation of companies to get a monopoly for their private
+interests.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I understand. But, well, I
want to
+respond because there's not too much time. So I'd like to respond to
+that.</p>
+
+<p>You're right that that's what they want. But there's another
+reason why they want to use the term intellectual property. It's that
+they don't want to encourage people to think carefully about copyright
+issues or patent issues. Because copyright law and patent law are
+totally different, and the effects of software copyrighted and
+software patents are totally different.</p>
+
+<p>Software patents are a restriction on programmers, prohibiting them
+from writing certain kinds of programs, whereas copyright doesn't do
+that. With copyright, at least if you wrote it yourself, you're
+allowed to distribute it. So, it's tremendously important to separate
+these issues.</p>
+
+<p>They have a little bit in common, at a very low level, and
+everything else is different. So, please, to encourage clear
+thinking, discuss copyright or discuss patents. But don't discuss
+intellectual property. I don't have an opinion on intellectual
+property. I have opinions on copyrights and patents and software.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You mentioned at the beginning
that a
+functional language, like recipes, are computer programs. There's a
+cross a little bit different than other kinds of language created on.
+This is also causing a problem in the DVD case.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: The issues are partly similar
but partly
+different, for things that are not functional in nature. Part of the
+issue transfers but not all of it. Unfortunately, that's another hour
+speech. I don't have time to go into it. But I would say that all
+functional works ought to be free in the same sense as software. You
+know, textbooks, manuals, dictionaries, and recipes, and so on.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I was just wondering on online
+music. There are similarities and differences created all through.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I'd say that the
minimum freedom
+that we should have for any kind of published information is the
+freedom to non-commercially redistribute it, verbatim. For functional
+works, we need the freedom to commercially publish a modified version,
+because that's tremendously useful to society. For non-functional
+works, you know, things that are to entertain, or to be aesthetic, or
+to state a certain person's views, you know, perhaps they shouldn't be
+modified. And, perhaps that means that it's OK, to have copyright
+covering all commercial distribution of them.</p>
+
+<p>Please remember that according to the U.S. Constitution, the
+purpose of copyright is to benefit the public. It is to modify the
+behavior of certain private parties, so that they will publish more
+books. And the benefit of this is that society gets to discuss issues
+and learn. And, you know, we have literature. We have scientific
+works. The purpose is encourage that. Copyrights do not exist for
+the sake of authors, let alone for the sake of publishers. They exist
+for the sake of readers and all those who benefit from the
+communication of information that happens when people write and others
+read. And that goal I agree with.</p>
+
+<p>But in the age of the computer networks, the method is no longer
+tenable, because it now requires draconian laws that invade
+everybody's privacy and terrorize everyone. You know, years in prison
+for sharing with your neighbor. It wasn't like that in the age of the
+printing press. Then copyright was an industrial regulation. It
+restricted publishers. Now, it's a restriction imposed by the
+publishers on the public. So, the power relationship is turned around
+180 degrees, even if it's the same law.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: So you can have the same thing
—
+but like in making music from other music?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. That is an interesting
+…</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: And unique, new works, you
know, it's
+still a lot of cooperation.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: It is. And I think that
probably
+requires some kind of fair use concept. Certainly making a few
+seconds of sample and using that in making some musical work,
+obviously that should be fair use. Even the standard idea of fair use
+includes that, if you think about it. Whether courts agree, I'm not
+sure, but they should. That wouldn't be a real change in the system
+as it has existed.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: What do you think about
publishing
+public information in proprietary formats?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, it shouldn't be. I mean,
the
+government should never require citizens to use a non-free program to
+access, to communicate with the government in any way, in either
+direction.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I have been, what I will now
say, a
+GNU/Linux user…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Thank you.
<i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: …for the past four
years. The one
+thing that has been problematical for me and is something that is
+essential, I think, to all of us, is browsing the web.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: One thing that has been
decidedly a
+weakness in using a GNU/Linux system has been browsing the web,
+because the prevailing tool for that, Netscape…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: …is not free
software.</p>
+
+<p>Let me respond to this. I want to get to the point, for the sake
+of getting in more. So, yes. There has been a terrible tendency for
+people to use Netscape Navigator on their GNU/Linux systems. And, in
+fact all the commercially packaged systems come with it. So this is
+an ironic situation: we worked so hard to make a free operating
+system, and now, if you go to the store, and you can find versions of
+GNU/Linux there, most of them are called Linux, and they're not free.
+Oh, well, part of them is. But then, there's Netscape Navigator, and
+maybe other non-free programs as well. So, it's very hard to actually
+find a free system, unless you know what you're doing. Or, of course,
+you can not install Netscape Navigator.</p>
+
+<p>Now, in fact, there have been free web browsers for many years.
+There is a free web browser that I used to use called Lynx. It's a
+free web browser that is non-graphical; it's text-only. This has a
+tremendous advantage, in you don't see the ads. <i>[Laughter]
+[Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p>But anyway, there is a free graphical project called Mozilla, which
+is now getting to the point where you can use it. And I occasionally
+use it.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 has been very
good.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, OK. So that's another free
+graphical browser. So, we're finally solving that problem, I
+guess.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk to me about that
+philosophical/ethical division between free software and open source?
+Do you feel that those are irreconcilable? …</p>
+
+<p><i>[Recording switches tapes; end of question and start of
answer
+is missing]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: … to a freedom, and
ethics. Or
+whether you just say, Well, I hope that you companies will decide it's
+more profitable to let us be allowed to do these things.</p>
+
+<p>But, as I said, in a lot of practical work, it doesn't really
+matter what a person's politics are. When a person offers to help the
+GNU project, we don't say: “You have to agree with our
+politics.” We say that in a GNU package, you've got to call the
+system GNU/Linux, and you've got to call it free software. What you
+say when you're not speaking to the GNU Project, that's up to you.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: The company, IBM, started a
campaign for
+government agencies, to sell their big new machines, that they used
+Linux as selling point, and say Linux.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, of course, it's really the
+GNU/Linux systems. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: That's right! Well, tell the
top sales
+person. He doesn't know anything for GNU.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I have to tell who?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: The top sales person.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh yes. The problem is that
they've
+already carefully decided what they want to say for reasons of their
+advantage. And the issue of what is a more accurate, or fair, or
+correct way to describe it is not the primary issue that matters to a
+company like that. Now, some small companies, yes, there'll be a
+boss. And if the boss is inclined to think about things like that, he
+might make a decision that way. Not a giant corporation though. It's
+a shame, you know.</p>
+
+<p>There's another more important and more substantive issue about
+what IBM is doing. They're saying that they're putting a billion
+dollars into “Linux”. But perhaps, I should also put
+quotes around “into”, as well, because some of that money
+is paying people to develop free software. That really is a
+contribution to our community. But other parts is paying to pay
+people to write proprietary software, or port proprietary software to
+run on top of GNU/Linux, and that is <em>not</em> a contribution to
+our community. But IBM is lumping that altogether into this. Some of
+it might be advertising, which is partly a contribution, even if it's
+partly wrong. So, it's a complicated situation. Some of what they're
+doing is contribution and some is not. And some is sort is somewhat,
+but not exactly. And you can't just lump it altogether and think,
+Wow! Whee! A billion dollars from IBM. <i>[Laughter]</i> That's
+oversimplification.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk a little bit more
about the
+thinking that went into the general public license?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, here's the — I'm
sorry, I'm
+answering his question now. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Do you want to reserve some
time for
+the press conference? Or do you want to continue here?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Who is here for the press
conference?
+Not a lot of press. Oh, three — OK. Can you afford if we
+— if I go on answering everybody's questions for another ten
+minutes or so? OK. So, we'll go on answering everybody's
+questions.</p>
+
+<p>So, the thinking that went into the GNU GPL? Part of it was that I
+wanted to protect the freedom of the community against the phenomena
+that I just described with X Windows, which has happened with other
+free programs as well. In fact, when I was thinking about this issue,
+X Windows was not yet released. But I had seen this problem happen in
+other free programs. For instance, TeX. I wanted to make sure that
+the users would all have freedom. Otherwise, I realized that I might
+write a program, and maybe a lot of people would use the program, but
+they wouldn't have freedom. And what's the point of that?</p>
+
+<p>But the other issue I was thinking about was, I wanted to give the
+community a feeling that it was not a doormat, a feeling that it was
+not prey to any parasite who would wander along. If you don't use
+copyleft, you are essentially saying: <i>[speaking meekly]</i>
+“Take my code. Do what you want. I don't say no.” So,
+anybody can come along and say: <i>[speaking very firmly]</i>
+“Ah, I want to make a non-free version of this. I'll just take
+it.” And, then, of course, they probably make some improvements,
+those non-free versions might appeal to users, and replace the free
+versions. And then, what have you accomplished? You've only made a
+donation to some proprietary software project.</p>
+
+<p>And when people see that that's happening, when people see, other
+people take what I do, and they don't ever give back, it can be
+demoralizing. And, this is not just speculation. I had seen that
+happen. That was part of what happened to wipe out the old community
+that I belonged to the '70's. Some people started becoming
+uncooperative. And we assumed that they were profiting thereby. They
+certainly acted as if they thought they were profiting. And we
+realized that they can just take off cooperation and not give back.
+And there was nothing we could do about it. It was very discouraging.
+We, those of us who didn't like the trend, even had a discussion and
+we couldn't come up with any idea for how we could stop it.</p>
+
+<p>So, the GPL is designed to stop that. And it says, Yes, you are
+welcome to join the community and use this code. You can use it to do
+all sorts of jobs. But, if you release a modified version, you've got
+to release that to our community, as part of our community, as part of
+the free world.</p>
+
+<p>So, in fact, there are still many ways that people can get the
+benefit of our work and not contribute, like you don't have to write
+any software. Lots of people use GNU/Linux and don't write any
+software. There's no requirement that you've got to do anything for
+us. But if you do a certain kind of thing, you've got to contribute
+to it. So what that means is that our community is not a doormat.
+And I think that that helped give people the strength to feel, Yes, we
+won't just be trampled underfoot by everybody. We'll stand up to
+this.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Yes, my question was,
considering free
+but not copylefted software, since anybody can pick it up and make it
+proprietary, is it not possible also for someone to pick it up and
+make some changes and release the whole thing under the GPL?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, it is possible.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Then, that would make all
future copies
+then be GPL'ed.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: From that branch. But here's
why we
+don't do that.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Hmm?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Here's why we don't generally
do that.
+Let me explain.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: OK, yes.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We could, if we wanted to,
take X
+Windows, and make a GPL-covered copy and make changes in that. But
+there's a much larger group of people working on improving X Windows
+and <em>not</em> GPL-ing it. So, if we did that, we would be
forking
+from them. And that's not very nice treatment of them. And, they
+<em>are</em> a part of our community, contributing to our
+community.</p>
+
+<p>Second, it would backfire against us, because they're doing a lot
+more work on X than we would be. So, our version would be inferior to
+theirs, and people wouldn't use it, which means, why go to the trouble
+at all?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Mmm hmm.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: So when a person has written
some
+improvement to X Windows, what I say that person should do is
+cooperate with the X development team. Send it to them and let them
+use it their way. Because they are developing a very important piece
+of free software. It's good for us to cooperate with them.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Except, considering X, in
particular,
+about two years ago, the X Consortium that was far into the non-free
+open source…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually it
<em>wasn't</em> open
+sourced. It wasn't open sourced, either. They may have said it was.
+I can't remember if they said that or not. But it wasn't open
+source. It was restricted. You couldn't commercially distribute, I
+think. Or you couldn't commercially distribute a modified version, or
+something like that. There was a restriction that's considered
+unacceptable by both the Free Software movement and the Open Source
+movement.</p>
+
+<p>And yes, that's what using a non-copyleft license leaves you open
+to. In fact, the X Consortium, they had a very rigid policy. They
+say: If your program if copylefted even a little bit, we won't
+distribute it at all. We won't put it in our distribution.</p>
+
+<p>So, a lot of people were pressured in this way into not
+copylefting. And the result was that all of their software was wide
+open, later on. When the same people who had pressured a developer to
+be too all-permissive, then the X people later said, All right, now we
+can put on restrictions, which wasn't very ethical of them.</p>
+
+<p>But, given the situation, would we really want to scrape up the
+resources to maintain an alternate GPL-covered version of X? And it
+wouldn't make any sense to do that. There are so many other things we
+need to do. Let's do them instead. We can cooperate with the X
+developers.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Do you have a comment, is the
GNU a
+trademark? And is it practical to include it as part of the GNU
+General Public License allowing trademarks?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We are, actually, applying for
trademark
+registration on GNU. But it wouldn't really have anything to do with
+that. It's a long story to explain why.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You could require the
trademark be
+displayed with GPL-covered programs.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: No, I don't think so. The
licenses
+cover individual programs. And when a given program is part of the
+GNU Project, nobody lies about that. The name of the system as a
+whole is a different issue. And this is an aside. It's not worth
+discussing more.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: If there was a button that you
could
+push and force all companies to free their software, would you press
+it?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, I would only use this for
+published software. You know, I think that people have the right to
+write a program privately and use it. And that includes companies.
+This is privacy issue. And it's true, there can be times when it is
+wrong to do that, like if it is tremendously helpful to humanity, and
+you are withholding it from humanity. That is a wrong but that's a
+different kind of wrong. It's a different issue, although it's in the
+same area.</p>
+
+<p>But yes, I think all published software should be free software.
+And remember, when it's not free software, that's because of
+government intervention. The government is intervening to make it
+non-free. The government is creating special legal powers to hand out
+to the owners of the programs, so that they can have the police stop
+us from using the programs in certain ways. So I would certainly like
+to end that. </p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Richard's presentation has
invariably
+generated an enormous amount of intellectual energy. I would suggest
+that some of it should be directed to using, and possibly writing,
+free software.</p>
+
+<p>We should close the proceedings shortly. I want to say that
+Richard has injected into a profession which is known in the general
+public for its terminal apolitical nerditude a level of political and
+moral discussion which is, I think, unprecedented in our profession.
+And we owe him very big for this. I'd like to note to people that
+there is a break.</p>
+
+<p><i>[Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: You are free to leave at any
time, you
+know. <i>[Laughter]</i> I'm not holding you prisoner
here.</p>
+
+<p><i>[Audience adjourns…]</i></p>
+
+<p><i>[overlapping conversations…]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: One final thing. Our website:
+www.gnu.org</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></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"><address@hidden></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">
+ <address@hidden></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>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) 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. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2014</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2014, 2015</em></ins></span> Richard M.
Stallman</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>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2015/09/15 05:45:27 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-en.html
diff -N philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-en.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-en.html 15 Sep 2015 05:45:27
-0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,2127 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation</h2>
+
+<blockquote><p>Transcript of
+Richard M. Stallman's speech,
+“Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation”,
+given at New York University in New York, NY,
+on 29 May 2001</p></blockquote>
+
+<div class="announcement">
+<blockquote><p>A <a href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt">plain
+text</a> version of this transcript and
+a <a href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt">summary</a> of the speech
+are also available.</p></blockquote>
+</div>
+
+<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: I'm Mike Uretsky. I'm over at the Stern
+School of Business. I'm also one of the Co-Directors of the Center
+for Advanced Technology. And, on behalf of all of us in the Computer
+Science Department, I want to welcome you here. I want to say a few
+comments, before I turn it over to Ed, who is going to introduce the
+speaker.</p>
+
+<p>The role of a university is a place to foster debate and to have
+interesting discussions. And the role of a major university is to
+have particularly interesting discussions. And this particular
+presentation, this seminar falls right into that mold. I find the
+discussion of open source particularly interesting. In a sense
+… <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I do free software. Open source is a
+different movement. <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: When I first started in the field in the
+'60's, basically software was free. And we went in cycles. It became
+free, and then software manufacturers, in the need to expand their
+markets, pushed it in other directions. A lot of the developments
+that took place with the entry of the PC moved in exactly the same
+kind of a cycle.</p>
+
+<p>There's a very interesting French philosopher, Pierre Levy, who
+talks about movement to this direction and who talks about the move
+into cyberspace as not only relating to technology but also relating
+to social restructuring, to political restructuring, through a change
+in the kinds of relationships that will improve the well-being of
+mankind. And we're hoping that this debate is a movement in that
+direction, that this debate is something that cuts across a lot of the
+disciplines that normally act as solace within the University. We're
+looking forward to some very interesting discussions. Ed?</p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: I'm Ed Schonberg from the Computer
+Science Department at the Courant Institute. Let me welcome you all
+to this event. Introducers are usually, and particularly, a useless
+aspect of public presentations, but in this case, actually, they serve
+a useful purpose, as Mike easily demonstrated, because an introducer
+for instance, told him, by making inaccurate comments, can allow him
+to straighten out and correct and <i>[Laughter]</i> sharpen
+considerably the parameters of the debate.</p>
+
+<p>So, let me make the briefest possible introduction to somebody who
+doesn't need one. Richard is the perfect example of somebody who, by
+acting locally, started thinking globally from problems concerning the
+unavailability of source code for printer drivers at the AI Lab many
+years ago. He has developed a coherent philosophy that has forced all
+of us to re-examine our ideas of how software is produced, of what
+intellectual property means, and what the software community actually
+represents. Let me welcome Richard Stallman. <i>[Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can someone lend me a
+watch? <i>[Laughter]</i> Thank you. So, I'd like to thank Microsoft
+for providing me the opportunity to <i>[Laughter]</i> be on this
+platform. For the past few weeks, I have felt like an author whose
+book was fortuitously banned somewhere. <i>[Laughter]</i> Except that
+all the articles about it are giving the wrong author's name, because
+Microsoft describes the GNU GPL as an open source license, and most of
+the press coverage followed suit. Most people, of course just
+innocently don't realize that our work has nothing to do with open
+source, that in fact we did most of it before people even coined the
+term open source.</p>
+
+<p>We are in the free software movement, and I'm going to speak about
+what the free software movement is about, what it means, what we have
+done, and, because this is partly sponsored by a school of business,
+I'll say some things more than I usually do about how free software
+relates to business, and some other areas of social life.</p>
+
+<p>Now, some of you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps
+you cook. And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably
+use recipes. And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the
+experience of getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing
+it. And you've probably also had the experience — unless you're
+a total neophyte — of changing a recipe. You know, it says
+certain things, but you don't have to do exactly that. You can leave
+out some ingredients. Add some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms.
+Put in less salt because your doctor said you should cut down on salt
+— whatever. You can even make bigger changes according to your
+skill. And if you've made changes in a recipe, and you cook it for
+your friends, and they like it, one of your friends might say,
+“Hey, could I have the recipe?” And then, what do you do?
+You could write down your modified version of the recipe and make a
+copy for your friend. These are the natural things to do with
+functionally useful recipes of any kind.</p>
+
+<p>Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program. A computer
+program's a lot like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to
+get some result that you want. So it's just as natural to do those
+same things with computer programs — hand a copy to your friend.
+Make changes in it because the job it was written to do isn't exactly
+what you want. It did a great job for somebody else, but your job is
+a different job. And after you've changed it, that's likely to be
+useful for other people. Maybe they have a job to do that's like the
+job you do. So they ask, “Hey, can I have a copy?” Of
+course, if you're a nice person, you're going to give a copy. That's
+the way to be a decent person.</p>
+
+<p>So imagine what it would be like if recipes were packaged inside
+black boxes. You couldn't see what ingredients they're using, let
+alone change them, and imagine if you made a copy for a friend, they
+would call you a pirate and try to put you in prison for years. That
+world would create tremendous outrage from all the people who are used
+to sharing recipes. But that is exactly what the world of proprietary
+software is like. A world in which common decency towards other
+people is prohibited or prevented.</p>
+
+<p>Now, why did I notice this? I noticed this because I had the good
+fortune in the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who
+shared software. Now, this community could trace its ancestry
+essentially back to the beginning of computing. In the 1970's,
+though, it was a bit rare for there to be a community where people
+shared software. And, in fact, this was sort of an extreme case,
+because in the lab where I worked, the entire operating system was
+software developed by the people in our community, and we'd share any
+of it with anybody. Anybody was welcome to come and take a look, and
+take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do. There were no
+copyright notices on these programs. Cooperation was our way of life.
+And we were secure in that way of life. We didn't fight for it. We
+didn't have to fight for it. We just lived that way. And, as far as
+we knew, we would just keep on living that way. So there was free
+software, but there was no free software movement.</p>
+
+<p>But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that
+happened to it. Ultimately it was wiped out. Ultimately, the PDP-10
+computer which we used for all our work was discontinued. And you
+know, our system — the Incompatible Timesharing System —
+was written starting in the '60's, so it was written in assembler
+language. That's what you used to write an operating system in the
+'60's. So, of course, assembler language is for one particular
+computer architecture; if that gets discontinued, all your work turns
+into dust — it's useless. And that's what happened to us. The
+20 years or so of work of our community turned into dust.</p>
+
+<p>But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me,
+helped me see what to do, helped prepare me to see what to do when
+this happened, because at certain point, Xerox gave the Artificial
+Intelligence Lab, where I worked, a laser printer, and this was a
+really handsome gift, because it was the first time anybody outside
+Xerox had a laser printer. It was very fast, printed a page a second,
+very fine in many respects, but it was unreliable, because it was
+really a high-speed office copier that had been modified into a
+printer. And, you know, copiers jam, but there's somebody there to
+fix them. The printer jammed and nobody saw. So it stayed jammed for
+a long time.</p>
+
+<p>Well, we had an idea for how to deal with this problem. Change it
+so that whenever the printer gets a jam, the machine that runs the
+printer can tell our timesharing machine, and tell the users who are
+waiting for printouts, or something like that, you know, tell them, go
+fix the printer. Because if they only knew it was jammed, of course,
+if you're waiting for a printout and you know that the printer is
+jammed, you don't want to sit and wait forever, you're going to go fix
+it.</p>
+
+<p>But at that point, we were completely stymied, because the software
+that ran that printer was not free software. It had come with the
+printer, and it was just a binary. We couldn't have the source code;
+Xerox wouldn't let us have the source code. So, despite our skill as
+programmers — after all, we had written our own timesharing
+system — we were completely helpless to add this feature to the
+printer software.</p>
+
+<p>And we just had to suffer with waiting. It would take an hour or
+two to get your printout because the machine would be jammed most of
+the time. And only once in a while — you'd wait an hour
+figuring “I know it's going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and
+go collect my printout,” and then you'd see that it had been
+jammed the whole time, and in fact, nobody else had fixed it. So
+you'd fix it and you'd go wait another half hour. Then, you'd come
+back, and you'd see it jammed again — before it got to your
+output. It would print three minutes and be jammed thirty minutes.
+Frustration up the whazzoo. But the thing that made it worse was
+knowing that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his own
+selfishness, was blocking us, obstructing us from improving the
+software. So, of course, we felt some resentment.</p>
+
+<p>And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a
+copy of that software. So I was visiting there later, so I went to
+his office and I said, “Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of
+the printer source code?” And he said “No, I promised not
+to give you a copy.” <i>[Laughter]</i> I was stunned. I was so
+— I was angry, and I had no idea how I could do justice to it.
+All I could think of was to turn around on my heel and walk out of his
+room. Maybe I slammed the door. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I thought
+about it later on, because I realized that I was seeing not just an
+isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was important and affected
+a lot of people.</p>
+
+<p>This was — for me — I was lucky, I only got a taste of
+it, but other people had to live in this all the time. So I thought
+about it at length. See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with
+us — his colleagues at MIT. He had betrayed us. But he didn't
+just do it to us. Chances are he did it to you too. <i>[Pointing at
+member of audience.]</i> And I think, mostly likely, he did it to you
+too. <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.] [Laughter]</i> And
+he probably did it to you as well. <i>[Pointing to third member of
+audience.]</i> He probably did it to most of the people here in this
+room — except a few, maybe, who weren't born yet in 1980.
+Because he had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about the
+entire population of the Planet Earth. He had signed a non-disclosure
+agreement.</p>
+
+<p>Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure
+agreement, and it taught me an important lesson — a lesson
+that's important because most programmers never learn it. You see,
+this was my first encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was
+the victim. I, and my whole lab, were the victims. And the lesson it
+taught me was that non-disclosure agreements have victims. They're
+not innocent. They're not harmless. Most programmers first encounter
+a non-disclosure agreement when they're invited to sign one. And
+there's always some temptation — some goody they're going to get
+if they sign. So, they make up excuses. They say, “Well, he's
+never going to get a copy no matter what, so why shouldn't I join the
+conspiracy to deprive him?” They say, “This is the way
+it's always done. Who am I to go against it?” They say,
+“If I don't sign this, someone else will.” Various excuses
+to gag their consciences.</p>
+
+<p>But when somebody invited me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, my
+conscience was already sensitized. It remembered how angry I had
+been, when somebody promised not to help me and my whole lab solve our
+problem. And I couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to
+somebody else who had never done me any harm. You know, if somebody
+asked me to promise not to share some useful information with a hated
+enemy, I would have said yes. You know? If somebody's done something
+bad, he deserves it. But, strangers — they haven't done me any
+harm. How could they deserve that kind of mistreatment? You can't
+let yourself start treating just anybody and everybody badly. Then
+you become a predator on society. So I said, “Thank you very
+much for offering me this nice software package. But I can't accept
+it in good conscience, on the conditions you are demanding, so I will
+do without it. Thank you so much.” And so, I have never
+knowingly signed a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful
+technical information such as software.</p>
+
+<p>Now there are other kinds of information which raise different
+ethical issues. For instance, there's personal information. You
+know, if you wanted to talk with me about what was happening between
+you and your boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody —
+you know, I could keep — I could agree to keep that a secret for
+you, because that's not generally useful technical information. At
+least, it's probably not generally useful. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>There is a small chance — and it's a possibility though
+— that you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex
+technique, <i>[Laughter]</i> and I would then feel a moral
+duty <i>[Laughter]</i> to pass it onto the rest of humanity, so that
+everyone could get the benefit of it. So, I'd have to put a proviso
+in that promise, you know? If it's just details about who wants this,
+and who's angry at whom, and things like that — soap opera
+— that I can keep private for you, but something that humanity
+could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't withhold. You see,
+the purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information
+for humanity to help people live their lives better. If we promise to
+withhold that information — if we keep it secret — then we
+are betraying the mission of our field. And this, I decided I
+shouldn't do.</p>
+
+<p>But, meanwhile my community had collapsed, and that was collapsing,
+and that left me in a bad situation. You see, the whole Incompatible
+Timesharing System was obsolete, because the PDP-10 was obsolete, and
+so there was no way that I could continue working as an operating
+system developer the way that I had been doing it. That depended on
+being part of the community using the community software and improving
+it. That no longer was a possibility, and that gave me a moral
+dilemma. What was I going to do? Because the most obvious
+possibility meant to go against that decision I had made. The most
+obvious possibility was to adapt myself to the change in the world.
+To accept that things were different, and that I'd just have to give
+up those principles and start signing non-disclosure agreements for
+proprietary operating systems, and most likely writing proprietary
+software as well. But I realized that that way I could have fun
+coding, and I could make money — especially if I did it other
+than at MIT — but at the end, I'd have to look back at my career
+and say, “I've spent my life building walls to divide
+people,” and I would have been ashamed of my life.</p>
+
+<p>So I looked for another alternative, and there was an obvious one.
+I could leave the software field and do something else. Now I had no
+other special noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a
+waiter. <i>[Laughter]</i> Not at a fancy restaurant; they wouldn't
+hire me, <i>[Laughter]</i> but I could be a waiter somewhere. And
+many programmers, they say to me, “The people who hire
+programmers demand this, this and this. If I don't do those things,
+I'll starve.” It's literally the word they use. Well, you know,
+as a waiter, you're not going to starve. <i>[Laughter]</i> So,
+really, they're in no danger. But — and this is important, you
+see — because sometimes you can justify doing something that
+hurts other people by saying otherwise something worse is going to
+happen to me. You know, if you were <em>really</em> going to starve,
+you'd be justified in writing proprietary software. <i>[Laughter]</i>
+If somebody's pointing a gun at you, then I would say, it's
+forgivable. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, I had found a way that I could
+survive without doing something unethical, so that excuse was not
+available. So I realized, though, that being a waiter would be no fun
+for me, and it would be wasting my skills as an operating system
+developer. It would avoid misusing my skills. Developing proprietary
+software would be misusing my skills. Encouraging other people to
+live in the world of proprietary software would be misusing my skills.
+So it's better to waste them than misuse them, but it's still not
+really good.</p>
+
+<p>So for those reasons, I decided to look for some other alternative.
+What can an operating system developer do that would actually improve
+the situation, make the world a better place? And I realized that an
+operating system developer was exactly what was needed. The problem,
+the dilemma, existed for me and for everyone else because all of the
+available operating systems for modern computers were proprietary.
+The free operating systems were for old, obsolete computers, right?
+So for the modern computers — if you wanted to get a modern
+computer and use it, you were forced into a proprietary operating
+system. So if an operating system developer wrote another operating
+system, and then said, “Everybody come and share this; you're
+welcome to this” — that would give everybody a way out of
+the dilemma, another alternative. So I realized that there was
+something I could do that would solve the problem. I had just the
+right skills to be able to do it. And it was the most useful thing I
+could possibly imagine that I'd be able to do with my life. And it
+was a problem that no one else was trying to solve. It was just sort
+of sitting there, getting worse, and nobody was there but me. So I
+felt, “I'm elected. I have to work on this. If not me,
+who?” So I decided I would develop a free operating system, or
+die trying … of old age, of course. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>So, of course I had to decide what kind of operating system it
+should be. There are some technical design decisions to be made. I
+decided to make the system compatible with Unix for a number of
+reasons. First of all, I had just seen one operating system that I
+really loved become obsolete because it was written for one particular
+kind of computer. I didn't want that to happen again. We needed to
+have a portable system. Well, Unix was a portable system. So if I
+followed the design of Unix, I had a pretty good chance that I could
+make a system that would also be portable and workable. And
+furthermore, why <i>[Tape unclear]</i> be compatible with it in the
+details. The reason is, users hate incompatible changes. If I had
+just designed the system in my favorite way — which I would have
+loved doing, I'm sure — I would have produced something that was
+incompatible. You know, the details would be different. So, if I
+wrote the system, then the users would have said to me, “Well,
+this is very nice, but it's incompatible. It will be too much work to
+switch. We can't afford that much trouble just to use your system
+instead of Unix, so we'll stay with Unix,” they would have
+said.</p>
+
+<p>Now, if I wanted to actually create a community where there would
+be people in it, people using this free system, and enjoying the
+benefits of liberty and cooperation, I had to make a system people
+would use, a system that they would find easy to switch to, that would
+not have an obstacle making it fail at the very beginning. Now,
+making the system upward compatible with Unix actually made all the
+immediate design decisions, because Unix consists of many pieces, and
+they communicate through interfaces that are more or less documented.
+So if you want to be compatible with Unix, you have to replace each
+piece, one by one, with a compatible piece. So the remaining design
+decisions are inside one piece, and they could be made later by
+whoever decides to write that piece. They didn't have to be made at
+the outset.</p>
+
+<p>So all we had to do to start work was find a name for the system.
+Now, we hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program,
+because thinking of people being amused by the name is half the fun of
+writing the program. <i>[Laughter]</i> And we had a tradition of
+recursive acronyms, to say that the program that you're writing is
+similar to some existing program. You can give it a recursive acronym
+name which says: this one's not the other. So, for instance, there
+were many Tico text editors in the '60's and '70's, and they were
+generally called something-or-other Tico. Then one clever hacker
+called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico — the first recursive
+acronym. In 1975, I developed the first Emacs text editor, and there
+were many imitations of Emacs, and a lot of them were called
+something-or-other Emacs, but one was called Fine, for Fine Is Not
+Emacs, and there was Sine, for Sine Is Not Emacs, and Eine for Ina Is
+Not Emacs, and MINCE for Mince Is Not Complete
+Emacs. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was a stripped down imitation. And
+then, Eine was almost completely rewritten, and the new version was
+called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>So I looked for a recursive acronym for Something is not Unix. And
+I tried all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word.
+<i>[Laughter]</i> Hmm, try another way. I made a contraction. That
+way I could have a three-letter acronym, for Something's not Unix.
+And I tried letters, and I came across the word “GNU”
+— the word “GNU” is the funniest word in the English
+language. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was it. Of course, the reason it's
+funny is that according to the dictionary, it's pronounced
+“new”. You see? And so that's why people use it for a
+lot of wordplay. Let me tell you, this is the name of an animal that
+lives in Africa. And the African pronunciation had a click sound in
+it. <i>[Laughter]</i> Maybe still does. And so, the European
+colonists, when they got there, they didn't bother learning to say
+this click sound. So they just left it out, and they wrote a
+“G” which meant “there's another sound that's
+supposed to be here which we are not
+pronouncing.” <i>[Laughter]</i> So, tonight I'm leaving for
+South Africa, and I have begged them, I hope they're going to find
+somebody who can teach me to pronounce click sounds, <i>[Laughter]</i>
+so that I'll know how to pronounce GNU the correct way, when it's the
+animal.</p>
+
+<p>But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is
+“guh-NEW” — pronounce the hard “G”. If
+you talk about the “new” operating system, you'll get
+people very confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years
+now, so it is not new any more. <i>[Laughter]</i> But it still is,
+and always will be, GNU — no matter how many people call it
+Linux by mistake. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces
+of GNU. They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities
+though. And, at the time, I thought we would write all these pieces,
+and make an entire GNU system, and then we'd say, “Come and get
+it”, and people would start to use it. That's not what
+happened. The first pieces I wrote were just equally good
+replacements, with fewer bugs for some pieces of Unix, but they
+weren't tremendously exciting. Nobody particularly wanted to get them
+and install them. But then, in September 1984, I started writing GNU
+Emacs, which was my second implementation of Emacs, and by early 1985,
+it was working. I could use it for all my editing, which was a big
+relief, because I had no intention of learning to use VI, the Unix
+editor. <i>[Laughter]</i> So, until that time, I did my editing on
+some other machine, and saved the files through the network, so that I
+could test them. But when GNU Emacs was running well enough for me to
+use it, it was also — other people wanted to use it too.</p>
+
+<p>So I had to work out the details of distribution. Of course, I put
+a copy in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people
+who were on the net They could then just pull over a tar file, but a
+lot of programmers then even were not on the net in 1985. They were
+sending me emails saying “How can I get a copy?” I had to
+decide what I would answer them. Well, I could have said, I want to
+spend my time writing more GNU software, not writing tapes, so please
+find a friend who's on the internet and who is willing to download it
+and put it on a tape for you. And I'm sure people would have found
+some friends, sooner or later, you know. They would have got copies.
+But I had no job. In fact, I've never had a job since quitting MIT in
+January 1984. So, I was looking for some way I could make money
+through my work on free software, and therefore I started a free
+software business. I announced, “Send me $150 dollars, and I'll
+mail you a tape of Emacs.” And the orders began dribbling in.
+By the middle of the year they were trickling in.</p>
+
+<p>I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month. And, if necessary, I could
+have lived on just that, because I've always lived cheaply. I live
+like a student, basically. And I like that, because it means that
+money is not telling me what to do. I can do what I think is
+important for me to do. It freed me to do what seemed worth doing.
+So make a real effort to avoid getting sucked into all the expensive
+lifestyle habits of typical Americans. Because if you do that, then
+people with the money will dictate what you do with your life. You
+won't be able to do what's really important to you.</p>
+
+<p>So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, “What do you
+mean it's free software if it costs $150
+dollars?” <i>[Laughter]</i> Well, the reason they asked this was
+that they were confused by the multiple meanings of the English word
+“free”. One meaning refers to price, and another meaning
+refers to freedom. When I speak of free software, I'm referring to
+freedom, not price. So think of free speech, not free
+beer. <i>[Laughter]</i> Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many years
+of my life to making sure programmers got less money. That's not my
+goal. I'm a programmer and I don't mind getting money myself. I
+won't dedicate my whole life to getting it, but I don't mind getting
+it. And I'm not — and therefore, ethics is the same for
+everyone. I'm not against some other programmer getting money either.
+I don't want prices to be low. That's not the issue at all. The
+issue is freedom. Freedom for everyone who's using software, whether
+that person be a programmer or not.</p>
+
+<p>So at this point I should give you the definition of free software.
+I better get to some real details, you see, because just saying
+“I believe in freedom” is vacuous. There's so many
+different freedoms you could believe in, and they conflict with each
+other, so the real political question is: Which are the important
+freedoms, the freedoms that we must make sure everybody has?</p>
+
+<p>And now, I will give my answer to that question for the particular
+area of using software. A program is free software for you, a
+particular user, if you have the following freedoms:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>First, Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the program for any
+purpose, any way you like.</li>
+<li>Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
+program to suit your needs.</li>
+<li>Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
+copies of the program.</li>
+<li>And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
+publishing an improved version so others can get the benefit of your
+work.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software,
+for you — and that's crucial. That's why I phrase it that way.
+I'll explain why later, when I talk about the GNU General Public
+License, but right now I'm explaining what free software means, which
+is a more basic question.</p>
+
+<p>So, Freedom Zero's pretty obvious. If you're not even allowed to
+run the program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive
+program. But as it happens, most programs will at least give you
+Freedom Zero. And Freedom Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of
+Freedoms One, Two, and Three — that's the way that copyright law
+works. So the freedoms that distinguish free software from typical
+software are Freedoms One, Two, and Three, so I'll say more about them
+and why they are important.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
+software to suit your needs. This could mean fixing bugs. It could
+mean adding new features. It could mean porting it to a different
+computer system. It could mean translating all the error messages
+into Navajo. Any change you want to make, you should be free to
+make.</p>
+
+<p>Now, it's obvious that professional programmers can make use of
+this freedom very effectively, but not just them. Anybody of
+reasonable intelligence can learn a little programming. You know,
+there are hard jobs, and there are easy jobs, and most people are not
+going to learn enough to do hard jobs. But lots of people can learn
+enough to do easy jobs, just the way, you know, 50 years ago, lots and
+lots of American men learned to repair cars, which is what enabled the
+U.S. to have a motorized army in World War II and win. So, very
+important, having lots of people tinkering.</p>
+
+<p>And if you are a people person, and you really don't want to learn
+technology at all, that probably means that you have a lot of friends,
+and you're good at getting them to owe you favors. <i>[Laughter]</i>
+Some of them are probably programmers. So you can ask one of your
+programmer friends. “Would you please change this for me? Add
+this feature?” So, lots of people can benefit from it.</p>
+
+<p>Now, if you don't have this freedom, it causes practical, material
+harm to society. It makes you a prisoner of your software. I
+explained what that was like with regard to the laser printer. You
+know, it worked badly for us, and we couldn't fix it, because we were
+prisoners of our software.</p>
+
+<p>But it also affects people's morale. You know if the computer is
+constantly frustrating to use, and people are using it, their lives
+are going to be frustrating, and if they're using it in their jobs,
+their jobs are going to be frustrating; they're going to hate their
+jobs. And you know, people protect themselves from frustration by
+deciding not to care. So you end up with people whose attitude is,
+“Well, I showed up for work today. That's all I have to do. If
+I can't make progress, that's not my problem; that's the boss's
+problem.” And when this happens, it's bad for those people, and
+it's bad for society as a whole. That's Freedom One, the freedom to
+help yourself.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
+copies of the program. Now, for beings that can think and learn,
+sharing useful knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship. When
+these beings use computers, this act of friendship takes the form of
+sharing software. Friends share with each other. Friends help each
+other. This is the nature of friendship. And, in fact, this spirit
+of goodwill — the spirit of helping your neighbor, voluntarily
+— is society's most important resource. It makes the difference
+between a livable society and a dog-eat-dog jungle. Its importance
+has been recognized by the world's major religions for thousands of
+years, and they explicitly try to encourage this attitude.</p>
+
+<p>When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach
+us this attitude — the spirit of sharing — by having us do
+it. They figured if we did it, we'd learn. So they said, “If
+you bring candy to school, you can't keep it all for yourself; you
+have to share some with the other kids.” Teaching us, the
+society was set up to teach, this spirit of cooperation. And why do
+you have to do that? Because people are not totally cooperative.
+That's one part of human nature, and there are other parts of human
+nature. There are lots of parts of human nature. So, if you want a
+better society, you've got to work to encourage the spirit of sharing.
+You know, it'll never get to be 100%. That's understandable. People
+have to take care of themselves too. But if we make it somewhat
+bigger, we're all better off.</p>
+
+<p>Nowadays, according to the U.S. Government, teachers are supposed
+to do the exact opposite. “Oh, Johnny, you brought software to
+school. Well, don't share it. Oh no. Sharing is wrong. Sharing
+means you're a pirate.”</p>
+
+<p>What do they mean when they say “pirate”? They're
+saying that helping your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking
+a ship. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>What would Buddha or Jesus say about that? Now, take your favorite
+religious leader. I don't know, maybe Manson would have said
+something different. <i>[Laughter]</i> Who knows what L. Ron Hubbard
+would say? But …</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Of course, he's dead. But they don't
+admit that. What?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: So are the others, also
+dead. <i>[Laughter] [Inaudible]</i> Charles Manson's also
+dead. <i>[Laughter]</i> They're dead, Jesus's dead, Buddha's
+dead…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, that's true. <i>[Laughter]</i> So
+I guess, in that regard, L. Ron Hubbard is no worse than the
+others. <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway — <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: L. Ron always used free software —
+it freed him from Zanu. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Anyway, so, I think this is actually the
+most important reason why software should be free: We can't afford to
+pollute society's most important resource. It's true that it's not a
+physical resource like clean air and clean water. It's a
+psycho-social resource, but it's just as real for all that, and it
+makes a tremendous difference to our lives. You see, the actions we
+take influence the thoughts of other people. When we go around
+telling people, “Don't share with each other”, if they
+listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's not a good one.
+That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor.</p>
+
+<p>Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just
+cause this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes
+waste — practical, material harm. If the program has an owner,
+and the owner arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay
+in order to be able to use it, some people are going to say,
+“Never mind, I'll do without it.” And that's waste,
+deliberately inflicted waste. And the interesting thing about
+software, of course, is that fewer users doesn't mean you have to make
+less stuff. You know, if fewer people buy cars, you can make fewer
+cars. There's a saving there. There are resources to be allocated,
+or not allocated, into making cars. So that you can say that having a
+price on a car is a good thing. It prevents people from diverting
+lots of wasted resources into making cars that aren't really needed.
+But if each additional car used no resources, it wouldn't be doing any
+good saving the making of these cars. Well, for physical objects, of
+course, like cars, it is always going to take resources to make an
+additional one of them, each additional exemplar.</p>
+
+<p>But for software that's not true. Anybody can make another copy.
+And it's almost trivial to do it. It takes no resources, except a
+tiny bit of electricity. So there's nothing we can save, no resource
+we're going to allocate better by putting this financial disincentive
+on the use of the software. You often find people taking economic,
+the consequences of economic reasoning, based on premises that don't
+apply to software, and trying to transplant them from other areas of
+life where the premises may apply, and the conclusions may be valid.
+They just take the conclusions and assume that they're valid for
+software too, when the argument is based on nothing, in the case of
+software. The premises don't work in that case. It is very important
+to examine how you reach the conclusion, and what premises it depends
+on, to see where it might be valid. So, that's Freedom Two, the
+freedom to help your neighbor.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
+publishing an improved version of the software. People used to say to
+me, “If the software's free, then nobody will get paid to work
+on it, so why should anybody work on it?” Well, of course, they
+were confusing the two meanings of free, so their reasoning was based
+on a misunderstanding. But, in any case, that was their theory.
+Today, we can compare that theory with empirical fact, and we find
+that hundreds of people are being paid to write free software, and
+over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers. We get lots of people
+working on free software, for various different motives.</p>
+
+<p>When I first released GNU Emacs — the first piece of the GNU
+system that people actually wanted to use — and when it started
+having users, after a while, I got a message saying, “I think I
+saw a bug in the source code, and here's a fix.” And I got
+another message, “Here's code to add a new feature.” And
+another bug fix. And another new feature. And another, and another,
+and another, until they were pouring in on me so fast that just making
+use of all this help I was getting was a big job. Microsoft doesn't
+have this problem. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>Eventually, people noted this phenomenon. You see, in the 1980's a
+lot of us thought that maybe free software wouldn't be as good as the
+non-free software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay
+people. And, of course, people like me, who value freedom and
+community said, “Well, we'll use the free software
+anyway.” It's worth making a little sacrifice in some mere
+technical convenience to have freedom. But what people began to note,
+around 1990 was that our software was actually better. It was more
+powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary alternatives.</p>
+
+<p>In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific
+measurement of reliability of software. Here's what he did. He took
+several sets of comparable programs that did the same jobs — the
+exact same jobs — in different systems. Because there were
+certain basic Unix-like utilities. And the jobs that they did, we
+know, was all, more or less, imitating the same thing, or they were
+following the POSIX spec, so they were all the same in terms of what
+jobs they did, but they were maintained by different people, written
+separately. The code was different. So they said, OK, we'll take
+these programs and run them with random data, and measure how often
+they crash, or hang. So they measured it, and the most reliable set
+of programs was the GNU programs. All the commercial alternatives
+which were proprietary software were less reliable. So he published
+this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he did the
+same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same result.
+The GNU versions were the most reliable. People — you know
+there are cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system,
+because it's so reliable, and reliability is very important to
+them.</p>
+
+<p>Anyway, there's even a group of people who focus on this particular
+benefit as the reason they give, the main reason they give, why users
+should be permitted to do these various things, and to have these
+freedoms. If you've been listening to me, you've noticed, you've seen
+that I, speaking for the free software movement, I talk about issues
+of ethics, and what kind of a society we want to live in, what makes
+for a good society, as well as practical, material benefits. They're
+both important. That's the free software movement.</p>
+
+<p>That other group of people — which is called the open source
+movement — they only cite the practical benefits. They deny
+that this is an issue of principle. They deny that people are
+entitled to the freedom to share with their neighbor and to see what
+the program's doing and change it if they don't like it. They say,
+however, that it's a useful thing to let people do that. So they go
+to companies and say to them, “You know, you might make more
+money if you let people do this.” So, what you can see is that
+to some extent, they lead people in a similar direction, but for
+totally different, for fundamentally different, philosophical
+reasons.</p>
+
+<p>Because on the deepest issue of all, you know, on the ethical
+question, the two movements disagree. You know, in the free software
+movement we say, “You're entitled to these freedoms. People
+shouldn't stop you from doing these things.” In the open source
+movement, they say, “Yes, they can stop you if you want, but
+we'll try to convince them to deign to let you to do these
+things.” Well, they have contributed — they have convinced
+a certain number of businesses to release substantial pieces of
+software as free software in our community. So they, the open source
+movement, has contributed substantially to our community. And so we
+work together on practical projects. But, philosophically, there's a
+tremendous disagreement.</p>
+
+<p>Unfortunately, the open source movement is the one that gets the
+support of business the most, and so most articles about our work
+describe it as open source, and a lot of people just innocently think
+that we're all part of the open source movement. So that's why I'm
+mentioning this distinction. I want you to be aware that the free
+software movement, which brought our community into existence and
+developed the free operating system, is still here — and that we
+still stand for this ethical philosophy. I want you to know about
+this, so that you won't mislead someone else unknowingly.</p>
+
+<p>But also, so that you can think about where you stand.</p>
+
+<p>You know, which movement you support is up to you. You might agree
+with the free software movements and my views. You might agree with
+the open source movement. You might disagree with them both. You
+decide where you stand on these political issues.</p>
+
+<p>But if you agree with the free software movement — if you see
+that there's an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled
+and directed by this decision deserve a say in it — then I hope
+you'll say that you agree with the free software movement, and one way
+you can do that is by using the term free software and just helping
+people know we exist.</p>
+
+<p>So, Freedom Three is very important both practically and
+psycho-socially. If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical
+material harm, because this community development doesn't happen, and
+we don't make powerful, reliable software. But it also causes
+psycho-social harm, which affects the spirit of scientific cooperation
+— the idea that we're working together to advance human
+knowledge. You see, progress in science crucially depends on people
+being able to work together. And nowadays though, you often find each
+little group of scientists acting like it's a war with each other gang
+of scientists and engineers. And if they don't share with each other,
+they're all held back.</p>
+
+<p>So, those are the three freedoms that distinguish free software
+from typical software. Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself,
+making changes to suit your own needs. Freedom Two is the freedom to
+help your neighbor by distributing copies. And Freedom Three is the
+freedom to help build your community by making changes and publishing
+them for other people to use. If you have all of these freedoms, the
+program is free software for you. Now, why do I define it that way in
+terms of a particular user? Is it free software for
+you? <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> Is it free software for
+you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Is it free
+software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i>
+Yes?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you explain a bit about the
+difference between Freedom Two and Three? <i>[inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, they certainly relate, because if
+you don't have freedom to redistribute at all, you certainly don't
+have freedom to distribute a modified version, but they're different
+activities.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Oh.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Freedom Two is, you know, read it, you
+make an exact copy, and hand it to your friends, so now your friend
+can use it. Or maybe you make exact copies and you sell them to a
+bunch of people, and then they can use it.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom Three is where you make improvements — or at least
+you think they're improvements, and some other people may agree with
+you. So that's the difference. Oh, and by the way, one crucial
+point. Freedoms One and Three depend on your having access to the
+source code. Because changing a binary-only program is extremely
+hard. <i>[Laughter]</i> Even trivial changes like using four digits
+for the date, <i>[Laughter]</i> if you don't have source. So, for
+compelling, practical reasons, access to the source code is a
+precondition, a requirement, for free software.</p>
+
+<p>So, why do I define it in terms of whether it's free software for
+<em>you</em>? The reason is that sometimes the same program can be
+free software for some people, and non-free for others. Now, that
+might seem like a paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example
+to show you how it happens. A very big example — maybe the
+biggest ever — of this problem was the X Window System which was
+developed at MIT and released under a license that made it free
+software. If you got the MIT version with the MIT license, you had
+Freedoms One, Two, and Three. It was free software for you. But
+among those who got copies were various computer manufacturers that
+distributed Unix systems, and they made the necessary changes in X to
+run on their systems. You know, probably just a few thousand lines
+out of the hundreds of thousands of lines of X. And, then they
+compiled it, and they put the binaries into their Unix system and
+distributed it under the same non-disclosure agreement as the rest of
+the Unix system. And then, millions of people got these copies. They
+had the X Window System, but they had none of these freedoms. It was
+not free software for <em>them</em>.</p>
+
+<p>So, the paradox was that whether X was free software depended on
+where you made the measurement. If you made the measurement coming
+out of the developers' group, you'd say, “I observe all these
+freedoms. It's free software.” If you made the measurements
+among the users you'd say, “Hmm, most users don't have these
+freedoms. It's not free software.” Well, the people who
+developed X didn't consider this a problem, because their goal was
+just popularity, ego, essentially. They wanted a big professional
+success. They wanted to feel, “Ah, lots of people are using our
+software.” And that was true. Lots of people were using their
+software but didn't have freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Well, in the GNU project, if that same thing had happened to GNU
+software, it would have been a failure, because our goal wasn't just
+to be popular; our goal was to give people liberty, and to encourage
+cooperation, to permit people to cooperate. Remember, never force
+anyone to cooperate with any other person, but make sure that
+everybody's allowed to cooperate, everyone has the freedom to do so,
+if he or she wishes. If millions of people were running non-free
+versions of GNU, that wouldn't be success at all. The whole thing
+would have been perverted into nothing like the goal.</p>
+
+<p>So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening. The method I
+came up with is called “copyleft”. It's called copyleft
+because it's sort of like taking copyright and flipping it
+over. <i>[Laughter]</i> Legally, copyleft works based on copyright.
+We use the existing copyright law, but we use it to achieve a very
+different goal. Here's what we do. We say, “This program is
+copyrighted.” And, of course, by default, that means it's
+prohibited to copy it, or distribute it, or modify it. But then we
+say, “You're authorized to distribute copies of this. You're
+authorized to modify it. You're authorized to distribute modified
+versions and extended versions. Change it any way you
+like.”</p>
+
+<p>But there is a condition. And the condition, of course, is the
+reason why we go to all this trouble, so that we could put the
+condition in. The condition says: Whenever you distribute anything
+that contains any piece of this program, that whole program must be
+distributed under these same terms, no more and no less. So you can
+change the program and distribute a modified version, but when you do,
+the people who get that from you must get the same freedom that you
+got from us. And not just for the parts of it — the excerpts
+that you copied from our program — but also for the other parts
+of that program that they got from you. The whole of that program has
+to be free software for them.</p>
+
+<p>The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become
+inalienable rights — a concept from the Declaration of
+Independence. Rights that we make sure can't be taken away from you.
+And, of course, the specific license that embodies the idea of
+copyleft is the GNU General Public License, a controversial license
+because it actually has the strength to say no to people who would be
+parasites on our community.</p>
+
+<p>There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of
+freedom. And they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done,
+and use it to get a head start in distributing a non-free program and
+tempting people to give up their freedom. And the result would be
+— you know, if we let people do that — that we would be
+developing these free programs, and we'd constantly have to compete
+with improved versions of our own programs. That's no fun.</p>
+
+<p>And, a lot of people also feel — you know, I'm willing to
+volunteer my time to contribute to the community, but why should I
+volunteer my time to contribute to that company's, to improving that
+company's, proprietary program? You know, some people might not even
+think that that's evil, but they want to get paid if they're going to
+do that. I, personally, would rather not do it at all.</p>
+
+<p>But both of these groups of people — both the ones like me
+who say, “I don't want to help that non-free program to get a
+foothold in our community” and the ones that say, “Sure,
+I'd work for them, but then they better pay me” — both of
+us have a good reason to use the GNU General Public License. Because
+that says to that company, “You can't just take my work, and
+distribute it without the freedom.” Whereas, the non-copyleft
+licenses, like the X Windows license, do permit that.</p>
+
+<p>So that is the big division between the two categories of free
+software — license-wise. There are the programs that are
+copylefted so that the license defends the freedom of the software for
+every user. And there are the non-copylefted programs for which
+non-free versions are allowed. Somebody <em>can</em> take those
+programs and strip off the freedom. You may get that program in a
+non-free version.</p>
+
+<p>And that problem exists today. There are still non-free versions
+of X Windows being used on our free operating systems. There is even
+hardware — which is not really supported — except by a
+non-free version of X Windows. And that's a major problem in our
+community. Nonetheless, I wouldn't say that X Windows is a bad thing,
+you know. I'd say that the developers did not do the best possible
+thing that they could have done. But they <em>did</em> release a lot
+of software that we could all use.</p>
+
+<p>You know, there's a big difference between less than perfect, and
+evil. There are many gradations of good and bad. We have to resist
+the temptation to say, if you didn't do the absolute best possible
+thing, then you're no good. You know, the people that developed X
+Windows made a big contribution to our community. But there's
+something better that they could have done. They could have
+copylefted parts of the program and prevented those freedom-denying
+versions from being distributed by others.</p>
+
+<p>Now, the fact that the GNU General Public License defends your
+freedom, uses copyright law to defend your freedom, is, of course, why
+Microsoft is attacking it today. See, Microsoft would really like to
+be able to take all the code that we wrote and put it into proprietary
+programs, have somebody make some improvements, or even just
+incompatible changes is all they need. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>You know, with Microsoft's marketing clout, they don't need to make
+it better to have their version supplant ours. They just have to make
+it different and incompatible. And then, put it on everybody's
+desktop. So they really don't like the GNU GPL. Because the GNU GPL
+won't let them do that. It doesn't allow “embrace and
+extend”. It says, if you want to share our code in your
+programs, you can. But, you've got to share and share alike. The
+changes that you make we have to be allowed to share. So, it's a
+two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation.</p>
+
+<p>Many companies — even big companies like IBM and HP are
+willing to use our software on this basis. IBM and HP contribute
+substantial improvements to GNU software. And they develop other free
+software. But, Microsoft doesn't want to do that, so they give it out
+that businesses just can't deal with the GPL. Well, if businesses
+don't include IBM, and HP and SUN, then maybe they're
+right. <i>[Laughter]</i> More about that later.</p>
+
+<p>I should finish the historical story. You see, we set out in 1984
+not just to write some free software but to do something much more
+coherent: to develop an operating system that was entirely free
+software. So that meant we had to write piece after piece after
+piece. Of course, we were always looking for shortcuts. The job was
+so big that people said we'd never be able to finish. And, I thought
+that there was at least a chance that we'd finish it but, obviously,
+it's worth looking for shortcuts. So we kept looking around. Is there
+any program that somebody else has written that we could manage to
+adapt, to plug into here, and that way we won't have to write it from
+scratch? For instance, the X Window system. It's true it wasn't
+copylefted, but it was free software, so we could use it.</p>
+
+<p>Now, I had wanted to put a window system into GNU from day one. I
+wrote a couple of window systems at MIT before I started GNU. And so,
+even though Unix had no window system in 1984, I decided that GNU
+would have one. But, we never ended up writing a GNU window system,
+because X came along. And I said, Goody! One big job we don't have
+to do. We'll use X. So I basically said, let's take X, and put it
+into the GNU system. And we'll make the other parts of GNU, you know,
+work with X, when appropriate. And we found other pieces of software
+that had been written by other people, like the text formatter TeX,
+some library code from Berkeley. At that time there was Berkeley
+Unix, but it was not free software. This library code, initially, was
+from a different group at Berkeley, that did research on floating
+point. And, so, we kept, we fit in these pieces.</p>
+
+<p>In October 1985, we founded the Free Software Foundation. So
+please note, the GNU project came first. The Free Software Foundation
+came after, about almost two years after the announcement of the
+Project. And the Free Software Foundation is a tax-exempt charity
+that raises funds to promote the freedom to share and change software.
+And in the 1980's, one of the main things we did with our funds was to
+hire people to write parts of GNU. And essential programs, such as
+the shell and the C library were written this way, as well as parts of
+other programs. The <code>tar</code> program, which is absolutely
+essential, although not exciting at all <i>[Laughter]</i> was written
+this way. I believe GNU grep was written this way. And so, we're
+approaching our goal.</p>
+
+<p>By 1991, there was just one major piece missing, and that was the
+kernel. Now, why did I put off the kernel? Probably because it
+doesn't really matter what order you do the things in, at least
+technically it doesn't. You've got to do them all anyway. And partly
+because I'd hoped we'd be able to find a start at a kernel somewhere
+else. And we did. We found Mach, which had been developed at
+Carnegie Mellon. And it wasn't the whole kernel; it was the bottom
+half of the kernel. So we had to write the top half, but I figured,
+you know, things like the file system, the network code, and so on.
+But running on top of Mach they're running essentially as user
+programs, which ought to make them easier to debug. You can debug
+with a real source-level debugger running at the same time. And so, I
+thought that way we'd be able to get these, the higher level parts of
+the kernel, done in a short time. It didn't work out that way. These
+asynchronous, multi-threaded processes, sending messages to each other
+turned out to be very hard to debug. And the Mach-based system that
+we were using to bootstrap with had a terrible debugging environment,
+and it was unreliable, and various problems. It took us years and
+years to get the GNU kernel to work.</p>
+
+<p>But, fortunately, our community did not have to wait for the GNU
+kernel. Because in 1991, Linus Torvalds developed another free kernel
+called Linux. And he used the old-fashioned monolithic design and it
+turns out that he got his working much faster than we got ours
+working. So maybe that's one of the mistakes that I made: that design
+decision. Anyway, at first, we didn't know about Linux, because he
+never contacted us to talk about it. Although he did know about the
+GNU Project. But he announced it to other people and other places on
+the net. And so other people then did the work of combining Linux
+with the rest of the GNU system to make a complete free operating
+system. Essentially, to make the GNU plus Linux combination.</p>
+
+<p>But, they didn't realize that's what they were doing. You see,
+they said, We have a kernel — let's look around and see what
+other pieces we can find to put together with the kernel. So, they
+looked around — and lo and behold, everything they needed was
+already available. What good fortune, they said. <i>[Laughter]</i>
+It's all here. We can find everything we need. Let's just take all
+these different things and put it together, and have a system.</p>
+
+<p>They didn't know that most of what they found was pieces of the GNU
+system. So they didn't realize that they were fitting Linux into the
+gap in the GNU system. They thought they were taking Linux and making
+a system out of Linux. So they called it a Linux system.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can't hear you — what?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, it's just not — you know,
+it's provincial.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: But it's more good fortune then finding
+X and Mach?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. The difference is that the
+people who developed X and Mach didn't have the goal of making a
+complete free operating system. We're the only ones who had that.
+And, it was our tremendous work that made the system exist. We
+actually did a larger part of the system than any other project. No
+coincidence, because those people — they wrote useful parts of
+the system. But they didn't do it because they wanted the system to
+be finished. They had other reasons.</p>
+
+<p>Now the people who developed X — they thought that designing
+across the network window system would be a good project, and it was.
+And it turned out to help us make a good free operating system. But
+that's not what they hoped for. They didn't even think about that.
+It was an accident. An accidental benefit. Now, I'm not saying that
+what they did was bad. They did a large free software project.
+That's a good thing to do. But they didn't have that ultimate vision.
+The GNU Project is where that vision was.</p>
+
+<p>And, so, we were the ones whose — every little piece that
+didn't get done by somebody else, we did it. Because we knew that we
+wouldn't have a complete system without it. And even if it was
+totally boring and unromantic, like <code>tar</code>
+or <code>mv</code>. <i>[Laughter]</i> We did it. Or ld, you know
+there's nothing very exciting in <code>ld</code> — but I wrote
+one. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I did make efforts to have it do a minimal
+amount of disk I/O so that it would be faster and handle bigger
+programs. But, you know, I like to do a good job. I like to improve
+various things about the program while I'm doing it. But the reason
+that I did it wasn't that I had brilliant ideas for a
+better <code>ld</code>. The reason I did it is that we needed one
+that was free. And we couldn't expect anyone else to do it. So, we
+had to do it, or find someone to do it.</p>
+
+<p>So, although at this point thousands of people in projects have
+contributed to this system, there is one project which is the reason
+that this system exists, and that's the GNU Project. It <em>is</em>
+basically the GNU System, with other things added since then.</p>
+
+<p>So, however, the practice of calling the system Linux has been a
+great blow to the GNU Project, because we don't normally get credit
+for what we've done. I think Linux, the kernel, is a very useful
+piece of free software, and I have only good things to say about it.
+But, well, actually, I can find a few bad things to say about
+it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, basically, I have good things to say about
+it. However, the practice of calling the GNU system, Linux, is just a
+mistake. I'd like to ask you please to make the small effort
+necessary to call the system GNU/Linux, and that way to help us get a
+share of the credit.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You need a mascot! Get yourself a
+stuffed animal! <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have one.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You do?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have an animal — a
+gnu. <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway. So, yes, when you draw a penguin,
+draw a gnu next to it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, let's save the
+questions for the end. I have more to go through.</p>
+
+<p>So, why am I so concerned about this? You know, why do I think it
+is worth bothering you and perhaps giving you a, perhaps lowering your
+opinion of me, <i>[Laughter]</i> to raise this issue of credit?
+Because, you know, some people when I do this, some people think that
+it's because I want my ego to be fed, right? Of course, I'm not
+saying — I'm not asking you to call it “Stallmanix,”
+right? <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p>I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to
+get credit. And there's a very specific reason for that, which is a
+lot more important than anybody getting credit, in and of itself. You
+see, these days, if you look around in our community most of the
+people talking about it and writing about it don't ever mention GNU,
+and they don't ever mention these goals of freedom — these
+political and social ideals, either. Because the place they come from
+is GNU.</p>
+
+<p>The ideas associated with Linux — the philosophy is very
+different. It is basically the apolitical philosophy of Linus
+Torvalds. So, when people think that the whole system is Linux, they
+tend to think: “Oh, it must have been all started by Linux
+Torvalds. His philosophy must be the one that we should look at
+carefully”. And when they hear about the GNU philosophy, they
+say: “Boy, this is so idealistic, this must be awfully
+impractical. I'm a Linux-user, not a
+GNU-user.” <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>What irony! If they only knew! If they knew that the system they
+liked — or, in some cases, love and go wild over — is our
+idealistic, political philosophy made real.</p>
+
+<p>They still wouldn't have to agree with us. But at least they'd see
+a reason to take it seriously, to think about it carefully, to give it
+a chance. They would see how it relates to their lives. You know, if
+they realized, “I'm using the GNU system. Here's the GNU
+philosophy. This philosophy is <em>why</em> this system that I like
+very much exists,” they'd at least consider it with a much more
+open mind. It doesn't mean that everybody will agree. People think
+different things. That's OK. You know, people should make up their
+own minds. But I want this philosophy to get the benefit of the
+credit for the results it has achieved.</p>
+
+<p>If you look around in our community, you'll find that almost
+everywhere, the institutions are calling the system Linux. You know,
+reporters mostly call it Linux. It's not right, but they do. The
+companies mostly say it that package the system. Oh, and most of
+these reporters, when they write articles, they usually don't look at
+it as a political issue, or social issue. They're usually looking at
+it purely as a business question or what companies are going to
+succeed more or less, which is really a fairly minor question for
+society. And, if you look at the companies that package the GNU/Linux
+system for people to use, well, most of them call it Linux. And they
+<em>all</em> add non-free software to it.</p>
+
+<p>See, the GNU GPL says that if you take code, and some code out of a
+GPL-covered program, and add some more code to make a bigger program,
+that whole program has to be released under the GPL. But you could
+put other separate programs on the same disk (of either kind, hard
+disk, or CD), and they can have other licenses. That's considered
+mere aggregation, and, essentially, just distributing two programs to
+somebody at the same time is not something we have any say over. So,
+in fact, it is not true — sometimes, I wish it were true —
+that if a company uses a GPL-covered program in a product that the
+whole product has to be free software. It's not — it doesn't go
+to that range — that scope. It's the whole program. If there
+are two separate programs that communicate with each other at arm's
+length — like by sending messages to each other — then,
+they're legally separate, in general. So, these companies, by adding
+non-free software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically
+and politically, a very bad idea. They're telling the users,
+“It is OK to use non-free software. We're even putting it on
+this as a bonus.”</p>
+
+<p>If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system,
+most of them have a title like “Linux-something or other”.
+So they're calling the system Linux most of the time. And they're
+filled with ads for non-free software that you could run on top of the
+GNU/Linux system. Now those ads have a common message. They say:
+Non-free Software Is Good For You. It's So Good That You Might Even
+<em>Pay</em> To Get It. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>And they call these things “value-added packages”,
+which makes a statement about their values. They're saying: Value
+practical convenience, not freedom. And, I don't agree with those
+values, so I call them “freedom-subtracted
+packages”. <i>[Laughter]</i> Because if you have installed a
+free operating system, then you now are living in the free world. You
+enjoy the benefits of liberty that we worked for so many years to give
+you. Those packages give you an opportunity to buckle on a chain.</p>
+
+<p>And then if you look at the trade shows — about the use of
+the, dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call
+themselves “Linux” shows. And they're filled with booths
+exhibiting non-free software, essentially putting the seal of approval
+on the non-free software. So, almost everywhere you look in our
+community, the institutions are endorsing the non-free software,
+totalling negating the idea of freedom that GNU was developed for.
+And the only place that people are likely to come across the idea of
+freedom is in connection with GNU, and in connection with free
+software, the term, free software. So this is why I ask you: please
+call the system GNU/Linux. Please make people aware where the system
+came from and why.</p>
+
+<p>Of course, just by using that name, you won't be making an
+explanation of the history. You can type four extra characters and
+write GNU/Linux; you can say two extra syllables. But, GNU/Linux is
+fewer syllables than Windows 2000. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, you're not
+telling them a lot, but you're preparing them, so that when they hear
+about GNU, and what it's all about, they'll see how that connects to
+them and their lives. And that, indirectly, makes a tremendous
+difference. So please help us.</p>
+
+<p>You'll note that Microsoft called the GPL an “open source
+license”. They don't want people to be thinking in terms of
+freedom as the issue. You'll find that they invite people to think in
+a narrow way, as consumers, and, of course, not even think very
+rationally as consumers, if they're going to choose Microsoft
+products. But they don't want people to think as citizens or
+statesmen. That's inimical to them. At least it's inimical to their
+current business model.</p>
+
+<p>Now, how does free software…well, I can tell you about how
+free software relates to our society. A secondary topic that might be
+of interest to some of you is how free software relates to business.
+Now, in fact, free software is <em>tremendously</em> useful for
+business. After all, most businesses in the advanced countries use
+software. Only a tiny fraction of them develop software.</p>
+
+<p>And free software is tremendously advantageous for any company that
+uses software, because it means that you're in control. Basically,
+free software means the users are in control of what the program does.
+Either individually, if they care enough to be, or, collectively, when
+they care enough to be. Whoever cares enough can exert some
+influence. If you don't care, you don't buy. Then you use what other
+people prefer. But, if you do care, then you have some say. With
+proprietary software, you have essentially no say.</p>
+
+<p>With free software, you can change what you want to change. And it
+doesn't matter that there are no programmers in your company; that's
+fine. You know, if you wanted to move the walls in your building, you
+don't have to be a carpentry company. You just have to be able to go
+find a carpenter and say, “What will you charge to do this
+job?” And if you want to change around the software you use, you
+don't have to be a programming company. You just have to go to a
+programming company and say, “What will you charge to implement
+these features? And when will you have it done?” And if they
+don't do the job, you can go find somebody else.</p>
+
+<p>There's a free market for support. So, any business that cares
+about support will find a tremendous advantage in free software. With
+proprietary software, support is a monopoly, because one company has
+the source code, or maybe a small number of companies that paid a
+gigantic amount of money have the source code, if it's Microsoft's
+shared source program, but, it's very few. And so, there aren't very
+many possible sources of support for you. And that means, that unless
+you're a real giant, they don't care about you. Your company is not
+important enough for them to care if they lose your business, or what
+happens. Once you're using the program, they figure you're locked in
+to getting the support from them, because to switch to a different
+program is a gigantic job. So, you end up with things like paying for
+the privilege of reporting a bug. <i>[Laughter]</i> And once you've
+paid, they tell you, “Well, OK, we've noted your bug report.
+And in a few months, you can buy an upgrade, and you can see if we've
+fixed it.” <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>Support providers for free software can't get away with that. They
+have to please the customers. Of course, you can get a lot of good
+support gratis. You post your problem on the Internet. You may get
+an answer the next day. But that's not guaranteed, of course. If you
+want to be confident, you better make an arrangement with a company
+and pay them. And this is, of course, one of the ways that free
+software business works.</p>
+
+<p>Another advantage of free software for businesses that use software
+is security and privacy. And this applies to individuals as well, but
+I brought it up in the context of businesses. You see, when a program
+is proprietary, you can't even tell what it really does.</p>
+
+<p>It could have features, deliberately put in that you wouldn't like
+if you knew about them, like it might have a backdoor to let the
+developer get into your machine. It might snoop on what you do and
+send information back. This is not unusual. Some Microsoft software
+did this. But it's not only Microsoft. There are other proprietary
+programs that snoop on the user. And you can't even tell if it does
+this. And, of course, even assuming that the developer's totally
+honest, every programmer makes mistakes. There could be bugs that
+affect your security which are nobody's fault. But the point is: If
+it's not free software, you can't find them. And you can't fix
+them.</p>
+
+<p>Nobody has the time to check the source of every program he runs.
+You're not going to do that. But with free software there's a large
+community, and there are people in that community who are checking
+things. And you get the benefit of their checking, because if there's
+an accidental bug, there surely are, from time to time, in any
+program, they might find it and fix it. And people are much less
+likely to put in a deliberate Trojan horse, or a snooping feature, if
+they think they might get caught. The proprietary software developers
+figure they won't get caught. They'll get away with it undetected.
+But a free software developer has to figure that people will look at
+that and see it's there. So, in our community, we don't feel we can
+get away with ramming a feature down the users' throats that the users
+wouldn't like. So we know that if the users don't like it, they'll
+make a modified version which doesn't have it. And then, they'll all
+start using that version.</p>
+
+<p>In fact, we can all reason enough, we can all figure this out
+enough steps ahead, that we probably won't put in that feature. After
+all, you're writing a free program; you want people to like your
+version; you don't want to put in a thing that you know a lot of
+people are going to hate, and have another modified version catch on
+instead of yours. So you just realize that the user is king in the
+world of free software. In the world of proprietary software, the
+customer is <em>not</em> king. Because you are only a customer. You
+have no say in the software you use.</p>
+
+<p>In this respect, free software is a new mechanism for democracy to
+operate. Professor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions
+as a kind of law. Whoever gets to write the code that just about
+everybody uses for all intents and purposes is writing the laws that
+run people's lives. With free software, these laws get written in a
+democratic way. Not the classical form of democracy — we don't
+have a big election and say, “Everybody vote which way should
+this feature be done.” <i>[Laughter]</i> Instead we say,
+basically, those of you who want to work on implementing the feature
+this way, do it. And if you want to work on implementing the feature
+that way, do it. And, it gets done one way or the other, you know?
+And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done this way.
+So, in this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by
+simply taking steps in the direction that he wants to go.</p>
+
+<p>And you're free to take as many steps, personally, as you want to
+take. A business is free to commission as many steps as they find
+useful to take. And, after you add all these things up, that says
+which direction the software goes.</p>
+
+<p>And it's often very useful to be able to take pieces out of some
+existing program, presumably usually large pieces, of course, and then
+write a certain amount of code of your own, and make a program that
+does exactly what you need, which would have cost you an arm and a leg
+to develop, if you had to write it all from scratch, if you couldn't
+cannibalize large pieces from some existing free software package.</p>
+
+<p>Another thing that results from the fact that the user is king is
+that we tend to be very good about compatibility and standardization.
+Why? Because users like that. Users are likely to reject a program
+that has gratuitous incompatibilities in it. Now, sometimes there's a
+certain group of users which actually have a need for a certain kind
+of incompatibility, and then they'll have it. That's OK. But when
+users want is to follow a standard, we developers have to follow it,
+and we know that. And we do it. By contrast, if you look at
+proprietary software developers, they often find it advantageous to
+deliberately <em>not</em> follow a standard, and not because they
+think that they're giving the user an advantage that way, but rather
+because they're imposing on the user, locking the user in. And you'll
+even find them making changes in their file formats from time to time,
+just to force people to get the newest version.</p>
+
+<p>Archivists are finding a problem now, that files written on
+computers ten years ago often can't be accessed; they were written
+with proprietary software that's essentially lost now. If it were
+written with free software, then it could be brought up-to-date and
+run. And those things would not, those records would not be lost,
+would not be inaccessible. They were even complaining about this on
+NPR recently in citing free software as a solution. And so, in
+effect, by using a non-free program to store your own data, you are
+putting your head in a noose.</p>
+
+<p>So, I've talked about how free software affects most business. But
+how does it affect that particular narrow area which is software
+business? Well, the answer is mostly not at all. And the reason is
+that 90% of the software industry, from what I'm told, is development
+of custom software, software that's not meant to be released at all.
+For custom software, this issue, or the ethical issue of free or
+proprietary, doesn't arise. You see, the issue is, are you users free
+to change, and redistribute, the software? If there's only one user,
+and that user owns the rights, there's no problem. That
+user <em>is</em> free to do all these things. So, in effect, any
+<em>custom</em> program that was developed by one company for use
+in-house is free software, as long as they have the sense to insist on
+getting the source code and all the rights.</p>
+
+<p>And the issue doesn't really arise for software that goes in a
+watch or a microwave oven or an automobile ignition system. Because
+those are places where you don't download software to install. It's
+not a real computer, as far as the user is concerned. And so, it
+doesn't raise these issues enough for them to be ethically important.
+So, for the most part, the software industry will go along, just as
+it's been going. And the interesting thing is that since such a large
+fraction of the jobs are in that part of the industry, even if there
+were no possibilities for free software business, the developers of
+free software could all get day jobs writing custom
+software. <i>[Laughter]</i> There's so many; the ratio is so big.</p>
+
+<p>But, as it happens, there is free software business. There are
+free software companies, and at the press conference that I'm going to
+have, people from a couple of them will join us. And, of course,
+there are also companies which are <em>not</em> free software
+businesses but do develop useful pieces of free software to release,
+and the free software that they produce is substantial.</p>
+
+<p>Now, how do free software businesses work? Well, some of them sell
+copies. You know, you're free to copy it but they can still sell
+thousands of copies a month. And others sell support and various
+kinds of services. I, personally, for the second half of the '80's, I
+sold free software support services. Basically I said, for $200 an
+hour, I'll change whatever you want me to change in GNU software that
+I'd written. And, yes, it was a stiff rate, but if it was a program
+that I was the author of, people would figure that I might get the job
+done in a lot fewer hours. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I made a living that
+way. In fact, I'd made more than I'd ever made before. I also taught
+classes. And I kept doing that until 1990, when I got a big prize and
+I didn't have to do it any more.</p>
+
+<p>But, 1990 was when the first corporation free software business was
+formed, which was Cygnus Support. And their business was to do,
+essentially, the same kind of thing that I'd been doing. I certainly
+could have worked for them, if I had needed to do that. Since I
+didn't need to, I felt it was good for the movement if I remained
+independent of any one company. That way, I could say good and bad
+things about the various free software and non-free software
+companies, without a conflict of interest. I felt that I could serve
+the movement more. But, if I had needed that to make a living, sure,
+I would have worked for them. It's an ethical business to be in. No
+reason I would have felt ashamed to take a job with them. And that
+company was profitable in its first year. It was formed with very
+little capital, just the money its three founders had. And it kept
+growing every year and being profitable every year until they got
+greedy, and looked for outside investors, and then they messed things
+up. But it was several years of success, before they got greedy.</p>
+
+<p>So, this illustrates one of the exciting things about free
+software. Free software demonstrates that you don't need to raise
+capital to develop free software. I mean, it's useful;
+it <em>can</em> help. You know, if you do raise some capital, you can
+hire people and have them write a bunch of software. But you can get
+a lot done with a small number of people. And, in fact, the
+tremendous efficiency of the process of developing free software is
+one of the reasons it's important for the world to switch to free
+software. And it also belies what Microsoft says when they say the
+GNU GPL is bad, because it makes it harder for them to raise capital
+to develop non-free software and take our free software and put our
+code into their programs that they won't share with us. Basically, we
+don't need to have them raising capital that way. We'll get the job
+done anyway. We are getting the job done.</p>
+
+<p>People used to say we could never do a complete free operating
+system. Now we've done that and a tremendous amount more. And I
+would say that we're about an order of magnitude away from developing
+all the general purpose published software needs of the world. And
+this is in a world where more than 90% of the users don't use our free
+software yet. This is in a world where, although in certain areas of
+business, you know, more than half of all the web servers in the world
+are running on GNU/Linux with Apache as the web server.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i> … What did you
+say before, Linux?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I said GNU/Linux.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You did?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, if I'm talking about the kernel, I
+call it Linux. You know, that's it's name. The kernel was written by
+Linus Torvalds, and we should only call it by the name that he chose,
+out of respect for the author.</p>
+
+<p>Anyway, but in general, in business most users are not using it.
+Most home users are not using our system yet. So, when they are, we
+should automatically get 10 times as many volunteers and 10 times as
+many customers for the free software businesses that there will be.
+And so that will take us that order of magnitude. So at this point, I
+am pretty confident that we <em>can</em> do the job.</p>
+
+<p>And, this is important, because Microsoft asks us to feel
+desperate. They say, The only way you can have software to run, the
+only way you can have innovation, is if you give us power. Let us
+dominate you. Let us control what you can do with the software you're
+running, so that we can squeeze a lot of money out of you, and use a
+certain fraction of that to develop software, and take the rest as
+profit.</p>
+
+<p>Well, you shouldn't ever feel that desperate. You shouldn't ever
+feel so desperate that you give up your freedom. That's very
+dangerous.</p>
+
+<p>Another thing that Microsoft, well, not just Microsoft, people who
+don't support free software generally adopt a value system in which
+the only thing that matters is short-term practical benefits: How much
+money am I going to make this year? What job can I get done today?
+Short-term thinking and narrow thinking. Their assumption is that it
+is ridiculous to imagine that anybody ever might make a sacrifice for
+the sake of freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Yesterday, a lot of people were making speeches about Americans who
+made sacrifices for the freedom of their compatriots. Some of them
+made great sacrifices. They even sacrificed their lives for the kinds
+of freedom that everyone in our country has heard about, at least.
+(At least, in some of the cases; I guess we have to ignore the war in
+Vietnam.)</p>
+
+<p><i>[Editor's note: The day before was “Memorial Day” in
+the USA. Memorial Day is a day where war heros are
+commemorated.]</i></p>
+
+<p>But, fortunately, to maintain our freedom in using software,
+doesn't call for big sacrifices. Just tiny, little sacrifices are
+enough, like learning a command-line interface, if we don't have a GUI
+interface program yet. Like doing the job in this way, because we
+don't have a free software package to do it that way, yet. Like,
+paying some money to a company that's going to develop a certain free
+software package, so that you can have it in a few years. Various
+little sacrifices that we can all make. And, in the long run, even we
+will have benefited from it. You know, it is really an investment
+more than a sacrifice. We just have to have enough long-term view to
+realize it's good for us to invest in improving our society, without
+counting the nickels and dimes of who gets how much of the benefit
+from that investment.</p>
+
+<p>So, at this point, I'm essentially done.</p>
+
+<p>I'd like to mention that there's a new approach to free software
+business being proposed by Tony Stanco, which he calls “Free
+Developers”, which involves a certain business structure which
+hopes eventually to pay out a certain share of the profits to every,
+to all the authors of the free software who've joined the
+organization. And they're looking at the prospects of getting me some
+rather large government software development contracts in India now,
+because they're going to be using free software as the basis, having
+tremendous cost savings that way.</p>
+
+<p>And so now I guess that I should ask for questions.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Could you speak up a bit louder please?
+I can't really hear you.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: How could a company like Microsoft
+include a free software contract?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually, Microsoft is planning to
+shift a lot of its activity into services. And what they're planning
+to do is something dirty and dangerous, which is tie the services to
+the programs, one to the next, in a sort of zigzag, you know? So that
+to use this service, you've got to be using this Microsoft program,
+which is going to mean you need to use this service, to this Microsoft
+program, so it's all tied together. That's their plan.</p>
+
+<p>Now, the interesting thing is that selling those services doesn't
+raise the ethical issue of free software or non-free software. It
+might be perfectly fine for them to have the business for those
+businesses selling those services over the net to exist. However,
+what Microsoft is planning to do is to use them to achieve an even
+greater lock, an even greater monopoly, on the software and the
+services, and this was described in an article, I believe in Business
+Week, recently. And, other people said that it is turning the net
+into the Microsoft Company Town.</p>
+
+<p>And this is relevant because, you know, the trial court in the
+Microsoft antitrust trial recommended breaking up the company,
+Microsoft. But in a way, that makes no sense — it wouldn't do
+any good at all — into the operating part and the applications
+part.</p>
+
+<p>But having seen that article, I now see a useful, effective way to
+split up Microsoft into the services part and the software part, to
+require them to deal with each other only at arm's length, that the
+services must publish their interfaces, so that anybody can write a
+client to talk to those services, and, I guess, that they have to pay
+to get the service. Well, that's OK. That's a totally different
+issue.</p>
+
+<p>If Microsoft is split up in this way […] services and
+software, they will not be able to use their software to crush
+competition with Microsoft services. And they won't be able to use
+the services to crush competition with Microsoft software. And we
+will be able to make the free software, and maybe you people will use
+it to talk to Microsoft services, and we won't mind.</p>
+
+<p>Because, after all, although Microsoft is the proprietary software
+company that has subjugated the most people — the others have
+subjugated fewer people, it's not for want of
+trying. <i>[Laughter]</i> They just haven't succeeded in subjugating
+as many people. So, the problem is not Microsoft and only Microsoft.
+Microsoft is just the biggest example of the problem we're trying to
+solve, which is proprietary software taking away users' freedom to
+cooperate and form an ethical society. So we shouldn't focus too much
+on Microsoft, you know, even though they did give me the opportunity
+for this platform. That doesn't make them all-important. They're not
+the be-all and end-all.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Earlier, you were discussing the
+philosophical differences between open source software and free
+software. How do you feel about the current trend of GNU/Linux
+distributions as they head towards supporting only Intel platforms?
+And the fact that it seems that less and less programmers are
+programming correctly, and making software that will compile anywhere?
+And making software that simply works on Intel systems?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I don't see an ethical issue there.
+Although, in fact, companies that make computers sometimes port the
+GNU/Linux system to it. HP apparently did this recently. And, they
+didn't bother paying for a port of Windows, because that would have
+cost too much. But getting GNU/Linux supported was, I think, five
+engineers for a few months. It was easily doable.</p>
+
+<p>Now, of course, I encourage people to use <code>autoconf</code>,
+which is a GNU package that makes it easier to make your programs
+portable. I encourage them to do that. Or when somebody else fixes
+the bug that it didn't compile on that version of the system, and
+sends it to you, you should put it in. But I don't see that as an
+ethical issue.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Two comments. One is: Recently, you
+spoke at MIT. I read the transcript. And someone asked about
+patents, and you said that “patents are a totally different
+issue. I have no comments on that.”</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I actually have a lot to say
+about patents, but it takes an hour. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I wanted to say this: It seems to me
+that there is an issue. I mean, there is a reason that companies call
+both patents and copyrights things like hard property in trying to get
+this concept which is, if they want to use the power of the State to
+create a course of monopoly for themselves. And so, what's common
+about these things is not that they revolve around the same issues,
+but that motivation is not really the public service issues but the
+motivation of companies to get a monopoly for their private
+interests.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I understand. But, well, I want to
+respond because there's not too much time. So I'd like to respond to
+that.</p>
+
+<p>You're right that that's what they want. But there's another
+reason why they want to use the term intellectual property. It's that
+they don't want to encourage people to think carefully about copyright
+issues or patent issues. Because copyright law and patent law are
+totally different, and the effects of software copyrighted and
+software patents are totally different.</p>
+
+<p>Software patents are a restriction on programmers, prohibiting them
+from writing certain kinds of programs, whereas copyright doesn't do
+that. With copyright, at least if you wrote it yourself, you're
+allowed to distribute it. So, it's tremendously important to separate
+these issues.</p>
+
+<p>They have a little bit in common, at a very low level, and
+everything else is different. So, please, to encourage clear
+thinking, discuss copyright or discuss patents. But don't discuss
+intellectual property. I don't have an opinion on intellectual
+property. I have opinions on copyrights and patents and software.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You mentioned at the beginning that a
+functional language, like recipes, are computer programs. There's a
+cross a little bit different than other kinds of language created on.
+This is also causing a problem in the DVD case.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: The issues are partly similar but partly
+different, for things that are not functional in nature. Part of the
+issue transfers but not all of it. Unfortunately, that's another hour
+speech. I don't have time to go into it. But I would say that all
+functional works ought to be free in the same sense as software. You
+know, textbooks, manuals, dictionaries, and recipes, and so on.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I was just wondering on online
+music. There are similarities and differences created all through.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I'd say that the minimum freedom
+that we should have for any kind of published information is the
+freedom to non-commercially redistribute it, verbatim. For functional
+works, we need the freedom to commercially publish a modified version,
+because that's tremendously useful to society. For non-functional
+works, you know, things that are to entertain, or to be aesthetic, or
+to state a certain person's views, you know, perhaps they shouldn't be
+modified. And, perhaps that means that it's OK, to have copyright
+covering all commercial distribution of them.</p>
+
+<p>Please remember that according to the U.S. Constitution, the
+purpose of copyright is to benefit the public. It is to modify the
+behavior of certain private parties, so that they will publish more
+books. And the benefit of this is that society gets to discuss issues
+and learn. And, you know, we have literature. We have scientific
+works. The purpose is encourage that. Copyrights do not exist for
+the sake of authors, let alone for the sake of publishers. They exist
+for the sake of readers and all those who benefit from the
+communication of information that happens when people write and others
+read. And that goal I agree with.</p>
+
+<p>But in the age of the computer networks, the method is no longer
+tenable, because it now requires draconian laws that invade
+everybody's privacy and terrorize everyone. You know, years in prison
+for sharing with your neighbor. It wasn't like that in the age of the
+printing press. Then copyright was an industrial regulation. It
+restricted publishers. Now, it's a restriction imposed by the
+publishers on the public. So, the power relationship is turned around
+180 degrees, even if it's the same law.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: So you can have the same thing —
+but like in making music from other music?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. That is an interesting
+…</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: And unique, new works, you know, it's
+still a lot of cooperation.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: It is. And I think that probably
+requires some kind of fair use concept. Certainly making a few
+seconds of sample and using that in making some musical work,
+obviously that should be fair use. Even the standard idea of fair use
+includes that, if you think about it. Whether courts agree, I'm not
+sure, but they should. That wouldn't be a real change in the system
+as it has existed.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: What do you think about publishing
+public information in proprietary formats?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, it shouldn't be. I mean, the
+government should never require citizens to use a non-free program to
+access, to communicate with the government in any way, in either
+direction.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I have been, what I will now say, a
+GNU/Linux user…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Thank you. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: …for the past four years. The one
+thing that has been problematical for me and is something that is
+essential, I think, to all of us, is browsing the web.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: One thing that has been decidedly a
+weakness in using a GNU/Linux system has been browsing the web,
+because the prevailing tool for that, Netscape…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: …is not free software.</p>
+
+<p>Let me respond to this. I want to get to the point, for the sake
+of getting in more. So, yes. There has been a terrible tendency for
+people to use Netscape Navigator on their GNU/Linux systems. And, in
+fact all the commercially packaged systems come with it. So this is
+an ironic situation: we worked so hard to make a free operating
+system, and now, if you go to the store, and you can find versions of
+GNU/Linux there, most of them are called Linux, and they're not free.
+Oh, well, part of them is. But then, there's Netscape Navigator, and
+maybe other non-free programs as well. So, it's very hard to actually
+find a free system, unless you know what you're doing. Or, of course,
+you can not install Netscape Navigator.</p>
+
+<p>Now, in fact, there have been free web browsers for many years.
+There is a free web browser that I used to use called Lynx. It's a
+free web browser that is non-graphical; it's text-only. This has a
+tremendous advantage, in you don't see the ads. <i>[Laughter]
+[Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p>But anyway, there is a free graphical project called Mozilla, which
+is now getting to the point where you can use it. And I occasionally
+use it.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 has been very good.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, OK. So that's another free
+graphical browser. So, we're finally solving that problem, I
+guess.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk to me about that
+philosophical/ethical division between free software and open source?
+Do you feel that those are irreconcilable? …</p>
+
+<p><i>[Recording switches tapes; end of question and start of answer
+is missing]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: … to a freedom, and ethics. Or
+whether you just say, Well, I hope that you companies will decide it's
+more profitable to let us be allowed to do these things.</p>
+
+<p>But, as I said, in a lot of practical work, it doesn't really
+matter what a person's politics are. When a person offers to help the
+GNU project, we don't say: “You have to agree with our
+politics.” We say that in a GNU package, you've got to call the
+system GNU/Linux, and you've got to call it free software. What you
+say when you're not speaking to the GNU Project, that's up to you.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: The company, IBM, started a campaign for
+government agencies, to sell their big new machines, that they used
+Linux as selling point, and say Linux.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, of course, it's really the
+GNU/Linux systems. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: That's right! Well, tell the top sales
+person. He doesn't know anything for GNU.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I have to tell who?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: The top sales person.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh yes. The problem is that they've
+already carefully decided what they want to say for reasons of their
+advantage. And the issue of what is a more accurate, or fair, or
+correct way to describe it is not the primary issue that matters to a
+company like that. Now, some small companies, yes, there'll be a
+boss. And if the boss is inclined to think about things like that, he
+might make a decision that way. Not a giant corporation though. It's
+a shame, you know.</p>
+
+<p>There's another more important and more substantive issue about
+what IBM is doing. They're saying that they're putting a billion
+dollars into “Linux”. But perhaps, I should also put
+quotes around “into”, as well, because some of that money
+is paying people to develop free software. That really is a
+contribution to our community. But other parts is paying to pay
+people to write proprietary software, or port proprietary software to
+run on top of GNU/Linux, and that is <em>not</em> a contribution to
+our community. But IBM is lumping that altogether into this. Some of
+it might be advertising, which is partly a contribution, even if it's
+partly wrong. So, it's a complicated situation. Some of what they're
+doing is contribution and some is not. And some is sort is somewhat,
+but not exactly. And you can't just lump it altogether and think,
+Wow! Whee! A billion dollars from IBM. <i>[Laughter]</i> That's
+oversimplification.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk a little bit more about the
+thinking that went into the general public license?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, here's the — I'm sorry, I'm
+answering his question now. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Do you want to reserve some time for
+the press conference? Or do you want to continue here?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Who is here for the press conference?
+Not a lot of press. Oh, three — OK. Can you afford if we
+— if I go on answering everybody's questions for another ten
+minutes or so? OK. So, we'll go on answering everybody's
+questions.</p>
+
+<p>So, the thinking that went into the GNU GPL? Part of it was that I
+wanted to protect the freedom of the community against the phenomena
+that I just described with X Windows, which has happened with other
+free programs as well. In fact, when I was thinking about this issue,
+X Windows was not yet released. But I had seen this problem happen in
+other free programs. For instance, TeX. I wanted to make sure that
+the users would all have freedom. Otherwise, I realized that I might
+write a program, and maybe a lot of people would use the program, but
+they wouldn't have freedom. And what's the point of that?</p>
+
+<p>But the other issue I was thinking about was, I wanted to give the
+community a feeling that it was not a doormat, a feeling that it was
+not prey to any parasite who would wander along. If you don't use
+copyleft, you are essentially saying: <i>[speaking meekly]</i>
+“Take my code. Do what you want. I don't say no.” So,
+anybody can come along and say: <i>[speaking very firmly]</i>
+“Ah, I want to make a non-free version of this. I'll just take
+it.” And, then, of course, they probably make some improvements,
+those non-free versions might appeal to users, and replace the free
+versions. And then, what have you accomplished? You've only made a
+donation to some proprietary software project.</p>
+
+<p>And when people see that that's happening, when people see, other
+people take what I do, and they don't ever give back, it can be
+demoralizing. And, this is not just speculation. I had seen that
+happen. That was part of what happened to wipe out the old community
+that I belonged to the '70's. Some people started becoming
+uncooperative. And we assumed that they were profiting thereby. They
+certainly acted as if they thought they were profiting. And we
+realized that they can just take off cooperation and not give back.
+And there was nothing we could do about it. It was very discouraging.
+We, those of us who didn't like the trend, even had a discussion and
+we couldn't come up with any idea for how we could stop it.</p>
+
+<p>So, the GPL is designed to stop that. And it says, Yes, you are
+welcome to join the community and use this code. You can use it to do
+all sorts of jobs. But, if you release a modified version, you've got
+to release that to our community, as part of our community, as part of
+the free world.</p>
+
+<p>So, in fact, there are still many ways that people can get the
+benefit of our work and not contribute, like you don't have to write
+any software. Lots of people use GNU/Linux and don't write any
+software. There's no requirement that you've got to do anything for
+us. But if you do a certain kind of thing, you've got to contribute
+to it. So what that means is that our community is not a doormat.
+And I think that that helped give people the strength to feel, Yes, we
+won't just be trampled underfoot by everybody. We'll stand up to
+this.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Yes, my question was, considering free
+but not copylefted software, since anybody can pick it up and make it
+proprietary, is it not possible also for someone to pick it up and
+make some changes and release the whole thing under the GPL?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, it is possible.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Then, that would make all future copies
+then be GPL'ed.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: From that branch. But here's why we
+don't do that.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Hmm?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Here's why we don't generally do that.
+Let me explain.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: OK, yes.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We could, if we wanted to, take X
+Windows, and make a GPL-covered copy and make changes in that. But
+there's a much larger group of people working on improving X Windows
+and <em>not</em> GPL-ing it. So, if we did that, we would be forking
+from them. And that's not very nice treatment of them. And, they
+<em>are</em> a part of our community, contributing to our
+community.</p>
+
+<p>Second, it would backfire against us, because they're doing a lot
+more work on X than we would be. So, our version would be inferior to
+theirs, and people wouldn't use it, which means, why go to the trouble
+at all?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Mmm hmm.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: So when a person has written some
+improvement to X Windows, what I say that person should do is
+cooperate with the X development team. Send it to them and let them
+use it their way. Because they are developing a very important piece
+of free software. It's good for us to cooperate with them.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Except, considering X, in particular,
+about two years ago, the X Consortium that was far into the non-free
+open source…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually it <em>wasn't</em> open
+sourced. It wasn't open sourced, either. They may have said it was.
+I can't remember if they said that or not. But it wasn't open
+source. It was restricted. You couldn't commercially distribute, I
+think. Or you couldn't commercially distribute a modified version, or
+something like that. There was a restriction that's considered
+unacceptable by both the Free Software movement and the Open Source
+movement.</p>
+
+<p>And yes, that's what using a non-copyleft license leaves you open
+to. In fact, the X Consortium, they had a very rigid policy. They
+say: If your program if copylefted even a little bit, we won't
+distribute it at all. We won't put it in our distribution.</p>
+
+<p>So, a lot of people were pressured in this way into not
+copylefting. And the result was that all of their software was wide
+open, later on. When the same people who had pressured a developer to
+be too all-permissive, then the X people later said, All right, now we
+can put on restrictions, which wasn't very ethical of them.</p>
+
+<p>But, given the situation, would we really want to scrape up the
+resources to maintain an alternate GPL-covered version of X? And it
+wouldn't make any sense to do that. There are so many other things we
+need to do. Let's do them instead. We can cooperate with the X
+developers.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Do you have a comment, is the GNU a
+trademark? And is it practical to include it as part of the GNU
+General Public License allowing trademarks?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We are, actually, applying for trademark
+registration on GNU. But it wouldn't really have anything to do with
+that. It's a long story to explain why.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You could require the trademark be
+displayed with GPL-covered programs.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: No, I don't think so. The licenses
+cover individual programs. And when a given program is part of the
+GNU Project, nobody lies about that. The name of the system as a
+whole is a different issue. And this is an aside. It's not worth
+discussing more.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: If there was a button that you could
+push and force all companies to free their software, would you press
+it?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, I would only use this for
+published software. You know, I think that people have the right to
+write a program privately and use it. And that includes companies.
+This is privacy issue. And it's true, there can be times when it is
+wrong to do that, like if it is tremendously helpful to humanity, and
+you are withholding it from humanity. That is a wrong but that's a
+different kind of wrong. It's a different issue, although it's in the
+same area.</p>
+
+<p>But yes, I think all published software should be free software.
+And remember, when it's not free software, that's because of
+government intervention. The government is intervening to make it
+non-free. The government is creating special legal powers to hand out
+to the owners of the programs, so that they can have the police stop
+us from using the programs in certain ways. So I would certainly like
+to end that. </p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Richard's presentation has invariably
+generated an enormous amount of intellectual energy. I would suggest
+that some of it should be directed to using, and possibly writing,
+free software.</p>
+
+<p>We should close the proceedings shortly. I want to say that
+Richard has injected into a profession which is known in the general
+public for its terminal apolitical nerditude a level of political and
+moral discussion which is, I think, unprecedented in our profession.
+And we owe him very big for this. I'd like to note to people that
+there is a break.</p>
+
+<p><i>[Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: You are free to leave at any time, you
+know. <i>[Laughter]</i> I'm not holding you prisoner here.</p>
+
+<p><i>[Audience adjourns…]</i></p>
+
+<p><i>[overlapping conversations…]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: One final thing. Our website:
+www.gnu.org</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></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";><address@hidden></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";>
+ <address@hidden></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>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) 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. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman</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>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2015/09/15 05:45:27 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
Index: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.po
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.po
diff -N philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.po
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.po 15 Sep 2015 05:45:27 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,4586 @@
+# Polish translation of
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html
+# Copyright (C) 2005, 2011, 2014, 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+# This file is distributed under the same license as the gnu.org article.
+# RadosÅaw MoszczyÅski, 2005.
+# Jan Owoc <jsowoc AT gmail.com>, 2011, 2014, 2015.
+msgid ""
+msgstr ""
+"Project-Id-Version: rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html\n"
+"POT-Creation-Date: 2015-02-20 15:55+0000\n"
+"PO-Revision-Date: 2015-02-21 11:38-0600\n"
+"Last-Translator: Jan Owoc <jsowoc AT gmail.com>\n"
+"Language-Team: Polish <address@hidden>\n"
+"Language: pl\n"
+"MIME-Version: 1.0\n"
+"Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n"
+"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n"
+"Plural-Forms: nplurals=3; plural=(n==1 ? 0 : n%10>=2 && n%10<=4 && (n%100<10 "
+"|| n%100>=20) ? 1 : 2);\n"
+"X-Generator: Virtaal 0.7.0\n"
+
+#. type: Content of: <title>
+msgid ""
+"Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation - GNU Project - Free Software "
+"Foundation"
+msgstr ""
+"Wolne oprogramowanie: wolnoÅÄ i wspóÅpraca - Projekt GNU - Fundacja "
+"wolnego oprogramowania (FSF)"
+
+#. type: Content of: <h2>
+msgid "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation"
+msgstr "Wolne oprogramowanie: wolnoÅÄ i wspóÅpraca"
+
+#. type: Content of: <blockquote><p>
+msgid ""
+"Transcript of Richard M. Stallman's speech, “Free Software: Freedom "
+"and Cooperation”, given at New York University in New York, NY, on 29 "
+"May 2001"
+msgstr ""
+"Transcrypcja przemównienia Richarda M. Stallmana p.t. „Wolne "
+"oprogramowanie: wolnoÅÄ i wspóÅpraca” wygÅoszonego
na New "
+"York University w Nowym Jorku, NY, 29. maja 2001 r."
+
+#. type: Content of: <div><blockquote><p>
+msgid ""
+"A <a href=\"/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt\">plain text</a> version
of "
+"this transcript and a <a
href=\"/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt\">summary</"
+"a> of the speech are also available."
+msgstr ""
+"Także dostÄpne jako <a
href=\"/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt\">czysty "
+"tekst</a> [<em>po angielski</em>] oraz <a href=\"/philosophy/rms-"
+"nyu-2001-summary.txt\">streszczenie</a>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>URETSKY</strong>: I'm Mike Uretsky. I'm over at the Stern School of "
+"Business. I'm also one of the Co-Directors of the Center for Advanced "
+"Technology. And, on behalf of all of us in the Computer Science Department, "
+"I want to welcome you here. I want to say a few comments, before I turn it "
+"over to Ed, who is going to introduce the speaker."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>URETSKY</strong>: Nazywam siÄ Mike Uretsky. Jestem pracownikiem "
+"WydziaÅu DziaÅalnoÅci Handlowej [Stern School of Business]. Jestem także "
+"jednym z dyrektorów Centrum Zaawansowanych Technologii [Center for "
+"Advanced Technology]. ChciaÅbym wszystkich przywitaÄ w imieniu "
+"pracowników WydziaÅu Informatyki [Computer Science Department]. Pozwólcie,
"
+"że powiem jeszcze kilka sÅów zanim przekaÅ¼Ä gÅos Edowi, który "
+"przedstawi naszego goÅcia."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"The role of a university is a place to foster debate and to have interesting "
+"discussions. And the role of a major university is to have particularly "
+"interesting discussions. And this particular presentation, this seminar "
+"falls right into that mold. I find the discussion of open source "
+"particularly interesting. In a sense … <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Uniwersytet powinien byÄ miejscem sprzyjajÄ
cym debatom, w którym "
+"odbywajÄ
siÄ ciekawe dyskusje. Natomiast na wiodÄ
cym uniwersytecie "
+"powinny odbywaÄ siÄ dyskusje szczególnie ciekawe. Do tej kategorii "
+"idealnie pasuje dzisiejsze seminarium. Dla mnie dyskusja poruszajÄ
ca temat "
+"oprogramowania open source [ang. o otwartych źródÅach] jest szczególnie "
+"interesujÄ
ca. W pewnym sensie… <i>[Åmiech]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I do free software. Open source is a different "
+"movement. <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Ja siÄ zajmujÄ wolnym oprogramowaniem. "
+"Oprogramowanie open source to osobny ruch. <i>[Åmiech] [aplauz]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>URETSKY</strong>: When I first started in the field in the '60's, "
+"basically software was free. And we went in cycles. It became free, and "
+"then software manufacturers, in the need to expand their markets, pushed it "
+"in other directions. A lot of the developments that took place with the "
+"entry of the PC moved in exactly the same kind of a cycle."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>URETSKY</strong>: Kiedy w latach 60. zaczynaÅem pracÄ w "
+"tej dziedzinie, oprogramowanie byÅo w zasadzie wolne. Ale wszystko
"
+"siÄ odwróciÅo. StaÅo siÄ wolne, a potem producenci oprogramowania, "
+"którzy chcieli rozszerzyÄ swoje rynki zbytu, popchnÄli je w innych "
+"kierunkach. Wiele rzeczy, które pojawiÅy siÄ wraz z architekturÄ
PC,
"
+"przeszÅo przez podobny cykl."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"There's a very interesting French philosopher, Pierre Levy, who talks about "
+"movement to this direction and who talks about the move into cyberspace as "
+"not only relating to technology but also relating to social restructuring, "
+"to political restructuring, through a change in the kinds of relationships "
+"that will improve the well-being of mankind. And we're hoping that this "
+"debate is a movement in that direction, that this debate is something that "
+"cuts across a lot of the disciplines that normally act as solace within the "
+"University. We're looking forward to some very interesting discussions. Ed?"
+msgstr ""
+"Jest pewien bardzo interesujÄ
cy francuski filozof, Pierre Levy, który pisze
"
+"o ruchu w tym kierunku. Pisze także o wkraczaniu do "
+"cyberprzestrzeni jako czymÅ zwiÄ
zanym nie tylko z technologiÄ
,
ale "
+"również reorganizacjÄ
struktury spoÅecznej i politycznej, bÄdÄ
cej "
+"wynikiem zmiany typów relacji, które doprowadzÄ
do poprawy stanu "
+"ludzkoÅci. Mamy nadziejÄ, że ta debata to ruch w tymże
kierunku, "
+"że rozmywa ona granice pomiÄdzy wieloma dziedzinami, które zwykle "
+"funkcjonujÄ
na Uniwersytecie osobno. Mamy nadziejÄ, że dyskusje "
+"bÄdÄ
bardzo interesujÄ
ce. Ed?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: I'm Ed Schonberg from the Computer Science "
+"Department at the Courant Institute. Let me welcome you all to this event. "
+"Introducers are usually, and particularly, a useless aspect of public "
+"presentations, but in this case, actually, they serve a useful purpose, as "
+"Mike easily demonstrated, because an introducer for instance, told him, by "
+"making inaccurate comments, can allow him to straighten out and correct and "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> sharpen considerably the parameters of the debate."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Nazywam siÄ Ed Schonberg i pracujÄ
na "
+"Wydziale Informatyki Instytutu Courant [Courant Institute]. Witam wszystkich "
+"przybyÅych. Zapowiadacze to zazwyczaj, i w szczególnoÅci,
niepotrzebny "
+"aspekt publicznych wystÄ
pieÅ, jednak w tym przypadku majÄ
użyteczne "
+"zastosowanie, co pokazaÅ Mike czyniÄ
c nieÅcisÅe uwagi. PozwoliÅ on
mówcy "
+"dodaÄ sprostowanie <i>[Åmiech]</i> i znacznie wyostrzyÄ wstÄpne "
+"zaÅożenia debaty."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, let me make the briefest possible introduction to somebody who doesn't "
+"need one. Richard is the perfect example of somebody who, by acting "
+"locally, started thinking globally from problems concerning the "
+"unavailability of source code for printer drivers at the AI Lab many years "
+"ago. He has developed a coherent philosophy that has forced all of us to re-"
+"examine our ideas of how software is produced, of what intellectual property "
+"means, and what the software community actually represents. Let me welcome "
+"Richard Stallman. <i>[Applause]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Pozwólcie wiÄc, że w jak najkrótszy sposób przedstawiÄ osobÄ,
która "
+"przedstawiania nie wymaga. Richard to doskonaÅy przykÅad kogoÅ, kto "
+"dziaÅajÄ
c lokalnie zaczÄ
Å myÅleÄ globalnie, poczynajÄ
c
od problemów "
+"zwiÄ
zanych z niedostÄpnoÅciÄ
kodu źródÅowego sterowników
drukarki "
+"w Laboratorium Sztucznej Inteligencji na MIT [AI Lab] wiele lat "
+"temu. StworzyÅ on spójnÄ
filozofiÄ, która zmusiÅa nas wszystkich
do "
+"ponownego przemyÅlenia kwestii produkcji oprogramowania, znaczenia
wÅasnoÅci "
+"intelektualnej i tego, co reprezentuje sobÄ
Årodowisko programistów. "
+"Przywitajmy Richarda Stallmana. <i>[aplauz]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can someone lend me a watch? <i>[Laughter]</i> "
+"Thank you. So, I'd like to thank Microsoft for providing me the opportunity "
+"to <i>[Laughter]</i> be on this platform. For the past few weeks, I have "
+"felt like an author whose book was fortuitously banned somewhere. <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i> Except that all the articles about it are giving the wrong "
+"author's name, because Microsoft describes the GNU GPL as an open source "
+"license, and most of the press coverage followed suit. Most people, of "
+"course just innocently don't realize that our work has nothing to do with "
+"open source, that in fact we did most of it before people even coined the "
+"term open source."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Czy ktoÅ mógÅby pożyczyÄ mi zegarek? <i>"
+"[Åmiech]</i> DziÄkujÄ. No wiÄc, chciaÅbym podziÄkowaÄ firmie Microsoft
"
+"za stworzenie mi okazji do <i>[Åmiech]</i> przemawiania z "
+"tego miejsca. Od kilku tygodni czujÄ siÄ jak autor ksiÄ
żki, która "
+"szczÄÅliwie zostaÅa gdzieÅ zakazana. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Tylko
że wszystkie "
+"artykuÅy na jej temat zawierajÄ
nazwisko niewÅaÅciwego autora,
bo "
+"Microsoft okreÅla GPL jako licencjÄ typu open source, a wiÄkszoÅÄ
prasy "
+"podÄ
ża ich Åladem. WiÄkszoÅÄ ludzi, oczywiÅcie bez zÅych
intencji, nie "
+"zdaje sobie sprawy, że nasze dziaÅania nie majÄ
nic wspólnego
z "
+"ruchem open source, oraz że zajmowaliÅmy siÄ tymi sprawami na "
+"dÅugo zanim nawet utarÅ siÄ termin open source."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"We are in the free software movement, and I'm going to speak about what the "
+"free software movement is about, what it means, what we have done, and, "
+"because this is partly sponsored by a school of business, I'll say some "
+"things more than I usually do about how free software relates to business, "
+"and some other areas of social life."
+msgstr ""
+"JesteÅmy czÄÅciÄ
ruchu wolnego oprogramowania, a ja zamierzam "
+"opowiedzieÄ, co ten ruch ma na celu, jakie ma znaczenie, co dotychczas "
+"zrobiliÅmy oraz, ponieważ to wszystko jest po czÄÅci
sponsorowane "
+"przez wydziaÅ handlowy, opowiem trochÄ wiÄcej niż zwykle o stosunku
wolnego "
+"oprogramowania do biznesu i kilku innych obszarów życia "
+"spoÅecznego."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, some of you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps you "
+"cook. And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably use "
+"recipes. And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the experience of "
+"getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing it. And you've "
+"probably also had the experience — unless you're a total neophyte "
+"— of changing a recipe. You know, it says certain things, but you "
+"don't have to do exactly that. You can leave out some ingredients. Add "
+"some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms. Put in less salt because your "
+"doctor said you should cut down on salt — whatever. You can even make "
+"bigger changes according to your skill. And if you've made changes in a "
+"recipe, and you cook it for your friends, and they like it, one of your "
+"friends might say, “Hey, could I have the recipe?” And then, "
+"what do you do? You could write down your modified version of the recipe and "
+"make a copy for your friend. These are the natural things to do with "
+"functionally useful recipes of any kind."
+msgstr ""
+"Dobrze, niektórzy z was mogÄ
nigdy nie napisaÄ Å¼adnego programu, "
+"ale byÄ może gotujecie. Jako kucharze zapewne korzystacie z "
+"przepisów, chyba że jesteÅcie naprawdÄ Åwietni. A jeÅli "
+"korzystacie z przepisów, to pewnie kiedyÅ dostaliÅcie kopiÄ jednego "
+"z nich od znajomego. ZdarzyÅo siÄ też zapewne, jeÅli tylko nie "
+"jesteÅcie zupeÅnymi nowicjuszami, że zmieniliÅcie jakiÅ przepis. No
"
+"wiecie, przepis zawiera pewne wskazówki, ale nie musicie siÄ ich "
+"dokÅadnie trzymaÄ. Możecie opuÅciÄ kilka skÅadników. DodaÄ trochÄ
grzybów, "
+"bo lubicie grzyby. ZmniejszyÄ iloÅÄ soli, bo lekarz kazaÅ wam "
+"mniej soliÄ – cokolwiek. JeÅli macie odpowiednie umiejÄtnoÅci,
"
+"możecie nawet wprowadzaÄ wiÄksze zmiany. A kiedy już zmieniliÅcie "
+"przepis i przygotowaliÅcie danie dla swoich znajomych, a im to "
+"smakowaÅo, jeden z nich może powiedzieÄ: „Hej, mogÄ dostaÄ "
+"przepis?”. I co wtedy zrobicie? Możecie zapisaÄ swojÄ
"
+"zmodyfikowanÄ
wersjÄ na kartce i skopiowaÄ jÄ
dla znajomego. To
"
+"naturalne postÄpowanie w przypadku jakiegokolwiek użytecznego
przepisu."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program. A computer program's a lot "
+"like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to get some result that "
+"you want. So it's just as natural to do those same things with computer "
+"programs — hand a copy to your friend. Make changes in it because the "
+"job it was written to do isn't exactly what you want. It did a great job "
+"for somebody else, but your job is a different job. And after you've "
+"changed it, that's likely to be useful for other people. Maybe they have a "
+"job to do that's like the job you do. So they ask, “Hey, can I have a "
+"copy?” Of course, if you're a nice person, you're going to give a "
+"copy. That's the way to be a decent person."
+msgstr ""
+"Przepisy sÄ
bardzo podobne do programów komputerowych. Programy "
+"komputerowe sÄ
bardzo podobne do przepisów: sekwencja kroków,
których "
+"podjÄcie prowadzi do jakiegoÅ pożÄ
danego rezultatu. WiÄc tak
samo "
+"naturalne jest takie postÄpowanie w przypadku programu "
+"komputerowego – rozdawanie kopii przyjacioÅom. Wprowadzanie "
+"do niego zmian, bo cel, dla jakiego zostaÅ stworzony, nie jest "
+"dokÅadnie tym, co wam jest potrzebne. MógÅ byÄ bardzo pomocny przy "
+"wykonywaniu czyjegoŠzadania, ale wasze jest inne. A jak już go "
+"zmienicie, to prawdopodobnie bÄdzie on użyteczny dla innych. Może majÄ
pracÄ "
+"do wykonania podobnÄ
do waszej. WiÄc spytajÄ
siÄ:
„Hej, "
+"czy mogÄ dostaÄ kopiÄ?” JeÅli jesteÅcie mili, to oczywiÅcie
im jÄ
"
+"dacie. Tak robiÄ
przyzwoite osoby."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So imagine what it would be like if recipes were packaged inside black "
+"boxes. You couldn't see what ingredients they're using, let alone change "
+"them, and imagine if you made a copy for a friend, they would call you a "
+"pirate and try to put you in prison for years. That world would create "
+"tremendous outrage from all the people who are used to sharing recipes. But "
+"that is exactly what the world of proprietary software is like. A world in "
+"which common decency towards other people is prohibited or prevented."
+msgstr ""
+"WiÄc wyobraźcie sobie, co by byÅo, gdyby przepisy byÅy pakowane
do "
+"czarnych skrzynek. Nie wiedzielibyÅcie, jakie sÄ
w nich zawarte "
+"skÅadniki, nie mówiÄ
c już nawet o wprowadzaniu zmian i wyobraźcie "
+"sobie, że jeÅli wykonalibyÅcie kopiÄ dla przyjaciela, nazwaliby was "
+"piratami i próbowali wsadziÄ na parÄ lat do wiÄzienia.
Taki "
+"Åwiat wywoÅaÅby wielkie oburzenie u ludzi przyzwyczajonych do "
+"dzielenia siÄ przepisami. Ale tak wÅaÅnie wyglÄ
da Åwiat objÄtego "
+"restrykcyjnymi licencjami oprogramowania. W tym Åwiecie zwyczajna "
+"przyzwoitoÅÄ wobec innych ludzi jest zabroniona lub zwalczana."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, why did I notice this? I noticed this because I had the good fortune in "
+"the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who shared software. "
+"Now, this community could trace its ancestry essentially back to the "
+"beginning of computing. In the 1970's, though, it was a bit rare for there "
+"to be a community where people shared software. And, in fact, this was sort "
+"of an extreme case, because in the lab where I worked, the entire operating "
+"system was software developed by the people in our community, and we'd share "
+"any of it with anybody. Anybody was welcome to come and take a look, and "
+"take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do. There were no copyright "
+"notices on these programs. Cooperation was our way of life. And we were "
+"secure in that way of life. We didn't fight for it. We didn't have to "
+"fight for it. We just lived that way. And, as far as we knew, we would "
+"just keep on living that way. So there was free software, but there was no "
+"free software movement."
+msgstr ""
+"Dlaczego to zauważyÅem? ZauważyÅem to, ponieważ w latach 70.
miaÅem "
+"szczÄÅcie należeÄ do spoÅecznoÅci programistów, którzy dzielili
siÄ "
+"oprogramowaniem. SpoÅecznoÅÄ ta miaÅa korzenie w samych poczÄ
tkach "
+"informatyki. Jednak w latach 70. byÅo czymÅ odrobinÄ niezwykÅym, "
+"że istniaÅa spoÅecznoÅÄ, w obrÄbie której ludzie dzielili
siÄ "
+"programami. I byÅ to tak naprawdÄ rodzaj skrajnego przypadku, "
+"ponieważ w laboratorium, w którym pracowaÅem, caÅy system "
+"operacyjny skÅadaÅ siÄ z oprogramowania napisanego przez naszÄ
"
+"spoÅecznoÅÄ i dzieliliÅmy siÄ ze wszystkimi każdÄ
jego czÄÅciÄ
. Każdy "
+"mógÅ wpaÅÄ i popatrzeÄ, wziÄ
Ä sobie kopiÄ i zrobiÄ
z niÄ
"
+"cokolwiek chciaÅ. Na tych programach nie byÅo informacji o prawach "
+"autorskich. WspóÅpraca byÅa naszym sposobem na życie. Å»yjÄ
c tak "
+"czuliÅmy siÄ bezpieczni. Nie walczyliÅmy o to. Nie musieliÅmy o to
walczyÄ. "
+"Po prostu żyliÅmy w ten sposób. I chcieliÅmy żyÄ tak
dalej. "
+"IstniaÅo wiÄc wolne oprogramowanie, ale nie istniaÅ ruch wolnego
"
+"oprogramowania."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that happened "
+"to it. Ultimately it was wiped out. Ultimately, the PDP-10 computer which "
+"we used for all our work was discontinued. And you know, our system — "
+"the Incompatible Timesharing System — was written starting in the "
+"'60's, so it was written in assembler language. That's what you used to "
+"write an operating system in the '60's. So, of course, assembler language "
+"is for one particular computer architecture; if that gets discontinued, all "
+"your work turns into dust — it's useless. And that's what happened to "
+"us. The 20 years or so of work of our community turned into dust."
+msgstr ""
+"Jednak potem nasza spoÅecznoÅÄ zostaÅa zniszczona przez seriÄ "
+"nieszczÄÅÄ, które jÄ
dotknÄÅy. W koÅcu przestaÅa istnieÄ.
W koÅcu "
+"produkcja PDP-10, czyli komputera, którego używaliÅmy do caÅej "
+"pracy, zostaÅa zawieszona. Wiecie, nasz system – ITS "
+"[Incompatible Timesharing System, Niezgodny System z PodziaÅem Czasu]"
+" – zaczÄ
Å byÄ tworzony w latach 60., wiÄc byÅ
napisany "
+"w asemblerze. Tak pisaÅo siÄ systemy operacyjne w latach 60. Jak "
+"wiadomo asembler jest przypisany do konkretnej architektury; gdy "
+"wychodzi ona z produkcji, caÅa praca idzie na marne – "
+"staje siÄ bezużyteczna. WÅaÅnie to nam siÄ przydarzyÅo. OkoÅo 20 lat
pracy "
+"naszej spoÅecznoÅci poszÅo na marne."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me, helped me "
+"see what to do, helped prepare me to see what to do when this happened, "
+"because at certain point, Xerox gave the Artificial Intelligence Lab, where "
+"I worked, a laser printer, and this was a really handsome gift, because it "
+"was the first time anybody outside Xerox had a laser printer. It was very "
+"fast, printed a page a second, very fine in many respects, but it was "
+"unreliable, because it was really a high-speed office copier that had been "
+"modified into a printer. And, you know, copiers jam, but there's somebody "
+"there to fix them. The printer jammed and nobody saw. So it stayed jammed "
+"for a long time."
+msgstr ""
+"Jednak zanim siÄ to staÅo, przydarzyÅo mi siÄ coÅ, co mnie "
+"przygotowaÅo, pomogÅo mi zrozumieÄ, co trzeba zrobiÄ, pomogÅo mi
przygotowaÄ "
+"siÄ do zrozumienia co zrobiÄ, gdy to siÄ staÅo,
ponieważ pewnego "
+"razu Xerox podarowaÅ Laboratorium Sztucznej Inteligencji, gdzie pracowaÅem,
"
+"laserowÄ
drukarkÄ i byÅ to naprawdÄ niezÅy prezent, bo po raz "
+"pierwszy ktokolwiek poza Xeroksem miaÅ dostÄp do laserowej drukarki. "
+"ByÅa bardzo szybka, wydruk strony zajmowaÅ jej sekundÄ, pod wieloma "
+"wzglÄdami byÅa bardzo dobra, ale zawodna, bo tak naprawdÄ byÅa
to "
+"szybka kopiarka biurowa, którÄ
zamieniono w drukarkÄ. Jak wiecie, "
+"kopiarki siÄ zacinajÄ
, ale zawsze znajdzie siÄ przy nich ktoÅ, kto
je "
+"naprawi. Drukarka zacinaÅa siÄ i nikt tego nie widziaÅ.
WiÄc staÅa "
+"zaciÄta przez dÅugi czas."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Well, we had an idea for how to deal with this problem. Change it so that "
+"whenever the printer gets a jam, the machine that runs the printer can tell "
+"our timesharing machine, and tell the users who are waiting for printouts, "
+"or something like that, you know, tell them, go fix the printer. Because if "
+"they only knew it was jammed, of course, if you're waiting for a printout "
+"and you know that the printer is jammed, you don't want to sit and wait "
+"forever, you're going to go fix it."
+msgstr ""
+"MieliÅmy pomysÅ jak rozwiÄ
zaÄ ten problem. WprowadziÄ zmiany, żeby
za "
+"każdym razem, kiedy drukarka siÄ zaciÄÅa, komputer, który jÄ
obsÅugiwaÅ "
+"informowaÅ naszÄ
maszynÄ z podziaÅem czasu i informowaÅ "
+"użytkowników czekajÄ
cych na wydruk, albo coÅ w tym stylu,
no "
+"wiecie – „Idź napraw drukarkÄ”. Bo gdyby tylko "
+"wiedzieli, że drukarka siÄ zaciÄÅa, oczywiste jest, że jeÅli "
+"czekasz na wydruk i wiesz, że drukarka siÄ zaciÄÅa, to nie
"
+"siedzisz i nie czekasz do koÅca Åwiata, tylko idziesz i jÄ
"
+"naprawiasz."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But at that point, we were completely stymied, because the software that ran "
+"that printer was not free software. It had come with the printer, and it "
+"was just a binary. We couldn't have the source code; Xerox wouldn't let us "
+"have the source code. So, despite our skill as programmers — after "
+"all, we had written our own timesharing system — we were completely "
+"helpless to add this feature to the printer software."
+msgstr ""
+"Jednak wtedy nie mogliÅmy zupeÅnie nic zrobiÄ, ponieważ "
+"oprogramowanie obsÅugujÄ
ce drukarkÄ nie byÅo wolne. DostaliÅmy je razem "
+"z drukarkÄ
i byÅ to po prostu plik binarny. Nie dano nam
kodu "
+"źródÅowego – Xerox nie chciaÅ siÄ na to zgodziÄ. Tak
wiÄc, "
+"mimo naszych umiejÄtnoÅci programistycznych – jakby nie patrzeÄ
"
+"napisaliÅmy wÅasny system z podziaÅem czasu – nie
mogliÅmy "
+"w żaden sposób dodaÄ tej funkcji do oprogramowania drukarki."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And we just had to suffer with waiting. It would take an hour or two to get "
+"your printout because the machine would be jammed most of the time. And "
+"only once in a while — you'd wait an hour figuring “I know it's "
+"going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and go collect my printout,” and "
+"then you'd see that it had been jammed the whole time, and in fact, nobody "
+"else had fixed it. So you'd fix it and you'd go wait another half hour. "
+"Then, you'd come back, and you'd see it jammed again — before it got "
+"to your output. It would print three minutes and be jammed thirty minutes. "
+"Frustration up the whazzoo. But the thing that made it worse was knowing "
+"that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his own selfishness, was "
+"blocking us, obstructing us from improving the software. So, of course, we "
+"felt some resentment."
+msgstr ""
+"Jedyne, co nam pozostawaÅo, to ÅcierpieÄ czekanie. Wydruk zajmowaÅ
od "
+"jednej do dwóch godzin, ponieważ przez wiÄkszoÅÄ czasu
drukarka "
+"byÅa zaciÄta. I tylko czasami – czekaÅo siÄ godzinÄ
myÅlÄ
c: "
+"„Na pewno bÄdzie zaciÄta. Poczekam godzinÄ i wtedy odbiorÄ "
+"wydruk”, a potem okazywaÅo siÄ, że byÅa zaciÄta przez
caÅy "
+"ten czas i że nikt inny jej nie naprawiÅ. WiÄc naprawiaÅo siÄ
jÄ
"
+"i czekaÅo kolejne póŠgodziny. Potem siÄ wracaÅo, a ona znów
siÄ "
+"zaciÄÅa – zanim zaczÄÅa drukowaÄ twój dokument. DrukowaÅa
przez "
+"trzy minuty, a staÅa zaciÄta przez trzydzieÅci. Frustracja siÄgaÅa "
+"sufitu. Ale gorsze byÅo to, że wiedzieliÅmy, że możemy jÄ
"
+"naprawiÄ, jednak ktoÅ inny, z powodu swojego egoizmu, nie
pozwalaÅ "
+"nam, blokowaÅ możliwoÅÄ ulepszenia oprogramowania. WiÄc oczywiÅcie
"
+"trochÄ Å¼ywiliÅmy do nich urazÄ."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a copy of "
+"that software. So I was visiting there later, so I went to his office and I "
+"said, “Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of the printer source "
+"code?” And he said “No, I promised not to give you a copy."
+"” <i>[Laughter]</i> I was stunned. I was so — I was angry, and "
+"I had no idea how I could do justice to it. All I could think of was to "
+"turn around on my heel and walk out of his room. Maybe I slammed the door. "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> And I thought about it later on, because I realized that I "
+"was seeing not just an isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was "
+"important and affected a lot of people."
+msgstr ""
+"I wtedy dowiedziaÅem siÄ, że ktoÅ na uniwersytecie
Carnegie "
+"Mellon [Carnegie Mellon University] ma kopiÄ tego oprogramowania. ByÅem tam
"
+"jakiÅ czas później, wiÄc poszedÅem do jego biura
i spytaÅem: "
+"„CzeÅÄ, jestem z MIT. Czy mógÅbym dostaÄ kopiÄ kodu "
+"źródÅowego oprogramowania drukarki?” a on na to:
„Nie, "
+"obiecaÅem nie dawaÄ ci kopii”. <i>[Åmiech]</i> StaÅem osÅupiaÅy.
ByÅem "
+"taki – byÅem wÅciekÅy i nie wiedziaÅem jak mogÄ
zaradziÄ "
+"sytuacji. Jedyne co przyszÅo mi do gÅowy, to obróciÄ siÄ
na piÄcie "
+"i wyjÅÄ z jego biura. ByÄ może trzasnÄ
Åem drzwiami.
<i>[Åmiech]</"
+"i> A potem o tym myÅlaÅem, ponieważ zdaÅem sobie sprawÄ,
że "
+"nie miaÅem do czynienia z jednym draniem, ale ze spoÅecznym "
+"zjawiskiem, które miaÅo duże znaczenie i dotykaÅo bardzo wielu
ludzi."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"This was — for me — I was lucky, I only got a taste of it, but "
+"other people had to live in this all the time. So I thought about it at "
+"length. See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with us — his "
+"colleagues at MIT. He had betrayed us. But he didn't just do it to us. "
+"Chances are he did it to you too. <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> "
+"And I think, mostly likely, he did it to you too. <i>[Pointing at another "
+"member of audience.] [Laughter]</i> And he probably did it to you as well. "
+"<i>[Pointing to third member of audience.]</i> He probably did it to most of "
+"the people here in this room — except a few, maybe, who weren't born "
+"yet in 1980. Because he had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about "
+"the entire population of the Planet Earth. He had signed a non-disclosure "
+"agreement."
+msgstr ""
+"ByÅo to – dla mnie – miaÅem szczÄÅcie, dostaÅem
tylko "
+"przedsmak, a inni musieli z tym żyÄ przez caÅy czas. WiÄc "
+"dÅugo na ten temat myÅlaÅem. a wiÄc on obiecaÅ odmówiÄ
wspóÅpracy "
+"z nami – swoimi kolegami z MIT. ZdradziÅ nas. Ale "
+"nie tylko nas. Prawdopodobnie zdradziŠteż ciebie. <i>[wskazuje palcem "
+"któregoÅ ze sÅuchaczy]</i> Wydaje mi siÄ, że zapewne zdradziÅ też
"
+"ciebie. <i>[wskazuje palcem innego sÅuchacza] [Åmiech]</i> I ciebie "
+"pewno też zdradziÅ. <i>[wskazuje trzeciego sÅuchacza]</i> Prawdopodobnie "
+"zdradziÅ wiÄkszoÅÄ ludzi w tym pomieszczeniu – za "
+"wyjÄ
tkiem może kilku, którzy w 1980 jeszcze siÄ nie urodzili.
Bo "
+"on obiecaÅ odmówiÄ wspóÅpracy w zasadzie z caÅÄ
populacjÄ
planety "
+"Ziemia. PodpisaÅ umowÄ o poufnoÅci."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, "
+"and it taught me an important lesson — a lesson that's important "
+"because most programmers never learn it. You see, this was my first "
+"encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was the victim. I, and my "
+"whole lab, were the victims. And the lesson it taught me was that non-"
+"disclosure agreements have victims. They're not innocent. They're not "
+"harmless. Most programmers first encounter a non-disclosure agreement when "
+"they're invited to sign one. And there's always some temptation — "
+"some goody they're going to get if they sign. So, they make up excuses. "
+"They say, “Well, he's never going to get a copy no matter what, so why "
+"shouldn't I join the conspiracy to deprive him?” They say, “This "
+"is the way it's always done. Who am I to go against it?” They say, "
+"“If I don't sign this, someone else will.” Various excuses to "
+"gag their consciences."
+msgstr ""
+"To byÅ mój pierwszy, bezpoÅredni kontakt z umowÄ
o poufnoÅci
i "
+"nauczyÅ mnie on pewnej ważnej rzeczy – ważnej,
bo wiÄkszoÅÄ "
+"programistów nigdy siÄ jej nie uczy. ByÅ to mój pierwszy kontakt z "
+"umowÄ
o poufnoÅci i ja byÅem ofiarÄ
. Ja i caÅe moje
laboratorium "
+"byliÅmy ofiarami. a rzecz, której siÄ nauczyÅem, to że umowy o
"
+"poufnoÅci majÄ
swoje ofiary. Nie sÄ
niewinne. Nie sÄ
nieszkodliwe.
WiÄkszoÅÄ "
+"programistów po raz pierwszy siÄ z nimi styka, gdy majÄ
takÄ
umowÄ "
+"podpisaÄ. I zawsze istnieje jakaÅ pokusa – jakaÅ nagroda, "
+"którÄ
dostanÄ
, jeÅli podpiszÄ
. WiÄc wymyÅlajÄ
wymówki. MówiÄ
:
„No "
+"cóż, on i tak nigdy nie dostanie kopii, choÄby nie wiem co,
wiÄc "
+"czemu nie miaÅbym przyÅÄ
czyÄ siÄ do spisku chcÄ
cego odmówiÄ mu
do "
+"niej dostÄpu?”. MówiÄ
: „Zawsze siÄ to tak robi. Kim ja
jestem, "
+"żeby siÄ temu sprzeciwiaÄ?”. MówiÄ
: „JeÅli ja tego nie
podpiszÄ, "
+"ktoÅ inny to zrobi”. Przeróżne wymówki, aby uciszyÄ swoje "
+"sumienie."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But when somebody invited me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, my "
+"conscience was already sensitized. It remembered how angry I had been, when "
+"somebody promised not to help me and my whole lab solve our problem. And I "
+"couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to somebody else who had "
+"never done me any harm. You know, if somebody asked me to promise not to "
+"share some useful information with a hated enemy, I would have said yes. "
+"You know? If somebody's done something bad, he deserves it. But, strangers "
+"— they haven't done me any harm. How could they deserve that kind of "
+"mistreatment? You can't let yourself start treating just anybody and "
+"everybody badly. Then you become a predator on society. So I said, “"
+"Thank you very much for offering me this nice software package. But I can't "
+"accept it in good conscience, on the conditions you are demanding, so I will "
+"do without it. Thank you so much.” And so, I have never knowingly "
+"signed a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful technical information "
+"such as software."
+msgstr ""
+"Lecz kiedy ktoÅ poprosiÅ mnie o podpisanie umowy o poufnoÅci, moje "
+"sumienie byÅo już wyczulone. PamiÄtaÅo jaki byÅem wÅciekÅy, kiedy
ktoÅ "
+"obiecaÅ, że nie pomoże mi i mojemu laboratorium rozwiÄ
zaÄ
naszego "
+"problemu. I nie mogÅem obróciÄ siÄ i zrobiÄ dokÅadnie tego
samego "
+"komuÅ innemu, kto nigdy nie zrobiÅ mi niczego zÅego. Wiecie, gdyby ktoÅ "
+"poprosiÅ mnie, żebym obiecaÅ, że nie podzielÄ siÄ pewnymi
użytecznymi "
+"informacjami ze znienawidzonym wrogiem, to zgodziÅbym siÄ. Rozumiecie?
JeÅli "
+"ktoÅ zrobiÅ coÅ zÅego, to na to zasÅuguje. Ale nieznajomi â
nie "
+"zrobili mi niczego zÅego. W jaki sposób mieliby sobie zasÅużyÄ
na "
+"takie podÅe traktowanie? Nie można sobie pozwoliÄ na traktowanie "
+"po prostu wszystkich bez wyjÄ
tku źle. Zaczyna siÄ wtedy
żerowaÄ "
+"na spoÅeczeÅstwie. PowiedziaÅem wiÄc: „DziÄkujÄ bardzo
za "
+"zaoferowanie mi tego wspaniaÅego pakietu oprogramowania. Jednak nie "
+"mogÄ go przyjÄ
Ä w dobrej wierze na warunkach, których siÄ "
+"domagacie, wiÄc poradzÄ sobie bez niego. DziÄkujÄ
bardzo”. "
+"I w taki sposób nigdy Åwiadomie nie podpisaÅem umowy o poufnoÅci "
+"dotyczÄ
cej powszechnie użytecznych informacji technicznych, takich jak "
+"oprogramowanie."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now there are other kinds of information which raise different ethical "
+"issues. For instance, there's personal information. You know, if you "
+"wanted to talk with me about what was happening between you and your "
+"boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody — you know, I could "
+"keep — I could agree to keep that a secret for you, because that's not "
+"generally useful technical information. At least, it's probably not "
+"generally useful. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"IstniejÄ
inne rodzaje informacji, które budzÄ
inne etyczne pytania. SÄ
"
+"na przykÅad informacje osobiste. No wiecie, gdyby jakaÅ dziewczyna "
+"chciaÅa porozmawiaÄ ze mnÄ
o tym, co dziaÅo siÄ miÄdzy niÄ
a jej "
+"chÅopakiem i poprosiÅa mnie o utrzymanie tego w tajemnicy "
+"– to wiecie, mógÅbym to utrzymaÄ – mógÅbym zgodziÄ
siÄ tego "
+"nie ujawniaÄ, ponieważ nie jest to powszechnie użyteczna informacja "
+"techniczna. W każdym bÄ
dź razie prawdopodobnie nie powszechnie "
+"użyteczna. <i>[Åmiech]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"There is a small chance — and it's a possibility though — that "
+"you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex technique, <i>[Laughter]</i> "
+"and I would then feel a moral duty <i>[Laughter]</i> to pass it onto the "
+"rest of humanity, so that everyone could get the benefit of it. So, I'd "
+"have to put a proviso in that promise, you know? If it's just details about "
+"who wants this, and who's angry at whom, and things like that — soap "
+"opera — that I can keep private for you, but something that humanity "
+"could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't withhold. You see, the "
+"purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information for "
+"humanity to help people live their lives better. If we promise to withhold "
+"that information — if we keep it secret — then we are betraying "
+"the mission of our field. And this, I decided I shouldn't do."
+msgstr ""
+"Istnieje maÅa szansa – ale to tylko
możliwoÅÄ – "
+"że mogÅaby wyjawiÄ mi jakÄ
Å nowÄ
, wspaniaÅÄ
technikÄ seksualnÄ
<i>"
+"[Åmiech]</i>, a wtedy czuÅbym moralne zobowiÄ
zanie <i>[Åmiech]</i> "
+"podzieliÄ siÄ niÄ
z resztÄ
ludzkoÅci, tak aby wszyscy mogli
z "
+"niej skorzystaÄ. WiÄc musiaÅbym w tej obietnicy zawrzeÄ "
+"zastrzeżenie, prawda? JeÅli byÅyby to tylko szczegóÅowe wiadomoÅci, kto
tego "
+"chce, a kto jest zÅy na kogo, i tak dalej – "
+"brazylijski serial – to mogÄ to utrzymaÄ w tajemnicy, "
+"ale wiedzy, na której mogÅaby bardzo skorzystaÄ ludzkoÅÄ nie
mogÄ "
+"zatrzymaÄ dla siebie. Zadaniem nauki i technologii jest dawanie "
+"ludzkoÅci użytecznych informacji, dziÄki którym polepsza siÄ Å¼ycie
ludzi. "
+"JeÅli obiecujemy zatrzymaÄ takie informacje dla siebie – jeÅli "
+"trzymamy je w tajemnicy – to zdradzamy ideaÅy naszej "
+"dziedziny. A czegoÅ takiego postanowiÅem nie robiÄ."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, meanwhile my community had collapsed, and that was collapsing, and that "
+"left me in a bad situation. You see, the whole Incompatible Timesharing "
+"System was obsolete, because the PDP-10 was obsolete, and so there was no "
+"way that I could continue working as an operating system developer the way "
+"that I had been doing it. That depended on being part of the community "
+"using the community software and improving it. That no longer was a "
+"possibility, and that gave me a moral dilemma. What was I going to do? "
+"Because the most obvious possibility meant to go against that decision I had "
+"made. The most obvious possibility was to adapt myself to the change in the "
+"world. To accept that things were different, and that I'd just have to give "
+"up those principles and start signing non-disclosure agreements for "
+"proprietary operating systems, and most likely writing proprietary software "
+"as well. But I realized that that way I could have fun coding, and I could "
+"make money — especially if I did it other than at MIT — but at "
+"the end, I'd have to look back at my career and say, “I've spent my "
+"life building walls to divide people,” and I would have been ashamed "
+"of my life."
+msgstr ""
+"Tymczasem rozpadÅa siÄ moja spoÅecznoÅÄ, a to byÅo zaÅamujÄ
ce
i "
+"postawiÅo mnie w zÅej sytuacji. CaÅy ITS byÅ przestarzaÅy, "
+"ponieważ PDP-10 byÅo przestarzaÅe, wiÄc nie byÅo żadnego
sposobu, "
+"abym mógÅ kontynuowaÄ pracÄ programisty systemowego tak jak dotychczas. "
+"PolegaÅa ona na byciu czÄÅciÄ
spoÅecznoÅci, korzystaniu ze
stworzonego "
+"przez niÄ
oprogramowania i ulepszaniu go. Nie byÅo wiÄcej takiej "
+"możliwoÅci i stanÄ
Åem przed moralnym dylematem. Co miaÅem robiÄ? "
+"Bo najbardziej oczywista możliwoÅÄ oznaczaÅa zaprzeczenie podjÄtej "
+"przeze mnie decyzji. Najbardziej oczywistÄ
możliwoÅciÄ
byÅo dostosowanie
siÄ "
+"do zmian, jakie zaszÅy w Åwiecie. Zaakceptowanie, że sprawy
"
+"przedstawiaÅy siÄ inaczej i że muszÄ po prostu porzuciÄ swoje "
+"zasady, i zaczÄ
Ä podpisywaÄ umowy o poufnoÅci dotyczÄ
ce systemów "
+"operacyjnych objÄtych restrykcyjnymi licencjami, oraz "
+"najprawdopodobniej pisaÄ oprogramowanie o zamkniÄtych źródÅach. ZdaÅem
sobie "
+"sprawÄ, że w ten sposób mógÅbym miÅo spÄdzaÄ czas programujÄ
c
i "
+"zarabiaÄ pieniÄ
dze – szczególnie, gdybym pracowaÅ poza
MIT "
+"– ale potem musiaÅbym spojrzeÄ wstecz na swojÄ
drogÄ "
+"zawodowÄ
i powiedzieÄ: „SpÄdziÅem życie budujÄ
c mury dzielÄ
ce "
+"ludzi” i wstydziÅbym siÄ swojego życia."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So I looked for another alternative, and there was an obvious one. I could "
+"leave the software field and do something else. Now I had no other special "
+"noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a waiter. <i>[Laughter]"
+"</i> Not at a fancy restaurant; they wouldn't hire me, <i>[Laughter]</i> but "
+"I could be a waiter somewhere. And many programmers, they say to me, “"
+"The people who hire programmers demand this, this and this. If I don't do "
+"those things, I'll starve.” It's literally the word they use. Well, "
+"you know, as a waiter, you're not going to starve. <i>[Laughter]</i> So, "
+"really, they're in no danger. But — and this is important, you see "
+"— because sometimes you can justify doing something that hurts other "
+"people by saying otherwise something worse is going to happen to me. You "
+"know, if you were <em>really</em> going to starve, you'd be justified in "
+"writing proprietary software. <i>[Laughter]</i> If somebody's pointing a "
+"gun at you, then I would say, it's forgivable. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, I had "
+"found a way that I could survive without doing something unethical, so that "
+"excuse was not available. So I realized, though, that being a waiter would "
+"be no fun for me, and it would be wasting my skills as an operating system "
+"developer. It would avoid misusing my skills. Developing proprietary "
+"software would be misusing my skills. Encouraging other people to live in "
+"the world of proprietary software would be misusing my skills. So it's "
+"better to waste them than misuse them, but it's still not really good."
+msgstr ""
+"SzukaÅem wiÄc innej możliwoÅci – istniaÅa jedna
oczywista. "
+"MogÅem odejÅÄ z branży programistycznej i zajÄ
Ä siÄ czymÅ
innym. "
+"Nie miaÅem żadnych innych wartych uwagi umiejÄtnoÅci, ale na pewno "
+"mogÅem zostaÄ kelnerem. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Nie w drogiej restauracji, "
+"w takiej by mnie nie zatrudnili <i>[Åmiech]</i>, ale gdzieÅ tam "
+"mogÅem byÄ kelnerem. Wielu programistów mówi mi: „Ludzie
zatrudniajÄ
cy "
+"programistów wymagajÄ
tego, tego i tego. JeÅli nie bÄdÄ tego
robiÅ, to "
+"bÄdÄ gÅodowaÅ.” DokÅadnie tego sÅowa używajÄ
. No cóż, pracujÄ
c jako "
+"kelner nie bÄdziesz gÅodowaÅ. <i>[Åmiech]</i> NaprawdÄ nie ma siÄ czego
"
+"obawiaÄ. Jednak – i to jest ważne – bo "
+"czasami można usprawiedliwiaÄ robienie czegoÅ, co szkodzi innym, twierdzÄ
c, "
+"że coÅ gorszego spotka nas. GdybyÅcie <em>naprawdÄ</em> mieli
gÅodowaÄ, "
+"to bylibyÅcie usprawiedliwieni piszÄ
c oprogramowanie objÄte restrykcyjnymi
"
+"licencjami. <i>[Åmiech]</i> JeÅli ktoÅ celowaÅby do was z "
+"pistoletu, to można by wam to wybaczyÄ. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Jednak "
+"znalazÅem sposób, aby przeżyÄ nie robiÄ
c czegoÅ nieetycznego,
wiÄc "
+"ta wymówka byÅa na nic. ZdaÅem sobie sprawÄ, że bycie kelnerem
nie "
+"sprawiaÅoby mi przyjemnoÅci i marnowaÅbym swoje umiejÄtnoÅci "
+"programisty systemowego. Nie powodowaÅoby to niewÅaÅciwego wykorzystania "
+"moich umiejÄtnoÅci. Pisanie oprogramowania objÄtego restrykcyjnymi "
+"licencjami byÅoby niewÅaÅciwym ich wykorzystaniem. ZachÄcanie innych
do "
+"życia w Åwiecie takiego oprogramowania byÅoby niewÅaÅciwym ich "
+"wykorzystaniem. Lepiej jest je marnowaÄ niż wykorzystywaÄ niewÅaÅciwie, "
+"ale i ta droga nie jest naprawdÄ dobra."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So for those reasons, I decided to look for some other alternative. What "
+"can an operating system developer do that would actually improve the "
+"situation, make the world a better place? And I realized that an operating "
+"system developer was exactly what was needed. The problem, the dilemma, "
+"existed for me and for everyone else because all of the available operating "
+"systems for modern computers were proprietary. The free operating systems "
+"were for old, obsolete computers, right? So for the modern computers — "
+"if you wanted to get a modern computer and use it, you were forced into a "
+"proprietary operating system. So if an operating system developer wrote "
+"another operating system, and then said, “Everybody come and share "
+"this; you're welcome to this” — that would give everybody a way "
+"out of the dilemma, another alternative. So I realized that there was "
+"something I could do that would solve the problem. I had just the right "
+"skills to be able to do it. And it was the most useful thing I could "
+"possibly imagine that I'd be able to do with my life. And it was a problem "
+"that no one else was trying to solve. It was just sort of sitting there, "
+"getting worse, and nobody was there but me. So I felt, “I'm elected. "
+"I have to work on this. If not me, who?” So I decided I would develop "
+"a free operating system, or die trying … of old age, of course. <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Z tych powodów postanowiÅem poszukaÄ innej możliwoÅci. Co może
zrobiÄ "
+"programista systemowy, aby rzeczywiÅcie poprawiÄ sytuacjÄ, uczyniÄ "
+"Åwiat lepszym? i zdaÅem sobie sprawÄ, że programista systemowy
byÅ "
+"wÅaÅnie kimÅ, kto byÅ potrzebny. Ten problem, dylemat miaÅem ja i "
+"wszyscy pozostali, ponieważ wszystkie dostÄpne systemy operacyjne dla "
+"nowych komputerów byÅy objÄte restrykcyjnymi licencjami. Wolne systemy "
+"operacyjne byÅy przeznaczone dla starych, przestarzaÅych komputerów,
prawda? "
+"WiÄc w przypadku nowych komputerów – jeÅli chcieliÅcie
kupiÄ "
+"i korzystaÄ z nowego komputera, to byliÅcie zmuszeni używaÄ "
+"niewolnego systemu operacyjnego. WiÄc jeÅli jakiÅ programista
systemowy "
+"napisaÅby inny system operacyjny, a potem powiedziaÅ: „Niech
siÄ "
+"wszyscy tym dzielÄ
– zachÄcam was do tego”, to "
+"pozwoliÅoby wszystkim uniknÄ
Ä tego dylematu, daÅoby jeszcze jednÄ
możliwoÅÄ. "
+"ZdaÅem sobie wiÄc sprawÄ, że byÅo coÅ, co mogÅem zrobiÄ,
żeby "
+"rozwiÄ
zaÄ mój problem. MiaÅem dokÅadnie te umiejÄtnoÅci, które byÅy
do "
+"tego potrzebne. I byÅa to najbardziej użyteczna rzecz, którÄ
mogÅem
"
+"zrobiÄ ze swoim życiem, jaka przyszÅa mi do gÅowy. I byÅ to "
+"problem, którego nikt inny nie próbowaÅ rozwiÄ
zaÄ. On sobie
po prostu "
+"byÅ, stawaÅ siÄ coraz wiÄkszy i nikt oprócz mnie nie zwracaÅ
na "
+"niego uwagi. PomyÅlaÅem wiÄc sobie: „ZostaÅem wybrany. MuszÄ "
+"nad tym pracowaÄ. JeÅli nie ja, to kto?” Tak wiÄc "
+"postanowiÅem, że stworzÄ wolny system operacyjny, albo umrÄ "
+"próbujÄ
c… ze staroÅci, oczywiÅcie. <i>[Åmiech]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, of course I had to decide what kind of operating system it should be. "
+"There are some technical design decisions to be made. I decided to make the "
+"system compatible with Unix for a number of reasons. First of all, I had "
+"just seen one operating system that I really loved become obsolete because "
+"it was written for one particular kind of computer. I didn't want that to "
+"happen again. We needed to have a portable system. Well, Unix was a "
+"portable system. So if I followed the design of Unix, I had a pretty good "
+"chance that I could make a system that would also be portable and workable. "
+"And furthermore, why <i>[Tape unclear]</i> be compatible with it in the "
+"details. The reason is, users hate incompatible changes. If I had just "
+"designed the system in my favorite way — which I would have loved "
+"doing, I'm sure — I would have produced something that was "
+"incompatible. You know, the details would be different. So, if I wrote the "
+"system, then the users would have said to me, “Well, this is very "
+"nice, but it's incompatible. It will be too much work to switch. We can't "
+"afford that much trouble just to use your system instead of Unix, so we'll "
+"stay with Unix,” they would have said."
+msgstr ""
+"MusiaÅem oczywiÅcie zdecydowaÄ, jakiego rodzaju miaÅ to byÄ system.
Trzeba "
+"podjÄ
Ä pewne decyzje projektowe. Z kilku powodów postanowiÅem,
że "
+"mój system bÄdzie zgodny z Uniksem. Po pierwsze, dopiero co "
+"patrzyÅem jak system operacyjny, który kochaÅem, stawaÅ siÄ
przestarzaÅy, "
+"bo zostaÅ stworzony dla jednego rodzaju komputera. Nie chciaÅem, "
+"aby to siÄ powtórzyÅo. Potrzebny byÅ przenoÅny system. Cóż, Unix
byÅ "
+"przenoÅnym systemem. WiÄc jeÅli naÅladowaÅbym budowÄ Uniksa, to
miaÅem "
+"spore szanse, że stworzÄ system, który również bÄdzie przenoÅny
i "
+"możliwy do napisania. Ponadto, dlaczego <i>[zakÅócenia
na taÅmie]</"
+"i> byÄ z nim zgodny w szczegóÅach. Powód jest taki, że "
+"użytkownicy nie znoszÄ
niezgodnych zmian. JeÅli po prostu "
+"zaprojektowaÅbym system w mój ulubiony sposób – co "
+"sprawiaÅoby mi mnóstwo przyjemnoÅci, jestem tego pewien – to "
+"stworzyÅbym coÅ niezgodnego. No wiecie, szczegóÅy byÅyby inne.
WiÄc "
+"jeÅli napisaÅbym ten system, użytkownicy powiedzieliby mi: „No tak, "
+"jest bardzo fajny, ale niezgodny. Przestawienie siÄ na niego "
+"bÄdzie wymagaÅo zbyt wiele pracy. Nie możemy sobie pozwoliÄ na tyle "
+"pracy tylko po to, aby korzystaÄ z twojego systemu zamiast "
+"z Uniksa, wiÄc pozostaniemy przy Uniksie” – tak "
+"by powiedzieli."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, if I wanted to actually create a community where there would be people "
+"in it, people using this free system, and enjoying the benefits of liberty "
+"and cooperation, I had to make a system people would use, a system that they "
+"would find easy to switch to, that would not have an obstacle making it fail "
+"at the very beginning. Now, making the system upward compatible with Unix "
+"actually made all the immediate design decisions, because Unix consists of "
+"many pieces, and they communicate through interfaces that are more or less "
+"documented. So if you want to be compatible with Unix, you have to replace "
+"each piece, one by one, with a compatible piece. So the remaining design "
+"decisions are inside one piece, and they could be made later by whoever "
+"decides to write that piece. They didn't have to be made at the outset."
+msgstr ""
+"JeÅli chciaÅem stworzyÄ spoÅecznoÅÄ, do której należeliby
ludzie, "
+"ludzie korzystajÄ
cy z tego wolnego systemu i czerpiÄ
cy korzyÅci "
+"z wolnoÅci oraz wspóÅpracy, to musiaÅem stworzyÄ system,
którego "
+"ludzie by używali, system, na który Åatwo byÅoby siÄ przestawiÄ,
który "
+"nie zawieraÅby przeszkody, z powodu której staÅby siÄ porażkÄ
na "
+"samym poczÄ
tku. Fakt, że system miaÅ byÄ zgodny w górÄ
z "
+"Uniksem automatycznie podjÄ
Å najpilniejsze decyzje projektowe,
ponieważ "
+"Unix skÅada siÄ z wielu kawaÅków, które komunikujÄ
siÄ
za pomocÄ
"
+"w jakimÅ stopniu udokumentowanych interfejsów. JeÅli
wiÄc chcesz "
+"byÄ zgodny z Uniksem, to musisz zastÄ
piÄ każdy kawaÅek, jeden
po "
+"drugim, innym zgodnym kawaÅkiem. PozostaÅe decyzje projektowe dotyczÄ
"
+"wiÄc tylko poszczególnych kawaÅków i mogÄ
zostaÄ podjÄte
przez "
+"dowolnÄ
osobÄ, która zdecyduje siÄ je napisaÄ. Nie trzeba ich
podejmowaÄ "
+"na samym poczÄ
tku."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So all we had to do to start work was find a name for the system. Now, we "
+"hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program, because "
+"thinking of people being amused by the name is half the fun of writing the "
+"program. <i>[Laughter]</i> And we had a tradition of recursive acronyms, to "
+"say that the program that you're writing is similar to some existing "
+"program. You can give it a recursive acronym name which says: this one's not "
+"the other. So, for instance, there were many Tico text editors in the '60's "
+"and '70's, and they were generally called something-or-other Tico. Then one "
+"clever hacker called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico — the first "
+"recursive acronym. In 1975, I developed the first Emacs text editor, and "
+"there were many imitations of Emacs, and a lot of them were called something-"
+"or-other Emacs, but one was called Fine, for Fine Is Not Emacs, and there "
+"was Sine, for Sine Is Not Emacs, and Eine for Ina Is Not Emacs, and MINCE "
+"for Mince Is Not Complete Emacs. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was a stripped down "
+"imitation. And then, Eine was almost completely rewritten, and the new "
+"version was called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Tak wiÄc wszystko co pozostaÅo wtedy do zrobienia przed "
+"rozpoczÄciem pracy to wymyÅlenie nazwy. My hakerzy zawsze staramy siÄ "
+"wymyÅliÄ dla programu jakÄ
Å ÅmiesznÄ
lub dwuznacznÄ
nazwÄ,
bo "
+"myÅl, że ludziom bÄdzie siÄ podobaÄ nazwa stanowi poÅowÄ radoÅci
z "
+"napisania programu. <i>[Åmiech]</i> MieliÅmy tradycjÄ rekursywnych "
+"akronimów, które wskazywaÅy, że program, który wÅaÅnie piszesz
jest "
+"podobny do jakiegoÅ już istniejÄ
cego. Możesz nadaÄ mu nazwÄ
w "
+"postaci rekursywnego akronimu, który mówi: ten program nie jest tym innym. "
+"Na przykÅad w latach 60. i 70. istniaÅo wiele edytorów Tico
"
+"i w zasadzie wszystkie nazywaÅy siÄ jakieÅ-tam Tico. Aż jakiÅ
bystry "
+"haker nazwaÅ swojÄ
wersjÄ Tint, bo „TInt to Nie Tico” "
+"[<em>Tint Is Not Tico</em>] – byÅ to pierwszy rekursywny akronim.
"
+"W roku 1975 stworzyÅem pierwszy edytor tekstu Emacs, powstaÅo wiele "
+"jego imitacji i wiÄkszoÅÄ z nich nazywaÅa siÄ jakiÅ-tam
Emacs, "
+"jednak jedna miaÅa nazwÄ Fine, ponieważ „FIne to Nie "
+"Emacs” [<em>Fine Is Not Emacs</em>], byÅ też Sine,
bo „SIne "
+"to Nie Emacs” [<em>Sine Is Not Emacs</em>] oraz Eine, bo "
+"„Ina to Nie Emacs” [<em>Ina Is Not Emacs</em>], aż wreszcie "
+"MINCE, bo „MINCe to niekompletny Emacs” [<em>Mince Is Not "
+"Complete Emacs</em>]. <i>[Åmiech]</i> ByÅa to okrojona imitacja. Potem Eine
"
+"zostaÅ napisany prawie zupeÅnie od nowa, a nowa wersja zostaÅa "
+"nazwana Zwei, bo âZWei na poczÄ
tku nazywaÅo siÄ EIneâ
[<em>Zwei "
+"Was Eine Initially</em>]. <i>[Åmiech]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So I looked for a recursive acronym for Something is not Unix. And I tried "
+"all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word. <i>[Laughter]</"
+"i> Hmm, try another way. I made a contraction. That way I could have a "
+"three-letter acronym, for Something's not Unix. And I tried letters, and I "
+"came across the word “GNU” — the word “GNU” is "
+"the funniest word in the English language. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was it. "
+"Of course, the reason it's funny is that according to the dictionary, it's "
+"pronounced “new”. You see? And so that's why people use it for "
+"a lot of wordplay. Let me tell you, this is the name of an animal that "
+"lives in Africa. And the African pronunciation had a click sound in it. <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i> Maybe still does. And so, the European colonists, when they "
+"got there, they didn't bother learning to say this click sound. So they "
+"just left it out, and they wrote a “G” which meant “"
+"there's another sound that's supposed to be here which we are not "
+"pronouncing.” <i>[Laughter]</i> So, tonight I'm leaving for South "
+"Africa, and I have begged them, I hope they're going to find somebody who "
+"can teach me to pronounce click sounds, <i>[Laughter]</i> so that I'll know "
+"how to pronounce GNU the correct way, when it's the animal."
+msgstr ""
+"SzukaÅem wiÄc rekursywnego akronimu na „CoÅ to nie "
+"Unix”. WypróbowaÅem wszystkie 26 liter i odkryÅem,
że żadna "
+"z nich nie jest sÅowem. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Hmm, spróbujmy inaczej. "
+"StworzyÅem formÄ skróconÄ
. W ten sposób mogÅem wymyÅliÄ
trzyliterowy "
+"akronim na „CoÅ to nie Unix”. PróbowaÅem z literami "
+"i natrafiÅem na sÅowo „GNU” – „"
+"GNU” to najzabawniejsze sÅowo w jÄzyku angielskim.
<i>[Åmiech]</"
+"i> To byÅo to. OczywiÅcie, powód dla którego jest to zabawne jest taki, "
+"że wedÅug sÅownika czyta siÄ je tak samo jak „new” "
+"[<em>ang. nowe</em>]. Rozumiecie? Dlatego wÅaÅnie ludzie korzystajÄ
"
+"z niego w różnych żartach jÄzykowych. WyjaÅniÄ, że jest
to "
+"nazwa zwierzÄcia żyjÄ
cego w Afryce. AfrykaÅska wymowa zawieraÅa
w "
+"sobie mlask [<em>fon. rodzaj gÅoski</em>]. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Może nadal tak "
+"jest. Gdy dotarli tam europejscy kolonizatorzy, to nie trudzili siÄ uczeniem
"
+"tego dźwiÄku. Po prostu go omijali i pisali „G”,
które "
+"oznaczaÅo „istnieje pewien dźwiÄk, który powinien tu byÄ i "
+"którego nie wymawiamy”. <i>[Åmiech]</i> DziÅ wieczorem lecÄ
do "
+"RPA i bÅagaÅem ich, mam nadziejÄ, że znajdÄ
kogoÅ, kto nauczy
mnie "
+"wymawiaÄ mlaski, <i>[Åmiech]</i> żebym wiedziaÅ jak prawidÅowo wymawiaÄ
GNU, "
+"gdy odnosi siÄ do zwierzÄcia."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is “"
+"guh-NEW” — pronounce the hard “G”. If you talk "
+"about the “new” operating system, you'll get people very "
+"confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years now, so it is not "
+"new any more. <i>[Laughter]</i> But it still is, and always will be, GNU "
+"— no matter how many people call it Linux by mistake. <i>[Laughter]</"
+"i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Jednak gdy chodzi o nazwÄ naszego systemu, prawidÅowa wymowa to
„"
+"g-NU” – wymawiamy „G”. JeÅli mówicie o „"
+"nowym” [<em>am. ang. /NU/</em>] systemie operacyjnym, to ludzie nie "
+"bÄdÄ
wiedzieli o co chodzi, bo pracujemy nad nim od 17 lat, "
+"wiÄc nie jest już nowy. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Ale caÅy czas jest to, "
+"i zawsze bÄdzie, GNU – nieważne ilu ludzi nazwie go przez "
+"pomyÅkÄ Linuksem. <i>[Åmiech]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces of GNU. "
+"They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities though. And, at "
+"the time, I thought we would write all these pieces, and make an entire GNU "
+"system, and then we'd say, “Come and get it”, and people would "
+"start to use it. That's not what happened. The first pieces I wrote were "
+"just equally good replacements, with fewer bugs for some pieces of Unix, but "
+"they weren't tremendously exciting. Nobody particularly wanted to get them "
+"and install them. But then, in September 1984, I started writing GNU Emacs, "
+"which was my second implementation of Emacs, and by early 1985, it was "
+"working. I could use it for all my editing, which was a big relief, because "
+"I had no intention of learning to use VI, the Unix editor. <i>[Laughter]</i> "
+"So, until that time, I did my editing on some other machine, and saved the "
+"files through the network, so that I could test them. But when GNU Emacs "
+"was running well enough for me to use it, it was also — other people "
+"wanted to use it too."
+msgstr ""
+"Tak wiÄc w styczniu 1984 odszedÅem z MIT, żeby zaczÄ
Ä pisaÄ "
+"kawaÅki GNU. MIT byÅo jednak na tyle miÅe, że mogÅem
korzystaÄ "
+"z ich sprzÄtu. MyÅlaÅem wtedy, że napiszemy wszystkie te
kawaÅki "
+"i stworzymy caÅy system GNU, a potem powiemy: „Chodźcie "
+"i go sobie weźcie”, a ludzie zacznÄ
go używaÄ. Tak siÄ
nie "
+"staÅo. Pierwsze kawaÅki, które napisaÅem, byÅy tak samo dobre jak
uniksowe "
+"oryginaÅy, które miaÅy zastÄ
piÄ, w niektórych przypadkach z "
+"mniejszÄ
iloÅciÄ
bÅÄdów, ale nie byÅy zbyt ekscytujÄ
ce. Nikt
specjalnie "
+"nie chciaÅ ich zdobyÄ i zainstalowaÄ. Ale potem, we wrzeÅniu
1984, "
+"zaczÄ
Åem pisaÄ GNU Emacs, który byÅ mojÄ
drugÄ
implementacjÄ
Emacsa,
a "
+"na poczÄ
tku roku 1985 zaczÄ
Å on dziaÅaÄ. MogÅem go używaÄ
do wszystkich "
+"zadaÅ wymagajÄ
cych edycji tekstu, co byÅo dużÄ
ulgÄ
, bo nie
miaÅem "
+"zamiaru uczyÄ siÄ VI, Uniksowego edytora. <em>[Åmiech]</em> Do tego "
+"czasu edycjÄ tekstu wykonywaÅem na jakimÅ innym komputerze i "
+"zapisywaÅem pliki przez sieÄ, aby móc je przetestowaÄ.
Lecz potem "
+"GNU Emacs dziaÅaÅ wystarczajÄ
co dobrze, bym mógÅ go używaÄ,
ponadto "
+"– inni ludzie też chcieli go używaÄ."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So I had to work out the details of distribution. Of course, I put a copy "
+"in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people who were on the "
+"net They could then just pull over a tar file, but a lot of programmers then "
+"even were not on the net in 1985. They were sending me emails saying “"
+"How can I get a copy?” I had to decide what I would answer them. "
+"Well, I could have said, I want to spend my time writing more GNU software, "
+"not writing tapes, so please find a friend who's on the internet and who is "
+"willing to download it and put it on a tape for you. And I'm sure people "
+"would have found some friends, sooner or later, you know. They would have "
+"got copies. But I had no job. In fact, I've never had a job since quitting "
+"MIT in January 1984. So, I was looking for some way I could make money "
+"through my work on free software, and therefore I started a free software "
+"business. I announced, “Send me $150 dollars, and I'll mail you a "
+"tape of Emacs.” And the orders began dribbling in. By the middle of "
+"the year they were trickling in."
+msgstr ""
+"WiÄc musiaÅem wymyÅliÄ sposób dystrybucji. UmieÅciÅem oczywiÅcie
kopiÄ "
+"w katalogu na anonimowym serwerze FTP i byÅo to wystarczajÄ
ce "
+"dla ludzi korzystajÄ
cych z sieci. Mogli po prostu ÅciÄ
gnÄ
Ä
plik "
+"tar, ale wtedy, w 1985, wielu programistów nie miaÅo nawet
dostÄpu "
+"do sieci. Pisali do mnie emaile z pytaniem: „W jaki "
+"sposób mogÄ zdobyÄ kopiÄ?”. MusiaÅem zdecydowaÄ, co im odpowiem.
Cóż, "
+"mogÅem powiedzieÄ, że chcÄ spÄdzaÄ czas na pisaniu wiÄkszej
iloÅci "
+"oprogramowania GNU, a nie zapisywaniu taÅm, wiÄc znajdźcie "
+"znajomych, którzy majÄ
dostÄp do sieci i bÄdÄ
chcieli ÅciÄ
gnÄ
Ä "
+"kopiÄ, oraz nagraÄ jÄ
dla was na taÅmie. Jestem pewien,
że "
+"prÄdzej czy później ludzie znaleźliby sobie takich znajomych.
Zdobyliby "
+"kopie. Ale ja nie miaÅem pracy. Tak naprawdÄ to nigdy nie miaÅem
pracy "
+"od kiedy opuÅciÅem MIT w styczniu 1984. SzukaÅem wiÄc "
+"jakiegoÅ sposobu na zarabianie poprzez pisanie wolnego "
+"oprogramowania i dlatego zaÅożyÅem firmÄ zajmujÄ
cÄ
siÄ wolnym "
+"oprogramowaniem. OgÅaszaÅem: „PrzeÅlijcie mi 150$, a ja wam
wyÅlÄ "
+"taÅmÄ z Emacsem”. No i zaczÄÅy skapywaÄ pierwsze
zamówienia. "
+"W poÅowie roku skapywaÅo ich już coraz wiÄcej."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month. And, if necessary, I could have lived "
+"on just that, because I've always lived cheaply. I live like a student, "
+"basically. And I like that, because it means that money is not telling me "
+"what to do. I can do what I think is important for me to do. It freed me "
+"to do what seemed worth doing. So make a real effort to avoid getting "
+"sucked into all the expensive lifestyle habits of typical Americans. "
+"Because if you do that, then people with the money will dictate what you do "
+"with your life. You won't be able to do what's really important to you."
+msgstr ""
+"OtrzymywaÅem od 8 do 10 zamówieÅ na miesiÄ
c. JeÅli byÅo
to "
+"konieczne, to mogÅem wyżyÄ wyÅÄ
cznie z tego, bo zawsze żyÅem
"
+"oszczÄdnie. Ogólnie rzecz biorÄ
c żyjÄ jak student. I lubiÄ to,
bo "
+"pieniÄ
dze nie mówiÄ
mi, co mam robiÄ. MogÄ robiÄ to, co uważam
za ważne "
+"dla mnie. DaÅo mi to wolnoÅÄ do robienia tego, co wydawaÅo siÄ
warte "
+"zrobienia. WiÄc naprawdÄ postarajcie siÄ uniknÄ
Ä wciÄ
gniÄcia we "
+"wszystkie drogie nawyki życiowe typowych Amerykanów. Bo jeÅli siÄ to
"
+"stanie, ludzie z pieniÄdzmi bÄdÄ
wam mówiÄ, co macie zrobiÄ ze
swoim "
+"życiem. Nie bÄdziecie mogli robiÄ tego, co dla was naprawdÄ ważne."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, “What do you mean it's "
+"free software if it costs $150 dollars?” <i>[Laughter]</i> Well, the "
+"reason they asked this was that they were confused by the multiple meanings "
+"of the English word “free”. One meaning refers to price, and "
+"another meaning refers to freedom. When I speak of free software, I'm "
+"referring to freedom, not price. So think of free speech, not free beer. "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many years of my life to "
+"making sure programmers got less money. That's not my goal. I'm a "
+"programmer and I don't mind getting money myself. I won't dedicate my whole "
+"life to getting it, but I don't mind getting it. And I'm not — and "
+"therefore, ethics is the same for everyone. I'm not against some other "
+"programmer getting money either. I don't want prices to be low. That's not "
+"the issue at all. The issue is freedom. Freedom for everyone who's using "
+"software, whether that person be a programmer or not."
+msgstr ""
+"WiÄc byÅo OK, ale ludzie pytali mnie: „Co to
za darmowe "
+"[<em>ang. free oznacza darmowe lub wolne</em>] oprogramowanie, które "
+"kosztuje 150$?” <i>[Åmiech]</i> Cóż, pytali dlatego, że "
+"angielskie sÅowo „free” ma wiele znaczeÅ. Jedno z nich "
+"odnosi siÄ do ceny, a drugie do wolnoÅci. Gdy mówiÄ o
„"
+"free software”, mam na myÅli wolnoÅÄ, a nie cenÄ.
MyÅlcie o "
+"wolnoÅci sÅowa, a nie darmowym piwie. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Nie
poÅwiÄciÅbym "
+"tylu lat mojego życia na staranie siÄ, by programiÅci zarabiali mniej
"
+"pieniÄdzy. To nie jest mój cel. Jestem programistÄ
i nie mam nic "
+"przeciwko zarabianiu pieniÄdzy. Nie poÅwiÄcÄ na to caÅego życia, "
+"ale nie mam nic przeciwko zarabianiu. I nie jestem – "
+"i dlatego, etyka jest dla wszystkich taka sama. Nie mam również nic "
+"przeciwko, żeby jakiÅ inny programista zarabiaÅ pieniÄ
dze. Nie chcÄ, by
ceny "
+"byÅy niskie. To wcale nie o to chodzi. Chodzi o wolnoÅÄ. WolnoÅÄ dla "
+"wszystkich użytkowników oprogramowania, czy sÄ
programistami,
czy "
+"też nie."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So at this point I should give you the definition of free software. I "
+"better get to some real details, you see, because just saying “I "
+"believe in freedom” is vacuous. There's so many different freedoms "
+"you could believe in, and they conflict with each other, so the real "
+"political question is: Which are the important freedoms, the freedoms that "
+"we must make sure everybody has?"
+msgstr ""
+"Teraz powinienem podaÄ wam definicjÄ wolnego oprogramowania. Lepiej
przejdÄ "
+"do konkretów, bo samo mówienie „wierzÄ
w wolnoÅÄ” "
+"jest puste. Jest tyle wolnoÅci, w które można wierzyÄ i sÄ
one
ze "
+"sobÄ
sprzeczne, wiÄc prawdziwe polityczne pytanie brzmi: „Jakie "
+"sÄ
ważne wolnoÅci – wolnoÅci, które powinniÅmy wszystkim
zapewniÄ?"
+"”"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And now, I will give my answer to that question for the particular area of "
+"using software. A program is free software for you, a particular user, if "
+"you have the following freedoms:"
+msgstr ""
+"Podam wam teraz mojÄ
odpowiedź na to pytanie z punktu widzenia "
+"korzystania z programów komputerowych. Programy sÄ
dla was,
konkretnych "
+"użytkowników, wolnym oprogramowaniem, jeÅli macie nastÄpujÄ
ce wolnoÅci:"
+
+#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
+msgid ""
+"First, Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the program for any purpose, any "
+"way you like."
+msgstr ""
+"Po pierwsze, WolnoÅÄ 0, czyli wolnoÅÄ do wykorzystywania "
+"programu do dowolnego celu i w dowolny sposób."
+
+#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the program to suit "
+"your needs."
+msgstr ""
+"WolnoÅÄ 1 to wolnoÅÄ pozwalajÄ
ca na uÅatwianie sobie życia przez "
+"wprowadzanie zmian do programu, aby dostosowaÄ go do swoich "
+"potrzeb."
+
+#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing copies of "
+"the program."
+msgstr ""
+"WolnoÅÄ 2 to wolnoÅÄ do pomagania swoim bliźnim przez dystrybucjÄ
kopii "
+"programu."
+
+#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
+msgid ""
+"And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by publishing "
+"an improved version so others can get the benefit of your work."
+msgstr ""
+"Natomiast WolnoÅÄ 3 pozwala na wspieranie rozwoju wÅasnej "
+"spoÅecznoÅci poprzez publikowanie ulepszonych wersji, tak
aby inni "
+"mogli skorzystaÄ z waszej pracy."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software, for you "
+"— and that's crucial. That's why I phrase it that way. I'll explain "
+"why later, when I talk about the GNU General Public License, but right now "
+"I'm explaining what free software means, which is a more basic question."
+msgstr ""
+"JeÅli macie wszystkie te wolnoÅci, to program jest wolnym oprogramowaniem, "
+"dla was – i to jest ważne. Dlatego w taki sposób "
+"uÅożyÅem zdanie. WyjaÅniÄ później dlaczego, gdy bÄdÄ mówiÅ o GPL,
teraz "
+"wyjaÅniam co to jest wolne oprogramowanie, a to jest bardziej "
+"podstawowÄ
kwestiÄ
."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, Freedom Zero's pretty obvious. If you're not even allowed to run the "
+"program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive program. But as it "
+"happens, most programs will at least give you Freedom Zero. And Freedom "
+"Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of Freedoms One, Two, and Three "
+"— that's the way that copyright law works. So the freedoms that "
+"distinguish free software from typical software are Freedoms One, Two, and "
+"Three, so I'll say more about them and why they are important."
+msgstr ""
+"WolnoÅÄ 0 jest doÅÄ oczywista. JeÅli nie możecie nawet korzystaÄ
z "
+"programu w dowolny sposób, to jest on cholernie restrykcyjny. "
+"Jednak w praktyce wiÄkszoÅÄ programów daje wam przynajmniej
WolnoÅÄ 0. "
+"A WolnoÅÄ 0 wynika, w prawniczym sensie, z WolnoÅci 1, 2 "
+"oraz 3 – w taki sposób dziaÅa prawo autorskie. Tak "
+"wiÄc wolnoÅci odróżniajÄ
ce wolne programy od typowych to
WolnoÅci "
+"1, 2 i 3, dlatego powiem o nich wiÄcej i wyjaÅniÄ, dlaczego
"
+"sÄ
ważne."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the software to suit "
+"your needs. This could mean fixing bugs. It could mean adding new "
+"features. It could mean porting it to a different computer system. It "
+"could mean translating all the error messages into Navajo. Any change you "
+"want to make, you should be free to make."
+msgstr ""
+"WolnoÅÄ 1 to wolnoÅÄ pozwalajÄ
ca na uÅatwienie sobie życia przez "
+"wprowadzanie zmian do programu, aby dostosowaÄ go do swoich "
+"potrzeb. Może to oznaczaÄ naprawianie bÅÄdów. Może to oznaczaÄ
dodawanie "
+"nowych funkcjonalnoÅci. Może to oznaczaÄ przeniesienie go na innÄ
"
+"platformÄ. Może oznaczaÄ przetÅumaczenie wszystkich komunikatów
bÅÄdów "
+"na jÄzyk Indian Navajo. PowinniÅcie móc wprowadziÄ każdÄ
zmianÄ, "
+"na którÄ
macie ochotÄ."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, it's obvious that professional programmers can make use of this freedom "
+"very effectively, but not just them. Anybody of reasonable intelligence can "
+"learn a little programming. You know, there are hard jobs, and there are "
+"easy jobs, and most people are not going to learn enough to do hard jobs. "
+"But lots of people can learn enough to do easy jobs, just the way, you know, "
+"50 years ago, lots and lots of American men learned to repair cars, which is "
+"what enabled the U.S. to have a motorized army in World War II and win. So, "
+"very important, having lots of people tinkering."
+msgstr ""
+"Oczywiste jest, że zawodowi programiÅci mogÄ
bardzo efektywnie "
+"wykorzystywaÄ tÄ wolnoÅÄ, ale nie tylko oni. Każda przeciÄtnie "
+"inteligentna osoba może nauczyÄ siÄ trochÄ programowaÄ. No wiecie, sÄ
trudne "
+"zadania i Åatwe zadania, wiÄkszoÅÄ ludzi nie nauczy siÄ wystarczajÄ
co "
+"dużo, żeby sprostaÄ tym trudnym. Ale mnóstwo ludzi może siÄ
nauczyÄ "
+"wystarczajÄ
co dużo, aby wykonywaÄ proste zadania, tak samo jak 50 lat
"
+"temu tysiÄ
ce Amerykanów nauczyÅo siÄ naprawiaÄ samochody, co pozwoliÅo
USA "
+"mieÄ w czasie II wojny Åwiatowej zmotoryzowanÄ
armiÄ i wygraÄ.
"
+"WiÄc bardzo ważne jest, aby wiele osób przy tym dÅubaÅo."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And if you are a people person, and you really don't want to learn "
+"technology at all, that probably means that you have a lot of friends, and "
+"you're good at getting them to owe you favors. <i>[Laughter]</i> Some of "
+"them are probably programmers. So you can ask one of your programmer "
+"friends. “Would you please change this for me? Add this feature?"
+"” So, lots of people can benefit from it."
+msgstr ""
+"A jeÅli wolicie towarzystwo ludzi i naprawdÄ nie chcecie niczego "
+"siÄ nauczyÄ o technologii, to pewno znaczy, że macie mnóstwo
przyjacióŠ"
+"i jesteÅcie nieźli w doprowadzaniu do sytuacji, w "
+"których sÄ
oni wam winni przysÅugÄ. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Niektórzy
z nich to "
+"byÄ może programiÅci. Możecie wiÄc poprosiÄ jednego z waszych
"
+"przyjacióŠprogramistów: „Czy mógÅbyÅ to dla mnie zmieniÄ?
DodaÄ tÄ "
+"funkcjÄ?” Tak wiÄc może na tym skorzystaÄ mnóstwo ludzi."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, if you don't have this freedom, it causes practical, material harm to "
+"society. It makes you a prisoner of your software. I explained what that "
+"was like with regard to the laser printer. You know, it worked badly for "
+"us, and we couldn't fix it, because we were prisoners of our software."
+msgstr ""
+"Gdy nie macie tej wolnoÅci, skutkiem jest namacalna, materialna szkoda dla "
+"spoÅeczeÅstwa. Czyni was to wiÄźniami wÅasnego oprogramowania.
WyjaÅniaÅem "
+"już jakie to uczucie na przykÅadzie drukarki laserowej. PracowaÅa
źle "
+"i nie mogliÅmy jej naprawiÄ, bo byliÅmy wiÄźniami naszego "
+"oprogramowania."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But it also affects people's morale. You know if the computer is constantly "
+"frustrating to use, and people are using it, their lives are going to be "
+"frustrating, and if they're using it in their jobs, their jobs are going to "
+"be frustrating; they're going to hate their jobs. And you know, people "
+"protect themselves from frustration by deciding not to care. So you end up "
+"with people whose attitude is, “Well, I showed up for work today. "
+"That's all I have to do. If I can't make progress, that's not my problem; "
+"that's the boss's problem.” And when this happens, it's bad for those "
+"people, and it's bad for society as a whole. That's Freedom One, the "
+"freedom to help yourself."
+msgstr ""
+"Ale dotyczy to także ludzkiego morale. JeÅli korzystanie z "
+"komputera budzi frustracjÄ, a ludzie z niego korzystajÄ
, to ich "
+"życie stanie siÄ frustrujÄ
ce, a jeÅli korzystajÄ
z niego
w "
+"pracy, to ich praca stanie siÄ frustrujÄ
ca â zacznÄ
nienawidziÄ swojej "
+"pracy. Ludzie chroniÄ
siÄ przed frustracjÄ
majÄ
c wszystko w nosie.
Ich "
+"podejÅcie zaczyna siÄ sprowadzaÄ do: „No tak, przyszedÅem dziÅ
do "
+"pracy. To wszystko, co muszÄ zrobiÄ. JeÅli nie robiÄ Å¼adnych postÄpów,
to "
+"nie mój problem; to problem szefa”. Taka sytuacja jest zÅa dla tych "
+"ludzi i dla caÅoÅci spoÅeczeÅstwa. To byÅa WolnoÅÄ 1, wolnoÅÄ "
+"pozwalajÄ
ca na uÅatwianie sobie życia."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing copies of "
+"the program. Now, for beings that can think and learn, sharing useful "
+"knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship. When these beings use "
+"computers, this act of friendship takes the form of sharing software. "
+"Friends share with each other. Friends help each other. This is the nature "
+"of friendship. And, in fact, this spirit of goodwill — the spirit of "
+"helping your neighbor, voluntarily — is society's most important "
+"resource. It makes the difference between a livable society and a dog-eat-"
+"dog jungle. Its importance has been recognized by the world's major "
+"religions for thousands of years, and they explicitly try to encourage this "
+"attitude."
+msgstr ""
+"WolnoÅÄ 2 to wolnoÅÄ do pomagania swoim bliźnim przez dystrybucjÄ
kopii "
+"programu. Dla istot zdolnych do myÅlenia i nauki dzielenie siÄ "
+"użytecznÄ
wiedzÄ
jest fundamentalnym przejawem przyjaźni. Gdy te istoty "
+"korzystajÄ
z komputerów, ten przejaw przyjaźni przyjmuje formÄ "
+"dzielenia siÄ oprogramowaniem. Przyjaciele siÄ dzielÄ
. Przyjaciele sobie "
+"pomagajÄ
. Taka jest natura przyjaźni. Tak naprawdÄ ten duch dobrej
woli "
+"– duch pomagania bliźnim bez przymusu – stanowi "
+"najważniejsze dobro spoÅeczeÅstwa. Stanowi on o różnicy pomiÄdzy "
+"spoÅeczeÅstwem, w którym da siÄ Å¼yÄ, a dżunglÄ
,
w której "
+"wszyscy pożerajÄ
siÄ nawzajem. Jego wagÄ dostrzegajÄ
od tysiÄcy
lat "
+"najwiÄksze religie Åwiata i wprost starajÄ
siÄ popieraÄ takÄ
postawÄ."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach us this "
+"attitude — the spirit of sharing — by having us do it. They "
+"figured if we did it, we'd learn. So they said, “If you bring candy "
+"to school, you can't keep it all for yourself; you have to share some with "
+"the other kids.” Teaching us, the society was set up to teach, this "
+"spirit of cooperation. And why do you have to do that? Because people are "
+"not totally cooperative. That's one part of human nature, and there are "
+"other parts of human nature. There are lots of parts of human nature. So, "
+"if you want a better society, you've got to work to encourage the spirit of "
+"sharing. You know, it'll never get to be 100%. That's understandable. "
+"People have to take care of themselves too. But if we make it somewhat "
+"bigger, we're all better off."
+msgstr ""
+"Gdy chodziÅem do przedszkola, nasi opiekunowie starali siÄ nas
nauczyÄ "
+"takiej postawy – ducha dzielenia siÄ – każÄ
c nam
siÄ "
+"dzieliÄ. Doszli do wniosku, że jak bÄdziemy tak robiÄ, to siÄ
tego "
+"nauczymy. WiÄc mówili nam: „JeÅli przyniesiecie do szkoÅy
"
+"cukierki, nie możecie po prostu zatrzymaÄ wszystkich dla siebie, "
+"musicie czÄÅciÄ
podzieliÄ siÄ z innymi dzieÄmi”. Uczyli nas,
"
+"spoÅeczeÅstwo zostaÅo powoÅane do uczenia, takiego ducha
wspóÅpracy. "
+"Dlaczego trzeba robiÄ takie rzeczy? Bo ludzie nie sÄ
w peÅni "
+"wspóÅpracujÄ
cy. To jedna czÄÅÄ ludzkiej natury i sÄ
inne jej
czÄÅci. "
+"Jest wiele czÄÅci ludzkiej natury. WiÄc jeÅli chcecie mieÄ lepsze "
+"spoÅeczeÅstwo, musicie pracowaÄ na rzecz ducha dzielenia siÄ. To
nigdy "
+"nie bÄdzie 100%. To zrozumiaÅe. Ludzie muszÄ
zadbaÄ też o samych siebie.
"
+"Ale jeÅli choÄ trochÄ go wzmocnimy, to wszyscy na tym "
+"skorzystamy."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Nowadays, according to the U.S. Government, teachers are supposed to do the "
+"exact opposite. “Oh, Johnny, you brought software to school. Well, "
+"don't share it. Oh no. Sharing is wrong. Sharing means you're a pirate."
+"”"
+msgstr ""
+"Obecnie, wedÅug rzÄ
du USA, nauczyciele majÄ
robiÄ coÅ zupeÅnie
odwrotnego. "
+"„O, Johnny, przyniosÅeÅ do szkoÅy program. No cóż, nie dziel
siÄ "
+"nim z nikim. O, nie. Dzielenie siÄ jest zÅe. Dzielenie siÄ czyni ciÄ
"
+"piratem”."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"What do they mean when they say “pirate”? They're saying that "
+"helping your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship. <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Co majÄ
na myÅli, gdy mówiÄ
âpiratâ? MajÄ
na myÅli,
że "
+"pomaganie bliźnim jest moralnie równoważne z atakowaniem statku. <i>"
+"[Åmiech]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"What would Buddha or Jesus say about that? Now, take your favorite religious "
+"leader. I don't know, maybe Manson would have said something different. <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i> Who knows what L. Ron Hubbard would say? But …"
+msgstr ""
+"Co by na to powiedzieli Budda lub Jezus? Wybierzcie sobie "
+"ulubionego przywódcÄ religijnego. Nie wiem, może Manson powiedziaÅby coÅ
"
+"innego. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Kto wie co powiedziaÅby L. Ron Hubbard? Ale…"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i>"
+msgstr "<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: <i>[niewyraźne]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Of course, he's dead. But they don't admit "
+"that. What?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: OczywiÅcie, on nie żyje. Ale oni tego nie "
+"uznajÄ
. SÅucham?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: So are the others, also dead. <i>[Laughter] "
+"[Inaudible]</i> Charles Manson's also dead. <i>[Laughter]</i> They're dead, "
+"Jesus's dead, Buddha's dead…"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Inni tak samo, również nie żyjÄ
. <i>[Åmiech] "
+"[niewyraźne]</i> Charles Manson też nie żyje. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Nie żyjÄ
,
"
+"Jezus nie żyje, Budda nie żyje…"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, that's true. <i>[Laughter]</i> So I guess, "
+"in that regard, L. Ron Hubbard is no worse than the others. <i>[Laughter]</"
+"i> Anyway — <i>[Inaudible]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tak, to prawda. <i>[Åmiech]</i> No to chyba, "
+"patrzÄ
c na to z tej strony, L. Ron Hubbard nie jest gorszy niż "
+"pozostali. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Tak czy inaczej –
<i>[niewyraźne]"
+"</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: L. Ron always used free software — it freed "
+"him from Zanu. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: L. Ron zawsze używaÅ wolnego oprogramowania â "
+"wyzwoliÅo go od Zanu. <i>[Åmiech]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Anyway, so, I think this is actually the most "
+"important reason why software should be free: We can't afford to pollute "
+"society's most important resource. It's true that it's not a physical "
+"resource like clean air and clean water. It's a psycho-social resource, but "
+"it's just as real for all that, and it makes a tremendous difference to our "
+"lives. You see, the actions we take influence the thoughts of other "
+"people. When we go around telling people, “Don't share with each "
+"other”, if they listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's "
+"not a good one. That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tak czy inaczej, uważam, że tak "
+"naprawdÄ to jest najważniejszy powód, dla którego oprogramowanie powinno
byÄ "
+"wolne: nie możemy sobie pozwoliÄ na zatruwanie najważniejszego dobra "
+"posiadanego przez spoÅeczeÅstwo. OczywiÅcie nie jest to dobro materialne, "
+"takie jak czyste powietrze i czysta woda. Jest to dobro "
+"psychospoÅeczne, ale równie rzeczywiste i ma wielkie znaczenie
dla "
+"życia nas wszystkich. DziaÅania, jakie podejmujemy, majÄ
wpÅyw
na myÅli "
+"innych ludzi. JeÅli chodzimy i mówimy wszystkim dookoÅa: „Nie "
+"dzielcie siÄ niczym ze sobÄ
”, to jeÅli nas posÅuchajÄ
, bÄdziemy
mieli "
+"wpÅyw na spoÅeczeÅstwo, i to niedobry. To byÅa WolnoÅÄ 2,
wolnoÅÄ "
+"do pomagania swoim bliźnim."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just cause "
+"this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes waste — "
+"practical, material harm. If the program has an owner, and the owner "
+"arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay in order to be able "
+"to use it, some people are going to say, “Never mind, I'll do without "
+"it.” And that's waste, deliberately inflicted waste. And the "
+"interesting thing about software, of course, is that fewer users doesn't "
+"mean you have to make less stuff. You know, if fewer people buy cars, you "
+"can make fewer cars. There's a saving there. There are resources to be "
+"allocated, or not allocated, into making cars. So that you can say that "
+"having a price on a car is a good thing. It prevents people from diverting "
+"lots of wasted resources into making cars that aren't really needed. But if "
+"each additional car used no resources, it wouldn't be doing any good saving "
+"the making of these cars. Well, for physical objects, of course, like cars, "
+"it is always going to take resources to make an additional one of them, each "
+"additional exemplar."
+msgstr ""
+"A tak przy okazji, brak tej wolnoÅci nie wywoÅuje tylko wspomnianej "
+"szkody dla psychospoÅecznych dóbr spoÅeczeÅstwa, ale również "
+"marnotrawstwo, czyli szkodÄ praktycznÄ
, materialnÄ
. JeÅli program ma
"
+"wÅaÅciciela, a ten ustawi wszystko w taki sposób, żeby każdy "
+"musiaÅ pÅaciÄ za używanie programu, to niektórzy powiedzÄ
: „"
+"Nieważne, poradzÄ sobie bez tego”. A to jest marnotrawstwo,
"
+"spowodowane z premedytacjÄ
marnotrawstwo. InteresujÄ
ce
w przypadku "
+"oprogramowania jest oczywiÅcie to, że mniejsza iloÅÄ użytkowników
nie "
+"oznacza koniecznoÅci zmniejszenia produkcji. No wiecie, jeÅli mniejsza
iloÅÄ "
+"ludzi kupuje samochody, to można produkowaÄ ich mniej. Oznacza to "
+"oszczÄdnoÅci. IstniejÄ
dobra, które można przeznaczyÄ
na produkcjÄ "
+"samochodów lub nie. Można wiÄc powiedzieÄ, że to dobrze
by "
+"samochody miaÅy ceny. Uniemożliwia to ludziom wykorzystywanie wielkich "
+"iloÅci marnowanych dóbr na produkcjÄ samochodów, których nikt tak "
+"naprawdÄ nie potrzebuje. Ale jeÅli każdy kolejny samochód nie
wymagaÅby "
+"żadnych dóbr, to powstrzymywanie siÄ przed ich produkcjÄ
nie dawaÅoby "
+"niczego pożytecznego. OczywiÅcie, w przypadku rzeczy materialnych, "
+"takich jak samochody, wykonanie kolejnego egzemplarza zawsze bÄdzie "
+"pochÅaniaÄ dodatkowe dobra."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But for software that's not true. Anybody can make another copy. And it's "
+"almost trivial to do it. It takes no resources, except a tiny bit of "
+"electricity. So there's nothing we can save, no resource we're going to "
+"allocate better by putting this financial disincentive on the use of the "
+"software. You often find people taking economic, the consequences of "
+"economic reasoning, based on premises that don't apply to software, and "
+"trying to transplant them from other areas of life where the premises may "
+"apply, and the conclusions may be valid. They just take the conclusions and "
+"assume that they're valid for software too, when the argument is based on "
+"nothing, in the case of software. The premises don't work in that case. It "
+"is very important to examine how you reach the conclusion, and what premises "
+"it depends on, to see where it might be valid. So, that's Freedom Two, the "
+"freedom to help your neighbor."
+msgstr ""
+"Jednak w przypadku oprogramowania nie jest to prawdÄ
. Każdy może "
+"wykonaÄ nowÄ
kopiÄ. A zrobienie tego jest zadaniem niemal trywialnym.
"
+"Nie wymaga to żadnych dóbr prócz odrobiny elektrycznoÅci. WiÄc nie
ma "
+"tu czego oszczÄdzaÄ, nie ma żadnego dobra, które można by wykorzystaÄ
lepiej "
+"poprzez ustanowienie tego finansowego czynnika zniechÄcajÄ
cego
do "
+"korzystania z programów. Ludzie czÄsto biorÄ
ekonomiczne, wyniki "
+"ekonomicznego rozumowania oparte na przesÅankach nijak majÄ
cych siÄ "
+"do oprogramowania i próbujÄ
przenieÅÄ je z innych dziedzin
"
+"życia, dla których te przesÅanki mogÄ
byÄ prawdziwe, a wnioski "
+"prawidÅowe. Po prostu biorÄ
te wnioski i zakÅadajÄ
, że sÄ
"
+"prawdziwe także dla oprogramowania, tymczasem caÅe rozumowanie w "
+"przypadku oprogramowania jest oparte na niczym. PrzesÅanki nie "
+"dziaÅajÄ
. To bardzo ważne, by zwracaÄ uwagÄ, w jaki sposób
dochodzi siÄ "
+"do wniosków, w oparciu o jakie przesÅanki, aby zrozumieÄ "
+"kiedy mogÄ
byÄ one prawidÅowe. ByÅa to wiÄc WolnoÅÄ 2, wolnoÅÄ
do "
+"pomagania swoim bliźnim."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by publishing an "
+"improved version of the software. People used to say to me, “If the "
+"software's free, then nobody will get paid to work on it, so why should "
+"anybody work on it?” Well, of course, they were confusing the two "
+"meanings of free, so their reasoning was based on a misunderstanding. But, "
+"in any case, that was their theory. Today, we can compare that theory with "
+"empirical fact, and we find that hundreds of people are being paid to write "
+"free software, and over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers. We get lots of "
+"people working on free software, for various different motives."
+msgstr ""
+"WolnoÅÄ 3 pozwala na wspieranie rozwoju wÅasnej spoÅecznoÅci "
+"poprzez publikowanie ulepszonych wersji programów. Ludzie mówili mi: "
+"„JeÅli oprogramowanie bÄdzie darmowe [<em>free</em>], to nikt
za "
+"pracÄ nad nim nie bÄdzie dostawaÄ pieniÄdzy, wiÄc dlaczego "
+"ktokolwiek miaÅby to robiÄ?”. OczywiÅcie nie rozróżniali oni
dwóch "
+"znaczeÅ sÅowa „free” [<em>ang. darmowy, wolny</em>],
wiÄc "
+"ich rozumowanie byÅo oparte na nieporozumieniu. Ale tak czy "
+"inaczej, taka byÅa ich teoria. Dzisiaj możemy porównaÄ tÄ teoriÄ
z "
+"empiriÄ
i okazuje siÄ, że setkom ludzi pÅaci siÄ
za pracÄ "
+"nad wolnym oprogramowaniem, a ponad 100.000 robi to jako "
+"wolontariusze. Mnóstwo ludzi pracuje nad wolnym oprogramowaniem,
z "
+"różnych powodów."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"When I first released GNU Emacs — the first piece of the GNU system "
+"that people actually wanted to use — and when it started having users, "
+"after a while, I got a message saying, “I think I saw a bug in the "
+"source code, and here's a fix.” And I got another message, “"
+"Here's code to add a new feature.” And another bug fix. And another "
+"new feature. And another, and another, and another, until they were pouring "
+"in on me so fast that just making use of all this help I was getting was a "
+"big job. Microsoft doesn't have this problem. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Gdy po raz pierwszy wydaÅem edytor GNU Emacs – pierwszy "
+"kawaÅek systemu GNU, którego ludzie rzeczywiÅcie chcieli
używaÄ – "
+"i gdy pojawili siÄ użytkownicy, to po niedÅugim czasie
otrzymaÅem "
+"wiadomoÅÄ: „Wydaje mi siÄ, że znalazÅem bÅÄ
d w kodzie "
+"źródÅowym, a oto poprawka”. DostaÅem także kolejnÄ
wiadomoÅÄ: "
+"„Oto kod dodajÄ
cy nowÄ
funkcjÄ”. I kolejna poprawka
do "
+"bÅÄdu. I kolejna nowa funkcja. I kolejna, i kolejna, i "
+"kolejna, aż zaczÄÅy napÅywaÄ do mnie tak szybko, że samo ich "
+"wykorzystywanie staÅo siÄ ciÄżkÄ
pracÄ
. Microsoft nie ma tego problemu.
<i>"
+"[Åmiech]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Eventually, people noted this phenomenon. You see, in the 1980's a lot of "
+"us thought that maybe free software wouldn't be as good as the non-free "
+"software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay people. And, of "
+"course, people like me, who value freedom and community said, “Well, "
+"we'll use the free software anyway.” It's worth making a little "
+"sacrifice in some mere technical convenience to have freedom. But what "
+"people began to note, around 1990 was that our software was actually "
+"better. It was more powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary "
+"alternatives."
+msgstr ""
+"W koÅcu ludzie dostrzegli ten fenomen. Wiecie, w latach 80. wielu "
+"z nas myÅlaÅo, że byÄ może wolne oprogramowanie nie bÄdzie
tak "
+"dobre jak niewolne, bo nie bÄdziemy mieli tak samo dużo pieniÄdzy "
+"na pÅacenie ludziom. OczywiÅcie, osoby takie jak ja, które ceniÄ
"
+"wolnoÅÄ i wartoÅci spoÅeczne, mówiÅy: „Cóż, i tak
bÄdziemy "
+"korzystaÄ z wolnego oprogramowania”. Warto jest poÅwiÄciÄ
trochÄ "
+"niezbyt istotnej technicznej wygody dla wolnoÅci. Ale to, co ludzie "
+"zaczÄli dostrzegaÄ okoÅo roku 1990, to byÅ fakt, że nasze "
+"oprogramowanie jest tak naprawdÄ lepsze. ByÅo potÄżniejsze
i bardziej "
+"niezawodne od alternatywnych programów objÄtych restrykcyjnymi "
+"licencjami."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific measurement of "
+"reliability of software. Here's what he did. He took several sets of "
+"comparable programs that did the same jobs — the exact same jobs "
+"— in different systems. Because there were certain basic Unix-like "
+"utilities. And the jobs that they did, we know, was all, more or less, "
+"imitating the same thing, or they were following the POSIX spec, so they "
+"were all the same in terms of what jobs they did, but they were maintained "
+"by different people, written separately. The code was different. So they "
+"said, OK, we'll take these programs and run them with random data, and "
+"measure how often they crash, or hang. So they measured it, and the most "
+"reliable set of programs was the GNU programs. All the commercial "
+"alternatives which were proprietary software were less reliable. So he "
+"published this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he did "
+"the same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same result. "
+"The GNU versions were the most reliable. People — you know there are "
+"cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system, because it's so "
+"reliable, and reliability is very important to them."
+msgstr ""
+"Na poczÄ
tku lat 90. ktoÅ wymyÅliÅ jak przeprowadzaÄ naukowe pomiary
"
+"niezawodnoÅci oprogramowania. Oto co zrobiÅ. WziÄ
Å parÄ zbiorów "
+"porównywalnych programów, które wykonywaÅy te same zadania – "
+"dokÅadnie te same zadania – w różnych systemach. "
+"Ponieważ istniaÅy pewne podstawowe uniksowe narzÄdzia.
A zadania, "
+"które wykonywaÅy, no wiecie, to byÅo wszystko, mniej wiÄcej, imitowanie
tej "
+"samej rzeczy, albo byÅy zgodne ze standardami POSIX, wiÄc byÅy "
+"takie same w zakresie wykonywanych zadaÅ, ale byÅy utrzymywane "
+"przez innych ludzi i osobno napisane. Kod byÅ inny. WiÄc oni "
+"powiedzieli, OK, weźmiemy te programy i zaÅadujemy do nich losowe
"
+"dane, i zmierzymy jak czÄsto bÄdÄ
siÄ wywalaÄ albo zawieszaÄ.
No "
+"wiÄc to zmierzyli i najbardziej niezawodnym zbiorem programów "
+"okazaÅy siÄ programy GNU. Wszystkie komercyjne odpowiedniki objÄte "
+"restrykcyjnymi licencjami byÅy bardziej zawodne. WiÄc on to
opublikowaÅ "
+"i przedstawiÅ wszystkim programistom, i parÄ lat później
wykonaÅ "
+"ten sam eksperyment z najnowszymi wersjami, i wyniki byÅy takie "
+"same. Wersje GNU byÅy najbardziej niezawodne. Ludzie – wiecie, "
+"istniejÄ
kliniki onkologiczne oraz stacje pogotowia ratunkowego, które
"
+"korzystajÄ
z systemu GNU, bo jest taki niezawodny, a "
+"niezawodnoÅÄ jest dla nich bardzo ważna."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Anyway, there's even a group of people who focus on this particular benefit "
+"as the reason they give, the main reason they give, why users should be "
+"permitted to do these various things, and to have these freedoms. If you've "
+"been listening to me, you've noticed, you've seen that I, speaking for the "
+"free software movement, I talk about issues of ethics, and what kind of a "
+"society we want to live in, what makes for a good society, as well as "
+"practical, material benefits. They're both important. That's the free "
+"software movement."
+msgstr ""
+"W każdym bÄ
dź razie, jest nawet grupa ludzi, którzy skupiajÄ
siÄ "
+"na tej konkretnej korzyÅci podajÄ
c powód, gÅówny powód, dla
którego "
+"użytkownicy powinni móc robiÄ wszystkie te rzeczy i mieÄ te
wolnoÅci. "
+"JeÅli mnie sÅuchaliÅcie, to zauważyliÅcie, widzieliÅcie, że ja,
mówiÄ
c "
+"w imieniu ruchu wolnego oprogramowania, opowiadam o kwestiach etycznych "
+"i o spoÅeczeÅstwie, w którym chcemy mieszkaÄ, o tym, co tworzy "
+"dobre spoÅeczeÅstwo, a także o praktycznych, materialnych
korzyÅciach. "
+"Obie te rzeczy sÄ
ważne. Oto ruch wolnego oprogramowania."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"That other group of people — which is called the open source movement "
+"— they only cite the practical benefits. They deny that this is an "
+"issue of principle. They deny that people are entitled to the freedom to "
+"share with their neighbor and to see what the program's doing and change it "
+"if they don't like it. They say, however, that it's a useful thing to let "
+"people do that. So they go to companies and say to them, “You know, "
+"you might make more money if you let people do this.” So, what you can "
+"see is that to some extent, they lead people in a similar direction, but for "
+"totally different, for fundamentally different, philosophical reasons."
+msgstr ""
+"Ta druga grupa ludzi – nazywajÄ
ca siÄ ruchem open source "
+"[<em>open source movement, ruch na rzecz oprogramowania o otwartych "
+"źródÅach</em>] – oni mówiÄ
tylko o praktycznych korzyÅciach.
"
+"ZaprzeczajÄ
, jakoby byÅa to kwestia zasad. ZaprzeczajÄ
, że ludziom "
+"należy siÄ wolnoÅÄ dzielenia siÄ z bliźnimi i sprawdzania, co
"
+"robiÄ
programy, oraz zmieniania tego, jeÅli im siÄ nie podoba. MówiÄ
"
+"oni jednak, że zezwalanie na to jest użyteczne. WiÄc chodzÄ
"
+"po firmach i mówiÄ
: „Wiecie, prawdopodobnie możecie
zarabiaÄ "
+"wiÄcej pieniÄdzy, jeÅli pozwolicie ludziom to robiÄ”. WiÄc, jak "
+"widzicie, do pewnego stopnia prowadzÄ
oni ludzi w tym samym "
+"kierunku, ale z zupeÅnie innych, w podstawowym stopniu innych, "
+"przesÅanek filozoficznych."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Because on the deepest issue of all, you know, on the ethical question, the "
+"two movements disagree. You know, in the free software movement we say, "
+"“You're entitled to these freedoms. People shouldn't stop you from "
+"doing these things.” In the open source movement, they say, “"
+"Yes, they can stop you if you want, but we'll try to convince them to deign "
+"to let you to do these things.” Well, they have contributed — "
+"they have convinced a certain number of businesses to release substantial "
+"pieces of software as free software in our community. So they, the open "
+"source movement, has contributed substantially to our community. And so we "
+"work together on practical projects. But, philosophically, there's a "
+"tremendous disagreement."
+msgstr ""
+"Ponieważ w najgÅÄbszej spoÅród wszystkich kwestii, kwestii
etycznej, "
+"oba ruchy nie zgadzajÄ
siÄ ze sobÄ
. My z ruchu wolnego oprogramowania
"
+"mówimy: „NależÄ
wam siÄ te wolnoÅci. Nikt nie powinien was "
+"powstrzymywaÄ przed robieniem tych rzeczy”. Ruch open source mówi: "
+"„Tak, mogÄ
was powstrzymaÄ, jeÅli chcecie, ale postaramy siÄ
ich "
+"przekonaÄ, aby raczyli pozwoliÄ wam robiÄ te rzeczy”. Cóż,
oni "
+"wnieÅli wkÅad – przekonali pewnÄ
iloÅÄ firm
do wypuszczenia "
+"znaczÄ
cych kawaÅków oprogramowania w postaci wolnych programów,
na "
+"rzecz naszej spoÅecznoÅci. WiÄc oni, czyli ruch open source, "
+"wnieÅli znaczny wkÅad do naszej spoÅecznoÅci. Tak
wiÄc pracujemy "
+"razem nad projektami praktycznymi. Jednak pod wzglÄdem "
+"filozoficznym bardzo siÄ nie zgadzamy."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Unfortunately, the open source movement is the one that gets the support of "
+"business the most, and so most articles about our work describe it as open "
+"source, and a lot of people just innocently think that we're all part of the "
+"open source movement. So that's why I'm mentioning this distinction. I "
+"want you to be aware that the free software movement, which brought our "
+"community into existence and developed the free operating system, is still "
+"here — and that we still stand for this ethical philosophy. I want "
+"you to know about this, so that you won't mislead someone else unknowingly."
+msgstr ""
+"Niestety, to ruch open source dostaje najwiÄksze wsparcie od firm, "
+"wiÄc wiÄkszoÅÄ artykuÅów dotyczÄ
cych naszej pracy opisuje jÄ
jako open "
+"source i mnóstwo ludzi, bez zÅych intencji, myÅli,
że wszyscy "
+"jesteÅmy czÄÅciÄ
ruchu open source. Dlatego wÅaÅnie mówiÄ o tej "
+"różnicy. ChcÄ, abyÅcie zdawali sobie sprawÄ, że ruch wolnego "
+"oprogramowania, który powoÅaÅ naszÄ
spoÅecznoÅÄ do życia i "
+"stworzyÅ wolny system operacyjny, nadal istnieje – i caÅy "
+"czas gÅosimy tÄ etycznÄ
filozofiÄ. ChcÄ, żebyÅcie to wiedzieli,
aby "
+"bezwiednie nie wprowadzaÄ innych w bÅÄ
d."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "But also, so that you can think about where you stand."
+msgstr ""
+"Ale także dlatego, żebyÅcie mogli pomyÅleÄ o tym, gdzie sami
należycie."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"You know, which movement you support is up to you. You might agree with the "
+"free software movements and my views. You might agree with the open source "
+"movement. You might disagree with them both. You decide where you stand on "
+"these political issues."
+msgstr ""
+"No wiecie, to, który ruch popieracie, to wasza sprawa. Możecie siÄ
zgadzaÄ "
+"z ruchami wolnego oprogramowania i moimi poglÄ
dami. Możecie siÄ "
+"zgadzaÄ z ruchem open source. Możecie siÄ z oboma nie zgadzaÄ.
To "
+"wy decydujecie o waszej postawie wobec tych politycznych kwestii."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But if you agree with the free software movement — if you see that "
+"there's an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled and "
+"directed by this decision deserve a say in it — then I hope you'll say "
+"that you agree with the free software movement, and one way you can do that "
+"is by using the term free software and just helping people know we exist."
+msgstr ""
+"Ale jeÅli zgadzacie siÄ z ruchem wolnego oprogramowania "
+"– jeÅli rozumiecie, że chodzi tu o to, aby ludzie, których
"
+"życie jest kontrolowane i kierowane przez tÄ decyzjÄ, mieli coÅ
w "
+"jej sprawie do powiedzenia – to mam nadziejÄ, że "
+"powiecie, iż zgadzacie siÄ z ruchem wolnego oprogramowania, a "
+"jednÄ
z rzeczy, które możecie zrobiÄ, aby to pokazaÄ, jest "
+"używanie terminu wolne oprogramowanie i po prostu zwracanie uwagi ludzi
"
+"na to, że istniejemy."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, Freedom Three is very important both practically and psycho-socially. "
+"If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical material harm, because "
+"this community development doesn't happen, and we don't make powerful, "
+"reliable software. But it also causes psycho-social harm, which affects the "
+"spirit of scientific cooperation — the idea that we're working "
+"together to advance human knowledge. You see, progress in science crucially "
+"depends on people being able to work together. And nowadays though, you "
+"often find each little group of scientists acting like it's a war with each "
+"other gang of scientists and engineers. And if they don't share with each "
+"other, they're all held back."
+msgstr ""
+"Tak wiÄc WolnoÅÄ 3 jest bardzo ważna zarówno pod wzglÄdem "
+"praktycznym, jak i psychospoÅecznym. JeÅli nie macie tej wolnoÅci, "
+"powoduje to praktyczne, materialne szkody, bo nie nastÄpuje wspomniany "
+"rozwój spoÅecznoÅci i nie tworzymy potÄżnego, niezawodnego "
+"oprogramowania. Ale powoduje również szkody psychospoÅeczne, które
majÄ
"
+"wpÅyw na ducha naukowej wspóÅpracy – ideÄ, która mówi, "
+"że pracujemy razem na rzecz rozwoju ludzkiej wiedzy. Zrozumcie, "
+"postÄp naukowy zależy gÅównie od tego, że ludzie mogÄ
razem "
+"pracowaÄ. Tymczasem w dzisiejszych czasach widzi siÄ poszczególne
maÅe "
+"grupy naukowców, które zachowujÄ
siÄ jakby to byÅa wojna ze wszystkimi "
+"innymi bandami naukowców i inżynierów. A jeÅli oni nie bÄdÄ
siÄ ze "
+"sobÄ
dzieliÄ, to nie bÄdÄ
czyniÄ postÄpów."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, those are the three freedoms that distinguish free software from typical "
+"software. Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself, making changes to "
+"suit your own needs. Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by "
+"distributing copies. And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your "
+"community by making changes and publishing them for other people to use. If "
+"you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software for you. Now, "
+"why do I define it that way in terms of a particular user? Is it free "
+"software for you? <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> Is it free "
+"software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Is it "
+"free software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Yes?"
+msgstr ""
+"To sÄ
trzy wolnoÅci, które odróżniajÄ
wolne oprogramowanie
od typowych "
+"programów. WolnoÅÄ 1 to wolnoÅÄ pozwalajÄ
ca na uÅatwianie sobie
życia "
+"przez wprowadzanie zmian do programu, aby dostosowaÄ go do "
+"swoich potrzeb. WolnoÅÄ 2 to wolnoÅÄ do pomagania swoim bliźnim
przez "
+"dystrybucjÄ kopii. Natomiast WolnoÅÄ 3 pozwala na wspieranie "
+"rozwoju wÅasnej spoÅecznoÅci poprzez wprowadzanie zmian i "
+"publikowanie ich, tak aby inni mogli z nich skorzystaÄ. JeÅli "
+"macie wszystkie te wolnoÅci, to ten program jest dla was wolnym "
+"oprogramowaniem. Dlaczego definiujÄ to w ten sposób, z punktu "
+"widzenia konkretnego użytkownika? Czy to jest wolne oprogramowanie dla "
+"ciebie? <i>[wskazuje któregoÅ ze sÅuchaczy]</i> Czy to jest wolne "
+"oprogramowanie dla ciebie? <i>[wskazuje innego sÅuchacza]</i> Tak?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you explain a bit about the difference "
+"between Freedom Two and Three? <i>[inaudible]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Czy możesz krótko wyjaÅniÄ różnicÄ
pomiÄdzy "
+"WolnoÅciami 2 i 3? <i>[niewyraźne]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, they certainly relate, because if you don't "
+"have freedom to redistribute at all, you certainly don't have freedom to "
+"distribute a modified version, but they're different activities."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Cóż, z pewnoÅciÄ
sÄ
ze sobÄ
powiÄ
zane,
"
+"bo jeÅli w ogóle nie masz wolnoÅci do redystrybucji, to "
+"z pewnoÅciÄ
nie masz wolnoÅci do dystrybucji zmodyfikowanych "
+"wersji, ale to osobne rzeczy."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Oh."
+msgstr "<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Aha."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Freedom Two is, you know, read it, you make an "
+"exact copy, and hand it to your friends, so now your friend can use it. Or "
+"maybe you make exact copies and you sell them to a bunch of people, and then "
+"they can use it."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: WolnoÅÄ 2 to, no wiecie, skupcie siÄ, robicie "
+"identycznÄ
kopiÄ i rozdajecie jÄ
znajomym, a oni mogÄ
z niej "
+"korzystaÄ. Albo robicie identyczne kopie i sprzedajecie je paru "
+"osobom, a wtedy oni mogÄ
z nich korzystaÄ."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom Three is where you make improvements — or at least you think "
+"they're improvements, and some other people may agree with you. So that's "
+"the difference. Oh, and by the way, one crucial point. Freedoms One and "
+"Three depend on your having access to the source code. Because changing a "
+"binary-only program is extremely hard. <i>[Laughter]</i> Even trivial "
+"changes like using four digits for the date, <i>[Laughter]</i> if you don't "
+"have source. So, for compelling, practical reasons, access to the source "
+"code is a precondition, a requirement, for free software."
+msgstr ""
+"W WolnoÅci 3 chodzi o wprowadzanie ulepszeÅ – a "
+"przynajmniej wy sÄ
dzicie, że sÄ
to ulepszenia, a inni mogÄ
siÄ
"
+"z wami zgodziÄ. WiÄc tu leży różnica. A tak przy okazji, "
+"jedna ważna uwaga. WolnoÅci 1 i 3 zależÄ
od dostÄpnoÅci kodu "
+"źródÅowego. Bo modyfikacja programu dostÄpnego tylko w formie "
+"binarnej jest niezwykle trudna. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Nawet maÅe modyfikacje, "
+"takie jak korzystanie z czterocyfrowej daty, <i>[Åmiech]</i> jeÅli nie
"
+"macie źródeÅ. Tak wiÄc z istotnych, praktycznych powodów,
dostÄpnoÅÄ "
+"kodu źródÅowego jest koniecznym warunkiem, wymaganiem wolnego
oprogramowania."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, why do I define it in terms of whether it's free software for <em>you</"
+"em>? The reason is that sometimes the same program can be free software for "
+"some people, and non-free for others. Now, that might seem like a "
+"paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example to show you how it "
+"happens. A very big example — maybe the biggest ever — of this "
+"problem was the X Window System which was developed at MIT and released "
+"under a license that made it free software. If you got the MIT version with "
+"the MIT license, you had Freedoms One, Two, and Three. It was free software "
+"for you. But among those who got copies were various computer manufacturers "
+"that distributed Unix systems, and they made the necessary changes in X to "
+"run on their systems. You know, probably just a few thousand lines out of "
+"the hundreds of thousands of lines of X. And, then they compiled it, and "
+"they put the binaries into their Unix system and distributed it under the "
+"same non-disclosure agreement as the rest of the Unix system. And then, "
+"millions of people got these copies. They had the X Window System, but they "
+"had none of these freedoms. It was not free software for <em>them</em>."
+msgstr ""
+"Dlaczego wiÄc definiuje to pod kÄ
tem tego, czy jest wolnym "
+"oprogramowaniem <em>dla was</em>? Dlatego, że czasami ten sam program "
+"może byÄ wolnym oprogramowaniem dla niektórych ludzi, a niewolnym dla
"
+"innych. Może to wyglÄ
daÄ na paradoks, wiÄc pozwólcie mi podaÄ
"
+"przykÅad, który pokaże wam, na czym to polega. Bardzo dużym "
+"przykÅadem – może najwiÄkszym w historii – tego
"
+"problemu byÅ system okien X opracowany na MIT i wydany na "
+"licencji, która czyniÅa go wolnym oprogramowaniem. JeÅli mieliÅcie
wersjÄ "
+"MIT wydanÄ
na licencji MIT, to mieliÅcie WolnoÅci 1, 2 i 3.
ByÅo "
+"to dla was wolne oprogramowanie. Ale poÅród tych, którzy otrzymali "
+"kopie, znajdowali siÄ różni producenci komputerów, którzy dostarczali "
+"systemy uniksowe i dokonywali oni zmian koniecznych do tego, "
+"aby X dziaÅaÅ na ich systemach. JakieÅ parÄ tysiÄcy linii
spoÅród "
+"setek tysiÄcy skÅadajÄ
cych siÄ na X. Potem to kompilowali,
dokÅadali "
+"binaria do swojego systemu Unix i rozprowadzali pod takÄ
samÄ
"
+"restrykcyjnÄ
licencjÄ
jak resztÄ systemu. Potem takie kopie dostaÅo
miliony "
+"ludzi. Mieli system okien X, ale nie mieli żadnej z tych
wolnoÅci. "
+"<em>Dla nich</em> to nie byÅo wolne oprogramowanie."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, the paradox was that whether X was free software depended on where you "
+"made the measurement. If you made the measurement coming out of the "
+"developers' group, you'd say, “I observe all these freedoms. It's "
+"free software.” If you made the measurements among the users you'd "
+"say, “Hmm, most users don't have these freedoms. It's not free "
+"software.” Well, the people who developed X didn't consider this a "
+"problem, because their goal was just popularity, ego, essentially. They "
+"wanted a big professional success. They wanted to feel, “Ah, lots of "
+"people are using our software.” And that was true. Lots of people "
+"were using their software but didn't have freedom."
+msgstr ""
+"Tak wiÄc paradoks polegaÅ na tym, że to czy X byÅo "
+"wolnym oprogramowaniem zależaÅo od punktu widzenia. JeÅli ktoÅ
patrzyÅ "
+"z punktu widzenia grupy programistów, to powiedziaÅby: „"
+"RespektujÄ wszystkie te wolnoÅci. To wolne oprogramowanie„. JeÅli "
+"patrzyÅ z punktu widzenia użytkowników, powiedziaÅby: „Hmm, "
+"wiÄkszoÅÄ użytkowników nie ma tych wolnoÅci. To nie jest wolne "
+"oprogramowanie”. Cóż, programiÅci X nie uważali tego
za problem, "
+"bo ich celem w gruncie rzeczy byÅa popularnoÅÄ, zaspokojenie "
+"swojego ego. Chcieli osiÄ
gnÄ
Ä duży sukces w branży. Chcieli mieÄ "
+"poczucie, że: „Taaak, mnóstwo ludzi korzysta z naszego "
+"oprogramowania”. I byÅa to prawda. Mnóstwo ludzi korzystaÅo "
+"z ich oprogramowania, ale nie miaÅo wolnoÅci."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Well, in the GNU project, if that same thing had happened to GNU software, "
+"it would have been a failure, because our goal wasn't just to be popular; "
+"our goal was to give people liberty, and to encourage cooperation, to permit "
+"people to cooperate. Remember, never force anyone to cooperate with any "
+"other person, but make sure that everybody's allowed to cooperate, everyone "
+"has the freedom to do so, if he or she wishes. If millions of people were "
+"running non-free versions of GNU, that wouldn't be success at all. The whole "
+"thing would have been perverted into nothing like the goal."
+msgstr ""
+"W przypadku projektu GNU, jeÅli to samo przydarzyÅoby siÄ "
+"oprogramowaniu GNU, to byÅaby to porażka, bo naszym celem nie byÅo "
+"wyÅÄ
cznie zdobycie popularnoÅci; naszym celem byÅo przekazanie ludziom "
+"wolnoÅci i zachÄcanie ich do wspóÅdziaÅania, pozwolenie im
na "
+"wspóÅdziaÅanie. PamiÄtajcie, nigdy nie zmuszajcie nikogo
do wspóÅpracy "
+"z kimÅ innym, ale zadbajcie o to, aby wszyscy mogli ze sobÄ
"
+"wspólnie dziaÅaÄ, żeby każdy miaÅ do tego wolnoÅÄ, jeÅli tylko
tego "
+"chce. JeÅli miliony ludzi korzystaÅoby z niewolnych wersji GNU, to "
+"wcale nie byÅby sukces. CaÅy projekt zostaÅby przewrotnie przeksztaÅcony "
+"w coÅ zupeÅnie odmiennego od pierwotnego celu."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening. The method I came up "
+"with is called “copyleft”. It's called copyleft because it's "
+"sort of like taking copyright and flipping it over. <i>[Laughter]</i> "
+"Legally, copyleft works based on copyright. We use the existing copyright "
+"law, but we use it to achieve a very different goal. Here's what we do. We "
+"say, “This program is copyrighted.” And, of course, by default, "
+"that means it's prohibited to copy it, or distribute it, or modify it. But "
+"then we say, “You're authorized to distribute copies of this. You're "
+"authorized to modify it. You're authorized to distribute modified versions "
+"and extended versions. Change it any way you like.”"
+msgstr ""
+"WiÄc szukaÅem sposobu, aby temu zapobiec. Metoda, którÄ
"
+"wymyÅliÅem, nazywa siÄ „copyleft”. Nazywa siÄ „"
+"copyleft”, bo to tak jakby wziÄ
Ä prawo autorskie [<em>ang. "
+"copyright</em>] i wywróciÄ je na drugÄ
stronÄ. <i>[Åmiech]</i>
"
+"Z prawnego punktu widzenia copyleft dziaÅa w oparciu o prawo "
+"autorskie. Wykorzystujemy istniejÄ
ce prawo autorskie, ale do "
+"osiÄ
gniÄcia zupeÅnie odmiennego celu. Oto co robimy. Mówimy: „Ten "
+"program jest objÄty prawem autorskim”. OczywiÅcie domyÅlnie oznacza "
+"to, że nie wolno go kopiowaÄ, rozpowszechniaÄ, ani modyfikowaÄ.
"
+"Ale potem mówimy: „Wolno wam rozpowszechniaÄ jego kopie. Wolno "
+"wam go modyfikowaÄ. Wolno wam rozpowszechniaÄ wersje zmodyfikowane i "
+"poszerzone. ZmieniaÄ go jak tylko siÄ wam podoba”."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But there is a condition. And the condition, of course, is the reason why "
+"we go to all this trouble, so that we could put the condition in. The "
+"condition says: Whenever you distribute anything that contains any piece of "
+"this program, that whole program must be distributed under these same terms, "
+"no more and no less. So you can change the program and distribute a "
+"modified version, but when you do, the people who get that from you must get "
+"the same freedom that you got from us. And not just for the parts of it "
+"— the excerpts that you copied from our program — but also for "
+"the other parts of that program that they got from you. The whole of that "
+"program has to be free software for them."
+msgstr ""
+"Jest jednak pewien warunek. I jest on, oczywiÅcie, powodem, dla "
+"którego to wszystko robimy, aby móc go tam wstawiÄ. Warunek mówi: "
+"rozpowszechniajÄ
c kiedykolwiek coÅ zawierajÄ
cego jakikolwiek kawaÅek tego
"
+"programu, musicie rozpowszechniaÄ caÅoÅÄ na tych samych zasadach, "
+"ni mniej, ni wiÄcej. Możecie wiÄc zmieniÄ program i "
+"rozpowszechniaÄ jego zmodyfikowanÄ
wersjÄ, ale gdy to robicie, ludzie
"
+"otrzymujÄ
cy od was program muszÄ
dostaÄ takÄ
samÄ
wolnoÅÄ, jakÄ
wy "
+"dostaliÅcie od nas. I nie tylko wobec czÄÅci
programu – "
+"tych, które skopiowaliÅcie od nas – ale także wobec "
+"reszty, którÄ
od was dostali. CaÅoÅÄ programu musi byÄ dla nich
wolnym "
+"oprogramowaniem."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become inalienable "
+"rights — a concept from the Declaration of Independence. Rights that "
+"we make sure can't be taken away from you. And, of course, the specific "
+"license that embodies the idea of copyleft is the GNU General Public "
+"License, a controversial license because it actually has the strength to say "
+"no to people who would be parasites on our community."
+msgstr ""
+"WolnoÅci do modyfikowania i rozpowszechniania tego programu stajÄ
"
+"siÄ niezbywalnymi prawami – co jest koncepcjÄ
z Deklaracji "
+"NiepodlegÅoÅci. Prawami, wobec których dbamy o to, aby nikt ich wam
nie "
+"odebraÅ. OczywiÅcie, konkretna licencja, która realizuje ideÄ copyleft to
"
+"GNU GPL, kontrowersyjna licencja, ponieważ rzeczywiÅcie posiada
siÅÄ, "
+"aby powiedzieÄ „nie” ludziom, którzy byliby pasożytami "
+"żerujÄ
cymi na naszej spoÅecznoÅci."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of freedom. And "
+"they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done, and use it to get a "
+"head start in distributing a non-free program and tempting people to give up "
+"their freedom. And the result would be — you know, if we let people "
+"do that — that we would be developing these free programs, and we'd "
+"constantly have to compete with improved versions of our own programs. "
+"That's no fun."
+msgstr ""
+"Jest mnóstwo ludzi, którzy nie doceniajÄ
ideaÅów wolnoÅci. ChÄtnie
wziÄliby "
+"rezultaty naszej pracy i wykorzystali je do uzyskania przewagi "
+"w rozpowszechnianiu niewolnego oprogramowania oraz zachÄcaniu "
+"ludzi do wyzbycia siÄ wÅasnej wolnoÅci. A rezultatem
byÅoby "
+"– no wiecie, jeÅli na to ludziom pozwolimy – że "
+"rozwijalibyÅmy te wolne programy i caÅy czas musielibyÅmy konkurowaÄ
"
+"z ulepszonymi wersjami naszego wÅasnego oprogramowania. A to nie "
+"jest fajne."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And, a lot of people also feel — you know, I'm willing to volunteer my "
+"time to contribute to the community, but why should I volunteer my time to "
+"contribute to that company's, to improving that company's, proprietary "
+"program? You know, some people might not even think that that's evil, but "
+"they want to get paid if they're going to do that. I, personally, would "
+"rather not do it at all."
+msgstr ""
+"I mnóstwo ludzi również ma poczucie – no wiecie, chcÄ "
+"bez przymusu poÅwiÄciÄ mój czas, aby wnieÅÄ wkÅad do "
+"spoÅecznoÅci, ale dlaczego miaÅbym go poÅwiÄcaÄ, aby wnieÅÄ
wkÅad "
+"na rzecz tamtej firmy, na rzecz ulepszania jej objÄtego "
+"restrykcyjnÄ
licencjÄ
programu? Wiecie, niektórzy mogÄ
nawet sÄ
dziÄ,
że "
+"to nic zÅego, ale chcÄ
, żeby im za to zapÅacono. OsobiÅcie "
+"wolaÅbym wcale tego nie robiÄ."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But both of these groups of people — both the ones like me who say, "
+"“I don't want to help that non-free program to get a foothold in our "
+"community” and the ones that say, “Sure, I'd work for them, but "
+"then they better pay me” — both of us have a good reason to use "
+"the GNU General Public License. Because that says to that company, “"
+"You can't just take my work, and distribute it without the freedom.” "
+"Whereas, the non-copyleft licenses, like the X Windows license, do permit "
+"that."
+msgstr ""
+"Jednak obie te grupy – zarówno tacy jak ja, którzy mówiÄ
:
"
+"„Nie chcÄ pomagaÄ temu objÄtemu restrykcyjnÄ
licencjÄ
programowi "
+"rozpowszechniÄ siÄ w spoÅeczeÅstwie” oraz ci, którzy
mówiÄ
: "
+"„Pewnie, mogÄ dla nich pracowaÄ, ale lepiej żeby mi "
+"zapÅacili” – obie grupy majÄ
dobry powód, aby "
+"korzystaÄ z GNU GPL. Bo mówi ona firmie: „Nie możecie "
+"po prostu wziÄ
Ä sobie wyników mojej pracy i rozpowszechniaÄ ich
"
+"bez wolnoÅci”. Tymczasem licencje niezawierajÄ
ce copyleft, takie
"
+"jak licencja systemu X, umożliwiajÄ
to."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So that is the big division between the two categories of free software "
+"— license-wise. There are the programs that are copylefted so that "
+"the license defends the freedom of the software for every user. And there "
+"are the non-copylefted programs for which non-free versions are allowed. "
+"Somebody <em>can</em> take those programs and strip off the freedom. You "
+"may get that program in a non-free version."
+msgstr ""
+"WiÄc to jest wielka różnica pomiÄdzy dwoma kategoriami wolnego "
+"oprogramowania â pod wzglÄdem licencji. SÄ
programy objÄte przez "
+"copyleft, w przypadku których licencja chroni wolnoÅci oprogramowania "
+"dla każdego użytkownika. I sÄ
programy nie objÄte przez copyleft, "
+"w przypadku których dozwolone sÄ
wersje niewolne. KtoŠ<em>może</em>
"
+"wziÄ
Ä te programy i odrzeÄ je z wolnoÅci. Możecie dostaÄ taki
"
+"program w wersji niewolnej."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And that problem exists today. There are still non-free versions of X "
+"Windows being used on our free operating systems. There is even hardware "
+"— which is not really supported — except by a non-free version "
+"of X Windows. And that's a major problem in our community. Nonetheless, I "
+"wouldn't say that X Windows is a bad thing, you know. I'd say that the "
+"developers did not do the best possible thing that they could have done. "
+"But they <em>did</em> release a lot of software that we could all use."
+msgstr ""
+"A ten problem obecnie istnieje. Nadal istniejÄ
niewolne wersje systemu "
+"X wykorzystywane w naszych wolnych systemach operacyjnych. Jest nawet "
+"sprzÄt, który nie jest tak naprawdÄ obsÅugiwany za wyjÄ
tkiem
niewolnych "
+"wersji X. To dla naszej spoÅecznoÅci ogromny problem. Tak czy inaczej "
+"nie powiedziaÅbym, że system X to coÅ zÅego. PowiedziaÅbym,
że "
+"jego autorzy nie zrobili najlepszej z możliwych rzeczy. Ale "
+"<em>wydali</em> wiele programów, które wszyscy mogliÅmy wykorzystaÄ."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"You know, there's a big difference between less than perfect, and evil. "
+"There are many gradations of good and bad. We have to resist the temptation "
+"to say, if you didn't do the absolute best possible thing, then you're no "
+"good. You know, the people that developed X Windows made a big contribution "
+"to our community. But there's something better that they could have done. "
+"They could have copylefted parts of the program and prevented those freedom-"
+"denying versions from being distributed by others."
+msgstr ""
+"Wiecie, jest duża różnica pomiÄdzy niedoskonaÅoÅciÄ
i zÅem. Jest
wiele "
+"odcieni dobrego i zÅego. Musimy oprzeÄ siÄ pokusie mówienia,
że "
+"jeÅli nie zrobiÅeÅ absolutnie najlepszej z możliwych rzeczy, to nie "
+"zrobiÅeÅ niczego dobrego. No wiecie, autorzy systemu X wnieÅli duży
wkÅad "
+"do naszej spoÅecznoÅci. Ale mogli zrobiÄ coÅ lepszego. Mogli
objÄ
Ä "
+"czÄÅci programu licencjÄ
typu copyleft i zapobiec rozpowszechnianiu "
+"przez innych wersji odrzucajÄ
cych wolnoÅÄ."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, the fact that the GNU General Public License defends your freedom, uses "
+"copyright law to defend your freedom, is, of course, why Microsoft is "
+"attacking it today. See, Microsoft would really like to be able to take all "
+"the code that we wrote and put it into proprietary programs, have somebody "
+"make some improvements, or even just incompatible changes is all they need. "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Fakt, że GNU GPL broni waszej wolnoÅci, używa prawa autorskiego,
żeby "
+"jej broniÄ, to oczywiÅcie powód, dla którego Microsoft jÄ
obecnie
atakuje. "
+"Bo Microsoft naprawdÄ chciaÅby móc wziÄ
Ä caÅy kod, który
napisaliÅmy "
+"i wsadziÄ go do objÄtych restrykcyjnymi licencjami programów, "
+"zleciÄ komuÅ wykonanie paru ulepszeÅ, albo nawet niezgodnych
zmian "
+"– to wszystko, czego potrzebujÄ
. <i>[Åmiech]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"You know, with Microsoft's marketing clout, they don't need to make it "
+"better to have their version supplant ours. They just have to make it "
+"different and incompatible. And then, put it on everybody's desktop. So "
+"they really don't like the GNU GPL. Because the GNU GPL won't let them do "
+"that. It doesn't allow “embrace and extend”. It says, if you "
+"want to share our code in your programs, you can. But, you've got to share "
+"and share alike. The changes that you make we have to be allowed to share. "
+"So, it's a two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation."
+msgstr ""
+"DziÄki przewadze marketingowej Microsoft nie musi tych programów ulepszaÄ,
"
+"żeby ich wersje wyparÅy nasze. MuszÄ
tylko sprawiÄ, aby byÅy inne "
+"i niezgodne. A potem wrzuciÄ to wszystkim na komputery. Tak "
+"wiÄc oni naprawdÄ nie lubiÄ
GNU GPL. Bo GNU GPL nie pozwala im "
+"tego zrobiÄ. Nie pozwala na „przyjÄcie
i rozszerzenie” "
+"[<em>ang. „embrace, extend (and extinguish)” – "
+"taktyka Microsoftu</em>]. Mówi ona, że jeÅli chcecie wykorzystaÄ
w "
+"swoich programach nasz kod, to możecie to zrobiÄ. Ale musicie siÄ "
+"również dzieliÄ, dzieliÄ w taki sam sposób. Musicie pozwoliÄ nam "
+"na dzielenie siÄ zmianami, które wprowadzicie. Jest to wiÄc "
+"dwukierunkowa wspóÅpraca, czyli prawdziwa wspóÅpraca."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Many companies — even big companies like IBM and HP are willing to use "
+"our software on this basis. IBM and HP contribute substantial improvements "
+"to GNU software. And they develop other free software. But, Microsoft "
+"doesn't want to do that, so they give it out that businesses just can't deal "
+"with the GPL. Well, if businesses don't include IBM, and HP and SUN, then "
+"maybe they're right. <i>[Laughter]</i> More about that later."
+msgstr ""
+"Wiele firm – nawet dużych, takich jak IBM i HP, jest "
+"skÅonnych korzystaÄ z naszych programów na tych zasadach. IBM "
+"i HP wnoszÄ
do oprogramowania GNU ważne ulepszenia. I tworzÄ
"
+"inne wolne oprogramowanie. Jednak Microsoft nie chce tego robiÄ, "
+"wiÄc ogÅasza, że dla firm GPL jest po prostu nie do "
+"przyjÄcia. No tak, jeÅli do firm nie zaliczaÅyby siÄ IBM, HP i "
+"Sun, to może mieliby racjÄ. <i>[Åmiech]</i> WiÄcej na ten temat
później."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"I should finish the historical story. You see, we set out in 1984 not just "
+"to write some free software but to do something much more coherent: to "
+"develop an operating system that was entirely free software. So that meant "
+"we had to write piece after piece after piece. Of course, we were always "
+"looking for shortcuts. The job was so big that people said we'd never be "
+"able to finish. And, I thought that there was at least a chance that we'd "
+"finish it but, obviously, it's worth looking for shortcuts. So we kept "
+"looking around. Is there any program that somebody else has written that we "
+"could manage to adapt, to plug into here, and that way we won't have to "
+"write it from scratch? For instance, the X Window system. It's true it "
+"wasn't copylefted, but it was free software, so we could use it."
+msgstr ""
+"Powinienem dokoÅczyÄ opowieÅÄ historycznÄ
. W 1984 zaczynaliÅmy "
+"dziaÅalnoÅÄ nie tylko po to, aby napisaÄ trochÄ wolnego "
+"oprogramowania, ale żeby zrobiÄ coÅ dużo bardziej spójnego:
stworzyÄ "
+"skÅadajÄ
cy siÄ wyÅÄ
cznie z wolnego oprogramowania system
operacyjny. "
+"OznaczaÅo to, że musieliÅmy pisaÄ kawaÅek za kawaÅkiem.
OczywiÅcie "
+"zawsze szukaliÅmy dróg na skróty. Praca do wykonania byÅa tak "
+"wielka, że ludzie twierdzili, iż nigdy nam siÄ nie uda jej
skoÅczyÄ. Ja "
+"uważaÅem, że istnieje co najmniej maÅa szansa, że uda nam siÄ
"
+"doprowadziÄ to do koÅca, ale oczywiÅcie warto jest szukaÄ dróg
"
+"na skróty. WiÄc ciÄ
gle rozglÄ
daliÅmy siÄ dookoÅa.
Czy jest "
+"jakiÅ program, który napisaÅ ktoÅ inny i który dalibyÅmy radÄ "
+"dostosowaÄ, wetknÄ
Ä tutaj, aby nie trzeba byÅo pisaÄ go
od nowa? "
+"Na przykÅad system okien X. To prawda, że nie byÅ objÄty przez "
+"copyleft, ale byÅ wolnym oprogramowaniem, wiÄc mogliÅmy go "
+"wykorzystaÄ."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, I had wanted to put a window system into GNU from day one. I wrote a "
+"couple of window systems at MIT before I started GNU. And so, even though "
+"Unix had no window system in 1984, I decided that GNU would have one. But, "
+"we never ended up writing a GNU window system, because X came along. And I "
+"said, Goody! One big job we don't have to do. We'll use X. So I basically "
+"said, let's take X, and put it into the GNU system. And we'll make the "
+"other parts of GNU, you know, work with X, when appropriate. And we found "
+"other pieces of software that had been written by other people, like the "
+"text formatter TeX, some library code from Berkeley. At that time there was "
+"Berkeley Unix, but it was not free software. This library code, initially, "
+"was from a different group at Berkeley, that did research on floating "
+"point. And, so, we kept, we fit in these pieces."
+msgstr ""
+"Od samego poczÄ
tku chciaÅem wÅÄ
czyÄ do GNU system okien.
NapisaÅem "
+"kilka takich systemów na MIT zanim zaczÄ
Åem pracowaÄ nad GNU. "
+"WiÄc pomimo tego, że w 1984 Unix nie miaÅ systemu okien, "
+"zdecydowaÅem, że GNU bÄdzie go miaÅo. Ale nigdy nie
napisaliÅmy "
+"systemu okien GNU, bo pojawiÅ siÄ X. A ja powiedziaÅem: „"
+"Super! Jedno wielkie zadanie, którego nie musimy wykonywaÄ. Skorzystamy "
+"z X”. WiÄc w zasadzie powiedziaÅem: „Weźmy X i "
+"doÅÄ
czmy go do systemu GNU. A potem dopasujemy inne czÄÅci GNU,
"
+"żeby z nim wspóÅpracowaÅy, gdy bÄdzie potrzeba”.
ZnaleźliÅmy "
+"również inne oprogramowanie napisane przez innych ludzi, takie jak program "
+"do skÅadu tekstu TeX i trochÄ bibliotek z Berkeley. IstniaÅ
"
+"wtedy Berkeley Unix, ale nie byÅ wolnym oprogramowaniem. Kod bibliotek "
+"pochodziÅ na poczÄ
tku od innej grupy z Berkeley, zajmujÄ
cej
"
+"siÄ badaniami nad obliczeniami zmiennoprzecinkowymi. WiÄc "
+"wziÄliÅmy te kawaÅki i dopasowaliÅmy do naszego systemu."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"In October 1985, we founded the Free Software Foundation. So please note, "
+"the GNU project came first. The Free Software Foundation came after, about "
+"almost two years after the announcement of the Project. And the Free "
+"Software Foundation is a tax-exempt charity that raises funds to promote the "
+"freedom to share and change software. And in the 1980's, one of the main "
+"things we did with our funds was to hire people to write parts of GNU. And "
+"essential programs, such as the shell and the C library were written this "
+"way, as well as parts of other programs. The <code>tar</code> program, "
+"which is absolutely essential, although not exciting at all <i>[Laughter]</"
+"i> was written this way. I believe GNU grep was written this way. And so, "
+"we're approaching our goal."
+msgstr ""
+"W październiku 1985 zaÅożyliÅmy Free Software Foundation. ZwróÄcie
"
+"proszÄ uwagÄ, że projekt GNU byÅ pierwszy. FSF powstaÅa potem,
niemal "
+"dwa lata po ogÅoszeniu Projektu. A FSF to wyÅÄ
czona z "
+"obowiÄ
zku pÅacenia podatków organizacja charytatywna, która zbiera
fundusze "
+"na promowanie wolnoÅci dzielenia siÄ oprogramowaniem i jego "
+"modyfikowania. Natomiast w latach 80. jednÄ
z gÅównych rzeczy, "
+"na które przeznaczaliÅmy pieniÄ
dze, byÅo zatrudnianie ludzi,
aby "
+"pisali kawaÅki GNU. W ten sposób zostaÅy napisane najważniejsze "
+"programy, takie jak powÅoka i biblioteka C, podobnie jak czÄÅci
innych "
+"programów. W ten sposób zostaŠnapisany program tar, który jest
bardzo "
+"ważny, chociaż niezbyt fascynujÄ
cy <i>[Åmiech]</i>. Wydaje mi siÄ,
że w "
+"ten sposób zostaÅ napisany GNU grep. I tak zbliżaliÅmy siÄ do "
+"naszego celu."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"By 1991, there was just one major piece missing, and that was the kernel. "
+"Now, why did I put off the kernel? Probably because it doesn't really matter "
+"what order you do the things in, at least technically it doesn't. You've "
+"got to do them all anyway. And partly because I'd hoped we'd be able to "
+"find a start at a kernel somewhere else. And we did. We found Mach, which "
+"had been developed at Carnegie Mellon. And it wasn't the whole kernel; it "
+"was the bottom half of the kernel. So we had to write the top half, but I "
+"figured, you know, things like the file system, the network code, and so "
+"on. But running on top of Mach they're running essentially as user "
+"programs, which ought to make them easier to debug. You can debug with a "
+"real source-level debugger running at the same time. And so, I thought that "
+"way we'd be able to get these, the higher level parts of the kernel, done in "
+"a short time. It didn't work out that way. These asynchronous, multi-"
+"threaded processes, sending messages to each other turned out to be very "
+"hard to debug. And the Mach-based system that we were using to bootstrap "
+"with had a terrible debugging environment, and it was unreliable, and "
+"various problems. It took us years and years to get the GNU kernel to work."
+msgstr ""
+"Do roku 1991 brakowaÅo tylko jednej ważnej czÄÅci, a byÅo to "
+"jÄ
dro. Dlaczego odkÅadaÅem w czasie pisanie jÄ
dra? CzÄÅciowo
dlatego, "
+"że kolejnoÅÄ pisania poszczególnych rzeczy nie gra roli,
przynajmniej "
+"pod wzglÄdem technicznym. I tak trzeba napisaÄ je wszystkie. "
+"CzÄÅciowo również dlatego, że miaÅem nadziejÄ, iż znajdziemy
rozpoczÄte "
+"jÄ
dro gdzieÅ indziej. I tak siÄ staÅo. ZnaleźliÅmy Mach, które
byÅo "
+"rozwijane na uniwersytecie Carnegie Mellon. I nie byÅo to caÅe "
+"jÄ
dro; byÅa to dolna poÅowa jÄ
dra. MusieliÅmy wiÄc napisaÄ górnÄ
"
+"poÅowÄ, ale myÅlaÅem, no wiecie, rzeczy takie jak system plików,
kod "
+"sieciowy, i tak dalej. Jednak dziaÅajÄ
c na Machu dziaÅajÄ
one "
+"w zasadzie jako programy poziomu użytkownika, co powinno uczyniÄ je "
+"Åatwiejszymi do debugowania. Można je debugowaÄ dziaÅajÄ
cym
w tym "
+"samym czasie prawdziwym debuggerem poziomu źródÅowego. MyÅlaÅem wiÄc, "
+"że w ten sposób uda nam siÄ napisaÄ te wyższe partie jÄ
dra w "
+"krótkim czasie. Nie udaÅo siÄ. Te asynchroniczne, wielowÄ
tkowe procesy, "
+"wysyÅajÄ
ce do siebie komunikaty, okazaÅy siÄ byÄ bardzo trudne
do "
+"debugowania. A system oparty na Machu, którego używaliÅmy
do "
+"ich Åadowania, miaÅ koszmarne narzÄdzia do debugowania i byÅ "
+"zawodny, do tego byÅo z nim wiele innych problemów. Doprowadzenie
"
+"jÄ
dra GNU do dziaÅania zajÄÅo nam dÅugie lata."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, fortunately, our community did not have to wait for the GNU kernel. "
+"Because in 1991, Linus Torvalds developed another free kernel called Linux. "
+"And he used the old-fashioned monolithic design and it turns out that he got "
+"his working much faster than we got ours working. So maybe that's one of "
+"the mistakes that I made: that design decision. Anyway, at first, we didn't "
+"know about Linux, because he never contacted us to talk about it. Although "
+"he did know about the GNU Project. But he announced it to other people and "
+"other places on the net. And so other people then did the work of combining "
+"Linux with the rest of the GNU system to make a complete free operating "
+"system. Essentially, to make the GNU plus Linux combination."
+msgstr ""
+"Na szczÄÅcie jednak nasza spoÅecznoÅÄ nie musiaÅa czekaÄ
na "
+"jÄ
dro GNU. Ponieważ w 1991 Linus Torvalds stworzyÅ inne wolne jÄ
dro "
+"nazwane Linux. WykorzystaÅ on starodawny, monolityczny projekt i "
+"okazaÅo siÄ, że jego jÄ
dro zaczÄÅo dziaÅaÄ znacznie szybciej
niż nasze. "
+"WiÄc może to jest jeden z bÅÄdów, które popeÅniÅem: decyzja
"
+"projektowa. Tak czy inaczej na poczÄ
tku nie wiedzieliÅmy nic o "
+"Linuksie, bo nigdy siÄ z nami nie skontaktowaÅ, aby o nim "
+"porozmawiaÄ. Chociaż wiedziaÅ o Projekcie GNU. Jednak ogÅosiÅ "
+"informacjÄ o nim innym ludziom w innych miejscach sieci. I wtedy "
+"inni ludzie wykonali robotÄ ÅÄ
czenia Linuksa z resztÄ
systemu GNU "
+"w celu stworzenia kompletnego wolnego systemu operacyjnego. W swej "
+"istocie kombinacji GNU i Linuksa."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, they didn't realize that's what they were doing. You see, they said, "
+"We have a kernel — let's look around and see what other pieces we can "
+"find to put together with the kernel. So, they looked around — and lo "
+"and behold, everything they needed was already available. What good "
+"fortune, they said. <i>[Laughter]</i> It's all here. We can find "
+"everything we need. Let's just take all these different things and put it "
+"together, and have a system."
+msgstr ""
+"Jednak nie zdawali sobie sprawy, że wÅaÅnie to robili. Wiecie,
oni "
+"mówili: „Mamy jÄ
dro – popatrzmy dookoÅa i zobaczmy. "
+"jakie inne kawaÅki da siÄ znaleÅºÄ i do niego doÅÄ
czyÄ”.
WiÄc "
+"patrzyli dookoÅa – i oto okazaÅo siÄ, że wszystko, "
+"czego potrzebowali, jest już dostÄpne. „Co
za szczÄÅcie”, "
+"powiedzieli. <i>[Åmiech]</i> „Wszystko już gotowe. Da siÄ znaleÅºÄ "
+"wszystko, czego potrzebujemy. Weźmy po prostu wszystkie te
poszczególne "
+"czÄÅci, zÅóżmy do kupy i bÄdziemy mieli system”."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"They didn't know that most of what they found was pieces of the GNU system. "
+"So they didn't realize that they were fitting Linux into the gap in the GNU "
+"system. They thought they were taking Linux and making a system out of "
+"Linux. So they called it a Linux system."
+msgstr ""
+"Nie wiedzieli, że wiÄkszoÅÄ rzeczy, które znaleźli byÅo
kawaÅkami "
+"systemu GNU. Nie zdawali sobie wiÄc sprawy, że dopasowywali "
+"Linuksa do luki w systemie GNU. MyÅleli, że biorÄ
Linuksa "
+"i robiÄ
z niego system. WiÄc nazwali go systemem Linux."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can't hear you — what?"
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Nie sÅyszÄ – co?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, it's just not — you know, it's "
+"provincial."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Cóż, to po prostu nie – no
wiesz, "
+"to margines."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: But it's more good fortune then finding X and "
+"Mach?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Ale to wiÄcej szczÄÅcia niż znalezienie X "
+"i Macha?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. The difference is that the people who "
+"developed X and Mach didn't have the goal of making a complete free "
+"operating system. We're the only ones who had that. And, it was our "
+"tremendous work that made the system exist. We actually did a larger part "
+"of the system than any other project. No coincidence, because those people "
+"— they wrote useful parts of the system. But they didn't do it "
+"because they wanted the system to be finished. They had other reasons."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Racja. Różnica polega na tym, że "
+"autorzy X i Macha nie mieli na celu stworzenia kompletnego wolnego "
+"systemu operacyjnego. Tylko my mieliÅmy taki cel. I to nasza ogromna "
+"praca sprawiÅa, że system istnieje. W rzeczywistoÅci
stworzyliÅmy "
+"wiÄkszÄ
czÄÅÄ systemu niż jakikolwiek inny projekt. Nieprzypadkowo,
bo "
+"ci ludzie – napisali użyteczne czÄÅci systemu. Ale nie "
+"zrobili tego, bo chcieli, żeby system zostaÅ ukoÅczony. Mieli inne "
+"powody."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now the people who developed X — they thought that designing across "
+"the network window system would be a good project, and it was. And it "
+"turned out to help us make a good free operating system. But that's not "
+"what they hoped for. They didn't even think about that. It was an "
+"accident. An accidental benefit. Now, I'm not saying that what they did "
+"was bad. They did a large free software project. That's a good thing to "
+"do. But they didn't have that ultimate vision. The GNU Project is where "
+"that vision was."
+msgstr ""
+"Autorzy systemu X – wydawaÅo im siÄ, że stworzenie "
+"sieciowego systemu okien byÅoby niezÅym projektem, i byÅo nim.
I "
+"okazaÅo siÄ, że pomogÅo to nam zrobiÄ dobry wolny system
operacyjny. "
+"Ale oni nie tego chcieli. Nawet o tym nie myÅleli. To byÅ przypadek. "
+"Przypadkowa korzyÅÄ. OczywiÅcie nie twierdzÄ, że to, co zrobili,
byÅo "
+"zÅe. Przeprowadzili duży projekt zwiÄ
zany z wolnym oprogramowaniem.
To "
+"dobra rzecz. Ale nie posiadali tej ostatecznej wizji. Wizja byÅa
w "
+"projekcie GNU."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And, so, we were the ones whose — every little piece that didn't get "
+"done by somebody else, we did it. Because we knew that we wouldn't have a "
+"complete system without it. And even if it was totally boring and "
+"unromantic, like <code>tar</code> or <code>mv</code>. <i>[Laughter]</i> We "
+"did it. Or ld, you know there's nothing very exciting in <code>ld</code> "
+"— but I wrote one. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I did make efforts to have "
+"it do a minimal amount of disk I/O so that it would be faster and handle "
+"bigger programs. But, you know, I like to do a good job. I like to improve "
+"various things about the program while I'm doing it. But the reason that I "
+"did it wasn't that I had brilliant ideas for a better <code>ld</code>. The "
+"reason I did it is that we needed one that was free. And we couldn't expect "
+"anyone else to do it. So, we had to do it, or find someone to do it."
+msgstr ""
+"WiÄc to my jesteÅmy tymi, którzy – każdy najmniejszy "
+"kawaÅek, którego nie zrobiÅ nikt inny, zrobiliÅmy my.
Bo wiedzieliÅmy, "
+"że bez tego nie bÄdziemy mieli kompletnego systemu. Nawet jeÅli byÅo
to "
+"zupeÅnie nudne i nieromantyczne, jak <code>tar</code> lub "
+"<code>mv</code>. <i>[Åmiech]</i> ZrobiliÅmy to. Lub ld, wiecie, nie ma
"
+"nic ekscytujÄ
cego w <code>ld</code> – ale ja taki "
+"napisaÅem. <i>[Åmiech]</i> I wÅożyÅem dużo wysiÅku w to,
żeby "
+"w minimalnym stopniu korzystaÅ z operacji we/wy na dysku, tak
"
+"aby byÅ szybszy i radziÅ sobie z wiÄkszymi programami. "
+"Ale wiecie, lubiÄ dobrze wykonaÄ swojÄ
pracÄ. LubiÄ w jej
trakcie "
+"ulepszaÄ w programie różne rzeczy. Ale nie napisaÅem go
dlatego, "
+"że miaÅem doskonaÅe pomysÅy na lepszy <code>ld</code>.
NapisaÅem "
+"go, bo potrzebowaliÅmy jego wolnej wersji. I nie mogliÅmy "
+"oczekiwaÄ, że ktoÅ inny to zrobi. WiÄc my musieliÅmy to
zrobiÄ, "
+"albo znaleÅºÄ kogoÅ, żeby to zrobiÅ dla nas."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, although at this point thousands of people in projects have contributed "
+"to this system, there is one project which is the reason that this system "
+"exists, and that's the GNU Project. It <em>is</em> basically the GNU "
+"System, with other things added since then."
+msgstr ""
+"WiÄc pomimo tego, że do dzisiaj tysiÄ
ce ludzi z różnych "
+"projektów wniosÅo wkÅad w ten system, to istnieje jeden projekt,
dziÄki "
+"któremu system istnieje, a jest to Projekt GNU. On w zasadzie "
+"<em>jest</em> Systemem GNU, z innymi rzeczami dodanymi od tamtej "
+"pory."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, however, the practice of calling the system Linux has been a great blow "
+"to the GNU Project, because we don't normally get credit for what we've "
+"done. I think Linux, the kernel, is a very useful piece of free software, "
+"and I have only good things to say about it. But, well, actually, I can "
+"find a few bad things to say about it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, basically, I "
+"have good things to say about it. However, the practice of calling the GNU "
+"system, Linux, is just a mistake. I'd like to ask you please to make the "
+"small effort necessary to call the system GNU/Linux, and that way to help us "
+"get a share of the credit."
+msgstr ""
+"WiÄc zwyczaj nazywania tego systemu Linuksem to dla Projektu GNU duży "
+"cios, bo zazwyczaj nie docenia siÄ tego, co zrobiliÅmy. Uważam,
że "
+"Linux, czyli jÄ
dro, jest bardzo użytecznym kawaÅkiem wolnego "
+"oprogramowania i mam do powiedzenia na jego temat same dobre "
+"rzeczy. Chociaż, tak naprawdÄ mogÄ znaleÅºÄ parÄ zÅych rzeczy
na jego "
+"temat. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Ale w zasadzie mam do powiedzenia na "
+"jego temat dobre rzeczy. Jednak zwyczaj nazywania systemu GNU „"
+"Linuksem” jest po prostu bÅÄdny. ChciaÅbym was prosiÄ o
odrobinÄ "
+"wysiÅku i nazywanie tego systemu GNU/Linuksem, aby pomóc nam "
+"w ten sposób uzyskaÄ należne uznanie."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You need a mascot! Get yourself a stuffed animal! "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Potrzebujecie maskotki! ZaÅatwcie sobie wypchane "
+"zwierzÄ
tko! <i>[Åmiech]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have one."
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Już mamy."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You do?"
+msgstr "<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Macie?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have an animal — a gnu. <i>[Laughter]</"
+"i> Anyway. So, yes, when you draw a penguin, draw a gnu next to it. <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i> But, let's save the questions for the end. I have more to go "
+"through."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Mamy zwierzÄ
tko – gnu.
<i>[Åmiech]</i> "
+"Nieważne. WiÄc tak, jeÅli rysujecie pingwina, narysujcie obok gnu.
<i>"
+"[Åmiech]</i> Ale zostawmy pytania na koniec. Mam jeszcze trochÄ "
+"do powiedzenia."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, why am I so concerned about this? You know, why do I think it is worth "
+"bothering you and perhaps giving you a, perhaps lowering your opinion of me, "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> to raise this issue of credit? Because, you know, some "
+"people when I do this, some people think that it's because I want my ego to "
+"be fed, right? Of course, I'm not saying — I'm not asking you to call "
+"it “Stallmanix,” right? <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Dlaczego tak mi na tym zależy? No wiecie, dlaczego uważam, że "
+"warto jest zawracaÄ wam gÅowÄ i byÄ może dawaÄ wam, prawdopodobnie
"
+"obniżaÄ waszÄ
opiniÄ o mnie, <i>[Åmiech]</i> podnoszÄ
c kwestiÄ uznania
"
+"zasÅug? Ponieważ niektórzy ludzie, gdy to robiÄ, niektórzy ludzie "
+"myÅlÄ
, że to dlatego, że chcÄ nakarmiÄ swoje ego, tak?
OczywiÅcie "
+"nie mówiÄ – nie proszÄ, żebyÅcie nazywali go „"
+"Stallmanix”, prawda? <i>[Åmiech] [aplauz]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to get "
+"credit. And there's a very specific reason for that, which is a lot more "
+"important than anybody getting credit, in and of itself. You see, these "
+"days, if you look around in our community most of the people talking about "
+"it and writing about it don't ever mention GNU, and they don't ever mention "
+"these goals of freedom — these political and social ideals, either. "
+"Because the place they come from is GNU."
+msgstr ""
+"ProszÄ, żebyÅcie nazywali go GNU, bo chcÄ, żeby uznane zostaÅy
zasÅugi "
+"Projektu GNU. Mam konkretny powód, który sam w sobie jest dużo "
+"ważniejszy niż uznanie czyichkolwiek zasÅug. Bo jeÅli obecnie "
+"przyjrzycie siÄ naszej spoÅecznoÅci, to wiÄkszoÅÄ ludzi, którzy o niej
mówiÄ
"
+"albo piszÄ
, nigdy nie wspominajÄ
GNU, nigdy nawet nie wspominajÄ
celów "
+"zwiÄ
zanych z wolnoÅciÄ
– tych politycznych i "
+"spoÅecznych ideaÅów. Bo miejsce, z którego siÄ wywodzÄ
to
GNU."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"The ideas associated with Linux — the philosophy is very different. "
+"It is basically the apolitical philosophy of Linus Torvalds. So, when "
+"people think that the whole system is Linux, they tend to think: “Oh, "
+"it must have been all started by Linux Torvalds. His philosophy must be the "
+"one that we should look at carefully”. And when they hear about the "
+"GNU philosophy, they say: “Boy, this is so idealistic, this must be "
+"awfully impractical. I'm a Linux-user, not a GNU-user.” <i>[Laughter]"
+"</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"IdeaÅy zwiÄ
zane z Linuksem – filozofia jest bardzo
odmienna. "
+"To jest w zasadzie apolityczna filozofia Linusa Torvaldsa. WiÄc "
+"gdy ludzie sÄ
przekonani, że caÅy system to Linux, zazwyczaj myÅlÄ
:
"
+"„Aha, wiÄc to wszystko musiaÅo zostaÄ zapoczÄ
tkowane przez
Linusa "
+"Torvaldsa. To jego filozofii powinniÅmy siÄ dokÅadniej przyjrzeÄ”. "
+"A gdy sÅyszÄ
o filozofii GNU, to myÅlÄ
: „Matko, to takie "
+"idealistyczne, musi byÄ strasznie niepraktyczne. Jestem użytkownikiem "
+"Linuksa, a nie GNU”. <i>[Åmiech]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"What irony! If they only knew! If they knew that the system they liked "
+"— or, in some cases, love and go wild over — is our idealistic, "
+"political philosophy made real."
+msgstr ""
+"Co za ironia! Gdyby tylko wiedzieli! Gdyby wiedzieli, że system, "
+"który lubiÄ
– a czasami nawet kochajÄ
i szalejÄ
na "
+"jego punkcie – to nasza idealistyczna, polityczna filozofia "
+"w zmaterializowanej postaci."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"They still wouldn't have to agree with us. But at least they'd see a reason "
+"to take it seriously, to think about it carefully, to give it a chance. "
+"They would see how it relates to their lives. You know, if they realized, "
+"“I'm using the GNU system. Here's the GNU philosophy. This philosophy "
+"is <em>why</em> this system that I like very much exists,” they'd at "
+"least consider it with a much more open mind. It doesn't mean that "
+"everybody will agree. People think different things. That's OK. You know, "
+"people should make up their own minds. But I want this philosophy to get "
+"the benefit of the credit for the results it has achieved."
+msgstr ""
+"Nadal nie musieliby siÄ z nami zgadzaÄ. Ale przynajmniej mieliby "
+"powód, aby traktowaÄ to poważnie, aby dokÅadnie siÄ
nad tym "
+"zastanowiÄ, aby daÄ temu szansÄ. Zobaczyliby jak to siÄ ma
do ich "
+"życia. Wiecie, gdyby zdali sobie sprawÄ, że: „Korzystam
z systemu "
+"GNU. Oto filozofia GNU. DziÄki <em>tej</em> filozofii system, który tak "
+"lubiÄ, istnieje”, to przynajmniej traktowaliby jÄ
z dużo
wiÄkszÄ
"
+"otwartoÅciÄ
umysÅu. Nie znaczy to, że wszyscy siÄ bÄdÄ
zgadzaÄ.
Ludzie "
+"myÅlÄ
różne rzeczy. To jest w porzÄ
dku. No wiecie, ludzie powinni
sami "
+"wyrobiÄ sobie poglÄ
dy. Ale chcÄ, aby ta filozofia skorzystaÅa "
+"na uznaniu jej zasÅug wobec rezultatów, jakie osiÄ
gnÄÅa."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"If you look around in our community, you'll find that almost everywhere, the "
+"institutions are calling the system Linux. You know, reporters mostly call "
+"it Linux. It's not right, but they do. The companies mostly say it that "
+"package the system. Oh, and most of these reporters, when they write "
+"articles, they usually don't look at it as a political issue, or social "
+"issue. They're usually looking at it purely as a business question or what "
+"companies are going to succeed more or less, which is really a fairly minor "
+"question for society. And, if you look at the companies that package the "
+"GNU/Linux system for people to use, well, most of them call it Linux. And "
+"they <em>all</em> add non-free software to it."
+msgstr ""
+"JeÅli przyjrzycie siÄ naszej spoÅecznoÅci, to zobaczycie, że prawie
"
+"wszÄdzie instytucje nazywajÄ
ten system Linuksem. No wiecie, dziennikarze "
+"nazywajÄ
go gÅównie Linuksem. To niewÅaÅciwe, ale tak robiÄ
.
MówiÄ
tak "
+"przeważnie firmy, które go rozpowszechniajÄ
. Aha, i wiÄkszoÅÄ tych
"
+"dziennikarzy, gdy piszÄ
artykuÅy, zazwyczaj nie patrzy na to z "
+"punktu widzenia polityki lub spoÅeczeÅstwa. Zazwyczaj rozważajÄ
to
jako "
+"kwestiÄ czysto biznesowÄ
, chodzi im mniej wiÄcej o to, które firmy
odniosÄ
"
+"sukces, co jest dosyÄ maÅo ważne dla spoÅeczeÅstwa. A gdy
popatrzycie "
+"na firmy, które rozpowszechniajÄ
system GNU/Linux wÅród ludzi, to "
+"wiÄkszoÅÄ nazywa go Linuksem. I <em>wszyscy</em> dodajÄ
do niego "
+"niewolne oprogramowanie."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"See, the GNU GPL says that if you take code, and some code out of a GPL-"
+"covered program, and add some more code to make a bigger program, that whole "
+"program has to be released under the GPL. But you could put other separate "
+"programs on the same disk (of either kind, hard disk, or CD), and they can "
+"have other licenses. That's considered mere aggregation, and, essentially, "
+"just distributing two programs to somebody at the same time is not something "
+"we have any say over. So, in fact, it is not true — sometimes, I wish "
+"it were true — that if a company uses a GPL-covered program in a "
+"product that the whole product has to be free software. It's not — it "
+"doesn't go to that range — that scope. It's the whole program. If "
+"there are two separate programs that communicate with each other at arm's "
+"length — like by sending messages to each other — then, they're "
+"legally separate, in general. So, these companies, by adding non-free "
+"software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically and "
+"politically, a very bad idea. They're telling the users, “It is OK to "
+"use non-free software. We're even putting it on this as a bonus.”"
+msgstr ""
+"GNU GPL mówi, że jeÅli weźmiecie kod i trochÄ kodu
z programu "
+"objÄtego przez GPL, i dodacie jeszcze trochÄ kodu, aby zrobiÄ "
+"wiÄkszy program, to caÅy ten program musi zostaÄ wydany na GPL. "
+"Ale moglibyÅcie doÅożyÄ osobno inne programy na tym samym dysku
"
+"(jakimkolwiek, dysku twardym lub CD) i mogÄ
one mieÄ inne "
+"licencje. Uważa siÄ to za zwykÅÄ
agregacjÄ i w gruncie rzeczy "
+"rozpowszechnianie dwóch programów jednoczeÅnie nie jest czymÅ, wobec
czego "
+"mamy cokolwiek do powiedzenia. WiÄc, w rzeczywistoÅci, to nie
jest "
+"prawda – czasami żaÅujÄ, że tak nie jest – "
+"że jeÅli jakaÅ firma wykorzysta program objÄty przez GPL
w swoim "
+"produkcie, to caÅy produkt musi byÄ wolnym oprogramowaniem. To nie ma "
+"– nie idzie aż tak daleko – takiego zasiÄgu. To caÅy "
+"program. JeÅli sÄ
dwa programy, które komunikujÄ
siÄ ze sobÄ
na pewnÄ
"
+"odlegÅoÅÄ – na przykÅad przez wysyÅanie do siebie "
+"komunikatów – to ogólnie rzecz biorÄ
c sÄ
pod wzglÄdem "
+"prawnym rozdzielne. WiÄc te firmy, dodajÄ
c do systemu niewolne "
+"oprogramowanie, dajÄ
użytkownikom, filozoficznie i politycznie, bardzo
"
+"zÅy sygnaÅ. MówiÄ
oni użytkownikom: „Używanie niewolnego "
+"oprogramowania jest w porzÄ
dku. Nawet je tutaj dodajemy jako "
+"bonus”."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system, most of "
+"them have a title like “Linux-something or other”. So they're "
+"calling the system Linux most of the time. And they're filled with ads for "
+"non-free software that you could run on top of the GNU/Linux system. Now "
+"those ads have a common message. They say: Non-free Software Is Good For "
+"You. It's So Good That You Might Even <em>Pay</em> To Get It. <i>[Laughter]"
+"</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"JeÅli popatrzycie na magazyny o korzystaniu z GNU/Linuksa, to "
+"wiÄkszoÅÄ z nich ma tytuÅ typu „Linux coÅ-tam
coÅ-tam”. "
+"WiÄc zazwyczaj nazywajÄ
system Linuksem. I sÄ
wypeÅnione
reklamami "
+"niewolnego oprogramowania, które można uruchamiaÄ w GNU/Linuksie. Te "
+"reklamy majÄ
wspólne przesÅanie. MówiÄ
: „Niewolne oprogramowanie
jest "
+"dla was dobre. Jest tak dobre, że może nawet za nie "
+"<em>zapÅacicie</em>”. <i>[Åmiech]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And they call these things “value-added packages”, which makes a "
+"statement about their values. They're saying: Value practical convenience, "
+"not freedom. And, I don't agree with those values, so I call them “"
+"freedom-subtracted packages”. <i>[Laughter]</i> Because if you have "
+"installed a free operating system, then you now are living in the free "
+"world. You enjoy the benefits of liberty that we worked for so many years "
+"to give you. Those packages give you an opportunity to buckle on a chain."
+msgstr ""
+"I nazywajÄ
te rzeczy „pakietami o zwiÄkszonej wartoÅci” "
+"[<em>ang. value-added packages</em>], co mówi coÅ o ich wartoÅciach "
+"[<em>ang. values</em>]. MówiÄ
: „CeÅcie [<em>ang. value</em>] "
+"praktycznÄ
wygodÄ, a nie wolnoÅÄ”. A ja nie zgadzam siÄ "
+"z tymi wartoÅciami, wiÄc je nazywam „pakietami o "
+"zmniejszonej wolnoÅci” [<em>ang. freedom-subtracted packages</em>].
<i>"
+"[Åmiech]</i> Bo jeÅli zainstalujecie sobie wolny system operacyjny, to
"
+"od tego momentu żyjecie w wolnym Åwiecie. Korzystacie z "
+"wolnoÅci, na którÄ
pracowaliÅmy dla was przez wiele lat. Takie
pakiety "
+"dajÄ
wam okazjÄ do zakucia siÄ w ÅaÅcuchy."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And then if you look at the trade shows — about the use of the, "
+"dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call themselves "
+"“Linux” shows. And they're filled with booths exhibiting non-"
+"free software, essentially putting the seal of approval on the non-free "
+"software. So, almost everywhere you look in our community, the institutions "
+"are endorsing the non-free software, totalling negating the idea of freedom "
+"that GNU was developed for. And the only place that people are likely to "
+"come across the idea of freedom is in connection with GNU, and in connection "
+"with free software, the term, free software. So this is why I ask you: "
+"please call the system GNU/Linux. Please make people aware where the system "
+"came from and why."
+msgstr ""
+"A jeÅli popatrzycie na targi branżowe – dotyczÄ
ce "
+"korzystania, poÅwiÄcone korzystaniu z GNU/Linuksa, wszystkie one "
+"nazywajÄ
siÄ targami „linuksowymi”. I sÄ
wypeÅnione "
+"stoiskami promujÄ
cymi niewolne oprogramowanie, co w swej istocie "
+"przypieczÄtowuje akceptacjÄ niewolnych programów. WiÄc niemalże
z "
+"którejkolwiek strony nie spojrzy siÄ na naszÄ
spoÅecznoÅÄ,
instytucje "
+"podpisujÄ
siÄ pod niewolnym oprogramowaniem, caÅkowicie negujÄ
c
ideÄ "
+"wolnoÅci, dla której zostaÅo stworzone GNU. I jedyny moment, w "
+"którym ludzie majÄ
szansÄ zetknÄ
Ä siÄ z ideÄ
wolnoÅci, to
w "
+"nawiÄ
zaniu do GNU i do wolnego oprogramowania, terminu „"
+"wolne oprogramowanie”. Dlatego proszÄ was: nazywajcie ten system "
+"GNU/Linux. Zwracajcie uwagÄ ludzi na to, skÄ
d wziÄ
Å siÄ ten system "
+"i dlaczego."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Of course, just by using that name, you won't be making an explanation of "
+"the history. You can type four extra characters and write GNU/Linux; you "
+"can say two extra syllables. But, GNU/Linux is fewer syllables than Windows "
+"2000. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, you're not telling them a lot, but you're "
+"preparing them, so that when they hear about GNU, and what it's all about, "
+"they'll see how that connects to them and their lives. And that, "
+"indirectly, makes a tremendous difference. So please help us."
+msgstr ""
+"OczywiÅcie, korzystajÄ
c jedynie z nazwy nie bÄdziecie wyjaÅniaÄ "
+"historii. Możecie wstukiwaÄ dodatkowe cztery znaki i pisaÄ GNU/Linux;
"
+"możecie wymawiaÄ dwie dodatkowe sylaby. Ale GNU/Linux ma mniej sylab "
+"niż Windows 2000. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Jednak nie mówicie im wiele,
ale "
+"przygotowujecie ich, wiÄc jak usÅyszÄ
o GNU i o co w tym "
+"wszystkim chodzi, to zobaczÄ
, jakie to ma znaczenie dla nich i ich "
+"życia. A to ma poÅrednio wielkie znaczenie. WiÄc proszÄ,
pomóżcie "
+"nam."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"You'll note that Microsoft called the GPL an “open source "
+"license”. They don't want people to be thinking in terms of freedom "
+"as the issue. You'll find that they invite people to think in a narrow way, "
+"as consumers, and, of course, not even think very rationally as consumers, "
+"if they're going to choose Microsoft products. But they don't want people "
+"to think as citizens or statesmen. That's inimical to them. At least it's "
+"inimical to their current business model."
+msgstr ""
+"Zauważcie, że Microsoft nazwaÅ GPL „licencjÄ
open
source”. "
+"Oni nie chcÄ
, aby ludzie myÅleli, że w tej sprawie chodzi o "
+"wolnoÅÄ. Zobaczcie, że zachÄcajÄ
ludzi, aby myÅleli w wÄ
ski "
+"sposób, jak konsumenci, oczywiÅcie żeby nawet jako konsumenci myÅleli "
+"niezbyt racjonalnie, jeÅli majÄ
wybraÄ produkty Microsoftu. Ale nie "
+"chcÄ
, by ludzie myÅleli jak obywatele lub mÄżowie stanu. To im nie "
+"sprzyja. A przynajmniej ich obecnemu modelowi biznesowemu."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, how does free software…well, I can tell you about how free "
+"software relates to our society. A secondary topic that might be of "
+"interest to some of you is how free software relates to business. Now, in "
+"fact, free software is <em>tremendously</em> useful for business. After "
+"all, most businesses in the advanced countries use software. Only a tiny "
+"fraction of them develop software."
+msgstr ""
+"W jaki sposób wolne oprogramowanie… cóż, mogÄ wam
opowiedzieÄ "
+"jak wolne oprogramowanie ma siÄ do naszego spoÅeczeÅstwa.
DrugorzÄdny "
+"temat, który może niektórych z was zainteresowaÄ, to jak wolne "
+"oprogramowanie ma siÄ do biznesu. Tak naprawdÄ to wolne oprogramowanie
"
+"jest dla biznesu <em>niezwykle</em> użyteczne. W koÅcu wiÄkszoÅÄ
firm "
+"w rozwiniÄtych krajach korzysta z oprogramowania. Tylko uÅamek "
+"z nich tworzy oprogramowanie."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And free software is tremendously advantageous for any company that uses "
+"software, because it means that you're in control. Basically, free software "
+"means the users are in control of what the program does. Either "
+"individually, if they care enough to be, or, collectively, when they care "
+"enough to be. Whoever cares enough can exert some influence. If you don't "
+"care, you don't buy. Then you use what other people prefer. But, if you do "
+"care, then you have some say. With proprietary software, you have "
+"essentially no say."
+msgstr ""
+"Wolne oprogramowanie ma ogromne zalety dla każdej firmy, która korzysta "
+"z programów, bo oznacza, że to wy kontrolujecie sytuacjÄ. "
+"Zasadniczo wolne oprogramowanie oznacza, że użytkownicy kontrolujÄ
"
+"dziaÅanie programu. Indywidualnie, jeÅli im na tym wystarczajÄ
co "
+"zależy, lub kolektywnie, jeÅli im na tym wystarczajÄ
co zależy. "
+"Każdy, komu dostatecznie zależy, może wywrzeÄ jakiÅ wpÅyw. Komu
wszystko "
+"jedno, ten nie wybiera. Wtedy korzysta z tego, co preferujÄ
inni. "
+"Ale jeÅli wam zależy, to macie coÅ do powiedzenia. W "
+"przypadku oprogramowania objÄtego restrykcyjnymi licencjami w gruncie "
+"rzeczy nie macie nic do gadania."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"With free software, you can change what you want to change. And it doesn't "
+"matter that there are no programmers in your company; that's fine. You "
+"know, if you wanted to move the walls in your building, you don't have to be "
+"a carpentry company. You just have to be able to go find a carpenter and "
+"say, “What will you charge to do this job?” And if you want to "
+"change around the software you use, you don't have to be a programming "
+"company. You just have to go to a programming company and say, “What "
+"will you charge to implement these features? And when will you have it done?"
+"” And if they don't do the job, you can go find somebody else."
+msgstr ""
+"W przypadku wolnego oprogramowania możecie zmieniaÄ cokolwiek chcecie.
"
+"I nie ma znaczenia, że w waszej firmie nie ma żadnych "
+"programistów; to nic. Wiecie, gdybyÅcie chcieli przesunÄ
Ä parÄ Åcian
w "
+"swoim budynku, to nie musicie byÄ do tego firmÄ
stolarskÄ
[<em>w "
+"USA Åciany sÄ
zazwyczaj drewniano-gipsowe</em>]. Wystarczy, że "
+"bÄdziecie mogli znaleÅºÄ stolarza i powiedzieÄ: „Ile za "
+"wykonanie tej roboty?” A jeÅli chcecie zmieniÄ używane przez
was "
+"oprogramowanie, nie musicie byÄ firmÄ
programistycznÄ
. Musicie tylko iÅÄ
"
+"do firmy programistycznej i powiedzieÄ: „Ile za "
+"implementacjÄ tych funkcji? I kiedy bÄdzie to gotowe?”. A "
+"jeÅli oni tego nie zrobiÄ
, możecie iÅÄ i znaleÅºÄ kogoÅ innego."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"There's a free market for support. So, any business that cares about "
+"support will find a tremendous advantage in free software. With proprietary "
+"software, support is a monopoly, because one company has the source code, or "
+"maybe a small number of companies that paid a gigantic amount of money have "
+"the source code, if it's Microsoft's shared source program, but, it's very "
+"few. And so, there aren't very many possible sources of support for you. "
+"And that means, that unless you're a real giant, they don't care about you. "
+"Your company is not important enough for them to care if they lose your "
+"business, or what happens. Once you're using the program, they figure "
+"you're locked in to getting the support from them, because to switch to a "
+"different program is a gigantic job. So, you end up with things like paying "
+"for the privilege of reporting a bug. <i>[Laughter]</i> And once you've "
+"paid, they tell you, “Well, OK, we've noted your bug report. And in a "
+"few months, you can buy an upgrade, and you can see if we've fixed it."
+"” <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Oznacza to wolny rynek usÅug wsparcia. Tak wiÄc każda firma, której "
+"zależy na wsparciu znajdzie w wolnym oprogramowaniu ogromne "
+"zalety. W przypadku programów objÄtych restrykcyjnymi licencjami "
+"wsparcie jest objÄte monopolem, bo tylko jedna firma posiada kod "
+"źródÅowy, a może ma go kilka firm, które zapÅaciÅy za to "
+"gigantyczne sumy pieniÄdzy, jeÅli braÅy udziaÅ w programie dzielenia
"
+"kodu Microsoftu, ale jest ich tylko kilka. Tak wiÄc nie ma dla was
"
+"wielu możliwych źródeÅ wsparcia. A to oznacza, że jeÅli nie "
+"jesteÅcie prawdziwym gigantem, to oni siÄ wami nie interesujÄ
. Wasza firma
"
+"nie jest dla nich wystarczajÄ
co ważna, aby zależaÅo im na "
+"zatrzymaniu was przy sobie lub na tym, co siÄ zdarzy. Jak już
bÄdziecie "
+"używaÄ ich programu, to bÄdÄ
przekonani, że jesteÅcie zmuszeni
kupowaÄ "
+"wsparcie u nich, bo przesiadka na inny program to masa pracy. "
+"I koÅczy siÄ na tym, że pÅacicie za przywilej
zgÅaszania "
+"usterek. <i>[Åmiech]</i> A jak już zapÅacicie, powiedzÄ
wam:
„No "
+"tak, odnotowaliÅmy wasze zgÅoszenie bÅÄdu. Za kilka miesiÄcy
możecie "
+"sobie kupiÄ upgrade i zobaczyÄ, czy go naprawiliÅmy”. <i>"
+"[Åmiech]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Support providers for free software can't get away with that. They have to "
+"please the customers. Of course, you can get a lot of good support gratis. "
+"You post your problem on the Internet. You may get an answer the next day. "
+"But that's not guaranteed, of course. If you want to be confident, you "
+"better make an arrangement with a company and pay them. And this is, of "
+"course, one of the ways that free software business works."
+msgstr ""
+"Firmom sprzedajÄ
cym wsparcie dla wolnego oprogramowania coÅ takiego nie "
+"ujdzie na sucho. MuszÄ
staraÄ siÄ, aby klienci byli zadowoleni. "
+"OczywiÅcie dużo dobrego wsparcia możecie dostaÄ za darmo.
OgÅaszacie "
+"swój problem w Internecie. Odpowiedź możecie dostaÄ nastÄpnego
dnia. "
+"Ale nie ma na to oczywiÅcie gwarancji. JeÅli chcecie mieÄ
pewnoÅÄ, "
+"to lepiej podpiszcie umowÄ z jakÄ
Å firmÄ
i jej zapÅaÄcie.
I "
+"to jest, oczywiÅcie, jeden ze sposobów dziaÅania biznesu opartego na "
+"wolnym oprogramowaniu."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Another advantage of free software for businesses that use software is "
+"security and privacy. And this applies to individuals as well, but I "
+"brought it up in the context of businesses. You see, when a program is "
+"proprietary, you can't even tell what it really does."
+msgstr ""
+"Kolejna zaleta wolnego oprogramowania dla firm korzystajÄ
cych z "
+"programów komputerowych to bezpieczeÅstwo i prywatnoÅÄ. To odnosi
siÄ "
+"również do pojedynczych osób, ale mówiÄ o tym
w kontekÅcie "
+"firm. Wiecie, gdy program jest objÄty restrykcyjnÄ
licencjÄ
, to nawet nie "
+"wiadomo, co tak naprawdÄ robi."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"It could have features, deliberately put in that you wouldn't like if you "
+"knew about them, like it might have a backdoor to let the developer get into "
+"your machine. It might snoop on what you do and send information back. "
+"This is not unusual. Some Microsoft software did this. But it's not only "
+"Microsoft. There are other proprietary programs that snoop on the user. "
+"And you can't even tell if it does this. And, of course, even assuming that "
+"the developer's totally honest, every programmer makes mistakes. There "
+"could be bugs that affect your security which are nobody's fault. But the "
+"point is: If it's not free software, you can't find them. And you can't fix "
+"them."
+msgstr ""
+"Może mieÄ umyÅlnie dodane funkcje, które by siÄ wam nie spodobaÅy, "
+"jeÅlibyÅcie o nich wiedzieli, np. może mieÄ tylne wejÅcie [ang.
backdoor] "
+"pozwalajÄ
ce autorowi wejÅÄ na waszÄ
maszynÄ. Może szpiegowaÄ, co "
+"robicie i wysyÅaÄ informacje z powrotem. To nie jest nic "
+"niezwykÅego. Niektóre programy Microsoftu to robiÅy. Ale to nie
dotyczy "
+"tylko Microsoftu. SÄ
inne objÄte restrykcyjnymi licencjami programy, które
"
+"szpiegujÄ
swoich użytkowników. I nawet nie można tego stwierdziÄ. "
+"A nawet zakÅadajÄ
c, że autor jest caÅkowicie uczciwy, każdy "
+"programista popeÅnia bÅÄdy. MogÄ
pojawiÄ siÄ bÅÄdy majÄ
ce wpÅyw
na "
+"wasze bezpieczeÅstwo, które nie sÄ
niczyjÄ
winÄ
. Ale chodzi o to, "
+"że jeÅli nie jest to wolne oprogramowanie, to nie możecie ich
znaleźÄ. "
+"I nie możecie ich naprawiÄ."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Nobody has the time to check the source of every program he runs. You're "
+"not going to do that. But with free software there's a large community, and "
+"there are people in that community who are checking things. And you get the "
+"benefit of their checking, because if there's an accidental bug, there "
+"surely are, from time to time, in any program, they might find it and fix "
+"it. And people are much less likely to put in a deliberate Trojan horse, or "
+"a snooping feature, if they think they might get caught. The proprietary "
+"software developers figure they won't get caught. They'll get away with it "
+"undetected. But a free software developer has to figure that people will "
+"look at that and see it's there. So, in our community, we don't feel we can "
+"get away with ramming a feature down the users' throats that the users "
+"wouldn't like. So we know that if the users don't like it, they'll make a "
+"modified version which doesn't have it. And then, they'll all start using "
+"that version."
+msgstr ""
+"Nikt nie ma czasu na sprawdzanie źródeŠkażdego programu, którego "
+"używa. Nie bÄdziecie tego robiÄ. Ale w przypadku wolnego
oprogramowania "
+"istnieje duża spoÅecznoÅÄ i sÄ
w niej ludzie, którzy wszystko
"
+"sprawdzajÄ
. I korzystacie na ich sprawdzaniu, bo jeÅli jest "
+"jakiÅ przypadkowy bÅÄ
d â zawsze jakieÅ sÄ
od czasu do czasu
w "
+"każdym programie – to mogÄ
go znaleÅºÄ i naprawiÄ. Poza
tym "
+"ludzie znacznie mniej chÄtnie dokÅadajÄ
konia trojaÅskiego
lub funkcjÄ "
+"szpiegujÄ
cÄ
, jeÅli obawiajÄ
siÄ, że ktoÅ może ich zÅapaÄ.
Autorzy "
+"oprogramowania objÄtego restrykcyjnymi licencjami uważajÄ
, że nikt
ich "
+"nie zÅapie. Ujdzie im to na sucho. Ale autor wolnego "
+"oprogramowania musi zdawaÄ sobie sprawÄ, że ludzie bÄdÄ
na to "
+"patrzeÄ i to zauważÄ
. WiÄc w naszej spoÅecznoÅci nie
uważamy, "
+"że może nam ujÅÄ na sucho wciskanie ludziom funkcji, która by
im "
+"siÄ nie spodobaÅa. Wiemy, że jeÅli użytkownikom siÄ nie bÄdzie "
+"podobaÅa, to zrobiÄ
zmodyfikowanÄ
wersjÄ, która nie bÄdzie jej
zawieraÄ. "
+"A potem zacznÄ
wszyscy jej używaÄ."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"In fact, we can all reason enough, we can all figure this out enough steps "
+"ahead, that we probably won't put in that feature. After all, you're "
+"writing a free program; you want people to like your version; you don't want "
+"to put in a thing that you know a lot of people are going to hate, and have "
+"another modified version catch on instead of yours. So you just realize "
+"that the user is king in the world of free software. In the world of "
+"proprietary software, the customer is <em>not</em> king. Because you are "
+"only a customer. You have no say in the software you use."
+msgstr ""
+"Tak naprawdÄ to wszyscy jesteÅmy na tyle rozsÄ
dni, potrafimy siÄgnÄ
Ä "
+"wyobraźniÄ
na tyle daleko naprzód, że najpewniej nie dodamy tej
"
+"funkcji. Przecież piszecie wolny program; chcecie, żeby ludziom podobaÅa
siÄ "
+"wasza wersja; nie chcecie wstawiÄ do niej czegoÅ, czego wiele ludzi "
+"bÄdzie nienawidziÄ i przez co popularna stanie siÄ inna zmodyfikowana
"
+"wersja zamiast waszej. WiÄc dochodzicie do wniosku, że w "
+"Åwiecie wolnego oprogramowania użytkownik jest królem Åwiata.
W Åwiecie "
+"oprogramowania objÄtego restrykcyjnymi licencjami użytkownik <em>nie</em> "
+"jest królem. Bo jesteÅcie tylko klientem. Nie macie nic do "
+"powiedzenia w kwestii programów, których używacie."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"In this respect, free software is a new mechanism for democracy to operate. "
+"Professor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions as a kind of "
+"law. Whoever gets to write the code that just about everybody uses for all "
+"intents and purposes is writing the laws that run people's lives. With free "
+"software, these laws get written in a democratic way. Not the classical "
+"form of democracy — we don't have a big election and say, “"
+"Everybody vote which way should this feature be done.” <i>[Laughter]</"
+"i> Instead we say, basically, those of you who want to work on implementing "
+"the feature this way, do it. And if you want to work on implementing the "
+"feature that way, do it. And, it gets done one way or the other, you know? "
+"And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done this way. So, "
+"in this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by simply taking "
+"steps in the direction that he wants to go."
+msgstr ""
+"Pod tym wzglÄdem wolne oprogramowanie to nowy mechanizm demokratyczny. "
+"Profesor Lessig, pracujÄ
cy obecnie w Stanford, zauważyÅ, że kod
"
+"funkcjonuje jak rodzaj prawa. Ktokolwiek napisaŠkod, którego prawie
wszyscy "
+"używajÄ
do wszelkich celów, napisaÅ prawa, które kierujÄ
ich
życiem. "
+"W przypadku wolnego oprogramowania prawa te sÄ
pisane w sposób "
+"demokratyczny. Nie chodzi tu o klasycznÄ
formÄ demokracji – nie "
+"mamy wielkich wyborów, na których mówimy: „ZagÅosujmy wszyscy
jak "
+"ma byÄ zaimplementowana ta funkcja”. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Zamiast tego "
+"w zasadzie mówimy, że ci z was, którzy chcÄ
pracowaÄ
nad "
+"zaimplementowaniem tej funkcji w ten sposób, mogÄ
to robiÄ. A "
+"jeÅli chcecie pracowaÄ nad zaimplementowaniem w inny sposób, "
+"możecie to robiÄ. I wiecie co, w taki czy inny sposób
zostaje "
+"ona zaimplementowana. I jeÅli wielu ludzi chce, żeby byÅo to zrobione
"
+"w jakiÅ sposób, to tak wÅaÅnie zostanie zrobione. I tak, każdy
"
+"bierze udziaÅ w tej spoÅecznej decyzji po prostu podejmujÄ
c
kroki "
+"w kierunku, który mu odpowiada."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And you're free to take as many steps, personally, as you want to take. A "
+"business is free to commission as many steps as they find useful to take. "
+"And, after you add all these things up, that says which direction the "
+"software goes."
+msgstr ""
+"OsobiÅcie macie wolnoÅÄ do zrobienia tylu kroków, ile chcecie. Firmy
"
+"mogÄ
zrobiÄ tyle kroków, ile wyda im siÄ użyteczne. A po dodaniu
tego "
+"wszystkiego wychodzi kierunek, w którym podÄ
żaÄ bÄdzie
oprogramowanie."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And it's often very useful to be able to take pieces out of some existing "
+"program, presumably usually large pieces, of course, and then write a "
+"certain amount of code of your own, and make a program that does exactly "
+"what you need, which would have cost you an arm and a leg to develop, if you "
+"had to write it all from scratch, if you couldn't cannibalize large pieces "
+"from some existing free software package."
+msgstr ""
+"CzÄsto bardzo użyteczna jest możliwoÅÄ wyjÄcia kawaÅków
z istniejÄ
cego "
+"programu, prawdopodobnie zazwyczaj dużych kawaÅków, a później
napisania "
+"jakiejÅ iloÅci kodu samemu i zrobienia programu, który robi
dokÅadnie "
+"to, co wam jest potrzebne, i którego napisanie od zera wymagaÅoby
"
+"od was harowania jak wóÅ, gdybyÅcie nie mogli skonsumowaÄ dużych "
+"kawaÅków jakiegoÅ istniejÄ
cego pakietu wolnego oprogramowania."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Another thing that results from the fact that the user is king is that we "
+"tend to be very good about compatibility and standardization. Why? Because "
+"users like that. Users are likely to reject a program that has gratuitous "
+"incompatibilities in it. Now, sometimes there's a certain group of users "
+"which actually have a need for a certain kind of incompatibility, and then "
+"they'll have it. That's OK. But when users want is to follow a standard, we "
+"developers have to follow it, and we know that. And we do it. By contrast, "
+"if you look at proprietary software developers, they often find it "
+"advantageous to deliberately <em>not</em> follow a standard, and not because "
+"they think that they're giving the user an advantage that way, but rather "
+"because they're imposing on the user, locking the user in. And you'll even "
+"find them making changes in their file formats from time to time, just to "
+"force people to get the newest version."
+msgstr ""
+"Kolejna rzecz, która wynika z tego, że użytkownik jest królem,
to "
+"że zazwyczaj jesteÅmy bardzo dobrzy jeÅli chodzi o zgodnoÅÄ i "
+"standaryzacjÄ. Dlaczego? Bo użytkownicy to lubiÄ
. Użytkownicy "
+"prawdopodobnie odrzucÄ
program, który zawiera w sobie nieuzasadnione "
+"niezgodnoÅci. Czasami pojawia siÄ jakaÅ grupa użytkowników, która
potrzebuje "
+"wÅaÅnie jakiejÅ konkretnej niezgodnoÅci i wtedy jÄ
dostanÄ
. To
jest OK. "
+"Ale gdy użytkownicy chcÄ
zgodnoÅci ze standardem, to my, autorzy, "
+"musimy siÄ temu podporzÄ
dkowaÄ i zdajemy sobie z tego sprawÄ. "
+"I tak robimy. Dla kontrastu, gdy popatrzycie na autorów "
+"oprogramowania objÄtego restrykcyjnymi licencjami, to czÄsto widzÄ
oni "
+"korzyÅci w umyÅlnym <em>ignorowaniu</em> standardów i to nie "
+"dlatego, że sÄ
dzÄ
, że w ten sposób dajÄ
użytkownikowi coŠ"
+"lepszego, ale raczej dlatego, że w ten sposób coÅ mu narzucajÄ
,
"
+"zamykajÄ
go. ZmieniajÄ
nawet formaty plików, tylko po to, aby "
+"zmusiÄ ludzi do kupienia najnowszej wersji."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Archivists are finding a problem now, that files written on computers ten "
+"years ago often can't be accessed; they were written with proprietary "
+"software that's essentially lost now. If it were written with free "
+"software, then it could be brought up-to-date and run. And those things "
+"would not, those records would not be lost, would not be inaccessible. They "
+"were even complaining about this on NPR recently in citing free software as "
+"a solution. And so, in effect, by using a non-free program to store your "
+"own data, you are putting your head in a noose."
+msgstr ""
+"ArchiwiÅci majÄ
teraz problem, bo plików zapisanych
na komputerach "
+"10 lat temu nie da siÄ otworzyÄ; zostaÅy zapisane przy użyciu objÄtego "
+"restrykcyjnÄ
licencjÄ
oprogramowania, które od tamtego czasu
przepadÅo. "
+"Gdyby zostaÅy zapisane przy użyciu wolnego oprogramowania, to można by je "
+"odnowiÄ i uruchomiÄ. A te rzeczy nie zostaÅyby, te archiwa nie "
+"zostaÅyby stracone, nie byÅyby niedostÄpne. Narzekano nawet na to "
+"ostatnio w radiu publicznym i wymieniano wolne oprogramowanie jako "
+"rozwiÄ
zanie problemu. Tak wiÄc w rezultacie, korzystajÄ
c z "
+"niewolnego programu do przechowywania waszych danych, owijacie sobie "
+"wokóŠszyi pÄtlÄ."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, I've talked about how free software affects most business. But how does "
+"it affect that particular narrow area which is software business? Well, the "
+"answer is mostly not at all. And the reason is that 90% of the software "
+"industry, from what I'm told, is development of custom software, software "
+"that's not meant to be released at all. For custom software, this issue, or "
+"the ethical issue of free or proprietary, doesn't arise. You see, the issue "
+"is, are you users free to change, and redistribute, the software? If there's "
+"only one user, and that user owns the rights, there's no problem. That user "
+"<em>is</em> free to do all these things. So, in effect, any <em>custom</em> "
+"program that was developed by one company for use in-house is free software, "
+"as long as they have the sense to insist on getting the source code and all "
+"the rights."
+msgstr ""
+"PowiedziaÅem wiÄc jakie znaczenie wolne oprogramowanie ma dla "
+"wiÄkszoÅci firm. Ale jakie ma znaczenie dla konkretnego wÄ
skiego "
+"obszaru, jakim jest przemysŠprogramistyczny? Odpowiedź brzmi: prawie
żadne. "
+"A to dlatego, że 90% tego przemysÅu, z tego co mi mówiono,
to "
+"rozwój oprogramowania na zamówienie, które nigdy nie bÄdzie wydane. "
+"W przypadku takiego oprogramowania kwestia, lub etyczna kwestia, "
+"âobjÄte restrykcyjnÄ
licencjÄ
czy wolneâ nie ma znaczenia.
Pytanie "
+"brzmi: czy wy, użytkownicy, macie wolnoÅÄ do zmieniania i "
+"ponownego rozpowszechniania tego oprogramowania? JeÅli jest tylko jeden "
+"użytkownik i to on posiada prawa, to nie ma problemu. Ten użytkownik "
+"<em>ma</em> wolnoÅÄ do robienia wszystkich tych rzeczy. WiÄc w "
+"rezultacie każdy program napisany na <em>indywidualne zamówienie</em> "
+"przez jakÄ
Å firmÄ na wewnÄtrzny użytek to wolne oprogramowanie,
jeÅli "
+"tylko majÄ
wystarczajÄ
co oleju w gÅowie, żeby domagaÄ siÄ kodu "
+"źródÅowego i wszystkich praw."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And the issue doesn't really arise for software that goes in a watch or a "
+"microwave oven or an automobile ignition system. Because those are places "
+"where you don't download software to install. It's not a real computer, as "
+"far as the user is concerned. And so, it doesn't raise these issues enough "
+"for them to be ethically important. So, for the most part, the software "
+"industry will go along, just as it's been going. And the interesting thing "
+"is that since such a large fraction of the jobs are in that part of the "
+"industry, even if there were no possibilities for free software business, "
+"the developers of free software could all get day jobs writing custom "
+"software. <i>[Laughter]</i> There's so many; the ratio is so big."
+msgstr ""
+"Kwestia ta nie ma tak naprawdÄ znaczenia również w przypadku "
+"oprogramowania, które dziaÅa w zegarkach, mikrofalówkach lub "
+"samochodowych systemach zapÅonu. Bo tutaj nie ÅciÄ
gacie
oprogramowania, "
+"żeby je zainstalowaÄ. Z punktu widzenia użytkownika to nie jest "
+"prawdziwy komputer. WiÄc nie rozbudza to tych kwestii w "
+"wystarczajÄ
co dużym stopniu, żeby staÅy siÄ etycznie ważne. WiÄc "
+"ogólnie rzecz biorÄ
c przemysÅ programistyczny sobie poradzi, tak jak
robiÅ "
+"to dotychczas. InteresujÄ
ce jest to, że skoro tak wielka czÄÅÄ "
+"dostÄpnej pracy należy do tej kategorii, to nawet jeÅli nie byÅoby "
+"możliwoÅci zakÅadania firm zajmujÄ
cych siÄ wolnym oprogramowaniem, to
jego "
+"autorzy mogliby znaleÅºÄ sobie pracÄ przy pisaniu programów na "
+"indywidualne zamówienie. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Jest tego tak wiele; stosunek jest
"
+"tak duży."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, as it happens, there is free software business. There are free "
+"software companies, and at the press conference that I'm going to have, "
+"people from a couple of them will join us. And, of course, there are also "
+"companies which are <em>not</em> free software businesses but do develop "
+"useful pieces of free software to release, and the free software that they "
+"produce is substantial."
+msgstr ""
+"Ale zÅożyÅo siÄ tak, że istnieje biznes oparty na wolnym "
+"oprogramowaniu. SÄ
firmy zajmujÄ
ce siÄ wolnym oprogramowaniem, a na "
+"mojej konferencji prasowej pojawiÄ
siÄ ludzie z kilku z nich. "
+"OczywiÅcie, istniejÄ
też firmy, które <em>nie</em> sÄ
firmami opierajÄ
cymi "
+"dziaÅalnoÅÄ na wolnym oprogramowaniu, ale tworzÄ
i wydajÄ
"
+"użyteczne programy tego typu, a produkowane przez nich wolne "
+"oprogramowanie ma duże znaczenie."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, how do free software businesses work? Well, some of them sell copies. "
+"You know, you're free to copy it but they can still sell thousands of copies "
+"a month. And others sell support and various kinds of services. I, "
+"personally, for the second half of the '80's, I sold free software support "
+"services. Basically I said, for $200 an hour, I'll change whatever you want "
+"me to change in GNU software that I'd written. And, yes, it was a stiff "
+"rate, but if it was a program that I was the author of, people would figure "
+"that I might get the job done in a lot fewer hours. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I "
+"made a living that way. In fact, I'd made more than I'd ever made before. "
+"I also taught classes. And I kept doing that until 1990, when I got a big "
+"prize and I didn't have to do it any more."
+msgstr ""
+"Jak dziaÅajÄ
firmy zajmujÄ
ce siÄ wolnym oprogramowaniem? Cóż, niektóre
"
+"z nich sprzedajÄ
kopie. Wiecie, każdy może kopiowaÄ to do woli,
"
+"ale im i tak udaje siÄ sprzedawaÄ tysiÄ
ce kopii na miesiÄ
c. "
+"Inni sprzedajÄ
wsparcie i różne usÅugi. OsobiÅcie w drugiej "
+"poÅowie lat 80. sprzedawaÅem usÅugi wsparcia. MówiÅem: „Za 200$ "
+"za godzinÄ zmieniÄ wszystko, co tylko chcecie, w oprogramowaniu "
+"GNU, które napisaÅem”. Tak, to byÅa sÅona stawka, ale jeÅli
byÅ "
+"to program, którego byÅem autorem, to ludzie oceniali, że uda mi siÄ
"
+"skoÅczyÄ pracÄ w dużo krótszym czasie. <i>[Åmiech]</i> I tak "
+"zarabiaÅem na życie. Tak naprawdÄ to zarabiaÅem wiÄcej niż
kiedykolwiek "
+"wczeÅniej. ProwadziÅem także zajÄcia. I robiÅem to do roku
1990, "
+"kiedy otrzymaÅem dużÄ
nagrodÄ i nie musiaÅem tego wiÄcej robiÄ."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, 1990 was when the first corporation free software business was formed, "
+"which was Cygnus Support. And their business was to do, essentially, the "
+"same kind of thing that I'd been doing. I certainly could have worked for "
+"them, if I had needed to do that. Since I didn't need to, I felt it was "
+"good for the movement if I remained independent of any one company. That "
+"way, I could say good and bad things about the various free software and non-"
+"free software companies, without a conflict of interest. I felt that I "
+"could serve the movement more. But, if I had needed that to make a living, "
+"sure, I would have worked for them. It's an ethical business to be in. No "
+"reason I would have felt ashamed to take a job with them. And that company "
+"was profitable in its first year. It was formed with very little capital, "
+"just the money its three founders had. And it kept growing every year and "
+"being profitable every year until they got greedy, and looked for outside "
+"investors, and then they messed things up. But it was several years of "
+"success, before they got greedy."
+msgstr ""
+"Ale w 1990 powstaÅa pierwsza korporacja opierajÄ
ca dziaÅalnoÅÄ
na "
+"wolnym oprogramowaniu, Cygnus Support. A ich dziaÅalnoÅÄ to byÅo
w "
+"gruncie rzeczy to samo, co ja robiÅem. Z caÅÄ
pewnoÅciÄ
mógÅbym
dla "
+"nich pracowaÄ, gdyby byÅa taka potrzeba. Ponieważ takiej potrzeby nie
"
+"byÅo, to stwierdziÅem, że dobrze bÄdzie dla ruchu, gdy pozostanÄ "
+"niezależny od jakiejÅ konkretnej firmy. W ten sposób mogÅem
mówiÄ "
+"dobre i zÅe rzeczy o różnych firmach programistycznych zajmujÄ
cych
siÄ "
+"wolnym i niewolnym oprogramowaniem bez żadnego konfliktu "
+"interesów. WydawaÅo mi siÄ, że lepiej siÄ przysÅuÅ¼Ä ruchowi.
Ale "
+"gdybym potrzebowaÅ pracy u nich, żeby siÄ utrzymaÄ, to oczywiÅcie
bym "
+"dla nich pracowaÅ. To etyczny rodzaj pracy. Nie byÅoby powodu, żebym
musiaÅ "
+"siÄ wstydziÄ pracy u nich. Ta firma zaczÄÅa przynosiÄ zyski w "
+"pierwszym roku dziaÅalnoÅci. ZostaÅa zaÅożona z bardzo maÅym
kapitaÅem "
+"poczÄ
tkowym skÅadajÄ
cym siÄ wyÅÄ
cznie z pieniÄdzy jej trzech "
+"zaÅożycieli. I rozwijaÅa siÄ każdego roku i przynosiÅa zyski "
+"każdego roku, aż stali siÄ pazerni i zaczÄli szukaÄ zewnÄtrznych "
+"inwestorów, a potem wszystko zepsuli. Ale sukces trwaŠkilka lat,
"
+"zanim stali siÄ pazerni."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, this illustrates one of the exciting things about free software. Free "
+"software demonstrates that you don't need to raise capital to develop free "
+"software. I mean, it's useful; it <em>can</em> help. You know, if you do "
+"raise some capital, you can hire people and have them write a bunch of "
+"software. But you can get a lot done with a small number of people. And, "
+"in fact, the tremendous efficiency of the process of developing free "
+"software is one of the reasons it's important for the world to switch to "
+"free software. And it also belies what Microsoft says when they say the GNU "
+"GPL is bad, because it makes it harder for them to raise capital to develop "
+"non-free software and take our free software and put our code into their "
+"programs that they won't share with us. Basically, we don't need to have "
+"them raising capital that way. We'll get the job done anyway. We are "
+"getting the job done."
+msgstr ""
+"To sÅuży za przykÅad jednej z ekscytujÄ
cych rzeczy dotyczÄ
cych
"
+"wolnego oprogramowania. Wolne oprogramowanie pokazuje, że nie musicie "
+"zbieraÄ kapitaÅu, żeby tworzyÄ wolne oprogramowanie. To znaczy, to siÄ "
+"przydaje; to <em>może</em> pomóc. No wiecie, jak zbierzecie kapitaÅ, to "
+"możecie zatrudniÄ paru ludzi i kazaÄ im napisaÄ trochÄ
oprogramowania. "
+"Ale wiele można zdziaÅaÄ z niewielkÄ
liczbÄ
osób. Tak
naprawdÄ to "
+"olbrzymia wydajnoÅÄ procesu tworzenia wolnego oprogramowania jest jednym "
+"z powodów, dla których ważne jest, aby Åwiat przesiadÅ siÄ
na "
+"wolne oprogramowanie. I zadaje to także kÅam temu, co Microsoft "
+"twierdzi mówiÄ
c, że GPL jest zÅa, bo z jej powodu trudniej jest
im "
+"zbieraÄ kapitaÅ na rozwój niewolnego oprogramowania i braÄ
nasze "
+"programy, i wstawiaÄ nasz kod do swoich programów, którymi siÄ "
+"z nami nie podzielÄ
. Ogólnie rzecz biorÄ
c nie potrzeba nam, żeby
w "
+"ten sposób zbierali kapitaÅ. I tak wykonamy potrzebnÄ
pracÄ.
Wykonujemy "
+"jÄ
."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"People used to say we could never do a complete free operating system. Now "
+"we've done that and a tremendous amount more. And I would say that we're "
+"about an order of magnitude away from developing all the general purpose "
+"published software needs of the world. And this is in a world where more "
+"than 90% of the users don't use our free software yet. This is in a world "
+"where, although in certain areas of business, you know, more than half of "
+"all the web servers in the world are running on GNU/Linux with Apache as the "
+"web server."
+msgstr ""
+"KiedyÅ ludzie mówili, że nigdy nie uda nam siÄ stworzyÄ kompletnego
"
+"wolnego systemu operacyjnego. Nie doÅÄ, że stworzyliÅmy system, to "
+"zrobiliÅmy jeszcze dużo wiÄcej. PowiedziaÅbym, że jesteÅmy o rzÄ
d
"
+"wielkoÅci od stworzenia caÅego potrzebnego Åwiatu oprogramowania "
+"ogólnego przeznaczenia. I to w Åwiecie, w którym 90% "
+"użytkowników nie korzysta jeszcze z naszego oprogramowania. W "
+"Åwiecie, w którym, chociaż w niektórych branżach biznesu, no "
+"wiecie, wiÄcej niż poÅowa wszystkich serwerów sieciowych na Åwiecie
"
+"dziaÅa pod GNU/Linuksem i używa Apache jako serwera sieciowego."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i> … What did you say "
+"before, Linux?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: <i>[niewyraźne]</i> … Co powiedziaÅeÅ, "
+"Linux?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I said GNU/Linux."
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I said GNU/Linux."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You did?"
+msgstr "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Tak?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, if I'm talking about the kernel, I call it "
+"Linux. You know, that's it's name. The kernel was written by Linus "
+"Torvalds, and we should only call it by the name that he chose, out of "
+"respect for the author."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tak, gdy mówiÄ o jÄ
drze, to nazywam je Linux.
No "
+"wiesz, taka jest jego nazwa. JÄ
dro zostaÅo napisane przez Linusa Torvaldsa "
+"i powinniÅmy je nazywaÄ tylko tak, jak on chciaÅ, z szacunku "
+"do autora."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Anyway, but in general, in business most users are not using it. Most home "
+"users are not using our system yet. So, when they are, we should "
+"automatically get 10 times as many volunteers and 10 times as many customers "
+"for the free software businesses that there will be. And so that will take "
+"us that order of magnitude. So at this point, I am pretty confident that we "
+"<em>can</em> do the job."
+msgstr ""
+"Tak czy inaczej, ogólnie w biznesie wiÄkszoÅÄ użytkowników go
nie "
+"używa. WiÄkszoÅÄ domowych użytkowników nie korzysta jeszcze
z naszego "
+"systemu. WiÄc gdy zacznÄ
to robiÄ, to powinniÅmy automatycznie
zyskaÄ "
+"10 razy wiÄcej ochotników i 10 razy wiÄcej klientów dla firm "
+"zajmujÄ
cych siÄ wolnym oprogramowaniem, które powstanÄ
. I to nam "
+"pozwoli na pokonanie tego rzÄdu wielkoÅci. WiÄc obecnie jestem "
+"caÅkiem pewny, że <em>może</em> nam siÄ udaÄ."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And, this is important, because Microsoft asks us to feel desperate. They "
+"say, The only way you can have software to run, the only way you can have "
+"innovation, is if you give us power. Let us dominate you. Let us control "
+"what you can do with the software you're running, so that we can squeeze a "
+"lot of money out of you, and use a certain fraction of that to develop "
+"software, and take the rest as profit."
+msgstr ""
+"I to jest ważne, bo Microsoft chce, żebyÅmy czuli siÄ "
+"zdesperowani. MówiÄ
: „Jedyny sposób, żebyÅcie mieli dziaÅajÄ
ce "
+"oprogramowanie, żebyÅcie mieli innowacje, to przekazanie nam wÅadzy.
Dajcie "
+"nam siÄ zdominowaÄ. Dajcie nam kontrolÄ nad tym, co robicie ze swoim "
+"oprogramowaniem, żebyÅmy mogli wycisnÄ
Ä z was górÄ pieniÄdzy
i "
+"użyÄ jej niewielkiej czÄÅci do rozwoju programów, a resztÄ "
+"zatrzymaÄ jako zysk”."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Well, you shouldn't ever feel that desperate. You shouldn't ever feel so "
+"desperate that you give up your freedom. That's very dangerous."
+msgstr ""
+"Cóż, nie powinniÅcie siÄ nigdy czuÄ tak zdesperowani. Nigdy nie
powinniÅcie "
+"siÄ czuÄ na tyle zdesperowani, aby oddaÄ swojÄ
wolnoÅÄ. To
bardzo "
+"niebezpieczne."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Another thing that Microsoft, well, not just Microsoft, people who don't "
+"support free software generally adopt a value system in which the only thing "
+"that matters is short-term practical benefits: How much money am I going to "
+"make this year? What job can I get done today? Short-term thinking and "
+"narrow thinking. Their assumption is that it is ridiculous to imagine that "
+"anybody ever might make a sacrifice for the sake of freedom."
+msgstr ""
+"Kolejna rzecz, którÄ
Microsoft, cóż, nie tylko Microsoft, ludzie, którzy
nie "
+"popierajÄ
wolnego oprogramowania ogólnie przyjmujÄ
system wartoÅci,
w "
+"którym jedyna liczÄ
ca siÄ rzecz to krótkoterminowe praktyczne korzyÅci:
Ile "
+"pieniÄdzy zarobiÄ w tym roku? Co mogÄ zrobiÄ dzisiaj?
Krótkoterminowe "
+"i wÄ
skie myÅlenie. Ich zaÅożenie jest takie, że niedorzecznie
jest "
+"myÅleÄ, iż ktokolwiek mógÅby poÅwiÄcaÄ siÄ dla wolnoÅci."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Yesterday, a lot of people were making speeches about Americans who made "
+"sacrifices for the freedom of their compatriots. Some of them made great "
+"sacrifices. They even sacrificed their lives for the kinds of freedom that "
+"everyone in our country has heard about, at least. (At least, in some of "
+"the cases; I guess we have to ignore the war in Vietnam.)"
+msgstr ""
+"Wczoraj wielu ludzi przemawiaÅo na temat Amerykanów, którzy
poÅwiÄcali "
+"siÄ dla wolnoÅci swoich rodaków. Niektórzy z nich poÅwiÄcali
bardzo "
+"wiele. PoÅwiÄcali nawet swoje życie za takie wolnoÅci, o których "
+"wszyscy w naszym kraju przynajmniej sÅyszeli. (Przynajmniej w "
+"niektórych przypadkach; wydaje mi siÄ, że powinniÅmy zignorowaÄ
wojnÄ "
+"w Wietnamie)."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<i>[Editor's note: The day before was “Memorial Day” in the "
+"USA. Memorial Day is a day where war heros are commemorated.]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<i>[DzieÅ wczeÅniej w USA miaÅ miejsce Memorial Day, dzieÅ, w "
+"którym oddawana jest czeÅÄ bohaterom wojennym. – przyp.
red.]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, fortunately, to maintain our freedom in using software, doesn't call "
+"for big sacrifices. Just tiny, little sacrifices are enough, like learning a "
+"command-line interface, if we don't have a GUI interface program yet. Like "
+"doing the job in this way, because we don't have a free software package to "
+"do it that way, yet. Like, paying some money to a company that's going to "
+"develop a certain free software package, so that you can have it in a few "
+"years. Various little sacrifices that we can all make. And, in the long "
+"run, even we will have benefited from it. You know, it is really an "
+"investment more than a sacrifice. We just have to have enough long-term "
+"view to realize it's good for us to invest in improving our society, without "
+"counting the nickels and dimes of who gets how much of the benefit from that "
+"investment."
+msgstr ""
+"Ale na szczÄÅcie utrzymanie naszej wolnoÅci korzystania z "
+"oprogramowania nie wymaga wielkich poÅwiÄceÅ. Malutkie, niewielkie "
+"poÅwiÄcenia wystarczÄ
, na przykÅad nauczenie siÄ interfejsu linii "
+"poleceÅ, jeÅli nie mamy jeszcze interfejsu graficznego. Na przykÅad "
+"robienie czegoŠw ten sposób, bo nie mamy jeszcze wolnego pakietu
"
+"umożliwiajÄ
cego zrobienie tego inaczej. Na przykÅad przekazanie
trochÄ "
+"pieniÄdzy firmie, która ma zamiar napisaÄ jakiÅ pakiet wolnego "
+"oprogramowania, żebyÅcie mogli go za kilka lat używaÄ. Różne maÅe
"
+"poÅwiÄcenia, które wszyscy możemy ponieÅÄ. A na dÅuższÄ
metÄ
nawet "
+"na tym skorzystamy. No wiecie, to tak naprawdÄ bardziej inwestycja niż
"
+"poÅwiÄcenie. Musimy mieÄ tylko wystarczajÄ
co dalekosiÄżnÄ
perspektywÄ, "
+"aby dostrzec, że dobre jest dla nas inwestowanie w ulepszanie
"
+"spoÅeczeÅstwa, bez rachowania miedziaków, kto i ile na tej "
+"inwestycji skorzysta."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "So, at this point, I'm essentially done."
+msgstr "W zasadzie tutaj skoÅczyÅem."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"I'd like to mention that there's a new approach to free software business "
+"being proposed by Tony Stanco, which he calls “Free Developers”, "
+"which involves a certain business structure which hopes eventually to pay "
+"out a certain share of the profits to every, to all the authors of the free "
+"software who've joined the organization. And they're looking at the "
+"prospects of getting me some rather large government software development "
+"contracts in India now, because they're going to be using free software as "
+"the basis, having tremendous cost savings that way."
+msgstr ""
+"ChciaÅbym wspomnieÄ, że istnieje nowe podejÅcie do biznesu "
+"opartego na wolnym oprogramowaniu zaproponowane przez Tony'ego Stanco, "
+"które nazywa „Free Developers„ [<em>Wolni Autorzy</em>] i "
+"które opiera siÄ na pewnej strukturze biznesowej majÄ
cej
w koÅcu "
+"wypÅaciÄ czÄÅÄ zysków każdemu, wszystkim autorom wolnego programu,
którzy "
+"doÅÄ
czyli siÄ do organizacji. W tej chwili rozważajÄ
możliwoÅci "
+"zaÅatwienia mi dosyÄ dużych kontraktów rzÄ
dowych na rozwój
programów "
+"w Indiach, bo bÄdÄ
używaÄ wolnego oprogramowania jako podstawy,
co "
+"zapewni im olbrzymie oszczÄdnoÅci."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "And so now I guess that I should ask for questions."
+msgstr "WiÄc zdaje siÄ, że teraz powinienem poprosiÄ o pytania."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Could you speak up a bit louder please? I can't "
+"really hear you."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Czy mógÅbyÅ mówiÄ odrobinÄ gÅoÅniej? "
+"NaprawdÄ nic nie sÅyszÄ."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: How could a company like Microsoft include a free "
+"software contract?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Jak mogÅaby firma taka jak Microsoft zawrzeÄ "
+"kontrakt na wolne oprogramowanie?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually, Microsoft is planning to shift a "
+"lot of its activity into services. And what they're planning to do is "
+"something dirty and dangerous, which is tie the services to the programs, "
+"one to the next, in a sort of zigzag, you know? So that to use this service, "
+"you've got to be using this Microsoft program, which is going to mean you "
+"need to use this service, to this Microsoft program, so it's all tied "
+"together. That's their plan."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Cóż, tak naprawdÄ to Microsoft planuje "
+"przeniesienie dużej czÄÅci swojej dziaÅalnoÅci na usÅugi. I "
+"planujÄ
coÅ podÅego i niebezpiecznego, tzn. przywiÄ
zanie usÅug
do "
+"programów, jednego do drugiego, w rodzaj wÄzÅa, rozumiecie? "
+"WiÄc aby korzystaÄ z tej usÅugi, bÄdziecie musieli używaÄ
tego "
+"programu Microsoftu, co bÄdzie oznaczaÅo, że bÄdziecie musieli "
+"korzystaÄ z tej usÅugi w przypadku tego programu, wiÄc to "
+"wszystko jest powiÄ
zane. Taki jest ich plan."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, the interesting thing is that selling those services doesn't raise the "
+"ethical issue of free software or non-free software. It might be perfectly "
+"fine for them to have the business for those businesses selling those "
+"services over the net to exist. However, what Microsoft is planning to do "
+"is to use them to achieve an even greater lock, an even greater monopoly, on "
+"the software and the services, and this was described in an article, I "
+"believe in Business Week, recently. And, other people said that it is "
+"turning the net into the Microsoft Company Town."
+msgstr ""
+"InteresujÄ
ce jest to, że sprzedawanie tych usÅug nie rodzi etycznej "
+"kwestii „wolne czy niewolne oprogramowanie”. MogÅoby ich "
+"zupeÅnie zadowalaÄ to, że ich interes polegaÅby na prowadzeniu "
+"dziaÅalnoÅci dla firm, które utrzymywaÅyby siÄ ze sprzedaży tych usÅug
przez "
+"sieÄ. Jednak plan Microsoftu to użycie ich do zdobycia jeszcze "
+"ÅciÅlejszej kontroli, jeszcze wiÄkszego monopolu na oprogramowanie "
+"i usÅugi, zostaÅo to ostatnio opisane w artykule w zdaje
siÄ, "
+"że „Business Week”. Inni ludzie stwierdzili, że to "
+"zmiana sieci w miasteczko firmowe Microsoftu."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And this is relevant because, you know, the trial court in the Microsoft "
+"antitrust trial recommended breaking up the company, Microsoft. But in a "
+"way, that makes no sense — it wouldn't do any good at all — into "
+"the operating part and the applications part."
+msgstr ""
+"A to jest ważne, ponieważ wiecie, w sprawie antytrustowej sÄ
d "
+"zaleciÅ podziaÅ Microsoftu. Ale w pewnym sensie to nie ma rÄ
k
ani "
+"nóg – nie daÅoby to niczego dobrego – dzielenie "
+"na czÄÅÄ operacyjnÄ
i czÄÅÄ zajmujÄ
cÄ
siÄ aplikacjami."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But having seen that article, I now see a useful, effective way to split up "
+"Microsoft into the services part and the software part, to require them to "
+"deal with each other only at arm's length, that the services must publish "
+"their interfaces, so that anybody can write a client to talk to those "
+"services, and, I guess, that they have to pay to get the service. Well, "
+"that's OK. That's a totally different issue."
+msgstr ""
+"Ale po przeczytaniu tego artykuÅu widzÄ teraz użytecznÄ
, skutecznÄ
"
+"drogÄ podziaÅu Microsoftu na czÄÅÄ usÅugowÄ
i programistycznÄ
, "
+"przy czym nie mogÅyby byÄ ze sobÄ
powiÄ
zane, musiaÅyby siÄ trzymaÄ
na "
+"dystans, a czÄÅÄ usÅugowa musiaÅaby opublikowaÄ interfejsy, tak
żeby "
+"każdy mógÅ napisaÄ program kliencki mogÄ
cy siÄ dogadaÄ z tymi
usÅugami "
+"i, jak przypuszczam, żeby trzeba byÅo pÅaciÄ za otrzymanie usÅugi.
Cóż, "
+"to jest OK. To zupeÅnie inna sprawa."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"If Microsoft is split up in this way […] services and software, they "
+"will not be able to use their software to crush competition with Microsoft "
+"services. And they won't be able to use the services to crush competition "
+"with Microsoft software. And we will be able to make the free software, and "
+"maybe you people will use it to talk to Microsoft services, and we won't "
+"mind."
+msgstr ""
+"JeÅli Microsoft zostanie podzielony w ten sposób […] usÅugi "
+"i oprogramowanie, to nie bÄdÄ
mogli używaÄ swojego oprogramowania "
+"do miażdżenia konkurencji usÅugami Microsoftu. I nie bÄdÄ
mogli "
+"używaÄ swoich usÅug do miażdżenia konkurencji oprogramowaniem "
+"Microsoftu. I bÄdziemy mogli tworzyÄ wolne oprogramowanie, a wy "
+"może bÄdziecie go używaÄ do komunikowania siÄ z usÅugami "
+"Microsoftu, a nam to nie bÄdzie przeszkadzaÄ."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Because, after all, although Microsoft is the proprietary software company "
+"that has subjugated the most people — the others have subjugated fewer "
+"people, it's not for want of trying. <i>[Laughter]</i> They just haven't "
+"succeeded in subjugating as many people. So, the problem is not Microsoft "
+"and only Microsoft. Microsoft is just the biggest example of the problem "
+"we're trying to solve, which is proprietary software taking away users' "
+"freedom to cooperate and form an ethical society. So we shouldn't focus too "
+"much on Microsoft, you know, even though they did give me the opportunity "
+"for this platform. That doesn't make them all-important. They're not the be-"
+"all and end-all."
+msgstr ""
+"Bo w gruncie rzeczy, pomimo tego, że Microsoft jest firmÄ
"
+"rozwijajÄ
cÄ
objÄte restrykcyjnymi licencjami oprogramowanie, która "
+"zniewoliÅa wiÄkszoÅÄ ludzi – inni zniewolili mniejszÄ
liczbÄ
"
+"osób, ale nie dlatego, że nie próbowali. <i>[Åmiech]</i>
Po "
+"prostu nie udaÅo im siÄ zniewoliÄ aż tylu ludzi. WiÄc problemem nie
"
+"jest tylko i wyÅÄ
cznie Microsoft. Microsoft jest tylko najwiÄkszym "
+"przejawem problemu, który chcemy rozwiÄ
zaÄ, czyli faktu,
że objÄte "
+"restrykcyjnymi licencjami oprogramowanie odbiera użytkownikom wolnoÅÄ "
+"do wspóÅpracy i tworzenia etycznego spoÅeczeÅstwa.
WiÄc nie "
+"powinniÅmy siÄ zanadto skupiaÄ na Microsofcie, no wiecie, nawet
jeÅli "
+"dali mi okazjÄ do przemawiania z tego miejsca. Nie czyni to ich "
+"najważniejszymi. Oni nie sÄ
poczÄ
tkiem i koÅcem wszystkiego."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Earlier, you were discussing the philosophical "
+"differences between open source software and free software. How do you feel "
+"about the current trend of GNU/Linux distributions as they head towards "
+"supporting only Intel platforms? And the fact that it seems that less and "
+"less programmers are programming correctly, and making software that will "
+"compile anywhere? And making software that simply works on Intel systems?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: WczeÅniej mówiÅeÅ o filozoficznych różnicach "
+"miÄdzy wolnym oprogramowaniem i oprogramowaniem open source. Co sÄ
dzisz "
+"o obecnej tendencji, w której dystrybucje GNU/Linuksa skÅaniajÄ
siÄ
ku "
+"wspieraniu wyÅÄ
cznie platform Intela? Oraz o tym, że, jak siÄ zdaje,
"
+"coraz mniej programistów pisze kod prawidÅowo i tworzy oprogramowanie,
"
+"które bÄdzie siÄ wszÄdzie kompilowaÄ? I o robieniu programów,
które "
+"dziaÅajÄ
po prostu na systemach Intela?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I don't see an ethical issue there. Although, in "
+"fact, companies that make computers sometimes port the GNU/Linux system to "
+"it. HP apparently did this recently. And, they didn't bother paying for a "
+"port of Windows, because that would have cost too much. But getting GNU/"
+"Linux supported was, I think, five engineers for a few months. It was "
+"easily doable."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Nie widzÄ tutaj etycznego problemu. Chociaż "
+"w rzeczywistoÅci firmy produkujÄ
ce komputery czasami portujÄ
na "
+"nie GNU/Linuksa. Jak widaÄ HP ostatnio to zrobiÅo. Nie chcieli pÅaciÄ "
+"za port Windowsa, bo to kosztowaÅoby zbyt wiele. Ale "
+"doprowadzenie do dziaÅania GNU/Linuksa zajÄÅo, o ile siÄ nie mylÄ, "
+"piÄciu inżynierom parÄ miesiÄcy. ByÅo to Åatwe do zrobienia."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, of course, I encourage people to use <code>autoconf</code>, which is a "
+"GNU package that makes it easier to make your programs portable. I "
+"encourage them to do that. Or when somebody else fixes the bug that it "
+"didn't compile on that version of the system, and sends it to you, you "
+"should put it in. But I don't see that as an ethical issue."
+msgstr ""
+"OczywiÅcie zachÄcam ludzi do korzystania
z <code>autoconf</code>a, "
+"który jest pakietem GNU uÅatwiajÄ
cym tworzenie przenoÅnego
oprogramowania. "
+"ZachÄcam ich do tego. Albo gdy ktoÅ naprawi bÅÄ
d, który
powodowaÅ, "
+"że nie kompilowaÅo siÄ na innej wersji systemu i wam go "
+"przeÅle, powinniÅcie to doÅÄ
czyÄ. Ale nie widzÄ tutaj etycznego "
+"problemu."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Two comments. One is: Recently, you spoke at "
+"MIT. I read the transcript. And someone asked about patents, and you said "
+"that “patents are a totally different issue. I have no comments on "
+"that.”"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Dwa komentarze. Pierwszy: Ostatnio przemawiaÅeÅ "
+"na MIT. CzytaÅem zapis. KtoÅ zapytaÅ o patenty
i odpowiedziaÅeÅ, "
+"że „patenty to zupeÅnie inna kwestia. Nie mam na ten temat "
+"nic do powiedzenia”."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I actually have a lot to say about "
+"patents, but it takes an hour. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Racja. Tak naprawdÄ to mam bardzo dużo do "
+"powiedzenia o patentach, ale to zajmuje godzinÄ. <i>[Åmiech]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: I wanted to say this: It seems to me that there "
+"is an issue. I mean, there is a reason that companies call both patents and "
+"copyrights things like hard property in trying to get this concept which is, "
+"if they want to use the power of the State to create a course of monopoly "
+"for themselves. And so, what's common about these things is not that they "
+"revolve around the same issues, but that motivation is not really the public "
+"service issues but the motivation of companies to get a monopoly for their "
+"private interests."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: ChciaÅem powiedzieÄ, że wedÅug mnie jest "
+"w tym problem. To znaczy istnieje powód, dla którego firmy nazywajÄ
"
+"zarówno patenty jak i prawa autorskie wÅasnoÅciÄ
trwaÅÄ
w celu "
+"przeforsowania tej koncepcji, próby użycia siÅy PaÅstwa
do stworzenia "
+"dla siebie monopolu. WiÄc to, co jest wspólne dla tych rzeczy, to nie "
+"to, że dotyczÄ
podobnych spraw, ale to, że nie chodzi im
tak "
+"naprawdÄ o sÅużbÄ spoÅeczeÅstwu, motywacjÄ
tych firm jest uzyskanie
monopolu "
+"dla swoich prywatnych interesów."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I understand. But, well, I want to respond "
+"because there's not too much time. So I'd like to respond to that."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Rozumiem. Ale, cóż, chcÄ odpowiedzieÄ,
bo "
+"nie ma zbyt wiele czasu. WiÄc chciaÅbym na to odpowiedzieÄ."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"You're right that that's what they want. But there's another reason why "
+"they want to use the term intellectual property. It's that they don't want "
+"to encourage people to think carefully about copyright issues or patent "
+"issues. Because copyright law and patent law are totally different, and the "
+"effects of software copyrighted and software patents are totally different."
+msgstr ""
+"Masz racjÄ, to jest to, czego oni chcÄ
. Ale jest jeszcze jeden powód,
"
+"dla którego chcÄ
używaÄ terminu „wÅasnoÅÄ intelektualna”. "
+"Bo nie chcÄ
zachÄcaÄ ludzi do dokÅadnego przemyÅlenia kwestii "
+"prawa autorskiego i kwestii patentowych. Bo prawo autorskie i "
+"prawo patentowe to dwie osobne rzeczy, a skutki objÄcia oprogramowania "
+"prawem autorskim i opatentowania programów sÄ
zupeÅnie inne."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Software patents are a restriction on programmers, prohibiting them from "
+"writing certain kinds of programs, whereas copyright doesn't do that. With "
+"copyright, at least if you wrote it yourself, you're allowed to distribute "
+"it. So, it's tremendously important to separate these issues."
+msgstr ""
+"Patenty na oprogramowanie to ograniczanie programistów, zabranianie im "
+"pisania pewnych rodzajów programów, podczas gdy prawo autorskie tego nie "
+"robi. Prawo autorskie pozwala, przynajmniej jeÅli sami to napisaliÅcie, "
+"na dystrybucjÄ. WiÄc jest ogromnie ważne, żeby rozdzielaÄ te "
+"kwestie."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"They have a little bit in common, at a very low level, and everything else "
+"is different. So, please, to encourage clear thinking, discuss copyright or "
+"discuss patents. But don't discuss intellectual property. I don't have an "
+"opinion on intellectual property. I have opinions on copyrights and patents "
+"and software."
+msgstr ""
+"MajÄ
trochÄ wspólnego na bardzo niskim poziomie, ale caÅa
reszta "
+"jest inna. WiÄc, proszÄ, aby zachÄcaÄ do jasnego myÅlenia, "
+"rozważajcie prawo autorskie albo rozważajcie patenty. Ale nie "
+"rozważajcie wÅasnoÅci intelektualnej. Nie mam opinii o wÅasnoÅci "
+"intelektualnej. Mam opinie na temat prawa autorskiego, patentów i "
+"oprogramowania."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You mentioned at the beginning that a functional "
+"language, like recipes, are computer programs. There's a cross a little bit "
+"different than other kinds of language created on. This is also causing a "
+"problem in the DVD case."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: WspomniaÅeÅ na poczÄ
tku, że jÄzyk "
+"funkcjonalny, jak przepisy kulinarne, to programy komputerowe. Tworzone jest "
+"coÅ poÅredniego, krzyżówka odrobinÄ inna niż inne rodzaje jÄzyków. To
także "
+"problem w przypadku DVD."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: The issues are partly similar but partly "
+"different, for things that are not functional in nature. Part of the issue "
+"transfers but not all of it. Unfortunately, that's another hour speech. I "
+"don't have time to go into it. But I would say that all functional works "
+"ought to be free in the same sense as software. You know, textbooks, "
+"manuals, dictionaries, and recipes, and so on."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Te kwestie sÄ
czÄÅciowo podobne, ale "
+"czÄÅciowo inne w przypadku rzeczy nie bÄdÄ
cych z natury "
+"funkcjonalnymi. CzÄÅÄ kwestii zostaje, ale nie wszystkie. Niestety to
"
+"kolejne godzinne przemówienie. Nie mam czasu, żeby siÄ w to
wgÅÄbiaÄ. "
+"Ale uważam, że wszystkie funkcjonalne dzieÅa powinny byÄ wolne "
+"w takim samym sensie jak oprogramowanie. No wiecie, podrÄczniki, "
+"instrukcje, sÅowniki, przepisy i tak dalej."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: I was just wondering on online music. There are "
+"similarities and differences created all through."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: WÅaÅnie siÄ zastanawiaÅem nad muzykÄ
dostÄpnÄ
"
+"w sieci. W caÅej tej sprawie sÄ
podobieÅstwa i różnice."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I'd say that the minimum freedom that we "
+"should have for any kind of published information is the freedom to non-"
+"commercially redistribute it, verbatim. For functional works, we need the "
+"freedom to commercially publish a modified version, because that's "
+"tremendously useful to society. For non-functional works, you know, things "
+"that are to entertain, or to be aesthetic, or to state a certain person's "
+"views, you know, perhaps they shouldn't be modified. And, perhaps that "
+"means that it's OK, to have copyright covering all commercial distribution "
+"of them."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Racja. MyÅlÄ, że minimum wolnoÅci, jakie "
+"powinniÅmy mieÄ wobec każdego rodzaju opublikowanych informacji, to
wolnoÅÄ "
+"do ich niekomercyjnego rozpowszechniania w niezmienionej postaci. "
+"W przypadku dzieÅ funkcjonalnych potrzebna nam jest wolnoÅÄ do "
+"komercyjnej dystrybucji zmienionych wersji, bo jest to ogromnie "
+"użyteczne dla spoÅeczeÅstwa. Dla dzieÅ niefunkcjonalnych, no wiecie,
rzeczy "
+"rozrywkowych lub majÄ
cych wartoÅÄ estetycznÄ
, lub wyrażajÄ
cych "
+"czyjeÅ poglÄ
dy, no wiecie, byÄ może nie powinny byÄ modyfikowane.
I byÄ "
+"może znaczy to, że jest w porzÄ
dku, aby caÅÄ
ich
komercyjnÄ
"
+"dystrybucjÄ obejmowaÅo prawo autorskie."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Please remember that according to the U.S. Constitution, the purpose of "
+"copyright is to benefit the public. It is to modify the behavior of certain "
+"private parties, so that they will publish more books. And the benefit of "
+"this is that society gets to discuss issues and learn. And, you know, we "
+"have literature. We have scientific works. The purpose is encourage that. "
+"Copyrights do not exist for the sake of authors, let alone for the sake of "
+"publishers. They exist for the sake of readers and all those who benefit "
+"from the communication of information that happens when people write and "
+"others read. And that goal I agree with."
+msgstr ""
+"PamiÄtajcie proszÄ, że wedÅug konstytucji USA celem prawa
autorskiego "
+"jest korzyÅÄ spoÅeczeÅstwa. Jest nim modyfikowanie zachowania pewnych "
+"prywatnych podmiotów, aby publikowali wiÄcej ksiÄ
żek. KorzyÅciÄ
z "
+"tego pÅynÄ
cÄ
jest to, że spoÅeczeÅstwo ma o czym dyskutowaÄ
i siÄ "
+"uczy. No i wiecie, mamy literaturÄ. Mamy prace naukowe. Celem jest "
+"zachÄcanie do ich tworzenia. Prawa autorskie nie istniejÄ
dla
autorów, "
+"a już na pewno nie wydawców. IstniejÄ
dla czytelników i "
+"wszystkich tych, którzy korzystajÄ
na wymianie informacji majÄ
cej "
+"miejsce, gdy jedni piszÄ
, a drudzy czytajÄ
. A z tym celem siÄ "
+"zgadzam."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But in the age of the computer networks, the method is no longer tenable, "
+"because it now requires draconian laws that invade everybody's privacy and "
+"terrorize everyone. You know, years in prison for sharing with your "
+"neighbor. It wasn't like that in the age of the printing press. Then "
+"copyright was an industrial regulation. It restricted publishers. Now, "
+"it's a restriction imposed by the publishers on the public. So, the power "
+"relationship is turned around 180 degrees, even if it's the same law."
+msgstr ""
+"Ale w dobie sieci komputerowych ta metoda nie jest już dÅużej
możliwa "
+"do utrzymania, bo wymaga obecnie drakoÅskich praw naruszajÄ
cych "
+"naszÄ
prywatnoÅÄ i nas terroryzujÄ
cych. No wiecie, lata w "
+"wiÄzieniu za dzielenie siÄ ze swoim bliźnim. W czasach prasy "
+"drukarskiej tak nie byÅo. Wtedy prawo autorskie byÅo regulacjÄ
branżowÄ
.
"
+"OgraniczaÅo wydawców. Teraz jest ograniczeniem naÅożonym przez wydawców "
+"na spoÅeczeÅstwo. Tak wiÄc relacja wÅadzy zmieniÅa swój
biegun o "
+"180 stopni, chociaż to wciÄ
ż to samo prawo."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: So you can have the same thing — but like "
+"in making music from other music?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: WiÄc można mieÄ to samo â ale jak
w "
+"robieniu muzyki z innej muzyki?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. That is an interesting …"
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Racja. To jest ciekawa…"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: And unique, new works, you know, it's still a lot "
+"of cooperation."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: I unikalne, nowe dzieÅa, no wiesz, to ciÄ
gle "
+"mnóstwo wspóÅpracy."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: It is. And I think that probably requires some "
+"kind of fair use concept. Certainly making a few seconds of sample and "
+"using that in making some musical work, obviously that should be fair use. "
+"Even the standard idea of fair use includes that, if you think about it. "
+"Whether courts agree, I'm not sure, but they should. That wouldn't be a "
+"real change in the system as it has existed."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tak jest. I wydaje mi siÄ, że wymaga
to "
+"jakiejŠkoncepcji dozwolonego użytku. Zdecydowanie robienie krótkiego
sampla "
+"i wykorzystywanie go w jakimÅ dziele muzycznym, to oczywiÅcie "
+"powinien byÄ dozwolony użytek. Nawet standardowa koncepcja dozwolonego "
+"użytku to zakÅada, jeÅli sobie przypomnicie. Nie jestem pewien, czy "
+"zgodzÄ
siÄ z tym sÄ
dy, ale powinny. To nie byÅaby rzeczywista "
+"zmiana w dotychczasowym systemie."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: What do you think about publishing public "
+"information in proprietary formats?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Co sÄ
dzisz o udostÄpnianiu publicznych
informacji "
+"w zamkniÄtych formatach?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, it shouldn't be. I mean, the government "
+"should never require citizens to use a non-free program to access, to "
+"communicate with the government in any way, in either direction."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Och, to nie powinno mieÄ miejsca. To znaczy rzÄ
d
"
+"nigdy nie powinien wymagaÄ od obywateli wykorzystywania niewolnego "
+"programu w celu dostÄpu, komunikacji z rzÄ
dem w jakikolwiek "
+"sposób, w obu kierunkach."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: I have been, what I will now say, a GNU/Linux "
+"user…"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Jestem użytkownikiem, nazwÄ go tak teraz, GNU/"
+"Linuksa…"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Thank you. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: DziÄkujÄ. <i>[Åmiech]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: …for the past four years. The one thing "
+"that has been problematical for me and is something that is essential, I "
+"think, to all of us, is browsing the web."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: …od czterech lat. Jedna rzecz, z którÄ
"
+"miaÅem problem i która jest bardzo ważna chyba dla nas wszystkich, to
"
+"przeglÄ
danie Internetu."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes."
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tak."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: One thing that has been decidedly a weakness in "
+"using a GNU/Linux system has been browsing the web, because the prevailing "
+"tool for that, Netscape…"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Jedna rzecz, która zdecydowanie byÅa "
+"niedogodnoÅciÄ
przy używaniu GNU/Linuksa to byÅo przeglÄ
danie Internetu,
"
+"bo gÅówne narzÄdzie, które do tego sÅuży, Netscape…"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: …is not free software."
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: …nie jest wolnym oprogramowaniem."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Let me respond to this. I want to get to the point, for the sake of getting "
+"in more. So, yes. There has been a terrible tendency for people to use "
+"Netscape Navigator on their GNU/Linux systems. And, in fact all the "
+"commercially packaged systems come with it. So this is an ironic situation: "
+"we worked so hard to make a free operating system, and now, if you go to the "
+"store, and you can find versions of GNU/Linux there, most of them are called "
+"Linux, and they're not free. Oh, well, part of them is. But then, there's "
+"Netscape Navigator, and maybe other non-free programs as well. So, it's "
+"very hard to actually find a free system, unless you know what you're "
+"doing. Or, of course, you can not install Netscape Navigator."
+msgstr ""
+"Pozwólcie, że odpowiem. ChcÄ przejÅÄ do rzeczy, aby byÅ
czas "
+"na wiÄcej pytaÅ. WiÄc, tak. Istnieje wÅród ludzi bardzo niedobra "
+"tendencja używania Netscape Navigatora na systemach GNU/Linux. "
+"WÅaÅciwie jest on dodawany do wszystkich komercyjnie wydawanych "
+"systemów. WiÄc jest to ironiczna sytuacja: pracowaliÅmy tak ciÄżko,
"
+"aby stworzyÄ wolny system operacyjny, a teraz, jak pójdziecie "
+"do sklepu, to możecie tam znaleÅºÄ wersje GNU/Linuksa – "
+"wiÄkszoÅÄ nazywa siÄ Linux – i nie sÄ
one wolne. No
dobra, "
+"czÄÅÄ z nich jest. Ale jest w nich Netscape Navigator
i "
+"może inne niewolne programy też. WiÄc tak naprawdÄ ciÄżko jest
znaleÅºÄ "
+"wolny system, chyba że wiecie, co robicie. Lub, oczywiÅcie, możecie
nie "
+"instalowaÄ Netscape Navigatora."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, in fact, there have been free web browsers for many years. There is a "
+"free web browser that I used to use called Lynx. It's a free web browser "
+"that is non-graphical; it's text-only. This has a tremendous advantage, in "
+"you don't see the ads. <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Tak naprawdÄ to od lat istniejÄ
wolne przeglÄ
darki internetowe. Jest "
+"wolna przeglÄ
darka, której kiedyÅ używaÅem, nazywajÄ
ca siÄ Lynx. To
jest "
+"wolna niegraficzna przeglÄ
darka internetowa, jest tekstowa. To jest wielka "
+"zaleta, bo nie oglÄ
da siÄ reklam. <i>[Åmiech] [aplauz]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But anyway, there is a free graphical project called Mozilla, which is now "
+"getting to the point where you can use it. And I occasionally use it."
+msgstr ""
+"Tak czy inaczej istnieje wolny graficzny projekt o nazwie Mozilla, "
+"który wÅaÅnie dochodzi do stanu używalnoÅci. I czasami go
używam."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 has been very good."
+msgstr "<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 jest bardzo dobry."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, OK. So that's another free graphical "
+"browser. So, we're finally solving that problem, I guess."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Aha, OK. WiÄc oto kolejna wolna graficzna "
+"przeglÄ
darka. WiÄc wydaje siÄ, że w koÅcu dochodzimy do "
+"rozwiÄ
zania tego problemu."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk to me about that philosophical/"
+"ethical division between free software and open source? Do you feel that "
+"those are irreconcilable? …"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Czy możesz mi opowiedzieÄ o tych "
+"filozoficznych/etycznych podziaÅach pomiÄdzy wolnym oprogramowaniem a "
+"open source? Czy sÄ
dzisz, że sÄ
nie do pogodzenia? …"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<i>[Recording switches tapes; end of question and start of answer is missing]"
+"</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<i>[Zmiana kasety w trakcie nagrywania. Brakuje koÅca pytania i "
+"poczÄ
tku odpowiedzi.]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: … to a freedom, and ethics. Or whether "
+"you just say, Well, I hope that you companies will decide it's more "
+"profitable to let us be allowed to do these things."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: … do wolnoÅci i etyki.
Albo "
+"czy po prostu powiecie: „Cóż, mamy nadziejÄ, że wasze
firmy "
+"zdecydujÄ
, że bardziej zyskowne jest pozwolenie nam na robienie "
+"tych rzeczy”."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, as I said, in a lot of practical work, it doesn't really matter what a "
+"person's politics are. When a person offers to help the GNU project, we "
+"don't say: “You have to agree with our politics.” We say that in "
+"a GNU package, you've got to call the system GNU/Linux, and you've got to "
+"call it free software. What you say when you're not speaking to the GNU "
+"Project, that's up to you."
+msgstr ""
+"Ale jak mówiÅem, w przypadku dużej iloÅci praktycznej pracy, "
+"polityka pojedynczych osób nie gra tak naprawdÄ roli. Gdy ktoÅ oferuje
pomoc "
+"projektowi GNU, to nie mówimy: „Musisz siÄ zgadzaÄ z naszÄ
"
+"politykÄ
”. Mówimy, że w pakietach GNU musicie nazywaÄ system
GNU/"
+"Linuksem i nazywaÄ je wolnym oprogramowaniem. To, co mówicie, gdy nie "
+"odnosicie siÄ do projektu GNU, to wasza sprawa."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: The company, IBM, started a campaign for "
+"government agencies, to sell their big new machines, that they used Linux as "
+"selling point, and say Linux."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Firma IBM rozpoczÄÅa kampaniÄ skierowanÄ
do "
+"agencji rzÄ
dowych, promujÄ
cÄ
ich wielkie maszyny, wymieniali to, że "
+"korzystajÄ
z Linuksa, jako gÅównÄ
zaletÄ i mówili „"
+"Linux”."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, of course, it's really the GNU/Linux "
+"systems. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tak, oczywiÅcie naprawdÄ chodzi o systemy GNU/"
+"Linux. <i>[Åmiech]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: That's right! Well, tell the top sales person. "
+"He doesn't know anything for GNU."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Tak jest! WiÄc powiedz to ich szefowi "
+"sprzedaży. On nic nie wie o GNU."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I have to tell who?"
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Komu mam powiedzieÄ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: The top sales person."
+msgstr "<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Szefowi sprzedaży."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh yes. The problem is that they've already "
+"carefully decided what they want to say for reasons of their advantage. And "
+"the issue of what is a more accurate, or fair, or correct way to describe it "
+"is not the primary issue that matters to a company like that. Now, some "
+"small companies, yes, there'll be a boss. And if the boss is inclined to "
+"think about things like that, he might make a decision that way. Not a "
+"giant corporation though. It's a shame, you know."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: A, tak. Problem polega na tym, że oni "
+"już dawno starannie podjÄli decyzjÄ, co chcÄ
powiedzieÄ,
aby zyskaÄ "
+"przewagÄ. A kwestia, co jest trafniejszym lub sprawiedliwszym, "
+"lub prawidÅowym sposobem jego okreÅlania, nie jest jakÄ
Å zasadniczÄ
"
+"sprawÄ
, która obchodziÅaby takÄ
firmÄ. JakieÅ maÅe firmy, tak, tam
może byÄ "
+"szef. I jeÅli ten szef jest zdeterminowany mieÄ takie rzeczy na "
+"uwadze, to może podjÄ
Ä takÄ
decyzjÄ. Ale nie gigantyczna
korporacja. To "
+"wstyd, wiecie."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"There's another more important and more substantive issue about what IBM is "
+"doing. They're saying that they're putting a billion dollars into “"
+"Linux”. But perhaps, I should also put quotes around “"
+"into”, as well, because some of that money is paying people to develop "
+"free software. That really is a contribution to our community. But other "
+"parts is paying to pay people to write proprietary software, or port "
+"proprietary software to run on top of GNU/Linux, and that is <em>not</em> a "
+"contribution to our community. But IBM is lumping that altogether into "
+"this. Some of it might be advertising, which is partly a contribution, even "
+"if it's partly wrong. So, it's a complicated situation. Some of what "
+"they're doing is contribution and some is not. And some is sort is "
+"somewhat, but not exactly. And you can't just lump it altogether and think, "
+"Wow! Whee! A billion dollars from IBM. <i>[Laughter]</i> That's "
+"oversimplification."
+msgstr ""
+"Jest inna ważniejsza i poważniejsza kwestia dotyczÄ
ca postÄpowania
IBM. "
+"TwierdzÄ
oni, że wkÅadajÄ
miliard dolarów
w „Linuksa”. "
+"Ale byÄ może powinienem wziÄ
Ä w cudzysÅów także
„w”, "
+"bo czÄÅÄ tych pieniÄdzy idzie na pÅacenie ludziom
za rozwój "
+"wolnego oprogramowania. To naprawdÄ jest wkÅad na rzecz naszej "
+"spoÅecznoÅci. Ale reszta idzie na pÅacenie ludziom
za rozwój "
+"oprogramowania objÄtego restrykcyjnymi licencjami albo za portowanie "
+"takiego oprogramowania na GNU/Linuksa, a to <em>nie</em> jest "
+"wkÅad na rzecz naszej spoÅecznoÅci. Ale IBM wkÅada to wszystko "
+"do jednego worka. CzÄÅÄ z tego wszystkiego to może byÄ
reklama, co "
+"jest pewnym wkÅadem, nawet jeÅli trochÄ nieprawidÅowym. WiÄc jest
to "
+"skomplikowana sytuacja. CzÄÅÄ z tego, co robiÄ
, nam sÅuży, a "
+"reszta nie. A czÄÅÄ jest gdzieÅ po Årodku. I nie można
tego "
+"po prostu wrzuciÄ do jednego worka i krzyczeÄ: „Wow! "
+"Hurra! Miliard dolarów od IBM”. <i>[Åmiech]</i> To zbytnie "
+"uproszczenie."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk a little bit more about the thinking "
+"that went into the general public license?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Czy możesz coÅ wiÄcej powiedzieÄ na "
+"temat pobudek, które doprowadziÅy do powstania GPL?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, here's the — I'm sorry, I'm answering "
+"his question now. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Cóż, oto – przepraszam, odpowiadam "
+"teraz na jego pytanie. <i>[Åmiech]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Do you want to reserve some time for the press "
+"conference? Or do you want to continue here?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Czy chcesz zarezerwowaÄ trochÄ czasu "
+"na konferencjÄ prasowÄ
? Czy kontynuowaÄ z tym?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Who is here for the press conference? Not a lot "
+"of press. Oh, three — OK. Can you afford if we — if I go on "
+"answering everybody's questions for another ten minutes or so? OK. So, "
+"we'll go on answering everybody's questions."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Kto tu przyszedÅ na konferencjÄ prasowÄ
? "
+"Niezbyt wielu dziennikarzy. Aha, trzech – OK. Czy nie bÄdzie
"
+"problemu jeÅli bÄdziemy – jeÅli bÄdÄ przez jeszcze jakieÅ 10
"
+"minut odpowiadaÅ na pytania z sali? OK. WiÄc bÄdÄ dalej "
+"odpowiadaÅ na pytania z sali."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, the thinking that went into the GNU GPL? Part of it was that I wanted to "
+"protect the freedom of the community against the phenomena that I just "
+"described with X Windows, which has happened with other free programs as "
+"well. In fact, when I was thinking about this issue, X Windows was not yet "
+"released. But I had seen this problem happen in other free programs. For "
+"instance, TeX. I wanted to make sure that the users would all have "
+"freedom. Otherwise, I realized that I might write a program, and maybe a "
+"lot of people would use the program, but they wouldn't have freedom. And "
+"what's the point of that?"
+msgstr ""
+"WiÄc jakie byÅy pobudki powstania GNU GPL? Po czÄÅci chciaÅem "
+"ochroniÄ wolnoÅÄ spoÅecznoÅci przed zjawiskami, które opisaÅem
na "
+"przykÅadzie systemu X, i które przydarzyÅy siÄ także innym wolnym "
+"programom. Tak naprawdÄ to gdy myÅlaÅem o tej kwestii, X jeszcze nie
zostaÅ "
+"wydany. Ale widziaÅem jak ten problem powstawaÅ przy innych wolnych "
+"programach. Na przykÅad TeX. ChciaÅem zadbaÄ o to, by wszyscy "
+"użytkownicy mieli wolnoÅÄ. ZdaÅem sobie sprawÄ, że w innym wypadku
"
+"mógÅbym napisaÄ jakiÅ program i może używaÅoby go wielu ludzi,
ale "
+"nie mieliby wolnoÅci. A jaki to ma sens?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But the other issue I was thinking about was, I wanted to give the community "
+"a feeling that it was not a doormat, a feeling that it was not prey to any "
+"parasite who would wander along. If you don't use copyleft, you are "
+"essentially saying: <i>[speaking meekly]</i> “Take my code. Do what "
+"you want. I don't say no.” So, anybody can come along and say: <i>"
+"[speaking very firmly]</i> “Ah, I want to make a non-free version of "
+"this. I'll just take it.” And, then, of course, they probably make "
+"some improvements, those non-free versions might appeal to users, and "
+"replace the free versions. And then, what have you accomplished? You've "
+"only made a donation to some proprietary software project."
+msgstr ""
+"Ale inna sprawa, o której myÅlaÅem, to daÄ spoÅecznoÅci poczucie, "
+"że nie jest wycieraczkÄ
, poczucie, że nie jest Åupem dla "
+"pierwszego pasożyta, który akurat bÄdzie przechodziÅ obok. JeÅli nie "
+"korzystacie z copyleft, to w gruncie rzeczy mówicie <i>[mówi "
+"potulnym gÅosem]</i>: „Weźcie mój kod. Zróbcie, co chcecie. Nie "
+"sprzeciwiam siÄ”. WiÄc każdy może przyjÅÄ i powiedzieÄ
<i>"
+"[mówi pewnym siebie gÅosem]</i>: „Tak, chcÄ zrobiÄ z tego "
+"niewolnÄ
wersjÄ. Po prostu to sobie wezmÄ”. OczywiÅcie potem, "
+"zrobiÄ
prawdopodobnie jakieÅ ulepszenia, te niewolne wersje mogÄ
spodobaÄ
"
+"siÄ użytkownikom i wyprzeÄ wersje wolne. I co wtedy osiÄ
gnÄliÅcie? "
+"PrzekazaliÅcie tylko darowiznÄ jakiemuÅ objÄtemu restrykcyjnÄ
licencjÄ
"
+"projektowi programistycznemu."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And when people see that that's happening, when people see, other people "
+"take what I do, and they don't ever give back, it can be demoralizing. And, "
+"this is not just speculation. I had seen that happen. That was part of "
+"what happened to wipe out the old community that I belonged to the '70's. "
+"Some people started becoming uncooperative. And we assumed that they were "
+"profiting thereby. They certainly acted as if they thought they were "
+"profiting. And we realized that they can just take off cooperation and not "
+"give back. And there was nothing we could do about it. It was very "
+"discouraging. We, those of us who didn't like the trend, even had a "
+"discussion and we couldn't come up with any idea for how we could stop it."
+msgstr ""
+"A kiedy ludzie widzÄ
, że to siÄ dzieje, gdy ludzie widzÄ
, jak
inni "
+"biorÄ
to co zrobiÅem i nigdy tego nie oddajÄ
, to może byÄ "
+"demoralizujÄ
ce. I to nie sÄ
tylko przypuszczenia. WidziaÅem to
na "
+"wÅasne oczy. To jest czÄÅÄ tego, co siÄ staÅo, gdy zniszczona zostaÅa
stara "
+"spoÅecznoÅÄ, do której należaÅem w latach 70. Niektórzy
przestali "
+"wspóÅpracowaÄ. I uznaliÅmy, że na tym korzystajÄ
.
Z pewnoÅciÄ
"
+"zachowywali siÄ tak, jakby uważali, że korzystajÄ
. I zdaliÅmy "
+"sobie sprawÄ, że nie mogÄ
tak po prostu czerpaÄ z efektów
"
+"wspóÅpracy i nic nie oddawaÄ. A nic nie mogliÅmy z tym "
+"zrobiÄ. To byÅo bardzo deprymujÄ
ce. My, ci z nas, którym siÄ ta "
+"tendencja nie podobaÅa, nawet o tym dyskutowaliÅmy i nie mogliÅmy "
+"wymyÅliÄ nic, co mogÅoby poÅożyÄ temu kres."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, the GPL is designed to stop that. And it says, Yes, you are welcome to "
+"join the community and use this code. You can use it to do all sorts of "
+"jobs. But, if you release a modified version, you've got to release that to "
+"our community, as part of our community, as part of the free world."
+msgstr ""
+"WiÄc GPL zostaÅa zaprojektowana, by to powstrzymaÄ. Mówi ona,
że "
+"tak, zapraszamy ciÄ do przystÄ
pienia do spoÅecznoÅci i "
+"korzystania z tego kodu. Możesz go wykorzystywaÄ do wszelkich "
+"zadaÅ. Jednak jeÅli wypuÅcisz zmodyfikowanÄ
wersjÄ, to musisz jÄ
"
+"udostÄpniÄ naszej spoÅecznoÅci, bÄdÄ
c czÄÅciÄ
tej spoÅecznoÅci,
bÄdÄ
c "
+"czÄÅciÄ
wolnego Åwiata."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, in fact, there are still many ways that people can get the benefit of "
+"our work and not contribute, like you don't have to write any software. "
+"Lots of people use GNU/Linux and don't write any software. There's no "
+"requirement that you've got to do anything for us. But if you do a certain "
+"kind of thing, you've got to contribute to it. So what that means is that "
+"our community is not a doormat. And I think that that helped give people "
+"the strength to feel, Yes, we won't just be trampled underfoot by "
+"everybody. We'll stand up to this."
+msgstr ""
+"WiÄc w rzeczywistoÅci i tak jest wiele sposobów, na jakie "
+"ludzie mogÄ
korzystaÄ z naszej pracy, a sami nie wnosiÄ Å¼adnego
"
+"wkÅadu, na przykÅad nie musicie pisaÄ programów. Mnóstwo ludzi
korzysta "
+"z GNU/Linuksa i nie pisze żadnego oprogramowania. Nie ma wymogu, "
+"że coÅ musicie dla nas zrobiÄ. Ale jeÅli robicie pewien
konkretny "
+"rodzaj rzeczy, to musicie wnieÅÄ to jako wkÅad. Oznacza to, że nasza
"
+"spoÅecznoÅÄ to nie wycieraczka. I myÅlÄ, że to daÅo ludziom
siÅÄ "
+"i poczucie, że wszyscy nie bÄdÄ
po nas tak po prostu "
+"deptaÄ. Przeciwstawimy siÄ temu."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Yes, my question was, considering free but not "
+"copylefted software, since anybody can pick it up and make it proprietary, "
+"is it not possible also for someone to pick it up and make some changes and "
+"release the whole thing under the GPL?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Tak, moje pytanie brzmi, biorÄ
c pod uwagÄ "
+"wolne, ale nie objÄte przez copyleft oprogramowanie, skoro każdy może
"
+"je wziÄ
Ä i objÄ
Ä restrykcyjnÄ
licencjÄ
, to czy nie jest
także "
+"możliwe, żeby ktoÅ je wziÄ
Å, dodaÅ kilka zmian i wydaÅ caÅÄ
rzecz "
+"na licencji GPL?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, it is possible."
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tak, to jest możliwe."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Then, that would make all future copies then be "
+"GPL'ed."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: WiÄc to by objÄÅo wszystkie przyszÅe kopie
"
+"licencjÄ
GPL."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: From that branch. But here's why we don't do "
+"that."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Od tego odgaÅÄzienia kodu. Ale oto "
+"dlaczego tak nie robimy."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Hmm?"
+msgstr "<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Hmm?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Here's why we don't generally do that. Let me "
+"explain."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oto dlaczego ogólnie tak nie robimy. Pozwólcie, "
+"że wyjaÅniÄ."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: OK, yes."
+msgstr "<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: OK, oczywiÅcie."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We could, if we wanted to, take X Windows, and "
+"make a GPL-covered copy and make changes in that. But there's a much larger "
+"group of people working on improving X Windows and <em>not</em> GPL-ing it. "
+"So, if we did that, we would be forking from them. And that's not very nice "
+"treatment of them. And, they <em>are</em> a part of our community, "
+"contributing to our community."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: MoglibyÅmy, gdybyÅmy chcieli, wziÄ
Ä system X, "
+"zrobiÄ kopiÄ objÄtÄ
przez GPL i wprowadziÄ do niej zmiany. "
+"Ale istnieje dużo wiÄksza grupa osób pracujÄ
ca nad rozwijaniem
X, "
+"która <em>nie</em> wydaje go na GPL. WiÄc, jeÅli byÅmy to zrobili,
to "
+"odgaÅÄzialibyÅmy ich kod. A to nie byÅoby miÅe traktowanie.
A oni "
+"<em>sÄ
</em> czÄÅciÄ
naszej spoÅecznoÅci, wnoszÄ
do niej wkÅad."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Second, it would backfire against us, because they're doing a lot more work "
+"on X than we would be. So, our version would be inferior to theirs, and "
+"people wouldn't use it, which means, why go to the trouble at all?"
+msgstr ""
+"Po drugie obróciÅoby siÄ to przeciwko nam, bo oni wkÅadajÄ
w "
+"X dużo wiÄcej pracy niż my byÅmy wkÅadali. WiÄc nasza wersja
byÅaby "
+"gorsza od ich wersji, ludzie by jej nie używali, wiÄc po co
w "
+"ogóle siÄ trudziÄ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Mmm hmm."
+msgstr "<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Aha."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: So when a person has written some improvement to "
+"X Windows, what I say that person should do is cooperate with the X "
+"development team. Send it to them and let them use it their way. Because "
+"they are developing a very important piece of free software. It's good for "
+"us to cooperate with them."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: WiÄc jeÅli ktoÅ napisaÅ jakieÅ
ulepszenia "
+"dla X, to uważam, że powinien wspóÅpracowaÄ z zespoÅem "
+"rozwijajÄ
cym X. PrzeÅlijcie to im i pozwólcie wykorzystaÄ tak, jak
bÄdÄ
"
+"chcieli. Bo oni rozwijajÄ
bardzo istotny kawaÅek wolnego "
+"oprogramowania. WspóÅpraca z nimi jest dla nas korzystna."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Except, considering X, in particular, about two "
+"years ago, the X Consortium that was far into the non-free open "
+"source…"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Oprócz – biorÄ
c pod uwagÄ "
+"konkretnie X, okoÅo dwóch lat temu – X Consortium, które byÅo "
+"bardzo zaangażowane w niewolne oprogramowanie open source…"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually it <em>wasn't</em> open sourced. "
+"It wasn't open sourced, either. They may have said it was. I can't "
+"remember if they said that or not. But it wasn't open source. It was "
+"restricted. You couldn't commercially distribute, I think. Or you couldn't "
+"commercially distribute a modified version, or something like that. There "
+"was a restriction that's considered unacceptable by both the Free Software "
+"movement and the Open Source movement."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Cóż, tak naprawdÄ to <em>nie byÅo</em> open "
+"source. To nie byÅo także open source. Mogli mówiÄ, że byÅo. Nie "
+"pamiÄtam, czy tak mówili, czy nie. Ale to nie byÅo open "
+"source. ByÅo objÄte ograniczeniami. Nie można byÅo tego komercyjnie "
+"rozpowszechniaÄ, z tego co pamiÄtam. Albo nie można byÅo "
+"komercyjnie rozpowszechniaÄ zmodyfikowanych wersji, albo coÅ takiego. "
+"ByÅo jakieÅ ograniczenie nie do zaakceptowania zarówno przez ruch "
+"wolnego oprogramowania, jak i ruch open source."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And yes, that's what using a non-copyleft license leaves you open to. In "
+"fact, the X Consortium, they had a very rigid policy. They say: If your "
+"program if copylefted even a little bit, we won't distribute it at all. We "
+"won't put it in our distribution."
+msgstr ""
+"I tak, oto na co wystawia was wykorzystywanie licencji niezgodnej "
+"z copyleft. W rzeczywistoÅci X Consortium miaÅo bardzo sztywnÄ
"
+"politykÄ. Mówili: „JeÅli wasz program ma cokolwiek wspólnego
z "
+"copyleft, to nie bÄdziemy go rozpowszechniaÄ. Nie umieÅcimy go
w naszej "
+"dystrybucji”."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, a lot of people were pressured in this way into not copylefting. And "
+"the result was that all of their software was wide open, later on. When the "
+"same people who had pressured a developer to be too all-permissive, then the "
+"X people later said, All right, now we can put on restrictions, which wasn't "
+"very ethical of them."
+msgstr ""
+"WiÄc w ten sposób wielu ludzi zmuszono do zaniechania korzystania
"
+"z copyleft. A efektem tego byÅo to, że caÅe ich "
+"oprogramowanie byÅo później caÅkowicie bezbronne. Kiedy ci sami ludzie, "
+"którzy wczeÅniej naciskali autorów, żeby na zbyt wiele pozwalali,
potem "
+"ludzie z X mówili później: „OK, teraz możemy naÅożyÄ "
+"ograniczenia”, co nie byÅo z ich strony etycznym postÄpowaniem."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, given the situation, would we really want to scrape up the resources to "
+"maintain an alternate GPL-covered version of X? And it wouldn't make any "
+"sense to do that. There are so many other things we need to do. Let's do "
+"them instead. We can cooperate with the X developers."
+msgstr ""
+"Ale, biorÄ
c pod uwagÄ sytuacjÄ, czy naprawdÄ chcielibyÅmy "
+"organizowaÄ zasoby na utrzymywanie alternatywnej, objÄtej przez GPL "
+"wersji X? Robienie tego nie miaÅoby sensu. Jest tyle innych rzeczy, które "
+"musimy zrobiÄ. Zróbmy je zamiast tego. Z autorami X możemy "
+"wspóÅpracowaÄ."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Do you have a comment, is the GNU a trademark? "
+"And is it practical to include it as part of the GNU General Public License "
+"allowing trademarks?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Czy mógÅbyÅ powiedzieÄ, czy GNU to
znak "
+"towarowy? Czy nie byÅoby praktycznÄ
rzeczÄ
dodanie do GNU GPL "
+"pozwolenia na wykorzystywanie tego znaku?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We are, actually, applying for trademark "
+"registration on GNU. But it wouldn't really have anything to do with that. "
+"It's a long story to explain why."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: WÅaÅnie wystÄ
piliÅmy o rejestracjÄ znaku "
+"towarowego GNU. Ale nie miaÅoby to z tym nic wspólnego. "
+"WyjaÅnienie tego to dÅuga historia."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You could require the trademark be displayed with "
+"GPL-covered programs."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: MoglibyÅcie żÄ
daÄ, aby ten znak towarowy
byÅ "
+"widoczny na programach objÄtych przez GPL."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: No, I don't think so. The licenses cover "
+"individual programs. And when a given program is part of the GNU Project, "
+"nobody lies about that. The name of the system as a whole is a different "
+"issue. And this is an aside. It's not worth discussing more."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Nie, nie sÄ
dzÄ. Licencje obejmujÄ
poszczególne
"
+"programy. A kiedy dany program jest czÄÅciÄ
projektu GNU, to nikt nie
"
+"kÅamie na ten temat. Nazwa caÅego systemu to inna sprawa. Ale to "
+"sprawa poboczna. Nie warto na ten temat wiÄcej mówiÄ."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: If there was a button that you could push and "
+"force all companies to free their software, would you press it?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: JeÅli istniaÅby guzik, którego naciÅniÄcie "
+"zmusiÅoby wszystkie firmy do uwolnienia swojego oprogramowania, "
+"nacisnÄ
ÅbyÅ go?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, I would only use this for published "
+"software. You know, I think that people have the right to write a program "
+"privately and use it. And that includes companies. This is privacy issue. "
+"And it's true, there can be times when it is wrong to do that, like if it is "
+"tremendously helpful to humanity, and you are withholding it from humanity. "
+"That is a wrong but that's a different kind of wrong. It's a different "
+"issue, although it's in the same area."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Cóż, wykorzystaÅbym to tylko wobec
opublikowanego "
+"oprogramowania. No wiecie, uważam, że ludzie majÄ
prawo do "
+"napisania programu na prywatny użytek i korzystania z niego. "
+"Dotyczy to także firm. To kwestia prywatnoÅci. To prawda, mogÄ
byÄ "
+"przypadki, w których takie postÄpowanie jest zÅe, na przykÅad,
gdy "
+"jest on niezwykle przydatny dla ludzkoÅci, a wy go przed ludzkoÅciÄ
"
+"ukrywacie. To jest zÅe, ale w inny sposób. To osobna kwestia, chociaż
"
+"dotykajÄ
ca tego samego obszaru."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But yes, I think all published software should be free software. And "
+"remember, when it's not free software, that's because of government "
+"intervention. The government is intervening to make it non-free. The "
+"government is creating special legal powers to hand out to the owners of the "
+"programs, so that they can have the police stop us from using the programs "
+"in certain ways. So I would certainly like to end that."
+msgstr ""
+"Ale tak, sÄ
dzÄ, że caÅe opublikowane oprogramowanie powinno
byÄ "
+"wolne. I pamiÄtajcie, jeÅli nie jest wolne, to z powodu "
+"interwencji rzÄ
du. RzÄ
d interweniuje, aby uczyniÄ je niewolnym. RzÄ
d
"
+"tworzy specjalne narzÄdzia prawne dla wÅaÅcicieli programów,
aby mogli "
+"zmusiÄ policjÄ do powstrzymania nas od używania programów
na "
+"pewne sposoby. Z caÅÄ
pewnoÅciÄ
chciaÅbym poÅożyÄ temu kres."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Richard's presentation has invariably generated "
+"an enormous amount of intellectual energy. I would suggest that some of it "
+"should be directed to using, and possibly writing, free software."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Prezentacja Richarda jak zwykle wyzwoliÅa "
+"olbrzymiÄ
iloÅÄ intelektualnej energii. SugerujÄ, żeby jej czÄÅÄ
zostaÅa "
+"wykorzystana na używanie, a może również pisanie, wolnego "
+"oprogramowania."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"We should close the proceedings shortly. I want to say that Richard has "
+"injected into a profession which is known in the general public for its "
+"terminal apolitical nerditude a level of political and moral discussion "
+"which is, I think, unprecedented in our profession. And we owe him very big "
+"for this. I'd like to note to people that there is a break."
+msgstr ""
+"PowinniÅmy wkrótce zamknÄ
Ä tÄ sesjÄ. ChcÄ powiedzieÄ,
że Richard "
+"wstrzyknÄ
Å w profesjÄ, która jest znana ogóÅowi spoÅeczeÅstwa ze
swojej "
+"caÅkowicie apolitycznej postawy, dawkÄ politycznego i moralnego "
+"zamieszania, które w naszej profesji nie miaÅo wczeÅniej miejsca. "
+"I bardzo wiele jesteÅmy mu za to winni. ChciaÅbym ogÅosiÄ,
że "
+"mamy przerwÄ."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<i>[Applause]</i>"
+msgstr "<i>[aplauz]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: You are free to leave at any time, you know. <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i> I'm not holding you prisoner here."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Możecie w każdej chwili wyjÅÄ.
<i>[Åmiech]</"
+"i> Nie trzymam was tu pod kluczem."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<i>[Audience adjourns…]</i>"
+msgstr "<i>[sÅuchacze siÄ rozchodzÄ
…]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<i>[overlapping conversations…]</i>"
+msgstr "<i>[nakÅadajÄ
ce siÄ gÅosy…]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: One final thing. Our website: www.gnu.org"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Ostatnia sprawa. Nasza witryna internetowa: www."
+"gnu.org"
+
+#. 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><div><p>
+msgid ""
+"Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
href=\"mailto:address@hidden";
+"\"><address@hidden></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";><address@hidden"
+"org></a>."
+msgstr ""
+"Pytania dotyczÄ
ce GNU i FSF prosimy kierowaÄ na adres <a href="
+"\"mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>. IstniejÄ
także <a
href=\"/"
+"contact/contact.html\">inne sposoby skontaktowania siÄ</a> z FSF. <br /"
+"> Informacje o niedziaÅajÄ
cych odnoÅnikach oraz inne poprawki (lub "
+"propozycje) prosimy wysyÅaÄ na adres <a href=\"mailto:web-";
+"address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>."
+
+#. 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";>
+#. <address@hidden></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><div><p>
+msgid ""
+"Please see the <a href=\"/server/standards/README.translations.html"
+"\">Translations README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting "
+"translations of this article."
+msgstr ""
+"Staramy siÄ, aby tÅumaczenia byÅy wierne i wysokiej jakoÅci, "
+"ale nie jesteÅmy zwolnieni z niedoskonaÅoÅci. Komentarze
odnoÅnie "
+"tÅumaczenia polskiego oraz zgÅoszenia dotyczÄ
ce chÄci wspóÅpracy
w "
+"tÅumaczeniu prosimy kierowaÄ na adres <a href=\"mailto:address@hidden";
+"org\">address@hidden</a>. <br /> Aby zapoznaÄ siÄ z "
+"informacjami dotyczÄ
cymi tÅumaczenia i koordynowania tÅumaczeÅ "
+"artykuÅów, proszÄ odwiedziÄ stronÄ <a href=\"/server/standards/README."
+"translations.html\">tÅumaczeÅ</a>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <div><p>
+msgid "Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman"
+msgstr "Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman"
+
+#. 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 ""
+"Ten utwór objÄty jest licencjÄ
Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Bez "
+"utworów zależnych 3.0 Stany Zjednoczone. Aby zobaczyÄ kopiÄ
niniejszej "
+"licencji przejdź na stronÄ <a rel=\"license\" href=\"http://";
+"creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/\">http://creativecommons.org/";
+"licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/</a> lub napisz do Creative Commons, 171 "
+"Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California 94105, USA."
+
+#. TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.
+#. type: Content of: <div><div>
+msgid "*GNUN-SLOT: TRANSLATOR'S CREDITS*"
+msgstr ""
+"TÅumaczenie: RadosÅaw MoszczyÅski 2005, Jan Owoc 2011; poprawki: Jan Owoc "
+"2015."
+
+#. timestamp start
+#. type: Content of: <div><p>
+msgid "Updated:"
+msgstr "Aktualizowane:"
Index: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pot
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pot
diff -N philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pot
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pot 15 Sep 2015 05:45:27 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,2712 @@
+# LANGUAGE translation of
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.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: rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html\n"
+"POT-Creation-Date: 2015-02-20 15:55+0000\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 ""
+"Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation - GNU Project - Free Software "
+"Foundation"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <h2>
+msgid "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <blockquote><p>
+msgid ""
+"Transcript of Richard M. Stallman's speech, “Free Software: Freedom "
+"and Cooperation”, given at New York University in New York, NY, on 29 "
+"May 2001"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <div><blockquote><p>
+msgid ""
+"A <a href=\"/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt\">plain text</a> version
of "
+"this transcript and a <a "
+"href=\"/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt\">summary</a> of the speech are
also "
+"available."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>URETSKY</strong>: I'm Mike Uretsky. I'm over at the Stern School of "
+"Business. I'm also one of the Co-Directors of the Center for Advanced "
+"Technology. And, on behalf of all of us in the Computer Science Department, "
+"I want to welcome you here. I want to say a few comments, before I turn it "
+"over to Ed, who is going to introduce the speaker."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"The role of a university is a place to foster debate and to have interesting "
+"discussions. And the role of a major university is to have particularly "
+"interesting discussions. And this particular presentation, this seminar "
+"falls right into that mold. I find the discussion of open source "
+"particularly interesting. In a sense … <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I do free software. Open source is a different "
+"movement. <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>URETSKY</strong>: When I first started in the field in the '60's, "
+"basically software was free. And we went in cycles. It became free, and "
+"then software manufacturers, in the need to expand their markets, pushed it "
+"in other directions. A lot of the developments that took place with the "
+"entry of the PC moved in exactly the same kind of a cycle."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"There's a very interesting French philosopher, Pierre Levy, who talks about "
+"movement to this direction and who talks about the move into cyberspace as "
+"not only relating to technology but also relating to social restructuring, "
+"to political restructuring, through a change in the kinds of relationships "
+"that will improve the well-being of mankind. And we're hoping that this "
+"debate is a movement in that direction, that this debate is something that "
+"cuts across a lot of the disciplines that normally act as solace within the "
+"University. We're looking forward to some very interesting discussions. "
+"Ed?"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: I'm Ed Schonberg from the Computer Science "
+"Department at the Courant Institute. Let me welcome you all to this event. "
+"Introducers are usually, and particularly, a useless aspect of public "
+"presentations, but in this case, actually, they serve a useful purpose, as "
+"Mike easily demonstrated, because an introducer for instance, told him, by "
+"making inaccurate comments, can allow him to straighten out and correct and "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> sharpen considerably the parameters of the debate."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, let me make the briefest possible introduction to somebody who doesn't "
+"need one. Richard is the perfect example of somebody who, by acting "
+"locally, started thinking globally from problems concerning the "
+"unavailability of source code for printer drivers at the AI Lab many years "
+"ago. He has developed a coherent philosophy that has forced all of us to "
+"re-examine our ideas of how software is produced, of what intellectual "
+"property means, and what the software community actually represents. Let me "
+"welcome Richard Stallman. <i>[Applause]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can someone lend me a watch? <i>[Laughter]</i> "
+"Thank you. So, I'd like to thank Microsoft for providing me the opportunity "
+"to <i>[Laughter]</i> be on this platform. For the past few weeks, I have "
+"felt like an author whose book was fortuitously banned somewhere. "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> Except that all the articles about it are giving the wrong "
+"author's name, because Microsoft describes the GNU GPL as an open source "
+"license, and most of the press coverage followed suit. Most people, of "
+"course just innocently don't realize that our work has nothing to do with "
+"open source, that in fact we did most of it before people even coined the "
+"term open source."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"We are in the free software movement, and I'm going to speak about what the "
+"free software movement is about, what it means, what we have done, and, "
+"because this is partly sponsored by a school of business, I'll say some "
+"things more than I usually do about how free software relates to business, "
+"and some other areas of social life."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, some of you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps you "
+"cook. And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably use "
+"recipes. And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the experience of "
+"getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing it. And you've "
+"probably also had the experience — unless you're a total neophyte "
+"— of changing a recipe. You know, it says certain things, but you "
+"don't have to do exactly that. You can leave out some ingredients. Add "
+"some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms. Put in less salt because your "
+"doctor said you should cut down on salt — whatever. You can even make "
+"bigger changes according to your skill. And if you've made changes in a "
+"recipe, and you cook it for your friends, and they like it, one of your "
+"friends might say, “Hey, could I have the recipe?” And then, "
+"what do you do? You could write down your modified version of the recipe and "
+"make a copy for your friend. These are the natural things to do with "
+"functionally useful recipes of any kind."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program. A computer program's a lot "
+"like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to get some result that "
+"you want. So it's just as natural to do those same things with computer "
+"programs — hand a copy to your friend. Make changes in it because the "
+"job it was written to do isn't exactly what you want. It did a great job "
+"for somebody else, but your job is a different job. And after you've "
+"changed it, that's likely to be useful for other people. Maybe they have a "
+"job to do that's like the job you do. So they ask, “Hey, can I have a "
+"copy?” Of course, if you're a nice person, you're going to give a "
+"copy. That's the way to be a decent person."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So imagine what it would be like if recipes were packaged inside black "
+"boxes. You couldn't see what ingredients they're using, let alone change "
+"them, and imagine if you made a copy for a friend, they would call you a "
+"pirate and try to put you in prison for years. That world would create "
+"tremendous outrage from all the people who are used to sharing recipes. But "
+"that is exactly what the world of proprietary software is like. A world in "
+"which common decency towards other people is prohibited or prevented."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, why did I notice this? I noticed this because I had the good fortune in "
+"the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who shared software. "
+"Now, this community could trace its ancestry essentially back to the "
+"beginning of computing. In the 1970's, though, it was a bit rare for there "
+"to be a community where people shared software. And, in fact, this was sort "
+"of an extreme case, because in the lab where I worked, the entire operating "
+"system was software developed by the people in our community, and we'd share "
+"any of it with anybody. Anybody was welcome to come and take a look, and "
+"take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do. There were no copyright "
+"notices on these programs. Cooperation was our way of life. And we were "
+"secure in that way of life. We didn't fight for it. We didn't have to "
+"fight for it. We just lived that way. And, as far as we knew, we would "
+"just keep on living that way. So there was free software, but there was no "
+"free software movement."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that happened "
+"to it. Ultimately it was wiped out. Ultimately, the PDP-10 computer which "
+"we used for all our work was discontinued. And you know, our system — "
+"the Incompatible Timesharing System — was written starting in the "
+"'60's, so it was written in assembler language. That's what you used to "
+"write an operating system in the '60's. So, of course, assembler language "
+"is for one particular computer architecture; if that gets discontinued, all "
+"your work turns into dust — it's useless. And that's what happened to "
+"us. The 20 years or so of work of our community turned into dust."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me, helped me "
+"see what to do, helped prepare me to see what to do when this happened, "
+"because at certain point, Xerox gave the Artificial Intelligence Lab, where "
+"I worked, a laser printer, and this was a really handsome gift, because it "
+"was the first time anybody outside Xerox had a laser printer. It was very "
+"fast, printed a page a second, very fine in many respects, but it was "
+"unreliable, because it was really a high-speed office copier that had been "
+"modified into a printer. And, you know, copiers jam, but there's somebody "
+"there to fix them. The printer jammed and nobody saw. So it stayed jammed "
+"for a long time."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Well, we had an idea for how to deal with this problem. Change it so that "
+"whenever the printer gets a jam, the machine that runs the printer can tell "
+"our timesharing machine, and tell the users who are waiting for printouts, "
+"or something like that, you know, tell them, go fix the printer. Because if "
+"they only knew it was jammed, of course, if you're waiting for a printout "
+"and you know that the printer is jammed, you don't want to sit and wait "
+"forever, you're going to go fix it."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But at that point, we were completely stymied, because the software that ran "
+"that printer was not free software. It had come with the printer, and it "
+"was just a binary. We couldn't have the source code; Xerox wouldn't let us "
+"have the source code. So, despite our skill as programmers — after "
+"all, we had written our own timesharing system — we were completely "
+"helpless to add this feature to the printer software."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And we just had to suffer with waiting. It would take an hour or two to get "
+"your printout because the machine would be jammed most of the time. And "
+"only once in a while — you'd wait an hour figuring “I know it's "
+"going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and go collect my printout,” and "
+"then you'd see that it had been jammed the whole time, and in fact, nobody "
+"else had fixed it. So you'd fix it and you'd go wait another half hour. "
+"Then, you'd come back, and you'd see it jammed again — before it got "
+"to your output. It would print three minutes and be jammed thirty minutes. "
+"Frustration up the whazzoo. But the thing that made it worse was knowing "
+"that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his own selfishness, was "
+"blocking us, obstructing us from improving the software. So, of course, we "
+"felt some resentment."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a copy of "
+"that software. So I was visiting there later, so I went to his office and I "
+"said, “Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of the printer source "
+"code?” And he said “No, I promised not to give you a "
+"copy.” <i>[Laughter]</i> I was stunned. I was so — I was angry, "
+"and I had no idea how I could do justice to it. All I could think of was to "
+"turn around on my heel and walk out of his room. Maybe I slammed the door. "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> And I thought about it later on, because I realized that I "
+"was seeing not just an isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was "
+"important and affected a lot of people."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"This was — for me — I was lucky, I only got a taste of it, but "
+"other people had to live in this all the time. So I thought about it at "
+"length. See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with us — his "
+"colleagues at MIT. He had betrayed us. But he didn't just do it to us. "
+"Chances are he did it to you too. <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> "
+"And I think, mostly likely, he did it to you too. <i>[Pointing at another "
+"member of audience.] [Laughter]</i> And he probably did it to you as well. "
+"<i>[Pointing to third member of audience.]</i> He probably did it to most of "
+"the people here in this room — except a few, maybe, who weren't born "
+"yet in 1980. Because he had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about "
+"the entire population of the Planet Earth. He had signed a non-disclosure "
+"agreement."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, "
+"and it taught me an important lesson — a lesson that's important "
+"because most programmers never learn it. You see, this was my first "
+"encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was the victim. I, and my "
+"whole lab, were the victims. And the lesson it taught me was that "
+"non-disclosure agreements have victims. They're not innocent. They're not "
+"harmless. Most programmers first encounter a non-disclosure agreement when "
+"they're invited to sign one. And there's always some temptation — "
+"some goody they're going to get if they sign. So, they make up excuses. "
+"They say, “Well, he's never going to get a copy no matter what, so why "
+"shouldn't I join the conspiracy to deprive him?” They say, “This "
+"is the way it's always done. Who am I to go against it?” They say, "
+"“If I don't sign this, someone else will.” Various excuses to "
+"gag their consciences."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But when somebody invited me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, my "
+"conscience was already sensitized. It remembered how angry I had been, when "
+"somebody promised not to help me and my whole lab solve our problem. And I "
+"couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to somebody else who had "
+"never done me any harm. You know, if somebody asked me to promise not to "
+"share some useful information with a hated enemy, I would have said yes. "
+"You know? If somebody's done something bad, he deserves it. But, strangers "
+"— they haven't done me any harm. How could they deserve that kind of "
+"mistreatment? You can't let yourself start treating just anybody and "
+"everybody badly. Then you become a predator on society. So I said, "
+"“Thank you very much for offering me this nice software package. But "
+"I can't accept it in good conscience, on the conditions you are demanding, "
+"so I will do without it. Thank you so much.” And so, I have never "
+"knowingly signed a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful technical "
+"information such as software."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now there are other kinds of information which raise different ethical "
+"issues. For instance, there's personal information. You know, if you "
+"wanted to talk with me about what was happening between you and your "
+"boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody — you know, I could "
+"keep — I could agree to keep that a secret for you, because that's not "
+"generally useful technical information. At least, it's probably not "
+"generally useful. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"There is a small chance — and it's a possibility though — that "
+"you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex technique, <i>[Laughter]</i> "
+"and I would then feel a moral duty <i>[Laughter]</i> to pass it onto the "
+"rest of humanity, so that everyone could get the benefit of it. So, I'd "
+"have to put a proviso in that promise, you know? If it's just details about "
+"who wants this, and who's angry at whom, and things like that — soap "
+"opera — that I can keep private for you, but something that humanity "
+"could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't withhold. You see, the "
+"purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information for "
+"humanity to help people live their lives better. If we promise to withhold "
+"that information — if we keep it secret — then we are betraying "
+"the mission of our field. And this, I decided I shouldn't do."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, meanwhile my community had collapsed, and that was collapsing, and that "
+"left me in a bad situation. You see, the whole Incompatible Timesharing "
+"System was obsolete, because the PDP-10 was obsolete, and so there was no "
+"way that I could continue working as an operating system developer the way "
+"that I had been doing it. That depended on being part of the community "
+"using the community software and improving it. That no longer was a "
+"possibility, and that gave me a moral dilemma. What was I going to do? "
+"Because the most obvious possibility meant to go against that decision I had "
+"made. The most obvious possibility was to adapt myself to the change in the "
+"world. To accept that things were different, and that I'd just have to give "
+"up those principles and start signing non-disclosure agreements for "
+"proprietary operating systems, and most likely writing proprietary software "
+"as well. But I realized that that way I could have fun coding, and I could "
+"make money — especially if I did it other than at MIT — but at "
+"the end, I'd have to look back at my career and say, “I've spent my "
+"life building walls to divide people,” and I would have been ashamed "
+"of my life."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So I looked for another alternative, and there was an obvious one. I could "
+"leave the software field and do something else. Now I had no other special "
+"noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a waiter. "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> Not at a fancy restaurant; they wouldn't hire me, "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> but I could be a waiter somewhere. And many programmers, "
+"they say to me, “The people who hire programmers demand this, this and "
+"this. If I don't do those things, I'll starve.” It's literally the "
+"word they use. Well, you know, as a waiter, you're not going to starve. "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> So, really, they're in no danger. But — and this is "
+"important, you see — because sometimes you can justify doing something "
+"that hurts other people by saying otherwise something worse is going to "
+"happen to me. You know, if you were <em>really</em> going to starve, you'd "
+"be justified in writing proprietary software. <i>[Laughter]</i> If "
+"somebody's pointing a gun at you, then I would say, it's forgivable. "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> But, I had found a way that I could survive without doing "
+"something unethical, so that excuse was not available. So I realized, "
+"though, that being a waiter would be no fun for me, and it would be wasting "
+"my skills as an operating system developer. It would avoid misusing my "
+"skills. Developing proprietary software would be misusing my skills. "
+"Encouraging other people to live in the world of proprietary software would "
+"be misusing my skills. So it's better to waste them than misuse them, but "
+"it's still not really good."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So for those reasons, I decided to look for some other alternative. What "
+"can an operating system developer do that would actually improve the "
+"situation, make the world a better place? And I realized that an operating "
+"system developer was exactly what was needed. The problem, the dilemma, "
+"existed for me and for everyone else because all of the available operating "
+"systems for modern computers were proprietary. The free operating systems "
+"were for old, obsolete computers, right? So for the modern computers — "
+"if you wanted to get a modern computer and use it, you were forced into a "
+"proprietary operating system. So if an operating system developer wrote "
+"another operating system, and then said, “Everybody come and share "
+"this; you're welcome to this” — that would give everybody a way "
+"out of the dilemma, another alternative. So I realized that there was "
+"something I could do that would solve the problem. I had just the right "
+"skills to be able to do it. And it was the most useful thing I could "
+"possibly imagine that I'd be able to do with my life. And it was a problem "
+"that no one else was trying to solve. It was just sort of sitting there, "
+"getting worse, and nobody was there but me. So I felt, “I'm elected. "
+"I have to work on this. If not me, who?” So I decided I would develop "
+"a free operating system, or die trying … of old age, of course. "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, of course I had to decide what kind of operating system it should be. "
+"There are some technical design decisions to be made. I decided to make the "
+"system compatible with Unix for a number of reasons. First of all, I had "
+"just seen one operating system that I really loved become obsolete because "
+"it was written for one particular kind of computer. I didn't want that to "
+"happen again. We needed to have a portable system. Well, Unix was a "
+"portable system. So if I followed the design of Unix, I had a pretty good "
+"chance that I could make a system that would also be portable and workable. "
+"And furthermore, why <i>[Tape unclear]</i> be compatible with it in the "
+"details. The reason is, users hate incompatible changes. If I had just "
+"designed the system in my favorite way — which I would have loved "
+"doing, I'm sure — I would have produced something that was "
+"incompatible. You know, the details would be different. So, if I wrote the "
+"system, then the users would have said to me, “Well, this is very "
+"nice, but it's incompatible. It will be too much work to switch. We can't "
+"afford that much trouble just to use your system instead of Unix, so we'll "
+"stay with Unix,” they would have said."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, if I wanted to actually create a community where there would be people "
+"in it, people using this free system, and enjoying the benefits of liberty "
+"and cooperation, I had to make a system people would use, a system that they "
+"would find easy to switch to, that would not have an obstacle making it fail "
+"at the very beginning. Now, making the system upward compatible with Unix "
+"actually made all the immediate design decisions, because Unix consists of "
+"many pieces, and they communicate through interfaces that are more or less "
+"documented. So if you want to be compatible with Unix, you have to replace "
+"each piece, one by one, with a compatible piece. So the remaining design "
+"decisions are inside one piece, and they could be made later by whoever "
+"decides to write that piece. They didn't have to be made at the outset."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So all we had to do to start work was find a name for the system. Now, we "
+"hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program, because "
+"thinking of people being amused by the name is half the fun of writing the "
+"program. <i>[Laughter]</i> And we had a tradition of recursive acronyms, to "
+"say that the program that you're writing is similar to some existing "
+"program. You can give it a recursive acronym name which says: this one's not "
+"the other. So, for instance, there were many Tico text editors in the '60's "
+"and '70's, and they were generally called something-or-other Tico. Then one "
+"clever hacker called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico — the first "
+"recursive acronym. In 1975, I developed the first Emacs text editor, and "
+"there were many imitations of Emacs, and a lot of them were called "
+"something-or-other Emacs, but one was called Fine, for Fine Is Not Emacs, "
+"and there was Sine, for Sine Is Not Emacs, and Eine for Ina Is Not Emacs, "
+"and MINCE for Mince Is Not Complete Emacs. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was a "
+"stripped down imitation. And then, Eine was almost completely rewritten, "
+"and the new version was called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially. "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So I looked for a recursive acronym for Something is not Unix. And I tried "
+"all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word. "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> Hmm, try another way. I made a contraction. That way I "
+"could have a three-letter acronym, for Something's not Unix. And I tried "
+"letters, and I came across the word “GNU” — the word "
+"“GNU” is the funniest word in the English language. "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> That was it. Of course, the reason it's funny is that "
+"according to the dictionary, it's pronounced “new”. You see? "
+"And so that's why people use it for a lot of wordplay. Let me tell you, "
+"this is the name of an animal that lives in Africa. And the African "
+"pronunciation had a click sound in it. <i>[Laughter]</i> Maybe still does. "
+"And so, the European colonists, when they got there, they didn't bother "
+"learning to say this click sound. So they just left it out, and they wrote "
+"a “G” which meant “there's another sound that's supposed "
+"to be here which we are not pronouncing.” <i>[Laughter]</i> So, "
+"tonight I'm leaving for South Africa, and I have begged them, I hope they're "
+"going to find somebody who can teach me to pronounce click sounds, "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> so that I'll know how to pronounce GNU the correct way, "
+"when it's the animal."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is "
+"“guh-NEW” — pronounce the hard “G”. If you "
+"talk about the “new” operating system, you'll get people very "
+"confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years now, so it is not "
+"new any more. <i>[Laughter]</i> But it still is, and always will be, GNU "
+"— no matter how many people call it Linux by mistake. "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces of GNU. "
+"They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities though. And, at "
+"the time, I thought we would write all these pieces, and make an entire GNU "
+"system, and then we'd say, “Come and get it”, and people would "
+"start to use it. That's not what happened. The first pieces I wrote were "
+"just equally good replacements, with fewer bugs for some pieces of Unix, but "
+"they weren't tremendously exciting. Nobody particularly wanted to get them "
+"and install them. But then, in September 1984, I started writing GNU Emacs, "
+"which was my second implementation of Emacs, and by early 1985, it was "
+"working. I could use it for all my editing, which was a big relief, because "
+"I had no intention of learning to use VI, the Unix editor. <i>[Laughter]</i> "
+"So, until that time, I did my editing on some other machine, and saved the "
+"files through the network, so that I could test them. But when GNU Emacs "
+"was running well enough for me to use it, it was also — other people "
+"wanted to use it too."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So I had to work out the details of distribution. Of course, I put a copy "
+"in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people who were on the "
+"net They could then just pull over a tar file, but a lot of programmers then "
+"even were not on the net in 1985. They were sending me emails saying "
+"“How can I get a copy?” I had to decide what I would answer "
+"them. Well, I could have said, I want to spend my time writing more GNU "
+"software, not writing tapes, so please find a friend who's on the internet "
+"and who is willing to download it and put it on a tape for you. And I'm "
+"sure people would have found some friends, sooner or later, you know. They "
+"would have got copies. But I had no job. In fact, I've never had a job "
+"since quitting MIT in January 1984. So, I was looking for some way I could "
+"make money through my work on free software, and therefore I started a free "
+"software business. I announced, “Send me $150 dollars, and I'll mail "
+"you a tape of Emacs.” And the orders began dribbling in. By the "
+"middle of the year they were trickling in."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month. And, if necessary, I could have lived "
+"on just that, because I've always lived cheaply. I live like a student, "
+"basically. And I like that, because it means that money is not telling me "
+"what to do. I can do what I think is important for me to do. It freed me "
+"to do what seemed worth doing. So make a real effort to avoid getting "
+"sucked into all the expensive lifestyle habits of typical Americans. "
+"Because if you do that, then people with the money will dictate what you do "
+"with your life. You won't be able to do what's really important to you."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, “What do you mean it's "
+"free software if it costs $150 dollars?” <i>[Laughter]</i> Well, the "
+"reason they asked this was that they were confused by the multiple meanings "
+"of the English word “free”. One meaning refers to price, and "
+"another meaning refers to freedom. When I speak of free software, I'm "
+"referring to freedom, not price. So think of free speech, not free beer. "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many years of my life to "
+"making sure programmers got less money. That's not my goal. I'm a "
+"programmer and I don't mind getting money myself. I won't dedicate my whole "
+"life to getting it, but I don't mind getting it. And I'm not — and "
+"therefore, ethics is the same for everyone. I'm not against some other "
+"programmer getting money either. I don't want prices to be low. That's not "
+"the issue at all. The issue is freedom. Freedom for everyone who's using "
+"software, whether that person be a programmer or not."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So at this point I should give you the definition of free software. I "
+"better get to some real details, you see, because just saying “I "
+"believe in freedom” is vacuous. There's so many different freedoms "
+"you could believe in, and they conflict with each other, so the real "
+"political question is: Which are the important freedoms, the freedoms that "
+"we must make sure everybody has?"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And now, I will give my answer to that question for the particular area of "
+"using software. A program is free software for you, a particular user, if "
+"you have the following freedoms:"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
+msgid ""
+"First, Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the program for any purpose, any "
+"way you like."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the program to suit "
+"your needs."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing copies of "
+"the program."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
+msgid ""
+"And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by publishing "
+"an improved version so others can get the benefit of your work."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software, for you "
+"— and that's crucial. That's why I phrase it that way. I'll explain "
+"why later, when I talk about the GNU General Public License, but right now "
+"I'm explaining what free software means, which is a more basic question."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, Freedom Zero's pretty obvious. If you're not even allowed to run the "
+"program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive program. But as it "
+"happens, most programs will at least give you Freedom Zero. And Freedom "
+"Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of Freedoms One, Two, and Three "
+"— that's the way that copyright law works. So the freedoms that "
+"distinguish free software from typical software are Freedoms One, Two, and "
+"Three, so I'll say more about them and why they are important."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the software to suit "
+"your needs. This could mean fixing bugs. It could mean adding new "
+"features. It could mean porting it to a different computer system. It "
+"could mean translating all the error messages into Navajo. Any change you "
+"want to make, you should be free to make."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, it's obvious that professional programmers can make use of this freedom "
+"very effectively, but not just them. Anybody of reasonable intelligence can "
+"learn a little programming. You know, there are hard jobs, and there are "
+"easy jobs, and most people are not going to learn enough to do hard jobs. "
+"But lots of people can learn enough to do easy jobs, just the way, you know, "
+"50 years ago, lots and lots of American men learned to repair cars, which is "
+"what enabled the U.S. to have a motorized army in World War II and win. So, "
+"very important, having lots of people tinkering."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And if you are a people person, and you really don't want to learn "
+"technology at all, that probably means that you have a lot of friends, and "
+"you're good at getting them to owe you favors. <i>[Laughter]</i> Some of "
+"them are probably programmers. So you can ask one of your programmer "
+"friends. “Would you please change this for me? Add this "
+"feature?” So, lots of people can benefit from it."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, if you don't have this freedom, it causes practical, material harm to "
+"society. It makes you a prisoner of your software. I explained what that "
+"was like with regard to the laser printer. You know, it worked badly for "
+"us, and we couldn't fix it, because we were prisoners of our software."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But it also affects people's morale. You know if the computer is constantly "
+"frustrating to use, and people are using it, their lives are going to be "
+"frustrating, and if they're using it in their jobs, their jobs are going to "
+"be frustrating; they're going to hate their jobs. And you know, people "
+"protect themselves from frustration by deciding not to care. So you end up "
+"with people whose attitude is, “Well, I showed up for work today. "
+"That's all I have to do. If I can't make progress, that's not my problem; "
+"that's the boss's problem.” And when this happens, it's bad for those "
+"people, and it's bad for society as a whole. That's Freedom One, the "
+"freedom to help yourself."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing copies of "
+"the program. Now, for beings that can think and learn, sharing useful "
+"knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship. When these beings use "
+"computers, this act of friendship takes the form of sharing software. "
+"Friends share with each other. Friends help each other. This is the nature "
+"of friendship. And, in fact, this spirit of goodwill — the spirit of "
+"helping your neighbor, voluntarily — is society's most important "
+"resource. It makes the difference between a livable society and a "
+"dog-eat-dog jungle. Its importance has been recognized by the world's major "
+"religions for thousands of years, and they explicitly try to encourage this "
+"attitude."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach us this "
+"attitude — the spirit of sharing — by having us do it. They "
+"figured if we did it, we'd learn. So they said, “If you bring candy "
+"to school, you can't keep it all for yourself; you have to share some with "
+"the other kids.” Teaching us, the society was set up to teach, this "
+"spirit of cooperation. And why do you have to do that? Because people are "
+"not totally cooperative. That's one part of human nature, and there are "
+"other parts of human nature. There are lots of parts of human nature. So, "
+"if you want a better society, you've got to work to encourage the spirit of "
+"sharing. You know, it'll never get to be 100%. That's understandable. "
+"People have to take care of themselves too. But if we make it somewhat "
+"bigger, we're all better off."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Nowadays, according to the U.S. Government, teachers are supposed to do the "
+"exact opposite. “Oh, Johnny, you brought software to school. Well, "
+"don't share it. Oh no. Sharing is wrong. Sharing means you're a "
+"pirate.”"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"What do they mean when they say “pirate”? They're saying that "
+"helping your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship. "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"What would Buddha or Jesus say about that? Now, take your favorite religious "
+"leader. I don't know, maybe Manson would have said something different. "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> Who knows what L. Ron Hubbard would say? But …"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+#:
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Of course, he's dead. But they don't admit "
+"that. What?"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: So are the others, also dead. <i>[Laughter] "
+"[Inaudible]</i> Charles Manson's also dead. <i>[Laughter]</i> They're dead, "
+"Jesus's dead, Buddha's dead…"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, that's true. <i>[Laughter]</i> So I guess, "
+"in that regard, L. Ron Hubbard is no worse than the others. "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway — <i>[Inaudible]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: L. Ron always used free software — it freed "
+"him from Zanu. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Anyway, so, I think this is actually the most "
+"important reason why software should be free: We can't afford to pollute "
+"society's most important resource. It's true that it's not a physical "
+"resource like clean air and clean water. It's a psycho-social resource, but "
+"it's just as real for all that, and it makes a tremendous difference to our "
+"lives. You see, the actions we take influence the thoughts of other "
+"people. When we go around telling people, “Don't share with each "
+"other”, if they listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's "
+"not a good one. That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just cause "
+"this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes waste — "
+"practical, material harm. If the program has an owner, and the owner "
+"arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay in order to be able "
+"to use it, some people are going to say, “Never mind, I'll do without "
+"it.” And that's waste, deliberately inflicted waste. And the "
+"interesting thing about software, of course, is that fewer users doesn't "
+"mean you have to make less stuff. You know, if fewer people buy cars, you "
+"can make fewer cars. There's a saving there. There are resources to be "
+"allocated, or not allocated, into making cars. So that you can say that "
+"having a price on a car is a good thing. It prevents people from diverting "
+"lots of wasted resources into making cars that aren't really needed. But if "
+"each additional car used no resources, it wouldn't be doing any good saving "
+"the making of these cars. Well, for physical objects, of course, like cars, "
+"it is always going to take resources to make an additional one of them, each "
+"additional exemplar."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But for software that's not true. Anybody can make another copy. And it's "
+"almost trivial to do it. It takes no resources, except a tiny bit of "
+"electricity. So there's nothing we can save, no resource we're going to "
+"allocate better by putting this financial disincentive on the use of the "
+"software. You often find people taking economic, the consequences of "
+"economic reasoning, based on premises that don't apply to software, and "
+"trying to transplant them from other areas of life where the premises may "
+"apply, and the conclusions may be valid. They just take the conclusions and "
+"assume that they're valid for software too, when the argument is based on "
+"nothing, in the case of software. The premises don't work in that case. It "
+"is very important to examine how you reach the conclusion, and what premises "
+"it depends on, to see where it might be valid. So, that's Freedom Two, the "
+"freedom to help your neighbor."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by publishing an "
+"improved version of the software. People used to say to me, “If the "
+"software's free, then nobody will get paid to work on it, so why should "
+"anybody work on it?” Well, of course, they were confusing the two "
+"meanings of free, so their reasoning was based on a misunderstanding. But, "
+"in any case, that was their theory. Today, we can compare that theory with "
+"empirical fact, and we find that hundreds of people are being paid to write "
+"free software, and over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers. We get lots of "
+"people working on free software, for various different motives."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"When I first released GNU Emacs — the first piece of the GNU system "
+"that people actually wanted to use — and when it started having users, "
+"after a while, I got a message saying, “I think I saw a bug in the "
+"source code, and here's a fix.” And I got another message, "
+"“Here's code to add a new feature.” And another bug fix. And "
+"another new feature. And another, and another, and another, until they were "
+"pouring in on me so fast that just making use of all this help I was getting "
+"was a big job. Microsoft doesn't have this problem. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Eventually, people noted this phenomenon. You see, in the 1980's a lot of "
+"us thought that maybe free software wouldn't be as good as the non-free "
+"software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay people. And, of "
+"course, people like me, who value freedom and community said, “Well, "
+"we'll use the free software anyway.” It's worth making a little "
+"sacrifice in some mere technical convenience to have freedom. But what "
+"people began to note, around 1990 was that our software was actually "
+"better. It was more powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary "
+"alternatives."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific measurement of "
+"reliability of software. Here's what he did. He took several sets of "
+"comparable programs that did the same jobs — the exact same jobs "
+"— in different systems. Because there were certain basic Unix-like "
+"utilities. And the jobs that they did, we know, was all, more or less, "
+"imitating the same thing, or they were following the POSIX spec, so they "
+"were all the same in terms of what jobs they did, but they were maintained "
+"by different people, written separately. The code was different. So they "
+"said, OK, we'll take these programs and run them with random data, and "
+"measure how often they crash, or hang. So they measured it, and the most "
+"reliable set of programs was the GNU programs. All the commercial "
+"alternatives which were proprietary software were less reliable. So he "
+"published this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he did "
+"the same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same result. "
+"The GNU versions were the most reliable. People — you know there are "
+"cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system, because it's so "
+"reliable, and reliability is very important to them."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Anyway, there's even a group of people who focus on this particular benefit "
+"as the reason they give, the main reason they give, why users should be "
+"permitted to do these various things, and to have these freedoms. If you've "
+"been listening to me, you've noticed, you've seen that I, speaking for the "
+"free software movement, I talk about issues of ethics, and what kind of a "
+"society we want to live in, what makes for a good society, as well as "
+"practical, material benefits. They're both important. That's the free "
+"software movement."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"That other group of people — which is called the open source movement "
+"— they only cite the practical benefits. They deny that this is an "
+"issue of principle. They deny that people are entitled to the freedom to "
+"share with their neighbor and to see what the program's doing and change it "
+"if they don't like it. They say, however, that it's a useful thing to let "
+"people do that. So they go to companies and say to them, “You know, "
+"you might make more money if you let people do this.” So, what you can "
+"see is that to some extent, they lead people in a similar direction, but for "
+"totally different, for fundamentally different, philosophical reasons."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Because on the deepest issue of all, you know, on the ethical question, the "
+"two movements disagree. You know, in the free software movement we say, "
+"“You're entitled to these freedoms. People shouldn't stop you from "
+"doing these things.” In the open source movement, they say, "
+"“Yes, they can stop you if you want, but we'll try to convince them to "
+"deign to let you to do these things.” Well, they have contributed "
+"— they have convinced a certain number of businesses to release "
+"substantial pieces of software as free software in our community. So they, "
+"the open source movement, has contributed substantially to our community. "
+"And so we work together on practical projects. But, philosophically, "
+"there's a tremendous disagreement."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Unfortunately, the open source movement is the one that gets the support of "
+"business the most, and so most articles about our work describe it as open "
+"source, and a lot of people just innocently think that we're all part of the "
+"open source movement. So that's why I'm mentioning this distinction. I "
+"want you to be aware that the free software movement, which brought our "
+"community into existence and developed the free operating system, is still "
+"here — and that we still stand for this ethical philosophy. I want "
+"you to know about this, so that you won't mislead someone else unknowingly."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "But also, so that you can think about where you stand."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"You know, which movement you support is up to you. You might agree with the "
+"free software movements and my views. You might agree with the open source "
+"movement. You might disagree with them both. You decide where you stand on "
+"these political issues."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But if you agree with the free software movement — if you see that "
+"there's an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled and "
+"directed by this decision deserve a say in it — then I hope you'll say "
+"that you agree with the free software movement, and one way you can do that "
+"is by using the term free software and just helping people know we exist."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, Freedom Three is very important both practically and psycho-socially. "
+"If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical material harm, because "
+"this community development doesn't happen, and we don't make powerful, "
+"reliable software. But it also causes psycho-social harm, which affects the "
+"spirit of scientific cooperation — the idea that we're working "
+"together to advance human knowledge. You see, progress in science crucially "
+"depends on people being able to work together. And nowadays though, you "
+"often find each little group of scientists acting like it's a war with each "
+"other gang of scientists and engineers. And if they don't share with each "
+"other, they're all held back."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, those are the three freedoms that distinguish free software from typical "
+"software. Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself, making changes to "
+"suit your own needs. Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by "
+"distributing copies. And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your "
+"community by making changes and publishing them for other people to use. If "
+"you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software for you. Now, "
+"why do I define it that way in terms of a particular user? Is it free "
+"software for you? <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> Is it free "
+"software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Is it "
+"free software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Yes?"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you explain a bit about the difference "
+"between Freedom Two and Three? <i>[inaudible]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, they certainly relate, because if you don't "
+"have freedom to redistribute at all, you certainly don't have freedom to "
+"distribute a modified version, but they're different activities."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Oh."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Freedom Two is, you know, read it, you make an "
+"exact copy, and hand it to your friends, so now your friend can use it. Or "
+"maybe you make exact copies and you sell them to a bunch of people, and then "
+"they can use it."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom Three is where you make improvements — or at least you think "
+"they're improvements, and some other people may agree with you. So that's "
+"the difference. Oh, and by the way, one crucial point. Freedoms One and "
+"Three depend on your having access to the source code. Because changing a "
+"binary-only program is extremely hard. <i>[Laughter]</i> Even trivial "
+"changes like using four digits for the date, <i>[Laughter]</i> if you don't "
+"have source. So, for compelling, practical reasons, access to the source "
+"code is a precondition, a requirement, for free software."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, why do I define it in terms of whether it's free software for "
+"<em>you</em>? The reason is that sometimes the same program can be free "
+"software for some people, and non-free for others. Now, that might seem "
+"like a paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example to show you how "
+"it happens. A very big example — maybe the biggest ever — of "
+"this problem was the X Window System which was developed at MIT and released "
+"under a license that made it free software. If you got the MIT version with "
+"the MIT license, you had Freedoms One, Two, and Three. It was free software "
+"for you. But among those who got copies were various computer manufacturers "
+"that distributed Unix systems, and they made the necessary changes in X to "
+"run on their systems. You know, probably just a few thousand lines out of "
+"the hundreds of thousands of lines of X. And, then they compiled it, and "
+"they put the binaries into their Unix system and distributed it under the "
+"same non-disclosure agreement as the rest of the Unix system. And then, "
+"millions of people got these copies. They had the X Window System, but they "
+"had none of these freedoms. It was not free software for <em>them</em>."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, the paradox was that whether X was free software depended on where you "
+"made the measurement. If you made the measurement coming out of the "
+"developers' group, you'd say, “I observe all these freedoms. It's "
+"free software.” If you made the measurements among the users you'd "
+"say, “Hmm, most users don't have these freedoms. It's not free "
+"software.” Well, the people who developed X didn't consider this a "
+"problem, because their goal was just popularity, ego, essentially. They "
+"wanted a big professional success. They wanted to feel, “Ah, lots of "
+"people are using our software.” And that was true. Lots of people "
+"were using their software but didn't have freedom."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Well, in the GNU project, if that same thing had happened to GNU software, "
+"it would have been a failure, because our goal wasn't just to be popular; "
+"our goal was to give people liberty, and to encourage cooperation, to permit "
+"people to cooperate. Remember, never force anyone to cooperate with any "
+"other person, but make sure that everybody's allowed to cooperate, everyone "
+"has the freedom to do so, if he or she wishes. If millions of people were "
+"running non-free versions of GNU, that wouldn't be success at all. The whole "
+"thing would have been perverted into nothing like the goal."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening. The method I came up "
+"with is called “copyleft”. It's called copyleft because it's "
+"sort of like taking copyright and flipping it over. <i>[Laughter]</i> "
+"Legally, copyleft works based on copyright. We use the existing copyright "
+"law, but we use it to achieve a very different goal. Here's what we do. We "
+"say, “This program is copyrighted.” And, of course, by default, "
+"that means it's prohibited to copy it, or distribute it, or modify it. But "
+"then we say, “You're authorized to distribute copies of this. You're "
+"authorized to modify it. You're authorized to distribute modified versions "
+"and extended versions. Change it any way you like.”"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But there is a condition. And the condition, of course, is the reason why "
+"we go to all this trouble, so that we could put the condition in. The "
+"condition says: Whenever you distribute anything that contains any piece of "
+"this program, that whole program must be distributed under these same terms, "
+"no more and no less. So you can change the program and distribute a "
+"modified version, but when you do, the people who get that from you must get "
+"the same freedom that you got from us. And not just for the parts of it "
+"— the excerpts that you copied from our program — but also for "
+"the other parts of that program that they got from you. The whole of that "
+"program has to be free software for them."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become inalienable "
+"rights — a concept from the Declaration of Independence. Rights that "
+"we make sure can't be taken away from you. And, of course, the specific "
+"license that embodies the idea of copyleft is the GNU General Public "
+"License, a controversial license because it actually has the strength to say "
+"no to people who would be parasites on our community."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of freedom. And "
+"they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done, and use it to get a "
+"head start in distributing a non-free program and tempting people to give up "
+"their freedom. And the result would be — you know, if we let people "
+"do that — that we would be developing these free programs, and we'd "
+"constantly have to compete with improved versions of our own programs. "
+"That's no fun."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And, a lot of people also feel — you know, I'm willing to volunteer my "
+"time to contribute to the community, but why should I volunteer my time to "
+"contribute to that company's, to improving that company's, proprietary "
+"program? You know, some people might not even think that that's evil, but "
+"they want to get paid if they're going to do that. I, personally, would "
+"rather not do it at all."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But both of these groups of people — both the ones like me who say, "
+"“I don't want to help that non-free program to get a foothold in our "
+"community” and the ones that say, “Sure, I'd work for them, but "
+"then they better pay me” — both of us have a good reason to use "
+"the GNU General Public License. Because that says to that company, "
+"“You can't just take my work, and distribute it without the "
+"freedom.” Whereas, the non-copyleft licenses, like the X Windows "
+"license, do permit that."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So that is the big division between the two categories of free software "
+"— license-wise. There are the programs that are copylefted so that "
+"the license defends the freedom of the software for every user. And there "
+"are the non-copylefted programs for which non-free versions are allowed. "
+"Somebody <em>can</em> take those programs and strip off the freedom. You "
+"may get that program in a non-free version."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And that problem exists today. There are still non-free versions of X "
+"Windows being used on our free operating systems. There is even hardware "
+"— which is not really supported — except by a non-free version "
+"of X Windows. And that's a major problem in our community. Nonetheless, I "
+"wouldn't say that X Windows is a bad thing, you know. I'd say that the "
+"developers did not do the best possible thing that they could have done. "
+"But they <em>did</em> release a lot of software that we could all use."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"You know, there's a big difference between less than perfect, and evil. "
+"There are many gradations of good and bad. We have to resist the temptation "
+"to say, if you didn't do the absolute best possible thing, then you're no "
+"good. You know, the people that developed X Windows made a big contribution "
+"to our community. But there's something better that they could have done. "
+"They could have copylefted parts of the program and prevented those "
+"freedom-denying versions from being distributed by others."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, the fact that the GNU General Public License defends your freedom, uses "
+"copyright law to defend your freedom, is, of course, why Microsoft is "
+"attacking it today. See, Microsoft would really like to be able to take all "
+"the code that we wrote and put it into proprietary programs, have somebody "
+"make some improvements, or even just incompatible changes is all they need. "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"You know, with Microsoft's marketing clout, they don't need to make it "
+"better to have their version supplant ours. They just have to make it "
+"different and incompatible. And then, put it on everybody's desktop. So "
+"they really don't like the GNU GPL. Because the GNU GPL won't let them do "
+"that. It doesn't allow “embrace and extend”. It says, if you "
+"want to share our code in your programs, you can. But, you've got to share "
+"and share alike. The changes that you make we have to be allowed to share. "
+"So, it's a two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Many companies — even big companies like IBM and HP are willing to use "
+"our software on this basis. IBM and HP contribute substantial improvements "
+"to GNU software. And they develop other free software. But, Microsoft "
+"doesn't want to do that, so they give it out that businesses just can't deal "
+"with the GPL. Well, if businesses don't include IBM, and HP and SUN, then "
+"maybe they're right. <i>[Laughter]</i> More about that later."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"I should finish the historical story. You see, we set out in 1984 not just "
+"to write some free software but to do something much more coherent: to "
+"develop an operating system that was entirely free software. So that meant "
+"we had to write piece after piece after piece. Of course, we were always "
+"looking for shortcuts. The job was so big that people said we'd never be "
+"able to finish. And, I thought that there was at least a chance that we'd "
+"finish it but, obviously, it's worth looking for shortcuts. So we kept "
+"looking around. Is there any program that somebody else has written that we "
+"could manage to adapt, to plug into here, and that way we won't have to "
+"write it from scratch? For instance, the X Window system. It's true it "
+"wasn't copylefted, but it was free software, so we could use it."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, I had wanted to put a window system into GNU from day one. I wrote a "
+"couple of window systems at MIT before I started GNU. And so, even though "
+"Unix had no window system in 1984, I decided that GNU would have one. But, "
+"we never ended up writing a GNU window system, because X came along. And I "
+"said, Goody! One big job we don't have to do. We'll use X. So I basically "
+"said, let's take X, and put it into the GNU system. And we'll make the "
+"other parts of GNU, you know, work with X, when appropriate. And we found "
+"other pieces of software that had been written by other people, like the "
+"text formatter TeX, some library code from Berkeley. At that time there was "
+"Berkeley Unix, but it was not free software. This library code, initially, "
+"was from a different group at Berkeley, that did research on floating "
+"point. And, so, we kept, we fit in these pieces."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"In October 1985, we founded the Free Software Foundation. So please note, "
+"the GNU project came first. The Free Software Foundation came after, about "
+"almost two years after the announcement of the Project. And the Free "
+"Software Foundation is a tax-exempt charity that raises funds to promote the "
+"freedom to share and change software. And in the 1980's, one of the main "
+"things we did with our funds was to hire people to write parts of GNU. And "
+"essential programs, such as the shell and the C library were written this "
+"way, as well as parts of other programs. The <code>tar</code> program, "
+"which is absolutely essential, although not exciting at all "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> was written this way. I believe GNU grep was written this "
+"way. And so, we're approaching our goal."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"By 1991, there was just one major piece missing, and that was the kernel. "
+"Now, why did I put off the kernel? Probably because it doesn't really matter "
+"what order you do the things in, at least technically it doesn't. You've "
+"got to do them all anyway. And partly because I'd hoped we'd be able to "
+"find a start at a kernel somewhere else. And we did. We found Mach, which "
+"had been developed at Carnegie Mellon. And it wasn't the whole kernel; it "
+"was the bottom half of the kernel. So we had to write the top half, but I "
+"figured, you know, things like the file system, the network code, and so "
+"on. But running on top of Mach they're running essentially as user "
+"programs, which ought to make them easier to debug. You can debug with a "
+"real source-level debugger running at the same time. And so, I thought that "
+"way we'd be able to get these, the higher level parts of the kernel, done in "
+"a short time. It didn't work out that way. These asynchronous, "
+"multi-threaded processes, sending messages to each other turned out to be "
+"very hard to debug. And the Mach-based system that we were using to "
+"bootstrap with had a terrible debugging environment, and it was unreliable, "
+"and various problems. It took us years and years to get the GNU kernel to "
+"work."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, fortunately, our community did not have to wait for the GNU kernel. "
+"Because in 1991, Linus Torvalds developed another free kernel called Linux. "
+"And he used the old-fashioned monolithic design and it turns out that he got "
+"his working much faster than we got ours working. So maybe that's one of "
+"the mistakes that I made: that design decision. Anyway, at first, we didn't "
+"know about Linux, because he never contacted us to talk about it. Although "
+"he did know about the GNU Project. But he announced it to other people and "
+"other places on the net. And so other people then did the work of combining "
+"Linux with the rest of the GNU system to make a complete free operating "
+"system. Essentially, to make the GNU plus Linux combination."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, they didn't realize that's what they were doing. You see, they said, "
+"We have a kernel — let's look around and see what other pieces we can "
+"find to put together with the kernel. So, they looked around — and lo "
+"and behold, everything they needed was already available. What good "
+"fortune, they said. <i>[Laughter]</i> It's all here. We can find "
+"everything we need. Let's just take all these different things and put it "
+"together, and have a system."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"They didn't know that most of what they found was pieces of the GNU system. "
+"So they didn't realize that they were fitting Linux into the gap in the GNU "
+"system. They thought they were taking Linux and making a system out of "
+"Linux. So they called it a Linux system."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can't hear you — what?"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, it's just not — you know, it's "
+"provincial."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: But it's more good fortune then finding X and "
+"Mach?"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. The difference is that the people who "
+"developed X and Mach didn't have the goal of making a complete free "
+"operating system. We're the only ones who had that. And, it was our "
+"tremendous work that made the system exist. We actually did a larger part "
+"of the system than any other project. No coincidence, because those people "
+"— they wrote useful parts of the system. But they didn't do it "
+"because they wanted the system to be finished. They had other reasons."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now the people who developed X — they thought that designing across "
+"the network window system would be a good project, and it was. And it "
+"turned out to help us make a good free operating system. But that's not "
+"what they hoped for. They didn't even think about that. It was an "
+"accident. An accidental benefit. Now, I'm not saying that what they did "
+"was bad. They did a large free software project. That's a good thing to "
+"do. But they didn't have that ultimate vision. The GNU Project is where "
+"that vision was."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And, so, we were the ones whose — every little piece that didn't get "
+"done by somebody else, we did it. Because we knew that we wouldn't have a "
+"complete system without it. And even if it was totally boring and "
+"unromantic, like <code>tar</code> or <code>mv</code>. <i>[Laughter]</i> We "
+"did it. Or ld, you know there's nothing very exciting in <code>ld</code> "
+"— but I wrote one. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I did make efforts to have "
+"it do a minimal amount of disk I/O so that it would be faster and handle "
+"bigger programs. But, you know, I like to do a good job. I like to improve "
+"various things about the program while I'm doing it. But the reason that I "
+"did it wasn't that I had brilliant ideas for a better <code>ld</code>. The "
+"reason I did it is that we needed one that was free. And we couldn't expect "
+"anyone else to do it. So, we had to do it, or find someone to do it."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, although at this point thousands of people in projects have contributed "
+"to this system, there is one project which is the reason that this system "
+"exists, and that's the GNU Project. It <em>is</em> basically the GNU "
+"System, with other things added since then."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, however, the practice of calling the system Linux has been a great blow "
+"to the GNU Project, because we don't normally get credit for what we've "
+"done. I think Linux, the kernel, is a very useful piece of free software, "
+"and I have only good things to say about it. But, well, actually, I can "
+"find a few bad things to say about it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, basically, I "
+"have good things to say about it. However, the practice of calling the GNU "
+"system, Linux, is just a mistake. I'd like to ask you please to make the "
+"small effort necessary to call the system GNU/Linux, and that way to help us "
+"get a share of the credit."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You need a mascot! Get yourself a stuffed animal! "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have one."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You do?"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have an animal — a gnu. "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway. So, yes, when you draw a penguin, draw a gnu next "
+"to it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, let's save the questions for the end. I have "
+"more to go through."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, why am I so concerned about this? You know, why do I think it is worth "
+"bothering you and perhaps giving you a, perhaps lowering your opinion of me, "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> to raise this issue of credit? Because, you know, some "
+"people when I do this, some people think that it's because I want my ego to "
+"be fed, right? Of course, I'm not saying — I'm not asking you to call "
+"it “Stallmanix,” right? <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to get "
+"credit. And there's a very specific reason for that, which is a lot more "
+"important than anybody getting credit, in and of itself. You see, these "
+"days, if you look around in our community most of the people talking about "
+"it and writing about it don't ever mention GNU, and they don't ever mention "
+"these goals of freedom — these political and social ideals, either. "
+"Because the place they come from is GNU."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"The ideas associated with Linux — the philosophy is very different. "
+"It is basically the apolitical philosophy of Linus Torvalds. So, when "
+"people think that the whole system is Linux, they tend to think: “Oh, "
+"it must have been all started by Linux Torvalds. His philosophy must be the "
+"one that we should look at carefully”. And when they hear about the "
+"GNU philosophy, they say: “Boy, this is so idealistic, this must be "
+"awfully impractical. I'm a Linux-user, not a GNU-user.” "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"What irony! If they only knew! If they knew that the system they liked "
+"— or, in some cases, love and go wild over — is our idealistic, "
+"political philosophy made real."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"They still wouldn't have to agree with us. But at least they'd see a reason "
+"to take it seriously, to think about it carefully, to give it a chance. "
+"They would see how it relates to their lives. You know, if they realized, "
+"“I'm using the GNU system. Here's the GNU philosophy. This philosophy "
+"is <em>why</em> this system that I like very much exists,” they'd at "
+"least consider it with a much more open mind. It doesn't mean that "
+"everybody will agree. People think different things. That's OK. You know, "
+"people should make up their own minds. But I want this philosophy to get "
+"the benefit of the credit for the results it has achieved."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"If you look around in our community, you'll find that almost everywhere, the "
+"institutions are calling the system Linux. You know, reporters mostly call "
+"it Linux. It's not right, but they do. The companies mostly say it that "
+"package the system. Oh, and most of these reporters, when they write "
+"articles, they usually don't look at it as a political issue, or social "
+"issue. They're usually looking at it purely as a business question or what "
+"companies are going to succeed more or less, which is really a fairly minor "
+"question for society. And, if you look at the companies that package the "
+"GNU/Linux system for people to use, well, most of them call it Linux. And "
+"they <em>all</em> add non-free software to it."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"See, the GNU GPL says that if you take code, and some code out of a "
+"GPL-covered program, and add some more code to make a bigger program, that "
+"whole program has to be released under the GPL. But you could put other "
+"separate programs on the same disk (of either kind, hard disk, or CD), and "
+"they can have other licenses. That's considered mere aggregation, and, "
+"essentially, just distributing two programs to somebody at the same time is "
+"not something we have any say over. So, in fact, it is not true — "
+"sometimes, I wish it were true — that if a company uses a GPL-covered "
+"program in a product that the whole product has to be free software. It's "
+"not — it doesn't go to that range — that scope. It's the whole "
+"program. If there are two separate programs that communicate with each "
+"other at arm's length — like by sending messages to each other — "
+"then, they're legally separate, in general. So, these companies, by adding "
+"non-free software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically and "
+"politically, a very bad idea. They're telling the users, “It is OK to "
+"use non-free software. We're even putting it on this as a bonus.”"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system, most of "
+"them have a title like “Linux-something or other”. So they're "
+"calling the system Linux most of the time. And they're filled with ads for "
+"non-free software that you could run on top of the GNU/Linux system. Now "
+"those ads have a common message. They say: Non-free Software Is Good For "
+"You. It's So Good That You Might Even <em>Pay</em> To Get It. "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And they call these things “value-added packages”, which makes a "
+"statement about their values. They're saying: Value practical convenience, "
+"not freedom. And, I don't agree with those values, so I call them "
+"“freedom-subtracted packages”. <i>[Laughter]</i> Because if you "
+"have installed a free operating system, then you now are living in the free "
+"world. You enjoy the benefits of liberty that we worked for so many years "
+"to give you. Those packages give you an opportunity to buckle on a chain."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And then if you look at the trade shows — about the use of the, "
+"dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call themselves "
+"“Linux” shows. And they're filled with booths exhibiting "
+"non-free software, essentially putting the seal of approval on the non-free "
+"software. So, almost everywhere you look in our community, the institutions "
+"are endorsing the non-free software, totalling negating the idea of freedom "
+"that GNU was developed for. And the only place that people are likely to "
+"come across the idea of freedom is in connection with GNU, and in connection "
+"with free software, the term, free software. So this is why I ask you: "
+"please call the system GNU/Linux. Please make people aware where the system "
+"came from and why."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Of course, just by using that name, you won't be making an explanation of "
+"the history. You can type four extra characters and write GNU/Linux; you "
+"can say two extra syllables. But, GNU/Linux is fewer syllables than Windows "
+"2000. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, you're not telling them a lot, but you're "
+"preparing them, so that when they hear about GNU, and what it's all about, "
+"they'll see how that connects to them and their lives. And that, "
+"indirectly, makes a tremendous difference. So please help us."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"You'll note that Microsoft called the GPL an “open source "
+"license”. They don't want people to be thinking in terms of freedom "
+"as the issue. You'll find that they invite people to think in a narrow way, "
+"as consumers, and, of course, not even think very rationally as consumers, "
+"if they're going to choose Microsoft products. But they don't want people "
+"to think as citizens or statesmen. That's inimical to them. At least it's "
+"inimical to their current business model."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, how does free software…well, I can tell you about how free "
+"software relates to our society. A secondary topic that might be of "
+"interest to some of you is how free software relates to business. Now, in "
+"fact, free software is <em>tremendously</em> useful for business. After "
+"all, most businesses in the advanced countries use software. Only a tiny "
+"fraction of them develop software."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And free software is tremendously advantageous for any company that uses "
+"software, because it means that you're in control. Basically, free software "
+"means the users are in control of what the program does. Either "
+"individually, if they care enough to be, or, collectively, when they care "
+"enough to be. Whoever cares enough can exert some influence. If you don't "
+"care, you don't buy. Then you use what other people prefer. But, if you do "
+"care, then you have some say. With proprietary software, you have "
+"essentially no say."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"With free software, you can change what you want to change. And it doesn't "
+"matter that there are no programmers in your company; that's fine. You "
+"know, if you wanted to move the walls in your building, you don't have to be "
+"a carpentry company. You just have to be able to go find a carpenter and "
+"say, “What will you charge to do this job?” And if you want to "
+"change around the software you use, you don't have to be a programming "
+"company. You just have to go to a programming company and say, “What "
+"will you charge to implement these features? And when will you have it "
+"done?” And if they don't do the job, you can go find somebody else."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"There's a free market for support. So, any business that cares about "
+"support will find a tremendous advantage in free software. With proprietary "
+"software, support is a monopoly, because one company has the source code, or "
+"maybe a small number of companies that paid a gigantic amount of money have "
+"the source code, if it's Microsoft's shared source program, but, it's very "
+"few. And so, there aren't very many possible sources of support for you. "
+"And that means, that unless you're a real giant, they don't care about you. "
+"Your company is not important enough for them to care if they lose your "
+"business, or what happens. Once you're using the program, they figure "
+"you're locked in to getting the support from them, because to switch to a "
+"different program is a gigantic job. So, you end up with things like paying "
+"for the privilege of reporting a bug. <i>[Laughter]</i> And once you've "
+"paid, they tell you, “Well, OK, we've noted your bug report. And in a "
+"few months, you can buy an upgrade, and you can see if we've fixed "
+"it.” <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Support providers for free software can't get away with that. They have to "
+"please the customers. Of course, you can get a lot of good support gratis. "
+"You post your problem on the Internet. You may get an answer the next day. "
+"But that's not guaranteed, of course. If you want to be confident, you "
+"better make an arrangement with a company and pay them. And this is, of "
+"course, one of the ways that free software business works."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Another advantage of free software for businesses that use software is "
+"security and privacy. And this applies to individuals as well, but I "
+"brought it up in the context of businesses. You see, when a program is "
+"proprietary, you can't even tell what it really does."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"It could have features, deliberately put in that you wouldn't like if you "
+"knew about them, like it might have a backdoor to let the developer get into "
+"your machine. It might snoop on what you do and send information back. "
+"This is not unusual. Some Microsoft software did this. But it's not only "
+"Microsoft. There are other proprietary programs that snoop on the user. "
+"And you can't even tell if it does this. And, of course, even assuming that "
+"the developer's totally honest, every programmer makes mistakes. There "
+"could be bugs that affect your security which are nobody's fault. But the "
+"point is: If it's not free software, you can't find them. And you can't fix "
+"them."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Nobody has the time to check the source of every program he runs. You're "
+"not going to do that. But with free software there's a large community, and "
+"there are people in that community who are checking things. And you get the "
+"benefit of their checking, because if there's an accidental bug, there "
+"surely are, from time to time, in any program, they might find it and fix "
+"it. And people are much less likely to put in a deliberate Trojan horse, or "
+"a snooping feature, if they think they might get caught. The proprietary "
+"software developers figure they won't get caught. They'll get away with it "
+"undetected. But a free software developer has to figure that people will "
+"look at that and see it's there. So, in our community, we don't feel we can "
+"get away with ramming a feature down the users' throats that the users "
+"wouldn't like. So we know that if the users don't like it, they'll make a "
+"modified version which doesn't have it. And then, they'll all start using "
+"that version."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"In fact, we can all reason enough, we can all figure this out enough steps "
+"ahead, that we probably won't put in that feature. After all, you're "
+"writing a free program; you want people to like your version; you don't want "
+"to put in a thing that you know a lot of people are going to hate, and have "
+"another modified version catch on instead of yours. So you just realize "
+"that the user is king in the world of free software. In the world of "
+"proprietary software, the customer is <em>not</em> king. Because you are "
+"only a customer. You have no say in the software you use."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"In this respect, free software is a new mechanism for democracy to operate. "
+"Professor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions as a kind of "
+"law. Whoever gets to write the code that just about everybody uses for all "
+"intents and purposes is writing the laws that run people's lives. With free "
+"software, these laws get written in a democratic way. Not the classical "
+"form of democracy — we don't have a big election and say, "
+"“Everybody vote which way should this feature be done.” "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> Instead we say, basically, those of you who want to work "
+"on implementing the feature this way, do it. And if you want to work on "
+"implementing the feature that way, do it. And, it gets done one way or the "
+"other, you know? And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done "
+"this way. So, in this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by "
+"simply taking steps in the direction that he wants to go."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And you're free to take as many steps, personally, as you want to take. A "
+"business is free to commission as many steps as they find useful to take. "
+"And, after you add all these things up, that says which direction the "
+"software goes."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And it's often very useful to be able to take pieces out of some existing "
+"program, presumably usually large pieces, of course, and then write a "
+"certain amount of code of your own, and make a program that does exactly "
+"what you need, which would have cost you an arm and a leg to develop, if you "
+"had to write it all from scratch, if you couldn't cannibalize large pieces "
+"from some existing free software package."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Another thing that results from the fact that the user is king is that we "
+"tend to be very good about compatibility and standardization. Why? Because "
+"users like that. Users are likely to reject a program that has gratuitous "
+"incompatibilities in it. Now, sometimes there's a certain group of users "
+"which actually have a need for a certain kind of incompatibility, and then "
+"they'll have it. That's OK. But when users want is to follow a standard, we "
+"developers have to follow it, and we know that. And we do it. By contrast, "
+"if you look at proprietary software developers, they often find it "
+"advantageous to deliberately <em>not</em> follow a standard, and not because "
+"they think that they're giving the user an advantage that way, but rather "
+"because they're imposing on the user, locking the user in. And you'll even "
+"find them making changes in their file formats from time to time, just to "
+"force people to get the newest version."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Archivists are finding a problem now, that files written on computers ten "
+"years ago often can't be accessed; they were written with proprietary "
+"software that's essentially lost now. If it were written with free "
+"software, then it could be brought up-to-date and run. And those things "
+"would not, those records would not be lost, would not be inaccessible. They "
+"were even complaining about this on NPR recently in citing free software as "
+"a solution. And so, in effect, by using a non-free program to store your "
+"own data, you are putting your head in a noose."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, I've talked about how free software affects most business. But how does "
+"it affect that particular narrow area which is software business? Well, the "
+"answer is mostly not at all. And the reason is that 90% of the software "
+"industry, from what I'm told, is development of custom software, software "
+"that's not meant to be released at all. For custom software, this issue, or "
+"the ethical issue of free or proprietary, doesn't arise. You see, the issue "
+"is, are you users free to change, and redistribute, the software? If there's "
+"only one user, and that user owns the rights, there's no problem. That user "
+"<em>is</em> free to do all these things. So, in effect, any <em>custom</em> "
+"program that was developed by one company for use in-house is free software, "
+"as long as they have the sense to insist on getting the source code and all "
+"the rights."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And the issue doesn't really arise for software that goes in a watch or a "
+"microwave oven or an automobile ignition system. Because those are places "
+"where you don't download software to install. It's not a real computer, as "
+"far as the user is concerned. And so, it doesn't raise these issues enough "
+"for them to be ethically important. So, for the most part, the software "
+"industry will go along, just as it's been going. And the interesting thing "
+"is that since such a large fraction of the jobs are in that part of the "
+"industry, even if there were no possibilities for free software business, "
+"the developers of free software could all get day jobs writing custom "
+"software. <i>[Laughter]</i> There's so many; the ratio is so big."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, as it happens, there is free software business. There are free "
+"software companies, and at the press conference that I'm going to have, "
+"people from a couple of them will join us. And, of course, there are also "
+"companies which are <em>not</em> free software businesses but do develop "
+"useful pieces of free software to release, and the free software that they "
+"produce is substantial."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, how do free software businesses work? Well, some of them sell copies. "
+"You know, you're free to copy it but they can still sell thousands of copies "
+"a month. And others sell support and various kinds of services. I, "
+"personally, for the second half of the '80's, I sold free software support "
+"services. Basically I said, for $200 an hour, I'll change whatever you want "
+"me to change in GNU software that I'd written. And, yes, it was a stiff "
+"rate, but if it was a program that I was the author of, people would figure "
+"that I might get the job done in a lot fewer hours. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I "
+"made a living that way. In fact, I'd made more than I'd ever made before. "
+"I also taught classes. And I kept doing that until 1990, when I got a big "
+"prize and I didn't have to do it any more."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, 1990 was when the first corporation free software business was formed, "
+"which was Cygnus Support. And their business was to do, essentially, the "
+"same kind of thing that I'd been doing. I certainly could have worked for "
+"them, if I had needed to do that. Since I didn't need to, I felt it was "
+"good for the movement if I remained independent of any one company. That "
+"way, I could say good and bad things about the various free software and "
+"non-free software companies, without a conflict of interest. I felt that I "
+"could serve the movement more. But, if I had needed that to make a living, "
+"sure, I would have worked for them. It's an ethical business to be in. No "
+"reason I would have felt ashamed to take a job with them. And that company "
+"was profitable in its first year. It was formed with very little capital, "
+"just the money its three founders had. And it kept growing every year and "
+"being profitable every year until they got greedy, and looked for outside "
+"investors, and then they messed things up. But it was several years of "
+"success, before they got greedy."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, this illustrates one of the exciting things about free software. Free "
+"software demonstrates that you don't need to raise capital to develop free "
+"software. I mean, it's useful; it <em>can</em> help. You know, if you do "
+"raise some capital, you can hire people and have them write a bunch of "
+"software. But you can get a lot done with a small number of people. And, "
+"in fact, the tremendous efficiency of the process of developing free "
+"software is one of the reasons it's important for the world to switch to "
+"free software. And it also belies what Microsoft says when they say the GNU "
+"GPL is bad, because it makes it harder for them to raise capital to develop "
+"non-free software and take our free software and put our code into their "
+"programs that they won't share with us. Basically, we don't need to have "
+"them raising capital that way. We'll get the job done anyway. We are "
+"getting the job done."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"People used to say we could never do a complete free operating system. Now "
+"we've done that and a tremendous amount more. And I would say that we're "
+"about an order of magnitude away from developing all the general purpose "
+"published software needs of the world. And this is in a world where more "
+"than 90% of the users don't use our free software yet. This is in a world "
+"where, although in certain areas of business, you know, more than half of "
+"all the web servers in the world are running on GNU/Linux with Apache as the "
+"web server."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i> … What did you say "
+"before, Linux?"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I said GNU/Linux."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You did?"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, if I'm talking about the kernel, I call it "
+"Linux. You know, that's it's name. The kernel was written by Linus "
+"Torvalds, and we should only call it by the name that he chose, out of "
+"respect for the author."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Anyway, but in general, in business most users are not using it. Most home "
+"users are not using our system yet. So, when they are, we should "
+"automatically get 10 times as many volunteers and 10 times as many customers "
+"for the free software businesses that there will be. And so that will take "
+"us that order of magnitude. So at this point, I am pretty confident that we "
+"<em>can</em> do the job."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And, this is important, because Microsoft asks us to feel desperate. They "
+"say, The only way you can have software to run, the only way you can have "
+"innovation, is if you give us power. Let us dominate you. Let us control "
+"what you can do with the software you're running, so that we can squeeze a "
+"lot of money out of you, and use a certain fraction of that to develop "
+"software, and take the rest as profit."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Well, you shouldn't ever feel that desperate. You shouldn't ever feel so "
+"desperate that you give up your freedom. That's very dangerous."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Another thing that Microsoft, well, not just Microsoft, people who don't "
+"support free software generally adopt a value system in which the only thing "
+"that matters is short-term practical benefits: How much money am I going to "
+"make this year? What job can I get done today? Short-term thinking and "
+"narrow thinking. Their assumption is that it is ridiculous to imagine that "
+"anybody ever might make a sacrifice for the sake of freedom."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Yesterday, a lot of people were making speeches about Americans who made "
+"sacrifices for the freedom of their compatriots. Some of them made great "
+"sacrifices. They even sacrificed their lives for the kinds of freedom that "
+"everyone in our country has heard about, at least. (At least, in some of "
+"the cases; I guess we have to ignore the war in Vietnam.)"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<i>[Editor's note: The day before was “Memorial Day” in the "
+"USA. Memorial Day is a day where war heros are commemorated.]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, fortunately, to maintain our freedom in using software, doesn't call "
+"for big sacrifices. Just tiny, little sacrifices are enough, like learning a "
+"command-line interface, if we don't have a GUI interface program yet. Like "
+"doing the job in this way, because we don't have a free software package to "
+"do it that way, yet. Like, paying some money to a company that's going to "
+"develop a certain free software package, so that you can have it in a few "
+"years. Various little sacrifices that we can all make. And, in the long "
+"run, even we will have benefited from it. You know, it is really an "
+"investment more than a sacrifice. We just have to have enough long-term "
+"view to realize it's good for us to invest in improving our society, without "
+"counting the nickels and dimes of who gets how much of the benefit from that "
+"investment."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "So, at this point, I'm essentially done."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"I'd like to mention that there's a new approach to free software business "
+"being proposed by Tony Stanco, which he calls “Free Developers”, "
+"which involves a certain business structure which hopes eventually to pay "
+"out a certain share of the profits to every, to all the authors of the free "
+"software who've joined the organization. And they're looking at the "
+"prospects of getting me some rather large government software development "
+"contracts in India now, because they're going to be using free software as "
+"the basis, having tremendous cost savings that way."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "And so now I guess that I should ask for questions."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Could you speak up a bit louder please? I can't "
+"really hear you."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: How could a company like Microsoft include a free "
+"software contract?"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually, Microsoft is planning to shift a "
+"lot of its activity into services. And what they're planning to do is "
+"something dirty and dangerous, which is tie the services to the programs, "
+"one to the next, in a sort of zigzag, you know? So that to use this service, "
+"you've got to be using this Microsoft program, which is going to mean you "
+"need to use this service, to this Microsoft program, so it's all tied "
+"together. That's their plan."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, the interesting thing is that selling those services doesn't raise the "
+"ethical issue of free software or non-free software. It might be perfectly "
+"fine for them to have the business for those businesses selling those "
+"services over the net to exist. However, what Microsoft is planning to do "
+"is to use them to achieve an even greater lock, an even greater monopoly, on "
+"the software and the services, and this was described in an article, I "
+"believe in Business Week, recently. And, other people said that it is "
+"turning the net into the Microsoft Company Town."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And this is relevant because, you know, the trial court in the Microsoft "
+"antitrust trial recommended breaking up the company, Microsoft. But in a "
+"way, that makes no sense — it wouldn't do any good at all — into "
+"the operating part and the applications part."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But having seen that article, I now see a useful, effective way to split up "
+"Microsoft into the services part and the software part, to require them to "
+"deal with each other only at arm's length, that the services must publish "
+"their interfaces, so that anybody can write a client to talk to those "
+"services, and, I guess, that they have to pay to get the service. Well, "
+"that's OK. That's a totally different issue."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"If Microsoft is split up in this way […] services and software, they "
+"will not be able to use their software to crush competition with Microsoft "
+"services. And they won't be able to use the services to crush competition "
+"with Microsoft software. And we will be able to make the free software, and "
+"maybe you people will use it to talk to Microsoft services, and we won't "
+"mind."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Because, after all, although Microsoft is the proprietary software company "
+"that has subjugated the most people — the others have subjugated fewer "
+"people, it's not for want of trying. <i>[Laughter]</i> They just haven't "
+"succeeded in subjugating as many people. So, the problem is not Microsoft "
+"and only Microsoft. Microsoft is just the biggest example of the problem "
+"we're trying to solve, which is proprietary software taking away users' "
+"freedom to cooperate and form an ethical society. So we shouldn't focus too "
+"much on Microsoft, you know, even though they did give me the opportunity "
+"for this platform. That doesn't make them all-important. They're not the "
+"be-all and end-all."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Earlier, you were discussing the philosophical "
+"differences between open source software and free software. How do you feel "
+"about the current trend of GNU/Linux distributions as they head towards "
+"supporting only Intel platforms? And the fact that it seems that less and "
+"less programmers are programming correctly, and making software that will "
+"compile anywhere? And making software that simply works on Intel systems?"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I don't see an ethical issue there. Although, in "
+"fact, companies that make computers sometimes port the GNU/Linux system to "
+"it. HP apparently did this recently. And, they didn't bother paying for a "
+"port of Windows, because that would have cost too much. But getting "
+"GNU/Linux supported was, I think, five engineers for a few months. It was "
+"easily doable."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, of course, I encourage people to use <code>autoconf</code>, which is a "
+"GNU package that makes it easier to make your programs portable. I "
+"encourage them to do that. Or when somebody else fixes the bug that it "
+"didn't compile on that version of the system, and sends it to you, you "
+"should put it in. But I don't see that as an ethical issue."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Two comments. One is: Recently, you spoke at "
+"MIT. I read the transcript. And someone asked about patents, and you said "
+"that “patents are a totally different issue. I have no comments on "
+"that.”"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I actually have a lot to say about "
+"patents, but it takes an hour. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: I wanted to say this: It seems to me that there "
+"is an issue. I mean, there is a reason that companies call both patents and "
+"copyrights things like hard property in trying to get this concept which is, "
+"if they want to use the power of the State to create a course of monopoly "
+"for themselves. And so, what's common about these things is not that they "
+"revolve around the same issues, but that motivation is not really the public "
+"service issues but the motivation of companies to get a monopoly for their "
+"private interests."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I understand. But, well, I want to respond "
+"because there's not too much time. So I'd like to respond to that."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"You're right that that's what they want. But there's another reason why "
+"they want to use the term intellectual property. It's that they don't want "
+"to encourage people to think carefully about copyright issues or patent "
+"issues. Because copyright law and patent law are totally different, and the "
+"effects of software copyrighted and software patents are totally different."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Software patents are a restriction on programmers, prohibiting them from "
+"writing certain kinds of programs, whereas copyright doesn't do that. With "
+"copyright, at least if you wrote it yourself, you're allowed to distribute "
+"it. So, it's tremendously important to separate these issues."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"They have a little bit in common, at a very low level, and everything else "
+"is different. So, please, to encourage clear thinking, discuss copyright or "
+"discuss patents. But don't discuss intellectual property. I don't have an "
+"opinion on intellectual property. I have opinions on copyrights and patents "
+"and software."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You mentioned at the beginning that a functional "
+"language, like recipes, are computer programs. There's a cross a little bit "
+"different than other kinds of language created on. This is also causing a "
+"problem in the DVD case."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: The issues are partly similar but partly "
+"different, for things that are not functional in nature. Part of the issue "
+"transfers but not all of it. Unfortunately, that's another hour speech. I "
+"don't have time to go into it. But I would say that all functional works "
+"ought to be free in the same sense as software. You know, textbooks, "
+"manuals, dictionaries, and recipes, and so on."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: I was just wondering on online music. There are "
+"similarities and differences created all through."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I'd say that the minimum freedom that we "
+"should have for any kind of published information is the freedom to "
+"non-commercially redistribute it, verbatim. For functional works, we need "
+"the freedom to commercially publish a modified version, because that's "
+"tremendously useful to society. For non-functional works, you know, things "
+"that are to entertain, or to be aesthetic, or to state a certain person's "
+"views, you know, perhaps they shouldn't be modified. And, perhaps that "
+"means that it's OK, to have copyright covering all commercial distribution "
+"of them."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Please remember that according to the U.S. Constitution, the purpose of "
+"copyright is to benefit the public. It is to modify the behavior of certain "
+"private parties, so that they will publish more books. And the benefit of "
+"this is that society gets to discuss issues and learn. And, you know, we "
+"have literature. We have scientific works. The purpose is encourage that. "
+"Copyrights do not exist for the sake of authors, let alone for the sake of "
+"publishers. They exist for the sake of readers and all those who benefit "
+"from the communication of information that happens when people write and "
+"others read. And that goal I agree with."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But in the age of the computer networks, the method is no longer tenable, "
+"because it now requires draconian laws that invade everybody's privacy and "
+"terrorize everyone. You know, years in prison for sharing with your "
+"neighbor. It wasn't like that in the age of the printing press. Then "
+"copyright was an industrial regulation. It restricted publishers. Now, "
+"it's a restriction imposed by the publishers on the public. So, the power "
+"relationship is turned around 180 degrees, even if it's the same law."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: So you can have the same thing — but like "
+"in making music from other music?"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. That is an interesting …"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: And unique, new works, you know, it's still a lot "
+"of cooperation."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: It is. And I think that probably requires some "
+"kind of fair use concept. Certainly making a few seconds of sample and "
+"using that in making some musical work, obviously that should be fair use. "
+"Even the standard idea of fair use includes that, if you think about it. "
+"Whether courts agree, I'm not sure, but they should. That wouldn't be a "
+"real change in the system as it has existed."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: What do you think about publishing public "
+"information in proprietary formats?"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, it shouldn't be. I mean, the government "
+"should never require citizens to use a non-free program to access, to "
+"communicate with the government in any way, in either direction."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: I have been, what I will now say, a GNU/Linux "
+"user…"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Thank you. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: …for the past four years. The one thing "
+"that has been problematical for me and is something that is essential, I "
+"think, to all of us, is browsing the web."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: One thing that has been decidedly a weakness in "
+"using a GNU/Linux system has been browsing the web, because the prevailing "
+"tool for that, Netscape…"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: …is not free software."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Let me respond to this. I want to get to the point, for the sake of getting "
+"in more. So, yes. There has been a terrible tendency for people to use "
+"Netscape Navigator on their GNU/Linux systems. And, in fact all the "
+"commercially packaged systems come with it. So this is an ironic situation: "
+"we worked so hard to make a free operating system, and now, if you go to the "
+"store, and you can find versions of GNU/Linux there, most of them are called "
+"Linux, and they're not free. Oh, well, part of them is. But then, there's "
+"Netscape Navigator, and maybe other non-free programs as well. So, it's "
+"very hard to actually find a free system, unless you know what you're "
+"doing. Or, of course, you can not install Netscape Navigator."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, in fact, there have been free web browsers for many years. There is a "
+"free web browser that I used to use called Lynx. It's a free web browser "
+"that is non-graphical; it's text-only. This has a tremendous advantage, in "
+"you don't see the ads. <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But anyway, there is a free graphical project called Mozilla, which is now "
+"getting to the point where you can use it. And I occasionally use it."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 has been very good."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, OK. So that's another free graphical "
+"browser. So, we're finally solving that problem, I guess."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk to me about that "
+"philosophical/ethical division between free software and open source? Do you "
+"feel that those are irreconcilable? …"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<i>[Recording switches tapes; end of question and start of answer is "
+"missing]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: … to a freedom, and ethics. Or whether "
+"you just say, Well, I hope that you companies will decide it's more "
+"profitable to let us be allowed to do these things."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, as I said, in a lot of practical work, it doesn't really matter what a "
+"person's politics are. When a person offers to help the GNU project, we "
+"don't say: “You have to agree with our politics.” We say that in "
+"a GNU package, you've got to call the system GNU/Linux, and you've got to "
+"call it free software. What you say when you're not speaking to the GNU "
+"Project, that's up to you."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: The company, IBM, started a campaign for "
+"government agencies, to sell their big new machines, that they used Linux as "
+"selling point, and say Linux."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, of course, it's really the GNU/Linux "
+"systems. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: That's right! Well, tell the top sales person. "
+"He doesn't know anything for GNU."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I have to tell who?"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: The top sales person."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh yes. The problem is that they've already "
+"carefully decided what they want to say for reasons of their advantage. And "
+"the issue of what is a more accurate, or fair, or correct way to describe it "
+"is not the primary issue that matters to a company like that. Now, some "
+"small companies, yes, there'll be a boss. And if the boss is inclined to "
+"think about things like that, he might make a decision that way. Not a "
+"giant corporation though. It's a shame, you know."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"There's another more important and more substantive issue about what IBM is "
+"doing. They're saying that they're putting a billion dollars into "
+"“Linux”. But perhaps, I should also put quotes around "
+"“into”, as well, because some of that money is paying people to "
+"develop free software. That really is a contribution to our community. But "
+"other parts is paying to pay people to write proprietary software, or port "
+"proprietary software to run on top of GNU/Linux, and that is <em>not</em> a "
+"contribution to our community. But IBM is lumping that altogether into "
+"this. Some of it might be advertising, which is partly a contribution, even "
+"if it's partly wrong. So, it's a complicated situation. Some of what "
+"they're doing is contribution and some is not. And some is sort is "
+"somewhat, but not exactly. And you can't just lump it altogether and think, "
+"Wow! Whee! A billion dollars from IBM. <i>[Laughter]</i> That's "
+"oversimplification."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk a little bit more about the thinking "
+"that went into the general public license?"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, here's the — I'm sorry, I'm answering "
+"his question now. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Do you want to reserve some time for the press "
+"conference? Or do you want to continue here?"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Who is here for the press conference? Not a lot "
+"of press. Oh, three — OK. Can you afford if we — if I go on "
+"answering everybody's questions for another ten minutes or so? OK. So, "
+"we'll go on answering everybody's questions."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, the thinking that went into the GNU GPL? Part of it was that I wanted to "
+"protect the freedom of the community against the phenomena that I just "
+"described with X Windows, which has happened with other free programs as "
+"well. In fact, when I was thinking about this issue, X Windows was not yet "
+"released. But I had seen this problem happen in other free programs. For "
+"instance, TeX. I wanted to make sure that the users would all have "
+"freedom. Otherwise, I realized that I might write a program, and maybe a "
+"lot of people would use the program, but they wouldn't have freedom. And "
+"what's the point of that?"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But the other issue I was thinking about was, I wanted to give the community "
+"a feeling that it was not a doormat, a feeling that it was not prey to any "
+"parasite who would wander along. If you don't use copyleft, you are "
+"essentially saying: <i>[speaking meekly]</i> “Take my code. Do what "
+"you want. I don't say no.” So, anybody can come along and say: "
+"<i>[speaking very firmly]</i> “Ah, I want to make a non-free version "
+"of this. I'll just take it.” And, then, of course, they probably make "
+"some improvements, those non-free versions might appeal to users, and "
+"replace the free versions. And then, what have you accomplished? You've "
+"only made a donation to some proprietary software project."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And when people see that that's happening, when people see, other people "
+"take what I do, and they don't ever give back, it can be demoralizing. And, "
+"this is not just speculation. I had seen that happen. That was part of "
+"what happened to wipe out the old community that I belonged to the '70's. "
+"Some people started becoming uncooperative. And we assumed that they were "
+"profiting thereby. They certainly acted as if they thought they were "
+"profiting. And we realized that they can just take off cooperation and not "
+"give back. And there was nothing we could do about it. It was very "
+"discouraging. We, those of us who didn't like the trend, even had a "
+"discussion and we couldn't come up with any idea for how we could stop it."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, the GPL is designed to stop that. And it says, Yes, you are welcome to "
+"join the community and use this code. You can use it to do all sorts of "
+"jobs. But, if you release a modified version, you've got to release that to "
+"our community, as part of our community, as part of the free world."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, in fact, there are still many ways that people can get the benefit of "
+"our work and not contribute, like you don't have to write any software. "
+"Lots of people use GNU/Linux and don't write any software. There's no "
+"requirement that you've got to do anything for us. But if you do a certain "
+"kind of thing, you've got to contribute to it. So what that means is that "
+"our community is not a doormat. And I think that that helped give people "
+"the strength to feel, Yes, we won't just be trampled underfoot by "
+"everybody. We'll stand up to this."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Yes, my question was, considering free but not "
+"copylefted software, since anybody can pick it up and make it proprietary, "
+"is it not possible also for someone to pick it up and make some changes and "
+"release the whole thing under the GPL?"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, it is possible."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Then, that would make all future copies then be "
+"GPL'ed."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: From that branch. But here's why we don't do "
+"that."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Hmm?"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Here's why we don't generally do that. Let me "
+"explain."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: OK, yes."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We could, if we wanted to, take X Windows, and "
+"make a GPL-covered copy and make changes in that. But there's a much larger "
+"group of people working on improving X Windows and <em>not</em> GPL-ing it. "
+"So, if we did that, we would be forking from them. And that's not very nice "
+"treatment of them. And, they <em>are</em> a part of our community, "
+"contributing to our community."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Second, it would backfire against us, because they're doing a lot more work "
+"on X than we would be. So, our version would be inferior to theirs, and "
+"people wouldn't use it, which means, why go to the trouble at all?"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Mmm hmm."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: So when a person has written some improvement to "
+"X Windows, what I say that person should do is cooperate with the X "
+"development team. Send it to them and let them use it their way. Because "
+"they are developing a very important piece of free software. It's good for "
+"us to cooperate with them."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Except, considering X, in particular, about two "
+"years ago, the X Consortium that was far into the non-free open "
+"source…"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually it <em>wasn't</em> open sourced. "
+"It wasn't open sourced, either. They may have said it was. I can't "
+"remember if they said that or not. But it wasn't open source. It was "
+"restricted. You couldn't commercially distribute, I think. Or you couldn't "
+"commercially distribute a modified version, or something like that. There "
+"was a restriction that's considered unacceptable by both the Free Software "
+"movement and the Open Source movement."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And yes, that's what using a non-copyleft license leaves you open to. In "
+"fact, the X Consortium, they had a very rigid policy. They say: If your "
+"program if copylefted even a little bit, we won't distribute it at all. We "
+"won't put it in our distribution."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, a lot of people were pressured in this way into not copylefting. And "
+"the result was that all of their software was wide open, later on. When the "
+"same people who had pressured a developer to be too all-permissive, then the "
+"X people later said, All right, now we can put on restrictions, which wasn't "
+"very ethical of them."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, given the situation, would we really want to scrape up the resources to "
+"maintain an alternate GPL-covered version of X? And it wouldn't make any "
+"sense to do that. There are so many other things we need to do. Let's do "
+"them instead. We can cooperate with the X developers."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Do you have a comment, is the GNU a trademark? "
+"And is it practical to include it as part of the GNU General Public License "
+"allowing trademarks?"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We are, actually, applying for trademark "
+"registration on GNU. But it wouldn't really have anything to do with that. "
+"It's a long story to explain why."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You could require the trademark be displayed with "
+"GPL-covered programs."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: No, I don't think so. The licenses cover "
+"individual programs. And when a given program is part of the GNU Project, "
+"nobody lies about that. The name of the system as a whole is a different "
+"issue. And this is an aside. It's not worth discussing more."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: If there was a button that you could push and "
+"force all companies to free their software, would you press it?"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, I would only use this for published "
+"software. You know, I think that people have the right to write a program "
+"privately and use it. And that includes companies. This is privacy issue. "
+"And it's true, there can be times when it is wrong to do that, like if it is "
+"tremendously helpful to humanity, and you are withholding it from "
+"humanity. That is a wrong but that's a different kind of wrong. It's a "
+"different issue, although it's in the same area."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But yes, I think all published software should be free software. And "
+"remember, when it's not free software, that's because of government "
+"intervention. The government is intervening to make it non-free. The "
+"government is creating special legal powers to hand out to the owners of the "
+"programs, so that they can have the police stop us from using the programs "
+"in certain ways. So I would certainly like to end that."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Richard's presentation has invariably generated "
+"an enormous amount of intellectual energy. I would suggest that some of it "
+"should be directed to using, and possibly writing, free software."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"We should close the proceedings shortly. I want to say that Richard has "
+"injected into a profession which is known in the general public for its "
+"terminal apolitical nerditude a level of political and moral discussion "
+"which is, I think, unprecedented in our profession. And we owe him very big "
+"for this. I'd like to note to people that there is a break."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<i>[Applause]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: You are free to leave at any time, you "
+"know. <i>[Laughter]</i> I'm not holding you prisoner here."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<i>[Audience adjourns…]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<i>[overlapping conversations…]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: One final thing. Our website: www.gnu.org"
+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><div><p>
+msgid ""
+"Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a "
+"href=\"mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></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";><address@hidden></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";>
+#
+#. <address@hidden></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><div><p>
+msgid ""
+"Please see the <a "
+"href=\"/server/standards/README.translations.html\">Translations README</a> "
+"for information on coordinating and submitting translations of this article."
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <div><p>
+msgid "Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman"
+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 ""
Index: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist
diff -N philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist 15 Sep 2015 05:45:28
-0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+<!-- begin translist file -->
+<!--#set var="TRANSLATION_LIST"
+value='<div id="translations">
+<p>
+<span dir="ltr" class="original"><a lang="en" hreflang="en"
href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.en.html">English</a> [en]</span>
+<span dir="ltr"><a lang="cs" hreflang="cs"
href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.cs.html">Äesky</a> [cs]</span>
+<span dir="ltr"><a lang="fr" hreflang="fr"
href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.html">français</a> [fr]</span>
+<span dir="ltr"><a lang="pl" hreflang="pl"
href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.html">polski</a> [pl]</span>
+<span dir="ltr"><a lang="tr" hreflang="tr"
href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.html">Türkçe</a> [tr]</span>
+</p>
+</div>' -->
+<link rel="alternate" type="text/html"
href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html" hreflang="x-default" />
+<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" lang="en" hreflang="en"
href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.en.html" title="English" />
+<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" lang="cs" hreflang="cs"
href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.cs.html" title="Äesky" />
+<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" lang="fr" hreflang="fr"
href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.html" title="français" />
+<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" lang="pl" hreflang="pl"
href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.html" title="polski" />
+<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" lang="tr" hreflang="tr"
href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.html" title="Türkçe" />
+<!-- end translist file -->
Index: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr-en.html
diff -N philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr-en.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr-en.html 15 Sep 2015 05:45:28
-0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,2127 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation</h2>
+
+<blockquote><p>Transcript of
+Richard M. Stallman's speech,
+“Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation”,
+given at New York University in New York, NY,
+on 29 May 2001</p></blockquote>
+
+<div class="announcement">
+<blockquote><p>A <a href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt">plain
+text</a> version of this transcript and
+a <a href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt">summary</a> of the speech
+are also available.</p></blockquote>
+</div>
+
+<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: I'm Mike Uretsky. I'm over at the Stern
+School of Business. I'm also one of the Co-Directors of the Center
+for Advanced Technology. And, on behalf of all of us in the Computer
+Science Department, I want to welcome you here. I want to say a few
+comments, before I turn it over to Ed, who is going to introduce the
+speaker.</p>
+
+<p>The role of a university is a place to foster debate and to have
+interesting discussions. And the role of a major university is to
+have particularly interesting discussions. And this particular
+presentation, this seminar falls right into that mold. I find the
+discussion of open source particularly interesting. In a sense
+… <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I do free software. Open source is a
+different movement. <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: When I first started in the field in the
+'60's, basically software was free. And we went in cycles. It became
+free, and then software manufacturers, in the need to expand their
+markets, pushed it in other directions. A lot of the developments
+that took place with the entry of the PC moved in exactly the same
+kind of a cycle.</p>
+
+<p>There's a very interesting French philosopher, Pierre Levy, who
+talks about movement to this direction and who talks about the move
+into cyberspace as not only relating to technology but also relating
+to social restructuring, to political restructuring, through a change
+in the kinds of relationships that will improve the well-being of
+mankind. And we're hoping that this debate is a movement in that
+direction, that this debate is something that cuts across a lot of the
+disciplines that normally act as solace within the University. We're
+looking forward to some very interesting discussions. Ed?</p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: I'm Ed Schonberg from the Computer
+Science Department at the Courant Institute. Let me welcome you all
+to this event. Introducers are usually, and particularly, a useless
+aspect of public presentations, but in this case, actually, they serve
+a useful purpose, as Mike easily demonstrated, because an introducer
+for instance, told him, by making inaccurate comments, can allow him
+to straighten out and correct and <i>[Laughter]</i> sharpen
+considerably the parameters of the debate.</p>
+
+<p>So, let me make the briefest possible introduction to somebody who
+doesn't need one. Richard is the perfect example of somebody who, by
+acting locally, started thinking globally from problems concerning the
+unavailability of source code for printer drivers at the AI Lab many
+years ago. He has developed a coherent philosophy that has forced all
+of us to re-examine our ideas of how software is produced, of what
+intellectual property means, and what the software community actually
+represents. Let me welcome Richard Stallman. <i>[Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can someone lend me a
+watch? <i>[Laughter]</i> Thank you. So, I'd like to thank Microsoft
+for providing me the opportunity to <i>[Laughter]</i> be on this
+platform. For the past few weeks, I have felt like an author whose
+book was fortuitously banned somewhere. <i>[Laughter]</i> Except that
+all the articles about it are giving the wrong author's name, because
+Microsoft describes the GNU GPL as an open source license, and most of
+the press coverage followed suit. Most people, of course just
+innocently don't realize that our work has nothing to do with open
+source, that in fact we did most of it before people even coined the
+term open source.</p>
+
+<p>We are in the free software movement, and I'm going to speak about
+what the free software movement is about, what it means, what we have
+done, and, because this is partly sponsored by a school of business,
+I'll say some things more than I usually do about how free software
+relates to business, and some other areas of social life.</p>
+
+<p>Now, some of you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps
+you cook. And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably
+use recipes. And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the
+experience of getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing
+it. And you've probably also had the experience — unless you're
+a total neophyte — of changing a recipe. You know, it says
+certain things, but you don't have to do exactly that. You can leave
+out some ingredients. Add some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms.
+Put in less salt because your doctor said you should cut down on salt
+— whatever. You can even make bigger changes according to your
+skill. And if you've made changes in a recipe, and you cook it for
+your friends, and they like it, one of your friends might say,
+“Hey, could I have the recipe?” And then, what do you do?
+You could write down your modified version of the recipe and make a
+copy for your friend. These are the natural things to do with
+functionally useful recipes of any kind.</p>
+
+<p>Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program. A computer
+program's a lot like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to
+get some result that you want. So it's just as natural to do those
+same things with computer programs — hand a copy to your friend.
+Make changes in it because the job it was written to do isn't exactly
+what you want. It did a great job for somebody else, but your job is
+a different job. And after you've changed it, that's likely to be
+useful for other people. Maybe they have a job to do that's like the
+job you do. So they ask, “Hey, can I have a copy?” Of
+course, if you're a nice person, you're going to give a copy. That's
+the way to be a decent person.</p>
+
+<p>So imagine what it would be like if recipes were packaged inside
+black boxes. You couldn't see what ingredients they're using, let
+alone change them, and imagine if you made a copy for a friend, they
+would call you a pirate and try to put you in prison for years. That
+world would create tremendous outrage from all the people who are used
+to sharing recipes. But that is exactly what the world of proprietary
+software is like. A world in which common decency towards other
+people is prohibited or prevented.</p>
+
+<p>Now, why did I notice this? I noticed this because I had the good
+fortune in the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who
+shared software. Now, this community could trace its ancestry
+essentially back to the beginning of computing. In the 1970's,
+though, it was a bit rare for there to be a community where people
+shared software. And, in fact, this was sort of an extreme case,
+because in the lab where I worked, the entire operating system was
+software developed by the people in our community, and we'd share any
+of it with anybody. Anybody was welcome to come and take a look, and
+take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do. There were no
+copyright notices on these programs. Cooperation was our way of life.
+And we were secure in that way of life. We didn't fight for it. We
+didn't have to fight for it. We just lived that way. And, as far as
+we knew, we would just keep on living that way. So there was free
+software, but there was no free software movement.</p>
+
+<p>But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that
+happened to it. Ultimately it was wiped out. Ultimately, the PDP-10
+computer which we used for all our work was discontinued. And you
+know, our system — the Incompatible Timesharing System —
+was written starting in the '60's, so it was written in assembler
+language. That's what you used to write an operating system in the
+'60's. So, of course, assembler language is for one particular
+computer architecture; if that gets discontinued, all your work turns
+into dust — it's useless. And that's what happened to us. The
+20 years or so of work of our community turned into dust.</p>
+
+<p>But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me,
+helped me see what to do, helped prepare me to see what to do when
+this happened, because at certain point, Xerox gave the Artificial
+Intelligence Lab, where I worked, a laser printer, and this was a
+really handsome gift, because it was the first time anybody outside
+Xerox had a laser printer. It was very fast, printed a page a second,
+very fine in many respects, but it was unreliable, because it was
+really a high-speed office copier that had been modified into a
+printer. And, you know, copiers jam, but there's somebody there to
+fix them. The printer jammed and nobody saw. So it stayed jammed for
+a long time.</p>
+
+<p>Well, we had an idea for how to deal with this problem. Change it
+so that whenever the printer gets a jam, the machine that runs the
+printer can tell our timesharing machine, and tell the users who are
+waiting for printouts, or something like that, you know, tell them, go
+fix the printer. Because if they only knew it was jammed, of course,
+if you're waiting for a printout and you know that the printer is
+jammed, you don't want to sit and wait forever, you're going to go fix
+it.</p>
+
+<p>But at that point, we were completely stymied, because the software
+that ran that printer was not free software. It had come with the
+printer, and it was just a binary. We couldn't have the source code;
+Xerox wouldn't let us have the source code. So, despite our skill as
+programmers — after all, we had written our own timesharing
+system — we were completely helpless to add this feature to the
+printer software.</p>
+
+<p>And we just had to suffer with waiting. It would take an hour or
+two to get your printout because the machine would be jammed most of
+the time. And only once in a while — you'd wait an hour
+figuring “I know it's going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and
+go collect my printout,” and then you'd see that it had been
+jammed the whole time, and in fact, nobody else had fixed it. So
+you'd fix it and you'd go wait another half hour. Then, you'd come
+back, and you'd see it jammed again — before it got to your
+output. It would print three minutes and be jammed thirty minutes.
+Frustration up the whazzoo. But the thing that made it worse was
+knowing that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his own
+selfishness, was blocking us, obstructing us from improving the
+software. So, of course, we felt some resentment.</p>
+
+<p>And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a
+copy of that software. So I was visiting there later, so I went to
+his office and I said, “Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of
+the printer source code?” And he said “No, I promised not
+to give you a copy.” <i>[Laughter]</i> I was stunned. I was so
+— I was angry, and I had no idea how I could do justice to it.
+All I could think of was to turn around on my heel and walk out of his
+room. Maybe I slammed the door. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I thought
+about it later on, because I realized that I was seeing not just an
+isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was important and affected
+a lot of people.</p>
+
+<p>This was — for me — I was lucky, I only got a taste of
+it, but other people had to live in this all the time. So I thought
+about it at length. See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with
+us — his colleagues at MIT. He had betrayed us. But he didn't
+just do it to us. Chances are he did it to you too. <i>[Pointing at
+member of audience.]</i> And I think, mostly likely, he did it to you
+too. <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.] [Laughter]</i> And
+he probably did it to you as well. <i>[Pointing to third member of
+audience.]</i> He probably did it to most of the people here in this
+room — except a few, maybe, who weren't born yet in 1980.
+Because he had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about the
+entire population of the Planet Earth. He had signed a non-disclosure
+agreement.</p>
+
+<p>Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure
+agreement, and it taught me an important lesson — a lesson
+that's important because most programmers never learn it. You see,
+this was my first encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was
+the victim. I, and my whole lab, were the victims. And the lesson it
+taught me was that non-disclosure agreements have victims. They're
+not innocent. They're not harmless. Most programmers first encounter
+a non-disclosure agreement when they're invited to sign one. And
+there's always some temptation — some goody they're going to get
+if they sign. So, they make up excuses. They say, “Well, he's
+never going to get a copy no matter what, so why shouldn't I join the
+conspiracy to deprive him?” They say, “This is the way
+it's always done. Who am I to go against it?” They say,
+“If I don't sign this, someone else will.” Various excuses
+to gag their consciences.</p>
+
+<p>But when somebody invited me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, my
+conscience was already sensitized. It remembered how angry I had
+been, when somebody promised not to help me and my whole lab solve our
+problem. And I couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to
+somebody else who had never done me any harm. You know, if somebody
+asked me to promise not to share some useful information with a hated
+enemy, I would have said yes. You know? If somebody's done something
+bad, he deserves it. But, strangers — they haven't done me any
+harm. How could they deserve that kind of mistreatment? You can't
+let yourself start treating just anybody and everybody badly. Then
+you become a predator on society. So I said, “Thank you very
+much for offering me this nice software package. But I can't accept
+it in good conscience, on the conditions you are demanding, so I will
+do without it. Thank you so much.” And so, I have never
+knowingly signed a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful
+technical information such as software.</p>
+
+<p>Now there are other kinds of information which raise different
+ethical issues. For instance, there's personal information. You
+know, if you wanted to talk with me about what was happening between
+you and your boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody —
+you know, I could keep — I could agree to keep that a secret for
+you, because that's not generally useful technical information. At
+least, it's probably not generally useful. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>There is a small chance — and it's a possibility though
+— that you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex
+technique, <i>[Laughter]</i> and I would then feel a moral
+duty <i>[Laughter]</i> to pass it onto the rest of humanity, so that
+everyone could get the benefit of it. So, I'd have to put a proviso
+in that promise, you know? If it's just details about who wants this,
+and who's angry at whom, and things like that — soap opera
+— that I can keep private for you, but something that humanity
+could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't withhold. You see,
+the purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information
+for humanity to help people live their lives better. If we promise to
+withhold that information — if we keep it secret — then we
+are betraying the mission of our field. And this, I decided I
+shouldn't do.</p>
+
+<p>But, meanwhile my community had collapsed, and that was collapsing,
+and that left me in a bad situation. You see, the whole Incompatible
+Timesharing System was obsolete, because the PDP-10 was obsolete, and
+so there was no way that I could continue working as an operating
+system developer the way that I had been doing it. That depended on
+being part of the community using the community software and improving
+it. That no longer was a possibility, and that gave me a moral
+dilemma. What was I going to do? Because the most obvious
+possibility meant to go against that decision I had made. The most
+obvious possibility was to adapt myself to the change in the world.
+To accept that things were different, and that I'd just have to give
+up those principles and start signing non-disclosure agreements for
+proprietary operating systems, and most likely writing proprietary
+software as well. But I realized that that way I could have fun
+coding, and I could make money — especially if I did it other
+than at MIT — but at the end, I'd have to look back at my career
+and say, “I've spent my life building walls to divide
+people,” and I would have been ashamed of my life.</p>
+
+<p>So I looked for another alternative, and there was an obvious one.
+I could leave the software field and do something else. Now I had no
+other special noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a
+waiter. <i>[Laughter]</i> Not at a fancy restaurant; they wouldn't
+hire me, <i>[Laughter]</i> but I could be a waiter somewhere. And
+many programmers, they say to me, “The people who hire
+programmers demand this, this and this. If I don't do those things,
+I'll starve.” It's literally the word they use. Well, you know,
+as a waiter, you're not going to starve. <i>[Laughter]</i> So,
+really, they're in no danger. But — and this is important, you
+see — because sometimes you can justify doing something that
+hurts other people by saying otherwise something worse is going to
+happen to me. You know, if you were <em>really</em> going to starve,
+you'd be justified in writing proprietary software. <i>[Laughter]</i>
+If somebody's pointing a gun at you, then I would say, it's
+forgivable. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, I had found a way that I could
+survive without doing something unethical, so that excuse was not
+available. So I realized, though, that being a waiter would be no fun
+for me, and it would be wasting my skills as an operating system
+developer. It would avoid misusing my skills. Developing proprietary
+software would be misusing my skills. Encouraging other people to
+live in the world of proprietary software would be misusing my skills.
+So it's better to waste them than misuse them, but it's still not
+really good.</p>
+
+<p>So for those reasons, I decided to look for some other alternative.
+What can an operating system developer do that would actually improve
+the situation, make the world a better place? And I realized that an
+operating system developer was exactly what was needed. The problem,
+the dilemma, existed for me and for everyone else because all of the
+available operating systems for modern computers were proprietary.
+The free operating systems were for old, obsolete computers, right?
+So for the modern computers — if you wanted to get a modern
+computer and use it, you were forced into a proprietary operating
+system. So if an operating system developer wrote another operating
+system, and then said, “Everybody come and share this; you're
+welcome to this” — that would give everybody a way out of
+the dilemma, another alternative. So I realized that there was
+something I could do that would solve the problem. I had just the
+right skills to be able to do it. And it was the most useful thing I
+could possibly imagine that I'd be able to do with my life. And it
+was a problem that no one else was trying to solve. It was just sort
+of sitting there, getting worse, and nobody was there but me. So I
+felt, “I'm elected. I have to work on this. If not me,
+who?” So I decided I would develop a free operating system, or
+die trying … of old age, of course. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>So, of course I had to decide what kind of operating system it
+should be. There are some technical design decisions to be made. I
+decided to make the system compatible with Unix for a number of
+reasons. First of all, I had just seen one operating system that I
+really loved become obsolete because it was written for one particular
+kind of computer. I didn't want that to happen again. We needed to
+have a portable system. Well, Unix was a portable system. So if I
+followed the design of Unix, I had a pretty good chance that I could
+make a system that would also be portable and workable. And
+furthermore, why <i>[Tape unclear]</i> be compatible with it in the
+details. The reason is, users hate incompatible changes. If I had
+just designed the system in my favorite way — which I would have
+loved doing, I'm sure — I would have produced something that was
+incompatible. You know, the details would be different. So, if I
+wrote the system, then the users would have said to me, “Well,
+this is very nice, but it's incompatible. It will be too much work to
+switch. We can't afford that much trouble just to use your system
+instead of Unix, so we'll stay with Unix,” they would have
+said.</p>
+
+<p>Now, if I wanted to actually create a community where there would
+be people in it, people using this free system, and enjoying the
+benefits of liberty and cooperation, I had to make a system people
+would use, a system that they would find easy to switch to, that would
+not have an obstacle making it fail at the very beginning. Now,
+making the system upward compatible with Unix actually made all the
+immediate design decisions, because Unix consists of many pieces, and
+they communicate through interfaces that are more or less documented.
+So if you want to be compatible with Unix, you have to replace each
+piece, one by one, with a compatible piece. So the remaining design
+decisions are inside one piece, and they could be made later by
+whoever decides to write that piece. They didn't have to be made at
+the outset.</p>
+
+<p>So all we had to do to start work was find a name for the system.
+Now, we hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program,
+because thinking of people being amused by the name is half the fun of
+writing the program. <i>[Laughter]</i> And we had a tradition of
+recursive acronyms, to say that the program that you're writing is
+similar to some existing program. You can give it a recursive acronym
+name which says: this one's not the other. So, for instance, there
+were many Tico text editors in the '60's and '70's, and they were
+generally called something-or-other Tico. Then one clever hacker
+called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico — the first recursive
+acronym. In 1975, I developed the first Emacs text editor, and there
+were many imitations of Emacs, and a lot of them were called
+something-or-other Emacs, but one was called Fine, for Fine Is Not
+Emacs, and there was Sine, for Sine Is Not Emacs, and Eine for Ina Is
+Not Emacs, and MINCE for Mince Is Not Complete
+Emacs. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was a stripped down imitation. And
+then, Eine was almost completely rewritten, and the new version was
+called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>So I looked for a recursive acronym for Something is not Unix. And
+I tried all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word.
+<i>[Laughter]</i> Hmm, try another way. I made a contraction. That
+way I could have a three-letter acronym, for Something's not Unix.
+And I tried letters, and I came across the word “GNU”
+— the word “GNU” is the funniest word in the English
+language. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was it. Of course, the reason it's
+funny is that according to the dictionary, it's pronounced
+“new”. You see? And so that's why people use it for a
+lot of wordplay. Let me tell you, this is the name of an animal that
+lives in Africa. And the African pronunciation had a click sound in
+it. <i>[Laughter]</i> Maybe still does. And so, the European
+colonists, when they got there, they didn't bother learning to say
+this click sound. So they just left it out, and they wrote a
+“G” which meant “there's another sound that's
+supposed to be here which we are not
+pronouncing.” <i>[Laughter]</i> So, tonight I'm leaving for
+South Africa, and I have begged them, I hope they're going to find
+somebody who can teach me to pronounce click sounds, <i>[Laughter]</i>
+so that I'll know how to pronounce GNU the correct way, when it's the
+animal.</p>
+
+<p>But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is
+“guh-NEW” — pronounce the hard “G”. If
+you talk about the “new” operating system, you'll get
+people very confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years
+now, so it is not new any more. <i>[Laughter]</i> But it still is,
+and always will be, GNU — no matter how many people call it
+Linux by mistake. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces
+of GNU. They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities
+though. And, at the time, I thought we would write all these pieces,
+and make an entire GNU system, and then we'd say, “Come and get
+it”, and people would start to use it. That's not what
+happened. The first pieces I wrote were just equally good
+replacements, with fewer bugs for some pieces of Unix, but they
+weren't tremendously exciting. Nobody particularly wanted to get them
+and install them. But then, in September 1984, I started writing GNU
+Emacs, which was my second implementation of Emacs, and by early 1985,
+it was working. I could use it for all my editing, which was a big
+relief, because I had no intention of learning to use VI, the Unix
+editor. <i>[Laughter]</i> So, until that time, I did my editing on
+some other machine, and saved the files through the network, so that I
+could test them. But when GNU Emacs was running well enough for me to
+use it, it was also — other people wanted to use it too.</p>
+
+<p>So I had to work out the details of distribution. Of course, I put
+a copy in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people
+who were on the net They could then just pull over a tar file, but a
+lot of programmers then even were not on the net in 1985. They were
+sending me emails saying “How can I get a copy?” I had to
+decide what I would answer them. Well, I could have said, I want to
+spend my time writing more GNU software, not writing tapes, so please
+find a friend who's on the internet and who is willing to download it
+and put it on a tape for you. And I'm sure people would have found
+some friends, sooner or later, you know. They would have got copies.
+But I had no job. In fact, I've never had a job since quitting MIT in
+January 1984. So, I was looking for some way I could make money
+through my work on free software, and therefore I started a free
+software business. I announced, “Send me $150 dollars, and I'll
+mail you a tape of Emacs.” And the orders began dribbling in.
+By the middle of the year they were trickling in.</p>
+
+<p>I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month. And, if necessary, I could
+have lived on just that, because I've always lived cheaply. I live
+like a student, basically. And I like that, because it means that
+money is not telling me what to do. I can do what I think is
+important for me to do. It freed me to do what seemed worth doing.
+So make a real effort to avoid getting sucked into all the expensive
+lifestyle habits of typical Americans. Because if you do that, then
+people with the money will dictate what you do with your life. You
+won't be able to do what's really important to you.</p>
+
+<p>So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, “What do you
+mean it's free software if it costs $150
+dollars?” <i>[Laughter]</i> Well, the reason they asked this was
+that they were confused by the multiple meanings of the English word
+“free”. One meaning refers to price, and another meaning
+refers to freedom. When I speak of free software, I'm referring to
+freedom, not price. So think of free speech, not free
+beer. <i>[Laughter]</i> Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many years
+of my life to making sure programmers got less money. That's not my
+goal. I'm a programmer and I don't mind getting money myself. I
+won't dedicate my whole life to getting it, but I don't mind getting
+it. And I'm not — and therefore, ethics is the same for
+everyone. I'm not against some other programmer getting money either.
+I don't want prices to be low. That's not the issue at all. The
+issue is freedom. Freedom for everyone who's using software, whether
+that person be a programmer or not.</p>
+
+<p>So at this point I should give you the definition of free software.
+I better get to some real details, you see, because just saying
+“I believe in freedom” is vacuous. There's so many
+different freedoms you could believe in, and they conflict with each
+other, so the real political question is: Which are the important
+freedoms, the freedoms that we must make sure everybody has?</p>
+
+<p>And now, I will give my answer to that question for the particular
+area of using software. A program is free software for you, a
+particular user, if you have the following freedoms:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>First, Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the program for any
+purpose, any way you like.</li>
+<li>Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
+program to suit your needs.</li>
+<li>Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
+copies of the program.</li>
+<li>And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
+publishing an improved version so others can get the benefit of your
+work.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software,
+for you — and that's crucial. That's why I phrase it that way.
+I'll explain why later, when I talk about the GNU General Public
+License, but right now I'm explaining what free software means, which
+is a more basic question.</p>
+
+<p>So, Freedom Zero's pretty obvious. If you're not even allowed to
+run the program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive
+program. But as it happens, most programs will at least give you
+Freedom Zero. And Freedom Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of
+Freedoms One, Two, and Three — that's the way that copyright law
+works. So the freedoms that distinguish free software from typical
+software are Freedoms One, Two, and Three, so I'll say more about them
+and why they are important.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
+software to suit your needs. This could mean fixing bugs. It could
+mean adding new features. It could mean porting it to a different
+computer system. It could mean translating all the error messages
+into Navajo. Any change you want to make, you should be free to
+make.</p>
+
+<p>Now, it's obvious that professional programmers can make use of
+this freedom very effectively, but not just them. Anybody of
+reasonable intelligence can learn a little programming. You know,
+there are hard jobs, and there are easy jobs, and most people are not
+going to learn enough to do hard jobs. But lots of people can learn
+enough to do easy jobs, just the way, you know, 50 years ago, lots and
+lots of American men learned to repair cars, which is what enabled the
+U.S. to have a motorized army in World War II and win. So, very
+important, having lots of people tinkering.</p>
+
+<p>And if you are a people person, and you really don't want to learn
+technology at all, that probably means that you have a lot of friends,
+and you're good at getting them to owe you favors. <i>[Laughter]</i>
+Some of them are probably programmers. So you can ask one of your
+programmer friends. “Would you please change this for me? Add
+this feature?” So, lots of people can benefit from it.</p>
+
+<p>Now, if you don't have this freedom, it causes practical, material
+harm to society. It makes you a prisoner of your software. I
+explained what that was like with regard to the laser printer. You
+know, it worked badly for us, and we couldn't fix it, because we were
+prisoners of our software.</p>
+
+<p>But it also affects people's morale. You know if the computer is
+constantly frustrating to use, and people are using it, their lives
+are going to be frustrating, and if they're using it in their jobs,
+their jobs are going to be frustrating; they're going to hate their
+jobs. And you know, people protect themselves from frustration by
+deciding not to care. So you end up with people whose attitude is,
+“Well, I showed up for work today. That's all I have to do. If
+I can't make progress, that's not my problem; that's the boss's
+problem.” And when this happens, it's bad for those people, and
+it's bad for society as a whole. That's Freedom One, the freedom to
+help yourself.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
+copies of the program. Now, for beings that can think and learn,
+sharing useful knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship. When
+these beings use computers, this act of friendship takes the form of
+sharing software. Friends share with each other. Friends help each
+other. This is the nature of friendship. And, in fact, this spirit
+of goodwill — the spirit of helping your neighbor, voluntarily
+— is society's most important resource. It makes the difference
+between a livable society and a dog-eat-dog jungle. Its importance
+has been recognized by the world's major religions for thousands of
+years, and they explicitly try to encourage this attitude.</p>
+
+<p>When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach
+us this attitude — the spirit of sharing — by having us do
+it. They figured if we did it, we'd learn. So they said, “If
+you bring candy to school, you can't keep it all for yourself; you
+have to share some with the other kids.” Teaching us, the
+society was set up to teach, this spirit of cooperation. And why do
+you have to do that? Because people are not totally cooperative.
+That's one part of human nature, and there are other parts of human
+nature. There are lots of parts of human nature. So, if you want a
+better society, you've got to work to encourage the spirit of sharing.
+You know, it'll never get to be 100%. That's understandable. People
+have to take care of themselves too. But if we make it somewhat
+bigger, we're all better off.</p>
+
+<p>Nowadays, according to the U.S. Government, teachers are supposed
+to do the exact opposite. “Oh, Johnny, you brought software to
+school. Well, don't share it. Oh no. Sharing is wrong. Sharing
+means you're a pirate.”</p>
+
+<p>What do they mean when they say “pirate”? They're
+saying that helping your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking
+a ship. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>What would Buddha or Jesus say about that? Now, take your favorite
+religious leader. I don't know, maybe Manson would have said
+something different. <i>[Laughter]</i> Who knows what L. Ron Hubbard
+would say? But …</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Of course, he's dead. But they don't
+admit that. What?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: So are the others, also
+dead. <i>[Laughter] [Inaudible]</i> Charles Manson's also
+dead. <i>[Laughter]</i> They're dead, Jesus's dead, Buddha's
+dead…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, that's true. <i>[Laughter]</i> So
+I guess, in that regard, L. Ron Hubbard is no worse than the
+others. <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway — <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: L. Ron always used free software —
+it freed him from Zanu. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Anyway, so, I think this is actually the
+most important reason why software should be free: We can't afford to
+pollute society's most important resource. It's true that it's not a
+physical resource like clean air and clean water. It's a
+psycho-social resource, but it's just as real for all that, and it
+makes a tremendous difference to our lives. You see, the actions we
+take influence the thoughts of other people. When we go around
+telling people, “Don't share with each other”, if they
+listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's not a good one.
+That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor.</p>
+
+<p>Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just
+cause this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes
+waste — practical, material harm. If the program has an owner,
+and the owner arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay
+in order to be able to use it, some people are going to say,
+“Never mind, I'll do without it.” And that's waste,
+deliberately inflicted waste. And the interesting thing about
+software, of course, is that fewer users doesn't mean you have to make
+less stuff. You know, if fewer people buy cars, you can make fewer
+cars. There's a saving there. There are resources to be allocated,
+or not allocated, into making cars. So that you can say that having a
+price on a car is a good thing. It prevents people from diverting
+lots of wasted resources into making cars that aren't really needed.
+But if each additional car used no resources, it wouldn't be doing any
+good saving the making of these cars. Well, for physical objects, of
+course, like cars, it is always going to take resources to make an
+additional one of them, each additional exemplar.</p>
+
+<p>But for software that's not true. Anybody can make another copy.
+And it's almost trivial to do it. It takes no resources, except a
+tiny bit of electricity. So there's nothing we can save, no resource
+we're going to allocate better by putting this financial disincentive
+on the use of the software. You often find people taking economic,
+the consequences of economic reasoning, based on premises that don't
+apply to software, and trying to transplant them from other areas of
+life where the premises may apply, and the conclusions may be valid.
+They just take the conclusions and assume that they're valid for
+software too, when the argument is based on nothing, in the case of
+software. The premises don't work in that case. It is very important
+to examine how you reach the conclusion, and what premises it depends
+on, to see where it might be valid. So, that's Freedom Two, the
+freedom to help your neighbor.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
+publishing an improved version of the software. People used to say to
+me, “If the software's free, then nobody will get paid to work
+on it, so why should anybody work on it?” Well, of course, they
+were confusing the two meanings of free, so their reasoning was based
+on a misunderstanding. But, in any case, that was their theory.
+Today, we can compare that theory with empirical fact, and we find
+that hundreds of people are being paid to write free software, and
+over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers. We get lots of people
+working on free software, for various different motives.</p>
+
+<p>When I first released GNU Emacs — the first piece of the GNU
+system that people actually wanted to use — and when it started
+having users, after a while, I got a message saying, “I think I
+saw a bug in the source code, and here's a fix.” And I got
+another message, “Here's code to add a new feature.” And
+another bug fix. And another new feature. And another, and another,
+and another, until they were pouring in on me so fast that just making
+use of all this help I was getting was a big job. Microsoft doesn't
+have this problem. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>Eventually, people noted this phenomenon. You see, in the 1980's a
+lot of us thought that maybe free software wouldn't be as good as the
+non-free software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay
+people. And, of course, people like me, who value freedom and
+community said, “Well, we'll use the free software
+anyway.” It's worth making a little sacrifice in some mere
+technical convenience to have freedom. But what people began to note,
+around 1990 was that our software was actually better. It was more
+powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary alternatives.</p>
+
+<p>In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific
+measurement of reliability of software. Here's what he did. He took
+several sets of comparable programs that did the same jobs — the
+exact same jobs — in different systems. Because there were
+certain basic Unix-like utilities. And the jobs that they did, we
+know, was all, more or less, imitating the same thing, or they were
+following the POSIX spec, so they were all the same in terms of what
+jobs they did, but they were maintained by different people, written
+separately. The code was different. So they said, OK, we'll take
+these programs and run them with random data, and measure how often
+they crash, or hang. So they measured it, and the most reliable set
+of programs was the GNU programs. All the commercial alternatives
+which were proprietary software were less reliable. So he published
+this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he did the
+same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same result.
+The GNU versions were the most reliable. People — you know
+there are cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system,
+because it's so reliable, and reliability is very important to
+them.</p>
+
+<p>Anyway, there's even a group of people who focus on this particular
+benefit as the reason they give, the main reason they give, why users
+should be permitted to do these various things, and to have these
+freedoms. If you've been listening to me, you've noticed, you've seen
+that I, speaking for the free software movement, I talk about issues
+of ethics, and what kind of a society we want to live in, what makes
+for a good society, as well as practical, material benefits. They're
+both important. That's the free software movement.</p>
+
+<p>That other group of people — which is called the open source
+movement — they only cite the practical benefits. They deny
+that this is an issue of principle. They deny that people are
+entitled to the freedom to share with their neighbor and to see what
+the program's doing and change it if they don't like it. They say,
+however, that it's a useful thing to let people do that. So they go
+to companies and say to them, “You know, you might make more
+money if you let people do this.” So, what you can see is that
+to some extent, they lead people in a similar direction, but for
+totally different, for fundamentally different, philosophical
+reasons.</p>
+
+<p>Because on the deepest issue of all, you know, on the ethical
+question, the two movements disagree. You know, in the free software
+movement we say, “You're entitled to these freedoms. People
+shouldn't stop you from doing these things.” In the open source
+movement, they say, “Yes, they can stop you if you want, but
+we'll try to convince them to deign to let you to do these
+things.” Well, they have contributed — they have convinced
+a certain number of businesses to release substantial pieces of
+software as free software in our community. So they, the open source
+movement, has contributed substantially to our community. And so we
+work together on practical projects. But, philosophically, there's a
+tremendous disagreement.</p>
+
+<p>Unfortunately, the open source movement is the one that gets the
+support of business the most, and so most articles about our work
+describe it as open source, and a lot of people just innocently think
+that we're all part of the open source movement. So that's why I'm
+mentioning this distinction. I want you to be aware that the free
+software movement, which brought our community into existence and
+developed the free operating system, is still here — and that we
+still stand for this ethical philosophy. I want you to know about
+this, so that you won't mislead someone else unknowingly.</p>
+
+<p>But also, so that you can think about where you stand.</p>
+
+<p>You know, which movement you support is up to you. You might agree
+with the free software movements and my views. You might agree with
+the open source movement. You might disagree with them both. You
+decide where you stand on these political issues.</p>
+
+<p>But if you agree with the free software movement — if you see
+that there's an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled
+and directed by this decision deserve a say in it — then I hope
+you'll say that you agree with the free software movement, and one way
+you can do that is by using the term free software and just helping
+people know we exist.</p>
+
+<p>So, Freedom Three is very important both practically and
+psycho-socially. If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical
+material harm, because this community development doesn't happen, and
+we don't make powerful, reliable software. But it also causes
+psycho-social harm, which affects the spirit of scientific cooperation
+— the idea that we're working together to advance human
+knowledge. You see, progress in science crucially depends on people
+being able to work together. And nowadays though, you often find each
+little group of scientists acting like it's a war with each other gang
+of scientists and engineers. And if they don't share with each other,
+they're all held back.</p>
+
+<p>So, those are the three freedoms that distinguish free software
+from typical software. Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself,
+making changes to suit your own needs. Freedom Two is the freedom to
+help your neighbor by distributing copies. And Freedom Three is the
+freedom to help build your community by making changes and publishing
+them for other people to use. If you have all of these freedoms, the
+program is free software for you. Now, why do I define it that way in
+terms of a particular user? Is it free software for
+you? <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> Is it free software for
+you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Is it free
+software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i>
+Yes?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you explain a bit about the
+difference between Freedom Two and Three? <i>[inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, they certainly relate, because if
+you don't have freedom to redistribute at all, you certainly don't
+have freedom to distribute a modified version, but they're different
+activities.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Oh.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Freedom Two is, you know, read it, you
+make an exact copy, and hand it to your friends, so now your friend
+can use it. Or maybe you make exact copies and you sell them to a
+bunch of people, and then they can use it.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom Three is where you make improvements — or at least
+you think they're improvements, and some other people may agree with
+you. So that's the difference. Oh, and by the way, one crucial
+point. Freedoms One and Three depend on your having access to the
+source code. Because changing a binary-only program is extremely
+hard. <i>[Laughter]</i> Even trivial changes like using four digits
+for the date, <i>[Laughter]</i> if you don't have source. So, for
+compelling, practical reasons, access to the source code is a
+precondition, a requirement, for free software.</p>
+
+<p>So, why do I define it in terms of whether it's free software for
+<em>you</em>? The reason is that sometimes the same program can be
+free software for some people, and non-free for others. Now, that
+might seem like a paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example
+to show you how it happens. A very big example — maybe the
+biggest ever — of this problem was the X Window System which was
+developed at MIT and released under a license that made it free
+software. If you got the MIT version with the MIT license, you had
+Freedoms One, Two, and Three. It was free software for you. But
+among those who got copies were various computer manufacturers that
+distributed Unix systems, and they made the necessary changes in X to
+run on their systems. You know, probably just a few thousand lines
+out of the hundreds of thousands of lines of X. And, then they
+compiled it, and they put the binaries into their Unix system and
+distributed it under the same non-disclosure agreement as the rest of
+the Unix system. And then, millions of people got these copies. They
+had the X Window System, but they had none of these freedoms. It was
+not free software for <em>them</em>.</p>
+
+<p>So, the paradox was that whether X was free software depended on
+where you made the measurement. If you made the measurement coming
+out of the developers' group, you'd say, “I observe all these
+freedoms. It's free software.” If you made the measurements
+among the users you'd say, “Hmm, most users don't have these
+freedoms. It's not free software.” Well, the people who
+developed X didn't consider this a problem, because their goal was
+just popularity, ego, essentially. They wanted a big professional
+success. They wanted to feel, “Ah, lots of people are using our
+software.” And that was true. Lots of people were using their
+software but didn't have freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Well, in the GNU project, if that same thing had happened to GNU
+software, it would have been a failure, because our goal wasn't just
+to be popular; our goal was to give people liberty, and to encourage
+cooperation, to permit people to cooperate. Remember, never force
+anyone to cooperate with any other person, but make sure that
+everybody's allowed to cooperate, everyone has the freedom to do so,
+if he or she wishes. If millions of people were running non-free
+versions of GNU, that wouldn't be success at all. The whole thing
+would have been perverted into nothing like the goal.</p>
+
+<p>So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening. The method I
+came up with is called “copyleft”. It's called copyleft
+because it's sort of like taking copyright and flipping it
+over. <i>[Laughter]</i> Legally, copyleft works based on copyright.
+We use the existing copyright law, but we use it to achieve a very
+different goal. Here's what we do. We say, “This program is
+copyrighted.” And, of course, by default, that means it's
+prohibited to copy it, or distribute it, or modify it. But then we
+say, “You're authorized to distribute copies of this. You're
+authorized to modify it. You're authorized to distribute modified
+versions and extended versions. Change it any way you
+like.”</p>
+
+<p>But there is a condition. And the condition, of course, is the
+reason why we go to all this trouble, so that we could put the
+condition in. The condition says: Whenever you distribute anything
+that contains any piece of this program, that whole program must be
+distributed under these same terms, no more and no less. So you can
+change the program and distribute a modified version, but when you do,
+the people who get that from you must get the same freedom that you
+got from us. And not just for the parts of it — the excerpts
+that you copied from our program — but also for the other parts
+of that program that they got from you. The whole of that program has
+to be free software for them.</p>
+
+<p>The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become
+inalienable rights — a concept from the Declaration of
+Independence. Rights that we make sure can't be taken away from you.
+And, of course, the specific license that embodies the idea of
+copyleft is the GNU General Public License, a controversial license
+because it actually has the strength to say no to people who would be
+parasites on our community.</p>
+
+<p>There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of
+freedom. And they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done,
+and use it to get a head start in distributing a non-free program and
+tempting people to give up their freedom. And the result would be
+— you know, if we let people do that — that we would be
+developing these free programs, and we'd constantly have to compete
+with improved versions of our own programs. That's no fun.</p>
+
+<p>And, a lot of people also feel — you know, I'm willing to
+volunteer my time to contribute to the community, but why should I
+volunteer my time to contribute to that company's, to improving that
+company's, proprietary program? You know, some people might not even
+think that that's evil, but they want to get paid if they're going to
+do that. I, personally, would rather not do it at all.</p>
+
+<p>But both of these groups of people — both the ones like me
+who say, “I don't want to help that non-free program to get a
+foothold in our community” and the ones that say, “Sure,
+I'd work for them, but then they better pay me” — both of
+us have a good reason to use the GNU General Public License. Because
+that says to that company, “You can't just take my work, and
+distribute it without the freedom.” Whereas, the non-copyleft
+licenses, like the X Windows license, do permit that.</p>
+
+<p>So that is the big division between the two categories of free
+software — license-wise. There are the programs that are
+copylefted so that the license defends the freedom of the software for
+every user. And there are the non-copylefted programs for which
+non-free versions are allowed. Somebody <em>can</em> take those
+programs and strip off the freedom. You may get that program in a
+non-free version.</p>
+
+<p>And that problem exists today. There are still non-free versions
+of X Windows being used on our free operating systems. There is even
+hardware — which is not really supported — except by a
+non-free version of X Windows. And that's a major problem in our
+community. Nonetheless, I wouldn't say that X Windows is a bad thing,
+you know. I'd say that the developers did not do the best possible
+thing that they could have done. But they <em>did</em> release a lot
+of software that we could all use.</p>
+
+<p>You know, there's a big difference between less than perfect, and
+evil. There are many gradations of good and bad. We have to resist
+the temptation to say, if you didn't do the absolute best possible
+thing, then you're no good. You know, the people that developed X
+Windows made a big contribution to our community. But there's
+something better that they could have done. They could have
+copylefted parts of the program and prevented those freedom-denying
+versions from being distributed by others.</p>
+
+<p>Now, the fact that the GNU General Public License defends your
+freedom, uses copyright law to defend your freedom, is, of course, why
+Microsoft is attacking it today. See, Microsoft would really like to
+be able to take all the code that we wrote and put it into proprietary
+programs, have somebody make some improvements, or even just
+incompatible changes is all they need. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>You know, with Microsoft's marketing clout, they don't need to make
+it better to have their version supplant ours. They just have to make
+it different and incompatible. And then, put it on everybody's
+desktop. So they really don't like the GNU GPL. Because the GNU GPL
+won't let them do that. It doesn't allow “embrace and
+extend”. It says, if you want to share our code in your
+programs, you can. But, you've got to share and share alike. The
+changes that you make we have to be allowed to share. So, it's a
+two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation.</p>
+
+<p>Many companies — even big companies like IBM and HP are
+willing to use our software on this basis. IBM and HP contribute
+substantial improvements to GNU software. And they develop other free
+software. But, Microsoft doesn't want to do that, so they give it out
+that businesses just can't deal with the GPL. Well, if businesses
+don't include IBM, and HP and SUN, then maybe they're
+right. <i>[Laughter]</i> More about that later.</p>
+
+<p>I should finish the historical story. You see, we set out in 1984
+not just to write some free software but to do something much more
+coherent: to develop an operating system that was entirely free
+software. So that meant we had to write piece after piece after
+piece. Of course, we were always looking for shortcuts. The job was
+so big that people said we'd never be able to finish. And, I thought
+that there was at least a chance that we'd finish it but, obviously,
+it's worth looking for shortcuts. So we kept looking around. Is there
+any program that somebody else has written that we could manage to
+adapt, to plug into here, and that way we won't have to write it from
+scratch? For instance, the X Window system. It's true it wasn't
+copylefted, but it was free software, so we could use it.</p>
+
+<p>Now, I had wanted to put a window system into GNU from day one. I
+wrote a couple of window systems at MIT before I started GNU. And so,
+even though Unix had no window system in 1984, I decided that GNU
+would have one. But, we never ended up writing a GNU window system,
+because X came along. And I said, Goody! One big job we don't have
+to do. We'll use X. So I basically said, let's take X, and put it
+into the GNU system. And we'll make the other parts of GNU, you know,
+work with X, when appropriate. And we found other pieces of software
+that had been written by other people, like the text formatter TeX,
+some library code from Berkeley. At that time there was Berkeley
+Unix, but it was not free software. This library code, initially, was
+from a different group at Berkeley, that did research on floating
+point. And, so, we kept, we fit in these pieces.</p>
+
+<p>In October 1985, we founded the Free Software Foundation. So
+please note, the GNU project came first. The Free Software Foundation
+came after, about almost two years after the announcement of the
+Project. And the Free Software Foundation is a tax-exempt charity
+that raises funds to promote the freedom to share and change software.
+And in the 1980's, one of the main things we did with our funds was to
+hire people to write parts of GNU. And essential programs, such as
+the shell and the C library were written this way, as well as parts of
+other programs. The <code>tar</code> program, which is absolutely
+essential, although not exciting at all <i>[Laughter]</i> was written
+this way. I believe GNU grep was written this way. And so, we're
+approaching our goal.</p>
+
+<p>By 1991, there was just one major piece missing, and that was the
+kernel. Now, why did I put off the kernel? Probably because it
+doesn't really matter what order you do the things in, at least
+technically it doesn't. You've got to do them all anyway. And partly
+because I'd hoped we'd be able to find a start at a kernel somewhere
+else. And we did. We found Mach, which had been developed at
+Carnegie Mellon. And it wasn't the whole kernel; it was the bottom
+half of the kernel. So we had to write the top half, but I figured,
+you know, things like the file system, the network code, and so on.
+But running on top of Mach they're running essentially as user
+programs, which ought to make them easier to debug. You can debug
+with a real source-level debugger running at the same time. And so, I
+thought that way we'd be able to get these, the higher level parts of
+the kernel, done in a short time. It didn't work out that way. These
+asynchronous, multi-threaded processes, sending messages to each other
+turned out to be very hard to debug. And the Mach-based system that
+we were using to bootstrap with had a terrible debugging environment,
+and it was unreliable, and various problems. It took us years and
+years to get the GNU kernel to work.</p>
+
+<p>But, fortunately, our community did not have to wait for the GNU
+kernel. Because in 1991, Linus Torvalds developed another free kernel
+called Linux. And he used the old-fashioned monolithic design and it
+turns out that he got his working much faster than we got ours
+working. So maybe that's one of the mistakes that I made: that design
+decision. Anyway, at first, we didn't know about Linux, because he
+never contacted us to talk about it. Although he did know about the
+GNU Project. But he announced it to other people and other places on
+the net. And so other people then did the work of combining Linux
+with the rest of the GNU system to make a complete free operating
+system. Essentially, to make the GNU plus Linux combination.</p>
+
+<p>But, they didn't realize that's what they were doing. You see,
+they said, We have a kernel — let's look around and see what
+other pieces we can find to put together with the kernel. So, they
+looked around — and lo and behold, everything they needed was
+already available. What good fortune, they said. <i>[Laughter]</i>
+It's all here. We can find everything we need. Let's just take all
+these different things and put it together, and have a system.</p>
+
+<p>They didn't know that most of what they found was pieces of the GNU
+system. So they didn't realize that they were fitting Linux into the
+gap in the GNU system. They thought they were taking Linux and making
+a system out of Linux. So they called it a Linux system.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can't hear you — what?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, it's just not — you know,
+it's provincial.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: But it's more good fortune then finding
+X and Mach?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. The difference is that the
+people who developed X and Mach didn't have the goal of making a
+complete free operating system. We're the only ones who had that.
+And, it was our tremendous work that made the system exist. We
+actually did a larger part of the system than any other project. No
+coincidence, because those people — they wrote useful parts of
+the system. But they didn't do it because they wanted the system to
+be finished. They had other reasons.</p>
+
+<p>Now the people who developed X — they thought that designing
+across the network window system would be a good project, and it was.
+And it turned out to help us make a good free operating system. But
+that's not what they hoped for. They didn't even think about that.
+It was an accident. An accidental benefit. Now, I'm not saying that
+what they did was bad. They did a large free software project.
+That's a good thing to do. But they didn't have that ultimate vision.
+The GNU Project is where that vision was.</p>
+
+<p>And, so, we were the ones whose — every little piece that
+didn't get done by somebody else, we did it. Because we knew that we
+wouldn't have a complete system without it. And even if it was
+totally boring and unromantic, like <code>tar</code>
+or <code>mv</code>. <i>[Laughter]</i> We did it. Or ld, you know
+there's nothing very exciting in <code>ld</code> — but I wrote
+one. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I did make efforts to have it do a minimal
+amount of disk I/O so that it would be faster and handle bigger
+programs. But, you know, I like to do a good job. I like to improve
+various things about the program while I'm doing it. But the reason
+that I did it wasn't that I had brilliant ideas for a
+better <code>ld</code>. The reason I did it is that we needed one
+that was free. And we couldn't expect anyone else to do it. So, we
+had to do it, or find someone to do it.</p>
+
+<p>So, although at this point thousands of people in projects have
+contributed to this system, there is one project which is the reason
+that this system exists, and that's the GNU Project. It <em>is</em>
+basically the GNU System, with other things added since then.</p>
+
+<p>So, however, the practice of calling the system Linux has been a
+great blow to the GNU Project, because we don't normally get credit
+for what we've done. I think Linux, the kernel, is a very useful
+piece of free software, and I have only good things to say about it.
+But, well, actually, I can find a few bad things to say about
+it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, basically, I have good things to say about
+it. However, the practice of calling the GNU system, Linux, is just a
+mistake. I'd like to ask you please to make the small effort
+necessary to call the system GNU/Linux, and that way to help us get a
+share of the credit.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You need a mascot! Get yourself a
+stuffed animal! <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have one.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You do?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have an animal — a
+gnu. <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway. So, yes, when you draw a penguin,
+draw a gnu next to it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, let's save the
+questions for the end. I have more to go through.</p>
+
+<p>So, why am I so concerned about this? You know, why do I think it
+is worth bothering you and perhaps giving you a, perhaps lowering your
+opinion of me, <i>[Laughter]</i> to raise this issue of credit?
+Because, you know, some people when I do this, some people think that
+it's because I want my ego to be fed, right? Of course, I'm not
+saying — I'm not asking you to call it “Stallmanix,”
+right? <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p>I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to
+get credit. And there's a very specific reason for that, which is a
+lot more important than anybody getting credit, in and of itself. You
+see, these days, if you look around in our community most of the
+people talking about it and writing about it don't ever mention GNU,
+and they don't ever mention these goals of freedom — these
+political and social ideals, either. Because the place they come from
+is GNU.</p>
+
+<p>The ideas associated with Linux — the philosophy is very
+different. It is basically the apolitical philosophy of Linus
+Torvalds. So, when people think that the whole system is Linux, they
+tend to think: “Oh, it must have been all started by Linux
+Torvalds. His philosophy must be the one that we should look at
+carefully”. And when they hear about the GNU philosophy, they
+say: “Boy, this is so idealistic, this must be awfully
+impractical. I'm a Linux-user, not a
+GNU-user.” <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>What irony! If they only knew! If they knew that the system they
+liked — or, in some cases, love and go wild over — is our
+idealistic, political philosophy made real.</p>
+
+<p>They still wouldn't have to agree with us. But at least they'd see
+a reason to take it seriously, to think about it carefully, to give it
+a chance. They would see how it relates to their lives. You know, if
+they realized, “I'm using the GNU system. Here's the GNU
+philosophy. This philosophy is <em>why</em> this system that I like
+very much exists,” they'd at least consider it with a much more
+open mind. It doesn't mean that everybody will agree. People think
+different things. That's OK. You know, people should make up their
+own minds. But I want this philosophy to get the benefit of the
+credit for the results it has achieved.</p>
+
+<p>If you look around in our community, you'll find that almost
+everywhere, the institutions are calling the system Linux. You know,
+reporters mostly call it Linux. It's not right, but they do. The
+companies mostly say it that package the system. Oh, and most of
+these reporters, when they write articles, they usually don't look at
+it as a political issue, or social issue. They're usually looking at
+it purely as a business question or what companies are going to
+succeed more or less, which is really a fairly minor question for
+society. And, if you look at the companies that package the GNU/Linux
+system for people to use, well, most of them call it Linux. And they
+<em>all</em> add non-free software to it.</p>
+
+<p>See, the GNU GPL says that if you take code, and some code out of a
+GPL-covered program, and add some more code to make a bigger program,
+that whole program has to be released under the GPL. But you could
+put other separate programs on the same disk (of either kind, hard
+disk, or CD), and they can have other licenses. That's considered
+mere aggregation, and, essentially, just distributing two programs to
+somebody at the same time is not something we have any say over. So,
+in fact, it is not true — sometimes, I wish it were true —
+that if a company uses a GPL-covered program in a product that the
+whole product has to be free software. It's not — it doesn't go
+to that range — that scope. It's the whole program. If there
+are two separate programs that communicate with each other at arm's
+length — like by sending messages to each other — then,
+they're legally separate, in general. So, these companies, by adding
+non-free software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically
+and politically, a very bad idea. They're telling the users,
+“It is OK to use non-free software. We're even putting it on
+this as a bonus.”</p>
+
+<p>If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system,
+most of them have a title like “Linux-something or other”.
+So they're calling the system Linux most of the time. And they're
+filled with ads for non-free software that you could run on top of the
+GNU/Linux system. Now those ads have a common message. They say:
+Non-free Software Is Good For You. It's So Good That You Might Even
+<em>Pay</em> To Get It. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>And they call these things “value-added packages”,
+which makes a statement about their values. They're saying: Value
+practical convenience, not freedom. And, I don't agree with those
+values, so I call them “freedom-subtracted
+packages”. <i>[Laughter]</i> Because if you have installed a
+free operating system, then you now are living in the free world. You
+enjoy the benefits of liberty that we worked for so many years to give
+you. Those packages give you an opportunity to buckle on a chain.</p>
+
+<p>And then if you look at the trade shows — about the use of
+the, dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call
+themselves “Linux” shows. And they're filled with booths
+exhibiting non-free software, essentially putting the seal of approval
+on the non-free software. So, almost everywhere you look in our
+community, the institutions are endorsing the non-free software,
+totalling negating the idea of freedom that GNU was developed for.
+And the only place that people are likely to come across the idea of
+freedom is in connection with GNU, and in connection with free
+software, the term, free software. So this is why I ask you: please
+call the system GNU/Linux. Please make people aware where the system
+came from and why.</p>
+
+<p>Of course, just by using that name, you won't be making an
+explanation of the history. You can type four extra characters and
+write GNU/Linux; you can say two extra syllables. But, GNU/Linux is
+fewer syllables than Windows 2000. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, you're not
+telling them a lot, but you're preparing them, so that when they hear
+about GNU, and what it's all about, they'll see how that connects to
+them and their lives. And that, indirectly, makes a tremendous
+difference. So please help us.</p>
+
+<p>You'll note that Microsoft called the GPL an “open source
+license”. They don't want people to be thinking in terms of
+freedom as the issue. You'll find that they invite people to think in
+a narrow way, as consumers, and, of course, not even think very
+rationally as consumers, if they're going to choose Microsoft
+products. But they don't want people to think as citizens or
+statesmen. That's inimical to them. At least it's inimical to their
+current business model.</p>
+
+<p>Now, how does free software…well, I can tell you about how
+free software relates to our society. A secondary topic that might be
+of interest to some of you is how free software relates to business.
+Now, in fact, free software is <em>tremendously</em> useful for
+business. After all, most businesses in the advanced countries use
+software. Only a tiny fraction of them develop software.</p>
+
+<p>And free software is tremendously advantageous for any company that
+uses software, because it means that you're in control. Basically,
+free software means the users are in control of what the program does.
+Either individually, if they care enough to be, or, collectively, when
+they care enough to be. Whoever cares enough can exert some
+influence. If you don't care, you don't buy. Then you use what other
+people prefer. But, if you do care, then you have some say. With
+proprietary software, you have essentially no say.</p>
+
+<p>With free software, you can change what you want to change. And it
+doesn't matter that there are no programmers in your company; that's
+fine. You know, if you wanted to move the walls in your building, you
+don't have to be a carpentry company. You just have to be able to go
+find a carpenter and say, “What will you charge to do this
+job?” And if you want to change around the software you use, you
+don't have to be a programming company. You just have to go to a
+programming company and say, “What will you charge to implement
+these features? And when will you have it done?” And if they
+don't do the job, you can go find somebody else.</p>
+
+<p>There's a free market for support. So, any business that cares
+about support will find a tremendous advantage in free software. With
+proprietary software, support is a monopoly, because one company has
+the source code, or maybe a small number of companies that paid a
+gigantic amount of money have the source code, if it's Microsoft's
+shared source program, but, it's very few. And so, there aren't very
+many possible sources of support for you. And that means, that unless
+you're a real giant, they don't care about you. Your company is not
+important enough for them to care if they lose your business, or what
+happens. Once you're using the program, they figure you're locked in
+to getting the support from them, because to switch to a different
+program is a gigantic job. So, you end up with things like paying for
+the privilege of reporting a bug. <i>[Laughter]</i> And once you've
+paid, they tell you, “Well, OK, we've noted your bug report.
+And in a few months, you can buy an upgrade, and you can see if we've
+fixed it.” <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>Support providers for free software can't get away with that. They
+have to please the customers. Of course, you can get a lot of good
+support gratis. You post your problem on the Internet. You may get
+an answer the next day. But that's not guaranteed, of course. If you
+want to be confident, you better make an arrangement with a company
+and pay them. And this is, of course, one of the ways that free
+software business works.</p>
+
+<p>Another advantage of free software for businesses that use software
+is security and privacy. And this applies to individuals as well, but
+I brought it up in the context of businesses. You see, when a program
+is proprietary, you can't even tell what it really does.</p>
+
+<p>It could have features, deliberately put in that you wouldn't like
+if you knew about them, like it might have a backdoor to let the
+developer get into your machine. It might snoop on what you do and
+send information back. This is not unusual. Some Microsoft software
+did this. But it's not only Microsoft. There are other proprietary
+programs that snoop on the user. And you can't even tell if it does
+this. And, of course, even assuming that the developer's totally
+honest, every programmer makes mistakes. There could be bugs that
+affect your security which are nobody's fault. But the point is: If
+it's not free software, you can't find them. And you can't fix
+them.</p>
+
+<p>Nobody has the time to check the source of every program he runs.
+You're not going to do that. But with free software there's a large
+community, and there are people in that community who are checking
+things. And you get the benefit of their checking, because if there's
+an accidental bug, there surely are, from time to time, in any
+program, they might find it and fix it. And people are much less
+likely to put in a deliberate Trojan horse, or a snooping feature, if
+they think they might get caught. The proprietary software developers
+figure they won't get caught. They'll get away with it undetected.
+But a free software developer has to figure that people will look at
+that and see it's there. So, in our community, we don't feel we can
+get away with ramming a feature down the users' throats that the users
+wouldn't like. So we know that if the users don't like it, they'll
+make a modified version which doesn't have it. And then, they'll all
+start using that version.</p>
+
+<p>In fact, we can all reason enough, we can all figure this out
+enough steps ahead, that we probably won't put in that feature. After
+all, you're writing a free program; you want people to like your
+version; you don't want to put in a thing that you know a lot of
+people are going to hate, and have another modified version catch on
+instead of yours. So you just realize that the user is king in the
+world of free software. In the world of proprietary software, the
+customer is <em>not</em> king. Because you are only a customer. You
+have no say in the software you use.</p>
+
+<p>In this respect, free software is a new mechanism for democracy to
+operate. Professor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions
+as a kind of law. Whoever gets to write the code that just about
+everybody uses for all intents and purposes is writing the laws that
+run people's lives. With free software, these laws get written in a
+democratic way. Not the classical form of democracy — we don't
+have a big election and say, “Everybody vote which way should
+this feature be done.” <i>[Laughter]</i> Instead we say,
+basically, those of you who want to work on implementing the feature
+this way, do it. And if you want to work on implementing the feature
+that way, do it. And, it gets done one way or the other, you know?
+And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done this way.
+So, in this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by
+simply taking steps in the direction that he wants to go.</p>
+
+<p>And you're free to take as many steps, personally, as you want to
+take. A business is free to commission as many steps as they find
+useful to take. And, after you add all these things up, that says
+which direction the software goes.</p>
+
+<p>And it's often very useful to be able to take pieces out of some
+existing program, presumably usually large pieces, of course, and then
+write a certain amount of code of your own, and make a program that
+does exactly what you need, which would have cost you an arm and a leg
+to develop, if you had to write it all from scratch, if you couldn't
+cannibalize large pieces from some existing free software package.</p>
+
+<p>Another thing that results from the fact that the user is king is
+that we tend to be very good about compatibility and standardization.
+Why? Because users like that. Users are likely to reject a program
+that has gratuitous incompatibilities in it. Now, sometimes there's a
+certain group of users which actually have a need for a certain kind
+of incompatibility, and then they'll have it. That's OK. But when
+users want is to follow a standard, we developers have to follow it,
+and we know that. And we do it. By contrast, if you look at
+proprietary software developers, they often find it advantageous to
+deliberately <em>not</em> follow a standard, and not because they
+think that they're giving the user an advantage that way, but rather
+because they're imposing on the user, locking the user in. And you'll
+even find them making changes in their file formats from time to time,
+just to force people to get the newest version.</p>
+
+<p>Archivists are finding a problem now, that files written on
+computers ten years ago often can't be accessed; they were written
+with proprietary software that's essentially lost now. If it were
+written with free software, then it could be brought up-to-date and
+run. And those things would not, those records would not be lost,
+would not be inaccessible. They were even complaining about this on
+NPR recently in citing free software as a solution. And so, in
+effect, by using a non-free program to store your own data, you are
+putting your head in a noose.</p>
+
+<p>So, I've talked about how free software affects most business. But
+how does it affect that particular narrow area which is software
+business? Well, the answer is mostly not at all. And the reason is
+that 90% of the software industry, from what I'm told, is development
+of custom software, software that's not meant to be released at all.
+For custom software, this issue, or the ethical issue of free or
+proprietary, doesn't arise. You see, the issue is, are you users free
+to change, and redistribute, the software? If there's only one user,
+and that user owns the rights, there's no problem. That
+user <em>is</em> free to do all these things. So, in effect, any
+<em>custom</em> program that was developed by one company for use
+in-house is free software, as long as they have the sense to insist on
+getting the source code and all the rights.</p>
+
+<p>And the issue doesn't really arise for software that goes in a
+watch or a microwave oven or an automobile ignition system. Because
+those are places where you don't download software to install. It's
+not a real computer, as far as the user is concerned. And so, it
+doesn't raise these issues enough for them to be ethically important.
+So, for the most part, the software industry will go along, just as
+it's been going. And the interesting thing is that since such a large
+fraction of the jobs are in that part of the industry, even if there
+were no possibilities for free software business, the developers of
+free software could all get day jobs writing custom
+software. <i>[Laughter]</i> There's so many; the ratio is so big.</p>
+
+<p>But, as it happens, there is free software business. There are
+free software companies, and at the press conference that I'm going to
+have, people from a couple of them will join us. And, of course,
+there are also companies which are <em>not</em> free software
+businesses but do develop useful pieces of free software to release,
+and the free software that they produce is substantial.</p>
+
+<p>Now, how do free software businesses work? Well, some of them sell
+copies. You know, you're free to copy it but they can still sell
+thousands of copies a month. And others sell support and various
+kinds of services. I, personally, for the second half of the '80's, I
+sold free software support services. Basically I said, for $200 an
+hour, I'll change whatever you want me to change in GNU software that
+I'd written. And, yes, it was a stiff rate, but if it was a program
+that I was the author of, people would figure that I might get the job
+done in a lot fewer hours. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I made a living that
+way. In fact, I'd made more than I'd ever made before. I also taught
+classes. And I kept doing that until 1990, when I got a big prize and
+I didn't have to do it any more.</p>
+
+<p>But, 1990 was when the first corporation free software business was
+formed, which was Cygnus Support. And their business was to do,
+essentially, the same kind of thing that I'd been doing. I certainly
+could have worked for them, if I had needed to do that. Since I
+didn't need to, I felt it was good for the movement if I remained
+independent of any one company. That way, I could say good and bad
+things about the various free software and non-free software
+companies, without a conflict of interest. I felt that I could serve
+the movement more. But, if I had needed that to make a living, sure,
+I would have worked for them. It's an ethical business to be in. No
+reason I would have felt ashamed to take a job with them. And that
+company was profitable in its first year. It was formed with very
+little capital, just the money its three founders had. And it kept
+growing every year and being profitable every year until they got
+greedy, and looked for outside investors, and then they messed things
+up. But it was several years of success, before they got greedy.</p>
+
+<p>So, this illustrates one of the exciting things about free
+software. Free software demonstrates that you don't need to raise
+capital to develop free software. I mean, it's useful;
+it <em>can</em> help. You know, if you do raise some capital, you can
+hire people and have them write a bunch of software. But you can get
+a lot done with a small number of people. And, in fact, the
+tremendous efficiency of the process of developing free software is
+one of the reasons it's important for the world to switch to free
+software. And it also belies what Microsoft says when they say the
+GNU GPL is bad, because it makes it harder for them to raise capital
+to develop non-free software and take our free software and put our
+code into their programs that they won't share with us. Basically, we
+don't need to have them raising capital that way. We'll get the job
+done anyway. We are getting the job done.</p>
+
+<p>People used to say we could never do a complete free operating
+system. Now we've done that and a tremendous amount more. And I
+would say that we're about an order of magnitude away from developing
+all the general purpose published software needs of the world. And
+this is in a world where more than 90% of the users don't use our free
+software yet. This is in a world where, although in certain areas of
+business, you know, more than half of all the web servers in the world
+are running on GNU/Linux with Apache as the web server.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i> … What did you
+say before, Linux?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I said GNU/Linux.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You did?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, if I'm talking about the kernel, I
+call it Linux. You know, that's it's name. The kernel was written by
+Linus Torvalds, and we should only call it by the name that he chose,
+out of respect for the author.</p>
+
+<p>Anyway, but in general, in business most users are not using it.
+Most home users are not using our system yet. So, when they are, we
+should automatically get 10 times as many volunteers and 10 times as
+many customers for the free software businesses that there will be.
+And so that will take us that order of magnitude. So at this point, I
+am pretty confident that we <em>can</em> do the job.</p>
+
+<p>And, this is important, because Microsoft asks us to feel
+desperate. They say, The only way you can have software to run, the
+only way you can have innovation, is if you give us power. Let us
+dominate you. Let us control what you can do with the software you're
+running, so that we can squeeze a lot of money out of you, and use a
+certain fraction of that to develop software, and take the rest as
+profit.</p>
+
+<p>Well, you shouldn't ever feel that desperate. You shouldn't ever
+feel so desperate that you give up your freedom. That's very
+dangerous.</p>
+
+<p>Another thing that Microsoft, well, not just Microsoft, people who
+don't support free software generally adopt a value system in which
+the only thing that matters is short-term practical benefits: How much
+money am I going to make this year? What job can I get done today?
+Short-term thinking and narrow thinking. Their assumption is that it
+is ridiculous to imagine that anybody ever might make a sacrifice for
+the sake of freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Yesterday, a lot of people were making speeches about Americans who
+made sacrifices for the freedom of their compatriots. Some of them
+made great sacrifices. They even sacrificed their lives for the kinds
+of freedom that everyone in our country has heard about, at least.
+(At least, in some of the cases; I guess we have to ignore the war in
+Vietnam.)</p>
+
+<p><i>[Editor's note: The day before was “Memorial Day” in
+the USA. Memorial Day is a day where war heros are
+commemorated.]</i></p>
+
+<p>But, fortunately, to maintain our freedom in using software,
+doesn't call for big sacrifices. Just tiny, little sacrifices are
+enough, like learning a command-line interface, if we don't have a GUI
+interface program yet. Like doing the job in this way, because we
+don't have a free software package to do it that way, yet. Like,
+paying some money to a company that's going to develop a certain free
+software package, so that you can have it in a few years. Various
+little sacrifices that we can all make. And, in the long run, even we
+will have benefited from it. You know, it is really an investment
+more than a sacrifice. We just have to have enough long-term view to
+realize it's good for us to invest in improving our society, without
+counting the nickels and dimes of who gets how much of the benefit
+from that investment.</p>
+
+<p>So, at this point, I'm essentially done.</p>
+
+<p>I'd like to mention that there's a new approach to free software
+business being proposed by Tony Stanco, which he calls “Free
+Developers”, which involves a certain business structure which
+hopes eventually to pay out a certain share of the profits to every,
+to all the authors of the free software who've joined the
+organization. And they're looking at the prospects of getting me some
+rather large government software development contracts in India now,
+because they're going to be using free software as the basis, having
+tremendous cost savings that way.</p>
+
+<p>And so now I guess that I should ask for questions.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Could you speak up a bit louder please?
+I can't really hear you.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: How could a company like Microsoft
+include a free software contract?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually, Microsoft is planning to
+shift a lot of its activity into services. And what they're planning
+to do is something dirty and dangerous, which is tie the services to
+the programs, one to the next, in a sort of zigzag, you know? So that
+to use this service, you've got to be using this Microsoft program,
+which is going to mean you need to use this service, to this Microsoft
+program, so it's all tied together. That's their plan.</p>
+
+<p>Now, the interesting thing is that selling those services doesn't
+raise the ethical issue of free software or non-free software. It
+might be perfectly fine for them to have the business for those
+businesses selling those services over the net to exist. However,
+what Microsoft is planning to do is to use them to achieve an even
+greater lock, an even greater monopoly, on the software and the
+services, and this was described in an article, I believe in Business
+Week, recently. And, other people said that it is turning the net
+into the Microsoft Company Town.</p>
+
+<p>And this is relevant because, you know, the trial court in the
+Microsoft antitrust trial recommended breaking up the company,
+Microsoft. But in a way, that makes no sense — it wouldn't do
+any good at all — into the operating part and the applications
+part.</p>
+
+<p>But having seen that article, I now see a useful, effective way to
+split up Microsoft into the services part and the software part, to
+require them to deal with each other only at arm's length, that the
+services must publish their interfaces, so that anybody can write a
+client to talk to those services, and, I guess, that they have to pay
+to get the service. Well, that's OK. That's a totally different
+issue.</p>
+
+<p>If Microsoft is split up in this way […] services and
+software, they will not be able to use their software to crush
+competition with Microsoft services. And they won't be able to use
+the services to crush competition with Microsoft software. And we
+will be able to make the free software, and maybe you people will use
+it to talk to Microsoft services, and we won't mind.</p>
+
+<p>Because, after all, although Microsoft is the proprietary software
+company that has subjugated the most people — the others have
+subjugated fewer people, it's not for want of
+trying. <i>[Laughter]</i> They just haven't succeeded in subjugating
+as many people. So, the problem is not Microsoft and only Microsoft.
+Microsoft is just the biggest example of the problem we're trying to
+solve, which is proprietary software taking away users' freedom to
+cooperate and form an ethical society. So we shouldn't focus too much
+on Microsoft, you know, even though they did give me the opportunity
+for this platform. That doesn't make them all-important. They're not
+the be-all and end-all.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Earlier, you were discussing the
+philosophical differences between open source software and free
+software. How do you feel about the current trend of GNU/Linux
+distributions as they head towards supporting only Intel platforms?
+And the fact that it seems that less and less programmers are
+programming correctly, and making software that will compile anywhere?
+And making software that simply works on Intel systems?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I don't see an ethical issue there.
+Although, in fact, companies that make computers sometimes port the
+GNU/Linux system to it. HP apparently did this recently. And, they
+didn't bother paying for a port of Windows, because that would have
+cost too much. But getting GNU/Linux supported was, I think, five
+engineers for a few months. It was easily doable.</p>
+
+<p>Now, of course, I encourage people to use <code>autoconf</code>,
+which is a GNU package that makes it easier to make your programs
+portable. I encourage them to do that. Or when somebody else fixes
+the bug that it didn't compile on that version of the system, and
+sends it to you, you should put it in. But I don't see that as an
+ethical issue.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Two comments. One is: Recently, you
+spoke at MIT. I read the transcript. And someone asked about
+patents, and you said that “patents are a totally different
+issue. I have no comments on that.”</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I actually have a lot to say
+about patents, but it takes an hour. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I wanted to say this: It seems to me
+that there is an issue. I mean, there is a reason that companies call
+both patents and copyrights things like hard property in trying to get
+this concept which is, if they want to use the power of the State to
+create a course of monopoly for themselves. And so, what's common
+about these things is not that they revolve around the same issues,
+but that motivation is not really the public service issues but the
+motivation of companies to get a monopoly for their private
+interests.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I understand. But, well, I want to
+respond because there's not too much time. So I'd like to respond to
+that.</p>
+
+<p>You're right that that's what they want. But there's another
+reason why they want to use the term intellectual property. It's that
+they don't want to encourage people to think carefully about copyright
+issues or patent issues. Because copyright law and patent law are
+totally different, and the effects of software copyrighted and
+software patents are totally different.</p>
+
+<p>Software patents are a restriction on programmers, prohibiting them
+from writing certain kinds of programs, whereas copyright doesn't do
+that. With copyright, at least if you wrote it yourself, you're
+allowed to distribute it. So, it's tremendously important to separate
+these issues.</p>
+
+<p>They have a little bit in common, at a very low level, and
+everything else is different. So, please, to encourage clear
+thinking, discuss copyright or discuss patents. But don't discuss
+intellectual property. I don't have an opinion on intellectual
+property. I have opinions on copyrights and patents and software.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You mentioned at the beginning that a
+functional language, like recipes, are computer programs. There's a
+cross a little bit different than other kinds of language created on.
+This is also causing a problem in the DVD case.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: The issues are partly similar but partly
+different, for things that are not functional in nature. Part of the
+issue transfers but not all of it. Unfortunately, that's another hour
+speech. I don't have time to go into it. But I would say that all
+functional works ought to be free in the same sense as software. You
+know, textbooks, manuals, dictionaries, and recipes, and so on.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I was just wondering on online
+music. There are similarities and differences created all through.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I'd say that the minimum freedom
+that we should have for any kind of published information is the
+freedom to non-commercially redistribute it, verbatim. For functional
+works, we need the freedom to commercially publish a modified version,
+because that's tremendously useful to society. For non-functional
+works, you know, things that are to entertain, or to be aesthetic, or
+to state a certain person's views, you know, perhaps they shouldn't be
+modified. And, perhaps that means that it's OK, to have copyright
+covering all commercial distribution of them.</p>
+
+<p>Please remember that according to the U.S. Constitution, the
+purpose of copyright is to benefit the public. It is to modify the
+behavior of certain private parties, so that they will publish more
+books. And the benefit of this is that society gets to discuss issues
+and learn. And, you know, we have literature. We have scientific
+works. The purpose is encourage that. Copyrights do not exist for
+the sake of authors, let alone for the sake of publishers. They exist
+for the sake of readers and all those who benefit from the
+communication of information that happens when people write and others
+read. And that goal I agree with.</p>
+
+<p>But in the age of the computer networks, the method is no longer
+tenable, because it now requires draconian laws that invade
+everybody's privacy and terrorize everyone. You know, years in prison
+for sharing with your neighbor. It wasn't like that in the age of the
+printing press. Then copyright was an industrial regulation. It
+restricted publishers. Now, it's a restriction imposed by the
+publishers on the public. So, the power relationship is turned around
+180 degrees, even if it's the same law.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: So you can have the same thing —
+but like in making music from other music?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. That is an interesting
+…</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: And unique, new works, you know, it's
+still a lot of cooperation.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: It is. And I think that probably
+requires some kind of fair use concept. Certainly making a few
+seconds of sample and using that in making some musical work,
+obviously that should be fair use. Even the standard idea of fair use
+includes that, if you think about it. Whether courts agree, I'm not
+sure, but they should. That wouldn't be a real change in the system
+as it has existed.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: What do you think about publishing
+public information in proprietary formats?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, it shouldn't be. I mean, the
+government should never require citizens to use a non-free program to
+access, to communicate with the government in any way, in either
+direction.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I have been, what I will now say, a
+GNU/Linux user…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Thank you. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: …for the past four years. The one
+thing that has been problematical for me and is something that is
+essential, I think, to all of us, is browsing the web.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: One thing that has been decidedly a
+weakness in using a GNU/Linux system has been browsing the web,
+because the prevailing tool for that, Netscape…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: …is not free software.</p>
+
+<p>Let me respond to this. I want to get to the point, for the sake
+of getting in more. So, yes. There has been a terrible tendency for
+people to use Netscape Navigator on their GNU/Linux systems. And, in
+fact all the commercially packaged systems come with it. So this is
+an ironic situation: we worked so hard to make a free operating
+system, and now, if you go to the store, and you can find versions of
+GNU/Linux there, most of them are called Linux, and they're not free.
+Oh, well, part of them is. But then, there's Netscape Navigator, and
+maybe other non-free programs as well. So, it's very hard to actually
+find a free system, unless you know what you're doing. Or, of course,
+you can not install Netscape Navigator.</p>
+
+<p>Now, in fact, there have been free web browsers for many years.
+There is a free web browser that I used to use called Lynx. It's a
+free web browser that is non-graphical; it's text-only. This has a
+tremendous advantage, in you don't see the ads. <i>[Laughter]
+[Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p>But anyway, there is a free graphical project called Mozilla, which
+is now getting to the point where you can use it. And I occasionally
+use it.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 has been very good.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, OK. So that's another free
+graphical browser. So, we're finally solving that problem, I
+guess.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk to me about that
+philosophical/ethical division between free software and open source?
+Do you feel that those are irreconcilable? …</p>
+
+<p><i>[Recording switches tapes; end of question and start of answer
+is missing]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: … to a freedom, and ethics. Or
+whether you just say, Well, I hope that you companies will decide it's
+more profitable to let us be allowed to do these things.</p>
+
+<p>But, as I said, in a lot of practical work, it doesn't really
+matter what a person's politics are. When a person offers to help the
+GNU project, we don't say: “You have to agree with our
+politics.” We say that in a GNU package, you've got to call the
+system GNU/Linux, and you've got to call it free software. What you
+say when you're not speaking to the GNU Project, that's up to you.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: The company, IBM, started a campaign for
+government agencies, to sell their big new machines, that they used
+Linux as selling point, and say Linux.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, of course, it's really the
+GNU/Linux systems. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: That's right! Well, tell the top sales
+person. He doesn't know anything for GNU.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I have to tell who?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: The top sales person.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh yes. The problem is that they've
+already carefully decided what they want to say for reasons of their
+advantage. And the issue of what is a more accurate, or fair, or
+correct way to describe it is not the primary issue that matters to a
+company like that. Now, some small companies, yes, there'll be a
+boss. And if the boss is inclined to think about things like that, he
+might make a decision that way. Not a giant corporation though. It's
+a shame, you know.</p>
+
+<p>There's another more important and more substantive issue about
+what IBM is doing. They're saying that they're putting a billion
+dollars into “Linux”. But perhaps, I should also put
+quotes around “into”, as well, because some of that money
+is paying people to develop free software. That really is a
+contribution to our community. But other parts is paying to pay
+people to write proprietary software, or port proprietary software to
+run on top of GNU/Linux, and that is <em>not</em> a contribution to
+our community. But IBM is lumping that altogether into this. Some of
+it might be advertising, which is partly a contribution, even if it's
+partly wrong. So, it's a complicated situation. Some of what they're
+doing is contribution and some is not. And some is sort is somewhat,
+but not exactly. And you can't just lump it altogether and think,
+Wow! Whee! A billion dollars from IBM. <i>[Laughter]</i> That's
+oversimplification.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk a little bit more about the
+thinking that went into the general public license?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, here's the — I'm sorry, I'm
+answering his question now. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Do you want to reserve some time for
+the press conference? Or do you want to continue here?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Who is here for the press conference?
+Not a lot of press. Oh, three — OK. Can you afford if we
+— if I go on answering everybody's questions for another ten
+minutes or so? OK. So, we'll go on answering everybody's
+questions.</p>
+
+<p>So, the thinking that went into the GNU GPL? Part of it was that I
+wanted to protect the freedom of the community against the phenomena
+that I just described with X Windows, which has happened with other
+free programs as well. In fact, when I was thinking about this issue,
+X Windows was not yet released. But I had seen this problem happen in
+other free programs. For instance, TeX. I wanted to make sure that
+the users would all have freedom. Otherwise, I realized that I might
+write a program, and maybe a lot of people would use the program, but
+they wouldn't have freedom. And what's the point of that?</p>
+
+<p>But the other issue I was thinking about was, I wanted to give the
+community a feeling that it was not a doormat, a feeling that it was
+not prey to any parasite who would wander along. If you don't use
+copyleft, you are essentially saying: <i>[speaking meekly]</i>
+“Take my code. Do what you want. I don't say no.” So,
+anybody can come along and say: <i>[speaking very firmly]</i>
+“Ah, I want to make a non-free version of this. I'll just take
+it.” And, then, of course, they probably make some improvements,
+those non-free versions might appeal to users, and replace the free
+versions. And then, what have you accomplished? You've only made a
+donation to some proprietary software project.</p>
+
+<p>And when people see that that's happening, when people see, other
+people take what I do, and they don't ever give back, it can be
+demoralizing. And, this is not just speculation. I had seen that
+happen. That was part of what happened to wipe out the old community
+that I belonged to the '70's. Some people started becoming
+uncooperative. And we assumed that they were profiting thereby. They
+certainly acted as if they thought they were profiting. And we
+realized that they can just take off cooperation and not give back.
+And there was nothing we could do about it. It was very discouraging.
+We, those of us who didn't like the trend, even had a discussion and
+we couldn't come up with any idea for how we could stop it.</p>
+
+<p>So, the GPL is designed to stop that. And it says, Yes, you are
+welcome to join the community and use this code. You can use it to do
+all sorts of jobs. But, if you release a modified version, you've got
+to release that to our community, as part of our community, as part of
+the free world.</p>
+
+<p>So, in fact, there are still many ways that people can get the
+benefit of our work and not contribute, like you don't have to write
+any software. Lots of people use GNU/Linux and don't write any
+software. There's no requirement that you've got to do anything for
+us. But if you do a certain kind of thing, you've got to contribute
+to it. So what that means is that our community is not a doormat.
+And I think that that helped give people the strength to feel, Yes, we
+won't just be trampled underfoot by everybody. We'll stand up to
+this.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Yes, my question was, considering free
+but not copylefted software, since anybody can pick it up and make it
+proprietary, is it not possible also for someone to pick it up and
+make some changes and release the whole thing under the GPL?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, it is possible.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Then, that would make all future copies
+then be GPL'ed.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: From that branch. But here's why we
+don't do that.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Hmm?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Here's why we don't generally do that.
+Let me explain.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: OK, yes.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We could, if we wanted to, take X
+Windows, and make a GPL-covered copy and make changes in that. But
+there's a much larger group of people working on improving X Windows
+and <em>not</em> GPL-ing it. So, if we did that, we would be forking
+from them. And that's not very nice treatment of them. And, they
+<em>are</em> a part of our community, contributing to our
+community.</p>
+
+<p>Second, it would backfire against us, because they're doing a lot
+more work on X than we would be. So, our version would be inferior to
+theirs, and people wouldn't use it, which means, why go to the trouble
+at all?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Mmm hmm.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: So when a person has written some
+improvement to X Windows, what I say that person should do is
+cooperate with the X development team. Send it to them and let them
+use it their way. Because they are developing a very important piece
+of free software. It's good for us to cooperate with them.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Except, considering X, in particular,
+about two years ago, the X Consortium that was far into the non-free
+open source…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually it <em>wasn't</em> open
+sourced. It wasn't open sourced, either. They may have said it was.
+I can't remember if they said that or not. But it wasn't open
+source. It was restricted. You couldn't commercially distribute, I
+think. Or you couldn't commercially distribute a modified version, or
+something like that. There was a restriction that's considered
+unacceptable by both the Free Software movement and the Open Source
+movement.</p>
+
+<p>And yes, that's what using a non-copyleft license leaves you open
+to. In fact, the X Consortium, they had a very rigid policy. They
+say: If your program if copylefted even a little bit, we won't
+distribute it at all. We won't put it in our distribution.</p>
+
+<p>So, a lot of people were pressured in this way into not
+copylefting. And the result was that all of their software was wide
+open, later on. When the same people who had pressured a developer to
+be too all-permissive, then the X people later said, All right, now we
+can put on restrictions, which wasn't very ethical of them.</p>
+
+<p>But, given the situation, would we really want to scrape up the
+resources to maintain an alternate GPL-covered version of X? And it
+wouldn't make any sense to do that. There are so many other things we
+need to do. Let's do them instead. We can cooperate with the X
+developers.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Do you have a comment, is the GNU a
+trademark? And is it practical to include it as part of the GNU
+General Public License allowing trademarks?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We are, actually, applying for trademark
+registration on GNU. But it wouldn't really have anything to do with
+that. It's a long story to explain why.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You could require the trademark be
+displayed with GPL-covered programs.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: No, I don't think so. The licenses
+cover individual programs. And when a given program is part of the
+GNU Project, nobody lies about that. The name of the system as a
+whole is a different issue. And this is an aside. It's not worth
+discussing more.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: If there was a button that you could
+push and force all companies to free their software, would you press
+it?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, I would only use this for
+published software. You know, I think that people have the right to
+write a program privately and use it. And that includes companies.
+This is privacy issue. And it's true, there can be times when it is
+wrong to do that, like if it is tremendously helpful to humanity, and
+you are withholding it from humanity. That is a wrong but that's a
+different kind of wrong. It's a different issue, although it's in the
+same area.</p>
+
+<p>But yes, I think all published software should be free software.
+And remember, when it's not free software, that's because of
+government intervention. The government is intervening to make it
+non-free. The government is creating special legal powers to hand out
+to the owners of the programs, so that they can have the police stop
+us from using the programs in certain ways. So I would certainly like
+to end that. </p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Richard's presentation has invariably
+generated an enormous amount of intellectual energy. I would suggest
+that some of it should be directed to using, and possibly writing,
+free software.</p>
+
+<p>We should close the proceedings shortly. I want to say that
+Richard has injected into a profession which is known in the general
+public for its terminal apolitical nerditude a level of political and
+moral discussion which is, I think, unprecedented in our profession.
+And we owe him very big for this. I'd like to note to people that
+there is a break.</p>
+
+<p><i>[Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: You are free to leave at any time, you
+know. <i>[Laughter]</i> I'm not holding you prisoner here.</p>
+
+<p><i>[Audience adjourns…]</i></p>
+
+<p><i>[overlapping conversations…]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: One final thing. Our website:
+www.gnu.org</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></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";><address@hidden></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";>
+ <address@hidden></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>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) 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. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman</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>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2015/09/15 05:45:28 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
Index: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.po
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.po
diff -N philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.po
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.po 15 Sep 2015 05:45:28 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,4689 @@
+# Turkish translations for rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html package
+# rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html paketi için Türkçe çeviriler
+# Copyright (C) 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+# This file is distributed under the same license as the
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html package.
+# Tahir Emre Kalaycı <address@hidden>, 2009.
+# ÃiÄdem ÃzÅar, 2009.
+# Birkan SarıfakıoÄlu, 2009.
+# Serkan Ãapkan, 2009.
+# Ä°zlem GözükeleÅ, 2009.
+# Feb 2015: trivial update; fix quotes (T. Godefroy).
+#
+msgid ""
+msgstr ""
+"Project-Id-Version: rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html\n"
+"POT-Creation-Date: 2015-02-20 15:55+0000\n"
+"PO-Revision-Date: 2010-01-12 00:31+0100\n"
+"Last-Translator: Tahir Emre Kalaycı <address@hidden>\n"
+"Language-Team: Turkish <address@hidden>\n"
+"Language: tr\n"
+"MIME-Version: 1.0\n"
+"Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n"
+"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n"
+"Plural-Forms: nplurals=1; plural=0;\n"
+
+# type: Content of: <title>
+#. type: Content of: <title>
+msgid ""
+"Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation - GNU Project - Free Software "
+"Foundation"
+msgstr ""
+"Ãzgür Yazılım: Ãzgürlük ve Ä°ÅbirliÄi - GNU Projesi - Ãzgür
Yazılım Vakfı"
+
+# type: Content of: <h2>
+#. type: Content of: <h2>
+msgid "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation"
+msgstr "Ãzgür Yazılım: Ãzgürlük ve Ä°ÅbirliÄi"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <blockquote><p>
+msgid ""
+"Transcript of Richard M. Stallman's speech, “Free Software: Freedom "
+"and Cooperation”, given at New York University in New York, NY, on 29 "
+"May 2001"
+msgstr ""
+"Richard M. Stallman'ın âÃzgür Yazılım: Ãzgürlük ve Ä°ÅbirliÄiâ
isimli, New "
+"York'taki New York Ãniversitesi'nde, 29 Mayıs 2001 tarihinde yaptıÄı "
+"konuÅmanın metnidir."
+
+# type: Content of: <div><blockquote><p>
+#. type: Content of: <div><blockquote><p>
+msgid ""
+"A <a href=\"/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt\">plain text</a> version
of "
+"this transcript and a <a
href=\"/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt\">summary</"
+"a> of the speech are also available."
+msgstr ""
+"Bu konuÅmanın <a href=\"/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt\">düz
metin</a> "
+"sürümü ve <a href=\"/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt\">özeti</a> de
vardır."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>URETSKY</strong>: I'm Mike Uretsky. I'm over at the Stern School of "
+"Business. I'm also one of the Co-Directors of the Center for Advanced "
+"Technology. And, on behalf of all of us in the Computer Science Department, "
+"I want to welcome you here. I want to say a few comments, before I turn it "
+"over to Ed, who is going to introduce the speaker."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>URETSKY</strong>: Ben Mike Uretsky. Stern Ä°Åletme Fakültesiâni "
+"bitirdim. Ayrıca Ä°leri Teknoloji Merkeziânin Müdür Yardımcılarından
biriyim. "
+"Ve Bilgisayar Bilimi Departmanında hepimiz adına, sizlere burada hoŠ"
+"geldiniz demek istiyorum. Size konuÅmacıyı takdim edecek olan Edâe
mikrofonu "
+"vermeden önce bazı açıklamalarda bulunmak istiyorum."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"The role of a university is a place to foster debate and to have interesting "
+"discussions. And the role of a major university is to have particularly "
+"interesting discussions. And this particular presentation, this seminar "
+"falls right into that mold. I find the discussion of open source "
+"particularly interesting. In a sense … <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Ãniversitenin rolü, tartıÅmaların yapılması için uygun bir alan
olması ve "
+"ilginç tartıÅmaların yapılabilmesidir. Ve büyük bir üniversitenin
rolü, "
+"özellikle ilginç tartıÅmaların yapılabilmesidir. Ve bu özel sunum, bu "
+"seminer bu kalıba girer. Açık kaynak tartıÅmasını özellikle ilginç "
+"buluyorum. Bir anlamdaâ¦.<i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i>"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I do free software. Open source is a different "
+"movement. <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Ãzgür yazılım yapıyorum. Açık kaynak
farklı bir "
+"harekettir. <i>[dinleyiciler güler] [AlkıÅ]</i>"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>URETSKY</strong>: When I first started in the field in the '60's, "
+"basically software was free. And we went in cycles. It became free, and "
+"then software manufacturers, in the need to expand their markets, pushed it "
+"in other directions. A lot of the developments that took place with the "
+"entry of the PC moved in exactly the same kind of a cycle."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>URETSKY</strong>: 1960âlarda ilgili alanda çalıÅmaya ilk "
+"baÅladıÄımda, temel olarak yazılım özgürdü. Ve çevrimlere girdik.
Ãzgür hale "
+"geldi ve daha sonra pazarlarını geniÅletme ihtiyacında olan yazılım "
+"üreticileri, bunu baÅka taraflara doÄru çektiler. PCânin giriÅiyle "
+"gerçekleÅen birçok hareket, tam olarak da benzer bir çevrim tipinde
hareket "
+"etti."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"There's a very interesting French philosopher, Pierre Levy, who talks about "
+"movement to this direction and who talks about the move into cyberspace as "
+"not only relating to technology but also relating to social restructuring, "
+"to political restructuring, through a change in the kinds of relationships "
+"that will improve the well-being of mankind. And we're hoping that this "
+"debate is a movement in that direction, that this debate is something that "
+"cuts across a lot of the disciplines that normally act as solace within the "
+"University. We're looking forward to some very interesting discussions. Ed?"
+msgstr ""
+"Pierre Levy adında çok ilginç bir Fransız filozof vardır, bu filozof, "
+"insanlıÄın refahını geliÅtirecek iliÅki tiplerindeki deÄiÅim ile,
yalnızca "
+"teknolojiyle ilgili olarak deÄil ayrıca sosyal yeniden yapılanma, politik "
+"yeniden yapılanma ile iliÅkili olarak bu yöne doÄru olan hareketten ve
siber "
+"aleme doÄru olan hareketten bahsetmektedir. Ve bu tartıÅmanın söz konusu
"
+"yöndeki bir hareket olmasını ve bu tartıÅmanın, normalde Ãniversitede
bir "
+"teselli gibi olan çok sayıda disiplinin sınırlarının ötesine giden bir
Åey "
+"olmasını umuyoruz. Bazı çok ilginç tartıÅmaları dört gözle
bekliyoruz. Ed?"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: I'm Ed Schonberg from the Computer Science "
+"Department at the Courant Institute. Let me welcome you all to this event. "
+"Introducers are usually, and particularly, a useless aspect of public "
+"presentations, but in this case, actually, they serve a useful purpose, as "
+"Mike easily demonstrated, because an introducer for instance, told him, by "
+"making inaccurate comments, can allow him to straighten out and correct and "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> sharpen considerably the parameters of the debate."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Ben Courant Enstitüsüândeki Bilgisayar Bilimi
"
+"Departmanından Ed Schonberg. Hepinize öncelikle hoŠgeldiniz demek "
+"istiyorum. GiriÅ konuÅmasını yapanlar genellikle ve özellikle halka "
+"sunumların yararsız bir kısmını yapanlardır ancak bu durumda, gerçekte
"
+"yararlı bir amaca hizmet etmektedirler, Mikeâın da kolayca gösterdiÄi
gibi, "
+"giriÅ konuÅmasını yapan kiÅi, örneÄin, hatalı açıklamalar yaparak, "
+"tartıÅmanın parametrelerini ciddi ölçüde düzeltebilir ve
<i>[dinleyiciler "
+"güler]</i> keskin hale getirebilir."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, let me make the briefest possible introduction to somebody who doesn't "
+"need one. Richard is the perfect example of somebody who, by acting "
+"locally, started thinking globally from problems concerning the "
+"unavailability of source code for printer drivers at the AI Lab many years "
+"ago. He has developed a coherent philosophy that has forced all of us to re-"
+"examine our ideas of how software is produced, of what intellectual property "
+"means, and what the software community actually represents. Let me welcome "
+"Richard Stallman. <i>[Applause]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Bu nedenle, açıklamaya ihtiyaç duymayan birine anlatır gibi mümkün olan
en "
+"kısa giriÅi yapayım. Richard, yıllar önce MIT YZ Laboratuarında
yazıcı "
+"sürücüleri için kaynak kodunun elveriÅli olmamasına iliÅkin
problemlerden "
+"küresel olarak düÅünen ve yerel hareket eden biri için mükemmel bir "
+"örnektir. Yazılımın nasıl oluÅturulduÄu, hangi fikri mülkiyet
araçlarına "
+"sahip olduÄu ve yazılım topluluÄunun gerçekte neyi temsil ettiÄi
fikirlerini "
+"yeniden incelemek için hepimizi zorlamıŠolan baÄlı bir felsefe "
+"geliÅtirmiÅtir. Richard Stallmanâa hoÅ geldiniz demek istiyorum.
<i>[AlkıÅ]</"
+"i>"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can someone lend me a watch? <i>[Laughter]</i> "
+"Thank you. So, I'd like to thank Microsoft for providing me the opportunity "
+"to <i>[Laughter]</i> be on this platform. For the past few weeks, I have "
+"felt like an author whose book was fortuitously banned somewhere. <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i> Except that all the articles about it are giving the wrong "
+"author's name, because Microsoft describes the GNU GPL as an open source "
+"license, and most of the press coverage followed suit. Most people, of "
+"course just innocently don't realize that our work has nothing to do with "
+"open source, that in fact we did most of it before people even coined the "
+"term open source."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Biri bana bir saat ödünç verebilir mi? <i>"
+"[Dinleyiciler güler]</i> TeÅekkür ederim. Bu vesileyle, bu platformda olma
"
+"imkânı verdikleri için Microsoftâa <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i>
teÅekkür "
+"ederim. Son birkaç haftadır, kitabı bir yerlerde kazara yasaklanmıŠolan
bir "
+"yazar gibi hissediyorum.<i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Ancak buna iliÅkin "
+"yazıların tümünde yanlıŠyazarın adı verilmektedir çünkü Microsoft
GNU "
+"GPLâyi açık kaynaklı bir lisans olarak tanımlamaktadır ve bunu izleyen
baskı "
+"kapsamının çoÄunluÄu buna uygundur. Tabi ki, insanların çoÄunluÄu, "
+"çalıÅmamızın açık kaynakla iÅinin olmadıÄını fark etmemektedir,
çünkü "
+"insanlar âaçık kaynakâ ifadesini bulmadan önce iÅin çoÄunu
gerçekleÅtirdik."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"We are in the free software movement, and I'm going to speak about what the "
+"free software movement is about, what it means, what we have done, and, "
+"because this is partly sponsored by a school of business, I'll say some "
+"things more than I usually do about how free software relates to business, "
+"and some other areas of social life."
+msgstr ""
+"Ãzgür yazılım hareketindeyiz ve özgür yazılım hareketinin ne
hakkında "
+"olduÄu, ne anlama geldiÄi, ne yaptıÄımız üzerine konuÅacaÄım ve bu
bir "
+"iÅletme okulu tarafından desteklendiÄi için, özgür yazılımın
iÅletmeyle "
+"nasıl bir ilgisi olduÄu hakkında ve sosyal hayatın bazı diÄer alanları
"
+"hakkında bir Åeyler söyleyeceÄim."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, some of you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps you "
+"cook. And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably use "
+"recipes. And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the experience of "
+"getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing it. And you've "
+"probably also had the experience — unless you're a total neophyte "
+"— of changing a recipe. You know, it says certain things, but you "
+"don't have to do exactly that. You can leave out some ingredients. Add "
+"some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms. Put in less salt because your "
+"doctor said you should cut down on salt — whatever. You can even make "
+"bigger changes according to your skill. And if you've made changes in a "
+"recipe, and you cook it for your friends, and they like it, one of your "
+"friends might say, “Hey, could I have the recipe?” And then, "
+"what do you do? You could write down your modified version of the recipe and "
+"make a copy for your friend. These are the natural things to do with "
+"functionally useful recipes of any kind."
+msgstr ""
+"Åimdi, bazılarınız hayatında hiç bilgisayar programı yazmamıÅ
olabilir ama "
+"belki de yemek piÅirdiniz. Ve yemek piÅirdiyseniz, çok mükemmel
deÄilseniz, "
+"muhtemelen yemek tariflerini kullandınız. Ve yemek tariflerini "
+"kullandıysanız, bir arkadaÅınızla muhtemelen bir yemek tarifinin
kopyasını "
+"paylaÅtınız. Ve tam anlamıyla bir acemi deÄilseniz, yemek tarifi
alıÅveriÅi "
+"yapmıÅsınızdır. Yemek tariflerinde belirli Åeyler söylenmektedir ancak
tam "
+"olarak aynı Åeyleri yapmanız gerekmez. İçeriklerden bazılarını "
+"katmayabilirsiniz. Mantarı sevdiÄiniz için biraz mantar ekleyebilirsiniz. "
+"Doktorunuz tuzu azaltmanız gerektiÄini söylediÄi için daha az tuz "
+"koyabilirsiniz. YeteneÄinize göre daha büyük deÄiÅiklikler bile "
+"yapabilirsiniz. Ve bir yemek tarifinde deÄiÅiklik yaptıysanız ve bu yemek
"
+"tarifine göre arkadaÅlarınıza yemek piÅirdiyseniz ve yemeÄi sevdilerse,
size "
+"Åunu söyleyebilirler: âTarifini bana da verir misin?â Ve o zaman ne "
+"yaparsınız? Yemek tarifinin deÄiÅmiÅ halini yazıp arkadaÅınıza bir
kopyasını "
+"verebilirsiniz. Bunlar, herhangi bir tipteki iÅlevsel olarak yararlı yemek "
+"tarifleriyle yapabileceÄiniz doÄal Åeylerdir."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program. A computer program's a lot "
+"like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to get some result that "
+"you want. So it's just as natural to do those same things with computer "
+"programs — hand a copy to your friend. Make changes in it because the "
+"job it was written to do isn't exactly what you want. It did a great job "
+"for somebody else, but your job is a different job. And after you've "
+"changed it, that's likely to be useful for other people. Maybe they have a "
+"job to do that's like the job you do. So they ask, “Hey, can I have a "
+"copy?” Of course, if you're a nice person, you're going to give a "
+"copy. That's the way to be a decent person."
+msgstr ""
+"Åimdi yemek tarifi, bir bilgisayar programına çok benzemektedir. Bir "
+"bilgisayar programı yemek tarifine çok benzemektedir: istediÄiniz bir
sonuca "
+"ulaÅmak için gerçekleÅtirilecek bir seri adımdan ibarettir. Bu nedenle, "
+"yemek tarifleriyle yaptıÄınız Åeyleri bilgisayar programlarıyla da
yapmanız "
+"çok doÄaldır, örneÄin, arkadaÅınıza bir kopyasını vermek gibi.
Farklı bir "
+"iÅlevi görmesi için bilgisayar programını deÄiÅtirebilirsiniz de.
BaÅka biri "
+"için iyi bir iŠgörmüŠolabilir ancak sizinki farklı bir iŠolabilir.
Bu "
+"nedenle programı deÄiÅtirirsiniz. Ve deÄiÅtirdikten sonra, baÅka
insanlar "
+"için yararlı olabilir. Belki de sizin yaptıÄınız iÅe benzer bir iÅ
için "
+"kullanılacaktır. Bu nedenle, Åu soruyu sorarlar: âBana bilgisayar "
+"programının bir kopyasını verir misin?â Tabi ki, kibar bir insan
olduÄunuz "
+"için, bilgisayar programınızın bir kopyasını verirsiniz. Bu, nazik bir
insan "
+"olmanın yoludur."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So imagine what it would be like if recipes were packaged inside black "
+"boxes. You couldn't see what ingredients they're using, let alone change "
+"them, and imagine if you made a copy for a friend, they would call you a "
+"pirate and try to put you in prison for years. That world would create "
+"tremendous outrage from all the people who are used to sharing recipes. But "
+"that is exactly what the world of proprietary software is like. A world in "
+"which common decency towards other people is prohibited or prevented."
+msgstr ""
+"Bu nedenle, yemek tariflerinin kara kutular içine yerleÅtirildiÄi durumu "
+"düÅünün. Hangi içerikleri kullandıÄınızı göremezsiniz ve
deÄiÅtiremezsiniz "
+"ve arkadaÅınıza bir kopyasını vermeye kalktıÄınızda size korsan
dendiÄini ve "
+"yıllarca hapiste yattıÄınızı düÅünün. Böyle bir dünya, yemek
tariflerini "
+"paylaÅmaya alıÅmıŠinsanlar için büyük bir zulümdür. Ancak özel
mülk yazılım "
+"dünyasında durum aynen böyledir. Bu, diÄer insanlara karÅı genel
inceliÄin "
+"olmadıÄı ya da engellendiÄi bir dünyadır. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, why did I notice this? I noticed this because I had the good fortune in "
+"the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who shared software. "
+"Now, this community could trace its ancestry essentially back to the "
+"beginning of computing. In the 1970's, though, it was a bit rare for there "
+"to be a community where people shared software. And, in fact, this was sort "
+"of an extreme case, because in the lab where I worked, the entire operating "
+"system was software developed by the people in our community, and we'd share "
+"any of it with anybody. Anybody was welcome to come and take a look, and "
+"take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do. There were no copyright "
+"notices on these programs. Cooperation was our way of life. And we were "
+"secure in that way of life. We didn't fight for it. We didn't have to "
+"fight for it. We just lived that way. And, as far as we knew, we would "
+"just keep on living that way. So there was free software, but there was no "
+"free software movement."
+msgstr ""
+"Åimdi bunu neden farkettim? Bunu farkettim çünkü 1970âlerde yazılımı
"
+"paylaÅan bir programcı birliÄinin parçası olma Åansına ulaÅmıÅtım.
Bu "
+"topluluÄun temelleri bilgisayarın baÅlangıcına dayanmaktadır. Ancak, "
+"1970âlerde, insanların yazılımı paylaÅtıÄı bir topluluk zor bulunan
bir "
+"Åeydi. Ve gerçekte bu uç bir durumdu çünkü çalıÅtıÄım
laboratuarda, tüm "
+"iÅletim sistemi, topluluÄumuz tarafından geliÅtirilen yazılımdı ve bu "
+"yazılımın herhangi bir kısmını herhangi bir kimseyle paylaÅmaktaydık.
"
+"Ä°steyen herkes gelebiliyor ve bir kopya alabiliyordu ve ne yapmak isterse "
+"yapıyordu. Bu programlar üzerinde hiçbir telif hakkı uyarısı yoktu. "
+"Ä°ÅbirliÄi bizim yaÅam biçimimizdi. Ve bu yaÅam Åeklinde güvendeydik.
Bunun "
+"için savaÅmıyorduk. Bunun için savaÅmamız gerekmiyordu. Sadece bu
Åekilde "
+"yaÅıyorduk. Ve bildiÄimiz kadarıyla, bu Åekilde yaÅamayı
sürdürecektik. Bu "
+"nedenle özgür yazılım vardı ama özgür yazılım hareketi yoktu. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that happened "
+"to it. Ultimately it was wiped out. Ultimately, the PDP-10 computer which "
+"we used for all our work was discontinued. And you know, our system — "
+"the Incompatible Timesharing System — was written starting in the "
+"'60's, so it was written in assembler language. That's what you used to "
+"write an operating system in the '60's. So, of course, assembler language "
+"is for one particular computer architecture; if that gets discontinued, all "
+"your work turns into dust — it's useless. And that's what happened to "
+"us. The 20 years or so of work of our community turned into dust."
+msgstr ""
+"Ama daha sonra topluluÄumuz çeÅitli felaketlerle yıkıldı. Sonunda
tamamen "
+"yok oldu. Sonunda tüm çalıÅmalarımız için kullandıÄımız PDP-10
bilgisayarı1 "
+"ortadan kalktı. Sistemimiz olan, Uyumlu Olmayan Zaman PaylaÅımlı Sistem, "
+"1960âlarda baÅlayarak yazılmıÅtı, bu nedenle assembler dilinde
yazılmıÅtı. "
+"1960âlarda bir iÅletim sistemi yazmak için assembler kullanılmaktaydı.
Bu "
+"nedenle, tabi ki, assembler dili belirli bir bilgisayar mimarisi içindir; "
+"bunun devamı gelmezse, tüm çalıÅmanız boÅa gider, iÅe yaramaz. Ve
bizim "
+"baÅımıza da bu geldi. 20 yıllık çalıÅma boÅa gitti. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me, helped me "
+"see what to do, helped prepare me to see what to do when this happened, "
+"because at certain point, Xerox gave the Artificial Intelligence Lab, where "
+"I worked, a laser printer, and this was a really handsome gift, because it "
+"was the first time anybody outside Xerox had a laser printer. It was very "
+"fast, printed a page a second, very fine in many respects, but it was "
+"unreliable, because it was really a high-speed office copier that had been "
+"modified into a printer. And, you know, copiers jam, but there's somebody "
+"there to fix them. The printer jammed and nobody saw. So it stayed jammed "
+"for a long time."
+msgstr ""
+"Ancak bu durum meydana gelmeden önce, bu durum meydana geldiÄinde ne "
+"yapacaÄıma iliÅkin olarak beni hazırlayan ve ne yapacaÄımı görmeme
yardımcı "
+"olan bir olay oldu çünkü belirli bir noktada, Xerox çalıÅtıÄım yer
olan "
+"Yapay Zeka Laboratuvarına bir lazer yazıcısı hediye etti ve bu hediye "
+"gerçekten de güzel bir hediyeydi çünkü Xerox dıÅında birilerinin bir
lazer "
+"yazıcısına sahip olduÄu ilk durumdu. Bu yazıcı çok hızlıydı,
saniyede bir "
+"sayfa yazıyordu, birçok anlamda çok iyiydi ancak güvenilir deÄildi
çünkü "
+"yüksek hızlı bir kopyalayıcının yazıcı olarak deÄiÅtirilmiÅ
biçimiydi. Ve "
+"bildiÄiniz gibi kopyalayıcılarda sıkıÅma meydana gelmektedir ancak
genelde "
+"bu sıkıÅmayı çözecek birileri bulunur. Yazıcıda sıkıÅma oldu ve
kimse "
+"görmedi. Bu nedenle yazıcı uzun süre sorunlu halde kaldı."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Well, we had an idea for how to deal with this problem. Change it so that "
+"whenever the printer gets a jam, the machine that runs the printer can tell "
+"our timesharing machine, and tell the users who are waiting for printouts, "
+"or something like that, you know, tell them, go fix the printer. Because if "
+"they only knew it was jammed, of course, if you're waiting for a printout "
+"and you know that the printer is jammed, you don't want to sit and wait "
+"forever, you're going to go fix it."
+msgstr ""
+"Biz de bu sorunu çözmek için bir fikir geliÅtirdik. Sistemi, yazıcı her
ne "
+"zaman bir sıkıÅma durumu yaÅarsa, yazıcıyı çalıÅtıran makine zaman
"
+"paylaÅımlı makinemize durumu bildirecek ve çıktı bekleyen
kullanıcılara "
+"yazıcıdaki problemi çözmelerini söyleyecek bir Åekilde deÄiÅtirdik.
Tabi ki "
+"kullanıcılar, bir çıktı bekliyorlarsa ve yazıcıda sıkıÅma olduÄunu
"
+"biliyorlarsa, sonsuza kadar oturup beklemeyecek ve sorunu çözeceklerdi. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But at that point, we were completely stymied, because the software that ran "
+"that printer was not free software. It had come with the printer, and it "
+"was just a binary. We couldn't have the source code; Xerox wouldn't let us "
+"have the source code. So, despite our skill as programmers — after "
+"all, we had written our own timesharing system — we were completely "
+"helpless to add this feature to the printer software."
+msgstr ""
+"Ancak bu noktada tamamen felce uÄradık çünkü söz konusu yazıcıyı
çalıÅtıran "
+"yazılım özgür yazılım deÄildi. Söz konusu yazılım yazıcı ile
birlikte "
+"gelmiÅti ve yalnızca bir ikiliydi (binary). Kaynak kodunu alamamıÅtık; "
+"Xerox, kaynak kodunu bize vermemiÅti. Bu nedenle, programlayıcılar olarak "
+"yetenekli olmamıza raÄmen, ne de olsa kendi zaman paylaÅımlı sistemimizi
"
+"yazmıÅtık, bu özelliÄi yazıcı yazılımına ekleme konusunda
tamamıyla "
+"çaresizdik. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And we just had to suffer with waiting. It would take an hour or two to get "
+"your printout because the machine would be jammed most of the time. And "
+"only once in a while — you'd wait an hour figuring “I know it's "
+"going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and go collect my printout,” and "
+"then you'd see that it had been jammed the whole time, and in fact, nobody "
+"else had fixed it. So you'd fix it and you'd go wait another half hour. "
+"Then, you'd come back, and you'd see it jammed again — before it got "
+"to your output. It would print three minutes and be jammed thirty minutes. "
+"Frustration up the whazzoo. But the thing that made it worse was knowing "
+"that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his own selfishness, was "
+"blocking us, obstructing us from improving the software. So, of course, we "
+"felt some resentment."
+msgstr ""
+"Ve beklemek zorundaydık. Ãıktımızı almanız bir ya da iki saat
sürüyordu "
+"çünkü makine çoÄu zaman sıkıÅma yapıyordu. Bir saat bekleyip
âSıkıÅacaÄını "
+"biliyorum. Bir saat bekleyeceÄim ve çıktımı alacaÄımâ diyorduk ve
daha sonra "
+"tüm zaman boyunca sıkıÅmıŠolduÄunu ve gerçekte baÅka kimsenin tamir
"
+"etmediÄini gördük. Bu nedenle, biz tamir ettik ve yarım saat daha
bekledik. "
+"Daha sonra, geri döndük ve çıktı haline gelmeden önce yine
sıkıÅtıÄını "
+"gördük. Ãç dakika basma iÅlemi yapıp otuz dakika sıkıÅmaktaydı. Bu
durum "
+"hayal kırıklıÄı yarattı. Ancak daha kötüsü, tamir edebileceÄimizi
biliyor "
+"olmamızdı ancak kendi bencilliÄi için baÅka birileri, yazılımı "
+"geliÅtirmemizi önleyerek bizi engellemekteydi. Bu nedenle tabi ki bir
miktar "
+"küskünlük hissettik."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a copy of "
+"that software. So I was visiting there later, so I went to his office and I "
+"said, “Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of the printer source "
+"code?” And he said “No, I promised not to give you a copy."
+"” <i>[Laughter]</i> I was stunned. I was so — I was angry, and "
+"I had no idea how I could do justice to it. All I could think of was to "
+"turn around on my heel and walk out of his room. Maybe I slammed the door. "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> And I thought about it later on, because I realized that I "
+"was seeing not just an isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was "
+"important and affected a lot of people."
+msgstr ""
+"Ve daha sonra Carneige Mellon Ãniversitesiânden birilerinin söz konusu "
+"yazılımın bir kopyasını aldıÄını duydum. Ãniversiteyi ziyaret
ediyordum, bu "
+"nedenle ilgili kimsenin ofisine gittim ve dedim ki: âMerhaba, ben
MITâdenim. "
+"Yazıcı kaynak kodunun bir kopyasını alabilir miyim?â O da bana dedi ki:
"
+"âHayır, kimseye kopya vermemeye söz verdim.â <i>[Dinleyiciler
güler]</i> "
+"ÅaÅırmıÅtım. Aynı zamanda da kızmıÅtım ve nasıl adil olacaÄıma
iliÅkin "
+"hiçbir fikrim kalmamıÅtı. Belki de kapıyı çarptım. <i>[Dinleyiciler
güler]</"
+"i> Ve daha sonra da bu konuyu düÅündüm çünkü yalnızca soyutlanmıÅ
bir olay "
+"deÄil ayrıca önemli olan ve çok sayıda kimseyi etkileyen sosyal bir
fenomen "
+"görmekte olduÄumu fark ettim."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"This was — for me — I was lucky, I only got a taste of it, but "
+"other people had to live in this all the time. So I thought about it at "
+"length. See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with us — his "
+"colleagues at MIT. He had betrayed us. But he didn't just do it to us. "
+"Chances are he did it to you too. <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> "
+"And I think, mostly likely, he did it to you too. <i>[Pointing at another "
+"member of audience.] [Laughter]</i> And he probably did it to you as well. "
+"<i>[Pointing to third member of audience.]</i> He probably did it to most of "
+"the people here in this room — except a few, maybe, who weren't born "
+"yet in 1980. Because he had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about "
+"the entire population of the Planet Earth. He had signed a non-disclosure "
+"agreement."
+msgstr ""
+"Åanslıydım, çünkü bu durumu yalnızca bir kere yaÅadım. DiÄer
insanlar ise "
+"her zaman bu durumla yaÅamak zorundalar. Bu nedenle bu konuyu kapsamlı "
+"olarak düÅündüm. MITâdeki çalıÅma arkadaÅları bizimle iÅbirliÄi
yapmaktan "
+"kaçındı. Bize ihanet etti. Ama bunu yalnızca bize karÅı yapmadı. Bunu
size "
+"de yaptı <i>[Dinleyicilerden birini gösteriyor]</i>. Ve zannediyorum ki, "
+"bunu size de yaptı. <i>[BaÅka bir dinleyiciyi gösteriyor]</i>. <i>"
+"[Dinleyiciler gülüyor]</i> Ve bunu muhtemelen size de yaptı
<i>[Dinleyiciler "
+"arasında üçüncü bir dinleyiciyi gösteriyor]</i>. Bunu bu odadaki
insanların "
+"çoÄuna yaptı, belki çok azınıza yapmadı, onlar da zaten 1980âde
henüz "
+"doÄmamıŠolanlardır. Ãünkü Dünya gezegeninin tüm nüfusu ile
iÅbirliÄi "
+"yapmayı reddetmeye söz verdi. Bir gizlilik anlaÅması imzaladı. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, "
+"and it taught me an important lesson — a lesson that's important "
+"because most programmers never learn it. You see, this was my first "
+"encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was the victim. I, and my "
+"whole lab, were the victims. And the lesson it taught me was that non-"
+"disclosure agreements have victims. They're not innocent. They're not "
+"harmless. Most programmers first encounter a non-disclosure agreement when "
+"they're invited to sign one. And there's always some temptation — "
+"some goody they're going to get if they sign. So, they make up excuses. "
+"They say, “Well, he's never going to get a copy no matter what, so why "
+"shouldn't I join the conspiracy to deprive him?” They say, “This "
+"is the way it's always done. Who am I to go against it?” They say, "
+"“If I don't sign this, someone else will.” Various excuses to "
+"gag their consciences."
+msgstr ""
+"Åimdi bu benim bir gizlilik anlaÅmasıyla ilk doÄrudan karÅılaÅmamdı
ve bu "
+"bana önemli bir ders verdi, bu önemli bir dersti çünkü birçok
programcı bunu "
+"hiçbir zaman öÄrenmedi. Bu, benim bir gizlilik anlaÅmasıyla ilk "
+"karÅılaÅmamdı ve kurban bendim. Ben ve benim tüm laboratuarım
kurbandı. Ve "
+"bu bana gizlilik anlaÅmalarının kurbanlarının var olduÄunu gösterdi.
Masum "
+"deÄildiler. Zararsız deÄildiler. Birçok programcı bir gizlilik
anlaÅması "
+"imzalamaya davet edildiÄinde, ilk olarak bir gizlilik anlaÅmasıyla "
+"karÅılaÅmaktadır. Ve her zaman istek uyandırıcı bir Åey vardır â
bu "
+"anlaÅmayı imzalarlarsa bundan iyi bir sonuç elde edeceklerini
düÅünürler. Bu "
+"nedenle özürler oluÅtururlar. Åöyle derler: âNe olursa olsun bir kopya
"
+"alamayacak, bu nedenle onu yoksun bırakmak için niçin bir komploya "
+"katılayım?â Åöyle derler: âBu, bu iÅin her zaman yapıldıÄı
yoldur. Buna "
+"karÅı kime gideyim?â Åöyle derler: âBunu ben imzalamazsam baÅka biri
"
+"imzalayacak.â Vicdanlarını rahatlatmak için çeÅitli bahaneler
bulurlar."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But when somebody invited me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, my "
+"conscience was already sensitized. It remembered how angry I had been, when "
+"somebody promised not to help me and my whole lab solve our problem. And I "
+"couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to somebody else who had "
+"never done me any harm. You know, if somebody asked me to promise not to "
+"share some useful information with a hated enemy, I would have said yes. "
+"You know? If somebody's done something bad, he deserves it. But, strangers "
+"— they haven't done me any harm. How could they deserve that kind of "
+"mistreatment? You can't let yourself start treating just anybody and "
+"everybody badly. Then you become a predator on society. So I said, “"
+"Thank you very much for offering me this nice software package. But I can't "
+"accept it in good conscience, on the conditions you are demanding, so I will "
+"do without it. Thank you so much.” And so, I have never knowingly "
+"signed a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful technical information "
+"such as software."
+msgstr ""
+"Ama birileri beni bir gizlilik anlaÅması imzalamaya çaÄırdıÄında,
vicdanım "
+"zaten duyarlı hale gelmiÅti. Birisi bana yardım etmemeye söz verdiÄinde
ne "
+"kadar sinirlenmiÅ olduÄumu hatırladım ve laboratuvarım sorunumuzu
çözdü. Ve "
+"ben ise, bana hiç zarar vermemiÅ birine aynı Åeyi yapamazdım. Birileri "
+"benden nefret edilen bir düÅmanla bazı yararlı bilgileri paylaÅmamam
için "
+"söz vermemi isteseydi, evet derdim. Birileri kötü bir Åeyler yapmıÅsa,
bunu "
+"hak etmektedir. Ancak yabancılar â bana hiç zarar vermemiÅlerdir. Bu
gibi "
+"bir hatalı muameleyi nasıl hak edebilirler? Herhangi birine ve herkese
kötü "
+"davranmaya baÅlayamazsınız. O zaman toplumda yırtıcı bir hayvan haline "
+"gelirsiniz. Bu nedenle dedim ki: âBana bu güzel yazılım paketini
sunduÄunuz "
+"için çok teÅekkür ederim. Ama talep ettiÄiniz Åartlarda bu paketi kabul
"
+"edemem, bu paket olmaksızın çalıÅacaÄım. Ãok teÅekkür ederim.â Ve
böylece, "
+"yazılım gibi genel olarak yararlı teknik bilgi için bir gizlilik
anlaÅması "
+"imzalamadım."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now there are other kinds of information which raise different ethical "
+"issues. For instance, there's personal information. You know, if you "
+"wanted to talk with me about what was happening between you and your "
+"boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody — you know, I could "
+"keep — I could agree to keep that a secret for you, because that's not "
+"generally useful technical information. At least, it's probably not "
+"generally useful. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Åimdi farklı etik hususlara iliÅkin baÅka bilgi tipleri vardır.
ÃrneÄin, "
+"kiÅisel bilgiler vardır. Kendinizle erkek arkadaÅınız arasındaki bir
olay "
+"hakkında konuÅmak isterseniz ve benden bunu kimseye söylemememi
isterseniz, "
+"bunu sizin için sır olarak saklarım çünkü bu gerçekte yararlı bir
teknik "
+"bilgi deÄildir. En azından, muhtemelen genel olarak yararlı deÄildir <i>"
+"[dinleyiciler güler]</i>. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"There is a small chance — and it's a possibility though — that "
+"you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex technique, <i>[Laughter]</i> "
+"and I would then feel a moral duty <i>[Laughter]</i> to pass it onto the "
+"rest of humanity, so that everyone could get the benefit of it. So, I'd "
+"have to put a proviso in that promise, you know? If it's just details about "
+"who wants this, and who's angry at whom, and things like that — soap "
+"opera — that I can keep private for you, but something that humanity "
+"could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't withhold. You see, the "
+"purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information for "
+"humanity to help people live their lives better. If we promise to withhold "
+"that information — if we keep it secret — then we are betraying "
+"the mission of our field. And this, I decided I shouldn't do."
+msgstr ""
+"Bana harika yeni bir seks tekniÄi anlatma olasılıÄınız da vardır "
+"[dinleyiciler güler] ve o zaman bunu toplumun geri kalanına aktarmayı
görev "
+"bilirim <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i>, böylece tüm insanlar bundan
faydalanır. "
+"Bu nedenle, söz konusu söze bir Åart koymalıyım. Kim neyi ister, kim
kime "
+"kızgındır ve bu gibi pembe dizi hususları hakkında sizin için gizli "
+"tutabileceÄim ayrıntılarsa; ancak toplumun bildiÄi için çok
faydalandıÄı bir "
+"husussa, o zaman bu bilgileri saklı tutmamalıyım. Görüyorsunuz, bilimin
ve "
+"teknolojinin hedefi, insanların hayatlarını daha iyi yaÅamaları için "
+"insanlık için yararlı bilgiler geliÅtirmektir. Söz konusu bilgileri
saklı "
+"tutmaya söz verirsek â gizli tutarsak â o zaman alanımızın misyonuna
ihanet "
+"ederiz. Ve bunu yapmamaya karar verdim."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, meanwhile my community had collapsed, and that was collapsing, and that "
+"left me in a bad situation. You see, the whole Incompatible Timesharing "
+"System was obsolete, because the PDP-10 was obsolete, and so there was no "
+"way that I could continue working as an operating system developer the way "
+"that I had been doing it. That depended on being part of the community "
+"using the community software and improving it. That no longer was a "
+"possibility, and that gave me a moral dilemma. What was I going to do? "
+"Because the most obvious possibility meant to go against that decision I had "
+"made. The most obvious possibility was to adapt myself to the change in the "
+"world. To accept that things were different, and that I'd just have to give "
+"up those principles and start signing non-disclosure agreements for "
+"proprietary operating systems, and most likely writing proprietary software "
+"as well. But I realized that that way I could have fun coding, and I could "
+"make money — especially if I did it other than at MIT — but at "
+"the end, I'd have to look back at my career and say, “I've spent my "
+"life building walls to divide people,” and I would have been ashamed "
+"of my life."
+msgstr ""
+"Ancak bu arada topluluÄum çöktü ve bu da beni kötü bir duruma soktu. "
+"Görüyorsunuz, tüm Uyumlu olmayan Zaman PaylaÅımlı Sistem eskidi
çünkü PDP-10 "
+"eskiydi ve bu nedenle, eskiden yapmıŠolduÄum gibi bir iÅletim sistemi "
+"geliÅtiricisi olarak çalıÅmaya devam etmemin bir yolu yoktu. Bu,
topluluÄun "
+"yazılımını kullanmama ve geliÅtirmeme, baÅka bir deyiÅle topluluÄun
bir "
+"parçası olmama baÄlıydı. Bu artık bir ihtimal deÄildi ve bu da beni
törel "
+"bir ikileme soktu. Ne yapacaktım? Ãünkü en açık ihtimal, vermiÅ
olduÄum "
+"karara karÅı gelmek anlamına geliyordu. En açık ihtimal, dünyadaki
deÄiÅime "
+"kendimi uyarlamaktı. Bir Åeylerin farklı olduÄunu kabul etmem ve bu
ilkeleri "
+"bırakmam ve özel mülk iÅletim sistemleri için gizlilik anlaÅmaları "
+"imzalamaya baÅlamam ve muhtemelen özel mülk yazılım yazmam gerekiyordu. "
+"Ancak kod yazmaktan zevk aldıÄımı ve para kazanabileceÄimi â
özellikle MIT "
+"dıÅında yazarsam â ama sonunda kariyerimde geriye dönüp baktıÄımda,
"
+"âHayatımı insanlar arasında duvarlar örmek için harcadımâ
diyeceÄimi ve "
+"hayatımdan utanç duyacaÄımı fark ettim. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So I looked for another alternative, and there was an obvious one. I could "
+"leave the software field and do something else. Now I had no other special "
+"noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a waiter. <i>[Laughter]"
+"</i> Not at a fancy restaurant; they wouldn't hire me, <i>[Laughter]</i> but "
+"I could be a waiter somewhere. And many programmers, they say to me, “"
+"The people who hire programmers demand this, this and this. If I don't do "
+"those things, I'll starve.” It's literally the word they use. Well, "
+"you know, as a waiter, you're not going to starve. <i>[Laughter]</i> So, "
+"really, they're in no danger. But — and this is important, you see "
+"— because sometimes you can justify doing something that hurts other "
+"people by saying otherwise something worse is going to happen to me. You "
+"know, if you were <em>really</em> going to starve, you'd be justified in "
+"writing proprietary software. <i>[Laughter]</i> If somebody's pointing a "
+"gun at you, then I would say, it's forgivable. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, I had "
+"found a way that I could survive without doing something unethical, so that "
+"excuse was not available. So I realized, though, that being a waiter would "
+"be no fun for me, and it would be wasting my skills as an operating system "
+"developer. It would avoid misusing my skills. Developing proprietary "
+"software would be misusing my skills. Encouraging other people to live in "
+"the world of proprietary software would be misusing my skills. So it's "
+"better to waste them than misuse them, but it's still not really good."
+msgstr ""
+"Bu nedenle baÅka bir alternatif aradım ve açık bir alternatif vardı.
Yazılım "
+"alanını bırakıp baÅka bir Åeyler yapabilirdim. BaÅka bir özel kayda
deÄer "
+"yeteneÄe sahip deÄildim ancak bir garson olabileceÄimden emindim. <i>"
+"[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Ancak Åık bir restoranda çalıÅamazdım; beni
iÅe "
+"almazlardı <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> ancak baÅka bir yerlerde garson "
+"olabilirdim. Ve birçok programcı bana Åunu dedi: âProgramcıları iÅe
alan "
+"insanlar Åunu, Åunu ve Åunu talep etmektedir. Bu iÅleri yapmazsam, o
zaman "
+"açlıktan ölürüm.â Kullandıkları sözcükler böyleydi. Garson olarak
açlıktan "
+"ölmezsiniz. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Bu nedenle, gerçekte tehlikede "
+"deÄilsiniz. Ancak â ve bu önemlidir, görüyorsunuz â bazen diÄer
insanlara "
+"zarar veren bir Åey yaparsınız ve bunu yapmasaydım ben daha çok zarar "
+"görecektim diyerek kendinizi haklı çıkartırsınız. <em>Gerçekten</em>
de "
+"açlıktan ölseniz, özel mülk yazılım yazma konusunda haklısınızdır.
<i>"
+"[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Birileri size silah tutsa, o zaman affedilebilir "
+"bir iÅ yaptıÄınızı söyleyebilirim. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Ancak
etik "
+"olmayan bir Åeyler yapmayarak yaÅantımı sürdürmenin bir yolunu
bulmuÅtum, bu "
+"nedenle bir bahane yoktu. Ancak garsonluk yapmanın benim için eÄlenceli
bir "
+"iÅ olmayacaÄının farkına vardım, bir iÅletim sistemi geliÅtiricisi
olarak "
+"yeteneklerimi boÅa harcamama neden olacaktı. özel mülk yazılım
geliÅtirmek "
+"ise yeteneklerimi kötüye kullanmak olurdu. DiÄer insanları özel mülk
yazılım "
+"dünyasında yaÅamak için yüreklendirmek yeteneklerimi kötüye kullanmam "
+"anlamına gelirdi. Bu nedenle, yeteneklerimi kötüye kullanmak yerine
harcamak "
+"daha iyidir ancak hâlâ yine de gerçekten de iyi deÄildir. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So for those reasons, I decided to look for some other alternative. What "
+"can an operating system developer do that would actually improve the "
+"situation, make the world a better place? And I realized that an operating "
+"system developer was exactly what was needed. The problem, the dilemma, "
+"existed for me and for everyone else because all of the available operating "
+"systems for modern computers were proprietary. The free operating systems "
+"were for old, obsolete computers, right? So for the modern computers — "
+"if you wanted to get a modern computer and use it, you were forced into a "
+"proprietary operating system. So if an operating system developer wrote "
+"another operating system, and then said, “Everybody come and share "
+"this; you're welcome to this” — that would give everybody a way "
+"out of the dilemma, another alternative. So I realized that there was "
+"something I could do that would solve the problem. I had just the right "
+"skills to be able to do it. And it was the most useful thing I could "
+"possibly imagine that I'd be able to do with my life. And it was a problem "
+"that no one else was trying to solve. It was just sort of sitting there, "
+"getting worse, and nobody was there but me. So I felt, “I'm elected. "
+"I have to work on this. If not me, who?” So I decided I would develop "
+"a free operating system, or die trying … of old age, of course. <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Bu nedenlerden ötürü, baÅka bir alternatif aramaya karar verdim. Durumu "
+"gerçekten de geliÅtirecek olan bir iÅletim sistemi geliÅtiricisi
dünyayı "
+"daha iyi bir yer haline getirmek için ne yapabilir? Ve gerçekten de gerekli
"
+"olanın bir iÅletim sistemi geliÅtiricisi olduÄunu fark ettim. Problem ve "
+"ikilem benim için ve herkes için mevcuttu çünkü modern bilgisayarlara "
+"iliÅkin mevcut iÅletim sistemlerinin tümü özel mülkydi. Ãzgür
iÅletim "
+"sistemleri eski, zamanı geçmiÅ bilgisayarlar içindi, deÄil mi? Bu
nedenle "
+"modern bilgisayarlar için â modern bir bilgisayarı alıp kullanmak "
+"isterseniz, özel mülk bir iÅletim sistemi kullanmaya zorlanmaktaydınız.
Bu "
+"nedenle bir iÅletim sistemi geliÅtiricisi baÅka bir iÅletim sistemi yazar
ve "
+"daha sonra Åunu derse: âHerkes gelsin ve bunu paylaÅsın; hoÅ
geldinizâ â bu, "
+"herkese ikilemden bir çıkıŠyolu, baÅka bir alternatif saÄlayacaktır.
Bu "
+"nedenle, problemi çözebilecek bir Åeyler yapabileceÄimi fark ettim. Bunu "
+"yapmak için doÄru özelliklere sahiptim. Ve bu, hayatımla ilgili "
+"yapabileceÄimi hayal ettiÄim en yararlı Åeydi. Ve bu, baÅka hiç
kimsenin "
+"çözmeye çalıÅmadıÄı bir problemdi. Bu yalnızca orada oturmak ve
iÅlerin "
+"kötüye gitmesini seyretmekti ve orada benden baÅka hiç kimse yoktu. Bu "
+"nedenle Åöyle hissettim: âBen seçildim. Bu konu üzerinde çalıÅmam
lazım. Ben "
+"deÄilsem kim çalıÅacak ki?â Bu nedenle, özgür bir iÅletim sistemi "
+"geliÅtirirken ya da geliÅtirmeye çalıÅırken...yaÅlı bir halde tabi ki
ölmeye "
+"karar verdim. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i>"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, of course I had to decide what kind of operating system it should be. "
+"There are some technical design decisions to be made. I decided to make the "
+"system compatible with Unix for a number of reasons. First of all, I had "
+"just seen one operating system that I really loved become obsolete because "
+"it was written for one particular kind of computer. I didn't want that to "
+"happen again. We needed to have a portable system. Well, Unix was a "
+"portable system. So if I followed the design of Unix, I had a pretty good "
+"chance that I could make a system that would also be portable and workable. "
+"And furthermore, why <i>[Tape unclear]</i> be compatible with it in the "
+"details. The reason is, users hate incompatible changes. If I had just "
+"designed the system in my favorite way — which I would have loved "
+"doing, I'm sure — I would have produced something that was "
+"incompatible. You know, the details would be different. So, if I wrote the "
+"system, then the users would have said to me, “Well, this is very "
+"nice, but it's incompatible. It will be too much work to switch. We can't "
+"afford that much trouble just to use your system instead of Unix, so we'll "
+"stay with Unix,” they would have said."
+msgstr ""
+"Tabi ki, bunun nasıl bir iÅletim sistemi olması gerektiÄine karar vermem "
+"gerekiyordu. Bazı teknik tasarım kararlarının verilmesi gerekiyordu.
Belirli "
+"nedenlerden ötürü, sistemi Unix ile uyumlu bir sistem haline getirmeye
karar "
+"verdim. Ä°lk olarak, gerçekten de sevdiÄim bir iÅletim sisteminin
kullanılmaz "
+"hale geldiÄini gördüm çünkü bu iÅletim sistemi, belirli bir bilgisayar
tipi "
+"için yazılmıÅtı. Bu durumun yeniden meydana gelmesini istemedim.
TaÅınabilir "
+"bir sistemimizin olması gerekiyordu. Unix taÅınabilir bir sistemdi. Bu "
+"nedenle, Unixâin tasarımını izleseydim, taÅınabilir ve
çalıÅtırılabilir bir "
+"sistem oluÅturma Åansına sahip olabilirdim. Ve dahası, <i>[kayıt
anlaÅılır "
+"deÄil]</i> ayrıntıda niçin uyumlu bir sistem olmasın ki? Bunun nedeni, "
+"kullanıcıların, uyumlu olmayan deÄiÅikliklerden nefret etmesidir.
Sistemi en "
+"sevdiÄim Åekilde tasarımlamıŠolsaydım ki böyle yapmak isterdim,
eminim ki â "
+"uyumlu olmayan bir Åeyler üretmiÅ olurdum. Ayrıntılar farklı olurdu. Bu
"
+"nedenle sistemi yazsaydım, o zaman kullanıcılar bana Åunu diyeceklerdi:
âBu "
+"çok güzel, ancak uyumlu deÄil. GeçiÅ yapmak için çok fazla çalıÅma "
+"gerekiyor. Unix yerine sizin sisteminizi kullanmamız çok zorlayıcı, bu "
+"nedenle Unixâle çalıÅmaya devam edeceÄizâ."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, if I wanted to actually create a community where there would be people "
+"in it, people using this free system, and enjoying the benefits of liberty "
+"and cooperation, I had to make a system people would use, a system that they "
+"would find easy to switch to, that would not have an obstacle making it fail "
+"at the very beginning. Now, making the system upward compatible with Unix "
+"actually made all the immediate design decisions, because Unix consists of "
+"many pieces, and they communicate through interfaces that are more or less "
+"documented. So if you want to be compatible with Unix, you have to replace "
+"each piece, one by one, with a compatible piece. So the remaining design "
+"decisions are inside one piece, and they could be made later by whoever "
+"decides to write that piece. They didn't have to be made at the outset."
+msgstr ""
+"İçinde insanların, bu özgür sistemi kullanan ve özgürlüÄün ve
iÅbirliÄinin "
+"faydalarının tadını çıkaran insanların olduÄu bir topluluk
oluÅturmak "
+"isteseydim, insanların kullanacaÄı, insanların kolay bir Åekilde "
+"dönebilecekleri ve baÅlangıçta baÅarısız olması için bir engelin
olmadıÄı "
+"bir sistem yapmak isterdim. Åimdi ise, sistemi Unix ile uyumlu hale "
+"getirmek, tasarım kararlarının tümünü gerçekleÅtirmiÅtir çünkü
Unix, birçok "
+"parçadan oluÅmaktadır ve bu parçalar, oldukça iyi bir Åekilde
klavuzları "
+"yazılmıŠolan ara yüzler üzerinden haberleÅmektedir. Bu nedenle, Unix
ile "
+"uyumlu olmak isterseniz, her bir parçayı birer birer uyumlu bir parça ile "
+"deÄiÅtirmeniz gereklidir. Bu nedenle, kalan tasarım kararları bir
parçanın "
+"içindedir ve söz konusu parçayı kim yazmaya karar verirse, o kiÅi
tarafından "
+"gerçekleÅtirilebilir. BaÅlangıçta gerçekleÅtirilmeleri gerekmez. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So all we had to do to start work was find a name for the system. Now, we "
+"hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program, because "
+"thinking of people being amused by the name is half the fun of writing the "
+"program. <i>[Laughter]</i> And we had a tradition of recursive acronyms, to "
+"say that the program that you're writing is similar to some existing "
+"program. You can give it a recursive acronym name which says: this one's not "
+"the other. So, for instance, there were many Tico text editors in the '60's "
+"and '70's, and they were generally called something-or-other Tico. Then one "
+"clever hacker called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico — the first "
+"recursive acronym. In 1975, I developed the first Emacs text editor, and "
+"there were many imitations of Emacs, and a lot of them were called something-"
+"or-other Emacs, but one was called Fine, for Fine Is Not Emacs, and there "
+"was Sine, for Sine Is Not Emacs, and Eine for Ina Is Not Emacs, and MINCE "
+"for Mince Is Not Complete Emacs. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was a stripped down "
+"imitation. And then, Eine was almost completely rewritten, and the new "
+"version was called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"ÃalıÅmayı baÅlatmak için tüm yapmamız gereken sistem için bir isim
bulmaktı. "
+"Åimdi, biz hackerâlar, bir program için her zaman komik ya da haylaz bir "
+"isim ararız çünkü programın ismi ile eÄlenen insanları düÅünmek,
programı "
+"yazmanın eÄlencesinin yarısı kadardır. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Ve "
+"sözcüklerin baÅ harflerinden oluÅan yinelemeli isimleri verme geleneÄine
"
+"sahiptik, bu, yazmakta olduÄunuz programın, mevcut bir programa benzer bir "
+"isme sahip olduÄu anlamına gelmektedir. Programınıza, Åunu söyleyen ve "
+"sözcüklerin baÅ harflerinden oluÅan (akronim) yinelemeli bir isim "
+"verebilirsiniz: bu, diÄeri deÄil. Böylece örneÄin, 1960âlarda ve
1970âlerde "
+"çok sayıda Tico metin editörü vardı ve bunlar genellikle birileri ya da "
+"diÄerleri TECO olarak adlandırılmaktaydı. Daha sonra akıllı bir hacker
bunu "
+"Tint olarak adlandırdı çünkü Tint, TECO DeÄildi â ilk yinelemeli "
+"kısaltmaydı. 1975 yılında, ilk Emacs metin editörünü geliÅtirdim ve
Emacsâin "
+"birçok taklidi vardı ve bunların birçoÄu biri ya da baÅka Emacs olarak "
+"adlandırıldı ancak biri Fine olarak adlandırıldı, çünkü Fine Emacs
DeÄildi "
+"ve Sine vardı çünkü Sine Emacs DeÄildi ve Eine, çünkü Eine Emacs
deÄildi ve "
+"MINCE çünkü Mince Tamamen Emacs DeÄildi. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> "
+"DaraltılmıŠbir taklit vardı. Ve Eine daha sonra tamamen yeniden
yazıldı ve "
+"yeni sürüm Zwei olarak adlandırıldı, BaÅlangıçta Zwei Eine Ä°di. <i>"
+"[dinleyiciler güler]</i>"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So I looked for a recursive acronym for Something is not Unix. And I tried "
+"all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word. <i>[Laughter]</"
+"i> Hmm, try another way. I made a contraction. That way I could have a "
+"three-letter acronym, for Something's not Unix. And I tried letters, and I "
+"came across the word “GNU” — the word “GNU” is "
+"the funniest word in the English language. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was it. "
+"Of course, the reason it's funny is that according to the dictionary, it's "
+"pronounced “new”. You see? And so that's why people use it for "
+"a lot of wordplay. Let me tell you, this is the name of an animal that "
+"lives in Africa. And the African pronunciation had a click sound in it. <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i> Maybe still does. And so, the European colonists, when they "
+"got there, they didn't bother learning to say this click sound. So they "
+"just left it out, and they wrote a “G” which meant “"
+"there's another sound that's supposed to be here which we are not "
+"pronouncing.” <i>[Laughter]</i> So, tonight I'm leaving for South "
+"Africa, and I have begged them, I hope they're going to find somebody who "
+"can teach me to pronounce click sounds, <i>[Laughter]</i> so that I'll know "
+"how to pronounce GNU the correct way, when it's the animal."
+msgstr ""
+"Bu nedenle, Bir Åeyler Unix deÄil (Somethingâs not Unix) için yinelemeli
bir "
+"akronim aradım. Ve 26 harfin tümünü denedim ve hiçbirinin bir sözcük "
+"oluÅturmadıÄını fark ettim. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Hım, baÅka
bir "
+"yoldan denemeliydim. Bir küçültmeye karar verdim. Bu Åekilde, Bir Åeyler
"
+"Unix deÄil için üç harfli bir akronimim oldu. Ve harfleri denedim ve
âGNUâ "
+"sözcüÄüyle karÅılaÅtım â âGNUâ sözcüÄü Ä°ngilizcedeki en
komik sözcüktür. <i>"
+"[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Bu oldu. Tabi ki, komik olmasının nedeni,
sözlüÄe "
+"göre âyeniâ olarak telaffuz edilmesiydi. Ä°nsanların onu kelime oyunu
için "
+"kullanmasının nedeni de buydu. Ayrıca size söyleyeyim ki, bu, Afrikaâda
"
+"yaÅayan bir hayvanın adıdır. Ve Afrika telaffuzu, bu isim üzerinde bir "
+"tıklama sesine sahipti. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Belki de hâlâ
öyledir. "
+"Ve böylece Avrupalı koloniciler, oraya vardıklarında, bu tıklama sesini "
+"söylemeyi öÄrenmekte sıkıntı çekmediler. Bu nedenle onu orada
bıraktılar ve "
+"bir âgâ yazdılar, bu da âtelaffuz etmediÄimiz baÅka bir sesin burada
olması "
+"gerektiÄiâ anlamına gelmekteydi. <i>[dinleyiciler güler] </i> Bu
nedenle, bu "
+"gece Güney Afrikaâya gidiyorum ve onlardan rica edeceÄim, umarım ki,
bana "
+"tıklama seslerini telaffuz etmeyi öÄretecek birilerini bulabilirler <i>"
+"[dinleyiciler güler]</i> böylece GNUâyu, bu bir hayvan adı olduÄunda,
doÄru "
+"Åekilde telaffuz etmeyi öÄreneceÄim."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is “"
+"guh-NEW” — pronounce the hard “G”. If you talk "
+"about the “new” operating system, you'll get people very "
+"confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years now, so it is not "
+"new any more. <i>[Laughter]</i> But it still is, and always will be, GNU "
+"— no matter how many people call it Linux by mistake. <i>[Laughter]</"
+"i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Ancak bu sistemimizin adı olduÄunda, doÄru telaffuz âguh-NEWâ dir,
sert "
+"âgâyi telaffuz edin. âYeniâ iÅletim sistemi hakkında
konuÅuyorsanız, "
+"insanların kafasını karıÅtıracaksınız çünkü halen bu konu
hakkında 17 yıldır "
+"çalıÅıyoruz, yani bu konu artık yeni deÄil. <i>[dinleyiciler
güler]</i> "
+"Ancak yine de yenidir ve her zaman da öyle olacaktır, GNU â kaç tane
insan "
+"yanlıÅlıkla onu Linux olarak adlandırırsa adlandırsın.
<i>[dinleyiciler "
+"güler]</i>"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces of GNU. "
+"They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities though. And, at "
+"the time, I thought we would write all these pieces, and make an entire GNU "
+"system, and then we'd say, “Come and get it”, and people would "
+"start to use it. That's not what happened. The first pieces I wrote were "
+"just equally good replacements, with fewer bugs for some pieces of Unix, but "
+"they weren't tremendously exciting. Nobody particularly wanted to get them "
+"and install them. But then, in September 1984, I started writing GNU Emacs, "
+"which was my second implementation of Emacs, and by early 1985, it was "
+"working. I could use it for all my editing, which was a big relief, because "
+"I had no intention of learning to use VI, the Unix editor. <i>[Laughter]</i> "
+"So, until that time, I did my editing on some other machine, and saved the "
+"files through the network, so that I could test them. But when GNU Emacs "
+"was running well enough for me to use it, it was also — other people "
+"wanted to use it too."
+msgstr ""
+"Bu nedenle, 1984 yılının Ocak ayında GNUânun parçalarını yazmak
için "
+"MITâdeki iÅimden ayrıldım1. Ancak imkânlarını kullanmama izin verecek
kadar "
+"kibardılar. Bu arada, tüm parçaları yazacaÄımızı ve komple bir GNU
sistemi "
+"yapabileceÄimizi düÅündüm ve daha sonra Åunu diyecektik: âGelin ve
alınâ ve "
+"insanlar, GNUâyu kullanmaya baÅlayacaklardı. Ancak durum böyle olmadı. "
+"YazdıÄım ilk parçalar, Unixâin bazı parçalarının yerine eÅit
derecede iyi "
+"bir Åekilde geçmekteydiler ve daha az hataya sahiptiler ancak ciddi
ölçüde "
+"heyecan verici deÄildiler. Hiç kimse özellikle onları alıp kurmak "
+"istemiyordu. Ancak daha sonra 1984 yılının Eylül ayında GNU Emacsâi
yazmaya "
+"baÅladım, bu, Emacsâin ikinci implementasyonuydu ve 1985âin
baÅlarında, "
+"çalıÅıyordu. Tüm düzenleme iÅlemlerim için GNU Emacsâı
kullanabiliyordum, "
+"bu, büyük bir rahatlamaydı çünkü Unix editörü olan viâyı
öÄrenmeye hiç "
+"niyetim yoktu. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Bu nedenle, o zamana kadar, "
+"düzenleme iÅlemlerimi baÅka bir makinede yaptım ve dosyaları network "
+"üzerinden kaydettim, böylece dosyaları test edebiliyordum. Ancak GNU Emacs
"
+"benim kullanabilmem için yeterince iyi bir Åekilde çalıÅtıÄında,
diÄer "
+"insanlar da onu kullanmak istemiÅtir."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So I had to work out the details of distribution. Of course, I put a copy "
+"in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people who were on the "
+"net They could then just pull over a tar file, but a lot of programmers then "
+"even were not on the net in 1985. They were sending me emails saying “"
+"How can I get a copy?” I had to decide what I would answer them. "
+"Well, I could have said, I want to spend my time writing more GNU software, "
+"not writing tapes, so please find a friend who's on the internet and who is "
+"willing to download it and put it on a tape for you. And I'm sure people "
+"would have found some friends, sooner or later, you know. They would have "
+"got copies. But I had no job. In fact, I've never had a job since quitting "
+"MIT in January 1984. So, I was looking for some way I could make money "
+"through my work on free software, and therefore I started a free software "
+"business. I announced, “Send me $150 dollars, and I'll mail you a "
+"tape of Emacs.” And the orders began dribbling in. By the middle of "
+"the year they were trickling in."
+msgstr ""
+"Bu nedenle, daÄıtımın ayrıntılarını çalıÅmam gerekti. Tabi ki,
yazarı "
+"bilinmeyen FTP dizinine bir kopya koydum ve nette olan insanlar için bu iyi "
+"bir durumdu â bir tar dosyasını taÅıyabiliyorlardı ancak 1985
yılında nette "
+"çok sayıda programcı yoktu. âBir kopyasını nasıl temin edebilirim?â
diyen e-"
+"postalar gönderiyorlardı. Onları nasıl yanıtlayacaÄıma karar
vermeliydim. "
+"Åunu diyebilirdim: âZamanımı daha fazla GNU yazılımı yazarak harcamak
"
+"istiyorum, bant yazarak zaman kaybetmek istemiyorum, bu nedenle Ä°nternette "
+"olan ve yazılımı indirmek isteyen ve sizin için bir banda koyacak olan
bir "
+"arkadaÅ bulun,â ve eminim ki, er ya da geç insanlar birtakım arkadaÅlar
"
+"bulacaktı. Kopyaları alacaklardı. Ancak bir taraftan da iÅsizdim.
Gerçekte, "
+"1984 yılının Ocak ayında MITâden ayrıldıÄımdan beri iÅsizdim. Bu
nedenle, "
+"özgür yazılım üzerindeki çalıÅmam sayesinde para kazanmanın bir
yolunu "
+"aramaya baÅladım ve böylece bir özgür yazılım iÅine baÅladım. Åu
bildiride "
+"bulundum: âBana 150 dolar gönderin ve ben de size Emacsâın bandını "
+"yollayayım.â Ve sipariÅler gelmeye baÅladı. Yılın ortası itibariyle "
+"sipariÅler arttı."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month. And, if necessary, I could have lived "
+"on just that, because I've always lived cheaply. I live like a student, "
+"basically. And I like that, because it means that money is not telling me "
+"what to do. I can do what I think is important for me to do. It freed me "
+"to do what seemed worth doing. So make a real effort to avoid getting "
+"sucked into all the expensive lifestyle habits of typical Americans. "
+"Because if you do that, then people with the money will dictate what you do "
+"with your life. You won't be able to do what's really important to you."
+msgstr ""
+"Ayda 8 ilâ 10 arasında sipariŠalıyordum. Ve gerekli olursa, bu parayla "
+"geçinebilirdim çünkü her zaman az parayla yaÅamaya alıÅıktım. Temel
olarak "
+"bir öÄrenci gibi yaÅıyorum. Ve bunu seviyorum çünkü bu, paranın bana
ne "
+"yapmam gerektiÄini söylemediÄi anlamına gelmektedir. Benim için neyin
önemli "
+"olduÄunu düÅünüyorsam onu yapabilirim. Bu, yapılmaya deÄer Åeyleri
yapmam "
+"konusunda beni özgür kıldı. Tipik Amerikalıların pahalı yaÅam "
+"alıÅkanlıklarına gömülmemi önlemek için gerçek bir çaba gösterdim.
Ãünkü "
+"pahalı yaÅarsanız (50), o zaman parası olan insanlar hayatınızla ilgili
"
+"olarak ne yapmanız gerektiÄini zorla kabul ettirir. Sizin için gerçekten
de "
+"önemli olan Åeyi yapamazsınız. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, “What do you mean it's "
+"free software if it costs $150 dollars?” <i>[Laughter]</i> Well, the "
+"reason they asked this was that they were confused by the multiple meanings "
+"of the English word “free”. One meaning refers to price, and "
+"another meaning refers to freedom. When I speak of free software, I'm "
+"referring to freedom, not price. So think of free speech, not free beer. "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many years of my life to "
+"making sure programmers got less money. That's not my goal. I'm a "
+"programmer and I don't mind getting money myself. I won't dedicate my whole "
+"life to getting it, but I don't mind getting it. And I'm not — and "
+"therefore, ethics is the same for everyone. I'm not against some other "
+"programmer getting money either. I don't want prices to be low. That's not "
+"the issue at all. The issue is freedom. Freedom for everyone who's using "
+"software, whether that person be a programmer or not."
+msgstr ""
+"Bu iyiydi ancak insanlar bana Åunu sormaktaydı: âBu yazılım 150 dolar "
+"tutuyorsa, nasıl özgür yazılım olur?â <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i>
Bunu "
+"sormalarının nedeni, Ä°ngilizcedeki âfree (özgür - ücretsiz)â
sözcüÄünün "
+"çeÅitli anlamlarıyla kafalarının karıÅmasıydı. Bir anlamı fiyata ve
diÄer "
+"anlamı özgürlüÄe atıf yapmaktadır. Ãzgür yazılım dediÄimde,
özgürlükten "
+"bahsediyorum paradan deÄil. Ãzgür konuÅmayı düÅünün, ücretsiz
birayı deÄil. "
+"<i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Åimdi yani, hayatımın bu kadar çok yılını
"
+"programcıların daha az para kazanmasını saÄlamaya adamadım. Hedefim bu "
+"deÄil. Ben bir programcıyım ve para kazanmaya çok önem vermiyorum. Tüm "
+"ömrümü para kazanmaya adamayacaÄım, para kazanmayı kafama takmıyorum.
Ancak "
+"â ahlak kuralları herkes için aynı olduÄundan â para kazanan baÅka "
+"programcılara karÅı deÄilim. Ãcretlerin düÅük olmasını istemiyorum.
Ãnemli "
+"olan konu bu deÄil. Burada önemli olan konu özgürlük. Kullanan kiÅi "
+"programcı olsun olmasın, yazılımı kullanan herkes için özgürlük."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So at this point I should give you the definition of free software. I "
+"better get to some real details, you see, because just saying “I "
+"believe in freedom” is vacuous. There's so many different freedoms "
+"you could believe in, and they conflict with each other, so the real "
+"political question is: Which are the important freedoms, the freedoms that "
+"we must make sure everybody has?"
+msgstr ""
+"Bu noktada size özgür yazılımın tanımını vermeliyim. En iyisi bazı
gerçek "
+"ayrıntılara gireyim çünkü yalnızca âözgürlüÄe inanıyorumâ
demek saçmadır. "
+"Ä°nanabileceÄiniz birçok farklı özgürlük mevcuttur ve bunlar birbiriyle
"
+"çatıÅmaktadır, bu nedenle, gerçek politik soru Åudur: Ãnemli
özgürlükler "
+"nelerdir, herkesin sahip olduÄundan emin olduÄumuz özgürlükler midir?"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And now, I will give my answer to that question for the particular area of "
+"using software. A program is free software for you, a particular user, if "
+"you have the following freedoms:"
+msgstr ""
+"Åimdi, yazılımın kullanılmasına iliÅkin belirli alan için söz konusu
soruya "
+"iliÅkin cevabı vereceÄim. AÅaÄıdaki özgürlüklere sahipseniz, bir
program "
+"sizin için âözgür yazılımâdır:"
+
+# type: Content of: <ul><li>
+#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
+msgid ""
+"First, Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the program for any purpose, any "
+"way you like."
+msgstr ""
+"Ä°lk olarak, Ãzgürlük Sıfır, programı istediÄiniz amaç için,
istediÄiniz "
+"Åekilde çalıÅtırabilme özgürlüÄüdür."
+
+# type: Content of: <ul><li>
+#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the program to suit "
+"your needs."
+msgstr ""
+"Ãzgürlük Bir, programı ihtiyaçlarınıza uygun olacak Åekilde
deÄiÅtirebilme "
+"özgürlüÄüdür."
+
+# type: Content of: <ul><li>
+#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing copies of "
+"the program."
+msgstr ""
+"Ãzgürlük Ä°ki, programın kopyalarını daÄıtarak komÅunuza yardım
edebilme "
+"özgürlüÄüdür."
+
+# type: Content of: <ul><li>
+#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
+msgid ""
+"And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by publishing "
+"an improved version so others can get the benefit of your work."
+msgstr ""
+"Ve son olarak Ãzgürlük Ãç, geliÅmiÅ sürümü yayınlayarak
topluluÄunuzu "
+"oluÅturma özgürlüÄüdür, böylece baÅkaları da çalıÅmalarınızdan
"
+"faydalanabilir."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software, for you "
+"— and that's crucial. That's why I phrase it that way. I'll explain "
+"why later, when I talk about the GNU General Public License, but right now "
+"I'm explaining what free software means, which is a more basic question."
+msgstr ""
+"Bu özgürlüklerin tümüne sahipseniz, program sizin için özgür
yazılımdır â ve "
+"bu önemlidir. Bunu bu Åekilde ifade etmemin nedeni budur. Bunun nedenini "
+"daha sonra, GNU Genel Kamu Lisansı hakkında konuÅtuÄumda
açıklayacaÄım ama "
+"Åimdi özgür yazılımın ne olduÄunu açıklayacaÄım, bu, çok daha
temel bir "
+"sorudur."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, Freedom Zero's pretty obvious. If you're not even allowed to run the "
+"program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive program. But as it "
+"happens, most programs will at least give you Freedom Zero. And Freedom "
+"Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of Freedoms One, Two, and Three "
+"— that's the way that copyright law works. So the freedoms that "
+"distinguish free software from typical software are Freedoms One, Two, and "
+"Three, so I'll say more about them and why they are important."
+msgstr ""
+"Ãzgürlük Sıfır oldukça açıktır. Programı istediÄiniz herhangi bir
Åekilde "
+"çalıÅtırmanıza izin verilmezse, bu, oldukça kötü kısıtlayıcı bir
programdır. "
+"Ancak gerçekte, birçok program size en azından Ãzgürlük Sıfırı "
+"saÄlayacaktır. Ve Ãzgürlük Bir, Ä°ki ve Ãçün bir sonucu olarak yasal
biçimde "
+"Ãzgürlük Sıfır bu özgürlükleri izler â telif hakkı kanununun
çalıÅma biçimi "
+"budur. Ãzgür yazılımı tipik yazılımdan ayıran özgürlükler
Ãzgürlük Bir, Ä°ki "
+"ve Ãçtür, bu nedenle bu özgürlükleri ve niçin önemli olduklarını "
+"açıklayacaÄım."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the software to suit "
+"your needs. This could mean fixing bugs. It could mean adding new "
+"features. It could mean porting it to a different computer system. It "
+"could mean translating all the error messages into Navajo. Any change you "
+"want to make, you should be free to make."
+msgstr ""
+"Ãzgürlük Bir, programı ihtiyaçlarınıza uygun olacak Åekilde
deÄiÅtirebilme "
+"özgürlüÄüdür. Bu özgürlük, hataların ayıklanması anlamına
gelebilir. Yeni "
+"özelliklerin eklenmesi anlamına da gelebilir. Tüm hata mesajlarının "
+"Navajoâya dönüÅtürülmesi anlamına gelebilir. Herhangi bir
deÄiÅiklik yapmak "
+"isterseniz, söz konusu deÄiÅikliÄi özgürce yapabilmelisiniz. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, it's obvious that professional programmers can make use of this freedom "
+"very effectively, but not just them. Anybody of reasonable intelligence can "
+"learn a little programming. You know, there are hard jobs, and there are "
+"easy jobs, and most people are not going to learn enough to do hard jobs. "
+"But lots of people can learn enough to do easy jobs, just the way, you know, "
+"50 years ago, lots and lots of American men learned to repair cars, which is "
+"what enabled the U.S. to have a motorized army in World War II and win. So, "
+"very important, having lots of people tinkering."
+msgstr ""
+"Åimdi, profesyonel programcılar bu özgürlüÄü çok etkin bir Åekilde "
+"kullanabilir ancak profesyonel programcılar yalnızca bu özgürlüÄü
deÄil, tüm "
+"özgürlükleri etkin bir Åekilde kullanabilir. Akıllı bir kimse biraz "
+"programlama öÄrenebilir. Zor iÅler vardır ve kolay iÅler vardır ve
çoÄu "
+"insan, zor iÅleri yapmaya yetecek kadar bilgi öÄrenmeyecektir. Ancak
birçok "
+"insan, 50 yıl önce olduÄu gibi, kolay iÅleri yapmaya yetecek kadar bilgi "
+"öÄrenebilir, çok sayıda Amerikalı erkek, araba tamir etmeyi
öÄrenmiÅtir, bu "
+"durum da, ABD.ânin 2. Dünya SavaÅında motorize bir orduya sahip
olmasını ve "
+"savaÅı kazanmasını saÄlamıÅtır. Bu tip insanlara sahip olmak çok
önemlidir. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And if you are a people person, and you really don't want to learn "
+"technology at all, that probably means that you have a lot of friends, and "
+"you're good at getting them to owe you favors. <i>[Laughter]</i> Some of "
+"them are probably programmers. So you can ask one of your programmer "
+"friends. “Would you please change this for me? Add this feature?"
+"” So, lots of people can benefit from it."
+msgstr ""
+"Sosyal bir insansanız ve aslında teknolojiye hiç merakınız yoksa, bu
durum "
+"muhtemelen çok sayıda arkadaÅınızın olduÄu ve kendinize iyilik
yaptırmak "
+"konusunda iyi olduÄunuz anlamına gelmektedir. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i>
Bu "
+"arkadaÅlardan bazıları muhtemelen programcılardır. Böylece
programlayıcı "
+"arkadaÅlarınızdan birine sorabilirsiniz. âLütfen bunu benim için
deÄiÅtirir "
+"misin? Bu özelliÄi ekler misin?â Böylece, çok sayıda insan programdan "
+"faydalanabilir."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, if you don't have this freedom, it causes practical, material harm to "
+"society. It makes you a prisoner of your software. I explained what that "
+"was like with regard to the laser printer. You know, it worked badly for "
+"us, and we couldn't fix it, because we were prisoners of our software."
+msgstr ""
+"Åimdi, bu özgürlüÄe sahip deÄilseniz, bu, toplum için pratik ve maddi "
+"kayıplara neden olur. Sizi, programınızın bir kölesi haline getirir.
Lazer "
+"yazıcısına göre bunun nasıl bir Åey olduÄunu açıklamıÅtım. Bu,
bizim için "
+"kötü bir Åekilde çalıÅmıÅtır ve bu sorunu gideremezdik çünkü
yazılımımızın "
+"kölesiydik."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But it also affects people's morale. You know if the computer is constantly "
+"frustrating to use, and people are using it, their lives are going to be "
+"frustrating, and if they're using it in their jobs, their jobs are going to "
+"be frustrating; they're going to hate their jobs. And you know, people "
+"protect themselves from frustration by deciding not to care. So you end up "
+"with people whose attitude is, “Well, I showed up for work today. "
+"That's all I have to do. If I can't make progress, that's not my problem; "
+"that's the boss's problem.” And when this happens, it's bad for those "
+"people, and it's bad for society as a whole. That's Freedom One, the "
+"freedom to help yourself."
+msgstr ""
+"Ama ayrıca bu durum, insanların moralini de etkilemektedir. Bilgisayarın "
+"kullanılması sürekli olarak hayal kırıklıÄına uÄratıcı bir durum "
+"oluÅturuyorsa ve insanlar onu kullanıyorsa, yaÅamları da hayal
kırıklıÄı "
+"içinde olacaktır ve bunu iÅlerinde kullanıyorlarsa, iÅleri de onları
hayal "
+"kırıklıÄına uÄratacaktır ve iÅlerinden nefret edeceklerdir. Ve
biliyorsunuz, "
+"insanlar bir konu hakkında hayal kırıklıÄına uÄramamak için, o konuya
önem "
+"vermemeyi tercih eder. Böylece yaklaÅımları Åu Åekilde olan insanlarla "
+"karÅılaÅırsınız: âBugün iÅimle uÄraÅtım. Tüm yapmam gereken de
buydu. "
+"Ä°lerleme kaydedemezsem, bu benim problemim deÄildir; bu, patronumun "
+"problemidir.â Ve bu durum meydana geldiÄinde, bu, bu insanlar için
kötüdür "
+"ve bu, toplumun bütünü için kötüdür. Bu, Ãzgürlük Birdir, kendinize
yardım "
+"etme özgürlüÄüdür. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing copies of "
+"the program. Now, for beings that can think and learn, sharing useful "
+"knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship. When these beings use "
+"computers, this act of friendship takes the form of sharing software. "
+"Friends share with each other. Friends help each other. This is the nature "
+"of friendship. And, in fact, this spirit of goodwill — the spirit of "
+"helping your neighbor, voluntarily — is society's most important "
+"resource. It makes the difference between a livable society and a dog-eat-"
+"dog jungle. Its importance has been recognized by the world's major "
+"religions for thousands of years, and they explicitly try to encourage this "
+"attitude."
+msgstr ""
+"Ãzgürlük Ä°ki, programınızın kopyalarını daÄıtarak komÅunuza
yardım etme "
+"özgürlüÄünüzdür. Åimdi, düÅünebilen ve öÄrenebilen canlılar
için, yararlı "
+"bilginin paylaÅılması önemli bir arkadaÅlık iÅlevidir. Bu canlılar "
+"bilgisayarı kullandıkları zaman, bu arkadaÅlık iÅlevi yazılımın
paylaÅılması "
+"biçimini almaktadır. ArkadaÅlar birbirleriyle birçok Åeyi
paylaÅmaktadır. "
+"ArkadaÅlar birbirine yardım eder. Bu, arkadaÅlıÄın doÄasında vardır.
Ve "
+"aslında, bu iyi niyet ruhu â komÅunuza yardım etme ruhu, gönüllü
olarak â "
+"toplumun en önemli kaynaÄıdır. YaÅanabilir bir toplumla vahÅi bir
toplum "
+"arasındaki farkı oluÅturur. Binlerce yıldır dünyadaki büyük dinler "
+"tarafından paylaÅmanın önemi fark edilmiÅtir ve açık bir Åekilde bu "
+"davranıÅı yüreklendirmeye çalıÅmaktadırlar."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach us this "
+"attitude — the spirit of sharing — by having us do it. They "
+"figured if we did it, we'd learn. So they said, “If you bring candy "
+"to school, you can't keep it all for yourself; you have to share some with "
+"the other kids.” Teaching us, the society was set up to teach, this "
+"spirit of cooperation. And why do you have to do that? Because people are "
+"not totally cooperative. That's one part of human nature, and there are "
+"other parts of human nature. There are lots of parts of human nature. So, "
+"if you want a better society, you've got to work to encourage the spirit of "
+"sharing. You know, it'll never get to be 100%. That's understandable. "
+"People have to take care of themselves too. But if we make it somewhat "
+"bigger, we're all better off."
+msgstr ""
+"Anaokuluna giderken, öÄretmenlerimiz bize bu yaklaÅımı benimsetmeye "
+"çalıÅıyordu â paylaÅmamızı saÄlayarak paylaÅmanın ruhunu
benimsememizi "
+"istiyorlardı. PaylaÅırsak bunu öÄrenebileceÄimizi anlamıÅlardı. Bu
nedenle "
+"Åöyle söylemekteydiler: âOkula Åeker getirirseniz, hepsini kendiniz "
+"yememelisiniz; bir kısmını baÅka çocuklarla paylaÅmalısınız.â
Toplum, bu "
+"iÅbirliÄi ruhunu öÄretmek için kurulmuÅtu. Ve niçin bunu yapmanız "
+"gereklidir? Ãünkü insanların hepsi iÅbirliÄi yapma taraftarı
deÄildir. Bu, "
+"insan ruhunun bir parçasıdır ve insan ruhunun baÅka parçaları da
vardır. "
+"Ä°nsan doÄasının çok sayıda parçası vardır. Bu nedenle, daha iyi bir
toplum "
+"istiyorsanız, paylaÅma ruhunu cesaretlendirmek için çalıÅmanız
gereklidir. "
+"Bu, hiçbir zaman % 100 olamayacaktır. Bu, anlaÅılabilir bir durumdur. "
+"İnsanların kendilerine de özen göstermeleri gereklidir. Ancak bunu biraz "
+"daha büyütebilirsek, hepimiz daha iyi durumda olacaÄız. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Nowadays, according to the U.S. Government, teachers are supposed to do the "
+"exact opposite. “Oh, Johnny, you brought software to school. Well, "
+"don't share it. Oh no. Sharing is wrong. Sharing means you're a pirate."
+"”"
+msgstr ""
+"Bugünlerde, ABD hükümetine göre, öÄretmenler bunun tam tersini
yapmaktadır. "
+"âJohnny, yazılımı okula getirdin. PaylaÅma. Hayır. PaylaÅmak
yanlıÅtır. "
+"PaylaÅmak senin bir korsan olduÄun anlamına gelir.â"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"What do they mean when they say “pirate”? They're saying that "
+"helping your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship. <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+" âKorsanâ dediklerinde ne demek isterler? KomÅunuza yardım etmenin bir "
+"gemiye saldırmakla ahlaki açıdan eÅ deÄer olduÄunu söylerler. <i>"
+"[dinleyiciler güler]</i>"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"What would Buddha or Jesus say about that? Now, take your favorite religious "
+"leader. I don't know, maybe Manson would have said something different. <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i> Who knows what L. Ron Hubbard would say? But …"
+msgstr ""
+"Buda ya da Ä°sa bu konuda ne diyor? Åimdi en sevdiÄiniz dini lideri ele
alın. "
+"Bilmiyorum, belki de Manson farklı bir Åeyler söyler. <i>[dinleyiciler
güler]"
+"</i> L. Ron Hubbardâın ne söyleyeceÄini kim bilir ki? Ama …"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i>"
+msgstr "<strong>SORU</strong>: <i>[Ä°Åitilememektedir]</i>"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Of course, he's dead. But they don't admit "
+"that. What?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tabi ki, o ölmüÅtür. Ama bunu kabul etmezler. "
+"Nedir?"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: So are the others, also dead. <i>[Laughter] "
+"[Inaudible]</i> Charles Manson's also dead. <i>[Laughter]</i> They're dead, "
+"Jesus's dead, Buddha's dead…"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SORU</strong>:ÃlmüŠolan baÅkaları da vardır. <i>[dinleyiciler
güler]"
+"</i> <i>[Ä°Åitilememektedir]</i> Charles Manson da ölüdür.
<i>[dinleyiciler "
+"güler]</i> Onlar ölüdür, Ä°sa ölüdür, Buda ölüdür…"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, that's true. <i>[Laughter]</i> So I guess, "
+"in that regard, L. Ron Hubbard is no worse than the others. <i>[Laughter]</"
+"i> Anyway — <i>[Inaudible]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>:Evet, bu doÄru. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Bu "
+"nedenle tahmin ediyorum ki, bu anlamda, L. Ron Hubbard diÄerlerinden daha "
+"kötü deÄil. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Her neyse â
<i>[Ä°Åitilemez]</i>"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: L. Ron always used free software — it freed "
+"him from Zanu. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SORU</strong>:L. Ron her zaman özgür yazılım kullandı â bu,
onu "
+"Zanuâdan kurtardı. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i>"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Anyway, so, I think this is actually the most "
+"important reason why software should be free: We can't afford to pollute "
+"society's most important resource. It's true that it's not a physical "
+"resource like clean air and clean water. It's a psycho-social resource, but "
+"it's just as real for all that, and it makes a tremendous difference to our "
+"lives. You see, the actions we take influence the thoughts of other "
+"people. When we go around telling people, “Don't share with each "
+"other”, if they listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's "
+"not a good one. That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Her neyse, zannediyorum ki, bu, yazılımın özgür
"
+"olmasının gerekli olmasının en önemli nedenidir: toplumun en önemli "
+"kaynaÄını kirletemeyiz. Bunun temiz hava ve temiz su gibi fiziksel bir "
+"kaynak olmadıÄı doÄrudur. Psikososyal bir kaynaktır ancak tüm bunlar
için "
+"gerçektir ve hayatlarımızda büyük bir fark yaratmaktadır.
YaptıÄımız "
+"hareketler baÅka insanların düÅüncelerini etkilemektedir. Ä°nsanlara "
+"âBirbirinizle paylaÅmayınâ dersek ve onlar da bizi dinlerlerse, toplum "
+"üzerinde bir etkimiz olacaktır ve bu, iyi bir etki deÄildir. Bu,
Ãzgürlük "
+"Ä°kidir, komÅunuza yardım etme özgürlüÄünüzdür."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just cause "
+"this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes waste — "
+"practical, material harm. If the program has an owner, and the owner "
+"arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay in order to be able "
+"to use it, some people are going to say, “Never mind, I'll do without "
+"it.” And that's waste, deliberately inflicted waste. And the "
+"interesting thing about software, of course, is that fewer users doesn't "
+"mean you have to make less stuff. You know, if fewer people buy cars, you "
+"can make fewer cars. There's a saving there. There are resources to be "
+"allocated, or not allocated, into making cars. So that you can say that "
+"having a price on a car is a good thing. It prevents people from diverting "
+"lots of wasted resources into making cars that aren't really needed. But if "
+"each additional car used no resources, it wouldn't be doing any good saving "
+"the making of these cars. Well, for physical objects, of course, like cars, "
+"it is always going to take resources to make an additional one of them, each "
+"additional exemplar."
+msgstr ""
+"Bu arada, söz konusu özgürlüÄe sahip deÄilseniz, bu, yalnızca toplumun
"
+"psikososyal kaynaÄına zarar vermekle kalmaz ayrıca harcama uygulamalı,
maddi "
+"zarara da neden olur. Programın bir sahibi varsa ve bu sahip, kullanmak
için "
+"ödemesinin gerekli olduÄu gidiÅatı düzenlerse, bazı insanlar Åunu "
+"diyeceklerdir: âKafana takma, onsuz da yapabilirimâ. Ve bu boÅa
harcamadır, "
+"kasıtlı olarak boÅa harcamaya neden olmaktadır. Ve tabi ki yazılım "
+"hakkındaki ilginç Åey, daha az kullanıcının daha az malzeme
oluÅturmanız "
+"gerektiÄi anlamına gelmemesidir. Daha az sayıda insan araba satın
alırsa, "
+"daha az sayıda araba yapabilirsiniz. Burada bir tasarruf vardır. Araba "
+"yapımı için tahsis edilecek ya da tahsis edilmeyecek kaynaklar vardır. "
+"Böylece bir arabanın fiyatının olmasının iyi bir Åey olduÄunu "
+"söyleyebilirsiniz. Gerçekten de ihtiyaç duyulmayan arabaların yapılması
için "
+"kaynaklar harcanmamıŠolur. Ancak her bir ilâve araba hiçbir kaynaÄı "
+"kullanmasaydı, o zaman bu arabaların yapılmasından tasarruf
saÄlanmasının "
+"bir anlamı olmayacaktı. Arabalar gibi fiziksel nesneler için, ilâve "
+"nesneler, her bir numuneyi üretmek için kaynaklar kullanılacaktır."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But for software that's not true. Anybody can make another copy. And it's "
+"almost trivial to do it. It takes no resources, except a tiny bit of "
+"electricity. So there's nothing we can save, no resource we're going to "
+"allocate better by putting this financial disincentive on the use of the "
+"software. You often find people taking economic, the consequences of "
+"economic reasoning, based on premises that don't apply to software, and "
+"trying to transplant them from other areas of life where the premises may "
+"apply, and the conclusions may be valid. They just take the conclusions and "
+"assume that they're valid for software too, when the argument is based on "
+"nothing, in the case of software. The premises don't work in that case. It "
+"is very important to examine how you reach the conclusion, and what premises "
+"it depends on, to see where it might be valid. So, that's Freedom Two, the "
+"freedom to help your neighbor."
+msgstr ""
+"Ancak yazılım için bu durum doÄru deÄildir. Herhangi biri, baÅka bir
kopya "
+"oluÅturabilir. Ve bunun yapılması hemen hemen önemsizdir. Hiçbir
kaynaÄı "
+"gerektirmez, yalnızca çok azıcık elektrik gerektirir. Bu nedenle
tasarrufunu "
+"yapabileceÄimiz bir Åey yoktur, yazılımın kullanımı üzerindeki bu
finansal "
+"engelleyiciyi koyarak daha iyi tahsis edebileceÄimiz bir kaynak yoktur. "
+"İnsanların yazılıma uygulanmayan dayanak noktalarını esas alarak
çoÄunlukla "
+"ekonomik muhakemenin sonuçlarını deÄerlendirdiÄini ve dayanak
noktalarının "
+"uygulanabildiÄi hayatın baÅka alanlarından nakletmeye
çalıÅtıklarını fark "
+"edersiniz ve sonuçlar geçerli olabilir. Ä°ddia hiçbir Åeyi esas
almadıÄında "
+"ve yazılım söz konusu olduÄunda, sonuçları alırlar ve yazılım için
de "
+"geçerli olduÄunu varsayarlar. Dayanak noktaları bu durumda çalıÅmaz.
Nerede "
+"geçerli olabildiÄinin görülmesi için bu sonuca nasıl
ulaÅtıÄınızın ve hangi "
+"dayanak noktalarına baÄlı olduÄunun incelenmesi çok önemlidir. Bu
nedenle, "
+"bu Ãzgürlük Ä°kidir, komÅunuza yardım edebilme özgürlüÄünüzdür. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by publishing an "
+"improved version of the software. People used to say to me, “If the "
+"software's free, then nobody will get paid to work on it, so why should "
+"anybody work on it?” Well, of course, they were confusing the two "
+"meanings of free, so their reasoning was based on a misunderstanding. But, "
+"in any case, that was their theory. Today, we can compare that theory with "
+"empirical fact, and we find that hundreds of people are being paid to write "
+"free software, and over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers. We get lots of "
+"people working on free software, for various different motives."
+msgstr ""
+"Ãzgürlük Ãç, yazılımın geliÅmiÅ bir sürümünü yayınlayarak
kendi "
+"topluluÄunuzu oluÅturma özgürlüÄünüzdür. Ä°nsanlar bana Åunu
söylemekteydi: "
+"âYazılım özgür olursa, o zaman yazılım konusunda çalıÅmak için
kimse para "
+"almayacaktır, o zaman insanlar yazılım konusunda neden çalıÅsınlar?â
Tabi "
+"ki, özgür kelimesinin anlamını karıÅtırmaktadırlar, bu nedenle "
+"deÄerlendirmeleri bir yanlıŠanlamayı esas almaktadır. Ancak, her
durumda, "
+"bu, onların teorisidir. Bugün, teoriyi deneysel gerçekle
karÅılaÅtırabiliriz "
+"ve yüzlerce insana özgür yazılım yazmak için para ödenmekte olduÄu ve
"
+"100,000âden fazla insanın ise gönüllü olarak çalıÅtıÄı
gerçeÄini görürüz. "
+"Birçok farklı nedenle özgür yazılım üzerinde çalıÅan çok sayıda
insan vardır."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"When I first released GNU Emacs — the first piece of the GNU system "
+"that people actually wanted to use — and when it started having users, "
+"after a while, I got a message saying, “I think I saw a bug in the "
+"source code, and here's a fix.” And I got another message, “"
+"Here's code to add a new feature.” And another bug fix. And another "
+"new feature. And another, and another, and another, until they were pouring "
+"in on me so fast that just making use of all this help I was getting was a "
+"big job. Microsoft doesn't have this problem. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"GNU Emacsâı â insanların gerçekten de kullanmak istediÄi ilk GNU
sistem "
+"parçasıdır â ilk olarak yayınladıÄım zaman ve kullanıcıları
olmaya baÅladıÄı "
+"zaman, bir süre sonra, Åu gibi mesajlar aldım: âKaynak kodunda bir hata "
+"gördüm ve iÅte bu da çözümü.â Ve baÅka bir mesaj daha aldım,
âBu, yeni bir "
+"özellik ekleme kodu.â Ve baÅka bir hata düzeltmesi daha aldım. Ve
baÅka bir "
+"yeni özellik daha aldım. Ve daha da baÅka mesajlar geldi, o kadar çok
mesaj "
+"geldi ki, bu kadar çok yardımın kullanılması büyük bir iÅti.
Microsoftâun "
+"böyle bir problemi yoktur. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i>"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Eventually, people noted this phenomenon. You see, in the 1980's a lot of "
+"us thought that maybe free software wouldn't be as good as the non-free "
+"software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay people. And, of "
+"course, people like me, who value freedom and community said, “Well, "
+"we'll use the free software anyway.” It's worth making a little "
+"sacrifice in some mere technical convenience to have freedom. But what "
+"people began to note, around 1990 was that our software was actually "
+"better. It was more powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary "
+"alternatives."
+msgstr ""
+"Sonunda, insanlar bu fenomeni kaydetti. 1980âlerde, birçoÄumuz özgür "
+"yazılımın özgür olmayan yazılım kadar iyi olmayacaÄını düÅündü
çünkü "
+"insanlara ödeme yapmak için çok paramız olmayacaktı. Ve tabi ki benim
gibi "
+"özgürlüÄe ve topluma deÄer veren insanlar Åunu dedi: âÃzgür
yazılımı her "
+"Åekilde kullanacaÄız.â ÃzgürlüÄe sahip olmak için yalnızca
birtakım teknik "
+"elveriÅlilik konusunda biraz fedakarlık yapmaya deÄer. Ancak insanlar 1990
"
+"yılı civarında yazılımımızın gerçekte daha iyi olduÄunu söylemeye
baÅladı. "
+"Ãzgür yazılım, özel mülk alternatiflerinden daha güçlü ve
güvenilirdi. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific measurement of "
+"reliability of software. Here's what he did. He took several sets of "
+"comparable programs that did the same jobs — the exact same jobs "
+"— in different systems. Because there were certain basic Unix-like "
+"utilities. And the jobs that they did, we know, was all, more or less, "
+"imitating the same thing, or they were following the POSIX spec, so they "
+"were all the same in terms of what jobs they did, but they were maintained "
+"by different people, written separately. The code was different. So they "
+"said, OK, we'll take these programs and run them with random data, and "
+"measure how often they crash, or hang. So they measured it, and the most "
+"reliable set of programs was the GNU programs. All the commercial "
+"alternatives which were proprietary software were less reliable. So he "
+"published this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he did "
+"the same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same result. "
+"The GNU versions were the most reliable. People — you know there are "
+"cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system, because it's so "
+"reliable, and reliability is very important to them."
+msgstr ""
+"1990âların baÅında, birileri, yazılımın güvenilirliÄinin bilimsel
ölçümüne "
+"iliÅkin bir yol buldu. Ä°Åte Åimdi bahsedeceklerimi yaptı. Farklı
sistemlerde "
+"aynı iÅleri â tam olarak aynı iÅleri â yapan çeÅitli
karÅılaÅtırılabilir "
+"program gruplarını aldı. Ãünkü belirli Unix benzeri temel özellikler "
+"mevcuttu. Ve yaptıkları iÅler az çok aynı Åeydi â ya da POSIX "
+"spesifikasyonunu izliyorlardı â böylece yaptıkları iÅler anlamında
tümü "
+"aynıydı; ancak farklı insanlar tarafından sorunları gideriliyordu ve
ayrı "
+"olarak yazılmıÅlardı. Kod farklıydı. Bu nedenle, Åunu diyorlardı: bu "
+"programları alacak ve rastgele veriyle çalıÅtıracaÄız ve ne sıklıkta
"
+"çakıldıklarını ölçeceÄiz. Böylece bunu ölçtüler ve en güvenilir
program "
+"grubu GNU programları oldu. özel mülk yazılım olan tüm ticari
alternatifler "
+"çok daha az güvenilirdi. Bu nedenle bunu yayınladı ve tüm
geliÅtiricilere "
+"anlattı. Birkaç yıl sonra, aynı deneyi en yeni sürümlerle de yaptı ve
aynı "
+"sonucu elde etti. GNU sürümleri en güvenilir olanlardı. BildiÄiniz gibi,
GNU "
+"sistemini kullanan kanser klinikleri ve 911 operasyonları vardır çünkü
GNU "
+"çok güvenilirdir ve güvenilirlik onlar için çok önemlidir. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Anyway, there's even a group of people who focus on this particular benefit "
+"as the reason they give, the main reason they give, why users should be "
+"permitted to do these various things, and to have these freedoms. If you've "
+"been listening to me, you've noticed, you've seen that I, speaking for the "
+"free software movement, I talk about issues of ethics, and what kind of a "
+"society we want to live in, what makes for a good society, as well as "
+"practical, material benefits. They're both important. That's the free "
+"software movement."
+msgstr ""
+"Her neyse, kullanıcıların bu çeÅitli Åeyleri yapmasına niçin izin
verilmesi "
+"gerektiÄi ve bu özgürlüklere sahip olması gerektiÄine iliÅkin temel
neden "
+"olarak bu belirli faydaya odaklanan bir insan grubu bile vardır. Beni "
+"dinliyorsanız, özgür yazılım hareketi için konuÅursak, nasıl bir
toplumun "
+"içinde yaÅamak istediÄimiz ve etik, iyi bir toplumun nasıl
oluÅturulduÄu ve "
+"pratik ve maddi çıkarlar gibi hususlar hakkında konuÅtuÄumu fark
edersiniz. "
+"Bunlar çok önemlidir. Bu, özgür yazılım hareketidir. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"That other group of people — which is called the open source movement "
+"— they only cite the practical benefits. They deny that this is an "
+"issue of principle. They deny that people are entitled to the freedom to "
+"share with their neighbor and to see what the program's doing and change it "
+"if they don't like it. They say, however, that it's a useful thing to let "
+"people do that. So they go to companies and say to them, “You know, "
+"you might make more money if you let people do this.” So, what you can "
+"see is that to some extent, they lead people in a similar direction, but for "
+"totally different, for fundamentally different, philosophical reasons."
+msgstr ""
+"Açık kaynak hareketi â olarak adlandırılan bu diÄer insan grubu
yalnızca "
+"pratik çıkarlardan bahsetmektedir. Bunun bir ilke hususu olduÄunu inkar "
+"etmektedirler. Ä°nsanların komÅularıyla paylaÅma, programın ne
yaptıÄını "
+"görme ve sevmedikleri durumda programı deÄiÅtirme özgürlüÄüne sahip
olduÄunu "
+"inkar ederler. Ancak insanların bu özgürlüklere sahip olmasının iyi bir
Åey "
+"olduÄunu söylerler. Böylece firmalara giderler ve onlara Åunu derler: "
+"âÄ°nsanların bunları yapmasına izin verirseniz, daha fazla para "
+"kazanabilirsiniz.â Bu nedenle, görebileceÄiniz Åey, belirli bir dereceye
"
+"kadar budur, insanları benzer bir yöne sürerler ancak tamamıyla farklı
â "
+"temel olarak farklı felsefi nedenler için bunu yaparlar. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Because on the deepest issue of all, you know, on the ethical question, the "
+"two movements disagree. You know, in the free software movement we say, "
+"“You're entitled to these freedoms. People shouldn't stop you from "
+"doing these things.” In the open source movement, they say, “"
+"Yes, they can stop you if you want, but we'll try to convince them to deign "
+"to let you to do these things.” Well, they have contributed — "
+"they have convinced a certain number of businesses to release substantial "
+"pieces of software as free software in our community. So they, the open "
+"source movement, has contributed substantially to our community. And so we "
+"work together on practical projects. But, philosophically, there's a "
+"tremendous disagreement."
+msgstr ""
+"En derin husus olarak, etik soruda, iki hareket birbiriyle uyumsuzdur.
Ãzgür "
+"yazılım hareketinde Åunu deriz: âBu özgürlükler hakkınızdır.
Ä°nsanlar, bu "
+"Åeyleri yapmanızı engellememelidir.â Açık kaynak hareketinde, Åunu
derler: "
+"âEvet, isterlerse sizi durdurabilirler ancak bu Åeyleri yapmanız için
size "
+"izin vermelerine tenezzül etmeleri için onları ikna etmeye
çalıÅacaÄız.â "
+"Bunu gerçekleÅtirdiler â belirli sayıda iÅyerini önemli yazılım
parçalarını, "
+"topluluÄumuzda özgür yazılım olarak yayınlamaya ikna ettiler. Açık
kaynak "
+"hareketi, topluluÄumuza büyük oranda katkıda bulunmuÅtur ve pratik "
+"projelerde [onlarla] birlikte çalıÅırız. Ancak felsefi olarak, burada,
büyük "
+"bir anlaÅmazlık mevcuttur."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Unfortunately, the open source movement is the one that gets the support of "
+"business the most, and so most articles about our work describe it as open "
+"source, and a lot of people just innocently think that we're all part of the "
+"open source movement. So that's why I'm mentioning this distinction. I "
+"want you to be aware that the free software movement, which brought our "
+"community into existence and developed the free operating system, is still "
+"here — and that we still stand for this ethical philosophy. I want "
+"you to know about this, so that you won't mislead someone else unknowingly."
+msgstr ""
+"Maalesef, açık kaynak hareketi, iÅ hayatının en çok desteÄini alan "
+"harekettir ve çalıÅmamız hakkındaki birçok makale onu açık kaynak
olarak "
+"tanımlamaktadır ve çok sayıda insan, açık kaynak hareketinin bir
parçası "
+"olduÄumuzu düÅünmektedir. Bu nedenle, bu, bu ayrımı yapmamın
nedenidir. "
+"TopluluÄumuzu oluÅturan ve özgür iÅletim sistemini geliÅtiren özgür
yazılım "
+"hareketinin hâlâ burada olduÄunu bilmenizi isterim â ve biz, bu etik "
+"felsefenin tarafını tutacaÄız. Bunu bilmenizi isterim, bilmeden baÅka "
+"birilerini yanlıŠyönlendirmenizi istemem."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "But also, so that you can think about where you stand."
+msgstr "Ancak ayrıca, nerede durduÄunuzu da bilmenizi isterim."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"You know, which movement you support is up to you. You might agree with the "
+"free software movements and my views. You might agree with the open source "
+"movement. You might disagree with them both. You decide where you stand on "
+"these political issues."
+msgstr ""
+"Hangi hareketi desteklediÄiniz size kalmıÅtır. Ãzgür yazılım
hareketleriyle "
+"ve benim görüÅlerimle aynı fikirde olabilirsiniz. Açık kaynak
hareketiyle "
+"aynı fikirde olabilirsiniz. Ama her ikisiyle de farklı fikirlerde de "
+"olabilirsiniz. Bu politik alanlarda nerede duracaÄınıza karar verin."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But if you agree with the free software movement — if you see that "
+"there's an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled and "
+"directed by this decision deserve a say in it — then I hope you'll say "
+"that you agree with the free software movement, and one way you can do that "
+"is by using the term free software and just helping people know we exist."
+msgstr ""
+"Ancak özgür yazılım hareketiyle fikir birliÄi içindeyseniz â
yaÅamları bu "
+"karar tarafından kontrol edilen ve yönlendirilen insanların bu konuda bir "
+"fikir sahibi olmayı hak ettiklerini görürseniz â o zaman umarım ki,
özgür "
+"yazılım hareketiyle fikir birliÄi içinde olduÄunuzu söyleyeceksiniz ve
bunu "
+"yapmanızın bir yolu, âözgür yazılımâ terimini kullanmak ve
insanların bizim "
+"var olduÄumuzu bilmelerini saÄlamaya yardımcı olmaktır."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, Freedom Three is very important both practically and psycho-socially. "
+"If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical material harm, because "
+"this community development doesn't happen, and we don't make powerful, "
+"reliable software. But it also causes psycho-social harm, which affects the "
+"spirit of scientific cooperation — the idea that we're working "
+"together to advance human knowledge. You see, progress in science crucially "
+"depends on people being able to work together. And nowadays though, you "
+"often find each little group of scientists acting like it's a war with each "
+"other gang of scientists and engineers. And if they don't share with each "
+"other, they're all held back."
+msgstr ""
+"Bu nedenle, Ãzgürlük Ãç hem pratik olarak hem de psikososyal olarak çok
"
+"önemlidir. Bu özgürlüÄe sahip deÄilseniz, bu, pratik maddi zarara neden
"
+"olmaktadır çünkü bu topluluk geliÅimi gerçekleÅmez ve güçlü ve
güvenilir "
+"yazılım hazırlayamayız. Ayrıca, psikososyal zarara da neden olur, bu da "
+"bilimsel iÅbirliÄinin ruhunu etkiler â bu, insanlıÄın ortak bilgi
birikimini "
+"geliÅtirmek için birlikte çalıÅma fikridir. GördüÄünüz gibi,
bilimdeki "
+"ilerleme insanların birlikte çalıÅabilme gücüne baÄlıdır. Ancak
bugünlerde, "
+"her bir küçük bilim adamı grubunun her bir bilim adamı ve mühendis
takımıyla "
+"bir savaÅtaymıŠgibi davrandıÄını görürsünüz. Ancak birbirleriyle
paylaÅımda "
+"bulunmazlarsa, tümü geride tutulmuŠolur."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, those are the three freedoms that distinguish free software from typical "
+"software. Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself, making changes to "
+"suit your own needs. Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by "
+"distributing copies. And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your "
+"community by making changes and publishing them for other people to use. If "
+"you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software for you. Now, "
+"why do I define it that way in terms of a particular user? Is it free "
+"software for you? <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> Is it free "
+"software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Is it "
+"free software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Yes?"
+msgstr ""
+"Böylece, bunlar, özgür yazılımı tipik yazılımdan ayıran üç
özgürlüktür. "
+"Ãzgürlük Bir, yazılımı kendi ihtiyaçlarınıza göre deÄiÅtirebilme "
+"özgürlüÄüdür. Ãzgürlük Ä°ki, kopyaları daÄıtarak komÅunuza
yardım edebilme "
+"özgürlüÄüdür. Ve Ãzgürlük Ãç, deÄiÅiklik yaparak ve diÄer
insanların "
+"kullanması için yayınlayarak topluluÄunuzun oluÅmasına yardım edebilme
"
+"özgürlüÄüdür. Tüm bu özgürlüklere sahipseniz, bu program sizin
için özgür "
+"yazılımdır. Åimdi, bunu niçin belirli bir kullanıcı açısından bu
Åekilde "
+"tanımlamıyorum? Bu, sizin için özgür yazılım mıdır?
<i>[Dinleyicilerden "
+"birini gösterir.]</i> Bu, sizin için özgür yazılım mıdır? <i>[BaÅka
bir "
+"dinleyiciyi gösterir.]</i> Bu, sizin için özgür yazılım mıdır?
<i>[BaÅka bir "
+"dinleyiciyi gösterir.]</i> Evet?"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you explain a bit about the difference "
+"between Freedom Two and Three? <i>[inaudible]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SORU</strong>: Ãzgürlük Ä°ki ile Ãzgürlük Ãç arasındaki fark
hakkında "
+"biraz bilgi verir misiniz? <i>[iÅitilemiyor]</i>"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, they certainly relate, because if you don't "
+"have freedom to redistribute at all, you certainly don't have freedom to "
+"distribute a modified version, but they're different activities."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>:Kesinlikle aralarında bir iliÅki vardır çünkü
"
+"daÄıtma özgürlüÄünüz yoksa, kesinlikle deÄiÅtirilmiÅ bir sürümü
daÄıtma "
+"özgürlüÄünüz de yoktur ancak bunlar farklı iÅlemlerdir."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Oh."
+msgstr "<strong>SORU</strong>:Oh."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Freedom Two is, you know, read it, you make an "
+"exact copy, and hand it to your friends, so now your friend can use it. Or "
+"maybe you make exact copies and you sell them to a bunch of people, and then "
+"they can use it."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Ãzgürlük Ä°ki, biliyorsunuz, okursunuz, bir "
+"kopyasını hazırlarsınız ve arkadaÅlarınıza verirsiniz, böylece
Åimdi "
+"arkadaÅınız da kullanabilir. Ya da belki de kopyalar hazırlayabilir ve "
+"onları bir grup insana satabilirsiniz ve onlar da bu yazılımı "
+"kullanabilirler."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom Three is where you make improvements — or at least you think "
+"they're improvements, and some other people may agree with you. So that's "
+"the difference. Oh, and by the way, one crucial point. Freedoms One and "
+"Three depend on your having access to the source code. Because changing a "
+"binary-only program is extremely hard. <i>[Laughter]</i> Even trivial "
+"changes like using four digits for the date, <i>[Laughter]</i> if you don't "
+"have source. So, for compelling, practical reasons, access to the source "
+"code is a precondition, a requirement, for free software."
+msgstr ""
+"Ãzgürlük Ãç, geliÅtirme yaptıÄınız â ya da en azından
geliÅtirme yaptıÄınızı "
+"düÅündüÄünüz ve bazı insanların sizinle farklı fikirde olduÄu
özgürlüktür. "
+"Bu nedenle, fark budur. Bu arada, önemli bir nokta: Ãzgürlük Bir ve Ãç,
"
+"kaynak koduna eriÅiminize baÄlıdır. Ãünkü âyalnızca ikiliâ
[:binary-only] "
+"olan bir programın deÄiÅtirilmesi çok zordur <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i>
â "
+"tarih için dört basamak kullanmak gibi basit deÄiÅiklikler bile â
kaynak "
+"koduna sahip deÄilseniz, çok zordur. Bu nedenle, zorlama için,
uygulamadaki "
+"nedenler için, kaynak koduna eriÅim, özgür yazılım için bir ön
Åarttır, bir "
+"Åarttır. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, why do I define it in terms of whether it's free software for <em>you</"
+"em>? The reason is that sometimes the same program can be free software for "
+"some people, and non-free for others. Now, that might seem like a "
+"paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example to show you how it "
+"happens. A very big example — maybe the biggest ever — of this "
+"problem was the X Window System which was developed at MIT and released "
+"under a license that made it free software. If you got the MIT version with "
+"the MIT license, you had Freedoms One, Two, and Three. It was free software "
+"for you. But among those who got copies were various computer manufacturers "
+"that distributed Unix systems, and they made the necessary changes in X to "
+"run on their systems. You know, probably just a few thousand lines out of "
+"the hundreds of thousands of lines of X. And, then they compiled it, and "
+"they put the binaries into their Unix system and distributed it under the "
+"same non-disclosure agreement as the rest of the Unix system. And then, "
+"millions of people got these copies. They had the X Window System, but they "
+"had none of these freedoms. It was not free software for <em>them</em>."
+msgstr ""
+"Böylece, bunu niçin <em>sizin için</em> özgür yazılım olup olmadıÄı
"
+"cinsinden tanımlıyorum? Bunun nedeni, bazen aynı yazılımın bazı
insanlar "
+"için özgür yazılımken, diÄerleri için özgür olmayan yazılım
olabilmesidir. "
+"Åimdi, bu paradoksal bir durum gibi görünebilir, bu nedenle bu durumun
nasıl "
+"meydana geldiÄini size göstereyim. Ãok büyük bir örnek, bu probleme
iliÅkin "
+"çok büyük bir örnek â belki de en büyük örnek â X Window
Sistemidir, bu "
+"sistem MITâde geliÅtirilmiÅtir ve kendisini özgür yazılım haline
getiren bir "
+"lisans altında yayınlanmıÅtır. MIT lisansıyla beraber MIT sürümünü "
+"aldıysanız, Ãzgürlük Bir, Ä°ki ve Ãçe sahipsiniz. Bu, sizin için
özgür "
+"yazılımdır. Ancak kopyaları alanların arasında, Unix sistemlerini
daÄıtan "
+"çeÅitli bilgisayar üreticileri mevcuttur ve sistemleri üzerinde
çalıÅtırmak "
+"için Xâte gerekli deÄiÅiklikleri yapmıÅlardır. BildiÄiniz gibi, bu,
Xâin yüz "
+"binlerce satırından yalnızca birkaç bin satırdır. Ve daha sonra, onu "
+"derlemiÅlerdir ve ikilileri (binary) Unix sistemine koymuÅlardır ve Unix "
+"sisteminin geri kalanı gibi aynı gizlilik sözleÅmesi altında
daÄıtmıÅlardır. "
+"Ve daha sonra, milyonlarca insan bu kopyaları almıÅtır. X Window
Sistemine "
+"sahiptiler ancak bu özgürlüklerin hiçbirine sahip deÄildiler. Bu,
<em>onlar</"
+"em> için özgür yazılım deÄildi."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, the paradox was that whether X was free software depended on where you "
+"made the measurement. If you made the measurement coming out of the "
+"developers' group, you'd say, “I observe all these freedoms. It's "
+"free software.” If you made the measurements among the users you'd "
+"say, “Hmm, most users don't have these freedoms. It's not free "
+"software.” Well, the people who developed X didn't consider this a "
+"problem, because their goal was just popularity, ego, essentially. They "
+"wanted a big professional success. They wanted to feel, “Ah, lots of "
+"people are using our software.” And that was true. Lots of people "
+"were using their software but didn't have freedom."
+msgstr ""
+"Bu nedenle, buradaki paradoks, ölçümü nerede yaptıÄınıza baÄlı
olarak Xâin "
+"özgür yazılım olup olmamasıydı. GeliÅtiricilerin grubundan gelen
ölçümü "
+"yaptıysanız, Åunu diyebilirdiniz: âTüm bu özgürlükleri
gözlemliyorum. Bu, "
+"özgür yazılımdır.â Ãlçümleri kullanıcılar arasında
yaptıysanız, Åunu "
+"diyecektiniz: âBirçok kullanıcı bu özgürlüklere sahip deÄil. Bu,
özgür "
+"yazılım deÄil.â Xâi geliÅtirmiÅ insanlar bunu bir sorun olarak
görmezler "
+"çünkü hedefleri, esasen yalnızca popülerlik egosudur. Büyük bir
profesyonel "
+"baÅarı istemektedirler. Åunu hissetmek isterler: âÃok sayıda insan
bizim "
+"yazılımımızı kullanıyor.â Ve bu, doÄrudur. Ãok sayıda insan
yazılımlarını "
+"kullanıyordu ancak özgürlüÄe sahip deÄildi. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Well, in the GNU project, if that same thing had happened to GNU software, "
+"it would have been a failure, because our goal wasn't just to be popular; "
+"our goal was to give people liberty, and to encourage cooperation, to permit "
+"people to cooperate. Remember, never force anyone to cooperate with any "
+"other person, but make sure that everybody's allowed to cooperate, everyone "
+"has the freedom to do so, if he or she wishes. If millions of people were "
+"running non-free versions of GNU, that wouldn't be success at all. The whole "
+"thing would have been perverted into nothing like the goal."
+msgstr ""
+"GNU Projesinde, GNU yazılımının baÅına aynı Åey gelseydi, bu bir
sorun "
+"olurdu çünkü tek hedefimiz popüler olmak deÄil insanlara özgürlük
saÄlamak, "
+"iÅbirliÄini yüreklendirmek ve insanların iÅbirliÄi yapmalarını
saÄlamaktır. "
+"Unutmayın, hiç kimseyi baÅka herhangi bir insanla iÅbirliÄi yapmaya "
+"zorlamayın ancak herkesin iÅbirliÄi yaptıÄından emin olun, isterse
herkes bu "
+"özgürlüÄe sahiptir. Milyonlarca insan GNUânun özgür olmayan
sürümlerini "
+"çalıÅtırıyorsa, bu, bir baÅarı olmayacaktır. Her Åey, hedefe
benzemeyen bir "
+"yola sapacaktır."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening. The method I came up "
+"with is called “copyleft”. It's called copyleft because it's "
+"sort of like taking copyright and flipping it over. <i>[Laughter]</i> "
+"Legally, copyleft works based on copyright. We use the existing copyright "
+"law, but we use it to achieve a very different goal. Here's what we do. We "
+"say, “This program is copyrighted.” And, of course, by default, "
+"that means it's prohibited to copy it, or distribute it, or modify it. But "
+"then we say, “You're authorized to distribute copies of this. You're "
+"authorized to modify it. You're authorized to distribute modified versions "
+"and extended versions. Change it any way you like.”"
+msgstr ""
+"Bu nedenle, bu durumun meydana gelmemesi için bir yol aradım. Sonunda "
+"bulduÄum metot, âcopyleftâ olarak adlandırılan metottu. Bu metot,
copyleft "
+"olarak adlandırılıyordu çünkü telif hakkını alıp ters çevirmek
Åeklindeydi. "
+"<i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Yasal olarak, copyleft, telif hakkını esas "
+"alarak çalıÅmaktadır. Mevcut telif hakkı kanununu kullanmaktayız ancak
bunu, "
+"çok farklı bir amacı saÄlamak için kullanırız. Ä°Åte Åunu yaparız.
Deriz ki, "
+"âBu program telif hakkına tâbidirâ. Ve tabi ki, ön tanımlı olarak,
bu, "
+"programın kopyalanmasının, daÄıtılmasının ya da deÄiÅtirilmesinin
yasak "
+"olduÄu anlamına gelmektedir. Ancak daha sonra, Åunu deriz: âBunun "
+"kopyalarını daÄıtma yetkiniz var. Programı deÄiÅtirme yetkiniz var. "
+"deÄiÅtirilmiÅ ve geniÅletilmiÅ sürümleri daÄıtma hakkınız var.
Ä°stediÄiniz "
+"gibi deÄiÅtirin.â"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But there is a condition. And the condition, of course, is the reason why "
+"we go to all this trouble, so that we could put the condition in. The "
+"condition says: Whenever you distribute anything that contains any piece of "
+"this program, that whole program must be distributed under these same terms, "
+"no more and no less. So you can change the program and distribute a "
+"modified version, but when you do, the people who get that from you must get "
+"the same freedom that you got from us. And not just for the parts of it "
+"— the excerpts that you copied from our program — but also for "
+"the other parts of that program that they got from you. The whole of that "
+"program has to be free software for them."
+msgstr ""
+"Ancak bir Åart vardır. Ve bu Åart tabi ki, Åartı içine koymamız için
tüm bu "
+"zorluklara girmemizin nedenidir. Åart Åunu söyler: bu programın herhangi
bir "
+"parçasını içeren herhangi bir Åeyi daÄıttıÄınızda, tüm program bu
aynı "
+"ifadelerle daÄıtılmalıdır, daha fazla ya da daha azı olmamalıdır. Bu "
+"nedenle, programı deÄiÅtirebilir ve deÄiÅtirilmiÅ sürümü
daÄıtabilirsiniz "
+"ancak bunu yaptıÄınızda, bunu sizden alan insanlar, sizin bizden
aldıÄınız "
+"özgürlükle aynı özgürlüÄü almalıdır. Ve yalnızca programımızdan
"
+"kopyaladıÄınız kısımlar için deÄil, ayrıca sizden aldıkları söz
konusu "
+"programın diÄer kısımları için de bu durum geçerlidir. Söz konusu
programın "
+"tümü, onlar için özgür yazılım olmalıdır."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become inalienable "
+"rights — a concept from the Declaration of Independence. Rights that "
+"we make sure can't be taken away from you. And, of course, the specific "
+"license that embodies the idea of copyleft is the GNU General Public "
+"License, a controversial license because it actually has the strength to say "
+"no to people who would be parasites on our community."
+msgstr ""
+"Bu programın deÄiÅtirilmesi ve yeniden daÄıtılmasına iliÅkin
özgürlükler, "
+"geri alınamaz haklar haline gelmektedir â bu, BaÄımsızlık
Deklarasyonuna "
+"iliÅkin bir kavramdır. Emin olduÄunuz haklar sizden alınamaz. Copyleft "
+"fikrini yapılandıran spesifik lisans, GNU Genel Kamu Lisansıdır, bu, "
+"tartıÅmaya yol açan bir lisanstır çünkü gerçekten de topluluÄumuzda
parazit "
+"gibi davranan kimselere hayır deme gücüne sahiptir."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of freedom. And "
+"they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done, and use it to get a "
+"head start in distributing a non-free program and tempting people to give up "
+"their freedom. And the result would be — you know, if we let people "
+"do that — that we would be developing these free programs, and we'd "
+"constantly have to compete with improved versions of our own programs. "
+"That's no fun."
+msgstr ""
+"ÃzgürlüÄün ideallerini takdir etmeyen çok sayıda insan mevcuttur. Ve
bu "
+"insanlar, yapmıŠolduÄumuz çalıÅmaları alma ve özgür olmayan bir
programı "
+"daÄıtma konusunda yeni bir baÅlangıç yapma ve insanların
özgürlüklerini "
+"bıraktırma konusunda çok çaba sarf etmektedir ve bunu
gerçekleÅtirdiklerinde "
+"çok mutlu olacaklardır. Sonuç olarak â bu insanların bunu yapmalarına
izin "
+"verirsek â bu özgür programları geliÅtiriyor olacaÄız ve kendi "
+"programlarımızın geliÅmiÅ sürümleriyle sürekli olarak rekabet etmek
zorunda "
+"kalacaÄız. Bu, eÄlenceli bir durum deÄildir. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And, a lot of people also feel — you know, I'm willing to volunteer my "
+"time to contribute to the community, but why should I volunteer my time to "
+"contribute to that company's, to improving that company's, proprietary "
+"program? You know, some people might not even think that that's evil, but "
+"they want to get paid if they're going to do that. I, personally, would "
+"rather not do it at all."
+msgstr ""
+"Ayrıca çok sayıda insan Åu duyguya kapılmaktadır: âZamanımı
gönüllü olarak "
+"topluluÄa adamak istiyorum ama niçin zamanımı gönüllü olarak söz
konusu "
+"firmanın özel mülk programına adayayım?â Bazı insanlar bunun kötü
olmadıÄını "
+"bile düÅünebilir ancak bunu yapacaklarda kendilerine para ödenmesini "
+"isterler. Ben, kiÅisel olarak, bunu hiç yapmazdım bile. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But both of these groups of people — both the ones like me who say, "
+"“I don't want to help that non-free program to get a foothold in our "
+"community” and the ones that say, “Sure, I'd work for them, but "
+"then they better pay me” — both of us have a good reason to use "
+"the GNU General Public License. Because that says to that company, “"
+"You can't just take my work, and distribute it without the freedom.” "
+"Whereas, the non-copyleft licenses, like the X Windows license, do permit "
+"that."
+msgstr ""
+"Ancak bu insan grubunun her ikisinin de â benim gibi Åunu diyenler: "
+"âTopluluÄumuzda saÄlam bir yer edinmek isteyen bu özgür olmayan
programa "
+"yardım etmek istemiyorumâ ya da Åunu diyenler: âOnlar için
çalıÅırım ama o "
+"zaman bana para ödemeleri gerekirâ, her iki grubun da GNU Genel Kamu "
+"Lisansını kullanması için iyi bir nedeni vardır. Ãünkü bu o firmaya
Åunu "
+"der: âBenim çalıÅmamı alıp özgürlüÄü olmayan bir Åekilde
daÄıtamazsınâ. "
+"Bununla birlikte, X Windows lisansı gibi copyleft olmayan lisanslar buna "
+"izin vermektedir. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So that is the big division between the two categories of free software "
+"— license-wise. There are the programs that are copylefted so that "
+"the license defends the freedom of the software for every user. And there "
+"are the non-copylefted programs for which non-free versions are allowed. "
+"Somebody <em>can</em> take those programs and strip off the freedom. You "
+"may get that program in a non-free version."
+msgstr ""
+"Lisans bakımından bu, iki özgür yazılım kategorisi arasındaki büyük "
+"ayrımdır. Lisansın her kullanıcı için yazılımın özgürlüÄünü
korumasını "
+"saÄlayacaÄı Åekilde copyleft edilen programlar vardır. Ve özgür
olmayan "
+"sürümlerin izin verildiÄi copyleft edilmeyen programlar mevcuttur. Söz "
+"konusu programın özgürlüÄünü kaldırabilirsiniz. Ãzgür olmayan
sürümlerde "
+"edinebilirsiniz. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And that problem exists today. There are still non-free versions of X "
+"Windows being used on our free operating systems. There is even hardware "
+"— which is not really supported — except by a non-free version "
+"of X Windows. And that's a major problem in our community. Nonetheless, I "
+"wouldn't say that X Windows is a bad thing, you know. I'd say that the "
+"developers did not do the best possible thing that they could have done. "
+"But they <em>did</em> release a lot of software that we could all use."
+msgstr ""
+"Ve bu problem günümüzde de mevcuttur. X Windowsâun özgür olmayan
sürümleri "
+"hâlâ özgür iÅletim sistemlerinde kullanılmaktadır. X Windowsâun
özgür "
+"olmayan sürümü hariç olmak üzere gerçekten de desteklenmeyen
donanımlar bile "
+"mevcuttur. Ve bu, topluluÄumuzda büyük bir problemdir. Bununla birlikte, X
"
+"Windowsâun kötü bir Åey olduÄunu söyleyemem. GeliÅtiricilerin "
+"yapabilecekleri olası en iyi Åeyi yapmadıklarını söyleyebilirim. Ancak "
+"hepimizin kullanabileceÄi çok sayıda yazılım yayınlamıÅlardır. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"You know, there's a big difference between less than perfect, and evil. "
+"There are many gradations of good and bad. We have to resist the temptation "
+"to say, if you didn't do the absolute best possible thing, then you're no "
+"good. You know, the people that developed X Windows made a big contribution "
+"to our community. But there's something better that they could have done. "
+"They could have copylefted parts of the program and prevented those freedom-"
+"denying versions from being distributed by others."
+msgstr ""
+"Mükemmelden daha azı ile kötü arasında büyük bir fark vardır. İyi ve
kötünün "
+"birçok derecesi vardır. Mutlak olarak olası en iyi Åeyi yapmadıysan, o
zaman "
+"iyi deÄilsin gibi ayartıcı ifadelere karÅı koymalıyız. X Windowsâu "
+"geliÅtiren insanlar topluluÄumuza büyük bir katkıda bulunmuÅtur. Ancak
daha "
+"iyi yapabilecekleri bir Åeyler vardır. Programın bazı parçalarını
copyleft "
+"edebilirlerdi ve özgürlüÄü inkâr eden sürümlerin baÅkaları
tarafından "
+"daÄıtılmasını önleyebilirlerdi. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, the fact that the GNU General Public License defends your freedom, uses "
+"copyright law to defend your freedom, is, of course, why Microsoft is "
+"attacking it today. See, Microsoft would really like to be able to take all "
+"the code that we wrote and put it into proprietary programs, have somebody "
+"make some improvements, or even just incompatible changes is all they need. "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"GNU Genel Kamu Lisansıânın özgürlüÄünüzü koruduÄu ve
özgürlüÄünüzü korumak "
+"için telif hakkı kanununu kullandıÄı gerçeÄi, tabi ki, bugün
Microsoftâun "
+"ona saldırmasının nedenidir. Görüyorsunuz, Microsoft, yazdıÄımız
kodların "
+"tümünü almak ve özel mülk programlarına koymak istemektedir, birilerine
"
+"geliÅtirme yapmak istemektedir, ya da yalnızca uyumsuz deÄiÅikliklere "
+"ihtiyaç duyarlar. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i>"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"You know, with Microsoft's marketing clout, they don't need to make it "
+"better to have their version supplant ours. They just have to make it "
+"different and incompatible. And then, put it on everybody's desktop. So "
+"they really don't like the GNU GPL. Because the GNU GPL won't let them do "
+"that. It doesn't allow “embrace and extend”. It says, if you "
+"want to share our code in your programs, you can. But, you've got to share "
+"and share alike. The changes that you make we have to be allowed to share. "
+"So, it's a two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation."
+msgstr ""
+"Microsoftâun pazarlama gücüyle, sürümlerinin bizimkilerin yerine
geçmesi "
+"için daha iyi bir yazılım oluÅturmaları gerekmez. Tek yapmaları gereken
"
+"farklı ve uyumsuz bir yazılım hazırlamaktır. Ve daha sonra bunu herkesin
"
+"masaüstüne koymaktır. Bu nedenle gerçekte GNU GPLâyi sevmezler.
Ãünkü GNU "
+"GPL onların bunu yapmalarına izin vermez. âKapsama ve geniÅletmeâye
izin "
+"vermez. Programlarınızda kodumuzu paylaÅmak istiyorsanız, bunu "
+"yapabilirsiniz der. Ancak yalnızca benzerleri paylaÅmanız gerektiÄini "
+"söyler. YaptıÄınız deÄiÅiklikler, bizim paylaÅmamıza izin verilen "
+"deÄiÅiklikler olmalıdır. Bu nedenle bu, iki yollu bir iÅbirliÄidir,
gerçek "
+"bir iÅbirliÄidir. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Many companies — even big companies like IBM and HP are willing to use "
+"our software on this basis. IBM and HP contribute substantial improvements "
+"to GNU software. And they develop other free software. But, Microsoft "
+"doesn't want to do that, so they give it out that businesses just can't deal "
+"with the GPL. Well, if businesses don't include IBM, and HP and SUN, then "
+"maybe they're right. <i>[Laughter]</i> More about that later."
+msgstr ""
+"IBM ve HP gibi büyük firmalar bile â bu temelde bizim yazılımımızı "
+"kullanmayı istemektedir. IBM ve HP GNU yazılımına büyük katkılarda "
+"bulunmuÅtur. Ve onlar da, baÅka özgür yazılımlar geliÅtirmiÅtir.
Ancak "
+"Microsoft bunu yapmak istememiÅtir, bu nedenle iÅyerlerinin GPL ile baÅa "
+"çıkamadıÄını söylemiÅlerdir. Bu iÅyerleri IBM ve HP ve Sunâı
içermiyorsa, o "
+"zaman haklı olabilirler. [Dinleyiciler güler] Bu konu hakkında daha sonra "
+"açıklama yapacaÄım. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"I should finish the historical story. You see, we set out in 1984 not just "
+"to write some free software but to do something much more coherent: to "
+"develop an operating system that was entirely free software. So that meant "
+"we had to write piece after piece after piece. Of course, we were always "
+"looking for shortcuts. The job was so big that people said we'd never be "
+"able to finish. And, I thought that there was at least a chance that we'd "
+"finish it but, obviously, it's worth looking for shortcuts. So we kept "
+"looking around. Is there any program that somebody else has written that we "
+"could manage to adapt, to plug into here, and that way we won't have to "
+"write it from scratch? For instance, the X Window system. It's true it "
+"wasn't copylefted, but it was free software, so we could use it."
+msgstr ""
+"Tarihsel hikayeyi bitirmeliyim. Görüyorsunuz, 1984 yılında yalnızca
birtakım "
+"özgür yazılım yazmak için deÄil ayrıca çok daha tutarlı bir Åeyler
yapmak "
+"için yola çıktık: tamamen özgür yazılım olan bir iÅletim sistemi
geliÅtirmek "
+"istedik. Bu bizim parça ardına parça ardına parça yazmamız gerektiÄi "
+"anlamına gelmekteydi. Tabi ki, her zaman kısa yolları arıyorduk. İŠo
kadar "
+"büyüktü ki, insanlar hiçbir zaman bitiremeyeceÄimizi söylüyordu.
Bitirme "
+"Åansımız olduÄunu düÅündüm ancak açık bir Åekilde, kısa yollara
bakmaya "
+"deÄerdi. Bu nedenle bakınmaya devam ettik. BenimseyebildiÄimiz, burayla "
+"irtibatlandırabildiÄimiz ve böylece baÅtan yazmak zorunda olmadıÄımız
baÅka "
+"birilerinin yazdıÄı herhangi bir program var mıdır? ÃrneÄin, X Window "
+"sistemi vardır. Copyleft edilmediÄi doÄrudur ancak bu, özgür
yazılımdır, bu "
+"nedenle onu kullanabiliriz. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, I had wanted to put a window system into GNU from day one. I wrote a "
+"couple of window systems at MIT before I started GNU. And so, even though "
+"Unix had no window system in 1984, I decided that GNU would have one. But, "
+"we never ended up writing a GNU window system, because X came along. And I "
+"said, Goody! One big job we don't have to do. We'll use X. So I basically "
+"said, let's take X, and put it into the GNU system. And we'll make the "
+"other parts of GNU, you know, work with X, when appropriate. And we found "
+"other pieces of software that had been written by other people, like the "
+"text formatter TeX, some library code from Berkeley. At that time there was "
+"Berkeley Unix, but it was not free software. This library code, initially, "
+"was from a different group at Berkeley, that did research on floating "
+"point. And, so, we kept, we fit in these pieces."
+msgstr ""
+"Åimdi, ilk günden GNUâya bir pencere sistemi koymak istedim. GNUâya "
+"baÅlamadan önce MITâde birtakım pencere sistemleri yazdım. Ve Unixâin
1984 "
+"yılında herhangi bir pencere sistemine sahip olmamasına raÄmen, GNUânun
bir "
+"pencere sistemine sahip olmasına karar verdim. Ancak hiçbir zaman bir GNU "
+"pencere sistemi yazmayı beceremedik çünkü X birlikte geldi. Ve ben de
Åunu "
+"dedim: âYapmamızın gerekli olmadıÄı büyük bir iÅ. Xâi
kullanacaÄız.â Åunu "
+"dedim: Xâi alalım ve GNU sistemine koyalım. Ve uygun olduÄunda,
GNUânun "
+"diÄer kısımlarının X ile birlikte çalıÅmasını saÄlayacaÄız. Ve
metin "
+"biçimlendiricisı TEX gibi ya da Berkeleyâden birtakım kütüphane
kodları gibi "
+"baÅka insanlar tarafından yazılmıŠolan baÅka yazılım parçalarını
bulduk. O "
+"zamanlar Berkeley Unix vardı ancak bu, özgür yazılım deÄildi. Bu
kütüphane "
+"kodu, baÅlangıç olarak, Berkeleyâdeki kayan nokta üzerinde araÅtırma
yapan "
+"farklı bir gruba aitti. Ve bu nedenle, bu parçalara uyduk. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"In October 1985, we founded the Free Software Foundation. So please note, "
+"the GNU project came first. The Free Software Foundation came after, about "
+"almost two years after the announcement of the Project. And the Free "
+"Software Foundation is a tax-exempt charity that raises funds to promote the "
+"freedom to share and change software. And in the 1980's, one of the main "
+"things we did with our funds was to hire people to write parts of GNU. And "
+"essential programs, such as the shell and the C library were written this "
+"way, as well as parts of other programs. The <code>tar</code> program, "
+"which is absolutely essential, although not exciting at all <i>[Laughter]</"
+"i> was written this way. I believe GNU grep was written this way. And so, "
+"we're approaching our goal."
+msgstr ""
+"1985 yılının Ekim ayında, Ãzgür Yazılım Vakfını kurduk. Bu nedenle,
lütfen "
+"GNU Projesinin ilk proje olduÄunu unutmayın. Ãzgür Yazılım Vakfı, GNU "
+"Projesinden hemen hemen iki yıl sonra geldi. Ve Ãzgür Yazılım Vakfı
yazılımı "
+"paylaÅmak ve deÄiÅtirmek için özgürlüÄü saÄlamak üzere fon
toplayan vergiden "
+"muaf bir hayır kurumudur. Ve 1980âlerde, fonlarımızla yaptıÄımız
temel "
+"Åeylerden biri, GNUânun parçalarının yazılması için birilerini
tutmak oldu. "
+"Ve kabuk [:shell] ve C kütüphanesi gibi önemli programlar, diÄer "
+"programların parçaları gibi bu Åekilde yazılmıÅtı. Ãok önemli olan
ancak "
+"heyecan verici olmayan <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> <code>tar</code> "
+"programı, bu Åekilde yazılmıÅtı. GNUânun bir kısmının da bu
Åekilde yazılmıŠ"
+"olduÄuna inanmaktayım. Ve böylece hedefimize yaklaÅmaktayız."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"By 1991, there was just one major piece missing, and that was the kernel. "
+"Now, why did I put off the kernel? Probably because it doesn't really matter "
+"what order you do the things in, at least technically it doesn't. You've "
+"got to do them all anyway. And partly because I'd hoped we'd be able to "
+"find a start at a kernel somewhere else. And we did. We found Mach, which "
+"had been developed at Carnegie Mellon. And it wasn't the whole kernel; it "
+"was the bottom half of the kernel. So we had to write the top half, but I "
+"figured, you know, things like the file system, the network code, and so "
+"on. But running on top of Mach they're running essentially as user "
+"programs, which ought to make them easier to debug. You can debug with a "
+"real source-level debugger running at the same time. And so, I thought that "
+"way we'd be able to get these, the higher level parts of the kernel, done in "
+"a short time. It didn't work out that way. These asynchronous, multi-"
+"threaded processes, sending messages to each other turned out to be very "
+"hard to debug. And the Mach-based system that we were using to bootstrap "
+"with had a terrible debugging environment, and it was unreliable, and "
+"various problems. It took us years and years to get the GNU kernel to work."
+msgstr ""
+"1991 yılı itibariyle, eksik olan yalnızca tek bir büyük kısım vardı
ve bu da "
+"çekirdekti. Åimdi, niçin çekirdeÄi geciktirdim? Bu, muhtemelen iÅleri
hangi "
+"sırada yaptıÄınızın önemli olmamasından kaynaklanmaktadır, en
azından teknik "
+"açıdan durum böyledir. Her Åekilde iÅlerin tümünü yapmanız
gereklidir. Ve "
+"kısmen, baÅka bir yerlerde bir çekirdekte bir baÅlangıç
bulabileceÄimizi "
+"umduÄum içindir. Ve bunu baÅardık. Carnegie Mellonâda geliÅtirilmiÅ
olan "
+"Machâı bulduk. Ve bu, tüm çekirdek deÄildi; çekirdeÄin alt
yarısıydı. Bu "
+"nedenle, üst yarıyı; dosya sistemi, network kodu, vb. gibi bir Åeyler "
+"yazmamız gerekti. Ancak Machâın üstünde çalıÅarak, esas olarak
kullanıcı "
+"programları olarak çalıÅmaktadırlar, bu nedenle hatalarının
ayıklanması daha "
+"kolay olmalıdır. Aynı zamanda çalıÅan gerçek bir kaynak seviyesi hata "
+"ayıklayıcıyla hata ayıklayabilirsiniz. Bu Åekilde, çekirdeÄin daha
yüksek "
+"seviyedeki parçalarını daha kısa sürede yaptırmamızın daha uygun
olacaÄını "
+"düÅündüm. Birbirine mesajlar gönderen bu asenkron çoklu kullanımlı "
+"süreçlerin hatalarının ayıklanmasının çok zor olduÄu ortaya
çıkmıÅtır. Ve "
+"önyükleme yapmak için kullandıÄımız Mach tabanlı sistem korkunç bir
hata "
+"ayıklama ortamına sahipti ve güvenilmezdi. GNU çekirdeÄinin
çalıÅtırılması "
+"bizim yıllarımızı aldı."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, fortunately, our community did not have to wait for the GNU kernel. "
+"Because in 1991, Linus Torvalds developed another free kernel called Linux. "
+"And he used the old-fashioned monolithic design and it turns out that he got "
+"his working much faster than we got ours working. So maybe that's one of "
+"the mistakes that I made: that design decision. Anyway, at first, we didn't "
+"know about Linux, because he never contacted us to talk about it. Although "
+"he did know about the GNU Project. But he announced it to other people and "
+"other places on the net. And so other people then did the work of combining "
+"Linux with the rest of the GNU system to make a complete free operating "
+"system. Essentially, to make the GNU plus Linux combination."
+msgstr ""
+"Ancak neyse ki, topluluÄumuzun GNU çekirdeÄini beklemesi gerekmiyordu.
Ãünkü "
+"1991 yılında, Linus Torvalds, Linux olarak adlandırılan baÅka bir
özgür "
+"çekirdeÄi geliÅtirdi. Eski moda tek parça tasarımı kullandı ve
çalıÅmasını, "
+"bizimkilerin çalıÅmasından çok daha hızlı bir Åekilde aldıÄı
ortaya çıktı. "
+"Bu nedenle belki de, bu, yapmıŠolduÄum hatalardan biridir: bu tasarım "
+"kararı yapmıŠolduÄun hatalardan biridir. Her neyse, ilk baÅta Linux "
+"hakkında bir Åey bilmiyorduk çünkü GNU Projesini bildiÄi halde, bunun "
+"hakkında konuÅmak için hiçbir zaman bizimle temas kurmadı. Ancak bunu, "
+"netteki diÄer insanlara ve yerlere bildirdi. Ve bu nedenle diÄer insanlar, "
+"tam bir iÅletim sistemi elde etmek için Linuxâı GNU sisteminin geri "
+"kalanıyla birleÅtirdi. Esasen, GNU artı Linux birleÅimini oluÅturdular."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, they didn't realize that's what they were doing. You see, they said, "
+"We have a kernel — let's look around and see what other pieces we can "
+"find to put together with the kernel. So, they looked around — and lo "
+"and behold, everything they needed was already available. What good "
+"fortune, they said. <i>[Laughter]</i> It's all here. We can find "
+"everything we need. Let's just take all these different things and put it "
+"together, and have a system."
+msgstr ""
+"Ancak ne yaptıklarını görmüyorlardı. Ä°Åte, Åunu dediler: âBir
çekirdeÄimiz "
+"var â bakınalım ve çekirdekle bir araya getirebileceÄimiz baÅka hangi "
+"parçaların olduÄunu görelim.â Bu nedenle, etraflarına bakındılar â
ve iÅte, "
+"ihtiyaç duydukları her Åey mevcuttu. Ne kadar Åanslıyız dediler. <i>"
+"[Dinleyiciler güler]</i> Tümü burada. Ä°htiyaç duyduÄumuz her Åeyi "
+"bulabiliriz. Tüm bu farklı Åeyleri alalım ve bir araya getirelim ve bir "
+"sistem elde edelim."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"They didn't know that most of what they found was pieces of the GNU system. "
+"So they didn't realize that they were fitting Linux into the gap in the GNU "
+"system. They thought they were taking Linux and making a system out of "
+"Linux. So they called it a Linux system."
+msgstr ""
+"Buldukları Åeylerin çoÄunun GNU sisteminin parçaları olduÄunu
bilmiyorlardı. "
+"Bu nedenle, Linuxâı GNU sistemindeki boÅluÄa doldurduklarının
farkında "
+"deÄildiler. Linuxâı alıp Linuxâtan bir sistem yaptıklarını
düÅünüyorlardı. "
+"Bu nedenle bunu bir Linux sistemi olarak adlandırdılar."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can't hear you — what?"
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Sizi duyamadım - efendim?"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, it's just not — you know, it's "
+"provincial."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Güzel, sadece o deÄil, biliyorsun, dar
görüÅlülük."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: But it's more good fortune then finding X and "
+"Mach?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SORU</strong>:Ancak bu durum, X Window Sistemini ve Machâı
bulmaktan "
+"daha Åanslı bir durum deÄil midir?"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. The difference is that the people who "
+"developed X and Mach didn't have the goal of making a complete free "
+"operating system. We're the only ones who had that. And, it was our "
+"tremendous work that made the system exist. We actually did a larger part "
+"of the system than any other project. No coincidence, because those people "
+"— they wrote useful parts of the system. But they didn't do it "
+"because they wanted the system to be finished. They had other reasons."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>:DoÄru. Buradaki fark, Xâi ve Machâı
geliÅtiren "
+"insanlar, tam bir özgür iÅletim sistemi geliÅtirme hedefine sahip "
+"deÄildiler. Bunu isteyen yalnızca bizdik. Ve, sistemin var olmasını
saÄlayan "
+"bizim yoÄun çabalarımızdı. Gerçekte baÅka herhangi bir projeden çok
sistemin "
+"daha büyük bir parçasını oluÅturduk. Tesadüf yoktur, çünkü bu
insanlar â "
+"sistemin yararlı kısımlarını yazmıÅtır. Ancak bunu, sistemin
tamamlanmasını "
+"istedikleri için yapmamıÅlardır. BaÅka nedenleri vardı."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now the people who developed X — they thought that designing across "
+"the network window system would be a good project, and it was. And it "
+"turned out to help us make a good free operating system. But that's not "
+"what they hoped for. They didn't even think about that. It was an "
+"accident. An accidental benefit. Now, I'm not saying that what they did "
+"was bad. They did a large free software project. That's a good thing to "
+"do. But they didn't have that ultimate vision. The GNU Project is where "
+"that vision was."
+msgstr ""
+"Åimdi Xâi geliÅtiren insanlar â iyi bir proje olduÄunu
düÅündükleri network "
+"üzerinden pencere sistemini tasarımlamıÅlardır ve gerçekten de bu iyi
bir "
+"proje olmuÅtur. Ve bu, bizim iyi bir özgür iÅletim sistemi yapmamızı "
+"saÄlamıÅtır. Ancak umdukları bu deÄildir. Hatta bunun hakkında "
+"düÅünmemiÅlerdir bile. Bu, bir kazaydı. Kazara bundan faydalandılar.
Åimdi, "
+"yaptıklarının kötü bir Åey olduÄunu söylemiyorum. Büyük bir özgür
yazılım "
+"projesi gerçekleÅtirdiler. Bu, iyi bir Åeydir. Ancak esas vizyona sahip "
+"deÄildirler. Bu vizyon GNU Projesindedir. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And, so, we were the ones whose — every little piece that didn't get "
+"done by somebody else, we did it. Because we knew that we wouldn't have a "
+"complete system without it. And even if it was totally boring and "
+"unromantic, like <code>tar</code> or <code>mv</code>. <i>[Laughter]</i> We "
+"did it. Or ld, you know there's nothing very exciting in <code>ld</code> "
+"— but I wrote one. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I did make efforts to have "
+"it do a minimal amount of disk I/O so that it would be faster and handle "
+"bigger programs. But, you know, I like to do a good job. I like to improve "
+"various things about the program while I'm doing it. But the reason that I "
+"did it wasn't that I had brilliant ideas for a better <code>ld</code>. The "
+"reason I did it is that we needed one that was free. And we couldn't expect "
+"anyone else to do it. So, we had to do it, or find someone to do it."
+msgstr ""
+"Ve, bu nedenle, biz, her küçük parçayı baÅka birilerine hazırlatmayan "
+"birileriyiz. Ve <code>tar</code> ya da <code>mv</code> gibi tamamen sıkıcı
"
+"ve romantiklikten uzak olsa bile <i>[Dinleyiciler güler]</i>, bunu yaptık. "
+"Ya da <code>ld</code> gibi â bildiÄiniz gibi, <code>ld</code>âde çok
heyecan "
+"verici bir Åeyler yoktur ancak ben bir tane yazdım. <i>[Dinleyiciler
güler]</"
+"i> Ve minimal disk I/Oâsu kaplaması için çaba gösterdim böylece daha
hızlı "
+"olmuÅtur ve daha büyük programları kontrol edebilmektedir. Ä°yi iÅ
çıkarmayı "
+"severim; bir programı yazarken, program hakkında birçok Åeyi geliÅtirmek
"
+"isterim. Ancak bunu yapmamın nedeni, daha iyi bir Id için parlak "
+"fikirlerimin olması deÄildi. Bunu yapmamın nedeni, özgür bir programa "
+"ihtiyaç duymamızdı. Ve baÅka birinin bunu yapmasını bekleyemezdik. Bu "
+"nedenle, bunu yapmamız ya da baÅka birilerine yaptırmamız gerekliydi."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, although at this point thousands of people in projects have contributed "
+"to this system, there is one project which is the reason that this system "
+"exists, and that's the GNU Project. It <em>is</em> basically the GNU "
+"System, with other things added since then."
+msgstr ""
+"Bu nedenle, bu noktada binlerce insanın ya da projenin bu sisteme "
+"katılmasına raÄmen, bu sistemin var olmasının nedeni olan bir proje "
+"mevcuttur ve bu da GNU Projesidir. Bu <em>sistem</em> temelde GNU "
+"Sistemidir, o zamandan beri baÅka Åeyler de eklenmiÅtir. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, however, the practice of calling the system Linux has been a great blow "
+"to the GNU Project, because we don't normally get credit for what we've "
+"done. I think Linux, the kernel, is a very useful piece of free software, "
+"and I have only good things to say about it. But, well, actually, I can "
+"find a few bad things to say about it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, basically, I "
+"have good things to say about it. However, the practice of calling the GNU "
+"system, Linux, is just a mistake. I'd like to ask you please to make the "
+"small effort necessary to call the system GNU/Linux, and that way to help us "
+"get a share of the credit."
+msgstr ""
+"Sistemi Linux olarak adlandırmak GNU Projesi için büyük bir övünç
olmuÅtur "
+"çünkü normalde yapmıŠolduÄumuz Åeyler için itibar kazanmayız.
ÃekirdeÄin, "
+"Linuxâın çok yararlı bir özgür yazılım parçası olduÄunu
düÅünüyorum ve onun "
+"hakkında yalnızca iyi Åeyler söyleyebilirim. Aslında, onun hakkında "
+"söyleyecek kötü Åeyler de bulabilirim. <i>[Dinleyiciler güler]</i> Ancak
"
+"temelde iyi Åeyler söyleyebilirim. Ancak GNU sisteminin âLinuxâ olarak "
+"adlandırılması yalnızca bir hatadır. Sistemi GNU/Linux olarak
adlandırmanızı "
+"rica ederim ve böylece itibardan da faydalanabiliriz."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You need a mascot! Get yourself a stuffed animal! "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SORU</strong>:Bir maskota ihtiyacınız var! Dolgulu bir hayvan
alın! "
+"<i>[Dinleyiciler güler]</i>"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have one."
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>:Bir tane var."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You do?"
+msgstr "<strong>SORU</strong>:Var mı?"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have an animal — a gnu. <i>[Laughter]</"
+"i> Anyway. So, yes, when you draw a penguin, draw a gnu next to it. <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i> But, let's save the questions for the end. I have more to go "
+"through."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>:Bizim bir hayvanımız var â bir gnu (antilop).
<i>"
+"[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Böylece, evet, bir penguen çizdiÄinizde, yanına
bir "
+"de gnu çizin. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Ancak soruları sona saklayalım.
"
+"Daha anlatacak çok Åeyim var."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, why am I so concerned about this? You know, why do I think it is worth "
+"bothering you and perhaps giving you a, perhaps lowering your opinion of me, "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> to raise this issue of credit? Because, you know, some "
+"people when I do this, some people think that it's because I want my ego to "
+"be fed, right? Of course, I'm not saying — I'm not asking you to call "
+"it “Stallmanix,” right? <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Bu arada, niçin bu konuyla bu kadar ilgiliyim? Bu itibar hususunu ortaya "
+"koymak için, sizin canınızı niye sıkıyorum ve belki de sizin
gözünüzdeki "
+"deÄerimi neden düÅürüyorum? <i>[Dinleyiciler güler]</i> Bunu
yaptıÄımda, "
+"bazı insanlar bunu egomu beslemek için yaptıÄımı düÅünebilir, öyle
deÄil mi? "
+"Tabi ki, bu programı âStallmanixâ olarak adlandırmanızı istemiyorum,
öyle "
+"deÄil mi? <i>[Dinleyiciler güler]</i> <i>[AlkıÅ]</i>"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to get "
+"credit. And there's a very specific reason for that, which is a lot more "
+"important than anybody getting credit, in and of itself. You see, these "
+"days, if you look around in our community most of the people talking about "
+"it and writing about it don't ever mention GNU, and they don't ever mention "
+"these goals of freedom — these political and social ideals, either. "
+"Because the place they come from is GNU."
+msgstr ""
+"Sizden bunu GNU olarak adlandırmanızı istiyorum çünkü GNU Projesinin "
+"itibarının olmasını istiyorum. Ve bunun için çok spesifik bir neden
vardır, "
+"bu, herhangi birinin itibar kazanmasından çok daha önemlidir.
Görüyorsunuz, "
+"bugünlerde, topluluÄumuza göz atacak olursanız, onun hakkında konuÅan
ve "
+"yazan kimseler GNUâyu ifade bile etmez ve özgürlüÄün bu amaçlarından
â bu "
+"politik ve sosyal ideallerden â bahsetmezler. Ãünkü onların [baÅka bir
"
+"deyiÅle, bunların] geldikleri yer GNUâdur. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"The ideas associated with Linux — the philosophy is very different. "
+"It is basically the apolitical philosophy of Linus Torvalds. So, when "
+"people think that the whole system is Linux, they tend to think: “Oh, "
+"it must have been all started by Linux Torvalds. His philosophy must be the "
+"one that we should look at carefully”. And when they hear about the "
+"GNU philosophy, they say: “Boy, this is so idealistic, this must be "
+"awfully impractical. I'm a Linux-user, not a GNU-user.” <i>[Laughter]"
+"</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Linuxâla ilgili fikirler â felsefesi çok farklıdır. Bu, temelde Linus "
+"Torvaldsâın apolitik felsefesidir. Bu nedenle, insanlar tüm sistemin
Linux "
+"olduÄunu düÅündüklerinde, Åu Åekilde düÅünme eÄilimdedirler:
âOh, bu, Linus "
+"Torvalds tarafından baÅlatılmıŠolmalıdır. Felsefesini dikkatli bir
Åekilde "
+"incelemeliyiz.â Ve GNU felsefesini duyduklarında, Åunu derler: âBu çok
"
+"idealistçi bir yaklaÅım, korkunç Åekilde uygulanamaz olması lazım. Ben
bir "
+"Linux kullanıcısıyım, GNU kullanıcısı deÄil.â [Dinleyiciler güler]"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"What irony! If they only knew! If they knew that the system they liked "
+"— or, in some cases, love and go wild over — is our idealistic, "
+"political philosophy made real."
+msgstr ""
+"Ne ironi! Yalnızca bilselerdi! HoÅlandıkları â ya da bazı durumlarda "
+"sevdikleri ve vahÅice üzerinden geçtikleri â sistemin politik felsefenin
"
+"gerçek kıldıÄı bu Åeyin bizim idealimiz olduÄunu bilselerdi. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"They still wouldn't have to agree with us. But at least they'd see a reason "
+"to take it seriously, to think about it carefully, to give it a chance. "
+"They would see how it relates to their lives. You know, if they realized, "
+"“I'm using the GNU system. Here's the GNU philosophy. This philosophy "
+"is <em>why</em> this system that I like very much exists,” they'd at "
+"least consider it with a much more open mind. It doesn't mean that "
+"everybody will agree. People think different things. That's OK. You know, "
+"people should make up their own minds. But I want this philosophy to get "
+"the benefit of the credit for the results it has achieved."
+msgstr ""
+"Yine de bizimle fikir birliÄi içinde olmazlardı. Ancak en azından bunu
ciddi "
+"bir Åekilde hesaba katmak, bu konu hakkında düÅünmek ve bir Åans vermek
için "
+"bir nedenleri olurdu. Bunun, hayatlarıyla nasıl bir iliÅkisinin olduÄunu "
+"görürlerdi. Åunu fark etselerdi: âGNU sistemini kullanıyorum. Bu da GNU
"
+"felsefesidir. Bu felsefe, hoÅlandıÄım bu sistemin var olma nedenidir,â
o "
+"zaman bunu en azından çok daha açık bir zihinle deÄerlendirirlerdi. Bu, "
+"herkesin bu konuda fikir birliÄi içinde olacaÄı anlamına gelmez.
Ä°nsanlar "
+"farklı Åeyler düÅünür. Bu uygundur â insanlar kendileri karar
vermelidirler. "
+"Ancak bu felsefenin saÄladıÄı sonuçlar için itibarının yararını
saÄlamasını "
+"isterim."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"If you look around in our community, you'll find that almost everywhere, the "
+"institutions are calling the system Linux. You know, reporters mostly call "
+"it Linux. It's not right, but they do. The companies mostly say it that "
+"package the system. Oh, and most of these reporters, when they write "
+"articles, they usually don't look at it as a political issue, or social "
+"issue. They're usually looking at it purely as a business question or what "
+"companies are going to succeed more or less, which is really a fairly minor "
+"question for society. And, if you look at the companies that package the "
+"GNU/Linux system for people to use, well, most of them call it Linux. And "
+"they <em>all</em> add non-free software to it."
+msgstr ""
+"TopluluÄumuza göz atarsak, hemen hemen her yerde kurumların sistemi Linux "
+"olarak adlandırdıÄını görürüz. Muhabirler bunu genelde Linux olarak "
+"adlandırmaktadır. Bu, doÄru deÄildir ancak bunu yaparlar. Sistemi
paketleyen "
+"firmalar sistemi genelde [Linux] olarak adlandırır. Ve bu muhabirlerin "
+"birçoÄu, makale yazdıklarında, bunu genelde politik bir husus ya da
sosyal "
+"bir husus olarak görmezler. Buna genelde safça bir iŠsorusu ya da hangi "
+"firmaların az ya da çok baÅarılı olacaÄı olarak bakarlar, bu, temelde
toplum "
+"için küçük bir sorudur. Ve insanların kullanımı için GNU/Linux
sistemini "
+"paketleyen firmalara baktıÄınızda, bu firmaların birçoÄu bu sistemi
Linux "
+"olarak adlandırmaktadır. Ve tümü de bu sisteme özgür olmayan yazılım
ekler."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"See, the GNU GPL says that if you take code, and some code out of a GPL-"
+"covered program, and add some more code to make a bigger program, that whole "
+"program has to be released under the GPL. But you could put other separate "
+"programs on the same disk (of either kind, hard disk, or CD), and they can "
+"have other licenses. That's considered mere aggregation, and, essentially, "
+"just distributing two programs to somebody at the same time is not something "
+"we have any say over. So, in fact, it is not true — sometimes, I wish "
+"it were true — that if a company uses a GPL-covered program in a "
+"product that the whole product has to be free software. It's not — it "
+"doesn't go to that range — that scope. It's the whole program. If "
+"there are two separate programs that communicate with each other at arm's "
+"length — like by sending messages to each other — then, they're "
+"legally separate, in general. So, these companies, by adding non-free "
+"software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically and "
+"politically, a very bad idea. They're telling the users, “It is OK to "
+"use non-free software. We're even putting it on this as a bonus.”"
+msgstr ""
+"GNU GPL, kodu alırsanız ve GPL kapsamlı bir programdan birtakım kodları "
+"alırsanız ve daha büyük bir program oluÅturmak için bir miktar daha
fazla "
+"kod eklerseniz, söz konusu tüm programın GPL altında yayınlanması "
+"gerektiÄini söyler. Ancak aynı disk (hard disk ya da CD) üzerine ayrı "
+"programlar koyabilirsiniz ve bunların baÅka lisansları olabilir. Bu, "
+"yalnızca toplama olarak deÄerlendirilir ve esasen aynı zamanda iki
programın "
+"birilerine daÄıtılması, hakkında herhangi bir Åey söyleyebileceÄimiz
bir "
+"durum deÄildir. Bu nedenle, gerçekte, bu durum doÄru deÄildir â bazen
doÄru "
+"olmasını ummaktayım â bir firma bir üründe GPL kapsamlı bir programı
"
+"kullanırsa, tüm ürün özgür yazılım olmalıdır. Bu ürün, söz
konusu aralıÄa "
+"girmez â söz konusu kapsamda deÄildir. Bu ürün, tüm programdır.
Emsallerine "
+"uygun bir Åekilde birbiriyle iletiÅim kuran â örneÄin, birbirine mesaj "
+"gönderen â iki ayrı program mevcutsa, o zaman bu iki program genellikle "
+"yasal olarak ayrıdır. Bu nedenle, bu firmalar, sisteme özgür olmayan
yazılım "
+"ekleyerek, kullanıcılara, felsefi ve politik açıdan çok kötü bir fikir
"
+"vermektedir. Kullanıcılara Åunu söylemektedirler: âÃzgür olmayan
yazılımın "
+"kullanılması iyidir. Hatta bunu hediye olarak veriyoruz.â"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system, most of "
+"them have a title like “Linux-something or other”. So they're "
+"calling the system Linux most of the time. And they're filled with ads for "
+"non-free software that you could run on top of the GNU/Linux system. Now "
+"those ads have a common message. They say: Non-free Software Is Good For "
+"You. It's So Good That You Might Even <em>Pay</em> To Get It. <i>[Laughter]"
+"</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"GNU/Linux sisteminin kullanımı hakkındaki dergilere baktıÄınız zaman, "
+"çoÄunluÄunun Åu Åekilde bir baÅlıÄa sahip olduÄunu görürsünüz:
âLinux-bir-"
+"Åeyler-ya-da-diÄer-Åeyler.â Böylece sistemi çoÄunlukla Linux olarak "
+"adlandırırlar. Ve bu dergiler, GNU/Linux sisteminin üstünde "
+"çalıÅtırabileceÄiniz özgür olmayan yazılıma iliÅkin reklamlarla
doludur. "
+"Åimdi, bu reklamlar ortak bir mesaja sahiptir. Åöyle demektedirler:
âÃzgür "
+"olmayan yazılım sizin için iyidir. O kadar iyidir ki, bu yazılıma sahip "
+"olmak için <em>para</em> bile ödeyebilirsiniz.â [Dinleyiciler güler]"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And they call these things “value-added packages”, which makes a "
+"statement about their values. They're saying: Value practical convenience, "
+"not freedom. And, I don't agree with those values, so I call them “"
+"freedom-subtracted packages”. <i>[Laughter]</i> Because if you have "
+"installed a free operating system, then you now are living in the free "
+"world. You enjoy the benefits of liberty that we worked for so many years "
+"to give you. Those packages give you an opportunity to buckle on a chain."
+msgstr ""
+"Ve bu Åeyleri âkatma deÄer paketleriâ olarak adlandırırız, bu,
onların "
+"deÄerleri hakkında bir ifade saÄlar. Åöyle demektedirler: ÃzgürlüÄü
deÄil, "
+"pratik elveriÅliliÄi deÄerlendirin. Ve bu deÄerlerle fikir birliÄi
içinde "
+"deÄilim, bu nedenle onları âözgürlüÄü eksilmiÅ paketlerâ olarak "
+"adlandırıyorum. [Dinleyiciler güler] Ãzgür bir iÅletim sistemi
kurduysanız, "
+"o zaman Åimdi özgür dünyada yaÅıyorsunuz demektir. Yıllardır size
vermek "
+"için uÄraÅtıÄımız özgürlüÄün faydalarının tadını çıkarın.
Bu paketler, size "
+"bir zincir üzerinde eÄilme imkânını vermektedir. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And then if you look at the trade shows — about the use of the, "
+"dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call themselves "
+"“Linux” shows. And they're filled with booths exhibiting non-"
+"free software, essentially putting the seal of approval on the non-free "
+"software. So, almost everywhere you look in our community, the institutions "
+"are endorsing the non-free software, totalling negating the idea of freedom "
+"that GNU was developed for. And the only place that people are likely to "
+"come across the idea of freedom is in connection with GNU, and in connection "
+"with free software, the term, free software. So this is why I ask you: "
+"please call the system GNU/Linux. Please make people aware where the system "
+"came from and why."
+msgstr ""
+"Ve GNU/Linux sisteminin kullanımına adanmıŠticari gösterilere
bakarsanız, "
+"bu gösteriler, kendilerini âLinuxâ gösterileri olarak
adlandırmaktadır. Ve "
+"özgür olmayan yazılımı sergileyen satıŠreyonlarıyla doludurlar,
özellikle, "
+"onay damgasını özgür olmayan yazılımın üzerine vururlar. Bu nedenle, "
+"toplumumuzda baktıÄımız her yerde, kurumlar özgür olmayan yazılımı "
+"desteklemektedir, GNUânun kendisi için geliÅtirildiÄi özgürlük
fikrini "
+"tamamen yadsırlar. Ve insanların özgürlük fikriyle karÅı karÅıya "
+"gelebilecekleri tek yer, GNU ile ve özgür yazılımla iliÅkilidir. Bu
nedenle "
+"sizden sistemi GNU/Linux olarak adlandırmanızı istememin nedeni budur. "
+"Lütfen insanları sistemin nereden ve niçin geldiÄi konusunda
bilgilendirin."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Of course, just by using that name, you won't be making an explanation of "
+"the history. You can type four extra characters and write GNU/Linux; you "
+"can say two extra syllables. But, GNU/Linux is fewer syllables than Windows "
+"2000. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, you're not telling them a lot, but you're "
+"preparing them, so that when they hear about GNU, and what it's all about, "
+"they'll see how that connects to them and their lives. And that, "
+"indirectly, makes a tremendous difference. So please help us."
+msgstr ""
+"Tabi ki, yalnızca bu ismi kullanarak, tarihsel bir açıklama
yapmayacaksınız. "
+"Dört ekstra karakter girebilir ve GNU/Linuxâı yazabilirsiniz; iki ekstra "
+"hece söyleyebilirsiniz. Ancak GNU/Linux Windows 2000âden daha az heceden "
+"oluÅmaktadır. [Dinleyiciler güler] Onlara çok fazla Åey anlatmıyorsunuz
"
+"ancak onları hazırlıyorsunuz, böylece GNU hakkında bir Åeyler
öÄrenecekler "
+"ve konunun ne olduÄunu duyduklarında, bunun kendileriyle ve yaÅamlarıyla "
+"nasıl bir iliÅkisinin olduÄunu göreceklerdir. Ve bu, doÄrudan büyük
bir fark "
+"yaratmaktadır. Bu nedenle, lütfen bize yardım edin. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"You'll note that Microsoft called the GPL an “open source "
+"license”. They don't want people to be thinking in terms of freedom "
+"as the issue. You'll find that they invite people to think in a narrow way, "
+"as consumers, and, of course, not even think very rationally as consumers, "
+"if they're going to choose Microsoft products. But they don't want people "
+"to think as citizens or statesmen. That's inimical to them. At least it's "
+"inimical to their current business model."
+msgstr ""
+"Microsoft, GPLâi âaçık kaynaklı bir lisansâ olarak adlandırdı.
İnsanların, "
+"ana husus olarak özgürlük açısından düÅünüyor olmalarını
istemediler. "
+"İnsanları, Microsoft ürünlerini seçeceklerse, tüketici olarak dar bir "
+"Åekilde düÅünmeye ve tabi ki tüketiciler olarak çok rasyonel bir
Åekilde "
+"düÅünmemeye davet ettiklerini bulacaksınız. Ancak insanların vatandaÅ
ya da "
+"devlet adamı gibi düÅünmesini istemezler, Bu, onlar için zıttır, "
+"düÅmancadır. En azından mevcut iÅ modellerine karÅı zıttır."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, how does free software…well, I can tell you about how free "
+"software relates to our society. A secondary topic that might be of "
+"interest to some of you is how free software relates to business. Now, in "
+"fact, free software is <em>tremendously</em> useful for business. After "
+"all, most businesses in the advanced countries use software. Only a tiny "
+"fraction of them develop software."
+msgstr ""
+"Åimdi, özgür yazılım nasıl…evet, özgür yazılımın
toplumumuzla nasıl "
+"bir iliÅkisinin olduÄunu anlatabilirim. Bazılarınız için önemli
olabilecek "
+"ikinci bir baÅlık ise özgür yazılımın iÅle nasıl bir ilgisi
olduÄudur. "
+"Åimdi, gerçekte, özgür yazılım iÅ için <em>büyük</em> ölçüde
yararlıdır. Ne "
+"de olsa, geliÅmiŠülkelerdeki birçok iÅyerinde yazılım
kullanılmaktadır. "
+"Yalnızca küçük bir kısmı yazılım geliÅtirmektedir. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And free software is tremendously advantageous for any company that uses "
+"software, because it means that you're in control. Basically, free software "
+"means the users are in control of what the program does. Either "
+"individually, if they care enough to be, or, collectively, when they care "
+"enough to be. Whoever cares enough can exert some influence. If you don't "
+"care, you don't buy. Then you use what other people prefer. But, if you do "
+"care, then you have some say. With proprietary software, you have "
+"essentially no say."
+msgstr ""
+"Ve özgür yazılım, yazılım kullanan herhangi bir firma için büyük
ölçüde "
+"avantajlıdır çünkü bu, kontrolün sizde olduÄunu göstermektedir. Temel
"
+"olarak, özgür yazılım, kullanıcıların, programın ne yaptıÄına
iliÅkin "
+"kontrole sahip oldukları anlamına gelmektedir. Münferit olarak ya da toplu
"
+"olarak, yeterince dikkatli olurlarsa, durum böyledir. Yeterince dikkat "
+"gösteren herkes, bazı etkileri uygulayabilir. Dikkat etmezseniz, satın "
+"almazsınız. O zaman baÅka insanların tercih ettiklerini kullanırsınız.
Ancak "
+"dikkat eder, özen gösterirseniz, o zaman söyleyecek bir Åeyleriniz olur. "
+"özel mülk yazılım söz konusu olduÄunda, söyleyecek bir Åeyiniz olmaz.
"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"With free software, you can change what you want to change. And it doesn't "
+"matter that there are no programmers in your company; that's fine. You "
+"know, if you wanted to move the walls in your building, you don't have to be "
+"a carpentry company. You just have to be able to go find a carpenter and "
+"say, “What will you charge to do this job?” And if you want to "
+"change around the software you use, you don't have to be a programming "
+"company. You just have to go to a programming company and say, “What "
+"will you charge to implement these features? And when will you have it done?"
+"” And if they don't do the job, you can go find somebody else."
+msgstr ""
+"Ãzgür yazılımla, deÄiÅtirmek istediÄiniz Åeyleri
deÄiÅtirebilirsiniz. Ve "
+"firmanızda programlayıcıların olup olmaması fark etmez; bu, iyidir. "
+"Binanızdaki duvarları hareket ettirmek isterseniz, bir marangozluk firması
"
+"olmanız gerekmez. Bir marangoz bulup, âBu iÅi yapmak için ne kadar para "
+"istersin?â diye sormanız yeterlidir. Ve kullandıÄınız yazılımı
deÄiÅtirmek "
+"isterseniz, bir programlama firması olmanız gerekmez. Tek yapmanız gereken
"
+"bir programlama firmasına gidip Åunu söylemektir: âBu özellikleri
implement "
+"etmek için ne kadar para istersiniz? Ve ne zamana bitirirsiniz?â Ve iÅi "
+"yapmazlarsa, gidip baÅka birilerini bulabilirsiniz."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"There's a free market for support. So, any business that cares about "
+"support will find a tremendous advantage in free software. With proprietary "
+"software, support is a monopoly, because one company has the source code, or "
+"maybe a small number of companies that paid a gigantic amount of money have "
+"the source code, if it's Microsoft's shared source program, but, it's very "
+"few. And so, there aren't very many possible sources of support for you. "
+"And that means, that unless you're a real giant, they don't care about you. "
+"Your company is not important enough for them to care if they lose your "
+"business, or what happens. Once you're using the program, they figure "
+"you're locked in to getting the support from them, because to switch to a "
+"different program is a gigantic job. So, you end up with things like paying "
+"for the privilege of reporting a bug. <i>[Laughter]</i> And once you've "
+"paid, they tell you, “Well, OK, we've noted your bug report. And in a "
+"few months, you can buy an upgrade, and you can see if we've fixed it."
+"” <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Destek için özgür bir piyasa mevcuttur. Bu nedenle destekle ilgilenen her "
+"türlü iÅyeri, özgür yazılımda büyük bir avantaj bulacaktır. özel
mülk "
+"yazılımla, destek bir tekeldir çünkü bir firma, bu, Microsoftâun
paylaÅılan "
+"bir kaynak programı ise kaynak koduna sahiptir â ya da belki de yüklü
bir "
+"miktar para ödeyen az sayıda firma kaynak koduna sahiptir â ancak, bu
sayı "
+"çok azdır. Bu nedenle, sizin için çok fazla sayıda olası kaynak mevcut "
+"deÄildir. Ve bu, gerçekten de büyük bir dev deÄilseniz, sizinle "
+"ilgilenmedikleri anlamına gelmektedir. Firmanız, sizin iÅinizi "
+"kaybederlerse, bu duruma önem vermelerini gerektirecek kadar önemli "
+"deÄildir. Bir kere programı kullandıÄınızda, onlar için desteÄi
almakta "
+"kilitlendiÄinizi anlarlar çünkü farklı bir programa geçmek çok büyük
bir "
+"iÅtir. Bu nedenle, bir hatanın raporlanması ayrıcalıÄının ödenmesi
gibi "
+"Åeylerle karÅılaÅırsınız. [Dinleyiciler güler] Ve bir kere ödeme
yaptıktan "
+"sonra, Åöyle derler: âÄ°yi, tamam, hata raporunuzu kaydettik. Ve birkaç
ay "
+"içinde, bir yükseltme [:upgrade] satın alabilirsiniz ve bu hatayı giderip
"
+"gidermediÄimizi görebilirsiniz.â [Dinleyiciler güler]"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Support providers for free software can't get away with that. They have to "
+"please the customers. Of course, you can get a lot of good support gratis. "
+"You post your problem on the Internet. You may get an answer the next day. "
+"But that's not guaranteed, of course. If you want to be confident, you "
+"better make an arrangement with a company and pay them. And this is, of "
+"course, one of the ways that free software business works."
+msgstr ""
+"Ãzgür yazılıma iliÅkin destek saÄlayıcıları, bundan ucuz kurtulamaz.
"
+"MüÅterileri memnun etmek zorundadırlar. Tabi ki, birçok iyi bedava destek
"
+"alabilirsiniz. Probleminizi İnternetten gönderirsiniz. Ertesi gün bir
yanıt "
+"alabilirsiniz. Ancak bu, tabi ki garantili deÄildir. Güvende olmak "
+"isterseniz, en iyisi bir firma ile anlaÅma yapın ve onlara ücret ödeyin.
Ve "
+"bu, tabi ki, özgür yazılım iÅinin çalıÅma Åekillerinden birisidir. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Another advantage of free software for businesses that use software is "
+"security and privacy. And this applies to individuals as well, but I "
+"brought it up in the context of businesses. You see, when a program is "
+"proprietary, you can't even tell what it really does."
+msgstr ""
+"Yazılım kullanan iÅler için özgür yazılımın baÅka bir avantajı,
güven ve "
+"gizliliktir. Ve bu, bireyler için de geçerlidir ancak bunu, iÅyerleri "
+"baÄlamında gündeme getirdim. Ä°Åte, bir program özel mülk olduÄunda, "
+"gerçekten de ne yaptıÄını bile söyleyemezsiniz."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"It could have features, deliberately put in that you wouldn't like if you "
+"knew about them, like it might have a backdoor to let the developer get into "
+"your machine. It might snoop on what you do and send information back. "
+"This is not unusual. Some Microsoft software did this. But it's not only "
+"Microsoft. There are other proprietary programs that snoop on the user. "
+"And you can't even tell if it does this. And, of course, even assuming that "
+"the developer's totally honest, every programmer makes mistakes. There "
+"could be bugs that affect your security which are nobody's fault. But the "
+"point is: If it's not free software, you can't find them. And you can't fix "
+"them."
+msgstr ""
+"Bunların hakkında bir Åeyler biliyorsanız, hoÅlanmayacaÄınız bir
Åekilde "
+"kasıtlı olarak ortaya konan özelliklere sahip olabilir. ÃrneÄin, "
+"geliÅtiricinin makinenize girmesine izin veren bir arka kapıya sahip "
+"olabilir. YaptıÄınız iÅlere burnunu sokabilir ve bilgileri geri "
+"gönderebilir. Bu, yaygın bir durumdur. Birtakım Microsoft yazılımları
bunu "
+"yapmaktadır. Ancak bunu yapan yalnızca Microsoft deÄildir. Kullanıcının
"
+"iÅine burnunu sokan baÅka özel mülk programlar mevcuttur. Ve bunu
yaptıkları "
+"zaman fark edemezsiniz bile. Ve tabi ki, geliÅtiricinin tamamen dürüst "
+"olduÄu varsayıldıÄında bile, her programcı hata yapar. Bunlar,
güvenliÄinizi "
+"etkileyen ve kimseden kaynaklanmayan hatalar olabilir. Ancak buradaki ana "
+"nokta Åudur: Bu, özgür yazılım deÄildir, bu hataları bulamazsınız.
Ve bu "
+"hataları gideremezsiniz."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Nobody has the time to check the source of every program he runs. You're "
+"not going to do that. But with free software there's a large community, and "
+"there are people in that community who are checking things. And you get the "
+"benefit of their checking, because if there's an accidental bug, there "
+"surely are, from time to time, in any program, they might find it and fix "
+"it. And people are much less likely to put in a deliberate Trojan horse, or "
+"a snooping feature, if they think they might get caught. The proprietary "
+"software developers figure they won't get caught. They'll get away with it "
+"undetected. But a free software developer has to figure that people will "
+"look at that and see it's there. So, in our community, we don't feel we can "
+"get away with ramming a feature down the users' throats that the users "
+"wouldn't like. So we know that if the users don't like it, they'll make a "
+"modified version which doesn't have it. And then, they'll all start using "
+"that version."
+msgstr ""
+"Hiç kimse, çalıÅtırdıÄı her programın kaynaÄını kontrol etmek
için gereken "
+"zamana sahip deÄildir. Bunu yapmayacaksınız. Ancak özgür yazılımla,
büyük "
+"bir topluluk mevcuttur ve bu toplulukta olayları kontrol eden insanlar "
+"vardır. Ve onların kontrolünden faydalanırsınız çünkü kazara bir
hata varsa, "
+"ki kesinlikle vardır, zaman zaman, herhangi bir programda, bu hatayı "
+"bulabilir ve giderebilirler. Ve yakalanacaklarını düÅündükleri zaman, "
+"insanların, kasıtlı bir Truva atı (kullanılacaÄı bilgisayara bilerek
hasar "
+"verme amacıyla hazırlanmıŠbilgisayar programı) ya da burnunu sokan bir "
+"özelliÄi koyma ihtimali çok daha düÅüktür. özel mülk yazılım "
+"geliÅtiricileri, yakalanmayacaklarını düÅünür. Bu durumun tespit
edilmeden "
+"geçeceÄini düÅünürler. Ancak özgür bir yazılım geliÅtiricisi
insanların ona "
+"bakacaÄını ve orada olduÄunu göreceÄini bilir. TopluluÄumuzda, "
+"kullanıcıların hoÅlanmayacakları bir Åekilde boÄazlarına bastırarak
bu "
+"durumdan kurtulmayı düÅünmeyiz. Biliriz ki, kullanıcılar bundan
hoÅlanmazsa, "
+"bu özelliÄe sahip olmayan deÄiÅtirilmiÅ bir sürüm hazırlanacaktır.
Ve daha "
+"sonra tümü de söz konusu sürümü kullanarak çalıÅmaya
baÅlayacaktır."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"In fact, we can all reason enough, we can all figure this out enough steps "
+"ahead, that we probably won't put in that feature. After all, you're "
+"writing a free program; you want people to like your version; you don't want "
+"to put in a thing that you know a lot of people are going to hate, and have "
+"another modified version catch on instead of yours. So you just realize "
+"that the user is king in the world of free software. In the world of "
+"proprietary software, the customer is <em>not</em> king. Because you are "
+"only a customer. You have no say in the software you use."
+msgstr ""
+"Gerçekte, muhtemelen bu özelliÄi koymayacaÄımız sonucunu hepimiz "
+"çıkarabiliriz, yeterince adım önceden bunu anlayabiliriz. Ne de olsa,
özgür "
+"bir program yazıyorsunuz; insanların sürümünüzdenhoÅlanmasını
istersiniz; "
+"birçok insanın nefret edeceÄi bir özelliÄi koymazsınız ve kendinizinki
"
+"yerine baÅka bir deÄiÅtirilmiÅ sürümü kullanmazsınız. Böylece,
özgür yazılım "
+"dünyasında kralın kullanıcı olduÄunu fark edersiniz. özel mülk
yazılım "
+"dünyasında, kral, müÅteri deÄildir. Ãünkü siz yalnızca bir
müÅterisinizdir. "
+"KullandıÄınız yazılımda söz hakkınız yoktur."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"In this respect, free software is a new mechanism for democracy to operate. "
+"Professor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions as a kind of "
+"law. Whoever gets to write the code that just about everybody uses for all "
+"intents and purposes is writing the laws that run people's lives. With free "
+"software, these laws get written in a democratic way. Not the classical "
+"form of democracy — we don't have a big election and say, “"
+"Everybody vote which way should this feature be done.” <i>[Laughter]</"
+"i> Instead we say, basically, those of you who want to work on implementing "
+"the feature this way, do it. And if you want to work on implementing the "
+"feature that way, do it. And, it gets done one way or the other, you know? "
+"And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done this way. So, "
+"in this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by simply taking "
+"steps in the direction that he wants to go."
+msgstr ""
+"Bu anlamda, özgür yazılım, demokrasinin iÅlemesi için yeni bir
mekanizmadır. "
+"Åimdi Stanfordâda olan Profesör Lessig, bir kanun çeÅidi olarak söz
konusu "
+"kod fonksiyonlarını söylemiÅtir. Tüm amaçlar ve hedefler için herkesin
"
+"kullandıÄı kod hakkında yazan her kimse, insanların hayatlarını
belirleyen "
+"kanunlar yazmaktadır. Ãzgür yazılım söz konusu olduÄunda, bu kanunlar "
+"demokratik bir Åekilde yazılır. Ancak bu, klasik demokrasi biçimi
deÄildir â "
+"büyük bir seçim yapıp Åunu demiyoruz: âHerkes, bu iÅin nasıl
yapılmasını "
+"istiyorsa ona göre oy versin.â [Dinleyiciler güler] Bunun yerine, temel "
+"olarak Åunu diyoruz: özelliÄin Åu Åekilde implement edilmesini
isteyenler, o "
+"Åekilde yapsın. Ve söz konusu özelliÄi söz konusu Åekilde
gerçekleÅtirmek "
+"için çalıÅmak isterseniz, öyle yaparsınız. Ve bir Åekilde ya da
diÄer "
+"Åekilde yapılır, deÄil mi? Ve böylece çok sayıda insan bu Åekilde
isterse, "
+"bu Åekilde yapılacaktır. Bu Åekilde, herkes, gitmek istediÄi yönde
basitçe "
+"adımlar atarak sosyal karara katkıda bulunur. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And you're free to take as many steps, personally, as you want to take. A "
+"business is free to commission as many steps as they find useful to take. "
+"And, after you add all these things up, that says which direction the "
+"software goes."
+msgstr ""
+"Ve kiÅisel olarak istediÄiniz kadar adım atmakta özgürsünüz. Bir
iÅyeri, "
+"atmalarının yararlı olduÄu kadar adımı atmakta özgürdür. Ve tüm bu
Åeyleri "
+"topladıÄınızda, bu, yazılımın hangi yönde gittiÄini söyler."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And it's often very useful to be able to take pieces out of some existing "
+"program, presumably usually large pieces, of course, and then write a "
+"certain amount of code of your own, and make a program that does exactly "
+"what you need, which would have cost you an arm and a leg to develop, if you "
+"had to write it all from scratch, if you couldn't cannibalize large pieces "
+"from some existing free software package."
+msgstr ""
+"Ve mevcut birtakım programlardan â genellikle büyük parçalardan â
bazı "
+"parçaların alınması ve daha sonra kendinize ait belirli miktardaki kodun "
+"yazılması ve ihtiyacınızı tam olarak karÅılayan bir programın
hazırlanması "
+"tabi ki çok yararlıdır; mevcut birtakım özgür yazılım paketlerinden
büyük "
+"parçaları alamazsanız, tamamını yeni baÅtan yazmak size pahalıya mal "
+"olacaktır."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Another thing that results from the fact that the user is king is that we "
+"tend to be very good about compatibility and standardization. Why? Because "
+"users like that. Users are likely to reject a program that has gratuitous "
+"incompatibilities in it. Now, sometimes there's a certain group of users "
+"which actually have a need for a certain kind of incompatibility, and then "
+"they'll have it. That's OK. But when users want is to follow a standard, we "
+"developers have to follow it, and we know that. And we do it. By contrast, "
+"if you look at proprietary software developers, they often find it "
+"advantageous to deliberately <em>not</em> follow a standard, and not because "
+"they think that they're giving the user an advantage that way, but rather "
+"because they're imposing on the user, locking the user in. And you'll even "
+"find them making changes in their file formats from time to time, just to "
+"force people to get the newest version."
+msgstr ""
+"Kralın kullanıcı olduÄu gerçeÄinden kaynaklanan baÅka bir Åey de,
uyumluluk "
+"ve standardizasyon konusunda çok iyi olma eÄilimimizdir. Niçin? Ãünkü "
+"kullanıcılar bundan hoÅlanmaktadır. Kullanıcılar, içinde büyük "
+"uyumsuzlukların olduÄu bir programı reddedecektir. Åimdi, bazen belirli
bir "
+"uyumsuzluk tipine iliÅkin ihtiyacı olan belirli bir kullanıcı grubu
vardır "
+"ve o zaman ona sahip olacaklardır. Bu tamamdır. Ancak kullanıcılar bir "
+"standardı izlemek istediklerinde, biz geliÅtiriciler de bunu izlemeliyiz ve
"
+"bunu biliriz. Ve bunu yaparız. Bunun zıttı olarak, özel mülk yazılım "
+"geliÅtiricilerine bakarsanız, genellikle kasıtlı olarak bir standardı "
+"izlememeyi avantajlı bulurlar ve bunun nedeni, bu Åekilde kullanıcıya bir
"
+"avantaj saÄladıklarını düÅündükleri için <em>deÄil</em>, ancak daha
çok "
+"kullanıcı üzerinde bir Åeyler dayattıkları, kullanıcıyı
kilitledikleri "
+"içindir. Ve özel mülk yazılım geliÅtiricilerinin zaman zaman dosya "
+"biçimlerinde deÄiÅiklikler yaptıklarını görürsünüz, bunun tek
nedeni, "
+"insanların en yeni sürümü satın almalarını saÄlamaktır. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Archivists are finding a problem now, that files written on computers ten "
+"years ago often can't be accessed; they were written with proprietary "
+"software that's essentially lost now. If it were written with free "
+"software, then it could be brought up-to-date and run. And those things "
+"would not, those records would not be lost, would not be inaccessible. They "
+"were even complaining about this on NPR recently in citing free software as "
+"a solution. And so, in effect, by using a non-free program to store your "
+"own data, you are putting your head in a noose."
+msgstr ""
+"ArÅivciler Åimdi bir problem bulmaktadır, on yıl önce bilgisayarlarda "
+"yazılan dosyalara genellikle eriÅilememektedir; bunlar, Åimdi kaybolmuÅ
olan "
+"özel mülk yazılımla yazılan dosyalardır. Bu dosyalar özgür
yazılımla "
+"yazılmıŠolsalardı, güncelleÅtirilebilip çalıÅtırılabilirlerdi. Ve
söz "
+"konusu kayıtlar kaybolmazdı, eriÅilemeyen duruma gelmezdi. NPR'de bile bu "
+"konuda Åikayetler vardı ve çözüm olarak özgür yazılım
önerilmekteydi. "
+"Aslında, kendi verilerinizi saklamak için özgür olmayan programı
kullanarak, "
+"kendinizi tuzaÄa düÅürüyorsunuz."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, I've talked about how free software affects most business. But how does "
+"it affect that particular narrow area which is software business? Well, the "
+"answer is mostly not at all. And the reason is that 90% of the software "
+"industry, from what I'm told, is development of custom software, software "
+"that's not meant to be released at all. For custom software, this issue, or "
+"the ethical issue of free or proprietary, doesn't arise. You see, the issue "
+"is, are you users free to change, and redistribute, the software? If there's "
+"only one user, and that user owns the rights, there's no problem. That user "
+"<em>is</em> free to do all these things. So, in effect, any <em>custom</em> "
+"program that was developed by one company for use in-house is free software, "
+"as long as they have the sense to insist on getting the source code and all "
+"the rights."
+msgstr ""
+"Böylece, özgür yazılımın birçok iÅi nasıl etkilediÄini anlattım.
Ancak, "
+"yazılım iÅi olan bu özel dar alanı nasıl etkilemektedir? Evet, bu
sorunun "
+"cevabı, çoÄunlukla hemen hemen hiç etkilemediÄidir. Ve bana
anlatılanlardan, "
+"bunun nedeni, yazılım endüstrisinin % 90âının özel yazılımın
geliÅimine "
+"ayrılmasıdır, baÅka bir deyiÅle, yayınlanmayan yazılıma
ayrılmasıdır. Ãzel "
+"yazılım için, bu husus ya da özgür ya da özel mülk olma hususu
gündeme "
+"gelmez. GördüÄünüz gibi, buradaki husus, siz kullanıcıların
yazılımı "
+"deÄiÅtirmek ve yeniden daÄıtmak için özgür olup olmadıÄınızdır.
Yalnızca tek "
+"bir kullanıcı varsa ve söz konusu kullanıcı haklara sahipse, o zaman
problem "
+"yoktur. Söz konusu kullanıcı tüm bu Åeyleri yapmakta özgürdür. Bu
nedenle, "
+"aslında, kaynak kodunu ve tüm hakları alma konusunda ısrar ediyorlarsa, "
+"firma içinde kullanım için bir firma tarafından geliÅtirilen her türlü
özel "
+"program özgür yazılımdır."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And the issue doesn't really arise for software that goes in a watch or a "
+"microwave oven or an automobile ignition system. Because those are places "
+"where you don't download software to install. It's not a real computer, as "
+"far as the user is concerned. And so, it doesn't raise these issues enough "
+"for them to be ethically important. So, for the most part, the software "
+"industry will go along, just as it's been going. And the interesting thing "
+"is that since such a large fraction of the jobs are in that part of the "
+"industry, even if there were no possibilities for free software business, "
+"the developers of free software could all get day jobs writing custom "
+"software. <i>[Laughter]</i> There's so many; the ratio is so big."
+msgstr ""
+"Bu husus, bir saatteki ya da bir mikrodalga fırındaki ya da bir otomobilin "
+"ateÅleme sistemindeki yazılım için söz konusu deÄildir çünkü bu
durumlarda, "
+"kurmak için yazılım indirmezsiniz. Kullanıcı söz konusu olduÄu
sürece, bu, "
+"gerçek bir bilgisayar deÄildir, bu nedenle, etik açıdan önemli olmaya "
+"yetecek kadar bu hususları büyütmez. Bu nedenle, en önemli kısım için,
"
+"yazılım endüstrisi, olduÄu gibi gitmeye devam edecektir. Ve ilginç Åey
Åudur "
+"ki, bu gibi büyük bir iÅ oranı endüstrinin ilgili kısmında olduÄu
için, "
+"özgür yazılım iÅi için hiçbir olasılık olmasa bile, özgür
yazılım "
+"geliÅtiricileri, özel yazılım yazmak için günlük iÅler alabilirler. "
+"[Dinleyiciler güler] Bunlardan çok fazla vardır; oran çok büyüktür."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, as it happens, there is free software business. There are free "
+"software companies, and at the press conference that I'm going to have, "
+"people from a couple of them will join us. And, of course, there are also "
+"companies which are <em>not</em> free software businesses but do develop "
+"useful pieces of free software to release, and the free software that they "
+"produce is substantial."
+msgstr ""
+"Ancak görüldüÄü gibi, özgür yazılım iÅi vardır. Ãzgür yazılım
firmaları "
+"vardır ve katılacaÄım basın toplantısında, birkaç özgür yazılım
firmasından "
+"insanlar bize katılacaktır. Ve tabi ki, özgür yazılım iÅi olmayan
ancak "
+"yayınlamak için yararlı özgür yazılım parçaları geliÅtiren firmalar
da "
+"vardır ve onların geliÅtirdiÄi özgür yazılım önemli ölçüdedir."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, how do free software businesses work? Well, some of them sell copies. "
+"You know, you're free to copy it but they can still sell thousands of copies "
+"a month. And others sell support and various kinds of services. I, "
+"personally, for the second half of the '80's, I sold free software support "
+"services. Basically I said, for $200 an hour, I'll change whatever you want "
+"me to change in GNU software that I'd written. And, yes, it was a stiff "
+"rate, but if it was a program that I was the author of, people would figure "
+"that I might get the job done in a lot fewer hours. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I "
+"made a living that way. In fact, I'd made more than I'd ever made before. "
+"I also taught classes. And I kept doing that until 1990, when I got a big "
+"prize and I didn't have to do it any more."
+msgstr ""
+"Åimdi, Åu soruyu sorarız: özgür yazılım iÅ dünyası nasıl
çalıÅmaktadır? "
+"Bazıları kopyaları satmaktadır. Kopyalamakta özgürsünüzdür ancak
yine de "
+"ayda binlerce kopya satabilirler. Ve diÄerleri, destek ve çeÅitli hizmet "
+"tiplerini satmaktadır. KiÅisel olarak ben, 1980âlerin ikinci yarısı
boyunca, "
+"özgür yazılım destek hizmetleri sattım. Temel olarak saatte $200 için, "
+"yazmıŠolduÄum GNU yazılımında deÄiÅtirmemi istediÄiniz her Åeyi "
+"deÄiÅtiririm dedim. Evet, bu, ciddi bir ücrettir ancak bu, benim
geliÅtirmiÅ "
+"olduÄum bir programdı ve çok daha kısa bir sürede aynı iÅi "
+"gerçekleÅtirebileceÄimi insanlar anladı. [Dinleyiciler güler] Ve bu
Åekilde "
+"ekmeÄimi kazandım. Aslında, daha önce yaptıÄımdan daha fazlasını
yaptım. "
+"Ayrıca dersler de verdim. Ve 1990 yılına kadar bunu yapmayı sürdürdüm.
1990 "
+"yılında büyük bir ödül kazandım ve bunu yapmayı bıraktım."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, 1990 was when the first corporation free software business was formed, "
+"which was Cygnus Support. And their business was to do, essentially, the "
+"same kind of thing that I'd been doing. I certainly could have worked for "
+"them, if I had needed to do that. Since I didn't need to, I felt it was "
+"good for the movement if I remained independent of any one company. That "
+"way, I could say good and bad things about the various free software and non-"
+"free software companies, without a conflict of interest. I felt that I "
+"could serve the movement more. But, if I had needed that to make a living, "
+"sure, I would have worked for them. It's an ethical business to be in. No "
+"reason I would have felt ashamed to take a job with them. And that company "
+"was profitable in its first year. It was formed with very little capital, "
+"just the money its three founders had. And it kept growing every year and "
+"being profitable every year until they got greedy, and looked for outside "
+"investors, and then they messed things up. But it was several years of "
+"success, before they got greedy."
+msgstr ""
+"Ancak 1990 yılında, Cygnus Support (Cygnus Destek) adında ilk ortak
özgür "
+"yazılım iÅi oluÅturuldu. Ve onların iÅi, benim yaptıÄım Åeyle aynı
tip Åeyi "
+"yapmaktı. Ä°htiyaç duysaydım kesinlikle onlar için çalıÅabilirdim.
Ancak "
+"ihtiyaç duymadım ve herhangi bir firmadan baÄımsız kalsaydım bunun
hareket "
+"için iyi olacaÄını hissettim. Bu Åekilde, herhangi bir çıkar
çatıÅması "
+"olmaksızın çeÅitli özgür ve özgür olmayan yazılım firmaları için
iyi ve kötü "
+"Åeyler söyleyebilirdim. Harekete daha fazla hizmet edebileceÄimi
hissettim. "
+"Ancak yaÅamımı kazanmak için buna ihtiyaç duysaydım, onlar için "
+"çalıÅacaktım. Bu, içinde bulunmak adına etik bir iÅtir. Onlarla iÅ
yapmak "
+"için utanmama hiç gerek yoktu. Ve söz konusu firma ilk yılında
kârdaydı. Ãok "
+"az ana para ile, üç kurucusunun sahip olduÄu para ile oluÅturulmuÅtu. Ve
her "
+"geçen yıl daha da büyüdüler ve kârlı oldular, sonunda iyice büyümek "
+"istediler, açgözlü oldular, dıŠyatırımcılara açıldılar ve daha
sonra her "
+"Åeyi bozdular. Ancak açgözlü olmadan önce, yıllarını baÅarı içinde
"
+"geçirdiler."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, this illustrates one of the exciting things about free software. Free "
+"software demonstrates that you don't need to raise capital to develop free "
+"software. I mean, it's useful; it <em>can</em> help. You know, if you do "
+"raise some capital, you can hire people and have them write a bunch of "
+"software. But you can get a lot done with a small number of people. And, "
+"in fact, the tremendous efficiency of the process of developing free "
+"software is one of the reasons it's important for the world to switch to "
+"free software. And it also belies what Microsoft says when they say the GNU "
+"GPL is bad, because it makes it harder for them to raise capital to develop "
+"non-free software and take our free software and put our code into their "
+"programs that they won't share with us. Basically, we don't need to have "
+"them raising capital that way. We'll get the job done anyway. We are "
+"getting the job done."
+msgstr ""
+"Bu, özgür yazılım hakkındaki heyecan verici Åeylerden birini
göstermektedir. "
+"Ãzgür yazılım, özgür yazılım geliÅtirmek için anapara
saÄlamanızın gerekli "
+"olmadıÄını göstermektedir. Demek istiyorum ki, ana para yararlıdır;
yardımcı "
+"olabilir. Bir miktar anapara toplayabilirseniz, insan tutabilir ve bu "
+"insanlara kod yazdırabilirsiniz. Ancak az sayıda insanla çok iŠ"
+"baÅarabilirsiniz. Aslında, özgür yazılımı geliÅtiren süreçin çok
etkin "
+"olması, dünyanın özgür yazılıma geçmesi için önemli nedenlerden
biridir. Ve "
+"bu, ayrıca Microsoftâun söylediÄini yalanlar, Microsoft, GNU GPLânin
kötü "
+"olduÄunu söyler çünkü özgür olmayan yazılımı geliÅtirmek için
anapara "
+"toplamak, özgür yazılımımızı alıp bizimle paylaÅmayacakları
programlara "
+"kodumuzu koymak onlar için zorlaÅır. Temel olarak, bu Åekilde anaparayı "
+"yükseltmelerine ihtiyaç duymamaktayız. Her Åekilde iÅi yaptırırız.
Ä°Åi zaten "
+"yaptırıyoruz."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"People used to say we could never do a complete free operating system. Now "
+"we've done that and a tremendous amount more. And I would say that we're "
+"about an order of magnitude away from developing all the general purpose "
+"published software needs of the world. And this is in a world where more "
+"than 90% of the users don't use our free software yet. This is in a world "
+"where, although in certain areas of business, you know, more than half of "
+"all the web servers in the world are running on GNU/Linux with Apache as the "
+"web server."
+msgstr ""
+"Ä°nsanlar, bizim hiçbir zaman tamamen özgür bir iÅletim sistemi "
+"yapamayacaÄımızı söylemekteydiler. Åimdi bunu ve ilâve olarak önemli
bir "
+"oranı daha gerçekleÅtirdik. Ve söyleyebilirim ki, dünyanın tüm genel
amaçlı "
+"olarak yayınlanan yazılımını geliÅtirmemize az kaldı. Ve bunu, "
+"kullanıcılardan % 90âından fazlasının henüz bizim özgür
yazılımımızı "
+"kullanmadıÄı bir dünyada baÅardık. Bu, dünyadaki tüm Web
sunucularının "
+"yarısından fazlasının Web sunucusu olarak Apache ile GNU/Linux üzerinde "
+"çalıÅtıÄı bir dünyada gerçekleÅmiÅtir."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i> … What did you say "
+"before, Linux?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SORU</strong>:[Duyulamıyor] … Daha önce ne dediniz, Linux
mı?"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I said GNU/Linux."
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>:GNU/Linux dedim."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You did?"
+msgstr "<strong>SORU</strong>:Ãyle mi dediniz?"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, if I'm talking about the kernel, I call it "
+"Linux. You know, that's it's name. The kernel was written by Linus "
+"Torvalds, and we should only call it by the name that he chose, out of "
+"respect for the author."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>:Evet, çekirdek hakkında konuÅuyorsam, onu Linux "
+"olarak adlandırırım. Biliyorsunuz, bu, onun adıdır. Ãekirdek Linus
Torvalds "
+"tarafından yazılmıÅtır ve yazara duyulan saygıdan ötürü, bu
çekirdeÄi "
+"yalnızca onun verdiÄi isimle adlandırabiliriz."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Anyway, but in general, in business most users are not using it. Most home "
+"users are not using our system yet. So, when they are, we should "
+"automatically get 10 times as many volunteers and 10 times as many customers "
+"for the free software businesses that there will be. And so that will take "
+"us that order of magnitude. So at this point, I am pretty confident that we "
+"<em>can</em> do the job."
+msgstr ""
+"Genel olarak, iÅ dünyasında, birçok kullanıcı GNU/Linuxâı
kullanmamaktadır. "
+"Birçok ev kullanıcısı henüz bizim sistemimizi kullanmamaktadır. Ev "
+"kullanıcıları da sistemimizi kullanmaya baÅladıÄında, özgür
yazılım için 10 "
+"kat daha fazla gönüllü ve 10 kat daha fazla müÅteri saÄlayacaÄız. Ve
bu bizi "
+"büyütecektir. Bu nedenle, bu noktada, bu iÅi yapabileceÄimiz konusunda "
+"oldukça güvenim var."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And, this is important, because Microsoft asks us to feel desperate. They "
+"say, The only way you can have software to run, the only way you can have "
+"innovation, is if you give us power. Let us dominate you. Let us control "
+"what you can do with the software you're running, so that we can squeeze a "
+"lot of money out of you, and use a certain fraction of that to develop "
+"software, and take the rest as profit."
+msgstr ""
+"Ve bu önemlidir çünkü Microsoft bizim çaresiz hissetmemizi istemektedir.
"
+"Åöyle derler: âÃalıÅtırılacak yazılıma sahip olmanızın tek yolu,
yeniliÄe "
+"sahip olmanızın tek yolu, gücü bize vermenizle saÄlanabilir. Biz
baskınız. "
+"ÃalıÅtırdıÄınız programla ne yapabileceÄinizi kontrol edelim,
böylece sizden "
+"çok para alabiliriz ve bu paranın belirli bir oranını yazılım
geliÅtirmek "
+"için kullanıp geri kalanını kâr yaparız.â"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Well, you shouldn't ever feel that desperate. You shouldn't ever feel so "
+"desperate that you give up your freedom. That's very dangerous."
+msgstr ""
+"Hiçbir zaman çaresiz hissetmemelisiniz. Ãok çaresiz hissedip
özgürlüÄünüzü "
+"feda etmemelisiniz. Bu çok tehlikelidir."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Another thing that Microsoft, well, not just Microsoft, people who don't "
+"support free software generally adopt a value system in which the only thing "
+"that matters is short-term practical benefits: How much money am I going to "
+"make this year? What job can I get done today? Short-term thinking and "
+"narrow thinking. Their assumption is that it is ridiculous to imagine that "
+"anybody ever might make a sacrifice for the sake of freedom."
+msgstr ""
+"Microsoftâun, yalnızca Microsoft olmamakla beraber özgür yazılımı "
+"desteklemeyen insanların genelde benimsediÄi deÄer sistemi, kısa vadeli "
+"kârdır: Bu sene ne kadar para kazanacaÄım? Bugün ne kadar iÅ
yaptırabilirim? "
+"Kısa vadeli düÅünme ve dar düÅünme. Onların varsayımına göre,
birilerinin "
+"özgürlük adına fedakarlık yapması saçmadır."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Yesterday, a lot of people were making speeches about Americans who made "
+"sacrifices for the freedom of their compatriots. Some of them made great "
+"sacrifices. They even sacrificed their lives for the kinds of freedom that "
+"everyone in our country has heard about, at least. (At least, in some of "
+"the cases; I guess we have to ignore the war in Vietnam.)"
+msgstr ""
+"Dün yurttaÅlarının özgürlüÄü için fedakarlık yapmıŠolan
Amerikalılar "
+"hakkında birçok insan konuÅma yapıyordu. Bu insanların bazıları
büyük "
+"fedakarlıklar yapmıÅlardı. Ãlkemizde herkesin duyduÄu özgürlük
çeÅitleri "
+"için yaÅamlarını bile feda etmiÅlerdi. (En azından bazı durumlarda;
tahmin "
+"ederim ki, Vietnamâdaki savaÅı burada görmezden gelmeliyiz.)"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<i>[Editor's note: The day before was “Memorial Day” in the "
+"USA. Memorial Day is a day where war heros are commemorated.]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<i>[Editörün notu: Ãnceki gün, Yurt Åehitleri anma günüydü,
kahramanların "
+"anıldıÄı bir ABD tatil günüydü.]</i>"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, fortunately, to maintain our freedom in using software, doesn't call "
+"for big sacrifices. Just tiny, little sacrifices are enough, like learning a "
+"command-line interface, if we don't have a GUI interface program yet. Like "
+"doing the job in this way, because we don't have a free software package to "
+"do it that way, yet. Like, paying some money to a company that's going to "
+"develop a certain free software package, so that you can have it in a few "
+"years. Various little sacrifices that we can all make. And, in the long "
+"run, even we will have benefited from it. You know, it is really an "
+"investment more than a sacrifice. We just have to have enough long-term "
+"view to realize it's good for us to invest in improving our society, without "
+"counting the nickels and dimes of who gets how much of the benefit from that "
+"investment."
+msgstr ""
+"Ancak neyse ki, yazılımın kullanılmasındaki özgürlüÄümüzün
korunması bu gibi "
+"büyük fedakarlıkları gerektirmemektedir. Grafiksel Kullanıcı Ara yüzü
(GUI) "
+"programınız henüz yoksa, komut satırı ara yüzünün öÄrenilmesi gibi
yalnızca "
+"küçük ve az fedakarlıklar yeterlidir. Bunu bu Åekilde yapmak için
özgür bir "
+"yazılım paketine sahip olmadıÄımız için, bu, iÅin bu Åekilde
yapılması "
+"gibidir. Birkaç yılda sahip olabileceÄiniz gibi, belirli bir özgür
yazılım "
+"paketini geliÅtirecek olan bir firmaya bir miktar paranın ödenmesi
gibidir. "
+"Bunlar, hepimizin yapabileceÄi küçük fedakarlıklardır. Ve uzun vadede, "
+"bundan fayda görürüz. BildiÄiniz gibi, bir fedakarlıktan çok bir
yatırım "
+"gibidir. Toplumumuzun geliÅmesinde bizim için iyi olduÄunu bilmek için, "
+"yalnızca söz konusu yatırımdan kimin beÅ on senti alacaÄını saymadan
yeterli "
+"uzun vadeli görüÅe sahip olmamız gereklidir."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "So, at this point, I'm essentially done."
+msgstr "Böylece, bu noktada, anlatacaklarım sona erdi."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"I'd like to mention that there's a new approach to free software business "
+"being proposed by Tony Stanco, which he calls “Free Developers”, "
+"which involves a certain business structure which hopes eventually to pay "
+"out a certain share of the profits to every, to all the authors of the free "
+"software who've joined the organization. And they're looking at the "
+"prospects of getting me some rather large government software development "
+"contracts in India now, because they're going to be using free software as "
+"the basis, having tremendous cost savings that way."
+msgstr ""
+"Tony Stanco tarafından önerilen özgür yazılım iÅine iliÅkin yeni bir "
+"yaklaÅımın olduÄunu ifade etmek isterim, bu yaklaÅım âÃzgür
GeliÅtiricilerâ "
+"olarak adlandırılmaktadır ve organizasyona katılan tüm yazılım "
+"geliÅtiricilere kârdan belirli bir oranın verilmesini uman belirli bir iÅ
"
+"yapısını içermektedir. Ve halen Hindistanâda bazı büyük hükümet
yazılım "
+"geliÅtirme sözleÅmelerinin gerçekleÅtirilmesini ummaktadırlar çünkü
taban "
+"olarak özgür yazılımı kullanıyor olacaklardır, bu Åekilde büyük
maliyet "
+"tasarrufu saÄlamayı planlamaktadırlar."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "And so now I guess that I should ask for questions."
+msgstr "Ve Åimdi sorularınızı bekliyorum."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Could you speak up a bit louder please? I can't "
+"really hear you."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Biraz yüksek sesle konuÅabilir misiniz lütfen? "
+"Sizi gerçekten duyamıyorum."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: How could a company like Microsoft include a free "
+"software contract?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SORU</strong>: Microsoft gibi bir firma bir özgür yazılım "
+"sözleÅmesini nasıl içerebilir?"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually, Microsoft is planning to shift a "
+"lot of its activity into services. And what they're planning to do is "
+"something dirty and dangerous, which is tie the services to the programs, "
+"one to the next, in a sort of zigzag, you know? So that to use this service, "
+"you've got to be using this Microsoft program, which is going to mean you "
+"need to use this service, to this Microsoft program, so it's all tied "
+"together. That's their plan."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Microsoft aslında eylemlerinin birçoÄunu "
+"hizmetlere kaydırmayı planlamaktadır. Ve yapmayı planladıkları Åey
kirli ve "
+"tehlikeli bir Åeydir, zikzak biçiminde hizmetleri birini diÄerine olacak "
+"Åekilde baÄlamayı planlamaktadırlar. Böylece bu hizmeti kullanmak için,
bu "
+"Microsoft programını kullanıyor olmanız gereklidir, bu da, bu hizmeti ve
bu "
+"Microsoft programını kullanmanız gerektiÄi anlamına gelecektir â¦
böylece "
+"tümü birbiriyle iliÅkilidir. Planları budur. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, the interesting thing is that selling those services doesn't raise the "
+"ethical issue of free software or non-free software. It might be perfectly "
+"fine for them to have the business for those businesses selling those "
+"services over the net to exist. However, what Microsoft is planning to do "
+"is to use them to achieve an even greater lock, an even greater monopoly, on "
+"the software and the services, and this was described in an article, I "
+"believe in Business Week, recently. And, other people said that it is "
+"turning the net into the Microsoft Company Town."
+msgstr ""
+"Åimdi, ilginç olan Åey, bu hizmetlerin satılmasının özgür yazılım
ya da "
+"özgür olmayan yazılım etik hususunu gündeme getirmemesidir. Onlar için,
net "
+"üzerinden bu hizmetleri satan bu gibi iÅyerlerinin olması çok iyi
olabilir. "
+"Ancak, Microsoftâun planladıÄı, yazılım ve hizmetler üzerinde daha
bile "
+"büyük bir tekel, daha bile büyük bir kilit elde etmek için onları "
+"kullanmaktır ve bu, yakın zamanda bir makalede açıklanmıÅtır. DiÄer "
+"insanlar, bunun, neti Microsoft Firma Kasabasına dönüÅtürdüÄünü
söylemiÅtir."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And this is relevant because, you know, the trial court in the Microsoft "
+"antitrust trial recommended breaking up the company, Microsoft. But in a "
+"way, that makes no sense — it wouldn't do any good at all — into "
+"the operating part and the applications part."
+msgstr ""
+"Ve bu baÄlantılıdır çünkü Microsoft anti güven mahkemesindeki asliye "
+"mahkemesi Microsoftâun â anlamsız bir Åekilde, hiçbir iÅe yaramayacak
"
+"biçimde â iÅletim sistemi kısmına ve uygulama kısmına bölünmesini "
+"önermiÅtir. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But having seen that article, I now see a useful, effective way to split up "
+"Microsoft into the services part and the software part, to require them to "
+"deal with each other only at arm's length, that the services must publish "
+"their interfaces, so that anybody can write a client to talk to those "
+"services, and, I guess, that they have to pay to get the service. Well, "
+"that's OK. That's a totally different issue."
+msgstr ""
+"Ancak o makaleyi gördükten sonra, Åimdi yalnızca emsallerine uygun bir "
+"Åekilde birbirleriyle baÅa çıkmalarını gerektirmek için Microsoftâun
"
+"hizmetler kısmına ve yazılım kısmına bölünmesinin yararlı ve etkin
bir "
+"yolunu görmekteyim, hizmetler ara yüzlerini yayınlamalıdır, böylece "
+"hizmetlerle konuÅabilmek için herkes bir istemci yazabilir ve tahmin "
+"ediyorum ki, hizmeti almak için ödeme yapmaları gereklidir. Evet, bu "
+"tamamdır. Bu, tamamen farklı bir konudur. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"If Microsoft is split up in this way […] services and software, they "
+"will not be able to use their software to crush competition with Microsoft "
+"services. And they won't be able to use the services to crush competition "
+"with Microsoft software. And we will be able to make the free software, and "
+"maybe you people will use it to talk to Microsoft services, and we won't "
+"mind."
+msgstr ""
+"Microsoft bu Åekilde […] baÅka bir deyiÅle, hizmetler ve
yazılım "
+"Åeklinde bölünürse, Microsoft hizmetleriyle rekabete girmek için "
+"yazılımlarını kullanamayacaklardır. Ve Microsoft yazılımıyla rekabete
girmek "
+"için hizmetleri kullanamayacaklardır. Ve özgür yazılım yapabileceÄiz
ve "
+"belki de siz insanlar bunu Microsoft hizmetleriyle konuÅmak için "
+"kullanacaksınız, bu bizim için önemli deÄildir."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Because, after all, although Microsoft is the proprietary software company "
+"that has subjugated the most people — the others have subjugated fewer "
+"people, it's not for want of trying. <i>[Laughter]</i> They just haven't "
+"succeeded in subjugating as many people. So, the problem is not Microsoft "
+"and only Microsoft. Microsoft is just the biggest example of the problem "
+"we're trying to solve, which is proprietary software taking away users' "
+"freedom to cooperate and form an ethical society. So we shouldn't focus too "
+"much on Microsoft, you know, even though they did give me the opportunity "
+"for this platform. That doesn't make them all-important. They're not the be-"
+"all and end-all."
+msgstr ""
+"Ãünkü ne de olsa, Microsoftâun birçok insana boyun eÄdiren özel mülk
yazılım "
+"firması olmasına raÄmen â diÄerleri daha az insana boyun eÄdirmiÅtir,
bu, "
+"uÄraÅma isteÄinden kaynaklanmamaktadır; [dinleyiciler güler] o kadar
çok "
+"sayıda insana boyun eÄdirmeyi baÅaramamıÅlardır. Bu nedenle, problem "
+"yalnızca ve yalnızca Microsoft deÄildir. Microsoft, çözmeye
çalıÅtıÄımız "
+"problemin yalnızca en büyük örneÄidir, iÅbirliÄi yapmak ve etik bir
toplum "
+"oluÅturmak için kullanıcıların özgürlüÄünü alan özel mülk
yazılımdır. Bu "
+"nedenle, bu platform için bana imkân vermiŠolsalar bile, Microsoft
üzerine "
+"çok fazla odaklanmamalıyız. Bu, onları çok önemli yapmaz. Bu, hepsi ve "
+"hepsinin sonu deÄildir."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Earlier, you were discussing the philosophical "
+"differences between open source software and free software. How do you feel "
+"about the current trend of GNU/Linux distributions as they head towards "
+"supporting only Intel platforms? And the fact that it seems that less and "
+"less programmers are programming correctly, and making software that will "
+"compile anywhere? And making software that simply works on Intel systems?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SORU</strong>: Daha önceden, açık kaynaklı yazılımla özgür
yazılım "
+"arasındaki felsefi farkları açıklıyordunuz. Yalnızca Intel
platformlarını "
+"desteklerlerken, GNU/Linux daÄıtımlarının mevcut eÄilimi hakkında
nasıl "
+"hissediyorsunuz? Ve gitgide daha az sayıda programcının doÄru Åekilde "
+"programlama yaptıÄı ve herhangi bir yerde derleme yapacak olan yazılımı
"
+"hazırladıÄı görülmektedir? Ve basitçe Intel sistemlerinde çalıÅan
yazılımın "
+"hazırlandıÄı görülmektedir?"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I don't see an ethical issue there. Although, in "
+"fact, companies that make computers sometimes port the GNU/Linux system to "
+"it. HP apparently did this recently. And, they didn't bother paying for a "
+"port of Windows, because that would have cost too much. But getting GNU/"
+"Linux supported was, I think, five engineers for a few months. It was "
+"easily doable."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Burada etik bir husus görmüyorum. Ancak, "
+"gerçekte, bilgisayar üreten firmalar, bazen GNU/Linux sistemini bilgisayara
"
+"taÅımaktadır. HP açık bir Åekilde bunu yakın bir zamanda yapmıÅtır.
Ve "
+"Windowsâun bir portu için ödeme yapma konusunda canlarını
sıkmamıÅlardı, "
+"çünkü bu, çok fazla maliyete sahip olacaktı. Ancak zannediyorum ki GNU/"
+"Linuxâın desteklenmesi birkaç ay boyunca beÅ mühendisin
çalıÅmasını "
+"gerektirecekti. Bu, kolayca yapılabilir bir Åeydi."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, of course, I encourage people to use <code>autoconf</code>, which is a "
+"GNU package that makes it easier to make your programs portable. I "
+"encourage them to do that. Or when somebody else fixes the bug that it "
+"didn't compile on that version of the system, and sends it to you, you "
+"should put it in. But I don't see that as an ethical issue."
+msgstr ""
+"Åimdi tabi ki, insanların <code>autoconf</code>âu kullanmasını
öneriyorum, "
+"autoconf, programlarınızı taÅınabilir hale getirmeyi kolaylaÅtıran bir
GNU "
+"paketidir. Bunu yapmaları için onları yüreklendiriyorum. Ya da sistemin
söz "
+"konusu sürümünde derlenmeyen bir hatayı baÅka birileri giderdiÄinde ve
size "
+"gönderdiÄinde, o zaman bunu göz önünde bulundurmalısınız. Ancak bunu
etik "
+"bir husus olarak görmüyorum."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Two comments. One is: Recently, you spoke at "
+"MIT. I read the transcript. And someone asked about patents, and you said "
+"that “patents are a totally different issue. I have no comments on "
+"that.”"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SORU</strong>: Ä°ki yorum. Birisi: Yakın zamanda, MITâde
konuÅtunuz. "
+"Kopyasını okudum. Ve birileri, patentler hakkında bir Åeyler sordu ve siz
"
+"dediniz ki âpatentler tamamen farklı bir konudur. Bu konuda yorumum
yok.â"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I actually have a lot to say about "
+"patents, but it takes an hour. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: DoÄru. Patentler hakkında aslında söyleyecek
çok "
+"Åeyim var ama bu, bir saati bulur. [Dinleyiciler güler]"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: I wanted to say this: It seems to me that there "
+"is an issue. I mean, there is a reason that companies call both patents and "
+"copyrights things like hard property in trying to get this concept which is, "
+"if they want to use the power of the State to create a course of monopoly "
+"for themselves. And so, what's common about these things is not that they "
+"revolve around the same issues, but that motivation is not really the public "
+"service issues but the motivation of companies to get a monopoly for their "
+"private interests."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SORU</strong>: Åunu demek istedim: Bana öyle geliyor ki, burada "
+"önemli bir husus var. Demek istiyorum ki, bu konsepti almaya çalıÅırken,
"
+"firmaların, kendileri için bir tekel biçimi oluÅturmaya çalıÅırken
Devletin "
+"gücünü kullanmak isterlerse, patentler ve telif hakkı gibi Åeyleri sert "
+"özellik olarak adlandırmalarının bir nedeni vardır. Ve böylece, bu
Åeyler "
+"hakkındaki yaygın olan Åey, aynı hususlar etrafında dolaÅmaları
deÄildir "
+"ancak söz konusu motivasyon, gerçekten de genel hizmet hususu deÄildir ama
"
+"özel çıkarları için firmaların tekel saÄlama motivasyonudur. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I understand. But, well, I want to respond "
+"because there's not too much time. So I'd like to respond to that."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Anlıyorum. Ama, iyi, yanıtlamak istiyorum
çünkü "
+"çok fazla zaman yok. Bu yüzden bunu yanıtlamak istiyorum."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"You're right that that's what they want. But there's another reason why "
+"they want to use the term intellectual property. It's that they don't want "
+"to encourage people to think carefully about copyright issues or patent "
+"issues. Because copyright law and patent law are totally different, and the "
+"effects of software copyrighted and software patents are totally different."
+msgstr ""
+"Onların istediÄinin bu olduÄu konusunda haklısınız. Ancak fikri
mülkiyet "
+"terimini kullanmak istemelerinin baÅka bir nedeni vardır. Bunun nedeni, "
+"insanların, telif hakkı hususları ya da patent hususları hakkında
dikkatli "
+"bir Åekilde düÅünmesini istememeleridir. Telif hakkı kanunu ve patent
kanunu "
+"tamamen farklı olduÄu için, yazılım telif haklarının ve yazılım "
+"patentlerinin etkileri tamamen farklıdır. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Software patents are a restriction on programmers, prohibiting them from "
+"writing certain kinds of programs, whereas copyright doesn't do that. With "
+"copyright, at least if you wrote it yourself, you're allowed to distribute "
+"it. So, it's tremendously important to separate these issues."
+msgstr ""
+"Yazılım patentleri, programcıları belirli program tiplerini yazmaktan "
+"alıkoydukları için, programcılar üzerindeki bir kısıtlamadır ancak
telif "
+"hakkı bunu yapmaz. Telif hakkı söz konusu olduÄunda, en azından kendi "
+"kendinize yazıyorsanız, daÄıtmanıza izin verilmektedir. Bu nedenle, bu "
+"hususların ayrılması çok önemlidir."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"They have a little bit in common, at a very low level, and everything else "
+"is different. So, please, to encourage clear thinking, discuss copyright or "
+"discuss patents. But don't discuss intellectual property. I don't have an "
+"opinion on intellectual property. I have opinions on copyrights and patents "
+"and software."
+msgstr ""
+"Bunların, çok düÅük bir seviyede ortak bir özelliÄi vardır ve diÄer
her Åey "
+"farklıdır. Bu nedenle, lütfen, açık bir Åekilde düÅünmeyi
cesaretlendirmek "
+"için, telif hakkını ve patentleri tartıÅın. Ancak fikri mülkiyeti "
+"tartıÅmayın. fikri mülkiyet hakkında bir fikrim yoktur. Telif hakları, "
+"patentler ve yazılım hakkında düÅüncelerim vardır. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You mentioned at the beginning that a functional "
+"language, like recipes, are computer programs. There's a cross a little bit "
+"different than other kinds of language created on. This is also causing a "
+"problem in the DVD case."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SORU</strong>: BaÅlangıçta fonksiyonel bir dilin, yemek tarifleri "
+"gibi, bilgisayar programları olduÄunu ifade ettiniz. Ancak yemek "
+"tariflerinden bilgisayar programlarına ve İngilizce dilinden bilgisayar "
+"programlarına büyük bir geçiÅ vardır â âfonksiyonel dilâin
tanımı çok "
+"geniÅtir. DVD konusunda bu, neden olan problemi oluÅturmaktadır. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: The issues are partly similar but partly "
+"different, for things that are not functional in nature. Part of the issue "
+"transfers but not all of it. Unfortunately, that's another hour speech. I "
+"don't have time to go into it. But I would say that all functional works "
+"ought to be free in the same sense as software. You know, textbooks, "
+"manuals, dictionaries, and recipes, and so on."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Hususlar, doÄadaki fonksiyonel olmayan Åeylerden
"
+"ötürü kısmen benzer ancak kısmen de farklıdır. Hususun bir kısmı
aktarılır "
+"ancak tamamı aktarılmaz. Maalesef, bu da bir saatlik bir konuÅma ile "
+"açıklanabilir. Bu konuya burada girmek için yeterli vaktimiz yok. Ancak
Åunu "
+"söylemek isterim ki, yazılımla aynı anlamda tüm fonksiyonel
çalıÅmalar özgür "
+"olmalıdır. Biliyorsunuz, ders kitapları, belgeler, sözlükler ve tarifler
"
+"özgür olmalıdır."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: I was just wondering on online music. There are "
+"similarities and differences created all through."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SORU</strong>: Yalnızca online müziÄi merak ediyordum. Bir yandan "
+"öbür yana oluÅturulmuÅ benzerlikler ve farklar mevcuttur."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I'd say that the minimum freedom that we "
+"should have for any kind of published information is the freedom to non-"
+"commercially redistribute it, verbatim. For functional works, we need the "
+"freedom to commercially publish a modified version, because that's "
+"tremendously useful to society. For non-functional works, you know, things "
+"that are to entertain, or to be aesthetic, or to state a certain person's "
+"views, you know, perhaps they shouldn't be modified. And, perhaps that "
+"means that it's OK, to have copyright covering all commercial distribution "
+"of them."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: DoÄru. Yayınlanan her türlü bilgi için sahip "
+"olmamız gereken minimum özgürlük bu yayını ticari olmayan bir Åekilde "
+"yeniden aynen daÄıtma özgürlüÄüdür. Fonksiyonel çalıÅmalar için, "
+"deÄiÅtirilmiÅ bir sürümü ticari olarak yayınlama özgürlüÄüne
ihtiyaç duyarız "
+"çünkü bu, toplum için çok yararlıdır. Fonksiyonel olmayan
çalıÅmalar için â "
+"insanları eÄlendirecek ya da estetik olacak ya da belirli bir insanın "
+"görüÅlerini ifade edecek olan Åeyler, biliyorsunuz â belki de "
+"deÄiÅtirilmemelidir. Ve bu belki de onların tüm ticari daÄıtımını
kapsayan "
+"telif hakkına sahip olunmasının tamam olduÄu anlamına gelmektedir. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Please remember that according to the U.S. Constitution, the purpose of "
+"copyright is to benefit the public. It is to modify the behavior of certain "
+"private parties, so that they will publish more books. And the benefit of "
+"this is that society gets to discuss issues and learn. And, you know, we "
+"have literature. We have scientific works. The purpose is encourage that. "
+"Copyrights do not exist for the sake of authors, let alone for the sake of "
+"publishers. They exist for the sake of readers and all those who benefit "
+"from the communication of information that happens when people write and "
+"others read. And that goal I agree with."
+msgstr ""
+"Lütfen unutmayın ki, A.B.D. Anayasasına göre, telif hakkının amacı
halkın "
+"yararlanmasıdır. Telif hakkı, belirli özel tarafların davranıÅını "
+"deÄiÅtirmek böylece daha fazla kitap yayınlamalarını saÄlamak
içindir. Ve "
+"bunun yararı, toplumun hususları tartıÅmasının ve öÄrenmesinin "
+"saÄlanmasıdır. Ve, bildiÄiniz gibi, literatürümüz vardır. Bilimsel "
+"çalıÅmalarımız vardır. Hedef, bunu cesaretlendirmektir. Telif hakları,
"
+"yazarların iyiliÄi için deÄil, yalnızca yayıncıların iyiliÄi
içindir. Telif "
+"hakkı, okuyucuların ve insanlar yazdıÄında ve diÄerleri okuduÄunda "
+"gerçekleÅen bilgi alıÅveriÅinden faydalananların iyiliÄinedir. Ve bu
hedefle "
+"fikir birliÄi içerisindeyim."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But in the age of the computer networks, the method is no longer tenable, "
+"because it now requires draconian laws that invade everybody's privacy and "
+"terrorize everyone. You know, years in prison for sharing with your "
+"neighbor. It wasn't like that in the age of the printing press. Then "
+"copyright was an industrial regulation. It restricted publishers. Now, "
+"it's a restriction imposed by the publishers on the public. So, the power "
+"relationship is turned around 180 degrees, even if it's the same law."
+msgstr ""
+"Ancak bilgisayar aÄları çaÄında, yöntem, artık inanılabilen ve makul
bir "
+"yöntem deÄildir çünkü Åimdi herkesin özel hayatına giren ve herkes
için "
+"terör estiren katı kanunları gerektirmektedir. KomÅunuzla paylaÅımda "
+"bulunduÄunuz için yıllarınız hapiste geçer. Matbaa zamanında durum
böyle "
+"deÄildi. O zamanlar telif hakkı endüstriyel bir düzenlemeydi.
Yayıncıları "
+"kısıtlamaktaydı. Åimdi yayıncılar tarafından kamu üzerine dayatılan
bir "
+"kısıtlamadır. Bu nedenle güç iliÅkisi, aynı kanun yürürlükte olsa
bile, 180 "
+"derece döndü."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: So you can have the same thing — but like "
+"in making music from other music?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SORU</strong>: Böylece baÅka bir müzikten müzik yapmak gibi bir
Åeye "
+"sahip olabilir misiniz?"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. That is an interesting …"
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: DoÄru. Bu ilginç …"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: And unique, new works, you know, it's still a lot "
+"of cooperation."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SORU</strong>: Ve benzersiz, yeni çalıÅmalar, iÅte, hâlâ çok "
+"miktarda iÅbirliÄi var."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: It is. And I think that probably requires some "
+"kind of fair use concept. Certainly making a few seconds of sample and "
+"using that in making some musical work, obviously that should be fair use. "
+"Even the standard idea of fair use includes that, if you think about it. "
+"Whether courts agree, I'm not sure, but they should. That wouldn't be a "
+"real change in the system as it has existed."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: DoÄru. Ve bunun muhtemelen adil kullanım "
+"kavramını gerektirdiÄini düÅünüyorum. Kesinlikle birkaç saniyelik
numune "
+"yapmak ve bunu bazı müziksel çalıÅmaların hazırlanmasında kullanmak,
açık "
+"bir Åekilde bu, adil kullanım olmalıdır. Bu konu hakkında
düÅünürseniz, adil "
+"kullanıma iliÅkin standart fikir bunu içermektedir. Mahkemeler fikir
birliÄi "
+"içinde olurlarsa, emin deÄilim, ama olmalılar. Sistemde mevcut olduÄu "
+"haliyle gerçek bir deÄiÅiklik var olmayacaktır."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: What do you think about publishing public "
+"information in proprietary formats?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SORU</strong>: Ãzel mülk biçimlerde genel bilgilerin
yayınlanması "
+"hakkında ne düÅünüyorsunuz?"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, it shouldn't be. I mean, the government "
+"should never require citizens to use a non-free program to access, to "
+"communicate with the government in any way, in either direction."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Bu olmamalıdır. Hükümet, vatandaÅlardan
herhangi "
+"bir Åekilde ya da herhangi bir yönde kendisiyle haberleÅmeleri için ya da
"
+"kendisine eriÅmeleri için özgür olmayan bir programın kullanılmasını
hiçbir "
+"zaman istememelidir. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: I have been, what I will now say, a GNU/Linux "
+"user…"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SORU</strong>: Åimdi söyleyeceÄim Åeyi yani GNU/Linux
kullanıcısı "
+"olmuÅtum."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Thank you. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: TeÅekkürler. <i>[dinleyiciler
güler]</i>"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: …for the past four years. The one thing "
+"that has been problematical for me and is something that is essential, I "
+"think, to all of us, is browsing the web."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SORU</strong>: …son dört yıldır. Benim için problemli ve "
+"hepimiz için önemli olan Åeylerden biri de zannediyorum ki Webâe göz "
+"atmaktır. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes."
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Evet."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: One thing that has been decidedly a weakness in "
+"using a GNU/Linux system has been browsing the web, because the prevailing "
+"tool for that, Netscape…"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SORU</strong>: GNU/Linux sisteminin kullanılmasındaki zayıf "
+"noktalardan bir tanesi Webâde tarama yapılmasıdır çünkü bu konudaki
yaygın "
+"araç Netscapeâtirâ¦"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: …is not free software."
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: …ve özgür yazılım deÄildir."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Let me respond to this. I want to get to the point, for the sake of getting "
+"in more. So, yes. There has been a terrible tendency for people to use "
+"Netscape Navigator on their GNU/Linux systems. And, in fact all the "
+"commercially packaged systems come with it. So this is an ironic situation: "
+"we worked so hard to make a free operating system, and now, if you go to the "
+"store, and you can find versions of GNU/Linux there, most of them are called "
+"Linux, and they're not free. Oh, well, part of them is. But then, there's "
+"Netscape Navigator, and maybe other non-free programs as well. So, it's "
+"very hard to actually find a free system, unless you know what you're "
+"doing. Or, of course, you can not install Netscape Navigator."
+msgstr ""
+"Bu soruyu yanıtlayayım. Daha fazlasını elde etme adına ana noktaya
varayım. "
+"Evet. Ä°nsanların GNU/Linux sistemlerinde Netscape Navigatörâü kullanma "
+"eÄilimlerinde büyük bir artıŠvardır. Gerçekte, ticari olarak
paketlenmiÅ "
+"tüm sistemlerde Netscape Navigatör otomatik olarak vardır. Böylece bu, "
+"ironik bir durumdur: özgür bir iÅletim sistemi geliÅtirmek için çok
çalıÅtık "
+"ve Åimdi maÄazaya gittiÄinizde, orada GNU/Linuxâın sürümlerini "
+"bulabilirsiniz, çoÄu Linux olarak adlandırılmaktadır ve özgür
deÄildirler. "
+"Neyse, bazıları özgürdür aslında. Ancak Netscape Navigatör ve belki de
baÅka "
+"özgür olmayan programlar da var olabilir. Bu nedenle, gerçekte ne "
+"yaptıÄınızı bilmiyorsanız, özgür bir sistemin bulunması çok zordur.
Ya da "
+"tabi ki, Netscape Navigatörü kuramazsınız. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, in fact, there have been free web browsers for many years. There is a "
+"free web browser that I used to use called Lynx. It's a free web browser "
+"that is non-graphical; it's text-only. This has a tremendous advantage, in "
+"you don't see the ads. <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Åimdi, gerçekte, yıllardır özgür Web tarayıcıları mevcuttur. Lynx
olarak "
+"adlandırılan ve eskiden kullandıÄım özgür bir Web tarayıcısı
vardır: "
+"Grafiksel olmayan özgür bir Web tarayıcısıdır; yalnızca metinden
ibarettir. "
+"Bunun büyük bir avantajı vardır, bunda reklamları görmezsiniz.
[Dinleyiciler "
+"güler] [AlkıÅ]"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But anyway, there is a free graphical project called Mozilla, which is now "
+"getting to the point where you can use it. And I occasionally use it."
+msgstr ""
+"Ama her neyse, Mozilla olarak adlandırılan ve kullanabileceÄiniz noktaya "
+"ulaÅan özgür bir grafik arayüzlü proje vardır. Ve ben onu arada sırada
"
+"kullanıyorum. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 has been very good."
+msgstr "<strong>SORU</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 çok iyidir."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, OK. So that's another free graphical "
+"browser. So, we're finally solving that problem, I guess."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Evet, Tamam. Bu, baÅka bir özgür grafiksel "
+"arayüzlü tarayıcıdır. Böylece, sonunda tahmin ediyorum ki bu problemi "
+"çözüyoruz."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk to me about that philosophical/"
+"ethical division between free software and open source? Do you feel that "
+"those are irreconcilable? …"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SORU</strong>: Bana özgür yazılımla açık kaynak arasındaki
felsefi/"
+"etik ayrımdan bahsedebilir misiniz? Bunların uzlaÅtırılamaz olduÄunu mu
"
+"hissediyorsunuz? …"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<i>[Recording switches tapes; end of question and start of answer is missing]"
+"</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"[Kayıtlar arasında kaset deÄiÅtiriliyor; sorunun sonu ve cevabın baÅı "
+"eksiktir]"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: … to a freedom, and ethics. Or whether "
+"you just say, Well, I hope that you companies will decide it's more "
+"profitable to let us be allowed to do these things."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: … bir özgürlüÄe ve etiÄe. Ya da sizin "
+"henüz söylediÄiniz gibi, umarım ki, siz firmalar, bizim bu Åeyleri
yapmamıza "
+"izin vermemizin daha kârlı olduÄuna karar verirsiniz. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, as I said, in a lot of practical work, it doesn't really matter what a "
+"person's politics are. When a person offers to help the GNU project, we "
+"don't say: “You have to agree with our politics.” We say that in "
+"a GNU package, you've got to call the system GNU/Linux, and you've got to "
+"call it free software. What you say when you're not speaking to the GNU "
+"Project, that's up to you."
+msgstr ""
+"Ancak, söylediÄim gibi, çok sayıdaki pratik çalıÅmada, bir kimsenin "
+"politikasının ne olduÄu gerçekten de fark etmemektedir. Bir kimse GNU "
+"projesine yardımcı olmayı teklif ettiÄinde, Åunu demeyiz: âBizim "
+"politikalarımızla fikir birliÄi içinde olmanız gereklidir.â Bir GNU "
+"paketinde, sistemi GNU/Linux olarak adlandırmanızın gerekli olduÄunu ve "
+"bunları özgür yazılım olarak adlandırmanız gerektiÄini söyleriz. GNU
Projesi "
+"hakkında konuÅmadıÄınızda ne söylediÄiniz, size kalmıÅtır."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: The company, IBM, started a campaign for "
+"government agencies, to sell their big new machines, that they used Linux as "
+"selling point, and say Linux."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SORU</strong>: Yeni büyük makinelerini satmak amacıyla hükümet "
+"birimleri için IBM firması bir kampanya baÅlatmıÅtır, satıŠnoktası
olarak "
+"Linuxâı kullanmıÅlar ve Linux olarak adlandırmıÅlardır. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, of course, it's really the GNU/Linux "
+"systems. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Evet. Tabi ki, bunlar gerçekten de GNU/Linux "
+"sistemleridir. [Dinleyiciler güler]"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: That's right! Well, tell the top sales person. "
+"He doesn't know anything for GNU."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SORU</strong>: Bu doÄrudur. En üstteki satıŠelemanına
söyleyin. GNU "
+"hakkında bir Åey bilmiyor. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I have to tell who?"
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Kime söylemeliyim?"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: The top sales person."
+msgstr "<strong>SORU</strong>: En üstteki satıŠelemanı."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh yes. The problem is that they've already "
+"carefully decided what they want to say for reasons of their advantage. And "
+"the issue of what is a more accurate, or fair, or correct way to describe it "
+"is not the primary issue that matters to a company like that. Now, some "
+"small companies, yes, there'll be a boss. And if the boss is inclined to "
+"think about things like that, he might make a decision that way. Not a "
+"giant corporation though. It's a shame, you know."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Ya, evet. Buradaki problem, avantajları için "
+"söylemek istedikleri Åeylere halihazırda dikkatli bir Åekilde karar
vermiÅ "
+"olmalarıdır. Ve bunu tanımlamanın daha doÄru, daha adil ya da daha kesin
"
+"yolunun ne olduÄu hususu, bu gibi bir firma için önemli olan temel husus "
+"deÄildir. Evet, Åimdi bazı küçük firmalarda, bir patron olacaktır. Ve
patron "
+"bu gibi hususlar hakkında düÅünmekteyse, bu Åekilde bir karara
varabilir. "
+"Ancak bu çok büyük bir ortaklık deÄildir. Bu, bir utançtır, ayıptır.
"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"There's another more important and more substantive issue about what IBM is "
+"doing. They're saying that they're putting a billion dollars into “"
+"Linux”. But perhaps, I should also put quotes around “"
+"into”, as well, because some of that money is paying people to develop "
+"free software. That really is a contribution to our community. But other "
+"parts is paying to pay people to write proprietary software, or port "
+"proprietary software to run on top of GNU/Linux, and that is <em>not</em> a "
+"contribution to our community. But IBM is lumping that altogether into "
+"this. Some of it might be advertising, which is partly a contribution, even "
+"if it's partly wrong. So, it's a complicated situation. Some of what "
+"they're doing is contribution and some is not. And some is sort is "
+"somewhat, but not exactly. And you can't just lump it altogether and think, "
+"Wow! Whee! A billion dollars from IBM. <i>[Laughter]</i> That's "
+"oversimplification."
+msgstr ""
+"IBMâin yaptıÄı Åey hakkında daha önemli ve daha baÄımsız bir husus
vardır. "
+"âLinuxâa bir milyar dolar yatırdıklarını söylüyorlar. Ancak belki
de "
+"âLinuxâa ifadesindeki aâyı da çift tırnak içine almalıyım
çünkü bu paranın "
+"bir kısmı insanların özgür yazılım geliÅtirmesi için
harcanmaktadır. Bu "
+"gerçekten de topluluÄumuz için büyük bir katkıdır. Ancak diÄer
kısımları, "
+"insanlara özel mülk yazılım yazmaları ya da özel mülk yazılımı
GNU/Linuxâın "
+"üstünde çalıÅtırmak üzere taÅımak için ödeme yapmaktadır ve bu,
topluluÄumuz "
+"için bir katkı deÄildir. Ancak IBM, tümünü bunda toplamaktadır.
Bunların "
+"bazıları reklam olabilir, bu da kısmen bir katkıdır ancak kısmen de "
+"yanlıÅtır. Bu nedenle, bu, karmaÅık bir durumdur. Yaptıkları
Åeylerden "
+"bazıları katkıdır ve bazıları deÄildir, ancak bunlar da kesin
deÄildir. Ve "
+"hepsini bir araya toplayıp âVav! IBMâden bir milyar dolar aldımâ "
+"diyemezsiniz. [Dinleyiciler güler] Bu, olayların aÅırı derecede "
+"basitleÅtirilmesidir."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk a little bit more about the thinking "
+"that went into the general public license?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SORU</strong>: Genel Kamu Lisansıâna iliÅkin düÅünceler
hakkında "
+"biraz bilgi verebilir misiniz?"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, here's the — I'm sorry, I'm answering "
+"his question now. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Åimdi, burada — özür dilerim, sorusunu "
+"Åimdi yanıtlıyorum. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Do you want to reserve some time for the press "
+"conference? Or do you want to continue here?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Basın toplantısı için zaman ayırmak istiyor "
+"musunuz? Yoksa burada mı devam etmek istiyorsunuz?"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Who is here for the press conference? Not a lot "
+"of press. Oh, three — OK. Can you afford if we — if I go on "
+"answering everybody's questions for another ten minutes or so? OK. So, "
+"we'll go on answering everybody's questions."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Basın toplantısı için kimler burada? Ãok
fazla "
+"basın yok. Oh, üç - Tamam. EÄer herkesin sorusunu yanıtlamak üzere on
dakika "
+"gibi bir Åey istesek kabul eder misiniz? Tamam. O zaman, herkesin sorusunu "
+"yanıtlamayla devam edelim."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, the thinking that went into the GNU GPL? Part of it was that I wanted to "
+"protect the freedom of the community against the phenomena that I just "
+"described with X Windows, which has happened with other free programs as "
+"well. In fact, when I was thinking about this issue, X Windows was not yet "
+"released. But I had seen this problem happen in other free programs. For "
+"instance, TeX. I wanted to make sure that the users would all have "
+"freedom. Otherwise, I realized that I might write a program, and maybe a "
+"lot of people would use the program, but they wouldn't have freedom. And "
+"what's the point of that?"
+msgstr ""
+"GNU GPLâye yol açan düÅünceler mi? Bunun bir kısmı, topluluÄun
özgürlüÄünü, "
+"X Windowsâta tanımladıÄım fenomenlere karÅı korumak istememdi, bu
durum "
+"diÄer programlarda da meydana geldi. Aslında, bu husus hakkında
düÅünürken, "
+"X Windows henüz yayınlanmamıÅtı. Ancak bu problemin baÅka özgür
programlarda "
+"meydana geldiÄini görmüÅtüm. ÃrneÄin, TeX gibi. Kullanıcıların
tümünün "
+"özgürlüÄe sahip olduÄundan emin olmak istedim. Aksi takdirde, bir
program "
+"yazabileceÄimi ve çok sayıda insanın programı kullanacaÄını
düÅündüm, ancak "
+"o insanların özgürlüÄü olmayacaktı. Ve bunun ana noktası nedir?"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But the other issue I was thinking about was, I wanted to give the community "
+"a feeling that it was not a doormat, a feeling that it was not prey to any "
+"parasite who would wander along. If you don't use copyleft, you are "
+"essentially saying: <i>[speaking meekly]</i> “Take my code. Do what "
+"you want. I don't say no.” So, anybody can come along and say: <i>"
+"[speaking very firmly]</i> “Ah, I want to make a non-free version of "
+"this. I'll just take it.” And, then, of course, they probably make "
+"some improvements, those non-free versions might appeal to users, and "
+"replace the free versions. And then, what have you accomplished? You've "
+"only made a donation to some proprietary software project."
+msgstr ""
+"Ancak düÅündüÄüm diÄer bir husus, topluluÄa, bunun bir paspas
olmadıÄı "
+"duygusunu vermekti, bu, ortalıkta dolanan herhangi bir parazite av
olmadıÄı "
+"duygusuydu. Copyleftâi kullanmıyorsanız, esas olarak Åunu diyorsunuzdur:
"
+"[Uysal bir Åekilde konuÅarak] âKodumu al. Ne istersen yap. Hayır
demem.â "
+"Böylece herhangi biri gelip Åunu diyebilir: [kesinkes konuÅarak] âA,
bunun "
+"özgür olmayan bir sürümünü yapmak istiyorum. O zaman bunu
alacaÄım.â Ve daha "
+"sonra, tabi ki, muhtemelen bazı geliÅtirmeler eklediler, bu özgür olmayan
"
+"sürümler kullanıcılara çekici geldi ve özgür sürümlerin yerini
aldı. Ve o "
+"zaman, neyi baÅarmıŠoldunuz? Yalnızca bir özel mülk yazılım
projesine "
+"katkıda bulunmuŠoldunuz. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And when people see that that's happening, when people see, other people "
+"take what I do, and they don't ever give back, it can be demoralizing. And, "
+"this is not just speculation. I had seen that happen. That was part of "
+"what happened to wipe out the old community that I belonged to the '70's. "
+"Some people started becoming uncooperative. And we assumed that they were "
+"profiting thereby. They certainly acted as if they thought they were "
+"profiting. And we realized that they can just take off cooperation and not "
+"give back. And there was nothing we could do about it. It was very "
+"discouraging. We, those of us who didn't like the trend, even had a "
+"discussion and we couldn't come up with any idea for how we could stop it."
+msgstr ""
+"Ve insanlar bu durumun meydana geldiÄini gördüÄünde, benim yaptıÄım
Åeyi "
+"diÄer insanların aldıÄını gördüklerinde ve insanlar hiçbir zaman
geri "
+"vermediÄinde, bu, moral bozucu bir durum olabilir. Ve bu yalnızca "
+"spekülasyon deÄildir. Bunun gerçekleÅtiÄini gördüm. Bu, 1970âlerde
üyesi "
+"olduÄum eski topluluÄu bozmak için meydana gelen Åeyin bir parçasıdır.
Bazı "
+"insanlar iÅbirliÄinden uzaklaÅmaya baÅladı. Ve biz de bu Åekilde kâr "
+"yaptıklarını varsaydık. Kesinlikle kâr yaptıklarını düÅünüyor
gibi "
+"davrandılar. Ve biz de, ortaklıÄımızı alabileceÄimizi ve geri "
+"vermeyebileceÄimizi fark ettik. Ve bu konu hakkında yapabileceÄimiz
hiçbir "
+"Åey yoktu. Ãok umutsuzluk vericiydi. Bizim gibi bu eÄilimden hoÅlanmayan "
+"insanlar bir tartıÅma bile yaÅadılar ancak bunu nasıl
durdurabileceÄimize "
+"iliÅkin bir fikrimiz yoktu."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, the GPL is designed to stop that. And it says, Yes, you are welcome to "
+"join the community and use this code. You can use it to do all sorts of "
+"jobs. But, if you release a modified version, you've got to release that to "
+"our community, as part of our community, as part of the free world."
+msgstr ""
+"GPL bunu durdurmak için tasarımlanmıÅtır. Åöyle der: Evet, topluluÄa
girmek "
+"ve bu kodu kullanmak konusunda özgürsünüz. Her türlü iÅi yapmak için
bu kodu "
+"kullanabilirsiniz. Ancak deÄiÅtirilmiÅ bir sürümü yayınlarsanız,
bunu, "
+"topluluÄumuza, topluluÄumuzun bir kısmına, özgür dünyanın bir
kısmına "
+"yayınlamanız gereklidir."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, in fact, there are still many ways that people can get the benefit of "
+"our work and not contribute, like you don't have to write any software. "
+"Lots of people use GNU/Linux and don't write any software. There's no "
+"requirement that you've got to do anything for us. But if you do a certain "
+"kind of thing, you've got to contribute to it. So what that means is that "
+"our community is not a doormat. And I think that that helped give people "
+"the strength to feel, Yes, we won't just be trampled underfoot by "
+"everybody. We'll stand up to this."
+msgstr ""
+"Bu nedenle, gerçekte, insanların bizim çalıÅmalarımızdan
faydalanmasının ve "
+"herhangi bir yazılım yazmak zorunda olmamanız gibi bir katkısının "
+"olmamasının hâlâ birçok yolu vardır. Birçok insan GNU/Linuxâı
kullanmakta ve "
+"hiçbir yazılım yazmamaktadır. Bizim için bir Åeyler yapmanız gibi bir
Åart "
+"yoktur. Ancak belirli bir Åey yaparsanız, buna katkıda bulunmanız
gerekir. "
+"Bu nedenle, bu, bizim topluluÄumuzun bir paspas olmadıÄı anlamına "
+"gelmektedir. Ve zannediyorum ki, bu durum insanlara Åunu hissetme gücü "
+"verdi: Evet, herkes tarafından ayakaltına alınmayacaÄız. Bunun
karÅısında "
+"ayakta duracaÄız."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Yes, my question was, considering free but not "
+"copylefted software, since anybody can pick it up and make it proprietary, "
+"is it not possible also for someone to pick it up and make some changes and "
+"release the whole thing under the GPL?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SORU</strong>: Evet sorum Åuydu, özgür ancak copyleft edilmemiÅ "
+"yazılım dikkate alındıÄında, herhangi bir kimse bu yazılımı alıp
özel mülk "
+"hale getirebileceÄi için, birilerinin bu yazılımı alıp üzerinde bazı "
+"deÄiÅiklikler yapıp sonuçtaki yazılımı GPL altında yayınlaması
mümkün müdür?"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, it is possible."
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Evet, bu mümkündür."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Then, that would make all future copies then be "
+"GPL'ed."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SORU</strong>: O zaman bu, gelecekteki tüm kopyaların
GPLâlenmesine "
+"neden olacaktır."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: From that branch. But here's why we don't do "
+"that."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: O açıdan öyle. Ancak neden bunu
yapmadıÄımızın "
+"nedenleri Åunlardır."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Hmm?"
+msgstr "<strong>SORU</strong>: Hım?"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Here's why we don't generally do that. Let me "
+"explain."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Neden genellikle bunu yapmıyoruz, açıklamama
izin "
+"verin."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: OK, yes."
+msgstr "<strong>SORU</strong>: Tamam, evet."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We could, if we wanted to, take X Windows, and "
+"make a GPL-covered copy and make changes in that. But there's a much larger "
+"group of people working on improving X Windows and <em>not</em> GPL-ing it. "
+"So, if we did that, we would be forking from them. And that's not very nice "
+"treatment of them. And, they <em>are</em> a part of our community, "
+"contributing to our community."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Ä°steseydik, X Windowsâu alıp GPL kapsamlı bir
"
+"kopya hazırlayıp bunda deÄiÅiklikler yapabilirdik. Ancak X Windowâun, "
+"GPLâlenmesi yerine geliÅtirilmesi üzerinde çalıÅan çok daha büyük
bir grup "
+"vardır. Bu nedenle, bunu yaparsak, onlardan bir Åeyler eÅelemiÅ olurduk.
Ve "
+"bu, iyi bir davranıŠdeÄildir. Ve onlar, bizim topluluÄumuzun bir "
+"parçasıdır, topluluÄumuza katkıda bulunmaktadırlar."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Second, it would backfire against us, because they're doing a lot more work "
+"on X than we would be. So, our version would be inferior to theirs, and "
+"people wouldn't use it, which means, why go to the trouble at all?"
+msgstr ""
+"İkinci olarak, bu bize geri tepecektir çünkü X üzerinde bizim
yapacaÄımızdan "
+"çok daha fazla iŠyapmaktadırlar. Bu nedenle, bizim sürümümüz onların
"
+"sürümünden daha kötü olacaktır ve insanlar, bizim sürümümüzü "
+"kullanmayacaktır, neden baÅımızı derde sokalım ki?"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Mmm hmm."
+msgstr "<strong>SORU</strong>: Mmm hmm."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: So when a person has written some improvement to "
+"X Windows, what I say that person should do is cooperate with the X "
+"development team. Send it to them and let them use it their way. Because "
+"they are developing a very important piece of free software. It's good for "
+"us to cooperate with them."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Bu nedenle, bir insan X Windowsâa birtakım "
+"geliÅtirmeler ilâve ettiÄinde, o insanın yapması gereken Åey bence X "
+"geliÅtirme takımıyla iÅbirliÄi yapmaktır. Bu ilâveleri onlara
gönderin ve "
+"kendi bildikleri gibi kullanmalarına izin verin. Ãünkü çok önemli bir
özgür "
+"yazılım parçası geliÅtirmektedirler. Onlarla iÅbirliÄi yapmak bizim
için "
+"iyidir. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Except, considering X, in particular, about two "
+"years ago, the X Consortium that was far into the non-free open "
+"source…"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SORU</strong>: YaklaÅık iki yıl önceki özgür olmayan açık
kaynaÄa "
+"çok yakın olan X Konsorsiyumu hariç olmak üzere…"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually it <em>wasn't</em> open sourced. "
+"It wasn't open sourced, either. They may have said it was. I can't "
+"remember if they said that or not. But it wasn't open source. It was "
+"restricted. You couldn't commercially distribute, I think. Or you couldn't "
+"commercially distribute a modified version, or something like that. There "
+"was a restriction that's considered unacceptable by both the Free Software "
+"movement and the Open Source movement."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Aslında, o açık kaynak <em>deÄildi</em>.
Açık "
+"kaynak olduÄunu söylemiÅ olabilirler. Ãyle söylemiÅ olup
olmadıklarını "
+"hatırlamıyorum. Ama açık kaynak deÄildi. Kısıtlıydı. Zannediyorum ki
ticari "
+"olarak daÄıtamıyordunuz. Ya da ticari olarak deÄiÅtirilmiÅ bir
sürümünü ya "
+"da benzeri bir Åeyleri daÄıtamıyordunuz. Bu, hem Ãzgür Yazılım
hareketi hem "
+"de Açık Kaynak hareketi tarafından kabul edilemez olan bir
kısıtlamaydı. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And yes, that's what using a non-copyleft license leaves you open to. In "
+"fact, the X Consortium, they had a very rigid policy. They say: If your "
+"program if copylefted even a little bit, we won't distribute it at all. We "
+"won't put it in our distribution."
+msgstr ""
+"Ve evet, bu, copyleft olmayan bir lisansın sizi maruz bıraktıÄı bir "
+"durumdur. Aslında, X Konsorsiyumunun çok katı bir politikası vardı.
Åunu "
+"demekteydiler: Programınız azıcık bile copyleft edilmiŠolsa,
daÄıtmayız "
+"bile. DaÄıtımımıza koymayacaÄız."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, a lot of people were pressured in this way into not copylefting. And "
+"the result was that all of their software was wide open, later on. When the "
+"same people who had pressured a developer to be too all-permissive, then the "
+"X people later said, All right, now we can put on restrictions, which wasn't "
+"very ethical of them."
+msgstr ""
+"Böylece, çok sayıda insan bu Åekilde copyleft etmeme konusunda baskıya "
+"uÄramıÅtır. Ve sonuçta, daha sonra onların tüm yazılımları çok
açıktı. Bir "
+"geliÅtiriciye her Åeye aÅırı izin verme konusunda baskı yapmıŠolan "
+"insanlar, daha sonra âTamam, Åimdi kısıtlamalar getirebilirizâ
dediklerinde, "
+"bu onların çok da etik olmayan hareketler yaptıklarını göstermiÅtir."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, given the situation, would we really want to scrape up the resources to "
+"maintain an alternate GPL-covered version of X? And it wouldn't make any "
+"sense to do that. There are so many other things we need to do. Let's do "
+"them instead. We can cooperate with the X developers."
+msgstr ""
+"Ancak bu durumda, Xâin alternatif bir GPL kapsamlı sürümünü elde etmek
için "
+"kaynakları gerçekten de zar zor toplamak ister miydik? Ve bunu yapmamızın
"
+"hiçbir anlamı olmayacaktı. Yapmamız gereken baÅka birçok Åey vardır.
Bunun "
+"yerine onları yapalım. X geliÅtiricileriyle iÅbirliÄi yapabiliriz. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Do you have a comment, is the GNU a trademark? "
+"And is it practical to include it as part of the GNU General Public License "
+"allowing trademarks?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SORU</strong>: GNUânun ticari bir marka olduÄu konusunda bir "
+"yorumunuz var mı? Ve ticari markalara izin vererek bunu, GNU Genel Kamu "
+"Lisansının bir parçası olarak içermek pratik midir?"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We are, actually, applying for trademark "
+"registration on GNU. But it wouldn't really have anything to do with that. "
+"It's a long story to explain why."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Aslında, GNU üzerinde ticari marka kaydı "
+"uygulamaktayız. Ancak, bunun bir önemi yok. Bunun sebebini açıklamak uzun
"
+"sürer."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You could require the trademark be displayed with "
+"GPL-covered programs."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SORU</strong>: Ticari markanın GPL kapsamlı programlarda "
+"görüntülenmesine gereksinim duyardınız."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: No, I don't think so. The licenses cover "
+"individual programs. And when a given program is part of the GNU Project, "
+"nobody lies about that. The name of the system as a whole is a different "
+"issue. And this is an aside. It's not worth discussing more."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Hayır, öyle zannetmiyorum. Lisanslar tekil "
+"programları kapsamaktadır. Ve belirli bir program GNU Projesinin
parçasıysa, "
+"hiç kimse bu konu hakkında yalan söylemez. Bir bütün olarak sistemin
ismi "
+"farklı bir husustur. Ve bu, bir yan husustur. Daha fazla tartıÅılmaya
deÄmez."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: If there was a button that you could push and "
+"force all companies to free their software, would you press it?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SORU</strong>: Bir düÄme olsaydı ve bu düÄmeye bastıÄınızda,
bütün "
+"firmaları yazılımlarını özgürleÅtirmeye zorlayabilseydiniz, bu
düÄmeye basar "
+"mıydınız?"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, I would only use this for published "
+"software. You know, I think that people have the right to write a program "
+"privately and use it. And that includes companies. This is privacy issue. "
+"And it's true, there can be times when it is wrong to do that, like if it is "
+"tremendously helpful to humanity, and you are withholding it from humanity. "
+"That is a wrong but that's a different kind of wrong. It's a different "
+"issue, although it's in the same area."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Bu düÄmeyi yalnızca yayınlanan yazılımlar
için "
+"kullanırdım. İnsanların özel olarak bir program yazıp onu özel olarak "
+"kullanma hakkına sahip olduÄunu düÅünüyorum. Ve bu düÅüncem,
firmaları da "
+"içermektedir. Bu, gizlilik hususudur. Ve bu doÄrudur, yazılımın halka "
+"açılmamasının yanlıŠolduÄu zamanlar da olabilir, örneÄin, insanlık
için çok "
+"yararlı bir yazılım insanlardan gizli tutuluyorsa, bu yanlıŠbir
durumdur. "
+"Bu yanlıÅtır, ancak farklı bir yanlıŠtipidir. Aynı alanda olmasına
raÄmen, "
+"farklı bir husustur. "
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But yes, I think all published software should be free software. And "
+"remember, when it's not free software, that's because of government "
+"intervention. The government is intervening to make it non-free. The "
+"government is creating special legal powers to hand out to the owners of the "
+"programs, so that they can have the police stop us from using the programs "
+"in certain ways. So I would certainly like to end that."
+msgstr ""
+"Ama evet, bence yayınlanan tüm yazılımlar özgür yazılım olmalıdır.
Ve "
+"unutmayın ki, bu yazılımlar özgür yazılım olmadıÄında, bunun
nedeni, "
+"hükümetin müdahalesidir. Hükümet, yazılımın özgür olmayan yazılım
olması "
+"için müdahale etmektedir. Hükümet, programların sahiplerine verilmek
üzere "
+"özel yasal güçler oluÅturmaktadır, böylece belirli Åekillerde
programları "
+"kullanmamızı polis gücüyle önleyebilir. Bu nedenle kesinlikle bunun bir
sona "
+"erdirilmesini isterim."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Richard's presentation has invariably generated "
+"an enormous amount of intellectual energy. I would suggest that some of it "
+"should be directed to using, and possibly writing, free software."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Richardâın sunumu, önemli oranda entelektüel
"
+"enerji oluÅturmuÅtur. Umarım ki, bu enerjinin bir kısmı özgür
yazılımın "
+"kullanılmasına ve muhtemelen de yazılmasına dönüÅür."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"We should close the proceedings shortly. I want to say that Richard has "
+"injected into a profession which is known in the general public for its "
+"terminal apolitical nerditude a level of political and moral discussion "
+"which is, I think, unprecedented in our profession. And we owe him very big "
+"for this. I'd like to note to people that there is a break."
+msgstr ""
+"Bu konuyu burada sona erdirmeliyiz. Åunu söylemek isterim ki Richard
politik "
+"ve ahlaksal seviyede kamuoyunda nihai politik durumundan dolayı bilinen bir "
+"uzmanlık alanına girmiÅtir ve bu, bizim uzmanlık alanımızda emsali "
+"görülmemiÅ bir davranıÅtır. Ve bunun için ona çok borçluyuz. Åimdi
bir ara "
+"olduÄunu belirtmek isterim."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<i>[Applause]</i>"
+msgstr "<i> [Dinleyiciler alkıÅlar]</i>"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: You are free to leave at any time, you know. <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i> I'm not holding you prisoner here."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Ä°stediÄiniz zaman gitmekte özgürsünüz, "
+"biliyorsunuz. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Sizi burada köle olarak
tutmuyorum."
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<i>[Audience adjourns…]</i>"
+msgstr "<i>[dinleyiciler daÄılır…]</i>"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<i>[overlapping conversations…]</i>"
+msgstr "<i>[çakıÅan konuÅmalar…]</i>"
+
+# type: Content of: <p>
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: One final thing. Our website: www.gnu.org"
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Son bir Åey. AÄ sayfamız: www.gnu.org"
+
+# type: Content of: <div>
+#. 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>
+#. type: Content of: <div><div><p>
+msgid ""
+"Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
href=\"mailto:address@hidden";
+"\"><address@hidden></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";><address@hidden"
+"org></a>."
+msgstr ""
+"Lütfen FSF ve GNU ile ilgili sorularınızı <a
href=\"mailto:address@hidden";><"
+"address@hidden></a> adresine iletin. FSF ile iletiÅim kurmanın <a
href=\"/"
+"contact/\">baÅka yolları</a> da vardır. Lütfen çalıÅmayan
baÄlantıları ve "
+"baÅka düzeltmeleri veya önerilerinizi <a href=\"mailto:address@hidden";
+"\"><address@hidden></a> adresine gönderin."
+
+# type: Content of: <div><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";>
+#. <address@hidden></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><div><p>
+msgid ""
+"Please see the <a href=\"/server/standards/README.translations.html"
+"\">Translations README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting "
+"translations of this article."
+msgstr ""
+"Ãevirilerimizde bulmuÅ olabileceÄiniz hataları, aklınızdaki soru ve "
+"önerilerinizi lütfen <a href=\"mailto:address@hidden";>bize "
+"bildirin</a>.</p><p>Bu yazının çeviri düzenlemesi ve sunuÅu ile ilgili
bilgi "
+"için lütfen <a
href=\"/server/standards/README.translations.html\">Ãeviriler "
+"BENÄ°OKU</a> sayfasına bakın. Bu sayfanın ve diÄer tüm sayfaların
Türkçe "
+"çevirileri gönüllüler tarafından yapılmaktadır; Türkçe niteliÄi
yüksek bir "
+"<a href=\"/home.html\">www.gnu.org</a> için bize yardımcı olmak "
+"istiyorsanız, <a href=\"https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/www-tr";
+"\">çalıÅma sayfamızı</a> ziyaret edebilir."
+
+# type: Content of: <div><p>
+#. type: Content of: <div><p>
+msgid "Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman"
+msgstr "Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman"
+
+#. 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 ""
+"Bu sayfa a <a rel=\"license\" href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-";
+"nd/3.0/us/deed.tr\">Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States "
+"License</a> ile lisanslanmıÅtır."
+
+# type: Content of: <div><div>
+#. TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.
+#. type: Content of: <div><div>
+msgid "*GNUN-SLOT: TRANSLATOR'S CREDITS*"
+msgstr ""
+"<p><strong>Ãeviriye katkıda bulunanlar:</strong></p>\n"
+"<ul>\n"
+"\n"
+"<li>\n"
+"<a href=\"http://yzgrafik.ege.edu.tr/~tekrei/\";>Tahir Emre Kalaycı</a>\n"
+"<a href=\"mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></"
+"a>,\n"
+"2009.\n"
+"</li>\n"
+"\n"
+"<li>\n"
+"ÃiÄdem ÃzÅar,\n"
+"2009.\n"
+"</li>\n"
+"\n"
+"<li>\n"
+"Birkan SarıfakıoÄlu,\n"
+"2009.\n"
+"</li>\n"
+"\n"
+"<li>\n"
+"Serkan Ãapkan,\n"
+"2009.\n"
+"</li>\n"
+"\n"
+"<li>\n"
+"Ä°zlem GözükeleÅ,\n"
+"2009.\n"
+"</li>\n"
+"\n"
+"</ul>"
+
+# type: Content of: <div><p>
+#. timestamp start
+#. type: Content of: <div><p>
+msgid "Updated:"
+msgstr "Son Güncelleme:"
Index: philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.pt-br.txt
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.pt-br.txt
diff -N philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.pt-br.txt
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.pt-br.txt 15 Sep 2015 05:45:29 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,320 @@
+Stallman Condensado
+-------------------
+O que se segue é um resumo da palestra de Richard M. Stallman em 29 de Maio
+de 2001 na Universidade de Nova Iorque entitulada "Software livre: Liberdade
+e Cooperação".
+Como o discurso original é extenso, espero que esta versão reduzida seja mais
+adequada ao leitor casual.
+
+Tradução de Edgard Lemos <address@hidden>
+
+O texto completo em português pode ser encontrado em:
+http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pt-br.txt
+
+Uma outra tradução pode ser encontrada em:
+http://www.msantunes.com.br/palestra.htm
+
+O texto original em inglês pode ser encontrado aqui:
+http://www.gnu.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt
+
+
+
+Nem todo mundo é programador
+----------------------------
+
+RMS começa sua apresentação com uma analogia que se pode usar para explicar
+software livre para pessoas sem conhecimento técnico: a troca de receitas
+culinárias. "Alguns de vocês talvez não escrevam programas, mas talvez
+cozinhem", e a analogia continua, "e se seguem receitas, provavelmente já
+tiveram a experiência de obter uma cópia da receita de um amigo." Compartilhar
+é uma característica muito próxima do princípio sobre o qual se fundamenta o
+movimento de software livre: esta informação útil, especificamente o código do
+qual os programas distribuídos publicamente são compilados, devem estar
+disponíveis para todos. Continuando a comparação, uma vez que você tenha uma
+cópia da receita, você está livre para mudá-la para satisfazer seus gostos
+individuais, "acrescentar cogumelos, porque você gosta de cogumelos", por
+exemplo. Este é outro princípio do software livre: deve-se ser capaz de
+modificar o código do programa conforme se deseja. Se você cozinha para seus
+amigos a partir dessa receita modificada, eles podem gostar da sua criação e
+querer conhecer a nova receita. Assim como ao distribuir uma cópia modificada
+de software livre, você compartilha porque "é assim que agem as pessoas
+decentes".
+
+Agora o argumento principal: se as receitas fossem como software proprietário,
+daí a história toda seria muito diferente. Suponha que você receba a receita
+como uma caixa preta, cujo conteúdo você não possa mudar, mas que produza o
+mesmo prato exatamente como o do seu amigo. Daí você não poderia modificar o
+prato de acordo com seu gosto e jamais poderia compartilhar com seus amigos a
+versão modificada (e possivelmente melhorada) daquele prato. Software
+proprietário é baseado em um sistema de valores "no qual a decência comum para
+com outras pessoas é proibida ou impedida.", e que se opõe ao sistema de troca
+que as pessoas normalmente entendem e usam com receitas culinárias.
+
+
+O massacre da impressora a laser
+--------------------------------
+
+Contando um pouco de sua própria história, RMS explica como veio a perceber os
+perigos do software proprietário durante os anos 1970 quando trabalhava no
+Laboratório de Inteligência Artificial do MIT. Seu grupo recebeu uma impressora
+a laser da Xerox nova em folha para usar com seu computador PDP-10, mas ela
+engasgava freqüentemente. Isto causava muitos transtornos já que não havia meio
+de saber, sem ir fisicamente examinar a impressora, que ela havia engasgado.
+Assim, eles tiveram a idéia de modificar o software da impressora para
+notificar os usuários do sistema de que ela tinha engasgado. Isto parecia muito
+natural para este grupo particular de pesquisadores já que o laboratório
+trocava código de programas e informações livremente. Afinal de contas, eles
+tinham criado seu próprio sistema operacional em linguagem assembly e este era
+meramente um software para impressão. Infelizmente, o software tinha sido
+fornecido de somente de forma binária e eles não tinha o código-fonte para
+fazer modificações [N.T.: o código-fonte contém as instruções do programa
+inteligíveis por humanos e a forma binária é entendida pelo processador da
+máquina e só contém zeros e uns]. Pior ainda, a Xerox se recusou a dar-lhes o
+código-fonte. E assim, "só nos restava sofrer com as demoras "; "frustrante à
+beça," ele explica.
+
+
+Acordos de confidencialidade fazem vítimas
+------------------------------------------
+
+A história da impressora continua: uma pessoa da Universidade Carnegy Mellon
+tinha o código-fonte, mas se recusou a dá-lo ao grupo do MIT porque "ele tinha
+prometido a se recusar a cooperar conosco ... ele tinha assinado um acordo de
+confidencialidade". Pelos termos do acordo, esse cidadão que tinha o código
+fonte "tinha prometido não cooperar com simplesmente toda a população do
+Planeta Terra". Isto levou RMS a chegar à conclusão de que, apesar das
+compensações e das tentações do toma-lá-dá-cá, os acordos de confidencialidade
+fazem vítimas porque forçam a pessoa a recusar a troca de informações de uso
+geral, e portanto tornando a vida de seus pares humanos mais difícil, Como
+conseqüência, RMS diz: "jamais assinei um contrato de confidencialidade para
+informações técnicas de utilidade geral, como software".
+
+Nasce o GNU
+-----------
+
+Depois do desaparecimento de seu grupo no MIT e da contemplação das lições
+aprendidas até então, RMS decidiu que "desenvolveria um sistema operacional
+livre -- ou morreria tentando... de velho".
+Ele decidiu modelar seus sistema pelo UNIX, por causa da compatibilidade e
+portabilidade. A modularidade do sistema permitia que suas partes fossem
+desenvolvidas uma a uma, produzindo assim gradualmente um sistema completo,
+removendo as partes proprietárias que compõem a maior parte dos sistemas UNIX.
+No espírito da cultura hacker, ele usou uma sigla recursiva para designar o
+software GNU, que quer dizer "GNU's Not UNIX" e se pronuncia "guh-NEW".
+
+Lentamente, partes do sistema começaram a ser escritas, e elas eram
+"substitutos igualmente bons, com menos bugs ... mas não eram programas
+tremendamente empolgantes". Então em princípios de 1985, como RMS "não tinha
+intenção de aprender a usar VI, o editor UNIX" para arquivos texto, ele
+completou o GNU Emacs, um editor de texto versátil. Rapidamente outros usuários
+queriam uma cópia e RMS percebeu que tinha definir um esquema de distribuição.
+Qualquer um com acesso a rede e um cliente FTP poderia obter o software de
+graça, e os que não tinham poderiam obter uma fita por $150.
+
+
+$150 por software livre - os dois sentidos de "free"
+----------------------------------------------------
+
+Este é um ponto de confusão geral: como pode software livre custar $150? A
+resposta é que a palavra inglesa "free"" em dois sentidos diferentes. O "free"
+do movimento de software livre tem a ver com compartilhar e promover
+liberdades. No entanto, muitas pessoas acham que significa "livre" como em
+"livre de ônus"" e ao passo que muito software livre pode ser obtido sem
+pagamento, ninguém está impedido de cobrar pela cópia. RMS apresenta este
+argumento ao dizer "pensem em liberdade de expressão, não boca-livre". De fato,
+isso é o que faz quase toda a distribuição GNU/Linux: reúne software livre para
+atender as necessidades de um grupo de usuários. Sobre a questão do preço do
+software, RMS diz, "não sou contra outros programadores receber dinheiro. Não
+quero que os preços sejam baixos. Não é essa absolutamente a questão. A questão
+é liberdade."
+
+
+As quatro liberdades do software livre
+--------------------------------------
+
+Tendo aludido às qualidades do software livre até aqui, RMS agora expõe as
+quatro liberdades do software livre. (Note que são indexadas em zero).
+
+A primeira é a Liberdade Zero, a liberdade para usar software do jeito que
+quiser. RMS nota que "a maioria dos programas lhe dão pelo menos a Liberdade
+Zero", e que o software que não dá "é um programa para lá de restritivo".
+
+A Liberdade Um é a liberdade de modificar o software para atender sua
+necessidade. Lembre-se do exemplo da impressora a laser da Xerox no laboratório
+de IA do MIT, e como esta liberdade os teria permitido re-escrever o software
+para facilitar suas vidas. Em geral, quando não se concede esta liberdade,
+"você fica prisioneiro de seu software" e "causa prejuízos práticos e materiais
+à sociedade", tanto quanto os pesquisadores eram prisioneiros do software de
+sua impressora e sofreram por causa dele.
+
+A Liberdade Dois é a liberdade de distribuir o software para qualquer outra
+pessoa, e ao fazer isso "ajudar os outros". Lembre-se da analogia das receitas
+culinárias e de que trocá-las é "é o recurso mais importante da sociedade".
+RMS argumenta que as leis impedem compartilhar software são baseadas na lógica
+que se aplica normalmente a bens físicos, quando na realidade há vastas
+diferenças entre bens físicos e software. Por exemplo, gasta-se muito mais
+recurso para produzir um exemplar de um automóvel que para produzir cópia de
+software.
+
+A Liberdade Três é a liberdade de distribuir versões alteradas do software, e
+fazendo assim cultivar uma comunidade centrada na evolução do software. Quando
+você compartilha uma versão modificada de uma receita culinária que obteve de
+um amigo, você está exercitando uma analogia desta liberdade.
+
+
+Código aberto e software livre: dois objetivos diferentes
+----------------------------------------------------------
+
+Uma fonte de confusão sobre o movimento de software livre é a insistência que
+de ele e o movimento de software livre são inerentemente diferentes. RMS afirma
+que eles diferem em seus objetivos: software livre tem o objetivo filosófico de
+promover as quatro liberdades listadas acima ao passo que o software de código
+aberto tem o objetivo prático de promover lançamento de software cujos fontes
+estejam disponíveis sob um licença que atenda uma certa definição. Em geral,
+isso significa que as liberdades concedidas pelos vários tipos de licenças de
+software de código aberto são um subconjunto das liberdades maiores concedidas
+pelas licenças de software livre. RMS diz que os membros do Movimento do Código
+Aberto "citam apenas os benefícios práticos" do software livre e apesar de
+terem "contribuído substancialmente para nossa comunidade", ele diz que
+"filosoficamente, há um tremendo desacordo".
+
+
+Como se mede a liberdade?
+-------------------------
+
+Saber se um software é livre ou não pode depender de onde a medida é feita. No
+exemplo do X Windows, a licença permite liberdades diferentes para grupos
+diferentes. Os desenvolvedores do X Windows têm todas as quatro liberdades e
+assim, para eles é software livre. Os usuários, em geral, não têm nenhuma das
+quatro liberdades exceto a Liberdade Zero, e assim não é software livre para
+eles. De modo similar, algumas empresas pegam os fontes, modificam-no, lançam
+somente versões binárias e então seus usuário só ficam com a Liberdade Zero.
+
+RMS temia que "se a mesma coisa tivesse acontecido com o software GNU, ele
+teria sido um fracasso". Assim ele pensou num jeito de evitar que isso
+acontecesse, um modo de dar liberdade a todos os usuários de software,
+independente das modificações.
+
+
+Copyleft
+--------
+
+O método que RMS inventou é chamado de "copyleft", assim chamado porque "é como
+copyright [direito autoral] só que de cabeça para baixo". Software livre dá
+todas as quatro liberdades e, via copyleft, usa a lei do direito autoral para
+garantir que todos os trabalhos derivados [tenham] todas as quatro liberdades.
+Sob estas condições, o paradoxo do X Windows, software livre que nem sempre é
+livre, não acontece. A licença que permite isso, a qual é usada em muitos
+softwares livres, é a Licença Pública Geral ou GNU GPL (General Publica
+License), "uma licença controversa -- porque na realidade tem o poder de dizer
+não a pessoas que queiram ser parasitas de nossa comunidade."
+
+
+Por que GNU/Linux?
+------------------
+
+Primeiro apareceu o GNU em 1984 e subseqüentemente em 1985 a Fundação do
+Software Livre foi criada. O trabalho continuou no sistema GNU e em 1991 apenas
+uma parte crucial estava faltando: o kernel [N. T.: o núcleo, parte central do
+sistema operacional]. Foi então que Linus Torvalds combinou o sistema GNU com
+seu kernel Linux monolítico para criar o primeiro sistema GNU/Linux. E este é
+o ponto que RMS mais enfatiza: "quando falo do kernel, eu o chamo de Linux" ,
+de outro modo, o sistema completo deve ser chamado de GNU/Linux uma vez que
+ambos, o sistema GNU e o kernel [Linux], têm de ser combinados para criar um
+todo completo.
+
+
+Software livre e os negócios
+----------------------------
+
+Tendo já discutido como software livre dá poder na mão dos usuários, RMS se
+ocupa em esclarecer por que, apesar da recente investida da Microsoft, o
+software livre é bom para os negócios.
+
+Usuários com as quatro liberdades é a primeira vantagem que as empresas podem
+receber do software livre, já que as próprias empresas são usuários de
+software, normalmente em larga escala. Assim uma empresa tem a oportunidade de
+controlar o software que usa, em vez de ficar à mercê dos bugs e dos recursos
+decididos pelo fabricante de software proprietário. Além disso, as empresas
+podem se beneficiar da inspeção do código do software livre para garantir
+privacidade para seu próprio bem (impedindo o uso de "spyware""[N. T.:
+recursos ou programas para invasão de privacidade] e agir para sanar quaisquer
+falhas de segurança que possam existir (em vez de esperar que o fabricante de
+software proprietário teste e distribua a solução).
+
+Para as empresas que desenvolvem suas próprias aplicações internas, software
+livre promove re-uso de código, eliminando assim perdas, poupando tempo e
+dinheiro. Como uma licença do tipo GPL requer que os fontes só sejam fornecidos
+quando o software modificado é disponibilizado ao público, as aplicações
+desenvolvidas para uso interno que possam incorporar tencologia proprietária
+não precisam rodar em conflito com a GPL. Este argumento parece contrariar
+especificamente o questionamento da Microsoft de que as empresas não podem usar
+software livre sem pôr em risco sua própria tecnologia proprietária, uma
+posição que RMS acredita ser não verdadeira.
+
+RMS também afirma que o uso do software livre promove padronização e
+compatibilidade. As empresas poderão achar isso atraente já que podem impedir a
+aparente obsolescência planejada de produtos e formatação de dados, os quais
+ocorrem com software proprietário. Um exemplo óbvio neste caso pode ser o Word
+do Microsft Office, para cujas novas encarnações freqüentemente se introduz
+documentos incompatíveis retroativamente.
+
+Isso não responde a questão das empresas de software livre e que modelos de
+negócios há disponíveis para elas. No entanto, vários modelos já existem e RMS
+dedica algum tempo para descrevê-los. O primeiro deles é o modelo de suporte,
+o qual quase toda distribuição GNU/Linux oferece. As distribuições também
+conseguem ganhar dinheiro com vendas a varejo da versão de seu pacote
+GNU/Linux; no entanto, é ainda possível baixar estes sistemas de graça. A
+Cygnus Support também oferece suporte a software GNU, desde 1989. Um método de
+ganhar dinheiro com software livre é cobrar do cliente pela adição de
+funcionalidades a uma aplicação existente, RMS também aponta o movimento
+recente FreeDevelopers de Tony Stanco como um modelo que tem potencial de
+sucesso ao pagar programadores para desenvolver software livre.
+
+
+Fechamento
+----------
+
+Antes de ouvir as perguntas dos presentes, RMS expressa sua tese de que o
+movimento de software livre deve focar em ganhos de longo prazo, e que as
+"pessoas que não dão suporte ao software livre geralmente adotam um sistema de
+valores no qual a única coisa que importa são benefícios práticos a curto
+prazo". Traçando um paralelo com o feriado do Dia da Memória nos EUA, durante
+o qual os heróis de guerra americanos são homenageados, Stallman apela para
+que os que apoiam o software livre façam "vários sacrifícios" pela causa. Ao
+contrário dos heróis de guerra, no entanto, estes sacrifícios podem ser tão
+pequenos quanto "aprender uma interface de linha de comandos" ou "pagar algum
+dinheiro a uma empresa que vai desenvolver um pacote de software livre, para
+que você possa tê-lo daqui a alguns anos". Como alguém que já devotou os
+últimos 17 anos de vida para esta causa, ele é excepcionalmente qualificado
+para falar de tal compromisso.
+
+Em seu discurso, RMS destacou muitas das qualidades salientes e muitas vezes
+mal entendidas do software livre: que ele promove as quatro liberdades que
+todos conhecemos a partir de nossa tradição social de compartilhar; que
+"livre" (free) do software livre se refere à liberdade do usuário, não ao
+custo; que software que nega quaisquer das quatro liberdade pode levar a perdas
+e sofrimento; que software de código aberto e sofware livre são filosofias
+fundamentalmente diferentes, mas que juntas têm levado muitas pessoas a lançar
+muito software útil como software livre; que a GPL protege as liberdades dos
+usuário de exploração contra interesses comerciais parasitas; e finalmente,
+talvez mais importante, que as empresas e o software livre podem coexistir,
+apesar das recentes afirmações de o software livre destrói a assim chamada
+propriedade intelectual.
+
+------------
+Referências:
+ GNU Project and Free Software Foundation:
+ http://www.gnu.org
+ Palestra Original (inglês):
+ http://www.gnu.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt
+ Palestra Original (português)
+http://www.fsf.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pt.txt
+ Iniciativa do Código Aberto:
+ http://www.opensource.org/
+
+---------------------------------------------------------------------
+Copyright (C) 2001 Matt Matthews (address@hidden, address@hidden)
+Distribuição e cópia literal deste artigo inteiro são permitidas em qualquer
+meio desde que este aviso seja preservado.
+
Index: philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt
diff -N philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt 15 Sep 2015 05:45:29 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,284 @@
+Stallman Condensed
+------------------
+
+What follows is a summary of Richard M. Stallman's 29 May 2001 speech at NYU
+entitled "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation". As the length of the
+original speech is intimidating, my hope is that this distilled version will
+be more approachable to the casual reader.
+
+The original text can be found here:
+http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt
+
+Not everyone is a programmer
+----------------------------
+
+RMS starts out his presentation with an analogy one might use to explain free
+software to a person who is not technically savvy: sharing recipes. "Some of
+you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps you cook," the analogy
+goes, "and, if you use recipes, you've probably had the experience of getting
+a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing it." This quality of sharing is
+very close to the principle upon which the free software movement is based:
+that useful information, specifically the code from which publicly distributed
+programs are built, should be available to everyone. Continuing the
+comparison, once you own a copy of a recipe, you are free to change it to suit
+your individual tastes, to "add some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms",
+for example. This is another principle of free software: that one should be
+able to make changes to the code of a program as desired. If you cook for
+friends from this modified recipe, they may like your creation and then ask
+for the new recipe. As with distributing modified free software, you share it
+with them because "that's the way to be a decent person".
+
+Now the punch line: if recipes were like proprietary, non-free software, then
+this story would be far different. Suppose the recipe were given to you as a
+black box, the insides of which you could not change, but which would produce
+the same dish exactly as your friend had made it. Then you might not be able
+to change the dish to your liking and thus could never share with your friends
+a modified (hopefully better) version of that dish. Non-free software is based
+on a value system "in which common decency towards other people is prohibited
+or prevented", one which opposes the system of sharing that people commonly
+use and understand with recipes.
+
+Laser printer debacle
+---------------------
+
+With a bit of his own story, RMS explains how he came to see the dangers of
+proprietary software during the 1970s when he worked at the MIT Artificial
+Intelligence Lab. His group had been given a brand new Xerox laser printer for
+use with their PDP-10 computer, but it jammed frequently. This caused much
+aggravation as there was no way of knowing, without physically examining the
+printer itself, that it had jammed. So they got the idea of changing the
+printer software to notify the users on the system that a jam had occurred.
+This seemed natural enough to this particular group of researchers since the
+lab internally shared code and information freely. After all, they had created
+their own operating system in assembly language and this was merely software
+for a printer. Unfortunately, that software had been provided in binary form
+only and they had no source with which they could make changes. Even worse,
+Xerox refused to let them have the source. And so they "just had to suffer
+with waiting"; "frustration up the whazzoo," he explains.
+
+NDAs have victims
+-----------------
+
+The story of the printer driver continues: someone at Carnegie Mellon
+University did have the source code, yet refused to give a copy to the MIT
+group because "he had promised to refuse to cooperate with us ... he had
+signed a non-disclosure agreement". By the terms of this agreement, the person
+with the source "had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about the
+entire population of the Planet Earth". This led RMS to draw the conclusion
+that, despite rationalizations and quid pro quo temptations, NDAs have victims
+since they bind a person to potentially refusing to share generally useful
+information, and thereby making life more difficult for fellow humans. As a
+consequence, RMS has "never knowingly signed a non-disclosure agreement for
+generally useful technical information, such as software".
+
+Birth of GNU
+------------
+
+After the collapse of his group at MIT and contemplation upon the lessons
+learned there, RMS decided he "would develop a free operating system -- or die
+trying...of old age". He decided to model his system after the UNIX system,
+for the sake of compatibility and portability. The modularity of the system
+allowed the pieces to be developed one at a time, thus building the whole
+system gradually, replacing the proprietary bits that comprised most UNIX
+systems. In the spirit of the hacker culture, he used a recursive acronym to
+describe the software: GNU, which stands for "GNU's Not UNIX" and is
+pronounced "guh-NEW".
+
+Slowly bits of the system started getting written, and they were "equally good
+replacements, with fewer bugs ... but they weren't tremendously exciting".
+Then in early 1985, as RMS "had no intention of learning to use VI, the UNIX
+editor" for text files, he completed GNU Emacs, a versatile text editor.
+Quickly other users wanted a copy and RMS realized he had to work out the
+rules of distribution. Anyone with network access and an FTP client could get
+the software for free, and those without could get it on a tape for $150.
+
+$150 for free software - two meanings of "free"
+-----------------------------------------------
+
+This is a point of widespread confusion: how can free software cost $150? The
+answer is that the English word "free" has two distinct meanings. The "free"
+in the free software movement is about sharing and promoting freedoms.
+However, many people think that it means "free" and in "free of cost" and
+while most free software can be had without paying for it, no one is prevented
+for charging people for a copy. RMS makes this point by asking us to "think of
+free speech, not free beer". In effect, this is what almost every GNU/Linux
+distribution does: package free software to suit the needs of a group of
+users. On the subject of the price of software, RMS says, "I'm not against
+some other programmer getting money either. I don't want prices to be low.
+That's not the issue at all. The issue is freedom."
+
+The Four Freedoms of free software
+----------------------------------
+
+Having alluded to the qualities of free software earlier, RMS now takes time
+spell out the four freedoms of free software. (Note that they are zero-
+indexed.)
+
+First is Freedom Zero, the freedom to use software however you wish. RMS notes
+that "most programs will at least give you Freedom Zero", and that any
+software that doesn't "is a pretty damn restrictive program".
+
+Freedom One is the freedom to change software to suit your needs. Remember the
+example with the Xerox laser printer at the MIT AI lab, and how this freedom
+would have allowed them to rewrite the software to make their lives easier. In
+general when this freedom is not granted "it makes you a prisoner of your
+software" and "causes practical, material harm to society", just as the
+researchers at the lab were prisoners to their printer software and suffered
+under it.
+
+Freedom Two is the freedom to distribute the software to anyone else, and in
+doing so "to help your neighbor". Remember the analogy with recipes and how
+sharing is "society's most important resource". RMS makes the point that the
+laws that are used to prevent sharing of software are based on the logic one
+normally applies to physical goods, when in fact there are vast differences
+between physical goods and software. For example, it takes greater resources
+to produce a copy of a car than it does to produce a copy of software.
+
+Freedom Three is the freedom to distribute altered versions of the software,
+and in doing so cultivate a community centered around the evolution of the
+software. When you share a modified version of a recipe you obtained from a
+friend, you are exercising an analogue of this freedom.
+
+Open source and free software: two different goals
+--------------------------------------------------
+
+One source of confusion about the free software movement is the insistence
+that they and the open source software movement are inherently different. RMS
+claims that they differ in their goals: free software has a philosophical goal
+to promote the four freedoms listed above while open source software has the
+practical goal to promote the release of software for which the source is
+available under a license fitting a certain definition. In general, this means
+the freedoms granted by various types of open source licenses are a subset of
+the greater freedoms granted by free software licenses. RMS says that members
+of the OSS movement "only cite the practical benefits" of free software and
+while they have "contributed substantially to our community", he says that
+"philosophically, there's a tremendous disagreement".
+
+Where to measure freedom?
+-------------------------
+
+The measurement of whether a piece of software is free software can depend on
+where the measurement takes place. In the example of X Windows, the license
+allows for different freedoms for different groups. The developers of the X
+Windows system have all four freedoms and thus, it is free software to them.
+The users do not, in general, have any of the four freedoms except Freedom
+Zero, and so it is not free software to them. Similarly, some companies take
+the source, change it, release binary-only versions, and then their users have
+only Freedom Zero.
+
+RMS worried that "if that same thing had happened to GNU software, it would
+have been a failure". So he sought a way to prevent it from happening, a way
+to grant freedoms to all users of the software, regardless of the
+modifications.
+
+Copyleft
+--------
+
+The method RMS came up with is called "copyleft", so called since "it's sort
+of like taking copyright and flipping it over". Free software grants all four
+freedoms and, via copyleft, uses copyright law to enforce on all derived works
+those same four freedoms. Under these conditions, the paradox of X Windows,
+free software that isn't always free software, cannot occur. The license that
+accomplishes this, and which is used on much free software, is the GNU General
+Public License (or GPL), "a controversial license -- because it actually has
+the strength to say no to people who would be parasites on our community."
+
+Why GNU/Linux?
+--------------
+
+First came GNU in 1984 and subsequently in 1985 the Free Software Foundation
+was created. Work continued on the GNU system and in 1991 only one crucial
+piece was missing: the kernel. It was then that Linus Torvalds combined the
+GNU system with his monolithic Linux kernel to create the first GNU/Linux
+system. And this is a point that RMS feels strongly upon: "if I'm talking
+about the kernel, I call it Linux" and otherwise the complete system should be
+called GNU/Linux since both the GNU system and the kernel must be combined to
+create a complete whole.
+
+Free software and business
+--------------------------
+
+Having already discussed how free software puts power in the hands of users,
+RMS then takes time to clarify why, despite the recent invective from
+Microsoft, free software is a good for business.
+
+That users are granted the four freedoms is the first advantage that business
+can receive from free software, as businesses are themselves users of
+software, often on a large scale. Thus a business has the opportunity to
+control the software they use, instead of being at the mercy of the bugs and
+feature decisions of the proprietary software vendor. Further, business can
+benefit from inspecting the code of the software to ensure privacy for its own
+sake (effectively preventing the use of spyware) and take action to fix any
+security flaws that might exist (instead of waiting for the proprietary
+software vendor to test and release a fix).
+
+For businesses that develop their own in-house applications, free software
+promotes code reuse, thus eliminating waste while saving time and potentially
+money. Since a free software license like the GPL requires that source be
+provided only when modified software is made available to the public,
+applications developed for internal use which potentially incorporate
+proprietary technology need not run afoul of the GPL. This point seems
+specifically targeted at Microsoft's contention that businesses cannot use
+free software without putting at risk their own proprietary technology, a
+position that RMS believes to be untrue.
+
+RMS also claims that the use of free software promotes standardization and
+compatibility. Businesses might find this attractive since it could prevent
+the seemingly planned obsolescence of products and their data formats that can
+occur with proprietary software. An obvious example here might be Microsoft
+Office's Word, for which new incarnations often introduce non-backward
+compatible document formats.
+
+These don't address the question of free software companies and what business
+models are available to them. However, several models already exist and RMS
+takes the time to point them out. Primary among these is the support model,
+which almost every GNU/Linux distribution offers. Distributions also attempt
+to make money off of the retail sales of their packaged versions of GNU/Linux;
+however, one can still download those systems for free. Cygnus Support also
+offers services to support GNU software, and has since 1989. One method of
+making money from free software is to to charge a client to add desired
+features to an existing application. RMS also points to Tony Stanco's recent
+FreeDevelopers movement as a potentially successful model to pay programmers
+to develop free software.
+
+In Closing
+----------
+
+Before taking questions from the audience, RMS expresses his stance that
+a free software movement should focus on long term gain, and that "people who
+don't support free software generally adopt a value system in which the only
+thing that matters is short-term practical benefits". Drawing a parallel with
+the US holiday Memorial Day, during which American heroes of war are honored,
+Stallman urges free software supporters to make "various sacrifices" for the
+cause. Unlike those made by war heroes, however, these sacrifices can be small
+like "learning a command-line interface" or "paying some money to a
+company that's going to develop a certain free software package, so that
+you can have it in a few years". As one that has devoted the past 17 years of
+his life to this cause, he is exceptionally qualified to speak to such a
+commitment.
+
+In this speech, RMS has outlined many of the salient and oft misunderstood
+qualities of free software: that it promotes the four freedoms that we all
+know from our social tradition of sharing; that the "free" in "free software"
+refers to freedom for the user, not cost; that software that denies any of the
+four freedoms can lead to waste and suffering; that open source software and
+free software are fundamentally philosophically different yet have together
+led many people to release much useful software as free software; that the GPL
+protects the freedoms of users from exploitation by parasitic commercial
+interests; and finally, perhaps most importantly, that business and free
+software can coexist, despite recent claims that free software destroys
+so-called intellectual property.
+
+--
+
+Reference information:
+ GNU Project and Free Software Foundation:
+ http://www.gnu.org
+ Original speech:
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt
+ Open Source Initiative:
+ http://www.opensource.org/
+
+Copyright (C) 2001 Matt Matthews (address@hidden, address@hidden)
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any
+medium, provided this notice is preserved.
Index: philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.cs.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.cs.html
diff -N philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.cs.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.cs.html 15 Sep 2015 05:45:29 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,2182 @@
+
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">
+<HTML>
+<HEAD>
+<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-2">
+<TITLE>Svobodný software - Free Software Foundation (FSF)</TITLE>
+<LINK REV="made" HREF="mailto:address@hidden";>
+<META HTML-EQUIV="Keywords"
+ CONTENT="GNU, GNU Project, FSF, Free Software, Free Software Foundation,
+ History">
+</HEAD>
+<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#000000" LINK="#1F00FF" ALINK="#FF0000"
VLINK="#9900DD">
+<IMG SRC="/graphics/whats-gnu-sm.jpg"
+ ALT=" [obrazek Co je to gnu] " WIDTH="125" HEIGHT="120">
+
+
+<pre>
+ Pøepis pøedná¹ky
+ Richarda M. Stallmana
+ ,,Svobodný software: Svoboda a spolupráce''
+ New York University v New Yorku
+ 29. kvìtna 2001
+</pre>
+
+<P>
+URETSKY: Jsem Mike Uretsky. Vystudoval jsem Stern School of Business.
+Jsem jedním z øeditelù Centra pro pokroèilé technologie.
+Jménem nás v¹ech v Oddìlení pro výzkum poèítaèù bych vás zde chtìl pøivítat.
+Ne¾ pøedám mikrofon Edovi, který
+pøedstaví øeèníka, dovolil bych si nìkolik poznámek.
+
+<P>
+Úlohou univerzity je podporovat debaty a poøádat zajímavé diskuze
+A úlohou vìt¹í univerzity je poøádat
+zvlá¹tì zajímavé diskuze. A tato zvlá¹tní pøedná¹ka dopadá na úrodnou
+pùdu. Debata o open source mi pøipadá
+zvlá¹tì zajímavá. V jiném smyslu, [Smích]
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Já dìlám svobodný software. Open Source je odli¹ný smìr.
+[Smích] [Potlesk]
+
+<P>
+URETSKY: Kdy¾ jsem v tomto oboru zaèínal v ¹edesátých letech,
+software byl vpodstatì svobodný.
+A pro¹li jsme tím v cyklech. Zaèal svobodnì a potom ho výrobci software
+ve snaze roz¹íøit obchod zaèali postrkávat jinými smìry.
+Mnoho vývoje, který pøi¹el s nástupem PC, pro¹lo tím samým cyklem.
+
+<P>
+Existuje jeden velmi zajímavý francouzský filosof -- Pierre Levy -- který
+mluví o pohybu tímto smìrem a který mluví o pohybu smìrem ke kybersvìtu
+a to nejen v souvislosti s technologiemi, ale také se sociální
+restrukturalizací, politickou restrukturalizací, skrze zmìny ve vztazích
+mezi námi, které mohou zlep¹it blahobyt lidstva. A my doufáme,
+¾e tato debata se bude ubírat tímto smìrem. Tato debata se týká
+mnoha oborù na¹í univerzity, které normálnì vystupují samostatnì.
+Tì¹íme se na velmi zajímavou diskuzi. Ede?
+
+
+<P>
+SCHONBERG: Já jsem Ed Schonberg z Computer Science Department na
+Courant Institute. Dovolte mi pøivítat vás tu dnes. Lidé, kteøí
+pouze pøedstavují jiné, jsou vìt¹inou jen neu¾iteèným rysem
+veøejných konferencí, ale v tomto pøípadì jsou vlastnì docela u¾iteèní,
+jak nám dokázal Mike.
+
+<P>
+Dovolte mi tedy krátce pøedstavit nìkoho, kdo vlastnì vùbec ¾ádné pøedstavení
+nepotøebuje. Richard je perfektní pøíklad èlovìka, který pøi
+øe¹ení lokálních problémù zaèal pøemý¹let globálnì. Pøed mnoha
+lety zaèal pøemý¹let o problémech spojených s nedostupností zdrojového
+kódu k ovladaèùm tiskárny. Vytvoøil filosofii, která nás v¹echny donutila
+pøehodnotit na¹e my¹lenky o vývoji software, o tom, co to vlastnì je
+intelektuální vlastnictví a kdo to je softwarová komunita.
+Pøivítejme Richarda Stallmana.
+[Potlesk]
+
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Mù¾e mi nìkdo pùjèit hodinky? [Smích] Díky.
+Rád bych podìkoval Microsoftu za to, ¾e mi poskytl mo¾nost
+[Smích] stát na tomto podiu.
+V posledních týdnech jsem se cítil jako autor, jeho¾ kniha byla
+bez jeho zavinìní nìkde zakazována.
+Pomiòme, ¾e v¹echny èlánky vìc ¹patnì pojmenovávají, jeliko¾
+Microsoft popisuje GNU GPL jako Open Source licenci a
+tisk ho následuje. Vìt¹ina lidí si prostì neuvìdomuje,
+¾e na¹e práce s open source nijak nesouvisí; ve skuteènosti
+jsme udìlali vìt¹inu z toho, je¹tì ne¾ byl termín ,,open source´´
+vytvoøen.
+
+<P>
+Budu dnes mluvit o Free Software Movement, co to je, co to znamená,
+co jsme ji¾ udìlali a proto¾e je to èásteènì sponzorované
+School of Business, øeknu také pár vìcí navíc o tom,
+jak se svobodný software spojuje
+s obchodem a nìkterými dal¹ími oblastmi sociálního ¾ivota.
+
+<P>
+Nìkteøí z vás mo¾ná je¹tì nepsali poèítaèové programy, ale mo¾ná
+vaøíte. A jestli vaøíte, tak pokud nejste opravdu
+velmi dobøí, asi pou¾íváte recepty.
+A pokud pou¾íváte recepty, pravdìpodobnì ji¾ máte zku¹enost s tím,
+¾e jste si poøídili kopii receptu od kamaráda. Také asi máte, pokud nejste
+úplný zaèáteèník, zku¹enost s obmìnou receptu. Jistì, recept vám radí urèité
kroky,
+ale vy ve skuteènosti nemusíte dìlat pøesnì to. Mù¾ete vynechat nìkteré
pøísady,
+nebo mù¾ete
+pøidat nìjaké houby, jestli je máte rádi, dát ménì soli, proto¾e
+vám doktor øekl, ¾e byste mìli sùl omezit -- cokoliv. Pokud máte zku¹enosti,
+mù¾ete udìlat dokonce je¹tì vìt¹í zmìny. A poté tøeba pøijdou pøátelé, kterým
+to bude chutnat a jeden z nich vám mù¾e øíci: ,,Hej, nemohl bys mi dát
recept?´´
+Co tedy udìláte? Mù¾ete si zapsat tu modifikovanou verzi receptu a opsat ho
+kamarádovi. To jsou pøirozené vìci, které mù¾ete dìlat se v¹emi recepty.
+
+<P>
+Recept je hodnì podobný poèítaèovému programu a poèítaèový program je hodnì
+podobný receptu. Série krokù, které musíte jeden po druhém vykonat,
+abyste se dostali k po¾adovanému výsledku. Tak¾e je také tak pøirozené
+dìlat tyto vìci s poèítaèovými programy. Dát kopii kamarádovi, dìlat v nìm
+zmìny, proto¾e to, co dìlá, není pøesnì to, co bychom chtìli, aby dìlal.
+Program mo¾ná odvádìl perfektní práci pro nìkoho jiného, ale va¹e
+práce je odli¹ná.
+Po tom, co ho zmìníte, je mo¾né, ¾e takto bude u¾iteèný i pro nìkoho jiného.
+Mo¾ná dìlají práci, která je velmi podobná té va¹í. Tak¾e pøijdou
+a zeptají se: ,,Hej, dal bys mi kopii?´´ Samozøejmì, pokud jste ohleduplný
+èlovìk, dáte jim ji -- budete slu¹ný.
+
+<P>
+A teï si pøedstavte, jaké by to bylo, pokud by byly recepty umístìny
+v èerných skøíòkách. Nemohl byste se podívat jaké pøísady pou¾ívají,
+ani je mìnit. A pøedstavte si, ¾e pokud byste udìlal kamarádovi kopii,
+nazývali by vás pirátem a sna¾ili se vás na roky uvìznit. To by vyvolalo
+v lidech zvyklých sdílet recepty stra¹né rozhoøèení. Ale takto
+pøesnì vypadá svìt propietárního software. Svìt, ve kterém
+je slu¹nost k ostatním lidem zakázána a je vám v ní bránìno.
+
+<P>
+Kdy jsem to zpozoroval? V¹iml jsem si toho díky tomu, ¾e jsem v sedmdesátých
+letech mìl to ¹tìstí být souèástí komunity programátorù, kteøí sdíleli
software.
+Minulost téhle komunity sahá vpodstatì a¾ k úplným zaèátkùm poèítaèù.
+V 70. letech to bylo tro¹ku zvlá¹tní být komunita, kde lidé sdíleli software.
+Ve skuteènosti to byl extrémní pøípad, proto¾e v laboratoøi, kde jsem pracoval,
+byl celý ná¹ operaèní systém napsaný lidmi z na¹í komunity a my
+bychom jej sdíleli s kýmkoliv. Ka¾dý byl vítán. A» ji¾ se chtìl pouze
+podívat, odnést si kopii, nebo udìlat cokoliv jiného, co se mu zachtìlo.
+Na programech nebyla ¾ádná upozornìní o copyrightu. Ná¹ zpùsob ¾ivota byla
+spolupráce. Byli jsme si jisti v takovém zpùsobu ¾ivota. Nebojovali jsme za
nìj.
+Nemuseli jsme za nìj bojovat. Prostì jsme tak ¾ili. A pokud vím,
+prostì bychom tak ¾ili i dále. Tak¾e svobodný software tu ji¾ byl, ale nebyl
+tu ¾ádný Free Software Movement.
+
+<P>
+Pak se pøes nás ale pøehnala série kalamit
+a na¹e komunita byla v troskách, nakonec byla úplnì znièena. Museli jsme
+pøestat pou¾ívat PDP-10, ná¹ poèítaè. A jak víte,
+ná¹ systém -- Nekompatibilní systém pro sdílení èasu
+[The Incompatibile Time Sharing Machine -- to byl název systému -- pozn.
+pøekl.] -- byl psán
+v ¹edesátých letech, tak¾e byl celý v assembleru. Tak se to prostì
+v ¹edesátýchy letech dìlalo. Assembler je samozøejmì v¾dy pouze pro jednu
+architekturu. Kdy¾ ta zastará, v¹echna va¹e práce se zmìní v odpad.
+A pøesnì to se nám stalo. Dvacet let, nebo tak nìjak, na¹í práce bylo vyhozeno
+do ko¹e.
+
+<P>
+Je¹tì ne¾ se to stalo, mìl jsem zku¹enost, která mì pøipravila,
+pomohla mi rozhodnout se co dìlat... pomohla mi pøipravit se na to,
+abych vìdìl co dìlat, a¾ se toto stane. Jednou dal Xerox laboratoøi
+umìlé inteligence,
+kde jsem pracoval, laserovou tiskárnu. Byl to opravdu skvìlý dárek,
+bylo to poprvé co získal laserovou tiskárnu nìkdo mimo Xerox.
+Byla velmi rychlá, vytiskla stránku za sekundu. To bylo perfektní v mnoha
+ohledech, ale bylo to nespolehlivé. Ve skuteènosti to byla
+vysokorychlostní kopírka pøemìnìná v tiskárnu. Znáte
+to, kopírky maèkají papír a zablokují se, ale v¾dy je tam nìkdo, kdo to spraví.
+Tiskárna se zasekla, ale nikdo to nevidìl, tak¾e zùstala mimo provoz dlouho.
+
+<P>
+Dobøe, napadlo nás, jak ten problém vyøe¹it. Chtìli jsme pozmìnit program tak,
+aby to v¾dy, kdy¾ se tiskárna zasekne, poèítaè, co ji obsluhuje oznámil
+na¹emu hlavnímu poèítaèi a ten informoval u¾ivatele, kteøí èekají na
+výstupy. ©li by to spravit. Jenom aby vìdìli.
+Kdy¾ èekáte na výtisk a víte, ¾e tiskárna je zablokovaná, nebudete
+sedìt a èekat na Vánoce, pùjdete to spravit.
+
+<P>
+Ale to jsme tvrdì narazili, proto¾e software, který ovládal tiskárnu
+nebyl svobodný software -- dostali jsme ho s tiskárnou a byla to pouze
+binárka. Nemohli jsme mít zdrojový kód -- Xerox nám ho nedal, tak¾e napøíè
tomu,
+¾e jsme mìli velké zku¹enosti -- po tom v¹em, napsali jsme vlastní operaèní
+systém... -- jsme nebyli schopni pøidat tohle roz¹íøení do software na¹í
+tiskárny.
+
+<P>
+A tak jsme museli jen trpìt a èekat. Trvalo i hodinu èi dvì dostat
+své výtisky, proto¾e stroj byl vìt¹inu èasu zablokovaný.
+A tak jste si øíkali. ,,Vím, ¾e se to zasekne, poèkám hodinu a pak
+si pùjdu pro výstup´´ a pak jste pøi¹li a zjistili, ¾e to bylo zaseklé
+celou dobu a nikdo jiný to mezitím nespravil. Tak¾e jste to spravili
+a èekali dal¹í pùlhodinu. A pak jste pøi¹li a vidìli, ¾e se to zas zaseklo
+døíve, ne¾ se to dostalo k va¹í úloze. Tisklo to tøi minuty a tøicet neèinnì
+stálo zablokované. ©ílená otrava.
+Ale je¹tì hor¹í bylo vìdìt, ¾e jsme to mohli opravit,
+ale nìkdo jiný, kvùli své vlastní sobeckosti, nás blokoval, zabraòoval
+nám vylep¹it ten software. Samozøejmì, ¾e jsme cítili vztek.
+
+<P>
+Jednou jsem se doslechl, ¾e nìkdo na univerzitì Carnagie Mellon mìl kopii
+toho software. ©el jsem tedy do jeho kanceláøe a øekl: ,,Ahoj, já jsem z MIT,
+mohl bys mi dát kopii zdrojových kódù té tiskárny?´´ A on øekl: ,,Ne,
+slíbil jsem, ¾e ti nedám kopii.´´ Pokou¹ely se o mne mrákoty.
+Byl jsem tak... byl jsem na¹tvaný, a nenapadalo mì jak to ospravedlnit.
+V¹e, na co jsem mohl pomyslet, bylo otoèit se na podpatku a odejít z jeho
+místnosti. Mo¾ná jsem práskl dvìømi. [Smích] A pozdìji jsem na to musel
+myslet, proto¾e jsem si uvìdomil, ¾e to, co jsem pozoroval, nebyl pouze
ojedinìlý
+pøípad, ale dùle¾itý sociální fenomén, který ovlivnil mnoho lidí.
+
+<P>
+Bylo to... pro mne... já mìl ¹tìstí. Jen jsem to ochutnal, ale
+nìkteøí lidé v tom museli ¾ít celou dobu. Podívejte, on slíbil
+odmítnout s námi spolupracovat -- se svými kolegy na MIT.
+Zradil nás. Ale neudìlal to jen nám. Je mo¾né, ¾e to udìlal i vám. [Smích]
+A myslím, ¾e to nejspí¹ udìlal i vám. Udìlal to vìt¹inì lidí, kteøí
+jsou teï v této místnosti, s výjimkou tìch pár, kteøí je¹tì nebyli v roce 1980
+na svìtì, proto¾e on odmítl spolupracovat s celou planetou Zemí.
+Podepsal non-disclosure agreement. [do èe¹tiny volnì pøelo¾eno jako
+dohoda o neodhalení, ale i v Èechách se bì¾nì pou¾ívá tento anglický
+termín a jeliko¾ jsem na ¾ádný moc chytrý pøeklad nepøi¹el, budu
+non-disclosure agreement pou¾ívat také -- pozn. pøekl.]
+
+<P>
+To bylo moje první pøímé setkání s non-disclosure agreement
+a to mì nauèilo nìèemu dùle¾itému. Dùle¾itému proto,
+¾e vìt¹ina programátorù se tomu nenauèila. Vidíte, ¾e toto
+bylo moje první setkání s non-disclosure agreement a byl jsem obì»,
+já a celá moje laboratoø jsme byli obì»mi. A tak jsem vidìl,
+¾e non-disclosure agreements má obìti. Non-disclosure agreements
+nejsou nevinné. Nejsou
+ne¹kodné. Vìt¹ina programátorù se poprvé setká s non-disclosure agreement,
+kdy¾ je nìkdo pozve k podepsání. A v¾dy je tu nìjaké lákání
+-- nìjaký bonbon, který dostanou, pokud podepí¹í. Dìlají si omluvy.
+Øíkají: ,,Stejnì bych nikdy kopii nedostal, tak proè bych se nemohl
+k tomuhle spinkutí proti nìmu pøipojit?''
+
+<P>
+Øíkají, ¾e takhle se to dìlá v¾dy. ,,Kdo jsem, abych se proti tomu stavìl?''
+Øíkají ,,Kdy¾ to nepodepí¹u, tak nìkdo jiný to podepí¹e za mì.´´
+Mají rùzné omluvy, aby si vyléèili svìdomí.
+
+<P>
+Ale kdy¾ mì nìkdo pozval, abych podepsal non-disclosure agreement,
+moje svìdomí ji¾ bylo ve støehu. Pamatoval jsem si, jak jsem byl na¹tvaný,
+kdy¾ nìkdo slíbil nepomoci mnì a mé laboratoøi vyøe¹it ná¹ problém.
+A nemohl jsem to jen tak pøejít a udìlat tu samou vìc nìkomu jinému,
+kdo mi nikdy nijak neublí¾il. Víte, kdyby mnì nìkdo po¾ádal o slib,
+¾e nebudu sdílet u¾iteèné informace s nenávidìným nepøítelem,
+vyhovìl bych mu. Kdy¾ nìkdo udìlal nìco ¹patného, zaslou¾í si to.
+Ale cizinci -- nic zlého mi neudìlali. Proè bych s nimi mìl zacházet
+tak ¹patnì? Zaslou¾í si to? Nemù¾ete s ka¾dým, s kýmkoliv, jednat ¹patnì.
+Stanete se tak ¹kùdce spoleènosti. Odvìtil jsem: ,,Díky moc, ¾e mi nabízíte
+tenhle pìkný softwarový balík, ale nemohu s èistým svìdomím pøistoupit na
podmínky,
+které po¾adujete, tak¾e se rad¹i obejdu bez nìj. Díky moc.´´ Nikdy jsem úmyslnì
+nepodepsal non-disclosure agreement na obecnì u¾iteènou technickou informaci,
+jako napøíklad software.
+
+<P>
+Existují i jiné typy informací, které mohou vzná¹et podobné etické otázky.
+Napøíklad osobní informace. Kdybyste se mnou chtìli mluvit o tom,
+co se dìje mezi vámi a va¹í holkou, a poprosili byste mne, abych
+o tom nikomu neøíkal, abych si to nechal... souhlasil bych s tím, ¾e
+si to nechám pro sebe, proto¾e to není obecnì u¾iteèná technická informace.
+
+<P>
+Pøinejmen¹ím to pravdìpodobnì není obecnì u¾iteèné. [Smích] Je tu malá ¹ance
+-- a to je samozøejmì také mo¾nost -- ¾e jste odhalili nìjakou
+ú¾asnou novou sexuální techniku [Smích] a já bych potom cítil jako
+svoji morální povinnost pøedat tu informaci zbytku lidstva,
+aby z toho mohl také tì¾it. Musím tedy do toho slibu zahrnout výjimku --
+v¹ak víte. Pokud to jsou jen detaily o tom, kdo to chce, kdo je na koho
na¹tvaný
+a takové vìci -- cajdák -- tak si to nechám pro sebe, ale nìco, z èeho by mohla
+spoleènost obrovsky tì¾it, prostì musím zveøejnit. Úèel vìdy a technologie
+je objevovat u¾iteèné informace pro lidstvo, které by pomohly lidem
+¾ít lépe své ¾ivoty. Kdy¾ slíbíme neposkytnout takovou informaci --
+kdy¾ si ji ponecháme v tajnosti -- tak zrazujeme misi svého odvìtví.
+A já jsem se rozhodl, ¾e bych to nemìl dìlat.
+
+<P>
+Ale mezitím moje komunita zkrachovala a to byl krach, který mì zanechal
+v tì¾ké situaci. Jak jsem ji¾ øekl, ná¹ systém byl zastaralý, proto¾e
+PDP-10 bylo zastaralé, a proto ji¾ nebylo mo¾né, abych pokraèoval jako
+vývojáø operaèního systému stejným zpùsobem jako pøedtím.
+To záviselo na tom, ¾e jsem byl souèástí komunity, která pou¾ívala
+software a vylep¹ovala ho. To ji¾ od té doby nebylo mo¾né a to
+mi pøipravilo morální dilema. Co budu dìlat? Nejjednodu¹¹í mo¾nost
+znamenala jít proti rozhodnutím, která jsem uèinil. [zde myslí RMS
+rozhodnutí nepodepsat nikdy non-disclosure agreement -- pozn. pøekl]
+Nejjednodu¹¹í mo¾nost znamenala pøizpùsobit se zmìnì svìta. Akceptovat,
+¾e vìci se zmìnily a ¾e budu muset obìtovat moje principy a zaèít podpisem
+non-disclosure agreement na operaèní systém. A nejspí¹ také psát proprietární
+software. Ale uvìdomil jsem si, ¾e touhle cestou bych mohl mít nadále zábavu
+z kódování a mohl jsem mít peníze -- hlavnì kdybych to dìlal nìkde jinde, ne¾
+na MIT -- ale nakonec bych se jednou musel ohlédnout za svojí kariérou
+a øíct si: ,,Strávil jsem ¾ivot budováním zdí k oddìlení lidí,´´ a mohl
+bych být znechucen svým ¾ivotem.
+
+<P>
+Tak jsem se poohlí¾el po jiné alternativì. Byla tu jedna zøejmá.
+Mohl jsem opustit softwarové odvìtví a dìlat nìco jiného. Nemìl
+jsem ¾ádné pozoruhodné schopnosti, ale jsem si jistý,
+¾e jsem se mohl stát èí¹níkem. [Smích] Ne v nìjaké fantastické
+restauraci, nezamìstnali by mì, ale prostì jsem mohl být èí¹ník.
+Nìkde. Mnoho programátorù øíká, ,,lidé, kteøí najímají programátory,
+po¾adují to a to a to ,,a kdy¾ to nebudu akceptovat, budu hladovìt.´´
+Hladovìt, to je pøesnì to slovo,
+které pou¾ívají. Ok, jako èí¹ník hladovìt nebudete.
+[Smích]
+
+<P>
+Opravdu tu není ¾ádné nebezpeèí. To je dùle¾ité,
+obèas mù¾ete ospravedlnit to, ¾e provedete ostatním lidem
+nìco, co je zraní, tím, ¾e øeknete: ,,kdy¾ to neudìlám,
+stane se mi je¹tì nìco hor¹ího.´´ Samozøejmì, kdybyste opravdu
+mìli hladovìt, ospravedlòovalo by vás to psát proprietární software.
+[Smích]
+Kdy¾ na vás nìkdo míøí pistolí, tak bych øekl, ¾e je to omluvitelné.
+[Smích]
+Ale já jsem na¹el cestu jak pøe¾ít bez toho, abych dìlal nìco neetického,
+tak¾e jsem tuto omluvu nemohl pou¾ít. Uvìdomil jsem si, ¾e být èí¹ník by
+pro mne nebyla ¾ádná zábava a zbyteènì bych tak plýtval mými
+zku¹enostmi systémového vývojáøe. To, co budu dìlat, by nemìlo být zneu¾ívání
+mých zku¹eností. Vyvíjet proprietární software by bylo zneu¾íváním
+mých zku¹eností. Povzbuzovat ostatní lidi k tomu, aby ¾ili
+ve svìtì proprietárního software, by bylo zneu¾ívání mých zku¹eností.
+To u¾ by bylo lep¹í s nimi plýtvat, ne¾ je zneu¾ívat, ale
+to stále není pøíli¹ dobré.
+
+<P>
+Z tìchto dùvodù jsem se tedy zaèal rozhlí¾et po nìjaké alternativì.
+Co by mohl udìlat vývojáø operaèních systémù k tomu, aby zlep¹il situaci,
+aby udìlal svìt lep¹ím místem? Uvìdomil jsem si,
+¾e operaèní systém bylo pøesnì to, co bylo tøeba. Ten problém,
+to dilema, existovalo pro mì i pro v¹echny ostatní, proto¾e
+v¹echny dostupné operaèní systémy pro moderní poèítaèe byly
+proprietární. Ten ná¹ svobodný operaèní systém byl pro staré,
+vyslou¾ilé poèítaèe, ¾e? Kdy¾ jste si chtìli poøídit nový
+poèítaè a pou¾ívat ho, byli jste nuceni pou¾ít proprietární systém.
+Kdyby nìjaký vývojáø napsal jiný systém a potom øekl, ¾e ho mù¾e
+ka¾dý sdílet a on bude rád, pokud to budou lidé dìlat, tak by to ka¾dého
+vyvedlo z tì¾kého rozhodování, byla by tu alternativa.
+Uvìdomil jsem si, ¾e bych s tím mohl nìco dìlat. Zrovna já
+jsem mìl ty pravé zku¹enosti, abych to byl schopen udìlat.
+To bylo prostì to neju¾iteènìj¹í co jsem si dokázal pøedstavit,
+jak bych mohl se svým ¾ivotem nalo¾it.
+
+<P>
+Tohle byl zrovna problém, který se v tu chvíli nikdo jiný nesna¾il
+vyøe¹it. Prostì jsme tu jen sedìli a ono se to mezitím je¹tì víc zhor¹ovalo
+a nebyl tu kolem nikdo jiný, kdo by to vyøe¹il, jen já. Cítil jsem,
+¾e jsem ten pravý, ¾e na tom musím pracovat. Kdy¾ ne já, tak kdo?
+Tak¾e jsem se rozhodl, ¾e vyvinu svobodný operaèní systém -- nebo
+umøu pøi tom, jak se stále budu sna¾it vyvinout svobodný operaèní systém.
+Myslel jsem umøít stáøím, samozøejmì. [Smích]
+
+<P>
+Stál jsem tedy pøed rozhodnutím, jaký operaèní systém by to mìl být. Musel
+jsem si upøesnit nìjaké technické otázky týkající se designu systému.
+Nìkolik dùvodù mne pøesvìdèilo udìlat ho kompatibilní s Unixem.
+Zaprvé, bylo to zrovna po tom, co jsem vidìl, jak operaèní systém,
+který jsem opravdu miloval, zastaral, proto¾e byl napsaný pro jeden
+konkrétní typ poèítaèe a ten se pøestal pou¾ívat. Nechtìl jsem,
+aby se to opakovalo. Potøeboval jsem nìjaký portovatelný systém.
+Unix byl portovatelný systém. Kdybych tedy následoval design
+Unixu, mìl jsem docela dobrou ¹anci vytvoøit systém, který
+by byl portovatelný a práceschopný. Ale byl tu je¹tì
+jeden podstatný dùvod, proè být pøesnì kompatibilní s Unixem.
+
+<P>
+Tím dùvodem je, ¾e u¾ivatelé nesná¹ejí nekompatibilní zmìny.
+Kdybych navrhl systém podle sebe -- co¾ bych byl dìlal stra¹nì rád,
+tím jsem si jist -- vyrobil bych nìco nekompatibilního.
+Jistì chápete, detaily by byly odli¹né. Kdybych to tak udìlal,
+lidé by mi øekli: ,,Ok, je to velmi dobré, ale není to kompatibilní.
+Dalo by moc práce na nìj pøejít. Nemù¾eme si dovolit tolik starostí jen proto,
+abysme pøe¹li na tvùj systém místo Unixu.´´ [V té dobì -- v druhé
+polovinì osmdesátých let -- je¹tì nemohl Richard vìdìt, ¾e pøesnì toto
+se mu pozdìji stane. Jen mezitím byl Unix vymìnìn za MS Windows. Ve
+skuteènosti to ale tehdy na konci osmdesátých let splnilo svùj úèel
+a na serverech i v high-end sféøe ho plní poøád. Zpìtnì øeèeno,
+bylo to dobré rozhodnutí, ale s nástupem nekompatibilních MS Windows tehdy
+Richard nepoèítal a tak se dnes èásteènì dostal do situace, kterou popisuje. --
+pozn. pøekl.]
+
+<P>
+Kdy¾ jsem chtìl vybudovat komunitu, ve které by byli vùbec nìjací lidé
+-- lidé pou¾ívající svobodný systém, sklízející ovoce svobody a
+spolupráce -- musel jsem vytvoøit systém, který by lidé pou¾ívali,
+na který by mohli jednodu¹e pøejít, který by nemìl ¾ádnou pøeká¾ku,
+která by to zastavila hned na zaèátku. Rozhodnutí udìlat systém
+kompatibilní s Unixem za mì vlastnì vyøe¹ilo v¹echny technické otázky
+ohlednì designu, proto¾e Unix se skládá z malých èástí, které spolu
+komunikují pøes rozhraní, která jsou víceménì dokumentovaná.
+Z toho plyne, ¾e kdy¾ chcete být kompatibilní s Unixem,
+musíte nahradit ka¾dý kousek jeden po druhém nìjakým kompatibilním
+kouskem software. Ty zbývající otázky designu se vztahují ka¾dá pouze
+na vnitøek tìch malých souèástí a rozhodnutí mù¾e udìlat ten,
+kdo bude zrovna ten kousek programovat a to vpodstatì kdykoliv.
+Nemusel jsem to v¹e rozhodnout hned na zaèátku.
+
+<P>
+V¹e, co jsme potøebovali k tomu, abychom mohli zaèít pracovat,
+bylo najít nìjaké jméno toho systému. Podívejte, my hackeøi v¾dy
+hledáme pro program nìjaký ¾ertovný, nezbedný název, proto¾e
+pøedstavovat si, jak to lidi pobaví, a¾ se o názvu dozvìdí,
+je skoro polovina zábavy, kterou máte s psaním programu.
+[Smích] Mìli jsme také zvyk psát rekurzivní zkratky, kdykoliv jsme chtìli
+vyjádøit, ¾e program, který pí¹eme, je podobný nìjakému jinému programu.
+Mù¾ete dát programu rekurzivní jméno, které øíká: ,,tenhle není tamten.´´
+
+<P>
+Napøíklad tu bylo v ¹edesátých a sedmdesátých letech mnoho textových editorù
+Tico a v¹eobecnì se jmenovali nìjak jinak ne¾ Tico. Potom jeden
+vynalézavý hacker pojmenoval ten svùj Tint, co¾ znamenalo
+Tint Is Not Tico (Tint není Tico). To byla první rekurzivní zkratka.
+V roce 1975 jsem vyvinul první textový editor Emacs. Mìli jsme taky spoustu
+jiných imitací Emacsu a vìt¹ina se jmenovala nìjak jinak, ale jeden z nich se
+jmenoval Fine, co¾ znamenalo Fine Is Not Emacs (Fine není Emacs) a taky
+tu byl Sine -- Sine Is Not Emacs (Sine není Emacs). Mìli jsme i
+IINA -- Ina Is Not Emacs (Ina není Emacs) a také
+MINCE -- Mince Is Not Complete Emacs (Mince není úplný Emacs).
+[Smích] To byla okle¹tìná imitace.
+A pak nìkdo IINA skoro celý pøepsal a svoji novou verzi pojmenoval
+ZWII, co¾ mìlo být ZWII Was IINA Initially (ZWII bylo pùvodnì IINA).
+[Smích]
+
+<P>
+Hledal jsem tedy rekurzivní akronym pro Something Is Not Unix
+(Nìco není Unix) a vyzkou¹el jsem v¹ech 26 písmenek, ale zjistil
+jsem, ¾e ¾ádná z tìch zkratek nedávala slovo.
+[Smích]
+Tak jsem to zkusil jinak. Zkrátil jsem to, tím bych získal tøípísmennou
+zkratku Something's not Unix [neangliètináøùm se omlouvám, ale toto
+asi nepochopíte -- pozn. pøekl.] Zkou¹el jsem tedy zase písmenka
+a¾ jsem do¹el ke slovu ,,GNU´´ -- GNU je nejlegraènìj¹í slovo v
+angliètinì. [Smích] To bylo ono. Je to legraèní proto, ¾e se to slovo
+vyslovuje jako slovo ,,new´´. Lidé ho proto pou¾ívají v rùzných slovních
+hrách. Je to jméno jednoho zvíøete ¾ijícího v Africe.
+[Jedná se o pakonì -- pozn. pøekl.]
+Africká výslovnost v sobì mìla jakési mlasknutí.
+[Smích] Mo¾ná je¹tì má. Kdy¾ pøi¹li kolonisti z Evropy,
+nezatì¾ovali se uèením toho mlasknutí. Prostì ho tedy vypustili
+a napsali tam místo nìj G, co¾ mìlo znamenat ,,mìl by tu být je¹tì nìjaký
+zvuk, který my nevyslovujeme.´´
+[Smích]
+Dnes v noci letím do ji¾ní Afriky, prosil jsem je u¾. Doufám, ¾e
+najdou nìkoho, kdo mne bude moci nauèit vyslovovat to mlasknutí.
+[Smích]
+Abych vìdìl, jak bych mìl správnì vyslovovat GNU, kdy¾ budu mluvit o tom
+zvíøeti.
+
+<P>
+Pokud ov¹em nemáte na mysli zvíøe, ale ná¹ systém, správná výslovnost je
+,,guh-NEW´´ -- vyslovte to tì¾ké G. Kdybyste místo toho mluvili
+o ,,new´´ operaèním systému, velmi byste lidi popletli, proto¾e
+u¾ na nìm pracujeme 17 let, tak¾e u¾ nikdy nový nebude.
+[Smích] Ale poøád je to GNU -- i pøes to, kolik lidí to
+nesprávnì nazývá Linux. [Smích]
+
+<P>
+V lednu 1984 jsem tedy opustil MIT a zaèal psát ty jednotlivé èásti GNU.
+Nicménì byli hodní, ¾e mi dovolili i nadále vyu¾ívat jejich vybavení.
+Tehdy jsem si myslel, ¾e napí¹eme v¹echny tyhle souèásti a udìláme
+kompletní GNU systém a pak øekneme lidem: ,,pojïte a vemte si to´´
+a ildi to zaènou pou¾ívat. Ale to se nestalo. TY první èásti, které jsem
+psal, byly jen pøibli¾nì stejné náhrady s ménì chybami, ale nebylo to nic
+ohromujícího. Vpodstatì nikdo nechtìl je získávat a instalovat. Zvrat
+pøi¹el v záøí 1984, kdy¾ jsem zaèal psát GNU Emacs -- moji druhou
+implementaci Emacsu. Zaèátkem roku 1985 ji¾ fungovala, mohl jsem
+ho pou¾ívat pro editování, co¾ byla velká úleva, proto¾e jsem se nechtìl
+uèit pou¾ívat VI, Unixový editor. [Smích] Proto jsem a¾ do té doby
+dìlal editování na jiném stroji a soubory jsem si posílal pøes sí», abych
+je mohl testovat [my¹leno na Unixu -- pozn. pøekl.]. Kdy¾ u¾ ale Emacs fungoval
+natolik, ¾e jsem ho mohl pou¾ívat já, byl ji¾ také dost dobrý pro
+ostatní -- ostatní ho chtìli pou¾ívat také.
+
+<P>
+Musel jsem propracovat detaily distribuce. Samozøejmì, umístil jsem
+kopii na anonymní FTP server [Anonymní FTP server znamená, ¾e k nìmu mù¾e
pøistupovat
+ka¾dý. Mù¾ete z nìj stahovat data, ani¾ byste potøebovali znát heslo. -- pozn.
pøekl.]
+a to bylo skvìlé pro lidi na síti, mohli si prostì stáhnout soubor .tar
+a nainstalovat, ale hodnì programátorù tehdy v roce 1985 je¹tì pøístup k
+síti nemìlo. Posílali mi maily: ,,Jak mù¾u získat kopii?´´ Musel
+jsem se rozhodnout, co jim budu odpovídat. Ok, mohl jsem øíci,
+¾e chci trávit svùj èas dìláním GNU software, ne dìláním
+pásek, tak a» poprosí pøítele, který je na síti, aby jim to stáhl
+na pásku. Jsem si jist, ¾e lidé by na¹li takové pøátele. Døíve, èi pozdìji.
+Získali by ty kopie, ale já v té dobì nemìl ¾ádné zamìstnání. Ve skuteènosti
+jsem nikdy nemìl ¾ádné zamìstnání od té doby, co jsem v lednu 1984 opustil
+MIT. Hledal jsem tedy nìjakou cestu, jak bych si mohl vydìlat nìjaké peníze
+prací na svobodném software, a proto jsem odstartoval obchod se svobodným
+software.
+Oznámil jsem: ,,Po¹li mi 150 dolarù a já ti po¹lu pásku s Emacsem.´´ A tak
+mi zaèaly chodit první objednávky a v polovinì roku u¾ jich bylo docela dost.
+
+<P>
+Dostával jsem mezi osmi a deseti objednávkami za mìsíc. Kdyby
+to bylo nutné, mohl jsem vy¾ít jen s tímto pøíjmem, proto¾e já jsem
+v¾dy ¾il levnì; vpodstatì ¾iju jako student. Mám to rád, proto¾e to
+znamená, ¾e vám peníze nerozkazují, co máte dìlat. Mohu dìlat to,
+o èem si myslím, ¾e je pro mì dùle¾ité. To je pro mì velké uvolnìní
+a mohu dìlat to, co opravdu dìlat chci. Sna¾te se zabránit tomu,
+abyste se nechali vcucnout do toho drahého kolobìhu ¾ivota
+typických Amerièanù. Kdy¾ to udìláte, tak vám lidé, kteøí mají peníze, budou
+diktovat, co máte dìlat. Nebudete schopni dìlat to, co je pro vás opravdu
+dùle¾ité.
+
+<P>
+Bylo to dobré, ale lidé se mì ptali: ,,Co jsi tím myslel, ¾e to je Free
+Software, kdy¾ to stojí 150 dolarù?´´ [Smích]
+Ptali se prostì proto, ¾e je zmýlila víceznaènost slova ,,free´´.
+Jeden význam se odkazuje na cenu a druhý na svobodu. Kdy¾ mluvím o
+Free Software,
+odkazuji se na svobodu, ne na cenu. Myslím na free speech, ne na free beer.
+[svoboda projevu, nikoliv pivo zdarma -- pozn. pøekl.]
+[Smích] Nestrávil bych tolik let svého ¾ivota tím, ¾e bych nutil
+programátory vydìlávat ménì penìz. To není mùj cíl. Jsem sám programátor a
+nevadí mi dostávat peníze. Nevìnoval bych získávání penìz celý ¾ivot,
+ale nevadí mi mít je. Nejsem ani proti tomu, aby je dostávali jiní
+programátoøi. Nechci, aby ceny za software byly nízké. To s tím nemá
+nic spoleèného. Tohle je o svobodì. O svobodì pro ka¾dého, kdo pou¾ívá
+software, a» ji¾ je programátor, nebo ne.
+
+<P>
+Nyní bych mìl definovat svobodný software. Rad¹i budu mluvit konkrétnì,
+proto¾e pouhé tlachání o víøe ve svobodu je o nièem. Existuje tolik
+rùzných svobod, ve které mù¾ete vìøit a èasto se také mezi sebou vyluèují,
+tak¾e správná politická otázka by byla: ,,Jaké
+jsou tedy ty dùle¾ité svobody, svobody které musí mít ka¾dý?´´
+Já se ji pokusím zodpovìdìt v oboru pou¾ívání software.
+
+<P>
+Program je pro vás svobodný software, pokud máte následující
+svobody: Zaprvé, svoboda nula je svoboda spou¹tìt program
+za jakýmkoliv úèelem a jakýmkoliv zpùsobem. Svoboda jedna
+je svoboda pomoci si k lep¹ímu vyu¾ití programu tím, ¾e ho pozmìníte.
+Svoboda dvì je svoboda pomoci svému kolegovi tím, ¾e mu dáte
+kopii programu. A svoboda tøi je svoboda pomáhat budovat
+komunitu lidí u¾ívajících tento software tak, aby také
+ostatní mohli získat výhody va¹í práce. Pokud máte v¹echny
+tyhle svobody, pak je pro vás daný program svobodný software. To je velmi
+dùle¾ité, vysvìtlím to pozdìji, a¾ budu mluvit o GNU
+General Public License, ale teï vysvìtluji, co to je svobodný software.
+
+<P>
+Svoboda nula je naprosto zøejmá. Kdy¾ nemáte ani právo program
+spustit, je to docela omezující program. Ve skuteènosti
+vám vìt¹ina programù poskytne alespoò svobodu nula. Svoboda
+nula je logickým dùsledkem svobod jedna, dvì a tøi -- tak
+funguje copyrightový systém. Svobody, které odli¹ují
+svobodný software od typického software jsou svobody jedna, dvì a tøi.
+Øeknìme si o nich tedy nìco více a vysvìtleme si, proè jsou dùle¾ité.
+Svoboda jedna je svoboda pomoci si k lep¹ímu vyu¾ití programu tím, ¾e
+ho pozmìníte.
+To mohlo znamenat tøeba opravování chyb. Mohlo to znamenat pøidávání
+nových vylep¹ení. Mohlo to znamenat portování na jiný
+systém. Mohlo to znamenat pøelo¾ení v¹ech chybových hlá¹ení do
+jazyku Navajo. Mìli byste mít právo provést jakoukoliv zmìnu budete chtít.
+
+<P>
+Je zøejmé, ¾e pro profesionální programátory je to velmi u¾iteèné,
+ale nejen pro nì. Ka¾dý èlovìk s rozumnou inteligencí se zvládne
+alespoò tro¹ku nauèit programovat. Samozøejmì, existují
+tì¾ké práce a lehké práce a vìt¹ina lidí se nebude uèit dìlat
+ty tì¾ké. Ale mnoho lidí se mù¾e nauèit dìlat lehkou
+práci stejnì tak, jako se pøed padesáti lety mnoho a mnoho
+amerièanù nauèilo spravovat auta, co¾ Americe umo¾nilo mít
+ve druhé svìtové válce motorizovanou armádu a vyhrát.
+A pokud jste spoleèenská osobnost a opravdu se nechcete
+uèit technologie -- to znamená, ¾e pravdìpodobnì máte spoustu
+pøátel a umíte je pøesvìdèit, aby vám pomohli. Nìkteøí z nich
+jsou pravdìpodobnì programátoøi. Mù¾ete se jich tedy zeptat:
+,,Zmìnil bys prosím tì pro mì tohle?´´ Je vidìt, ¾e ze svobody
+jedna mù¾e tì¾it opravdu hodnì lidí.
+
+<P>
+Kdy¾ tu svobodu nemáte, je to skuteèná, materiální ¹koda pro
+spoleènost. Dìlá to z vás vìznì svého software. Pokusím se to pøirovnat
+k té laserové tiskárnì. Víte, ¾e to fungovalo pro na¹e potøeby ¹patnì
+a ¾e jsme to nemohli opravit, proto¾e jsme byli vìzni svého software.
+Ovlivòuje to ale také morálku lidí. Kdy¾ máte z pou¾ívání poèítaèe
+stále pocit marnosti, budete mít i ze své práce pocit marnosti. Va¹e
+práce se stane otravnou -- budete nenávidìt svoji práci.
+A kdy¾ lidi deprimuje jejich práce, rozhodnou se nestarat se o ni.
+Nakonec to dospìje do stadia, kdy máte lidi s pøístupem ,,Pøi¹el
+jsem dnes do práce. To je v¹e co musím udìlat. Pokud nemohu udìlat
+pokrok, není to mùj problém, je to problém mého ¹éfa.´´ Kdy¾ se toto
+stane, je to ¹patné jak pro tyto lidi, tak pro celou spoleènost.
+To je svoboda jedna. Svoboda pomoci sám sobì.
+
+<P>
+Svoboda dvì je svoboda pomáhat pøíteli tím, ¾e mu zkopírujete
+program. Pro ty, kteøí umìjí pøemý¹let a uèit se, je
+sdílení u¾iteèných znalostí naprosto základním projevem
+pøátelství. Kdy¾ takoví lidé pou¾ívají poèítaèe, tak se sdílení software
+stává tímto základním projevem pøátelství. Pøátelé sdílejí mezi sebou.
+Pøátelé si pomáhají. To je podstata pøátelství. A ve skuteènosti
+je právì tenhle princip dobrého ducha -- princip pomáhání svým bli¾ním,
+dobrovolnì -- tím nejdùle¾itìj¹ím zdrojem ka¾dé spoleènosti. To je ten
+rozdíl mezi ¾ivotaschopnou spoleèností a bezohlednou d¾unglí.
+Tato dùle¾itost byla rozeznána nejvìt¹ími svìtovými nábo¾enstvími
+ji¾ pøed tisícemi let a ta se explicitnì sna¾í posilovat tento pøístup.
+
+<P>
+Kdy¾ jsem chodil do mateøské ¹kolky, tak se nás tomu sna¾ily uèitelky
+nauèit -- sdílení -- tím, ¾e nás to nechali dìlat. Øekly prostì:
+,,Kdy¾ si do ¹koly pøinese¹ bonbóny, nemù¾e¹ si je nechat v¹echny pro sebe,
+musí¹ se podìlit s ostatními.´´ Tím, ¾e nás to uèily... spoleènost se nauèila
+duchu spolupráce. A proè byste to mìli dìlat? Proto¾e lidé nejsou
+úplnì kooperativní. To je jedna z èástí lidské povahy, ale existují
+i jiné èásti. Je mnoho èástí lidské povahy. Kdy¾ chcete lep¹í spoleènost,
+musíte se sna¾it posilovat v lidech principy sdílení. Jistì,
+nikdy to nebude na 100%, to je pochopitelné. Lidé se musí také
+starat o sebe. Pokud se nám to nìjak pøeci jen o kousek povede,
+budeme bohat¹í.
+
+<P>
+Dnes, podle vlády Spojených státù amerických, mají uèitelé
+dìlat pøesný opak. ,,Ach, Johnny, pøinesl jsi si do ¹koly software.
+Dobøe, nesdílej jej. Ne, ne. Sdílení je ¹patné. Sdílení znamená,
+¾e bys byl pirát.´´ Co tím myslí, kdy¾ øíkají ,,pirát´´? Tvrdí,
+¾e pomáhání blízkým je morální ekvivalent napadání lodí?
+[Smích]
+Co by o tom øekl Budha nebo Je¾í¹? Vezmìte si svého nábo¾enského vùdce.
+Nevím, mo¾ná by Manson øekl nìco jiného.
+[Smích] Kdo ví, co by øekl L. Ron Hubbard. Ale, ...
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: [Nesly¹itelné]
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Jistì, je mrtvý. Ale oni si to nepøipou¹tí. Co¾e?
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: Jako ti ostatní, jsou také mrtví. [Smích] [Nesly¹itelné] Charles
+Manson je také mrtvý. [Smích] Je¾í¹ je mrtvý, Budha je mrtvý.
+
+<P>
+
+STALLMAN: Ano, to je pravda. [Smích] Tak¾e hádám, ¾e v tomto ohledu není L.
Ron
+Hubbard hor¹í ne¾ ti ostatní. [Smích] Tak jako tak -- [Nesly¹itelné:]
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: L. Ron v¾dy pou¾íval svobodný software -- uvolnilo ho to od Zanu.
+
+<P>
+[Smích]
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Myslím, ¾e toto je vlastnì ten nejdùle¾itìj¹í dùvod,
+proè by mìl být software svobodný. Nemù¾eme si dovolit ¹pinit
+nejvìt¹í zdroj spoleènosti. Je pravda, ¾e to není fyzický zdroj,
+jako èistý vzuch, èistá voda. Je to psychologicko-sociální zdroj,
+ale je tak opravdový jako ty ostatní a mù¾e zapøíèinit obrovskou zmìnu
+v na¹ich ¾ivotech. To, jak se chováme, ovlivòuje my¹lení
+ostatních lidí. Kdy¾ chodíme kolem a øíkáme ,,nesdílej s ostatními´´
+-- kdy¾ nás poslouchají -- ovlivòujeme ostatní a neovlivòujeme je dobøe.
+To je svoboda druhá. Svoboda pomoci pøíteli.
+
+<P>
+No a mimochodem, kdy¾ nemáte tuto svobodu, není to
+jen újma pro spoleènost, je to také újma pro lidi --
+opravdová, materiální újma. Kdy¾ má program svého vlastníka
+a ten vlastník stanoví soubor pravidel, kde musí ka¾dý platit, aby
+mohl software pou¾ívat, nìkteøí lidé budou øíkat: ,,Nevadí, já
+se bez nìj obejdu.´´ Zajímavé na software je, ¾e ménì u¾ivatelù neznamená,
+¾e toho musíte udìlat ménì. Znáte to, kdy¾ si auto koupí ménì lidí,
+mù¾ete dìlat ménì aut. Mù¾ete u¹etøit. K vytoøení kopie auta
+potøebujete urèité zdroje. Mù¾ete øíci, ¾e mít cenu na auta je dobrá vìc.
+Zabraòuje to plýtvání surovinami na auta, která nejsou ve skuteènosti potøeba.
+Ale kdyby dal¹í auta ji¾ nepotøebovala ¾ádné suroviny, nebylo
+by k nièemu dobré ¹etøit na výrobì nových kusù. Fyzické vìci,
+jako auta, v¾dy potøebují nìjaké suroviny k výrobì kopií, k výrobì
+ka¾dého dal¹ího exempláøe.
+<P>
+
+U software tomu tak není. Ka¾dý mù¾e vytvoøit kopii a je to velmi
+jednoduché. Nepotøebuje k tomu ¾ádné suroviny s výjimkou tro¹ky
+elektrické energie. Není tu nic, co bychom mohli u¹etøit; tím, ¾e
+pou¾ijeme tuto finanèní brzdu, nemù¾eme ¾ádné zdroje u¹etøit pro lep¹í vyu¾ití.
+Lidé èasto mluví o ekonomii, ale je tøeba si uvìdomit, ¾e se na
+software sna¾í aplikovat ekonomické zdùvodòování zalo¾ené na premisách, které
+pro software neplatí. Sna¾í se pøenést je z jiných oblastí ¾ivota,
+kde mo¾ná platí, na software, a potom výsledky takové úvahy pova¾ují za platné.
+Prostì vezmou své závìry a pøedpokládají, ¾e platí i pro software, i kdy¾
+argumenty nejsou v pøípadì software na nièem zalo¾ené.
+V takové situaci je velmi dùle¾ité prozkoumat, jakou cestou dosahujete
+výsledku a na jakých pøedpokladech stavíte.
+
+<P>
+Svoboda tøi je svoboda pomáhat budovat komunitu publikováním vylep¹ených
+verzí software. Lidé mi øíkali, ¾e kdy¾ je software ,,free'', tak nebude
+nikdo za práci na nìm placen, proè by se tedy mìl pøipojovat? Ok, samozøejmì
+si pletli dva významy slova ,,free'', tak¾e bylo jejich my¹lení zalo¾eno na
+nepochopení. V ka¾dém pøípadì to byla jejich teorie. Dnes ji¾ mù¾eme srovnat
+jejich teorii s empirickým faktem a zjistíme, ¾e stovky lidí jsou placeny
+za psaní svobodného software a ¾e více ne¾ 100 000 lidí jsou
+dobrovolníci. Na svobodném software pracuje mnoho lidí a mají
+rùzné motivy.
+
+<P>
+Kdy¾ jsem poprvé vydal GNU Emacs -- vlastnì první kousek GNU software,
+který lidé chtìli pou¾ívat -- a kdy¾ zaèal projekt nabírat u¾ivatele,
+za chvíli jsem dostal zprávu ,,Myslím, ¾e jsem vidìl v zdrojovém kódu chybu
+a tady je oprava.´´ Potom jsem dostal dal¹í zprávu ,,Tady ti posílám kód
+pro pøidání nového vylep¹ení.´´ A dal¹í opravu chyby a dal¹í zlep¹ení a dal¹í
+a dal¹í -- a¾ se to na mì zaèalo hrnout tak rychle, ¾e dalo mnoho práce jen
+vyu¾ívat to v¹echno, co jsem dostával. Microsoft takovýto problém nemá. [Smích]
+
+<P>
+Nakonec lidé tento jev zaznamenali. V osmdesátých letech
+si spousta z nás myslela, ¾e svobodný software nikdy nebude tak dokonalý jako
+nesvobodný software, proto¾e jsme nemìli tolik penìz na placení lidí.
+Lidé jako já samozøejmì øíkali ,,Dobøe, stejnì ale pou¾ívejte svobodný
+software.´´
+Je lep¹í uèinit malou obì» v technické dokonalosti a mít svobodu, ne¾ opaènì.
+Kolem roku 1990 si ale lidé zaèali uvìdomovat, ¾e svobodný software se vlastnì
+stává lep¹ím. Bylo to rychlej¹í a spolehlivìj¹í ne¾ proprietární alternativy.
+
+<P>
+Zaèátkem devadesátých let nìkdo vynalezl zpùsob, jak vìdecky mìøit
+spolehlivost software. Vzal nìkolik sad srovnatelných programù, které
+dìlaly tu samou vìc -- pøesnì tu samou vìc -- na rùzných systémech.
+Existovalo mnoho Unixových systémù. Rùzné utility dìlaly to samé,
+nebo» vyhovovaly specifikacím POSIX. Prostì svým chováním se neli¹ily, ale
+li¹ily se tím, kdo je spravoval, byly psány oddìlenì; zdrojový kód
+byl jiný. Ten zpùsob mìøení spolehlivosti tedy spoèíval v tom,
+¾e se vzaly tyhle programy a na vstup jim byly posílána náhodná data.
+Mìøilo se, jak èasto spadnou èi skonèí chybou. Zjistili tehdy, ¾e GNU
+programy byly nejspolehlivìj¹í. V¹echny komerèní proprietární
+alternativy byly spolehlivé ménì. Tyhle výsledky byly publikovány
+a vývojáøi s nimi byli seznámeni a za pár let pozdìji se
+experiment opakoval s novìj¹ími verzemi. Výsledek byl stejný,
+GNU verze byla nejspolehlivìj¹í. V¹ak víte, ¾e nìkteré
+kliniky specializované na rakovinu, které pou¾ívají GNU systém,
+proto¾e je tak spolehlivý a právì spolehlivost je pro nì velmi dùle¾itá.
+<P>
+
+Mluvil jsem tu o etických zále¾itostech a nyní mluvím o praktických
+výhodách. Oba tyto body jsou dùle¾ité. To je Free Software Movement.
+
+<P>
+Je znám i jiný my¹lenkový proud -- Open Source movement -- ten
+se zamìøuje pouze na ty praktické výhody. Popírají, ¾e by to byla
+zále¾itost principu. Popírají, ¾e by lidé mìli být oprávnìni mít
+svobodu sdílet se svým bli¾ním, sledovat co program dìlá a mìnit ho,
+pokud se jim nelíbí. Øíkají, ¾e je u¾iteèná vìc toto lidem dovolit.
+Jdou tedy do firmy a øíkají: ,,Víte, mohl byste vydìlat více penìz,
+pokud lidem dovolíte tohle.´´ V urèité míøe tak vedou lidi ke stejnému
+cíli, ale s vyu¾itím úplnì odli¹ných filosofických dùvodù.
+V hlub¹ím kontextu ale tyto dva proudy nesouhlasí. Free
+Software movement øíká ,,Máte právo mít tyto svobody. Nikdo
+by vám v tomto nemìl bránit.´´ Open Source movement
+øíká ,,Dobøe, mohou tì zastavit, pokud chtìjí, ale zkusíme je rad¹i pøesvìdèit,
+aby tì nechali dìlat tyhle vìci.´´ Také pøispìli svobodnému software --
+pøesvìdèili nìjaké spoleènosti, aby vydaly urèité èásti software jako
+svobodný software a tím pøispìli na¹í komunitì. Open Source movement
+výraznì pøispìl k rozvoji na¹í komunity a pracujeme spolu na rùzných
projektech,
+ale v na¹í a jejich filosofii je obrovský rozdíl.
+
+<P>
+Nane¹tìstí získává nejvíce podpory businessu Open Source a proto
+vìt¹ina èlánkù nazývá na¹i práci Open Source a mnoho lidí si
+zaène myslet, ¾e jsme prostì èástí Open Source Movement. Proto
+tu vysvìtluji ten rozdíl. Chtìl bych, abyste si uvìdomili, ¾e
+Free Software movement, který umo¾nil existenci na¹í komunity
+a umo¾nil vyvinout svobodný operaèní systém je poøád tady --
+a my poøád stojíme za jeho etickou filosofií. Je tøeba si to uvìdomit,
+abyste pøí¹tì nepletli lidi vlastní neznalostí.
+
+<P>
+Ale mìli byste to vìdìt také proto, abyste vùbec vìdìli, kde jste.
+Je jen na vás vybrat si, který proud budete podporovat. Mù¾ete souhlasit
+s Free Software movement a s mými názory. Mù¾ete souhlasit s
+Open Source movement. Mù¾ete nesouhlasit s obìma. Ka¾dý si
+vybírá sám, na jakou stranu politických zále¾itostí se postaví.
+Kdy¾ ale souhlasíte se svobodným software, tak doufám, ¾e
+to také øeknete, ¾e souhlasíte s Free Software movement, a
+jedna z cest, jak to mù¾ete øíci je pou¾ívání termínu
+,,svobodný software.'' Tím budete lidem alespoò pomáhat
+poznat, ¾e vùbec existujeme.
+
+<P>
+Svoboda 3 je velmi dùle¾itá jak prakticky, tak psycho-sociálnì.
+Kdy¾ tuto svobodu nemáte, zpùsobuje to praktickou a materiální
+¹kodu, proto¾e není-li tento software vyvíjen v komunitì,
+nebude výkonný a spolehlivý. Zpùsobuje ale také psycho-sociální
+újmu, která ovlivòuje ducha vìdecké spolupráce -- my¹lenku,
+¾e pracujeme spoleènì na zlep¹ení lidských poznatkù. Pozorujeme,
+¾e pokrok ve vìdì velmi zásadnì závisí na tom, jak jsou lidé schopni
+pracovat dohromady. Dnes najdete i dost skupinek vìdcù chovajících se
+jakoby to byl boj s ostatními skupinami vìdcù a vývojáøù. A kdy¾
+spolu nesdílejí informace, tak se v¹ichni brzdí.
+<P>
+
+Toto jsou tøi základní svobody, které odli¹ují svobodný software od
+typického software. Svoboda jedna je svoboda pomoci sám sobì --
+dìlat zmìny pro svoje potøeby. Svoboda dvì je svoboda pomoci
+kolegovi distribucí kopií. A svoboda tøi je svoboda pomáhat svojí
+komunitì tím, ¾e provádíte zmìny a publikujete, aby je mohli vyu¾ívat
+i ostatní. Kdy¾ máte v¹echny tyto svobody, tak je pro vás ten program svobodným
+software. Proè o tom mluvím vzhledem k jednomu konkrétnímu u¾ivateli?
+Je to pro vás svobodný software? Je to svobodný software pro nìkoho jiného?
+Ano?
+
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: Mù¾ete vysvìtlit rozdíl mezi svobodou dvì a tøi?
+[nesly¹itelné]
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Urèitì spolu souvisí, proto¾e pokud nemáte vùbec ani svobodu
+redistribuovat, tak urèitì nemáte ani svobodu distribuovat modifikovanou verzi,
+ale jsou to rozdílné èinnosti.
+
+<P>
+Otázka: Oh.
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Svoboda dvì je, pøeètìte si to -- udìláte pøesnou kopii
+a dáte ji kamarádùm, tak¾e oni ji teï mohou vyu¾ívat.
+Nebo tøeba udìláte pøesné kopie a potom je prodáváte nìjaké
+skupinì lidí a tak oni je budou moci pou¾ívat. Svoboda tøi
+je o vylep¹ování -- nebo alespoò vy si myslíte, ¾e to jsou
+zlep¹ení, nìkteøí lidé s vámi mo¾ná budou souhlasit.
+To je ten rozdíl. A mimochodem, jeden velmi podstatný
+bod. Svoboda jedna a svoboda tøi závisí na tom, zda máte pøístup
+ke zdrojovému kódu, proto¾e mìnit program v binární podobì je
+extrémnì tì¾ké. [Smích] Dokonce tak triviální vìci jako u¾ití ètyø èíslic
+pro datum [Smích]... kdy¾ nemáte zdrojový kód.
+Tak¾e je zøejmé, ¾e z praktických dùvodù je dostupnost
+zdrojového kódu podmínkou pro svobodný software.
+
+<P>
+Proè to tedy definuji tak, jestli je to svobodný software pro *tebe*?
+Nìjaké programy mohou být nìkdy toti¾ svobodné pro nìkoho a nesvobodné
+pro jiné. To teï mù¾e vypadat jako paradoxní situace, ale dám vám pøíklad,
+jak se tohle stává. Velký pøíklad, mo¾ná ten úplnì nejvìt¹í
+pøíklad tohoto problému je systém X windows , který byl vyvinut na MIT
+a uvolnìn pod licencí, která z nìj dìlá svobodný software. Kdy¾
+si poøídíte tu verzi z MIT s licencí z MIT, máte svobodu jedna, dvì i tøi.
+Je to pro vás svobodný software. Mezi tìmi, kdo získali kopie, byli ale
+i rùzní velcí výrobci, kteøí distribuovali Unixové systémy, a ti v X
+udìlali v¹echny potøebné zmìny tak, aby byla pou¾itelná i na jejich systémech.
+Samozøejmì, ¾e to bylo vìt¹inou jen nìkolik málo tisíc øádkù z nìkolika
+set tisíc celkovì. Potom program zkompilovali, zaøadili ho do svého systému
+a distribuovali pod tou samou licencí jako celý systém. Miliony lidí
+tedy dostali takové kopie. Mìli X windows, ale nemìli
+¾ádné z tìch svobod. Nebyl to pro nì svobodný software.
+
+<P>
+Paradox byl v tom, ¾e jestli jsou X svobodné zále¾elo na tom, kde
+to budeme mìøit. Kdy¾ to budete mìøit mezi vývojáøi, øekli byste:
+,,Mají v¹echny ty svobody, je to svobodný software'', ale kdy¾
+to budete mìøit mezi u¾ivateli, øeknete: ,,Hmm, vìt¹ina u¾ivatelù nemá ty
+svobody. Není to svobodný software.'' Lidé, kteøí vyvíjeli X tohle
+nebrali jako problém, proto¾e oni chtìli v podstatì jen popularitu -- ego.
+Chtìli velký profesní úspìch. Chtìli cítit ,,ach, ná¹ software pou¾ívá
+hodnì lidí.'' A to byla pravda. Hodnì lidí pou¾ívalo jejich software,
+ale nemìli svobodu.
+
+<P>
+Kdyby se to samé stalo GNU projektu, byla by to chyba,
+proto¾e na¹ím cílem nebylo jen být populární, na¹ím cílem
+bylo rozdávat svobodu a posilovat spolupráci, dát lidem mo¾nost spolupracovat.
+Zapamatujte si, nikdy nikoho nenu»te spolupracovat s nìkým jiným,
+ale zajistìte, aby mìl ka¾dý mo¾nost spolupracovat. Kdyby miliony
+lidi pou¾ívali nesvobodnou verzi GNU, nebyl by to úspìch. Hlavní cíl
+by se úplnì zhroutil.
+
+<P>
+Sna¾il jsem se najít nìjaký zpùsob, jak tomu zabránit. Pøi¹el jsem
+s metodou nazývanou ,,copyleft''. Nazývá se to copyleft, proto¾e
+je to jako bychom vzali copyright a pøevrátili ho naruby.
+[Smích]
+Právnì je copyleft zalo¾en na copyrightu. Pou¾íváme platné copyrightové
+právo, ale pou¾íváme ho k dosa¾ení velmi odli¹ných cílù.
+Øekneme ,,Tenhle program je copyrightovaný''. To implicitnì znamená,
+¾e je zakázané ho kopírovat, distribuovat, modifikovat. Ale potom
+øekneme ,,Máte povolení distribuovat kopie, mù¾ete program mìnit.
+Také mù¾ete distribuovat modifikované a roz¹íøené verze. Mìòte si jej
+jak chcete.''
+
+<P>
+Ale stanovili jsme jednu podmínku. Tahle podmínka je to, proè jsme
+vlastnì pou¾ili systém copyrightu a v¹echno tohle kolem.
+Ta podmínka øíká -- kdykoliv distribuuje¹ cokoliv, co obsahuje nìjakou èást
+na¹eho programu, tak celý ten program musí být distribuovaný pod tìmi samými
+podmínkami. Mù¾ete tedy program zmìnit a distribuovat ho dále,
+ale kdykoliv to udìláte, tak lidé, kterým ho dáváte, musí dostat ty
+samé svobody jako jste dostal vy. A nejen na ten kousek programu,
+který je pùvodní, ale na celý program, který distribujete. Ten program
+pro nì musí být svobodný software. Svoboda k modifikování a
+redistribuci se tak stává nezcizitelným právem -- to je pøedstava
+z Deklarace nezávislosti. Jsou to práva, kterými si mù¾ete být
+jisti, ¾e vás o nì nikdo nobere. Licence, která ztìlesòuje tuto
+my¹leanku, je samozøejmì GNU General Public License. GPL je kontroverzní
+licence, proto¾e má sílu øíci rezolutní ,,ne'' lidem, kteøí by
+chtìli parazitovat na na¹í komunitì.
+
+<P>
+Na svìtì je mnoho lidí, kteøí si ideálù svobody necení. Byli bychom velmi
+hodní, pokud bychom dali k dispozici práci, co jsme udìlali, nìkomu,
+kdo by na ní postavil svùj nesvobodný program a zaèal lidi pøesvìdèovat,
+aby se vzdali svých svobod. Výsledkem by bylo, ¾e bychom my tyto
+programy vyvíjeli a poøád bychom museli soupeøit s vylep¹enymi verzemi
+na¹ich vlastních programù. To není zábava. Mnoho lidí si také myslí,
+¾e rád obìtuji svùj èas, abych nìjak pøispìl veøejnosti, ale proè
+bych mìl pøispívat ve svém volném èase spoleènostem k tomu,
+aby vylep¹ili svùj proprietární program? Nìkteøí lidi si ani nemyslí,
+¾e to je ¹patné, ale kdy¾ to dìlají, tak za to chtìjí dostat
+zaplaceno. Já osobnì bych to rad¹i nedìlal vùbec. Obì tyto skupiny,
+jak ti co smý¹lí podobnì jako já, ¾e nechci pomáhat v na¹í
+komunitì proprietárnímu software, tak ti, co øíkají spí¹e:
+,,jasnì, jasnì, pracoval bych pro nì, ale museli by mne
+lépe platit,'' mají dobrý dùvod, proè pou¾ít GNU GPL. Ta toti¾
+øíká firmì, ,,nemù¾ete si prostì vzít moji práci a distribuovat
+ji bez oné svobody.'' Necopyleftové licence svobodného software
+to ale dovolují. To je tøeba pøípad licence X Windows.
+
+<P>
+Existuje velký rozdíl mezi tìmito dvìma kategoriemi svobodného software.
+Existují copyleftované programy, tak¾e licence ochraòuje to, aby
+získal svobodu ka¾dý u¾ivatel. Oproti tomu necopyleftované programy
+mají dovolenu i nesvobodnou distribuci. A dnes na ten problém
+nará¾íme, Poøád existují nesvobodné verze X Windows a jsou pou¾ívány
+na na¹em svobodném operaèním systému.Existuje dokonce i hardware,
+který je podporován pouze nesvobodnými verzemi svobodného software.
+A to je v na¹í komunitì velký problém. Mohl bych øíci, ¾e jsou
+X Windows ¹patná vìc, ¾e vývojáøi neudìlali to nejlep¹í, co mohli
+udìlat, ale oni ve skuteènosti napsali spoustu software, který jsme
+mohli v¹ichni pou¾ívat.
+
+<P>
+Znáte to, je velký rozdíl mezi ménì dokonalým a ¹patným.
+Existuje mnoho stupòù mezi dobrým a ¹patným. Musíme odolat
+poku¹ení øíci -- neudìlali jste to úplnì nejlep¹í, tak nejste
+dobøí. Lidé, kteøí vyvinuli X Windows, na¹í komunitì pøispìli
+velkým dílem. Nìco ale mohli udìlat i lépe. Mohli copyleftovat
+èásti progamu a tak zabránit tìm svobodu-odepírajícím verzím
+v distribuování ostatními. Fakt, ¾e GNU GPL ochraòuje va¹i
+svobodu s vyu¾itím copyrightu, je také pøíèinou toho, proè na
+ni Microsoft dnes útoèí. Podívejte, Microsoft by byl velmi rád,
+pokud by mìl mo¾nost vzít v¹echen kód a zaøadit ho do svého
+proprietárního software. Potøebují jen to, aby nìkdo vytvoøil
+pár zmìn a ,,nekompatibilních vylep¹ení.''
+[Smích]
+
+<P>
+S jejich marketingem nepotøebují na¹i verzi pøevý¹it technicky,
+aby ji s ní nahradili. Staèí jim udìlat ji jinou a nekompatibilní.
+Pak ji roz¹íøí na desktopy. Proto nemají rádi GNU GPL, proto¾e
+ta jim to nedovolí. GPL nedovoluje ,,svázat a roz¹íøit.''
+Øíká, ¾e pokud chcete sdílet kód na¹ich programù, mù¾ete.
+Ale musíte sdílet a sdílet stejnì. Vylep¹ení, která vytvoøíte,
+se musejí dát ¹íøit dál. Je to dvoucestná spolupráce, opravdová
+spolupráce.
+
+<P>
+Mnoho spoleèností, i tìch velkých jako IBM a HP, chce
+ná¹ software pou¾ívat i za tìchto podmínek. IBM i HP podstatnì pøispívají
+do GNU software a vyvíjejí i jiný svobodný software. Microsoft
+ale nechce, tak¾e tvrdí, ¾e obchod se nemù¾e s GNU GPL vypoøádat.
+Jestli business nezahrnuje IBM, HP a Sun, tak mo¾ná mají pravdu.
+Microsoft to ale nechce.
+[Smích]
+
+<P>
+O tom si povíme je¹tì pozdìji. Mìl bych dokonèit tu historii.
+Nechtìli jsme tedy tehdy v roce 1984 jen psát nìjaký
+svobodný software, ale nìco mnohem kompletnìj¹ího. Chtìli
+jsme vyvinout celý svobodný operaèní systém. To znamená, ¾e jsme
+museli postupovat kousek po kousku. V¾dycky jsme samozøejmì hledali
+zkratky. Bylo to tolik práce, ¾e lidé pochybovali, zda
+to budeme nìkdy schopni dokonèit. Øíkal jsem si, ¾e tu
+byla minimálnì ¹ance na dokonèení, ale je samozøejmì v¾dy lep¹í
+hledat zkratky. Rozhlí¾eli jsme se tedy, zda ji¾ neexistují
+nìjaké programy od nìkoho jiného, které bychom mohli zapojit
+do GNU, nebo nìjak pøizpùsobit, abychom to nemuseli psát celé
+znovu. Na¹li jsme napøíklad X Windows systém. Je pravda, ¾e nebyl
+copyleftovaný, ale byl to svobodný software a tak jsme jej
+mohli pou¾ít.
+
+<P>
+Vlo¾it do GNU nìjaký okenní systém jsem chtìl od prvních chvil.
+Je¹tì ne¾ jsem zaèal na GNU pracovat, tak jsem jich na MIT napsal
+nìkolik. A proto i pøes skuteènost, ¾e Unix tehdy ¾ádný nemìl,
+jsem se rozhodl, ¾e GNU by nìjaký mít mìlo.
+Nikdy jsme ale ná¹ GNU Windows System nedokonèili, proto¾e
+pøi¹ly X Windows. Nemuseli jsme tak pracovat na jedné velké
+úloze a tak jsme vzali X Windows a zaøadili je do GNU.
+Rozhodli jsme se postarat, aby ostatní èásti GNU pracovaly
+s X. Na¹li jsme i jiný software, tøeba sázecí systém TeX,
+nìjaké knihovny z Berkley. Existoval tehdy Berkeley Unix,
+ale nebyl svobodný. Tento kód byl ale od jiné skupiny
+z Berkley, která tehdy provádìla nìjaký výzkum na plovoucí
+desetinné èárce. Tak jsme se dohodli, ¾e tyto èásti pou¾ijeme.
+
+<P>
+V øíjnu 1985 jsme zalo¾ili Nadaci pro svobodný software (Free
+Software Foundation). V¹imnìte si prosím, ¾e projekt GNU
+tu byl døíve, ne¾ se na scénì objevila nadace. Skoro dva
+roky po oznámení projektu. Nadace pro svobodný software
+je organizace osvobozená od daní, která sbírá prostøedky
+za úèelem nabídnutí svobody sdílet a upravovat software.
+V osmdesátých letech bylo jednou z hlavních vìcí, kterou
+jsme financovali, najímání lidí na psaní èástí GNU.
+Takto byly vytvoøeny jak èásti rùzných programù, tak také
+základní programy jako Shell a knihovna pro C.
+Program tar, který je naprosto podstatný, aè ne pøíli¹ vzru¹ující,
+byl také napsán takto. Myslím, ¾e i GNU grep byl takto vytvoøen.
+Blí¾íme se tak na¹emu cíli.
+
+<P>
+V roce 1991 ji¾ chybìla jen jedna velká èást a to byl kernel.
+Proè jsem kernel odlo¾il? Proto¾e ve skuteènosti není podstatné,
+v jakém poøadí vìci dìláte. Minimálnì technicky to podstatné není.
+Tak jako tak je musíte udìlat v¹echny. Èásteènì také proto,
+¾e jsem doufal, ¾e budeme moci pou¾ít nìco, co najdeme nìkde jinde.
+A také jsme na¹li. Na¹li jsme Mach, který byl vyvíjen na Carnegie
+Mellon. Zbývalo napsat druhou polovinu -- souborový systém,
+sí»ový kód a tak dále. Pokud jsou ale spou¹tìny nad Machem,
+chovají se skoro jako u¾ivatelské progamy, které se vìt¹inou
+lépe ladí. Mù¾ete je debugovat s opravdovým debugerem na úrovni
+kódu v reálném èase. Øíkal jsem si tedy, ¾e takto se nám podaøí
+získat vy¹¹í èásti jádra v pomìrnì krátkém èase. Ale nefungovalo
+to tak, jak jsme oèekávali. Tyto asynchronní vícevláknové procesy
+posílající si mezi sebou zprávy, se nakonec ukázaly jako velmi
+tì¾ko laditelné. Systém zalo¾ený na Machu, který jsme pou¾ívali
+jako zavadìè, mìl pøí¹erné debugovací prostøedí, byl nespolehlivý
+a trpìl je¹tì dal¹ími problémy. Zabralo nám roky, ne¾ jsme
+jej zprovoznili.
+
+<P>
+Na¹e komunita ale na¹tìstí nemusela èekat na GNU kernel, proto¾e
+v roce 1991 vyvinul Linus Torvalds jiný svobodný kernel,
+nazývaný Linux. Pou¾il zastaralý monolitický design, který
+se nakonec osvìdèil a tak mìl hotov svùj kernel mnohem døíve,
+ne¾ my ten ná¹. Mo¾ná je to jedna z chyb, kterou jsem udìlal,
+chyba v designu. Na zaèátku jsme o Linuxu nevìdìli, proto¾e
+nás nikdy nekontaktoval a neøekl nám o tom i pøesto, ¾e
+o projektu GNU vìdìl. Oznámil to ale jiným lidem na jiných
+místech v síti a tak zkombinovali GNU s Linuxem tito lidé.
+Vpodstatì tak vytvoøili kombinaci GNU plus Linux.
+
+<P>
+Neuvìdomili si ale, co vlastnì dìlali. Øekli si, ¾e mají kernel
+a dívali se kolem po nìjakých vìcech, které by s ním mohli
+dát dohromady. Spatøili, ¾e v¹echno co potøebují ji¾ existuje.
+Jaká náhoda, zvolali.
+[Laughter]
+U¾ to tu v¹echno je. Máme tu v¹echno co potøebujeme. Vezmeme v¹echny
+tyhle vìci, dáme je dohromady a máme systém. Nevìdìli, ¾e vìt¹ina
+toho co na¹li, byly èásti GNU. Neuvìdomovali si tedy, ¾e zasouvají
+Linux do díry v systému GNU. Mysleli si, ¾e berou Linux a staví
+na nìm systém. Nazvali ho tedy Linux.
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: [Nesly¹itelné]
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Nesly¹ím vás -- prosím?
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: [Nesly¹itelné]
+
+<P>
+[Pravdìpodobnì otázka na to, zda se nezachoval projekt GNU
+stejnì, kdy¾ si bral X a Mach. Zda také nezmìnil jméno
+na GNU bez nìjakého odkazu na tyto projekty -- pozn. prekl.]
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Ne, to prostì není -- pøi¹lo to zvenku.
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: Ale bylo to lep¹í, ne¾ najít X a Mach?
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Dobøe. Rozdíl je v tom, ¾e lidé, kteøí vyvíjeli
+X a Mach to nedìlali proto, aby vyvinuli kompletní operaèní
+systém. To jsme dìlali pouze my. A stálo za tím ohromnì moc
+práce. Vyvinuli jsme vìt¹í èást systému ne¾ jakýkoliv jiný
+projekt. Není to to samé, proto¾e tihle lidé vyvinuli
+u¾iteèné souèásti systému. Ale nedìlali to proto, aby
+vyvinuli kompletní systém. Mìli jiné dùvody.
+
+<P>
+Lidi, které vyvíjeli X, napadlo, ¾e by bylo dobré implementovat
+okenní systém pracující po síti a ¾e by to mohlo mít úspìch. A mìlo.
+Nakonec to dopadlo tak, ¾e nám to pomohlo v tvorbì svobodného
+operaèního systému. Ale to nebyl pùvodní úèel. Byla to spí¹e náhoda.
+Nechci tím øíci, ¾e to co udìlali bylo ¹patné. Udìlali velký
+svobodný projekt. To je dobrá vìc. Ale nehledìli a¾ nakonec,
+jak to dìlal projekt GNU.
+A tak jsme to byli my, kdo musel udìlat ka¾dý kousek, který neudìlal
+nikdo jiný, proto¾e jsme vìdìli, ¾e bez toho bychom nemìli kompletní
+systém. A dokonce i kdy¾ to bylo úplnì nudné a neromantické
+jako napøíklad tar nebo mv.
+[Smích]
+Udìlali jsme to. Nebo ld, v¹ak víte, ¾e na ld není nic moc zajímavého
+-- ale napsal jsem jej.
+[Smích]
+A dal jsem si práci s tím, aby potøeboval co nejmen¹í poèet I/O operací,
+aby mohl pracovat rychleji a s vìt¹ími programy. Ale znáte mì, rád dìlám
+dobrou práci. Rád do programu pøidám rùzná zlep¹ení, kdy¾ na nìm dìlám,
+ale dùvod, proè jsem to dìlal nebyl v tom, ¾e jsem mìl nìjaký
+geniální nápad na lep¹í ld. Potøebovali jsme nìjaké svobodné
+ld a nemohli jsme oèekávat, ¾e to udìlá nìkdo jiný. Museli jsme to
+tedy udìlat my nebo najít nìkoho, kdo to udìlá.
+
+<P>
+Do systému pøispìly tisíce lidí, ale je tu i projekt, který je dùvodem,
+proè systém existuje, a to je projekt GNU. Vpodstatì to *je*
+systém GNU, spoleènì s ostatními vìcmi, které do nìj byly pøidány.
+
+<P>
+Systém se ale zaèal nazývat Linux a to bylo pro projekt GNU
+velkou ránou, proto¾e takto lidé ani neví, co jsme udìlali.
+Myslím si, ¾e Linux, kernel, je velmi u¾iteèný svobodný
+software. Mohu o nìm mluvit jen v dobrém. No, vlastnì...
+napadá mnì pouze velmi málo ¹patných vìcí, které bych
+o nìm mohl øíci.
+[Smích]
+Ale v podstatì o nìm mohu øíkat jen dobré vìci. Na druhou stranu,
+nazývání GNU systému Linuxem je jen omyl. Poprosil bych vás,
+dejte si tu malou námahu a nazývejte systém GNU/Linux
+a pomozte nám k tomu, abychom za nìj mohli sdílet kredit.
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: Potøebujete maskota! Najdìte si nìjaké zvíøe!
+
+<P>
+[Smích]
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: My jej máme.
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: Máte?
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Máme zvíøe -- gnu [gnu v angliètinì znamená ,,pakùò'' --
+pozn. pøekl.].
+[Smích] V ka¾dém pøípadì, pokud budete kreslit tuèòáka,
+nakreslete vedle nìj pakonì.
+[Smích]
+
+<P>
+Nechme si ale otázky na konec. Mám tu je¹tì nìco, co bych chtìl vysvìtlit.
+
+<P>
+Proè mi o to tolik jde? Proè si myslím, ¾e stojí za to vás zde
+otravovat a mo¾ná zhor¹ovat vá¹ názor na mì
+[Smích] s tím, ¾e zde se zabývám touto otázkou, kdo by mìl dostat
+uznání za projekt? Proto¾e, v¹ak to znáte, kdy¾ to dìlám, tak nìkteøí
+lidé øíkají, ¾e jen chci nasytit svoje ego. Samoøejmì, neøíkám, nevyzývám
+vás, neprosím vás, abyste systém nazývali Stallmanix, ok?
+[Smích a potlesk]
+
+<P>
+Prosím vás, abyste jej nazývali GNU, proto¾e chci, aby
+projekt GNU získal uznání. Existuje jeden velmi dobrý dùvod,
+který je o hodnì dùle¾itìj¹í ne¾ to, zda bude nìjakému
+jednotlivci pøipsáno uznání. Kdy¾ se dnes rozhlédnete,
+vìt¹ina lidí, kteøí o tom mluví a pí¹í vùbec nezmiòuje
+GNU, ani jeho cíle, svobodu --- tyto politické a sociální
+my¹lenky. Místo odkud vze¹ly je GNU. My¹lenky spojené s Linuxem,
+jeho filosofie, jsou velmi odli¹né. Je to hlavnì apolitická
+filosofie Linuse Torvaldse. Kdy¾ si lidé myslí, ¾e ten systém
+je Linux, vìt¹inou si myslí: ,,Jasnì, musel to odstartovat
+Linus Torvalds. Mìli bychom se zabývat jeho filosofií.''
+A kdy¾ pak sly¹í o filosofii GNU, tak øíkají: ,,Hochu,
+to je stra¹nì idealistické, to musí být ohromnì nepraktické.
+Já pou¾ívám Linux, ne GNU.''
+[Smích]
+
+<P>
+Ta ironie. Kdyby vìdìli. Kdyby jen vìdìli, ¾e ten systém,
+který se jim tak líbí, je na¹e idealistická, politická filosofie
+pøevedená do reality... I tak by s námi nemuseli souhlasit,
+ale aspoò by mìli dùvod bár nás vá¾nì -- poøádnì o tom pøemý¹let
+-- dát tomu ¹anci. Aspoò by vidìli, jak se to vztahuje k jejich
+¾ivotùm. Kdyby pøemý¹leli ,,Pou¾ívám systém GNU.
+Tady je filosofie GNU. Ta filosofie je dùvod, proè systém,
+který mám tak rád, existuje,'' tak by se k na¹im my¹lenkám
+aspoò stavìli s mnohem otevøenìj¹í myslí. To neznamená, ¾e bude
+ka¾dý souhlasit. Lidé si myslí rùzné vìci. To je vpoøádku.
+Lidé by si mìli sami vytváøet názory. Ale chci, aby tato filosofie
+mìla výhodu z uznání výsledkù práce, kterých dosáhla.
+
+<P>
+Pokud se rozhlédnete, uvidíte, ¾e skoro v¹ude to instituce nazývají
+Linux, stejnì jako novináøi. Není to správnì, ale oni to dìlají.
+Spoleènosti ten balík také nazývají systémem. Ani vìt¹ina novináøù,
+kdy¾ pí¹í èlánky, se na to nedívá jako na politickou a sociální otázku.
+Vìt¹inou se na vìc dívají jako na èistì obchodní otázku, co¾ je pro
+spoleènost o dost ménì podstatná vìc. Kdy¾ se podíváte na spoleènosti,
+které prodávají distribuce GNU/Linuxu lidem, vìt¹ina z nich je
+také nazývá Linuxem. A *v¹echny* k nìmu pøidávají nesvobodný
+software.
+
+<P>
+GNU GPL sice tvrdí, ¾e pokud si vezmete nìjaký kód z GPL programù
+a pøidáte k nìmu nìjaký svùj vlastní kód, musíte tento program
+také vydat pod GNU GPL. Mù¾ete ale dát na jeden disk (jakýkoliv,
+a» ji¾ CD-ROM, harddisk èi jiný) více oddìlených programù s rùznými
+licencemi. Je to pouhé seskupování. Distribuce dvou programù
+jednomu èlovìku v tom samém èase není nìco, do èeho bychom mi mohli
+mluvit. Obèas bych si pøál, aby byla pravda, ¾e pokud spoleènost distribuuje
+nìjaký produkt spoleènì s GPL software, musí i tento produkt být
+svobodným software. Není to ale tak. Nejvìt¹í mo¾ná ¹íøe
+je samotný porgram. Pokud existují dva programy, které spolu pracují
+,,na dosah ruky,'' napø. zasíláním zpráv, jsou právnì naprosto samostatné.
+Pøidáváním tohoto nesvobodného software do distribuce pøedávají u¾ivatelùm
+velmi ¹patné filosofické a politické my¹lenky. Øíkají u¾ivatelùm:
+,,Je vpoøádku pou¾ívat nesvobodný software. Dáváme ho sem jen jako bonus.''
+
+<P>
+Kdy¾ se podíváte na èasopisy o GNU/Linuxu, stì¾í uvidíte nìjaký
+s názvem GNU/Linux, vìt¹inou mají v názvu Linux-nìco. Vìt¹inou
+tedy nazývají systém Linux. Bývají pøeplnìné reklamami na nesvobodný
+software bì¾ící na GNU/Linuxu. Tyto reklamy se vìt¹inou zamìøují
+na stejné poselství. Øíkají: ,,Nesvobodný software je pro vás dobrý.
+Je tak dobrý, ¾e byste za nìj mìli dokonce *platit*.''
+[Smích]
+Nazývají tento software ,,balíèky s pøidanou hodnotou.''
+Øíkají: ,,Va¾te si vhodnosti pro praxi, ne svobody.'' Já s tìmito
+hodnotami nesouhlasím, tak¾e je nazývám ,,o svobodu obrané balíèky.''
+[Smích]
+Jestli jste si instalovali svobodný operaèní systém, ¾ijete ve svodoném
+svìtì. Mù¾ete si u¾ívat výhod svobody, pro které jsme tolik let pracovali.
+Tyto balíèky vám dávají mo¾nost utáhnout si kolem sebe øetìzy.
+
+<P>
+A koneènì, pokud se podíváte na nìjaké obchodní show vìnované
+pou¾ívání systému GNU-Linux, v¹echny se nazývají ,,Linux show.''
+Ukazují jak svobodný software, tak nesvobodný software, a tak
+vlastnì speèe»ují správnost u¾ívání nesvobodného software.
+Témìø kamkoliv se v na¹í komunitì podíváte, instituce schvalují
+nesvobodný software, èím¾ úplnì negují my¹lenky na svobodu, kvùli
+kterým GNU vzniklo. A jediné místo, kde zøejmì lidé pøijdou do styku
+s na¹imi ideemi a svobodou, je projekt GNU -- ve spojení se svobodným
+software. Proto vás ¾ádám: prosím, nazývejte systém ,,GNU/Linux.''
+Vysvìtlete takto tìm lidem, odkud systém vze¹el a proè.
+
+<P>
+Pouhým pou¾íváním toho jména samozøejmì nebudete automaticky
+vysvìtlovat historii. Mù¾ete napsat o ètyøi znaky více, vyslovit
+o dvì slabiky více. GNU/Linux je ale poøád je¹tì ménì slabik
+ne¾ Windows 2000. [Smích] Neøíkáte jim tím moc, ale pøipravujete je,
+tak¾e kdy¾ pøí¹tì usly¹í o GNU -- a o tom to je -- budou
+vìdìt, jak se jich to týká. A v tom je obrovský rozdíl. Pomozte nám
+tedy.
+
+<P>
+Urèitì jste zaznamenali, ¾e Microsoft nazval GPL ,,open source licencí.''
+Nechtìjí, aby o tom lidé pøemý¹leli v souvislosti se svobodou.
+Sna¾í se pøesvìdèit u¾ivatele, aby o tom pøemý¹leli v omezených
+souvislostech, jen jako konzumenti. (A samozøejmì ani konzumenti
+nepøemý¹lejí pøíli¹ racionálnì, kdy¾ si vyberou produkty Microsoftu.)
+Nechtìjí, aby o vìci lidé pøemý¹leli jako obèané èi politici.
+To se jim nehodí. Pøinejmen¹ím je to nepøátelské jejich
+obchodnímu modelu.
+
+<P>
+A teï jak svobodný software... ok, mohu vám øíci jak souvisí svobodný
+software s na¹í spoleèností. Druhé téma, které by nás mohlo zajímat je,
+jak souvisí svobodný software s obchodem. Ve skuteènosti je toti¾
+svobodný software pro obchod ohromnì u¾iteèný. Konec koncù, vìt¹ina
+obchodníkù ve vyspìlých zemích svobodný software pou¾ívá. Pouze malý
+zlomek software také vyvíjí. A svobodný software je velmi výhodný
+pro spoleènost, která software pou¾ívá, proto¾e má nad ním kontrolu.
+U¾ivatelé mají kontrolu nad tím, co program dìlá. Buï individuálnì,
+pokud chtìjí, èi kolektivnì, pokud chtìjí. Ka¾dý, koho to zajímá, mù¾e
+uplatnit jistý vliv. Pokud vás to nezajímá, nekoupíte to.
+Budete pou¾ívat to, co mají rádi ostatní. Ale pokud vás to zajímá,
+máte jistý hlas.
+
+<P>
+U proprietárního software skoro ¾ádný hlas nemáte. U svobodného
+software si mù¾ete zmìnit, co chcete zmìnit. Nevadí, ¾e ve va¹í
+spoleènosti nemáte ¾ádné programátory, to je vpoøádku.
+Kdybyste chtìli pøedìlat stìny va¹í budovy, nemusíte být
+truhláøská spoleènost, musíte mít mo¾nost jít, najít nìjakou
+truhláøskou spoleènost a øíct jim, aby to pro vás udìlali.
+Kdy¾ potøebujete nìjakou zmìnu ve va¹em software, nemusíte
+být programátorská spoleènost, staèí vám do nìjaké zajít a
+øíct: ,,Kolik chcete za implementování téhle vìci a kdy by
+to bylo hotovo?'' A pokud by to odmítli, mù¾ete si najít nìkoho
+jiného.
+
+<P>
+Je tu volný trh. Jakýkoliv business, který se zajímá o podporu,
+najde ve svobodném software velkou výhodu. S proprietárním
+software jste odkázáni s podporou na monopol. Pouze jedna spoleènost
+má zdrojový kód a mo¾ná pár jiných si ho je¹tì koupilo za obrovské
+peníze, pokud se jedná o Microsoft shared source. Ale tìch je velmi
+málo. Nemáte moc na výbìr u koho si zajistit podporu. To znamená,
+¾e pokud nejste opravdový gigant, tak je nezajímáte. Va¹e spoleènost
+pro nì vìt¹inou není dostateènì významná, aby je zajímalo, zda vás neztratí.
+Jak jednou pou¾íváte nìjaký program, je jim jasné, ¾e nemáte jinou
+mo¾nost, ne¾ získávat podporu od nich, proto¾e pøejít na jiný software
+by pøineslo mnoho komplikací. Nakonec si budete platit za privilegium
+oznámit chybu.
+[Smích]
+A kdy¾ si zaplatíte, øeknou vám: ,,Dobøe, ok, zaznamenali
+jsme va¹e oznámení chyby v na¹em produktu. Za pár mìsícù
+si budete moci koupit upgrade a podívat se, zda jsme to
+opravili.''
+[Smích]
+
+<P>
+Poskytovatelé podpory pro svobodný software si s tímto
+nevystaèí. Musí se o zákazníky starat. Samozøejmì mù¾ete
+získat mnoho dobré podpory i zdarma, zasláním dotazu na internet.
+Mo¾ná dostanete odpovìï pøí¹tí den, ale to není samozøejmì jisté.
+Pokud chcete mít jistotu, mìli byste se spí¹ dohodnout s nìjakou
+spoleèností a platit jim za to. A to je jedna z cest, jak mù¾e
+pracovat obchod zalo¾ený na svobodném software.
+
+<P>
+Dal¹í výhodou svobodného software pro obchod je bezpeènost a
+soukromí. (To platí samozøejmì i pro jednotlivce, ale teï o tom
+budu hovoøit v souvislosti s obchodem.) Kdy¾ je program proprietární,
+tak nemù¾ete ani s jistotou øíci co vlastnì dìlá. Mù¾e mít vlastnosti,
+které byste opravdu nemìli rádi, kdybyste o nich vìdìli. Program
+by mohl mít tøeba backdoor, který dovolí vývojáøi dostat se do va¹eho
+stroje. Byl by tøeba schopen sledovat va¹i èinnost a odesílat informace
+zpìt. To není neobvyklé. Software Microsoftu to dìlá, ale není to pouze
+Microsoft. Dìlají to i jiné programy. Nemù¾ete ani øíci, jestli to
+dìlá tohle. A nemù¾ete ani spoléhat na to, ¾e programátor je naprosto
+poctivý, ka¾dý programátor dìlá chyby.
+V programu se mohou vyskytovat chyby, které ohrozí va¹i bezpeènost, ale
+nikdo je úmyslnì nezavinil. Podstatné ale je, ¾e pokud to není svobodný
+software, nemù¾ete je najít a nemù¾ete je ani opravit.
+
+<P>
+Nikdo nemá èas, aby si provìøoval zdrojové kódy ka¾dého programu,
+který pou¾ívá. Nebudete to dìlat. Ale svobodný software je vìt¹í
+komunita a jsou v ní i lidé, kteøí vìci kontrolují. A vy mù¾ete
+z té jejich kontroly tì¾it. Kdy¾ se vyskytne nìjaká nechtìná chyba
+(a ona se èas od èasu vyskytne v ka¾dém programu), mohou ji najít
+a opravit. Je mnohem ménì pravdìpodobnìj¹í, ¾e by lidé dali do svého
+software trojského konì èi nìjaký odposlouchávací kód, kdy¾ si myslí,
+¾e mohou být chyceni. Vývojáøi proprietárního software ví, ¾e chyceni
+nebudou. Projde jim to, nikdo to nezjistí. Ale vývojáø svobodného
+software musí poèítat s tím, ¾e lidé se budou koukat a uvidí, jestli
+to tam je. Ve svobodném software nemù¾eme do programù zabudovávat vìci,
+které by se u¾ivatelùm nelíbily, proto¾e pokud bychom to udìlali,
+vytvoøili by si verzi, ve které by to nebylo. V¹ichni by brzo zaèali
+pou¾ívat tuto verzi. Kdy¾ pí¹ete svobodný program, chcete, aby
+mìli lidé rádi va¹i verzi. Nebudete do programu zabudovávat vìc, o které
+si myslíte, ¾e ji bude mnoho lidí nenávidìt a budou si instalovat
+jiné verze místo té va¹í. Prostì si jen uvìdomíte, ¾e ve svìtì
+svobodného software je králem u¾ivatel. Ve svìtì proprietárního
+software to tak není, tam jste jenom zákazníkem a nemù¾ete do vývoje
+nijak mluvit.
+
+<P>
+V tomto ohledu je svobodný software nový obor, ktde je mo¾né
+zavést demokracii. Profesor Lessig, který je teï ve Stanfordu,
+chytøe poznamenal, ¾e kód programù se chová podobnì jako zákony.
+Ten, kdo vytváøí software, je¾ pou¾ívá vìt¹ina lidí a to k rùzným
+úèelùm, ten vlastnì pí¹e zákony, podle kterých se budou øídit
+lidské ¾ivoty. Se svobodným software mohou tyto zákony
+vzniknout demokraticky. Není sice ta klasická forma demokracie,
+nebudou velké volby a referendum ,,jak by mìla být implementována
+tahle vìc?''
+[Smích]
+Místo toho dáme mo¾nost v¹em, kteøí by na implementaci této funkce
+chtìli pracovat. Kdy¾ budete chtít tu funkci nìjakým zpùsobem naprogramovat,
+udìlejte to. Buï se to udìlá tak, nebo nìjak jinak, to není podstatné.
+Kdy¾ to lidi budou chtít nìjakým zpùsobem, udìlá se to tak.
+Takto ka¾dý pøispívá do veøejných rozhodnutí tím, ¾e prostì
+dìlá vìci tak, jak je chce dìlat on.
+
+<P>
+Mù¾ete uèinit kolik krokù chcete. Obchod mù¾e také udìlat tolik
+krokù, kolik pro nìj bude u¾iteèné. A a¾ v¹echna tato vylep¹ení pøidáte,
+urèíte tím, jak by mìl software dále pokraèovat.
+
+<P>
+Èasto je velmi u¾iteèné mít mo¾nost vzít si èásti z ji¾ existujících
+programù -- vìt¹inou jsou to velké èásti -- a potom dopsat
+zbytek kódu sám. Vytvoøíte tak program, který dìlá pøesnì to,
+co potøebujete, ale který byste vyvíjeli vìky, kdybyste to museli
+dìlat od zaèátku, kdybyste nemohli vykuchat ji¾ existující svobodné
+programy.
+
+<P>
+Jiná výhoda plynoucí z toho, ¾e králem je u¾ivatel, je fakt, ¾e
+software pak bývá velmi dobøe kompatibilní a standardizovaný.
+Proè? Proto¾e to mají rádi u¾ivatelé. U¾ivatelé pravdìpodobnì
+zamítnou program, který by byl výraznì nekompatibilní.
+Obèas se sice objeví skupinka lidí, která z nìjakých specifických dùvodù
+potøebuje nìjaký druh nekompatibility, mají ji mít, to je vpoøádku, ale
+pokud chtìjí u¾ivatelé následovat standardy, vývojáøi to musí
+respektovat. A my to respektujeme. Na druhé stranì vývojáøi proprietárního
+software èasto úmyslnì ignorují standardy proto, proto¾e je to pro nì
+výhodné. Není to proto, ¾e by tím nìjak chtìli pomoci u¾ivatelùm,
+ale spí¹e proto, ¾e je tak mohou omezovat. Mohou je uzamknout ve svém
+produktu. Dokonce èas od èasu i schválnì mìní formáty souborù,
+aby donutili u¾ivatele zakoupit novìj¹í verzi.
+
+<P>
+Archiváøi se støetávají s problémem, proto¾e soubory napsané
+na poèítaèi pøed deseti lety ji¾ nejsou pøístupné. Byly vytvoøeny
+s proprietárním software, který je dnes ji¾ ztracen. Kdyby to bylo
+napsáno se svobodným software, mohli bychom jej oprá¹it a znovu spustit.
+Staré záznamy by tedy nebyly ztraceny, nebyly by nedostupné.
+Stì¾ovali si na to dokonce NPR a zmiòovali svobodný software jako
+øe¹ení. Pokud ukládáte svá data s proprietárním software, vpodstatì
+strkáte hlavu do oprátky.
+
+<P>
+Mluvil jsem o tom, jak souvisí svobodný software s vìt¹inou
+obchodních èinností. Jak se ale dotýká úzké oblasti
+softwarového businessu? Vìt¹inou vùbec nijak. Dùvodem je,
+¾e 90% softwarového prùmyslu (aspoò tak mi to bylo øeèeno)
+tvoøí vývoj na zakázku. Software, který není vùbec urèen k zveøejnìní.
+Takového software se vùbec etické otázky svobody èi vlastnictví
+software netýkají. Jak jsem ji¾ øekl, ta otázka je, zda
+mají u¾ivatelé svobodu modifikovat a redistribuovat program.
+Pokud existuje jenom jeden u¾ivatel a ten má tato práva, ¾ádný problém
+v tom není. Ten u¾ivatel *má* svobodu dìlat tyto vìci. Ve skuteènosti
+je *jakýkoliv* program vyvinutý softwarovou spoleèností pro nìjaké
+konkrétní pou¾ití ve firmì svobodným software. Samozøejmì za pøedpokladu,
+¾e tato firma trvala na pøedání zdrojových kódù a v¹ech práv.
+
+<P>
+Tento problém se také netýká software, který je v hodinkách, mikrovlnné
+troubì èi software, který ovládá elektroniku motoru v autì. To jsou
+pøípady, kde nebudete downloadovat a instalovat. Z pohledu u¾ivatele
+se nejedná o opravdový poèítaè. Tyto etické otázky tedy nejsou v daném
+kontextu tak dùle¾ité. Nejvìt¹í èást softwarového prùmyslu bude tedy
+nedotèenì pokraèovat dále tak jako døíve. Zajímavé na tom je, ¾e
+jeliko¾ je velký zlomek zamìstnání v softwarovém prùmyslu právì
+v tìchto odvìtvích, tak i kdyby neexistovalo nic jako business
+zalo¾ený na svobodném software, mohli by si programátoøi vydìlávat
+takto, psaním software na zakázku.
+[Smích]
+Je jich mnoho, ten pomìr je velký.
+
+<P>
+Ale je tomu tak, ¾e existuje obchod zalo¾ený na svobodném software.
+Spoleènosti se svobodným software existují. Na následující
+tiskové konferenci se objeví lidé z nìkolika takových spoleèností.
+Existují samozøejmì také spoleènosti, které nejsou na svobodném software
+zalo¾ené, ale vyvíjejí i u¾iteèný svobodný software.
+
+<P>
+Jak to chodí v obchodì zalo¾eném na svobodném software?
+No nìkdo tøeba prodává kopie. Máte mo¾nost si program
+zkopírovat, ale i tak mohou prodat tisíce kopií mìsíènì.
+Jiné zase zprostøedkovávají rùzné slu¾by. Já jsem v druhé
+polovinì osmdesátých let také prodával podporu ke svobodnému
+software. Vpodstatì jsem øekl, ¾e za 200 dolarù za hodinu
+zmìním v GNU software, který jsem napsal, co budete chtít.
+To byla velmi tvrdá taxa, ale to se vztahovalo k programùm,
+které jsem já sám napsal a lidé si uvìdomovali, ¾e já
+tu práci mohu udìlat podstatnì rychleji.
+[Smích]
+Vydìlával jsem si tak na ¾ivobytí. Ve skuteènosti jsem si vydìlal
+více ne¾ kdykoliv pøedtím. Také jsem uèil. To jsem dìlal a¾ do roku
+1990, kdy jsem dostal velkou cenu a nemusel jsem se tím ji¾ zabývat.
+
+<P>
+V roce 1990 také vznikla první spoleènost, která mìla obchodovat
+v oblasti svobodného software. Jmenovala se Cygnus Support.
+Náplní práce bylo pøesnì to, co jsem do té doby dìlal já.
+Kdybych to potøeboval, mohl jsem pro nì pracovat, ale uvìdomil
+jsem si, ¾e by bylo pro toto hnutí bylo lep¹í, abych zùstal nezávislý
+na spoleènostech. Tím pádem mohu o rùzných spoleènostech se svobodným
+èi proprietárním software øíkat dobré èi ¹patné vìci bez rizika konfliktu
+zájmù. Cítil jsem, ¾e bych se mohl vìnovat svobodnému software více.
+Samozøejmì bych s nimi ale pracoval, kdybych pro zaji¹tìní penìz pro
+¾ivot musel. Byl to etický business a neexistoval ¾ádný dùvod,
+proè bych se mìl kvùli práci pro nì cítit zahanbený.
+Spoleènost v prvních letech existence profitovala. Byla
+vytvoøena s velmi malým kapitálem, muselo staèit to, co mìli
+její tøi zakladatelé. Ka¾dým rokem rostla a ka¾dý rok vydìlávala,
+a¾ doplatili na chamtivost, zaèali hledat vnìj¹í investory.
+Na to doplatili. Tomu ale pøedcházelo nìkolik úspì¹ných
+let.
+
+<P>
+To poukazuje na jeden zajímavý fakt. K vývoji svobodného software
+nepotøebujete mít kapitál. Nechci øíci, ¾e to je k nièemu, mù¾e
+vám to pomoci. Pokud máte kapitál, mù¾ete najmou t lidi a nechat
+je napsat kopu svobodného software. Hodnì toho ale mù¾ete docílit
+i jako malá skupinka lidí. Tato obrovská efektivita vývoje je jedním
+z dùvodù, proè by se mìl svìt obrátit ke svobodnému software.
+Je le¾, kdy¾ Microsoft øíká: ,,GNU GPL je ¹patná, proto¾e
+jim stì¾uje shroma¾ïování kapitálu k vývoji nesvobodného software.''
+My toti¾ nepotøebujeme, aby nám ten software zvy¹oval kapitál.
+Jsme schopni tu práci dìlat i bez nìj. *Dìláme* to i bez nìj.
+
+<P>
+Lidé øíkali, ¾e se nám nikdy nepovede dokonèit kompletní operaèní systém.
+Dokonèili jsme jej a udìlali jsme toho je¹tì mnohem více. A øekl
+bych, ¾e nám neschází ji¾ tak mnoho k tomu, abychom poskytli v¹echen
+obecný software, který veøejnost potøebuje. A to ve svìtì,
+kde více jak 90% lidí je¹tì ná¹ svobodný software nepou¾ívá!
+A to ve svìtì, kde... Aèkoliv v urèitých oborech obchodní èinnosti,
+v¹ak víte... více jak polovina webových serverù na svìtì funguje
+na GNU/Linuxu s Apachem jako web serverem.
+
+<P>
+
+OTÁZKA: [Nesly¹itelné] ... Co jste to øekl pøed slovem Linux?
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Øekl jsem GNU/Linux.
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: Ano?
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Ano, pokud mluvím o jádøe, nazývám jej Linux.
+V¹ak víte, jmenuje se tak. Jádro bylo napsáno Liusem Torvaldsem
+a mìli bychom jej z respektu k nìmu nazývat jménem, které vybral.
+
+<P>
+Ale v¹eobecnì vzato, v businessu ho vìt¹ina lidí nepou¾ívá.
+Vìt¹ina domácností jej je¹tì nepou¾ívá. A¾ zaènou,
+mìli bychom automaticky dostat desetkrát více dobrovolníkù
+a desetkrát více zákazníkù pro obchod. To pro nás bude dùle¾itým skokem.
+V tomto bodì jsem docela rád, ¾e jsme schopni dìlat na¹i práci.
+
+<P>
+To je velmi dùle¾ité, proto¾e Microsoft se nás sna¾í zastra¹it:
+
+<P>
+ "Jediná cesta jak mù¾ete vyvíjet software, jediný zpùsob,
+jak zajistit inovaci je dát nám moc. Dovolte nám, abychom vás
+ovládli. Ponechte nám kontrolu nad tím, co budete moci se software
+dìlat, abychom z vás mohli vy¾dímat mnoho penìz a pou¾ít èást
+z toho na vývoj nového software, zbytek si ponecháme jako zisk.''
+
+<P>
+Nikdy byste se nemìli cítit tak zoufalí, abyste se vzdali svojí
+svobody. To by bylo velmi nebezpeèné.
+
+<P>
+Jiná vìc, kterou Microsoft (dobøe, nejen Microsoft) -- lidé obecnì, kteøí
+nepodporují svobodný software, mají ¾ebøíèek hodnot, ve kterém
+je zajímají pouze krátkodobé výhody. ,,Kolik penìz letos vydìlám?''
+Krátkodobé a omezené my¹lení. Nedovedou si pøedstavit, ¾e by nìkdo
+mohl nìco obìtovat pro získání èi udr¾ení si svobody.
+
+<P>
+Vèera vedlo mnoho lidí projevy o Amerièanech, kteøí se obìtovali
+pro svobodu svých krajanù. Nìkteøí uèinili i velké obìti.
+Obìtovali dokonce své ¾ivoty pro svobody, o kterých ka¾dý
+v na¹i zemi urèitì alespoò sly¹el.
+(Pøinejmen¹ím v nìkterých pøípadech; Asi budeme muset ignorovat
+válku ve Vietnamu.)
+
+<P>
+[Poznámka editora: Pøedchozí den byl v USA Memorial Day.
+Memorial Day (Den vzpomínky) je dnem vzpomínky na váleèné
+hrdiny.]
+
+<P>
+Udr¾et svobodu v pou¾ívání software na¹tìstí nevy¾aduje ¾ádné velké obìti,
+jen malé, malé obìti staèí. Obìti jako nauèit se ovládat pøíkazovou øádku,
+pokud je¹tì nemáme hotové grafické u¾ivatelské rozhraní. Nebo jako
+zaplatit nìjaké softwarové spoleènosti, aby mohla bìhem
+nìkolika let vyvinout nìjaký software, který potøebujeme.
+Existují rùzné malé obìti, které mù¾eme v¹ichni udìlat.
+V dlouhodobém mìøítku to budeme *my*, kdo z nich bude profitovat.
+Vidíte, ¾e je to spí¹ investice, ne¾ obì»! Potøebujeme pouze
+pohlí¾et na vìc dlouhodobì, abychom si uvìdomili, ¾e je pro nás
+výhodné investovat do zlep¹ování na¹í spoleènosti a nesmíme poèítat
+nikláky a centy krátkodobého zisku z takových investicí.
+
+<P>
+Zde moje pøedná¹ka vpodstatì konèí.
+
+<P>
+Rád bych je¹tì zmínil, ¾e Tony Stanco navrhuje nový zpùsob pøístupu
+k obchodu se svobodným software, který on nazývá ,,Free Developers''
+(svobodní vývojáøi). Má to být urèitá obchodní struktura, kde by,
+jak doufáme, mìly být výtì¾ky distribuovány v¹em programátorùm
+svobodného software, kteøí zde pracují. Mají vyhlídky na získání
+rozsáhlého kontraktu na vývoj vládního software v Indii. Proto¾e chtìjí
+jako základ pou¾ít svobodný software, mohou tím u¹etøit obrovské èástky.
+
+<P>
+Tak¾e teï prosím otázky.
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: [Nesly¹itelné]
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Mohl byste prosím mluvit tro¹ku více nahlas? Nesly¹ím vás.
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: Jak by mohla spoleènost jako tøeba Microsoft aplikovat
+smlouvu svobodného software?
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Microsoft ve skuteènosti plánuje pøesunout hodnì svých aktivit
+do oblasti slu¾eb. To, co plánují udìlat, je ¹pinavé a nebezpeèné.
+Chtìjí toti¾ svázat slu¾by s programy, jedno k druhému. K tomu, abyste
+mohli pou¾ít nìjakou slu¾bu, budete muset mít program od Microsoftu,
+a pokud budete naopak k programu potøebovat nìjakou slu¾bu, musí být
+od Microsoftu. Bude to v¹echno provázané dohromady, to je jejich
+plán.
+
+<P>
+Zajímavé je na tom to, ¾e tyto slu¾by nevzná¹í otázku etiky
+svobodného a nesvobodného software! Bylo by absolutnì vpoøádku,
+kdyby pou¾ili tento business k tomu, aby si zaji¹»ovali zisk jejich
+prodáváním. Microsoft ale plánuje udìlat to tak, aby dosáhl je¹tì
+vìt¹ího uzamknutí u¾ivatelù --- a je¹tì vìt¹ího monopolu --- na software
+i na slu¾by. Vy¹el o tom nedávno jeden èlánek... myslím, ¾e v Business
+Weeku. Ostatní øíkají, ¾e to pøemìní Net v mìsto Microsoftu.
+
+<P>
+To je dùle¾ité, proto¾e, jak víte, soud doporuèil rozdìlení
+Microsoftu na èást vyrábìjící operaèní systémy a aplikace.
+To by ale nemìlo ¾ádný smysl, nebylo by to k nièemu dobré.
+
+<P>
+Po tom, co jsem shlédl ten èlánek, myslím, ¾e by bylo u¾iteèné
+a efektivní rozdìlit Microsoft na èást poskytující software a na èást
+poskytující slu¾by a po¾adovat, aby spolu nemìly pøili¹ úzké vztahy.
+Oddìlení slu¾eb by muselo publikovat návrhy rozhraní, aby mohl k takové
+slu¾bì ka¾dý napsat klienta. Asi musí za ty slu¾by platit, ale to je vpoøádku.
+To je zas úplnì jiný problém.
+
+<P>
+
+Kdyby byl Microsoft takto rozdìlen [...], ,,slu¾by a software'',
+nemìli by pøíle¾itost vyu¾ívat slu¾by k rozdrcení konkurence
+svým software. My bychom mìli mo¾nost vyvinout pøíslu¹ný svobodný software
+a vy byste se s ním tøeba mohli pøipojovat na slu¾by Microsoftu.
+Nám by to nevadilo!
+
+<P>
+Konec koncù proto¾e Microsoft si podrobil vìt¹inu u¾ivatelù, ostatní
+si jich podrobili ménì. Problémem tedy není Microsoft a jenom
+Microsoft. Microsoft je pouze nejvìt¹ím pøíkladem problému,
+který se sna¾íme vyøe¹it. Je to problém proprietárního softwre,
+který u¾ivatelùm bere svobody spolupráce a tvoøení etické spoleènosti.
+Nemìli bychom se tak moc zamìøovat na Microsoft. I pøes to,
+¾e mi dali mo¾nost zde vystoupit, nejsou ti jediní dùle¾ití.
+Nejsou zaèátkem a koncem v¹eho.
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: Pøedtím jste mluvil o filosofickém rozdílu mezi
+Open Source software a svobodným software. Jak se díváte na
+souèasný trend distribucí GNU/Linuxu podporovat pouze
+platformu Intel? Èím dál tím ménì programátorù
+programuje korektnì a produkuje software, který
+se bude dát zkompilovat kdekoliv. Dìlají software,
+který prostì funguje na platformì Intel.
+
+<P>
+
+STALLMAN: Já si nemyslím, ¾e by to byla nìjaká otázka etiky.
+Ve skuteènosti ale obèas portují GNU/Linux na nový poèítaè
+spoleènosti, které ten poèíta vyrobí. Toto zøejmì nedávno udìlal
+Hewlett Packard. Neplatili si port Windows, proto¾e by je to stálo
+pøíli¹. Ale myslím, ¾e portování GNU/Linuxu je stálo pìt in¾enýrù
+na pár mìsícù. Bylo to lehké.
+
+<P>
+Samozøejmì, ¾e lidi povzbuzuji, aby pou¾ívali autoconf, GNU program,
+který usnadòuje portování programù. Nebo kdy¾ nìkdo za¹le autorovi
+bug, který není na autorovì verzi systému chybou, mìl by jej
+také zahrnout do programu. Ale nevidím v tom otázku etiky.
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: Dva komentáøe. Prvním je: nedávno jste mìl pøedná¹ku na MIT.
+Èetl jstem pøepis. Nìkdo se ptal na patenty a vy jste øekl
+,,Patenty jsou úplnì jiný problém. Nemám k tomu ¾ádné komentáøe.''
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Ano. Vlastnì mám k patentùm hodnì co øíci, ale
+to zabere tak hodinu.
+[Smích]
+
+<P>
+
+OTÁZKA: Chtìl jsem jen øíci, ¾e dle mého názoru zde je problém.
+Myslím, ¾e existuje dùvod, proè spoleènosti shrnují patenty
+i copyrighty pod spoleènou støechu tì¾kého vlastnictví.
+Chtìjí vyu¾ít sílu státu, aby si zajistili monopol.
+Stejná vìc je na tìchto zále¾itostech ne to, ¾e se týkají podobného
+problému. Ta motivace nespoèívá ve slu¾bách veøejnosti, ale
+v tvorbì monopolu pro své privátní zájmy a to je to, co zále¾itosti
+shrnované pod ,,intelektuální vlastnictví'' spojuje.
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Rozumím. Ale chci ji¾ odpovìdìt, proto¾e nám nezbývá moc
+èasu. Odpovím tedy na tohle.
+
+<P>
+Máte pravdu v tom, ¾e to je opravdu to, co chtìjí. Je ale i jiný dùvod,
+proè chtìjí pou¾ívat termín ,,intelektuální vlastnictví.'' Nechtìjí toti¾
+povzbuzovat lidi, aby pøíli¹ detailnì pøemý¹leli o otázkách copyrightu
+a patentù. Copyrightové a patentové právo je úplnì odli¹né a
+y úèinek copyrightu a patentù na software je úpnì odli¹ný.
+
+<P>
+Softwarové patenty jsou omezením programátorù -- zakazují jim
+vytváøet urèité typy programù. Zatímco copyright tohle nedìlá.
+Copyright øíká, ¾e pokud nìco napí¹ete, mù¾ete to distribuovat.
+
+<P>
+Softwarové patenty jsou omezením pro programátory---zakazují jim psát urèité
+typy programù. Zatímco copyright toto nedìlá.
+S copyrightem, alespoò pokud jste jeho autorem Vy, máte povolení k distribuci.
+Tudí¾ je ohromnì dùle¾ité tyto problémy oddìlovat.
+
+<P>
+Mají toho velmi málo spoleèného, na velmi nízké úrovni. A v¹e
+ostatní je jiné. Tak¾e, prosím, abyste podporovali jasné my¹lení, diskutujte
+o copyright, nebo o patentech. Ale nediskutujte o ,,intelektuálním
vlastnictví.''
+Na intelektuální vlastnictví nemám názor. Názor mám na copyrighty, patenty
+a software.
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: Na zaèátku jste zmínil, ¾e funkèní jazyk, jako tøeba
+recepty, je poèítaèový program. Tady je ale trochu rozdíl
+mezi tímto a jinými typy jazyka.
+To také zpùsobuje problém v pøípadu DVD.
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Tyto body jsou pro vìci z pøírody èásteènì podobné,
+ale èásteènì také odli¹né. Nìjaká èást problému se pøená¹í,
+ale ne celý. To je bohu¾el dal¹í hodinová pøedná¹ka, já nemám
+èas to zde vysvìtlovat. Øeknu ale, ¾e v¹echny normální
+vìci jsou od pøírody svobodné stejným zpùsobem, jako software.
+Víte o èem mluvím: knihy, manuály, slovníky, recepty atd.
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: Mì zajímala on-line hudba, jsou zde podobnosti, ale i
+odli¹nosti.
+
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Správnì. Øekl bych, ¾e minimální svobodou, je¾ bychom mìli mít pro
+*jakýkoliv* typ zveøejnìné informace, je svoboda ji to nekomerènì
+redistribuovat, doslovnì. Pro funkèní díla potøebujeme svobodu
+*komerènì* zveøejnit modifikovanou verzi, proto¾e je to pro spoleènost
stra¹livì
+u¾iteèné. Pro nefunkèní díla, jako napøíklad vìci slou¾ící k zábavì,
+nebo, abych byl estetický, která pøedstavují pohled urèité osoby,
+ta by mo¾ná nemìla být modifikována. A ono mo¾ná znamená, ¾e je vpoøádku
+mít copyright pokrývající jejich ve¹kerá *komerèní* vyu¾ití.
+
+<P>
+Prosím, mìjte na vìdomí, ¾e podle Ústavy USA je úèelem copyrightu prospìt
+veøejnosti. Slou¾í k modifikaci jednání urèitých
+soukromých stran parties, aby vydali více knih. A pøínosem je,
+¾e spoleènost diskutuje o rùzných problémech a uèí se a, jak víte
+máme literaturu. Máme vìdecká díla. Úèelem je povzbuzovat to.
+Copyrighty neexistují kvùli autorùm, nato¾pak kvùli
+vydavtelùm. Existují kvùli ètenáøùm a
+a tìm, co mají prospìch ze sdìlování informací, ke kterému dochází,
+kdy¾ lidé pí¹í nebo ètou. A já s tímto cílem souhlasím!
+
+<P>
+Ale, ve vìku poèítaèových sítí, není tato *metoda* déle udr¾itelná,
+proto¾e nyní vy¾aduje Drákulova práva, která vpadávají do soukromí jednotlivce
+a ka¾dého terorizují. Roky ve vìzení za sdílení s kolegou.
+Nebylo to jako v dobì tiskaøského lisu.
+Tehdy byl copyright prùmyslovou regulací. Omezoval vydavatele!
+*Nyní* je to omezení uvalené vydavateli na veøejnost. Tak¾e, aèkoliv se jedná
+o stejný zákon, právní vztah je otoèený o 180 stupòù.
+
+<P>
+
+OTÁZKA: Tak¾e mù¾ete mít tuté¾ vìc - ale je to jako, kdybyste tvoøil hudbu
+z jiné hudby.
+<P>
+
+STALLMAN: Správnì. To je zajímavé.
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: A jedineèné, u nových dìl, existuje stále velká spolupráce.
+
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Ano. A myslím si, ¾e to pravdìpodobnì vy¾aduje nìjakou koncepci
spravedlivého
+vyu¾ití. Samozøejmì vytvoøení nìkolikavteøinového samplu a jeho pou¾ití
+pro vytvoøení nìjakého hudebního díla: samozøejmì by toto bylo spravedlivé
vyu¾ití. Dokonce
+i standardní my¹lenka ohlednì spravedlivého vyu¾ití to zahrnuje, pomyslíte-li
na to.
+Whether
+courts agree, I'm not sure, but they should. That *wouldn't* be a real
+change in the system as it has existed.
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: Co si myslíte o publikování *veøejných* informací
+v proprietárních formátech?
+
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: No, nemìlo by to být. Myslím tím, ¾e vláda by nikdy
+nemìla nutit obèany, aby pou¾ívali ne svobodné programy
+k pøístupu k informacím a pøi komunikaci s ní.
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: Byl jsem u¾ivatelem, teï øeknu, GNU/Linuxu.
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Dìkuji. [Smích]
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: ...nìkolik posledních let. Chybìla mi ale jedna základní
+vìc, a to se myslím týká v¹ech, toti¾ webový browser.
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Ano.
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: Jedna z vìcí, která byla rozhodnì slabinou v pou¾ívání
+systému GNU/Linux bylo prohlí¾ení webovýsh stránek,
+proto¾e hlevním nástrojem k tomuhle byl Netscape...
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: ..., který nebyl svobodným software.
+Nechte mì odpovìdìt na toto. Chtìl bych nejprve vyøe¹it toto,
+abychom se mohli lépe orientovat v celém problému. Ano.
+Na lidi pùsobil stra¹ný tlak, aby na GNU/Linuxových systémech
+pou¾ívali Netscape Navigator. Vlastnì ho mìly v sobì úplnì v¹echny
+komerèní distribuce. To je ironická situace: tak tì¾ce jsme pracovali
+na tom, abychom vytvoøili *svobodný* operaèná systém
+a kdy¾ se teï vydáte do obchodu, najdete zde rùzné verze GNU/Linuxu
+(vìt¹ina nese název Linux), ale ¾ádná z nich není svobodná.
+Samozøejmì nìkteré èásti svobodné jsou, ale je zde i Netscape
+Navigator a mo¾ná také dal¹í nesvobodné vìci. Ve skuteènosti
+je velmi tì¾ké najít svobodný systém, pokud nevíte úplnì pøesnì,
+co dìláte. Mù¾ete si Netscape
+Navigator neinstalovat i pokud si zakoupíte jen èásteènì svobodný systém.
+
+<P>
+Ve skuteènosti existovaly svobodné prohlí¾eèe po mnoho let.
+Já jsem byl napø. zvyklý pou¾ívat webový browser s názvem
+,,Lynx.'' Je to svobodný negrafický browser; pouze textový.
+Má jednu ohromnou výhodu a to, ¾e nevidíte reklamy.
+[Smích] [Potlesk].
+
+<P>
+Existuje v¹ak i svobodný grafický browser Mozilla, který se nyní dostává
+do stavu, kdy ho ji¾ mù¾ete pou¾ívat. Obèas ho také pou¾ívám.
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: Velmi dobrý byl Konqueror 2.01.
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Ano, samozøejmì. To je dal¹í svobodný grafický browser.
+Já myslím, ¾e u¾ koneènì ten problém s browsery bude vyøe¹en.
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: Mù¾ete mi øíci nìco o filosofickém a etickém rozdìlení
+mezi svobodným software a Open Source? Myslíte, ¾e jsou nesmiøitelné?
+...
+
+<P>
+[mìní se páska v nahrávacím zaøízení, konec otázky a zaèátek odpovìdi
+chybí]
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: .... ke svobodì a etice. Nebo kdykoliv prostì øeknete:
+,,Doufám, ¾e se vy spoleènosti rozhodnete, ¾e je pro vás
+výhodnìj¹í dovolit nám dìlat tyto vìci.''
+
+<P>
+Ale jak jsem øekl, v mnoha praktických úkolech ani nezále¾í,
+jaká je politika dané osoby. Kdy¾ nìkdo nabídne pomoc projektu GNU,
+tak neøíkáme ,,Musí¹ souhlasit s na¹í politikou.'' Øekneme,
+¾e v balíècích GNU musíte nazývat systém GNU/Linux a musíte
+to nazývat svobodný software. Co øíkáte, kdy¾ nemluvíte s projektem
+GNU, je na vás.
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: Spoleènost IBM odstartovala nedávno kampaò pro vládní
+úøady, kterým chtìjí prodat své velké stroje a jako systém si
+vybrali Linux, øíkají mu ,,Linux!''
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Ano, samozøejmì, ve skuteènosti je to systém GNU/Linux. [Smích]
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: Právì! Øeknìte to hlavnímu obchodnímu mana¾erovi. Vùbec
+o GNU neví.
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Komu ¾e bych mìl øíci?
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: Hlavnímu obchodnímu mana¾erovi.
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Aha, jasnì. Problém je v tom, ¾e oni si u¾ døíve peèlivì
+vybrali, co budou øíkat, aby to pro nì bylo co nejvýhodnìj¹í.
+Dùle¾ité toti¾ je, ¾e otázka toho co je správnìj¹í èi spravedlivìj¹í
+není pro takové firmy to nejdùle¾itìj¹í. U malých spoleèností bychom
+mohli najít øeditele, který by pøemý¹lel o takových vìcech, mohl by se
+rozhodnout pou¾ívat správný název. Ne ale takové obrovské spoleènosti.
+Je to ostuda.
+
+<P>
+S tím co dìlá IBM souvisí je¹tì jeden dùle¾itý a podstatný problém
+a to, ¾e oni øíkají, ¾e vkládají do ,,Linuxu'' miliardu dolarù.
+Mo¾ná bych ale mìl také dát uvozovky kolem slova ,,do'',
+proto¾e èást z toho sice je placení lidí, kteøí pí¹í svobodný
+software, ale druhá èást slou¾í k placení lidí, kteøí pí¹í
+proprietární software, nebo proprietární software portují, aby
+bì¾el na GNU/Linuxu. To *není* pøíspìvek na¹í komunitì.
+IBM to ale v¹echno strká na jednu hromadu. Èást z toho mù¾e
+být reklama, co¾ pro nás mù¾e být èásteènì pøínostné, aèkoliv
+by to bylo také èásteènì ¹patné. Je to komplikovaná situace.
+Nìco z toho, co oni dìlají, je pomocí, nìco není a nìco je
+také èásteèná pomoc, ale ne pøesnì. Nemù¾ete to prostì
+v¹echno smíchat dohromady a myslet si ,,Wow! Bomba! Miliarda
+dolarù od IBM.'' [Smích] To je stra¹né zjednodu¹ení.
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: Mù¾ete se tro¹ku více zmínit o dùvodech, které
+vás vedly k navr¾ení nìèeho jako je General Public License.
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Ok, to je -- omlouvám se, ale já teï odpovídám na jeho otázku.
+[Smích]
+
+<P>
+SCHONBERG: Chcete si nechat nìjaký èas na tiskovou konferenci,
+nebo budete rad¹i pokraèovat tady?
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Kdo je tu na tiskovou konferenci? Není tu moc tisku.
+Aha, tøi -- dobøe. Nebude vám vadit, kdy¾ budeme -- kdy¾ budu
+pokraèovat v zodpovídání otázek v¹ech je¹tì tak deset minut?
+OK. Tak budeme pokraèovat v otázkách z publika.
+
+<P>
+Ptáte se tedy na my¹lení, z kterého vze¹la GNU GPL?
+Èást je v tom, ¾e jsem chtìl ochránit svobodu komunity od takových
+vìcí, jaké jsem popisoval u projektu X Windows a které se pøihodily
+i ostatním svobodným programùm. Ve skuteènosti nebyly X Windows je¹tì
+vydány, kdy¾ jsem o GPL pøemý¹lel, ale vidìl jsem, jak se tohle
+stávalo jiným svobodným programùm. Stalo se to tøeba TeXu. Chtìl jsem
+zajistit, aby mìli svobodu v¹ichni u¾ivatelé. Jinak by se mi mohlo stát,
+¾e napí¹u program a mo¾ná ho bude pou¾ívat mnoho lidí, ale
+ti by nemuseli mít svobodu. A jaký by to pak mìlo úèel?
+
+<P>
+Øíkal jsem si ale také: Chci dát veøejnosti pocit, ¾e to není
+koøist pro nìjaké parazity, kteøí zrovna bloudí kolem.
+Kdy¾ nepou¾íváte copyleft, tak vpodstatì øíkáte [Stallman
+mluví mírnì]: ,,Vezmi si mùj kód a dìlej si s ním co chce¹.
+Já neøíkám ne.'' Ka¾dý mù¾e pøijít a øíci [nyní mluví pøísnì]
+Ah, chci vytvoøit nesvobodnou verzi tohohle. Prostì si to
+vezmu.'' Pravdìpodobnì udìlají nìjaká vylep¹ení. Tyto nesvobodné
+verze se pak mohou zalíbit u¾ivatelùm a nahradit svobodné
+verze. Èeho jste tak dosáhli? Pouze jste pøispìli nìjakému
+vlastnickému projektu!
+
+<P>
+Kdy¾ pak lidé vidí, co se dìje, -- kdy¾ vidí ,,ostatní mi vezmou
+co jsem udìlal a ani mi to nevrátí'' -- mù¾e to být pro nì velmi
+demoralizující. To není jen spekulace. Já jsem vidìl, jak se to
+opravdu stalo. Byla to èást toho, co se pøihodilo na¹í
+komunitì, ke které jsem patøil v sedmdesátých letech. Nìkteøí lidé
+s námi pøestávali spolupracovat. Pøedpokládali jsme, ¾e z toho profitují.
+Chovali se tak, jako by si mysleli, ¾e profitují. Uvìdomili jsme si,
+¾e se mohou prostì vzdát spolupráce a nic nám nedají zpìt.
+Neexistovalo nic, co bychom s tím mohli dìlat. To bylo velmi
+odrazující. My, kterým se to nelíbilo, jsme dokonce diskutovali
+o mo¾nostech, jak to zastavit, ale ¾ádnou jsme nena¹li.
+
+<P>
+GPL je tedy navr¾ena k tomu, aby to zastavila. Øíká: ,,Pokud se k na¹í
+komunitì *pøipojíte*, jste vítáni a mù¾ete pou¾ívat ná¹ kód. Mù¾ete
+jej pou¾ívat na jakoukoliv práci. Pokud ale vydáte modifikovanou verzi,
+musíte ji uveøejnit *v* na¹í komunitì, jako souèást na¹í komunity --
+jako souèást svobodného svìta.
+
+<P>
+Vlastnì existuje i mnoho rùzných cest, jak mohou lidé tì¾it
+z výhod na¹eho software a nijak nám nepøispívat; nemusíte tøeba
+psát software, abyste mohli pou¾ívat ná¹ systém. Nepo¾adujeme
+po vás, abyste pro nás cokoliv dìlali. Pokud ale dìláte
+urèitý typ vìcí, musíte nám s nimi pøispìt.
+Tak¾e to znamená, ¾e na¹e komunita není jen tak nìjaká
+roho¾ka u dveøí.
+A myslím, ¾e to dodalo lidem sílu cítit: ,,Jen tak nìkdo si po nás
+nebude dupat. My se mu postavíme.''
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: Ano, moje otázka se týkala svobodného, ale necopyleftovaného
+software. Kdy¾ ho mù¾e ka¾dý vzít a udìlat z nìj vlastnický,
+není také mo¾né vzít ho, udìlat nìjaké zmìny a vydat to celé
+pod GPL?
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Ano, je to mo¾né.
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: To by udìlalo ze v¹ech budoucích kopií GPL software.
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Kopií z té urèité vìtve. Vysvìtlím ale, proè tohle nedìláme.
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: Hmm?
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Vysvìtlím, proè to nedìláme. Nechte mì to vysvìtlit.
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: OK, ano.
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Mohli bychom to udìlat, pokud bychom chtìli. Mohli bychom
+vzít X Windows, udìlat kopii krytou GPL a udìlat v ní nìjaké zmìny.
+Existuje ale mnohem vìt¹í skupina lidí, kteøí vylep¹ují X Windows,
+a ti je nevydávají pod GPL. Kdybychom to tedy udìlali, oddìlovali
+bychom se od nich. To by od nás nebylo moc hezké. Oni *jsou*
+èást na¹í komunity a pøispívají do na¹í komunity.
+
+<P>
+Za druhé, nemìli bychom ¹anci, proto¾e oni na X dìlají mnohem více
+práce ne¾ bychom mohli dìlat my. Na¹e verze by tedy byla podøadná
+té jejich a lidé by ji nepou¾ívali. To znamená: proè podstupovat
+v¹echny tyhle nesnáze?
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: Mmm hmm.
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Kdy¾ tedy nìkdo napí¹e nìjaké vylep¹ení
+do X Windows, øeknu mu, aby spolupracoval s vývojáøi
+X Windows, a» jim to po¹le a nechá je to pou¾ít tak,
+jak to oni uznají za vhodné. Oni *vyvíjejí*
+velmi dùle¾itou èást svobodného software. Pro nás je dobré
+s nimi spolupracovat!
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: S výjimkou, co se týèe X, pøibli¾nì pøed dvìma roky,
+dokonce X Konsorcium vydalo svùj software jako omezený Open Source.
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Oni jej nikdy nevydali jako Open Source. Nakonec
+to nebylo Open Source. Mo¾ná øíkali, ¾e bylo. Nevzpomínám si.
+Ale nebylo to Open Source.
+
+<P>
+Bylo to omezené. Myslím, ¾e jste to nemohli komerènì redistribuovat.
+Nebo jste mo¾ná nemohli komerènì distribuovat modifikovanou verzi,
+nebo nìco takvého. Bylo v tom nìjaké omezení, které jak Hnutí svobodného
+software, tak hnutí Open Source pokládá za nepøijatelné.
+
+<P>
+Ano, to vám necopyleftová licence dovoluje. Ve skuteènosti
+mìlo X Konsorcium velm izvlá¹tní politiku. Øíkají: ,,Pokud
+je vá¹ program alespoò tro¹ku copyleftovaný, nemù¾eme jej
+do na¹í distribuce zahrnout. Nebudeme jej vùbec distribuovat.''
+Hodnì lidí tak bylo nuceno nepou¾ívat copyleft. V¹echen software
+byl naprosto otevøený. Ti samí lidé, kteøí pøedtím tlaèili lidi,
+aby dovolovali s jejich kódem dìlat v¹e, pozdìji prohlásili:
+,,Vpoøádku. Teï si mù¾eme pøidat omezení.'' To od nich nebylo
+pøíli¹ etické.
+
+<P>
+Chceme ale v této situaci opravdu zaplácat mnoho zdrojù na
+udr¾ování alternativní verze X, kryté GPL? Nemìlo by to ¾ádný
+smysl. Máme na práci spoustu jiných vìcí. Pojdmì dìlat
+rad¹i tyto. Je lep¹í s vývojáøi X spolupracovat.
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: Mù¾ete prosím okomentovat, zda je GNU registrovaná
+ochranná známka? Bylo by praktické zahrnout ji do GNU GPL,
+ta pøece povoluje ochranné známky?
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Ve skuteènosti máme momentálnì podanou ¾ádost o regisrtaci
+ochranné známky GNU. Je to ale z jiných dùvodù. Bylo by na dlouho
+to tu v¹e vysvìtlovat.
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: Mohli byste po¾adovat zobrazení této ochranné známky
+ve v¹ech programech krytých GPL.
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: To si nemyslím. Licence kryjí samotné programy a pokud
+je nìjaký program èást projektu GNU, nikdo se nesna¾í to pøekroutit.
+Jméno systému jako celku je ale jiná zále¾itost. To je jen taková
+poznámka, nestojí za to znovu to tu probírat.
+
+<P>
+OTÁZKA: Kdyby existovalo tlaèítko, které byste mohl zmáèknout
+a donutit tak v¹echny spoleènosti, aby udìlali svùj software
+svobodným, zmáèkl byste?
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: No, pou¾il bych ho na publikovaný software. Víte,
+já myslím, ¾e lidé mají právo psát program soukromì,
+a pou¾ívat ho soukromì. To se týká i spoleèností. Je to
+otázka soukromí. Je sice pravda, ¾e mohou nastat situace,
+kdy by daný program byl veøejnosti ohromnì u¾iteèný
+a vy byste zabraòovali jeho vyu¾ití, co¾ by bylo ¹patné.
+To je ale jiný druh ¹patnosti. To by byla jiná otázka,
+aèkoliv v tom samém oboru.
+
+<P>
+Ale ano, já si myslím, ¾e by v¹echen publikovaný software mìl být
+svobodný. A pamatujme si, ¾e pokud tomu tak není, je to
+kvùli zásahu vlády. Vláda zasahuje, aby jej uèinila nesvobodným.
+Vláda vytváøí speciální právní mo¾nosti a rozdává je vlastníkùm
+programù, aby mohli vyu¾ít policii k tomu, aby nám zabránila
+urèitými zpùsoby u¾ívat jejich program. To bych urèitì chtìl ukonèit.
+
+<P>
+SCHONBERG: Richardova pøedná¹ka bez pochyb vyvolala obrovské mno¾ství
+intelektuální energie. Rád bych doporuèil, aby èást z té energie
+byla vyu¾ita k pou¾ívání a mo¾ná i vývoji svobodného software.
+
+<P>
+Mìli bychom to tu nìjak rychle ukonèit. Chci jen øíci, ¾e
+Richard nechal do profese, která je veøejnosti známá pøedev¹ím svým
+apolitickým a nerdovským pøístupem, proniknout i urèitou
+rovinu politické a etické polemiky, co¾ je dle mého názoru v tomto
+oboru bezprecedentní.
+
+<P>
+Chtìl bych oznámit, ¾e nyní je pøestávka.
+
+<P>
+[Potlesk]
+
+<P>
+[Ticho]
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Mù¾ete odejít kdy chcete, v¹ak víte. [Smích]
+Já vás tu nedr¾ím jako ve vìzení.
+
+<P>
+[Publikum se zvedá a odchází...]
+
+<P>
+STALLMAN: Je¹tì nìco. Ná¹ web: www.gnu.org .
+
+<P>
+
+<a href="/philosophy/philosophy.cs.html">Dal¹í texty k pøeètení</a>
+
+<HR>
+
+Návrat na <A HREF="/home.cs.html">domovskou stránku GNU</A>.
+<P>
+FSF & GNU informace & otázky na
+<A HREF="mailto:address@hidden";><EM>address@hidden</EM></A>.
+Dal¹í <A HREF="/home.cs.html#ContactInfo">mo¾nost</A> jak kontaktovat FSF.
+<P>
+Komentáøe k tìmto web stránkám na
+<A HREF="mailto:address@hidden";><EM>address@hidden</EM></A>,
+jiné otázky zasílejte na
+<A HREF="mailto:address@hidden";><EM>address@hidden</EM></A>.
+<P>
+Copyright (C) 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
+51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110, USA
+<P>
+Doslovné kopírování a ¹íøení tohoto celého dokumentu na jakémkoliv médiu
+je dovoleno v pøípadì, ¾e tato podmínka bude zachována.<P>
+<HR>
+</BODY>
+</HTML>
Index: philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.html
diff -N philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.html 15 Sep 2015 05:45:29 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,2132 @@
+<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.en.html" -->
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.fr.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+
+<!-- This file is automatically generated by GNUnited Nations! -->
+<title>Logiciel libre : liberté et coopération - Projet GNU - Free Software
+Foundation</title>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.fr.html" -->
+<h2>Logiciel libre : liberté et coopération</h2>
+
+<blockquote><p>Transcription du discours de Richard M. Stallman, « Logiciel
libre : liberté
+et coopération », donné à <cite>New York University</cite> (campus de New
+York, NY) le 29 mai 2001.</p></blockquote>
+
+<div class="announcement">
+<blockquote><p>Une version <a
href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt">texte</a> de cette
+transcription et un <a
href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt">résumé</a> du
+discours sont aussi disponibles en anglais.</p></blockquote>
+</div>
+
+<p><strong>URETSKY</strong> : Je suis Mike Uretsky. Je travaille à la
+<cite>Stern Business School</cite> (Ãcole de commerce Stern). Je suis aussi
+l'un des codirecteurs du <cite>Center for Advanced Technology</cite> (Centre
+pour la technologie de pointe). Et au nom de tout le département
+d'informatique, je veux vous souhaiter la bienvenue. Je voudrais faire
+quelques commentaires avant de passer la parole à Ed qui présentera
+l'orateur.</p>
+
+<p>Le rôle d'une université est d'être un lieu de débats et de permettre
des
+discussions intéressantes. Et le rôle d'une grande université est d'offrir
+des discussions particulièrement intéressantes. Cet exposé particulier, ce
+séminaire, répond parfaitement à cet impératif. Je trouve la discussion sur
+l'open source particulièrement intéressante. D'une certaine manière…
+<i>[rires]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Je fais du logiciel libre. L'open source, c'est
+un autre mouvement <i>[rires et applaudissements]</i>.</p>
+
+<p><strong>URETSKY</strong> : Quand j'ai commencer à travailler dans ce
domaine
+dans les années 60, en principe les logiciels étaient libres. Puis nous
+sommes entrés dans un cycle. Au début ils étaient libres, puis les
+fabricants de logiciels, pour étendre leur marché, les ont poussés dans
+d'autres directions. Une grande partie du développement qui a eu lieu Ã
+l'arrivée du PC a suivi exactement le même cycle.</p>
+
+<p>Il y a un philosophe français très intéressant, Pierre Lévy, qui parle
d'un
+mouvement dans cette direction et parle de l'entrée dans le cyberespace, non
+seulement en relation avec la technologie, mais aussi avec la
+restructuration sociale et politique, Ã travers un changement des types de
+relations qui va améliorer le bien-être de l'humanité. Et nous espérons que
+ce débat est un pas dans cette direction, que ce débat traverse de
+nombreuses disciplines qui travaillent généralement en solo Ã
+l'université. Nous espérons donc de très intéressantes discussions. EdÂ
?</p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong> : Je suis Ed Schonberg du département
+d'informatique de l'Institut Courant. Permettez-moi de vous souhaiter la
+bienvenue pour cet événement. Les présentateurs sont, en général et en
+particulier, un aspect inutile des présentations publiques, mais dans ce
+cas, ils servent un but utile comme le propos de Mike vient facilement de le
+prouver. Parce qu'un présentateur, par exemple par des commentaires
+inappropriés, peut permettre à l'orateur de corriger <i>[rires]</i> et
+préciser considérablement les paramètres du débat.</p>
+
+<p>Aussi permettez-moi de faire la présentation la plus brève possible de
+quelqu'un qui n'en a pas besoin. Richard est le parfait exemple de quelqu'un
+qui, agissant localement, commença à penser globalement en partant des
+problèmes d'inaccessibilité du code source des pilotes d'imprimantes au
+Laboratoire d'intelligence artificielle il y a bien des années. Il a
+développé une philosophie cohérente qui nous a tous forcés à réexaminer
nos
+idées sur la façon dont le logiciel est produit, sur ce que signifie la
+propriété intellectuelle et sur ce que représente la communauté du
+logiciel. Bienvenue à Richard Stallman <i>[applaudissements]</i>.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Quelqu'un peut-il me prêter une montre ?
+<i>[rires]</i> Merci. Bien, je voudrais remercier Microsoft de me donner
+l'occasion aujourd'hui <i>[rires]</i> d'être ici. Ces dernières semaines, je
+me sentais comme un auteur dont le livre a été fortuitement interdit quelque
+part <i>[rires]</i>. Sauf que tous les articles le concernant mentionnent un
+nom d'auteur erroné, parce que Microsoft décrit la GNU GPL comme une licence
+open source et que la majorité de la couverture de presse a suivi. La
+plupart des gens, en toute innocence bien sûr, ne se rendent pas compte que
+notre travail n'a rien à voir avec l'open source et qu'en réalité nous en
+avons fait la plus grande part avant même que le terme « open source » ne
+soit inventé.</p>
+
+<p>Nous faisons partie du mouvement du logiciel libre et je vais vous parler de
+ce qu'est ce mouvement, de ce qu'il signifie, de ce que nous avons fait, et
+puisque nous sommes réunis par une école de commerce, je vous en dirai un
+peu plus qu'à l'habitude sur les relations du logiciel libre avec l'économie
+et avec d'autres champs de la vie en société.</p>
+
+<p>Certains d'entre vous n'écriront peut-être jamais de logiciels mais vous
+cuisinez peut-être. Et si vous cuisinez, à moins que vous ne soyez un grand
+chef, vous utilisez probablement des recettes. Si vous utilisez des
+recettes, il vous est probablement déjà arrivé de demander la copie d'une
+recette à un ami, qui l'a partagée avec vous. Et il vous est probablement
+arrivé â à moins d'être un complet néophyte â de changer cette
recette. Vous
+savez, il y a des choses que l'on n'est pas obligé de faire exactement :
+vous pouvez laisser tomber certains ingrédients, ajouter des champignons
+parce que vous aimez les champignons, mettre un peu moins de sel parce que
+votre médecin vous a recommandé de manger moins salé, que sais-je ? Vous
+pouvez même faire des changements plus importants selon vos talents. Si vous
+avez fait des changements dans une recette et que vos amis l'ont appréciée,
+l'un d'entre eux vous a peut-être dit : « Dis donc, je pourrais avoir la
+recette ? » Et alors, qu'est-ce que vous faites ? Vous mettez par écrit
+votre version modifiée et faites une copie pour votre ami. C'est une chose
+qu'on fait naturellement avec des recettes de toute sorte.</p>
+
+<p>En fait, une recette ressemble beaucoup à un programme informatique. Un
+programme informatique est comme une recette : une série d'étapes à mener
+pour obtenir le résultat que vous attendez. Alors il est tout naturel de
+faire la même chose avec un programme : donner une copie à un ami ;
apporter
+des modifications parce que le travail pour lequel il a été écrit n'est pas
+tout à fait ce que vous voulez. Il a bien fonctionné pour quelqu'un d'autre
+mais votre travail est différent. Et une fois que vous avez changé le
+programme, il est probable qu'il pourra servir à d'autres. Peut-être qu'ils
+ont à faire un travail comme le vôtre, alors ils vous en demanderont une
+copie, et si vous êtes gentil, vous allez la leur donner. C'est comme ça
+qu'on doit se comporter.</p>
+
+<p>Alors imaginez que les recettes soient enfermées dans des boîtes
+noires. Vous ne pourriez pas savoir les ingrédients qu'elles utilisent,
+encore moins les changer. Et imaginez, si vous faisiez une copie pour un
+ami, qu'on vous traite de pirate et qu'on essaie de vous mettre en prison
+pour des années. Ce serait un énorme tollé de la part de tous ceux qui sont
+habitués à partager des recettes de cuisine. Mais c'est exactement ce qui se
+passe dans le monde du logiciel privateur<a id="TransNote1-rev"
+href="#TransNote1"><sup>1</sup></a> â un monde dans lequel on empêche et on
+interdit un comportement correct envers les autres personnes.</p>
+
+<p>Maintenant, pourquoi ai-je remarqué cela ? Je l'ai remarqué parce que
j'ai
+eu la bonne fortune dans les années 70 de faire partie d'une communauté
+d'informaticiens qui partageaient les logiciels. On pourrait faire remonter
+ses racines aux origines de l'informatique, mais dans les années 70 c'était
+plutôt rare de trouver une communauté où les gens partageaient du
+logiciel. En fait c'était en quelque sorte un cas extrême parce que, dans le
+laboratoire où je travaillais, l'ensemble du système d'exploitation avait
+été développé par les gens de cette communauté et nous le partagions avec
+n'importe qui. Tout un chacun était invité à venir y jeter un Åil et à en
+emporter une copie pour faire ce qu'il voulait avec. Il n'y avait pas d'avis
+de copyright sur ces programmes. Et rien ne semblait menacer ce mode de
+vie. Ce n'était pas le résultat d'une lutte, c'est comme ça que nous
+vivions. Nous pensions que cela continuerait. Il y avait du logiciel libre
+mais pas de mouvement du logiciel libre.</p>
+
+<p>Mais ensuite notre communauté a été détruite par une série de
calamités. Ã
+la fin elle fut balayée. L'ordinateur PDP-10 que nous utilisions pour tout
+notre travail fut abandonné. Notre système d'exploitation, le « système Ã
+temps partagé incompatible » <cite>[Incompatible Timesharing System]</cite>,
+écrit à partir des années 60, était en langage assembleur. C'est ce qu'on
+utilisait pour écrire les systèmes d'exploitation dans les années
+60. Naturellement, le langage assembleur est spécifique à un type
+particulier d'architecture d'ordinateur ; si elle devient obsolète, tout le
+travail tombe en poussière. Et c'est ce qui nous est arrivé. Les presque 20
+ans de travail de notre communauté sont tombés en poussière.</p>
+
+<p>Pourtant, avant que cela n'arrive, une expérience m'a préparé et m'a
aidé Ã
+voir ce qu'il fallait faire. Un jour, Xerox a donné au Laboratoire
+d'intelligence artificielle, où je travaillais, une imprimante laser ;
+c'était un beau cadeau car c'était la première fois qu'en dehors de Xerox
+quelqu'un possédait une imprimante laser. Elle était très rapide, une page
Ã
+la seconde, excellente à bien des égards, mais elle n'était pas fiable parce
+qu'en fait c'était un copieur rapide de bureau qui avait été modifié pour
+devenir une imprimante. Vous savez, les copieurs font du bourrage de papier
+mais il y a sur place quelqu'un pour les débloquer. L'imprimante bourrait
+mais personne ne le remarquait aussi restait-t-elle hors service pendant
+longtemps.</p>
+
+<p>Nous avions bien une idée pour résoudre ce problème : faire en sorte
qu'Ã
+chaque bourrage elle avertisse notre machine en temps partagé et les
+utilisateurs qui attendaient une sortie d'imprimante. Car bien sûr, si vous
+attendez une sortie d'imprimante et que vous savez qu'elle est en panne,
+vous n'allez pas rester assis pour l'éternité, vous irez la débloquer.</p>
+
+<p>Mais à ce stade, nous étions dans une impasse totale du fait que le pilote
+de l'imprimante n'était pas un logiciel libre. Il était livré avec mais
+c'était un programme binaire. Nous n'avions pas le code source. Xerox ne
+nous avait pas autorisés à l'avoir. Si bien que malgré nos talents
+d'informaticiens (nous avions écrit notre propre système d'exploitation en
+temps partagé) nous étions complètement démunis pour ajouter cette fonction
+au pilote d'imprimante.</p>
+
+<p>Nous pouvions seulement prendre notre mal en patience ; cela vous prenait
+une ou deux heures pour avoir votre impression car la machine était bloquée
+la plupart du temps. De temps à autre vous attendiez une heure en vous
+disant : « Je sais que ça va planter, je vais attendre une heure et aller
+chercher mon texte. » Et alors vous vous aperceviez que la machine était
+restée bloquée pendant tout ce temps-là et que personne d'autre ne l'avait
+remise en état. Alors vous faisiez le nécessaire et attendiez une demi-heure
+de plus. Ensuite vous reveniez et vous voyiez qu'elle s'était bloquée de
+nouveau â avant même de commencer votre impression. Elle imprimait trois
+minutes et se bloquait pendant 30 minutes. Frustration jusque là  ! Le pire
+était de savoir que nous aurions pu la réparer mais que quelqu'un, par pur
+égoÃsme, nous mettait des bâtons dans les roues en nous empêchant
+d'améliorer son programme. D'où notre ressentiment, évidemment…</p>
+
+<p>Et alors j'ai entendu dire que quelqu'un avait une copie de ce programme Ã
+l'université Carnegie-Mellon. En visite là -bas un peu plus tard, je me rends
+à son bureau et je dis : « Salut, je suis du MIT, pourrais-je avoir une
+copie du code source de l'imprimante ? » Et il répond : « Non, j'ai
promis
+de ne pas vous donner de copie » <i>[rires]</i>. J'étais soufflé. J'étais
+si… J'étais tellement en colère ! Je ne savais pas quoi faire pour
+réparer cette injustice. Tout ce qui m'est venu à l'esprit, c'est de tourner
+les talons et sortir de son bureau. Peut-être que j'ai claqué la
+porte… <i>[rires]</i> Et j'y ai repensé plus tard parce que j'ai
+réalisé que je n'étais pas simplement en face d'un fait isolé mais d'un
+phénomène de société qui était important et affectait beaucoup de
gens.</p>
+
+<p>Pour moi par chance, ce n'était qu'un échantillon, mais d'autres gens
+étaient obligés de vivre avec ça tout le temps. Et j'y ai repensé plus
+longuement. Vous voyez, il avait promis de refuser de coopérer avec nous,
+ses collègues du MIT. Il nous avait trahis. Mais il ne l'avait pas fait qu'Ã
+nous. Il y a des chances qu'il vous l'ait fait à vous aussi <i>[pointant du
+doigt un auditeur]</i>. Et je pense, probablement à vous aussi <i>[pointant
+du doigt un autre auditeur â rires]</i> et à vous aussi <i>[pointant du
+doigt un troisième auditeur]</i>. Et certainement à une bonne partie de ceux
+qui sont dans cette salle, à l'exception de quelques-uns, peut-être, qui
+n'étaient pas encore nés en 1980. Il avait promis de ne pas coopérer avec
+l'ensemble de la population de la planète Terre, ou presque. Il avait signé
+un accord de non-divulgation.</p>
+
+<p>C'était ma première confrontation avec un accord de non-divulgation et
cela
+m'a appris une importante leçon, une leçon qui est importante parce que la
+plupart des programmeurs ne l'apprennent jamais. Vous voyez, c'était ma
+première rencontre avec un accord de non-divulgation et j'en étais
+victime. Moi et tout mon laboratoire, nous en étions victimes. Et la leçon
+que j'ai apprise c'est que les accords de non-divulgation font des
+victimes. Ils ne sont pas innocents, ils ne sont pas inoffensifs. La plupart
+des programmeurs rencontrent un accord de non-divulgation lorsqu'ils sont
+invités à en signer un et il y a toujours une sorte de tentation, un bonus
+qu'ils auront s'ils signent. Alors ils s'inventent des excuses. Ils disent :
+« De toute façon, il n'aura pas de copie, alors pourquoi ne rejoindrais-je
+pas la conspiration pour l'en priver ? » Ils disent : « Ãa se fait
toujours
+comme ça, qui suis-je pour m'y opposer ? » Ils disent : « Si je ne signe
+pas, quelqu'un d'autre le fera. » Diverses excuses pour tromper leur
+conscience.</p>
+
+<p>Mais quand on m'a invité à signer un accord de non-divulgation, ma
+conscience était déjà en éveil. Elle se rappelait comme j'étais en colère
+lorsque quelqu'un avait promis de ne pas m'aider, moi et mon labo, Ã
+résoudre notre problème. Je ne pouvais pas retourner ma veste et faire la
+même chose à quelqu'un qui ne m'avait fait aucun mal. Vous savez, si
+quelqu'un me demandait de promettre de ne pas partager une information utile
+avec un ennemi détesté je le ferais. Si quelqu'un a fait quelque chose de
+mal il le mérite. Mais des étrangers… Ils ne m'ont fait aucun
+mal. Comment pourraient-ils mériter un mauvais traitement de ce genre ? On
+ne peut pas se permettre de mal se comporter avec tout un chacun, sinon on
+devient un prédateur de la société. Alors j'ai dit : « Merci de m'offrir
ce
+beau logiciel, mais je ne peux l'accepter en bonne conscience aux conditions
+que vous exigez, donc je vais m'en passer. Merci beaucoup. » Ainsi, je n'ai
+jamais consciemment signé d'accord de non-divulgation pour de l'information
+technique utile comme un programme.</p>
+
+<p>Cela dit, il y a des informations d'autre nature qui posent d'autres
+problèmes éthiques. Par exemple, il y a les informations personnelles. Vous
+savez, si vous voulez me parler de ce qui se passe entre vous et votre petit
+ami et que vous me demandez de n'en parler à personne, je peux accepter de
+garder le secret pour vous, parce que ce n'est pas une information technique
+d'utilité générale. En fait, ce n'est probablement pas d'utilité générale
+<i>[rires]</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Il y a une petite chance, c'est possible, que vous puissiez me révéler une
+merveilleuse nouvelle technique sexuelle <i>[rires]</i> et je me sentirais
+moralement obligé <i>[rires]</i> de la révéler au reste de l'humanité pour
+que chacun puisse en profiter. Donc je devrais mettre une condition à ma
+promesse. Si ce sont juste des détails sur qui veut ceci et qui est en
+colère contre untel, des choses comme ça, du feuilleton télé, cela je peux
+le garder confidentiel… Mais une connaissance dont l'humanité
+tirerait un énorme bénéfice, je ne dois pas la garder pour moi. Vous voyez,
+le but de la science et de la technologie est de produire de l'information
+utile pour l'humanité qui aidera les gens à vivre une vie meilleure. Si nous
+promettons de cacher cette information, si nous la gardons secrète, nous
+trahissons la mission de notre discipline. Et ceci, j'ai décidé de ne pas le
+faire.</p>
+
+<p>Mais en attendant, ma communauté s'était effondrée et c'était terribleÂ
;
+cela me mettait en mauvaise posture. Vous voyez, le système à temps partagé
+incompatible était obsolète parce que le PDP-10 était obsolète. Donc je ne
+pouvais plus travailler en tant que développeur de systèmes d'exploitation
+comme je l'avais fait. C'était conditionné à mon appartenance à la
+communauté qui utilisait ce logiciel pour l'améliorer. Cela n'était plus
+possible et cela m'amena à un dilemme moral. Qu'allais-je faire ? Parce que
+la possibilité la plus évidente impliquait de faire le contraire de ce que
+j'avais décidé. La possibilité la plus évidente était de m'adapter au
+changement du monde ; accepter le fait que les choses étaient différentes,
+que je n'avais qu'à abandonner ces principes et commencer à signer des
+accords de non-divulgation pour des systèmes d'exploitation privateurs, et
+probablement écrire des logiciels privateurs à mon tour. Mais j'ai réalisé
+que, même si de cette façon j'avais un moyen de m'amuser à coder et de
+gagner de l'argent en même temps, surtout si je faisais ça ailleurs qu'au
+MIT, à la fin j'aurais dû me retourner sur ma carrière et dire : « J'ai
+passé ma vie à construire des murs pour diviser les gens. » Et j'aurais eu
+honte de ma vie.</p>
+
+<p>Alors j'ai cherché une alternative, et il y en avait une évidente : je
+pouvais quitter l'informatique et faire autre chose. Je n'avais aucun autre
+talent remarquable mais je suis sûr que j'aurais pu être serveur
+<i>[rires]</i>. Pas dans un restaurant chic, ils n'auraient pas voulu de moi
+<i>[rires]</i>, mais j'aurais pu être serveur quelque part. De nombreux
+programmeurs me disent : « Les employeurs exigent ceci, cela, si je ne le
+fais pas je mourrai de faim. » C'est le mot exact qu'ils utilisent. Bon,
+comme serveur je ne risquais pas de mourir de faim <i>[rires]</i>. En
+réalité, les programmeurs ne courent aucun danger. Et c'est important
+voyez-vous, car vous pouvez quelquefois vous justifier de faire quelque
+chose qui blesse autrui en disant « sinon quelque chose de pire va
+m'arriver ». Si vous êtes <em>vraiment</em> sur le point de crever de faim,
+vous pouvez vous justifier d'écrire du logiciel privateur <i>[rires]</i> ;
+et si quelqu'un vous menace d'une arme je dirais même que c'est pardonnable
+<i>[rires]</i>. Mais j'avais trouvé une façon de survivre sans enfreindre
+mon éthique, aussi cette excuse était-elle irrecevable. Cependant, je
+réalisais qu'être serveur ne serait pas drôle pour moi et que ce serait
+gâcher mes talents de programmeur. Je devais éviter de mal utiliser mes
+talents. Ãcrire des logiciels privateurs aurait été mal utiliser mes
+talents. Encourager les autres à vivre dans un monde de logiciels privateurs
+aurait signifié mal utiliser mes talents. Aussi valait-il mieux les gâcher
+que les utiliser à mauvais escient, mais ce n'était toujours pas la bonne
+solution.</p>
+
+<p>C'est pourquoi j'ai cherché une autre possibilité. Que pouvait faire un
+développeur de systèmes d'exploitation pour améliorer la situation, pour
+rendre le monde meilleur ? J'ai réalisé qu'un développeur de systèmes
+d'exploitation, c'était exactement ce qu'il fallait. Comme tous les autres,
+j'étais placé devant un problème, un dilemme, parce que tous les systèmes
+d'exploitation disponibles pour les ordinateurs modernes étaient
+privateurs. Les systèmes d'exploitation libres étaient pour de vieux
+ordinateurs obsolètes, n'est-ce pas ? Si vous vouliez un ordinateur moderne,
+vous étiez obligé d'adopter un système d'exploitation privateur. Cependant,
+si un développeur écrivait un autre système d'exploitation et disait «Â
Venez
+tous partager ceci, vous êtes les bienvenus », cela permettrait à chacun de
+sortir du dilemme, cela offrirait une alternative. Je me suis alors rendu
+compte que je pouvais faire quelque chose qui résoudrait le
+problème. J'avais les talents requis, c'était la chose la plus utile que je
+puisse faire de ma vie et c'était un problème que personne d'autre
+n'essayait de résoudre. J'étais assis là , de plus en plus mal dans ma peau,
+et j'étais seul. Alors un sentiment m'a envahi : « Je suis élu. C'est
+là -dessus que je dois travailler. Si ce n'est pas moi, qui d'autre ? » J'ai
+donc décidé de développer un système d'exploitation libre ou de
+mourir… de vieillesse, bien sûr <i>[rires]</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Il fallait évidemment décider quelle sorte de système d'exploitation ce
+serait, faire quelques choix techniques. J'ai décidé de rendre le système
+compatible avec Unix pour plusieurs raisons. La principale, c'est que je
+venais de voir un système que j'adorais devenir obsolète parce qu'il était
+écrit pour un type particulier d'ordinateur et je ne voulais pas que cela se
+reproduise. Nous avions besoin d'un système portable. Si je suivais le
+schéma d'Unix, j'avais toute chance de faire un système portable et
+utilisable. Mieux, [les deux systèmes devaient être] compatibles dans les
+moindres détails. Les utilisateurs détestent en effet les changements
+incompatibles. Si j'avais conçu le système de la façon que je préfère
â ce
+que j'aurais adoré, j'en suis sûr â j'aurais produit quelque chose
+d'incompatible. Les détails auraient été différents. Donc, si j'avais
conçu
+le système ainsi les gens m'auraient dit : « Bon, c'est très joli mais
c'est
+incompatible. Ãa nous demandera trop de travail de changer. Nous ne pouvons
+nous permettre tant d'efforts pour utiliser votre système à la place d'Unix,
+alors nous garderons Unix. » Voilà ce qu'ils auraient dit.</p>
+
+<p>Si je voulais créer une communauté où il y aurait des gens, des gens
+utilisant ce nouveau système et bénéficiant de la liberté et de la
+coopération, je devais faire un système que les gens utiliseraient, qu'ils
+trouveraient facile à adopter, qui ne serait pas en échec dès le
+départ. Rendre ce système rétrocompatible avec Unix revenait en fait Ã
+prendre les premières décisions concernant la conception du projet, parce
+qu'Unix consiste en de nombreux morceaux et qu'ils communiquent à travers
+des interfaces plus ou moins documentées. Alors si vous voulez être
+compatible avec Unix, il vous faut remplacer chaque morceau, l'un après
+l'autre, par un morceau compatible. Les décisions concernant la suite sont
+contenues dans chacun des morceaux. Elles peuvent donc être prises plus tard
+par quiconque décidera de l'écrire. Elles n'ont pas à être prises dès le
+départ.</p>
+
+<p>Tout ce que nous avions à faire pour commencer le travail était de trouver
+un nom pour le système. Nous, les hackers, cherchons toujours des noms
+drôles ou méchants pour un programme, parce que penser aux gens qui
+s'amusent du nom, c'est la moitié du plaisir de l'écriture <i>[rires].</i>
+Nous avions aussi une tradition d'acronymes récursifs consistant à dire que
+le programme créé est similaire à un programme existant. On peut lui donner
+un nom récursif disant que celui-ci n'est pas celui-là . Par exemple, il y
+avait beaucoup d'éditeurs de texte <acronym title="Text Editor and
+COrrector">TECO</acronym> dans les années 60 et 70 et ils étaient
+généralement appelés « quelque-chose-TECO ». à cette époque, un
hacker malin
+appela le sien TINT, pour <cite>Tint Is Not Teco</cite>, le premier acronyme
+récursif. En 1975, j'ai développé le premier éditeur de texte Emacs et il y
+eut de nombreuses imitations. Beaucoup s'appelaient quelque-chose-Emacs,
+mais l'une d'elles était nommée FINE<a id="TransNote2-rev"
+href="#TransNote2"><sup>2</sup></a> pour <cite>Fine is not
+Emacs</cite>. Puis il y eut SINE pour <cite>Sine is not Emacs</cite>, et
+EINE pour <cite>Eine Is Not Emacs</cite>, et il eut MINCE pour <cite>Mince
+Is Not Complete Emacs</cite> <i>[rires]</i>, c'était une imitation
+incomplète. Ensuite EINE fut complètement réécrit et la nouvelle version
+s'appela ZWEI pour <cite>Zwei Was Eine Initially</cite><a
+id="TransNote3-rev" href="#TransNote3"><sup>3</sup></a> <i>[rires]</i>.</p>
+
+<p>J'ai donc cherché un acronyme récursif pour <cite>Something is not
+Unix</cite> (quelque chose n'est pas Unix). J'ai essayé les 26 lettres mais
+aucune ne donnait un mot <i>[rires]</i>. Hum, essayons autre chose. J'ai
+fait une contraction. De cette façon, je pouvais avoir un acronyme de trois
+lettres pour <cite>Something's Not Unix</cite>. J'ai essayé des lettres et
+suis arrivé au mot <cite>GNU</cite> (gnou). C'est le plus drôle de la langue
+anglaise <i>[rires]</i>. C'était ça ! Bien sûr, la raison de cette
drôlerie
+vient du fait que, selon le dictionnaire, il doit se prononcer
+<cite>new</cite>.<a id="TransNote4-rev" href="#TransNote4"><sup>4</sup></a>
+Vous voyez ? C'est pourquoi les gens l'utilisent pour de nombreux jeux de
+mots. Laissez-moi vous dire que c'est le nom d'un animal d'Afrique. Et la
+prononciation africaine a un clic à l'intérieur <i>[rires]</i>. Les
+colonisateurs européens, quand ils arrivèrent là -bas, n'ont pas pris la
+peine d'apprendre à prononcer le clic. Alors ils l'ont laissé de côté et
ont
+mis un <em>g</em> qui signifiait : « Il y a un autre son qui est censé
être
+là mais que nous ne prononçons pas. » <i>[rires]</i> Ce soir, je pars pour
+l'Afrique du Sud et je leur ai demandé de me trouver quelqu'un qui puisse
+m'apprendre à prononcer les clics <i>[rires]</i>. Ainsi je saurai prononcer
+correctement <cite>GNU</cite> quand il s'agit de l'animal.</p>
+
+<p>Mais en ce qui concerne le nom de notre système la prononciation correcte
+est Gueu-nou, prononcez le <em>g</em> dur. Si vous parlez du <cite>new
+operating system</cite><a id="TransNote5-rev"
+href="#TransNote5"><sup>5</sup></a>, vous embrouillez l'esprit des gens,
+parce que cela fait 17Â ans que nous travaillons dessus et qu'il n'est plus
+du tout <cite>new</cite>Â ! Mais il est toujours et sera toujours GNUÂ ; peu
+importe le nombre de gens qui l'appellent Linux par erreur <i>[rires]</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Ainsi en janvier 84, je quitte mon job au MIT pour commencer à écrire des
+morceaux de GNU. Tout de même, ils ont été assez sympa pour me laisser
+utiliser leurs installations. à cette époque, je croyais que j'écrirais tous
+les morceaux du système GNU complet, que je dirais « Venez vous servir !Â
»
+et que les gens commenceraient à l'utiliser. Ce n'est pas comme ça que ça
+s'est passé. Les premiers morceaux que j'ai écrits étaient tout aussi bons
+que les originaux, avec moins de bogues, mais ils n'étaient pas terriblement
+excitants. Personne ne souhaitait particulièrement se les procurer pour les
+installer. Mais en septembre 84, j'ai commencé à écrire GNU Emacs, qui
était
+ma seconde implémentation d'Emacs, et début 85 il fonctionnait. Je pouvais
+l'utiliser pour mon travail d'édition, ce qui était un soulagement car je
+n'avais aucune intention d'utiliser VI, l'éditeur d'Unix
+<i>[rires]</i>. Avant cela, je faisais ce travail sur une autre machine et
+je sauvegardais les fichiers sur le réseau pour pouvoir les tester. Mais
+quand GNU Emacs a fonctionné assez bien pour que je puisse l'utiliser,
+d'autres personnes ont voulu l'utiliser également.</p>
+
+<p>J'ai dû travailler les détails de la distribution. Naturellement, j'ai mis
+une copie sur le FTP anonyme et c'était bien pour les gens qui étaient sur
+le net (ils pouvaient télécharger un fichier tar) mais beaucoup de
+programmeurs n'étaient pas sur le net en 85. Ils m'envoyaient des
+courriels : « Puis-je en avoir une copie ? » Je devais décider quoi leur
+répondre. J'aurais pu dire : « Je veux passer mon temps à écrire d'autres
+logiciels GNU plutôt qu'à enregistrer des bandes ; trouvez-vous un ami avec
+un accès au net qui vous le téléchargera et vous l'enregistrera sur bande.Â
»
+Et je suis sûr que les gens auraient trouvé ces amis tôt ou tard, vous
+savez. Ils auraient eu des copies. Mais, je n'avais pas de travail. En fait,
+je n'ai eu aucune profession depuis mon départ du MIT en 84. Je cherchais
+une façon de gagner de l'argent par mon travail sur le logiciel libre et
+donc j'ai fondé une entreprise de logiciel libre. J'ai annoncé :
+« Envoyez-moi 150 dollars et je vous posterai une bande d'Emacs. » Les
+commandes ont commencé à tomber et vers le milieu de l'année il en pleuvait
+régulièrement.</p>
+
+<p>Je recevais 8 Ã 10 commandes par mois. J'aurais pu au besoin en vivre,
parce
+que j'ai toujours vécu simplement. En gros, je vis comme un étudiant. Et
+j'aime ça car cela signifie que l'argent ne me dicte pas ce que je dois
+faire ; je peux faire ce qui me paraît important. Cela m'a libéré pour
faire
+ce qui semble en valoir la peine. Alors faites un effort pour éviter d'être
+englués dans les habitudes dispendieuses de l'<cite>American way of
+life</cite>, parce qu'autrement ceux qui possèdent l'argent vous dicteront
+quoi faire de votre vie et vous ne pourrez pas faire ce qui est réellement
+important pour vous.</p>
+
+<p>Tout allait bien, mais les gens me disaient : « Qu'entendez vous par
+<cite>free software</cite> si cela coûte 150 dollars ? » <i>[rires]</i> La
+raison de cette question était la confusion induite par l'ambiguïté du mot
+anglais <cite>free</cite>. Une des significations se réfère au prix et une
+autre se réfère à la liberté. Quand je parle de logiciel libre, je me
réfère
+à la liberté et non au prix. Pensez à « libre expression » <cite>[free
+speech]</cite>, pas à « bière gratuite » <cite>[free beer]</cite><a
+id="TransNote6-rev" href="#TransNote6"><sup>6</sup></a> <i>[rires]</i>. En
+tout cas je n'aurais pas passé autant d'années de ma vie pour faire gagner
+moins d'argent aux programmeurs. Ce n'est pas mon but. Je suis moi-même
+programmeur et je ne m'offusque pas de gagner de l'argent. Je ne passerais
+pas ma vie à en gagner mais je ne refuse pas d'en gagner. Et je ne suis pas
+â l'éthique est la même pour tous â je ne suis pas contre le fait qu'un
+autre programmeur en gagne. Je ne veux pas faire baisser les prix, ce n'est
+pas du tout le problème. L'enjeu, c'est la liberté, la liberté de chaque
+personne qui utilise un logiciel, qu'elle sache programmer ou non.</p>
+
+<p>à ce stade je dois vous donner une définition de ce qu'est le logiciel
+libre. Je préfère aller au concret car dire simplement « Je crois en la
+liberté » est vide de sens. Il y a tant de libertés différentes en
+lesquelles croire, et qui sont en conflit l'une avec l'autre, que la vraie
+question politique est : « Quelles sont les libertés importantes, celles
+dont on doit s'assurer que tout le monde les possède ? »</p>
+
+<p>Maintenant je vais vous donner ma réponse dans ce domaine particulier
qu'est
+l'usage du logiciel. Un programme est libre pour vous, utilisateur
+particulier, si vous bénéficiez des libertés suivantes :</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>d'abord, la liberté 0 : la liberté d'utiliser un logiciel pour
n'importe
+quel usage, à votre convenance ;</li>
+<li>la liberté 1 : la liberté de vous aider vous-même en modifiant le
programme
+pour répondre à vos besoins ;</li>
+<li>la liberté 2 : celle d'aider votre prochain en distribuant des copies du
+programme ;</li>
+<li>et la liberté 3 : celle d'aider à bâtir votre communauté en publiant
une
+version améliorée pour que les autres puissent bénéficier de votre
travail.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>Si vous avez toutes ces libertés, le programme est un logiciel
libre…
+<em>pour vous</em>, et c'est crucial, c'est pourquoi je le formule de cette
+façon. J'expliquerai pourquoi plus tard quand je parlerai de la licence
+publique générale GNU, mais pour le moment j'en suis à une question plus
+basique, la définition du logiciel libre.</p>
+
+<p>La liberté 0 est assez évidente. Si vous n'êtes même pas autorisé Ã
faire
+fonctionner le programme comme vous le souhaitez, c'est un programme
+sacrément restrictif ! La plupart des programmes vous donnent la liberté 0
+et la liberté 0 découle, juridiquement, des libertés 1, 2 et 3 ; c'est de
+cette façon que fonctionne le droit du copyright. Ainsi les libertés qui
+distinguent le logiciel libre du logiciel ordinaire sont les libertés 1, 2
+et 3 ; je vais donc en parler plus en détail et je dirai en quoi elles sont
+importantes.</p>
+
+<p>La liberté 1 est celle de modifier le logiciel pour l'adapter à vos
+besoins. Cela peut signifier corriger des bogues. Cela peut signifier
+ajouter de nouvelles fonctionnalités. Cela peut signifier porter le logiciel
+sur un autre système informatique. Cela peut signifier traduire tous les
+messages d'erreur en navajo. Vous devez pouvoir apporter toutes les
+modifications que vous voulez, librement.</p>
+
+<p>Il est évident que les programmeurs professionnels peuvent utiliser cette
+liberté de façon très effective, mais ils ne sont pas les seuls. N'importe
+quelle personne d'intelligence normale peut apprendre un peu de
+programmation. Vous savez, il y a des travaux difficiles et des travaux
+faciles. Tout le monde n'apprend pas suffisamment pour faire les travaux
+difficiles, mais beaucoup peuvent apprendre assez pour faire des travaux
+faciles, de la même façon qu'il y a 50 ans, beaucoup, vraiment beaucoup
+d'Américains apprenaient à réparer une voiture, ce qui a permis aux
+Ãtats-Unis d'avoir une armée motorisée pendant la seconde guerre mondiale et
+de gagner. Alors, chose très importante, avoir beaucoup de bricoleurs.</p>
+
+<p>Et si vous refusez d'apprendre la technologie, cela veut dire que vous avez
+probablement beaucoup d'amis et que vous êtes doué dans l'art de les obliger
+Ã vous rendre service <i>[rires]</i>. Certains d'entre eux sont probablement
+informaticiens. Alors vous pouvez demander à l'un de vos amis
+informaticiens : « Pourrais-tu changer ceci pour moi ? Ajouter cette
+fonction ? » Beaucoup de gens peuvent donc bénéficier de la libertéÂ
1.</p>
+
+<p>Si vous n'avez pas cette liberté, cela cause un préjudice pratique,
matériel
+à la société ; cela fait de vous un prisonnier de votre logiciel. J'ai
+expliqué comment c'était dans le cas de l'imprimante laser. Vous savez, elle
+marchait mal et nous ne pouvions la réparer parce que nous étions
+prisonniers de notre logiciel.</p>
+
+<p>Mais cela affecte aussi le moral des gens. Si l'ordinateur est constamment
+frustrant et qu'ils l'utilisent, leur vies vont devenir frustrantes. Et
+s'ils l'utilisent dans leur métier, leur métier va devenir frustrant ; ils
+vont détester leur métier. Vous savez, les gens se protègent de la
+frustration en décidant de s'en moquer. Ils en arrivent à dire : « Bon,
j'ai
+fait acte de présence au boulot, c'est tout ce que j'ai à faire. Si je ne
+peux pas progresser ce n'est pas mon affaire, c'est l'affaire du patron. »
+Et quand ça arrive, c'est mauvais pour eux et c'est mauvais pour la société
+toute entière. C'est la liberté 1, la liberté de s'aider soi-même.</p>
+
+<p>La liberté 2 est celle d'aider votre prochain en distribuant des copies du
+programme. Pour des êtres qui pensent et qui s'instruisent, partager un
+savoir utile est un acte fondamental d'amitié. Quand ces êtres utilisent des
+ordinateurs, cet acte d'amitié prend la forme d'un partage de logiciel. Les
+amis partagent entre eux, les amis s'aident mutuellement. C'est la nature de
+l'amitié. Et de fait, l'esprit d'entraide â la disposition à vouloir aider
+son prochain volontairement â est la ressource la plus importante de la
+société. Elle fait la différence entre une société vivable et une jungle
où
+chacun s'entredévore. Cette importance a été reconnue par les grandes
+religions du monde depuis des milliers d'années et elles essaient
+explicitement d'encourager cette attitude.</p>
+
+<p>Quand j'allais à la maternelle, les institutrices essayaient de nous
+apprendre cette attitude, l'esprit de partage, en nous la faisant
+pratiquer. Elles pensaient qu'on apprend en faisant. Alors elles disaient :
+« Si tu apportes des bonbons à l'école, tu ne peux pas tout garder pour
toi,
+tu dois les partager avec les autres enfants. » En nous éduquant, la
société
+a fait en sorte de nous apprendre cet esprit de coopération. Et pourquoi
+faut-il faire cela ? Parce que les gens ne sont pas totalement
+coopératifs. C'est un aspect de la nature humaine mais il y en a
+d'autres. Il y en a beaucoup. Alors, si vous voulez une société meilleure,
+vous devez travailler à encourager l'esprit de partage. Vous savez, ce ne
+sera jamais à 100%. Ãa se comprend, les gens doivent aussi prendre soin
+d'eux-mêmes. Mais si nous le rendons plus fort, nous nous en porterons tous
+mieux.</p>
+
+<p>De nos jours, selon le gouvernement des Ãtats-Unis, les enseignants sont
+censés faire exactement le contraire. « Oh Johnny, tu as apporté un
+programme à l'école ! Eh bien, ne le partage pas. Oh non ! Le partage c'est
+mal ; le partage, ça veut dire que tu es un pirate. »</p>
+
+<p>Qu'entendent-ils par le mot « pirate » ? Qu'aider son voisin est
+l'équivalent moral d'une attaque de bateau <i>[rires]</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Que diraient Jésus et Bouddha à ce sujet ? Prenez vos chefs religieux
+favoris. Je ne sais pas, peut-être Manson aurait dit quelque chose de
+différent <i>[rires]</i>. Qui sait ce que L. Ron Hubbard aurait dit,
+mais…</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : <i>[inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Bien sûr, il est mort. Mais il ne l'admettent
+pas. Quoi ?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Les autres aussi sont
+morts.. <i>[rires]</i>. Charles Manson aussi est mort <i>[rires]</i>. Ils
+sont morts, Jésus est mort, Bouddha est mort…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Oui, c'est vrai <i>[rires]</i>. De ce point de
+vue Ron Hubbard n'est pas pire que les autres <i>[rires]</i>. De toute
+façon… <i>[inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : L. Ron utilisait du logiciel libre ; ça l'a
+libéré de Zanu <i>[rires]</i>.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Bon, quoi qu'il en soit, je pense que c'est
+vraiment la raison la plus importante pour laquelle les logiciels doivent
+être libres. Nous ne pouvons nous permettre de polluer la ressource la plus
+importante de la société. C'est vrai que ce n'est pas une ressource physique
+comme l'air propre et l'eau propre. C'est une ressource psychosociale, mais
+c'est tout aussi réel et cela fait une formidable différence pour nos vies.
+Les actions que nous menons influencent les pensées des autres. Quand nous
+clamons alentour « Ne partagez pas avec les autres ! », s'ils nous
entendent
+nous avons eu un effet sur la société, et pas un bon effet. C'est la
+liberté 2, celle d'aider son voisin.</p>
+
+<p>Oh, j'oubliais, si vous n'avez pas cette liberté, cela ne cause pas
+seulement un préjudice à cette ressource psychosociale, c'est du gâchis
â un
+préjudice pratique, matériel. Si le programme a un propriétaire et que le
+propriétaire s'arrange pour que chaque utilisateur doive payer pour s'en
+servir, certaines personnes diront : « Pas d'importance, je m'en passerai.Â
»
+Et c'est du gâchis, du gâchis délibéré. Ce qui est intéressant avec les
+logiciels c'est que ce n'est pas parce que vous avez moins d'utilisateurs
+que vous devez en produire moins. Si moins de gens achètent des voitures,
+vous fabriquerez moins de voitures. Là il y a une économie. Il y a des
+ressources à allouer ou non à la fabrication des voitures. Aussi vous pouvez
+dire qu'avoir un prix pour une voiture est une bonne chose. Cela évite que
+les gens ne gaspillent leurs ressources dans l'achat de voitures dont ils
+n'ont pas vraiment besoin. Mais si fabriquer une voiture supplémentaire
+n'utilisait aucune ressource, on n'aurait aucun intérêt à économiser sur la
+fabrication des voitures. Ainsi, pour les objets physiques, comme les
+voitures, il faudra toujours des ressources pour en faire un de plus â pour
+chaque exemplaire supplémentaire.</p>
+
+<p>Mais pour les logiciels ce n'est pas vrai. N'importe qui peut en faire une
+copie, et c'est presque banal de le faire. Cela ne consomme aucune ressource
+sauf un tout petit peu d'électricité. Il n'y a rien à économiser ; aucune
+ressource ne serait mieux utilisée si nous appliquions cette désincitation
+financière à l'usage du logiciel. Vous trouvez souvent des gens qui prennent
+les conséquences d'un raisonnement économique valable pour les autres
+activités et prétendent les transposer au logiciel â où les prémisses
de ce
+raisonnement ne s'appliquent pas â tout en supposant que les résultats
+resteront valables, bien que l'argument n'ait aucune base dans le domaine du
+logiciel. Les prémisses ne marchent pas dans ce cas-là . C'est très important
+de voir comment on arrive à une conclusion et de quelles prémisses elle
+dépend pour voir si elle est valide. Donc, liberté 2, la liberté d'aider
son
+voisin.</p>
+
+<p>La liberté 3 est celle d'aider à bâtir votre communauté en publiant une
+version améliorée du logiciel. Au début les gens me disaient souvent : «Â
Si
+le logiciel est gratuit, personne ne sera payé, alors pourquoi
+travailler ? » Naturellement, ils confondaient les deux significations de
+<cite>free</cite>, donc leur raisonnement était basé sur un
+malentendu. Aujourd'hui nous pouvons comparer cette théorie avec les faits
+empiriques et constater que des centaines de gens sont payés pour faire du
+logiciel libre et que plus de 100 000 le font bénévolement. Il y a plein de
+gens qui font des logiciels libres pour différentes raisons.</p>
+
+<p>Quand j'ai publié le premier GNU Emacs â le premier morceau de GNU que
les
+gens ont réellement voulu utiliser â et qu'il a commencé à avoir des
+utilisateurs, après un certain temps j'ai eu un message disant : « Je pense
+que j'ai vu un bogue dans le code source et voici une solution. » Et j'ai eu
+un autre message : « Voici du code pour ajouter une nouvelle fonction. »
Et
+une nouvelle correction, et une nouvelle fonction. Et une autre, et une
+autre, jusqu'à ce qu'elles se déversent sur moi si vite qu'utiliser toute
+cette aide devenait un gros travail. Microsoft n'a pas ce problème
+<i>[rires]</i>.</p>
+
+<p>En fin de compte, des gens ont remarqué ce phénomène. Vous voyez, dans
les
+années 80, beaucoup parmi nous pensaient que le logiciel libre ne serait
+peut-être pas aussi bon que le non libre parce que nous n'aurions pas assez
+d'argent pour payer des gens. Et bien sûr, les gens qui comme moi accordent
+de la valeur à la communauté et à la liberté ont dit : « Nous
utiliserons
+des logiciels libres tout de même. » Cela vaut le coup de faire un petit
+sacrifice au niveau de la simple commodité technique pour avoir la
+liberté. Mais ce que les gens ont constaté vers 1990, c'est que nos
+logiciels étaient en fait meilleurs, qu'ils étaient plus puissants et plus
+fiables que les alternatives privatrices.</p>
+
+<p>Au début des années 90 quelqu'un a trouvé un moyen de mesurer
+scientifiquement la fiabilité d'un logiciel. Voilà ce qu'il a fait. Il a
+pris plusieurs logiciels qui faisaient les mêmes tâches, exactement les
+mêmes tâches, sur différents systèmes. Parce qu'il y a certains utilitaires
+de base sur tous les systèmes Unix. Et les tâches qu'ils effectuent, nous le
+savons, se ressemblent beaucoup, ou bien elles suivent les spécifications
+POSIX. Les logiciels étaient donc tous les mêmes en termes de tâche
+effectuée, mais ils étaient écrits et maintenus par des gens différents, et
+développés séparément ; leur code était différent. Le chercheur a
décidé
+d'introduire des données aléatoires dans ces programmes et de mesurer quand
+ils plantaient ou se bloquaient. Il a fait les mesures, et les programmes
+les plus fiables étaient les programmes GNU. Toutes les alternatives
+privatrices étaient moins fiables. Alors il a publié ça et l'a dit à tous
+les développeurs, et quelques années plus tard il a fait la même expérience
+avec les dernières versions et a obtenu le même résultat : les versions GNU
+étaient les plus fiables. Vous savez, il y a des cliniques pour le cancer et
+des services d'urgence <cite>[911]</cite> qui utilisent le système GNU parce
+qu'il est très fiable et que la fiabilité est très importante pour eux.</p>
+
+<p>Quoi qu'il en soit, il y a même un groupe de gens qui se concentrent sur
cet
+avantage particulier et en font la raison la plus importante pour que les
+utilisateurs puissent faire ces diverses choses et avoir ces libertés. Si
+vous m'avez écouté, vous aurez noté, vous aurez vu que lorsque je parle du
+mouvement du logiciel libre, je parle d'enjeux éthiques et du type de
+société où nous voulons vivre, de ce qui fait une bonne société, autant
que
+des avantages matériels. Les deux sont importants. C'est cela le mouvement
+du logiciel libre.</p>
+
+<p>Cet autre groupe de gens, qui est appelé mouvement open source, ne parle
que
+d'avantages pratiques. Ils refusent d'en faire une question de principe. Ils
+ne considèrent pas comme un droit que les gens aient la liberté de partager
+avec leur prochain, de voir ce que le programme fait et de le modifier s'il
+ne leur plaît pas. Ils disent cependant que c'est utile que les gens aient
+ces droits. Alors ils vont voir des entreprises et leur disent : « Vous
+savez, vous pourriez gagner plus d'argent si vous laissiez les gens faire
+tout ça. » Ainsi vous voyez que, jusqu'à un certain point, ils mènent les
+gens dans la même direction, mais pour des raisons philosophiques
+complètement, fondamentalement différentes.</p>
+
+<p>Parce que sur l'enjeu de fond, l'enjeu éthique, les deux mouvements ne sont
+pas d'accord. Dans le mouvement du logiciel libre on dit : « Vous avez droit
+à ces libertés ; personne ne doit vous empêcher de faire ces choses. »
Dans
+le mouvement open source on dit : « Oui, on peut vous les interdire mais
+nous allons essayer de les convaincre de daigner vous les laisser faire. »
+D'accord, ils ont apporté leur contribution, ils ont convaincu un certain
+nombre d'entreprises d'apporter des logiciels importants à la communauté du
+libre. Le mouvement open source a donc contribué à notre communauté de
+manière considérable. Nous travaillons ensemble sur des projets pratiques,
+mais philosophiquement il y a un désaccord énorme.</p>
+
+<p>Malheureusement, c'est le mouvement open source qui reçoit le plus d'aide
de
+l'industrie. Beaucoup d'articles sur notre travail le décrivent comme open
+source et beaucoup de gens pensent innocemment que nous faisons tous partie
+du mouvement open source. C'est pour cela que je mentionne cette
+distinction, je veux que vous soyez conscients que le mouvement du logiciel
+libre, qui a amené notre communauté à l'existence et développé le système
+d'exploitation libre, est toujours là , et que nous défendons toujours cette
+philosophie éthique. Je tiens à ce que vous le sachiez pour éviter que vous
+ne désinformiez quelqu'un d'autre sans vous en apercevoir.</p>
+
+<p>Mais c'est aussi pour que vous puissiez vous situer.</p>
+
+<p>Vous savez, c'est à vous de voir quel mouvement vous soutenez. Vous serez
+peut-être d'accord avec le mouvement du logiciel libre et avec mes
+vues. Vous serez peut-être d'accord avec le mouvement open source. Vous
+serez peut-être en désaccord avec les deux. C'est à vous de décider quelle
+est votre position sur ces enjeux politiques.</p>
+
+<p>Mais si vous êtes d'accord avec le mouvement du logiciel libre â si vous
+voyez qu'il y a là un enjeu, que les gens dont les vies sont contrôlées et
+dirigées par cette décision ont aussi leur mot à dire â alors j'espère
que
+vous exprimerez votre accord avec le mouvement du logiciel libre. Une façon
+de le faire est d'utiliser le terme « logiciel libre », ne serait-ce que
+pour aider les gens à savoir qu'il existe.</p>
+
+<p>La liberté 3 est donc très importante pratiquement et sur le plan
+psychosocial. Si vous n'avez pas cette liberté, cela cause un préjudice
+pratique et matériel parce que la communauté ne se développe pas et que nous
+ne pouvons pas faire de logiciels puissants et fiables. Mais cela cause
+aussi un préjudice psychosocial qui affecte l'esprit de coopération
+scientifique â l'idée que nous travaillons ensemble à l'avancement du
savoir
+humain. Vous savez, le progrès scientifique dépend de façon cruciale de la
+capacité des gens à travailler ensemble. Et pourtant, même de nos jours,
+vous voyez souvent chaque petit groupe de scientifiques agir comme s'il
+était en guerre avec chacun des autres gangs de scientifiques et
+d'ingénieurs. Et s'ils ne partagent pas les uns avec les autres, c'est un
+frein pour tous.</p>
+
+<p>Nous venons de voir les trois libertés qui distinguent le logiciel libre du
+logiciel ordinaire. La Liberté 1 est celle de s'aider soi même, d'apporter
+des changements en fonction de ses besoins propres. La liberté 2 est celle
+d'aider son prochain en distribuant des copies. Et la liberté 3 est la
+liberté d'aider à construire sa communauté en apportant des modifications et
+en les publiant à l'usage des autres. Si vous avez toutes ces libertés, ce
+logiciel est libre pour vous. Maintenant pourquoi est-ce que je définis cela
+en terme d'utilisateur particulier ? Est ce que c'est du logiciel libre pour
+vous (<i>en désignant un membre du public</i>) ? Est-ce que c'est du
+logiciel libre pour vous (<i>en désignant un autre membre du public</i>) ?
+Est-ce que c'est du logiciel libre pour vous (<i>en désignant encore un
+autre membre du public</i>) ? Oui ?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Pouvez-vous expliquer un peu la différence
entre
+les libertés 2 et 3 ?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Eh bien, elles sont certainement liées. Parce
+que si vous n'avez pas la liberté de redistribuer vous avez encore moins la
+liberté de distribuer une version modifiée. Mais ce sont des activités
+différentes.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Oh.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : La liberté 2 c'est, vous le savez, lisez-le,
que
+vous pouvez faire une copie exacte et la donner à vos amis de sorte que vos
+amis puissent l'utiliser. Ou bien vous faites des copies exactes et vous les
+vendez à tout un tas de gens pour qu'ils puissent les utiliser.</p>
+
+<p>La liberté 3, c'est quand vous apportez des améliorations ou du moins
quand
+vous pensez que c'est des améliorations et que d'autres personnes sont
+d'accord avec vous. Voilà , c'est cela la différence. Oh, j'oubliais un point
+essentiel. Les libertés 1 et 3 dépendent de l'accès au code source. Parce
+que modifier un programme binaire c'est extrêmement difficile <i>[rires]</i>
+â même des changements très insignifiants comme d'utiliser quatre chiffres
+pour la date <i>[rires]</i>, si vous n'avez pas le source. Aussi pour des
+raisons pratiques l'accès au code source est une condition préalable, un
+prérequis du logiciel libre.</p>
+
+<p>Pourquoi définir le logiciel libre comme logiciel libre <em>pour
vous</em>Â ?
+La raison en est que le même programme peut être libre pour certaines
+personnes et non libres pour d'autres. Cela pourrait sembler paradoxal, mais
+laissez-moi vous donnez un exemple de cette situation. Un très grand
+exemple, peut-être le plus grand exemple de ce problème, est le système
+X Window qui a été développé au MIT et publié sous une licence qui en a
fait
+un logiciel libre. Si vous aviez la version MIT avec la licence MIT, vous
+aviez les libertés 1, 2 et 3. C'était du logiciel libre pour vous. Mais
+parmi ceux qui avaient des copies, il y avait divers fabricants
+d'ordinateurs qui distribuaient des systèmes Unix. Ils ont fait les
+changements nécessaires pour que X fonctionne sur leurs systèmes ; vous
+savez, probablement quelques centaines de lignes sur les centaines de
+milliers de lignes de X. Ensuite ils l'ont compilé, ils ont placé les
+binaires dans leur système Unix et ils ont distribué le tout avec la même
+clause de non-divulgation. Alors des milliers de gens ont eu ces copies. Ils
+avaient le système X Window mais aucune de ces libertés. Ce n'était pas du
+logiciel libre <em>pour eux</em>.</p>
+
+<p>Il y avait donc un paradoxe : qu'X soit libre ou non dépendait de
l'endroit
+où l'on faisait la mesure. Si vous faisiez la mesure à la sortie du groupe
+de développeurs, vous disiez : « J'ai observé toutes ces libertés, c'est
du
+logiciel libre. » Si vous faisiez la mesure parmi les utilisateurs, vous
+disiez : « Hum, la plupart des utilisateurs n'ont pas ces libertés, ce
n'est
+pas du logiciel libre. » Les gens qui développaient X n'y voyaient aucun
+problème car leur principal souci était essentiellement la popularité,
+l'ego. Ils voulaient un grand succès professionnel. Ils voulaient pouvoir se
+dire : « Aah, un tas de gens utilisent nos logiciels ! » Et c'était
vrai, un
+tas de gens utilisaient leurs logiciels, mais ils n'avaient pas la
liberté.</p>
+
+<p>Au projet GNU en revanche, ce serait un échec si la même chose arrivait Ã
un
+logiciel GNU, car notre but n'est pas simplement d'être populaires. Notre
+but est de donner aux gens la liberté, d'encourager la coopération et de
+permettre aux gens de coopérer. Souvenez-vous, ne forcez jamais personne Ã
+coopérer mais faites en sorte que chacun(e) ait la permission de coopérer,
+que chacun(e) ait la liberté de le faire si il ou elle le souhaite. Si des
+millions de personnes utilisaient des versions non libres de GNU, ce ne
+serait pas du tout un succès, l'ensemble aurait été perverti et détourné
de
+son but.</p>
+
+<p>J'ai donc cherché un moyen d'empêcher que cela n'arrive. La méthode que
j'ai
+trouvée est appelée « copyleft ». Ãa s'appelle copyleft car c'est un peu
+comme prendre un copyright et le retourner <i>[rires]</i>. Juridiquement le
+copyleft fonctionne sur la base du copyright. Nous utilisons le droit du
+copyright tel qu'il existe, mais nous l'utilisons pour atteindre un but très
+différent. Voici ce que nous faisons. Nous disons : « Ce programme est sous
+copyright. » Et bien sûr, par défaut, cela signifie qu'il est interdit de
le
+copier, de le distribuer et de le modifier. Mais alors nous disons : « Vous
+êtes autorisé à en distribuer des copies. Vous êtes autorisé à le
+modifier. Vous êtes autorisé à en distribuer des copies modifiées et
+étendues. Changez-le comme vous le souhaitez. »</p>
+
+<p>Mais il y a une condition. Cette condition est évidemment la raison pour
+laquelle nous nous sommes donnés tout ce mal â pour pouvoir
+l'introduire. Cette condition dit : « Chaque fois que vous distribuez
+quelque chose qui contient un morceau de ce programme, vous devez distribuer
+le tout aux mêmes conditions, ni plus, ni moins. Vous pouvez donc modifier
+le programme et le distribuer, mais les gens qui l'auront reçu de vous
+bénéficieront de toute la liberté que vous avez reçue de nous. Pas
seulement
+pour certaines parties de ce programme â les extraits que vous avez prisÂ
â
+mais aussi pour tous les autres morceaux du programme qu'ils ont reçu de
+vous. L'intégralité de ce programme doit être libre pour eux. »</p>
+
+<p>Les libertés de redistribuer et de modifier le programme deviennent des
+droits inaliénables â un concept hérité de la Déclaration
d'indépendance<a
+id="TransNote7-rev" href="#TransNote7"><sup>7</sup></a>Â ; des droits dont
+nous nous assurons qu'ils ne peuvent vous être retirés. Et bien sûr la
+licence spécifique qui incarne l'idée du copyleft est la « licence publique
+générale GNU » (GNU <acronym title="General Public License">GPL</acronym>),
+une licence controversée car elle a la force de dire non à ceux qui
+voudraient parasiter notre communauté.</p>
+
+<p>Il y a beaucoup de gens qui n'apprécient pas nos idéaux de liberté. Ils
+seraient très contents de prendre le travail que nous avons fait, d'en faire
+une base pour la distribution de logiciel non libre et d'inciter les gens Ã
+abandonner leur liberté. Le résultat, si nous les laissions faire, serait
+que nous ne développerions des programmes libres que pour être constamment
+concurrencés par des versions améliorées de nos propres programmes. Ãa ne
+serait pas drôle.</p>
+
+<p>Et beaucoup de gens penseraient : « Je suis volontaire pour donner de mon
+temps afin de contribuer à ma communauté, mais pourquoi contribuer à un
+programme privateur de telle ou telle société ? » Vous savez, certaines
+personnes ne trouvent pas ça forcément mal, mais elles veulent être
+rétribuées si elles le font. Moi, je préférerais ne pas le faire du
tout.</p>
+
+<p>Mais les deux groupes de gens â ceux qui comme moi disent « Je ne veux
pas
+aider un programme non libre à prendre pied dans notre communauté » et ceux
+qui pensent « Je veux bien améliorer un programme non libre, mais ils ont
+intérêt à me payer » â ont une bonne raison d'utiliser la licence GPL.
Parce
+que cela dit à ces sociétés « Vous ne pouvez pas juste prendre mon travail
+et le redistribuer sans la liberté », ce que permettent les licences sans
+copyleft comme la licence de XÂ Windows.<a id="TransNote8-rev"
+href="#TransNote8"><sup>8</sup></a></p>
+
+<p>C'est ça la grande distinction entre les deux catégories de logiciel
libre ;
+elle porte sur la licence. Il y a les programmes placés sous copyleft afin
+que la licence défende la liberté du logiciel pour chaque utilisateur, et il
+y a les programmes sans copyleft, pour lesquels des versions non libres sont
+permises. Quelqu'un <em>a la possibilité</em> de prendre ces programmes et
+d'en ôter la liberté ; on peut donc les obtenir dans une version non
libre.</p>
+
+<p>Et ce problème persiste. Il existe encore des versions non libres de
+X Windows qui sont utilisées sur nos systèmes d'exploitation libres. Il y a
+même des matériels qui ne sont gérés que par des versions non libres et
+c'est un problème majeur dans notre communauté. Cependant, je ne dirais pas
+que X Windows soit une mauvaise chose ; je dirais que les développeurs n'ont
+pas fait du mieux qu'il pouvaient, mais ils ont <em>effectivement</em>
+publié une grande quantité de logiciel que nous pouvons tous utiliser.</p>
+
+<p>Il y a une grande différence entre imparfait et mauvais, vous savez. Il y a
+de nombreux degrés entre le bien et le mal. Nous devons résister à la
+tentation de dire : « Si vous n'avez pas fait absolument du mieux possible,
+vous ne valez rien. » Les gens qui ont développé X Windows ont fait une
+grande contribution à notre communauté, mais ils auraient pu mieux
+faire. Ils auraient pu mettre des morceaux du programme sous copyleft et
+cela aurait empêché ces versions non libres d'être distribuées par
d'autres.</p>
+
+<p>Cela dit, le fait que la GPL défende votre liberté â utilise le droit
du
+copyright pour défendre cette liberté â est la raison pour laquelle
+Microsoft l'attaque aujourd'hui. Voyez, Microsoft voudrait vraiment prendre
+tout ce code que nous avons écrit et le mettre dans des programmes
+privateurs. Faire ajouter quelques améliorations ou simplement des
+changements incompatibles par quelqu'un, cela suffirait. <i>[rires]</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Vous savez, avec leur puissance marketing, les gens de chez Microsoft n'ont
+pas vraiment besoin de faire une version meilleure pour nous supplanter. Ils
+ont juste besoin de la rendre différente et incompatible, et ensuite de la
+mettre sur le bureau de tout le monde. Donc ils n'aiment pas du tout la GPL,
+parce que la GNU GPL ne leur permet pas de le faire. Elle n'autorise pas la
+stratégie de la pieuvre <cite>[embrace and extend]</cite>. Elle dit : « Si
+vous voulez vous servir de notre code dans vos programmes, vous pouvez, mais
+vous devrez aussi partager, et partager à l'identique. Les changements que
+vous avez faits devront pouvoir être partagés. » C'est une coopération
dans
+les deux sens, une vraie coopération.</p>
+
+<p>Beaucoup d'entreprises, même de grosses sociétés comme IBM et HP, sont
+d'accord pour utiliser nos logiciels dans cet esprit. IBM et HP contribuent
+à de substantielles améliorations des logiciels GNU et développent d'autres
+logiciels libres. Mais Microsoft ne veut pas de ça. Ils prétendent que le
+business est incompatible avec la GPL. Eh bien, si le business n'inclut pas
+IBM, et HP, et SUN, peut-être qu'ils ont raison <i>[rires]</i>. J'en dirai
+plus ultérieurement sur le sujet.</p>
+
+<p>Je dois d'abord terminer l'exposé historique. En 1984 nous avons entrepris,
+non seulement d'écrire du logiciel libre, mais de faire quelque chose de
+plus cohérent : développer un système d'exploitation libre qui ne comprenne
+que des logiciels libres. Cela signifiait que nous devions l'écrire morceau
+par morceau. Bien sûr, nous cherchions en permanence des raccourcis. C'était
+un tel travail que les gens disaient que nous ne pourrions pas y arriver. Je
+pensais qu'il y avait tout de même une chance mais que ça valait la peine
+d'essayer des raccourcis. Alors nous avons continué à chercher. Y a-t-il un
+programme déjà écrit que nous pouvons adapter et intégrer, de sorte qu'il
+n'ait pas à être réécrit en entier ? Par exemple le système X Window.
C'est
+vrai qu'il n'était pas sous copyleft, mais il était libre et donc nous
+pouvions l'utiliser.</p>
+
+<p>En fait j'ai toujours voulu inclure un système de fenêtrage. J'en avais
+écrit deux quand j'étais au MIT, avant de commencer GNU. C'est pourquoi,
+bien qu'en 1984 Unix n'ait pas été doté d'un système de fenêtrage, j'ai
+décidé que GNU en aurait un. Mais nous n'avons jamais eu l'occasion de
+l'écrire car X Window est arrivé et j'ai dit : « Super ! Un gros
travail que
+nous n'aurons pas à faire. Utilisons X et nous ferons marcher les autres
+morceaux de GNU avec X le moment venu. » Nous avons aussi trouvé d'autres
+logiciels qui avaient été écrits par d'autres personnes, comme le formateur
+de texte TeX et une bibliothèque provenant de Berkeley. En ce temps-là il y
+avait l'Unix de Berkeley, mais ce n'était pas un logiciel libre. Cette
+bibliothèque venait d'un autre groupe de Berkeley, qui faisait des
+recherches sur la virgule flottante. Nous avons donc agencé ces morceaux.</p>
+
+<p>En octobre 85, nous avons fondé la <cite>Free Software Foundation</cite>
+(Fondation pour le logiciel libre). Veuillez donc noter que le projet GNU
+est venu avant. La FSF est venue après, presque deux ans après l'annonce du
+projet. La FSF est une fondation à but non lucratif qui lève des fonds pour
+promouvoir la liberté de partager et modifier les logiciels. Dans les
+années 80, une des choses principales que nous avons faites avec nos fonds
+fut de recruter des gens pour écrire des morceaux de GNU. Des programmes
+essentiels comme le shell et la bibliothèque C ont été écrits comme cela,
+ainsi que des parties d'autres programmes. Le programme <code>tar</code>,
+qui est absolument essentiel bien que pas du tout passionnant, fut écrit
+comme ça <i>[rires]</i>. Je crois que GNU grep a été écrit comme ça
+également. Si bien que nous approchions du but.</p>
+
+<p>Vers 1991, il ne manquait plus qu'un morceau essentiel, le noyau. Pourquoi
+ai-je tardé à m'occuper du noyau ? Probablement parce que l'ordre dans
+lequel vous mettez les choses n'a pas d'importance, du moins
+techniquement. Il faut tout faire de toute façon. Et aussi parce que nous
+pensions trouver un début de noyau ailleurs. C'est ce qui s'est passé. Nous
+avons trouvé Mach qui avait été développé à Carnegie-Mellon. Ce n'était
pas
+le noyau complet mais sa moitié inférieure, son socle. Il nous fallait
+écrire la partie supérieure, des choses comme le système de fichiers, le
+code réseau, etc. Fonctionnant au-dessus de Mach comme programmes
+utilisateur, ils étaient en principe plus faciles à déboguer. On pouvait
+utiliser un vrai débogueur de code source qui s'exécutait en même temps. Je
+pensais qu'ainsi nous serions capables de faire cette partie supérieure en
+peu de temps. Mais cela n'a pas marché comme prévu. Ces processus
+asynchrones et <cite>multi-threads</cite>, s'envoyant des messages les uns
+aux autres, se sont révélés très difficiles à déboguer et le système
basé
+sur Mach, sur lequel nous démarrions, possédait un environnement de débogage
+calamiteux. Il n'était pas fiable et avait divers problèmes. Cela nous a
+pris des années et des années pour faire fonctionner le noyau GNU.</p>
+
+<p>Mais heureusement notre communauté n'a pas eu à attendre le noyau GNU,
parce
+qu'en 1991 Linus Torvalds développa un autre noyau libre appelé Linux. Il
+utilisait le vieux schéma du noyau monolithique et il se trouve qu'il
+réussit à le faire marcher beaucoup plus vite que nous le nôtre. C'est
+probablement une erreur que j'ai faite, le choix de cette architecture. De
+toute façon, au début on ne savait rien de Linux car il ne nous a jamais
+contacté pour en parler bien qu'il ait été au courant du projet GNU. Mais il
+l'a annoncé à d'autres gens et à d'autres endroits sur le net. Alors
+d'autres gens ont fait le travail de combiner Linux avec le reste du système
+GNU pour en faire un système d'exploitation libre complet ; essentiellement
+pour faire la combinaison GNU plus Linux.</p>
+
+<p>Toutefois ils l'ont fait sans s'en rendre compte. « Vous voyez, »
+disaient-ils, « nous avons un noyau. Allons à la recherche de morceaux qui
+puissent s'assembler avec lui. » Alors ils ont regardé partout, et
+surprise… tout ce dont ils avaient besoin était disponible ! «Â
Quelle
+bonne fortune, » dirent-ils, <i>[rires]</i> « tout est là . Il y a tout ce
+dont nous avons besoin. Prenons simplement tous ces morceaux et mettons-les
+ensemble, ainsi nous aurons un système complet. »</p>
+
+<p>Ils ne savaient pas que la plus grande partie de ce qu'ils trouvaient,
+c'était des morceaux du système GNU. Ils n'ont pas compris qu'ils plaçaient
+Linux dans le dernier trou du système GNU. Ils pensaient qu'ils prenaient
+Linux et qu'ils en faisaient un système. Alors ils l'ont appelé « système
+Linux ».</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : <i>[inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Vous entends pas… Quoi ?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : <i>[inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Bien je crois que ce n'est pas vraiment…
+C'est provincial, vous savez.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Mais c'est plus une bonne fortune que de
trouver
+X et Mach ?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Exact. La différence, c'est que les gens qui
ont
+développé X et Mach n'avaient pas pour but de faire un système
+d'exploitation libre complet. Nous étions les seuls à avoir ce but et c'est
+notre travail acharné qui a fait que le système existe. Nous avons en
+réalité fait plus de travail que n'importe quel autre projet. Ce n'est pas
+une coïncidence car ces gens… ils ont écrit des parties utiles du
+système, mais ne l'ont pas fait parce qu'ils voulaient finir le système. Ils
+avaient d'autres raisons.</p>
+
+<p>Les gens qui ont développé X pensaient que de mettre au point un système
de
+fenêtrage sur le réseau serait une bonne chose, et ça l'était. Et il se
+trouve que cela nous a aidé à faire un bon système d'exploitation
+libre. Mais ils n'y pensaient même pas ; c'était un accident, un bonus
+fortuit. Je ne dis pas que ce qu'ils ont fait était mauvais, ils ont fait un
+grand projet libre. C'est une bonne chose, mais ils n'avaient pas la vision
+ultime. C'est le projet GNU qui avait cette vision.</p>
+
+<p>Et donc, nous sommes ceux… tous les morceaux qui n'ont pas été
faits
+par d'autres, nous les avons faits. Sinon nous n'aurions pas eu un système
+complet. Même quand ils étaient parfaitement fastidieux et pas du tout
+romantiques comme <code>tar</code> ou <code>mv</code> <i>[rires]</i>, nous
+les avons fait. Ou <code>ld</code> ; vous savez, il n'y a rien de très
+passionnant dans <code>ld</code>, mais j'en ai fait un <i>[rires]</i>, et je
+me suis donné du mal pour qu'il utilise un minimum d'entrées-sorties sur
+disque afin qu'il soit plus rapide et qu'il gère de plus gros
+programmes. Vous voyez, j'aime bien faire du bon boulot, j'aime bien
+améliorer différentes choses du programme pendant que je le réalise. Mais la
+raison pour laquelle je l'ai fait n'est pas que j'avais des idées brillantes
+pour un meilleur <code>ld</code>. La raison était que j'avais besoin d'un
+<code>ld</code> qui soit libre. Et nous ne pouvions attendre de personne
+d'autre qu'il le fasse. Il nous fallait donc le faire ou trouver quelqu'un
+pour le faire.</p>
+
+<p>Aussi, bien qu'à ce stade des milliers de gens impliqués dans différents
+projets aient contribué à ce système, il doit son existence à un seul
+projet, qui est le projet GNU. <em>C'est</em> fondamentalement le système
+GNU, avec d'autres choses ajoutées par la suite.</p>
+
+<p>Quoi qu'il en soit, le fait d'appeler ce système Linux a fait du mal au
+projet GNU car d'habitude nous ne sommes pas reconnus pour le travail que
+nous avons fait. Je pense que Linux, le noyau, est un logiciel libre très
+utile et je n'ai que de bonnes choses à en dire. Bon, en fait, je pourrais
+trouver un peu de mal à en dire <i>[rires]</i>, mais pour l'essentiel j'en
+dis du bien. Toutefois, appeler le système GNU « Linux » est juste une
+erreur. Je vous demanderai de faire le petit effort nécessaire pour appeler
+ce système « GNU/Linux », et de cette façon nous aider à en partager le
+crédit.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Vous avez besoin d'une mascotte ! Trouvez-vous
+un animal en peluche ! <i>[rires]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Nous en avons un.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Ah bon ?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Nous avons un animal : un gnou
+<i>[rires]</i>. Alors, oui, lorsque vous dessinez un manchot, dessinez un
+gnou à côté <i>[rires]</i>. Mais gardons les questions pour la fin. Je dois
+encore avancer.</p>
+
+<p>Pourquoi est-ce que je me préoccupe tant de cela ? Pourquoi est-ce que je
+pense que cela vaut la peine de vous ennuyer et peut-être de vous donner une
+piètre opinion de moi-même <i>[rires]</i> pour poser le problème de la
+reconnaissance ? Parce que certaines personnes, quand je parle de ça,
+certaines personnes pensent que je le fais pour nourrir mon ego. Bien sûr,
+je ne vous demande pas de l'appeler « Stallmanix », n'est ce pas ?
<i>[rires
+et applaudissements]</i></p>
+
+<p>Je vous demande de l'appeler GNU parce que je veux que le projet GNU en ait
+le crédit. Il y a une raison très particulière, beaucoup plus importante que
+le simple fait d'être reconnu. Vous voyez, de nos jours â regardez autour
de
+vous dans notre communauté â la plupart des gens qui en parlent ou
écrivent
+à son sujet ne mentionnent même pas GNU, ni ses objectifs de liberté, ni
+d'ailleurs ses idéaux politiques et sociétaux. Parce que c'est de GNU que
+tout cela provient.</p>
+
+<p>Les idées associées à Linux… leur philosophie est très
+différente. C'est fondamentalement la philosophie apolitique de Linus
+Torvalds. Ainsi quand les gens pensent que l'ensemble du système est Linux,
+ils tendent à penser : « Oh, c'est Linus Torvalds qui a dû mettre tout
ça en
+route. C'est sa philosophie que nous devons examiner attentivement. » Et
+quand ils entendent parler de la philosophie GNU ils disent : « Mon Dieu,
+que c'est idéaliste ! Cela semble bien peu réaliste. Je suis un utilisateur
+de Linux, pas de GNU. » <i>[rires]</i></p>
+
+<p>Quelle ironie ! Si seulement ils savaient ! S'ils savaient que le système
+qu'ils apprécient et dans certains cas aiment à la folie, c'est notre
+philosophie politique idéaliste devenue réalité.</p>
+
+<p>Ce n'est pas qu'ils devraient être d'accord avec nous, mais au moins ils
+verraient une raison de la prendre un peu au sérieux, de l'examiner
+attentivement, de lui donner une chance. Ils verraient comme c'est lié Ã
+leur vie. Vous savez, s'ils se disaient « J'utilise le système GNU, voici la
+philosophie GNU, c'est <em>grâce à cette philosophie</em> que le système que
+j'apprécie existe », ils la considéreraient avec un esprit beaucoup plus
+ouvert. Ãa ne veut pas dire que tout le monde serait d'accord. Chacun a ses
+idées. C'est bien, Les gens doivent se faire leur propre opinion. Mais je
+veux que cette philosophie soit créditée des résultats qu'elle a
obtenus.</p>
+
+<p>Si vous regardez autour de vous dans notre communauté, vous verrez que
+presque partout les institutions appellent notre système Linux. Les
+journalistes l'appellent le plus souvent Linux. Ce n'est pas juste mais ils
+le font. Les entreprises qui mettent le système sous forme de paquets
+installables le font la plupart du temps. La plupart de ces journalistes,
+quand ils écrivent des articles, ne l'envisagent pas comme un sujet
+politique ni un sujet de société. Ils l'envisagent habituellement du point
+de vue économique ou s'intéressent au succès plus ou moins grand des
+entreprises, ce qui est une question mineure pour la société. Et si vous
+regardez les entreprises qui empaquettent le système GNU/Linux pour les
+utilisateurs, la plupart d'entre elles l'appellent Linux et elles y ajoutent
+<em>toutes</em> des logiciels non libres.</p>
+
+<p>Voyez, la GNU GPL stipule que si vous prenez du code d'un programme sous GPL
+et que vous lui ajoutez du code pour en faire un programme plus grand,
+l'ensemble de ce programme devra être publié sous GPL. Mais vous pourriez
+mettre d'autres programmes séparés sur le même disque (soit disque dur, soit
+CD) et ils pourraient être sous d'autres licences ; c'est considéré comme
+une simple agrégation. Pour l'essentiel, nous n'avons rien à redire au fait
+de simplement distribuer deux programmes à quelqu'un en même temps. Donc, en
+fait ce n'est pas vrai â j'aimerais quelquefois que ça soit vrai â que
si
+une entreprise utilise un programme sous GPL dans un produit, l'ensemble du
+produit doive être du logiciel libre. Ãa ne va pas jusque là . Il s'agit de
+l'ensemble du <em>programme</em>. S'il y a deux programmes séparés qui
+communiquent l'un avec l'autre à bout de bras, par exemple en s'envoyant des
+messages, ils sont en général juridiquement séparés. Ainsi ces entreprises,
+en ajoutant des logiciels non libres au système, donnent aux utilisateurs
+une très mauvaise idée, philosophiquement et politiquement. Elles disent aux
+utilisateurs : « C'est bien d'utiliser des logiciels non libres. Nous les
+ajoutons même en prime. »</p>
+
+<p>Si vous regardez les magazines sur l'utilisation du système GNU/Linux, la
+plupart ont un titre comme « Linux ceci » ou « Linux cela ». Ainsi la
+plupart du temps, ils appellent le système « Linux ». Et ils sont remplis
de
+publicités pour des programmes non libres que vous pouvez faire fonctionner
+sur le système GNU/Linux. Ces publicités ont un message commun : « Le
+logiciel non libre est bon pour vous, tellement bon que vous pourriez même
+<em>payer</em> pour l'avoir. » <i>[rires]</i></p>
+
+<p>Ils donnent à ces choses le nom de « paquets à valeur ajoutée », ce
qui en
+dit long sur leurs valeurs. Ils disent : « Accordez de la valeur au côté
+pratique, pas à la liberté. » Je n'adhère pas à ces valeurs, aussi je les
+appelle « paquets à liberté soustraite » <i>[rires]</i>. Parce que si
vous
+avez installé un système d'exploitation libre, vous vivez maintenant dans le
+monde du libre. Vous bénéficiez de la liberté que nous avons travaillé
+pendant tant d'années à vous donner. Ces paquets vous donnent l'occasion de
+vous attacher à une chaîne.</p>
+
+<p>Si vous regardez les expositions commerciales autour du système GNU/Linux,
+elles s'appellent toutes « Linux »-expo. Et elles sont remplies de stands
+exposant des logiciels non libres, donnant le sceau de l'approbation à du
+logiciel non libre. Ainsi, où que vous regardiez dans notre communauté, Ã
+peu de choses près, les institutions renforcent le logiciel non libre, niant
+totalement l'idée de liberté pour laquelle GNU a été développé. La seule
+occasion qu'ont les gens de rencontrer l'idée de liberté est la référence
Ã
+GNU et l'utilisation du terme « logiciel libre ». C'est pourquoi je vous
+demande d'appeler le système « GNU/Linux ». S'il vous plaît, faites
prendre
+conscience aux gens de l'origine et de la raison d'être du système.</p>
+
+<p>Bien sûr, en utilisant simplement ce nom vous ne donnerez pas une
+explication historique. Vous pouvez taper quatre lettres supplémentaires et
+écrire « GNU/Linux ». Vous pouvez dire deux syllabes de plus. GNU/Linux,
+c'est moins de syllabes que Windows 2000 <i>[rires]</i>. Vous n'en dites pas
+vraiment beaucoup mais vous les préparez pour le jour où ils entendront
+parler de GNU et de ce qu'il représente. Ils verront alors comment ça se
+rattache à leur vie. Et cela, indirectement, fait une différence
+énorme. Alors s'il vous plaît, aidez-nous.</p>
+
+<p>Vous noterez que Microsoft qualifie la GPL de « licence open source ».
Ils
+ne veulent pas que les gens pensent en termes de liberté. Ils incitent les
+gens à penser étroitement, en tant que consommateurs (et en plus pas très
+rationnels, comme consommateurs, s'ils choisissent les produits
+Microsoft). Mais ils ne veulent pas que les gens pensent en tant que
+citoyens ou hommes d'Ãtat. Ãa leur est défavorable, du moins c'est
+défavorable à leur modèle économique actuel.</p>
+
+<p>Je peux vous expliquer comment le logiciel libre est lié à notre
société. Un
+sujet secondaire, qui pourrait intéresser certains d'entre vous, c'est son
+rapport à l'économie. En réalité, le logiciel libre est
<em>extrêmement</em>
+utile à l'économie. Après tout, la plupart des entreprises utilisent du
+logiciel dans les pays avancés mais seule une minuscule fraction en
+développe.</p>
+
+<p>Le logiciel libre offre un avantage considérable à toute entreprise qui
+utilise des logiciels car cela veut dire que c'est elle qui en a le
+contrôle. En gros, un logiciel est libre si l'utilisateur a le contrôle de
+ce que fait le programme, soit individuellement soit collectivement, Ã
+condition de s'y intéresser suffisamment. N'importe quelle personne qui s'y
+intéresse peut exercer quelque influence. Si cela ne vous intéresse pas,
+vous n'achetez pas, alors vous utilisez ce que d'autres préfèrent. Mais si
+vous vous y intéressez, alors vous avez votre mot à dire. Avec les logiciels
+privateurs, pour l'essentiel, vous n'avez rien à dire. </p>
+
+<p>Avec le logiciel libre vous pouvez modifier ce que vous voulez. Et peu
+importe qu'il n'y ait pas de programmeur dans votre entreprise, ça marche
+quand même. Vous savez, si vous voulez bouger les cloisons de votre
+appartement, vous n'avez pas besoin d'être une entreprise de maçonnerie,
+vous n'avez qu'à trouver un maçon et lui demander « Combien prenez-vous
pour
+faire ce travail ? » Et si vous voulez changer les logiciels que vous
+utilisez vous n'avez pas besoin d'être une entreprise d'informatique, il
+vous suffit d'aller dans une entreprise d'informatique et de leur dire :
+« Combien demandez-vous pour mettre en Åuvre ces fonctionnalités ? Et pour
+quand pouvez-vous le faire ? » Et si la réponse ne vous convient pas, vous
+allez voir quelqu'un d'autre.</p>
+
+<p>Il y a un marché libre pour le service. Alors une entreprise qui
s'intéresse
+au service trouvera un avantage énorme dans le logiciel libre. Dans le
+logiciel privateur, le service est un monopole. Parce qu'une seule société
+possède le code source, ou peut-être quelques sociétés qui ont payé des
+sommes faramineuses, si c'est un <cite>shared source</cite> de
+Microsoft. Mais elles sont très peu nombreuses. Par conséquent vous n'avez
+pas mille prestataires de service à votre disposition. Cela veut dire, sauf
+si vous êtes un géant, qu'ils n'en ont rien à faire de vous. Votre
+entreprise n'est pas assez importante pour qu'ils tiennent à vous avoir
+comme client. Une fois que vous utilisez le programme, vous êtes obligé de
+passer par eux pour l'assistance, parce que migrer vers un autre logiciel
+est un travail énorme. Alors vous finissez par payer pour avoir le privilège
+de signaler un bogue <i>[rires]</i>. Et une fois que vous avez payé ils vous
+disent : « OK, nous avons noté le bogue. Dans quelques mois vous pourrez
+acheter une mise à jour et vous verrez si nous l'avons réparé. »
+<i>[rires]</i></p>
+
+<p>Les sociétés de service dans le logiciel libre ne peuvent pas s'en tirer
+comme ça. Elles doivent satisfaire les consommateurs. Bien sûr vous pouvez
+avoir beaucoup d'assistance gratis. Vous posez votre problème sur Internet
+et vous pouvez recevoir une réponse le lendemain. Mais ça n'est bien sûr pas
+garanti. Si vous voulez être sûr, vous avez intérêt à conclure un accord
+avec une société et à la payer. Et c'est naturellement l'une des façons
dont
+l'économie du logiciel libre fonctionne.</p>
+
+<p>Un des autres avantages du logiciel libre pour les entreprises, c'est la
+sécurité et la protection de la vie privée (cela s'applique aussi aux
+particuliers, mais je me suis placé dans le contexte des entreprises). Quand
+un programme est privateur, vous voyez, on ne peut pas dire ce qu'il fait
+vraiment.</p>
+
+<p>Il pourrait avoir des fonctionnalités, implantées délibérément, que
vous
+n'aimeriez pas si vous étiez au courant de leur existence. Par exemple il
+pourrait avoir une « porte dérobée » <cite>[backdoor]</cite> pour
laisser le
+développeur rentrer dans votre machine. Elle pourrait vous espionner et lui
+renvoyer des informations. Ce n'est pas inhabituel. Certains programmes de
+Microsoft le faisaient, mais pas seulement ceux de Microsoft. Il y a
+d'autres programmes privateurs qui espionnent l'utilisateur et vous ne
+pouvez même pas le savoir. Et, bien sûr, à supposer même que le
développeur
+soit parfaitement honnête, tout programmeur peut commettre des erreurs. Il
+pourrait y avoir des bogues qui affectent votre sécurité, ce qui n'est la
+faute de personne. Mais le point important est que si ce n'est pas du
+logiciel libre, vous ne pouvez pas trouver les erreurs ni les réparer.</p>
+
+<p>Personne n'a le temps de vérifier le code source de chaque programme qu'il
+utilise. Ce n'est pas vous qui allez le faire. Mais, avec les logiciels
+libres il y a une grande communauté. Dans cette communauté il y a des gens
+qui vérifient et vous bénéficiez de leurs vérifications, parce que s'il y a
+un bogue accidentel (et il y en a de temps en temps dans n'importe quel
+programme), ils pourront le trouver et le corriger. Il est donc peu probable
+que quelqu'un place délibérément un cheval de Troie ou une fonction
+d'espionnage dans le programme s'il pense qu'il peut être découvert. Les
+développeurs de logiciel privateur pensent qu'ils ne seront pas pris, que
+cela passera sans être détecté. Mais un développeur du libre devra se dire
+que les gens rechercheront ce genre de chose et le trouveront. De même, dans
+notre communauté nous ne pouvons pas faire avaler aux utilisateurs une
+fonction qu'ils n'aimeraient pas, car nous savons que s'ils ne l'aiment pas
+ils feront une version modifiée sans cette fonction, puis ils se mettront
+tous à utiliser la version modifiée.</p>
+
+<p>En fait nous sommes tous capables de réfléchir et de nous projeter
+suffisamment pour ne pas introduire cette fonction. Après tout, si vous
+écrivez un programme libre, vous voulez que les gens apprécient votre
+version. Vous ne voulez pas y mettre quelque chose que les gens vont
+détester et voir une version modifiée prendre le dessus. Vous comprenez que
+l'utilisateur est roi, dans le monde du libre. Dans le monde privateur par
+contre, l'utilisateur <em>n'est pas</em> roi. Il n'est qu'un consommateur,
+il n'a pas son mot à dire sur le logiciel qu'il utilise.</p>
+
+<p>De ce point de vue, le logiciel libre est un nouveau mécanisme
+démocratique. Le professeur Lessig, qui est maintenant à Stanford, a
+remarqué que le code fonctionne comme une sorte de loi. Celui qui écrit un
+code dont presque tout le monde se sert à toutes fins utiles écrit les lois
+qui régissent la vie des gens. Avec le logiciel libre, ces lois sont écrites
+d'une façon démocratique. Pas comme la démocratie traditionnelle â il
n'y a
+pas de grand référendum où l'on demande : « Comment voulez-vous
implémenter
+cette nouvelle fonctionnalité ? » <i>[rires]</i> à la place nous disons :
+« Que ceux qui veulent travailler à mettre en Åuvre telle fonctionnalité,
de
+telle façon, le fassent ; et si vous voulez le faire autrement, allez-y. »
+Et cela se fait d'une manière ou d'une autre. Si beaucoup de gens veulent le
+faire de cette façon, c'est comme cela que ça se fait. Ainsi, tout le monde
+contribue à la décision de la société simplement en avançant dans la
+direction où l'on veut aller.</p>
+
+<p>Et vous êtes, personnellement, libre d'aller aussi loin que vous voulez.
Une
+entreprise est libre d'avancer dans une direction autant qu'elle le veut.
+Après, vous additionnez toutes ces choses et cela donne la direction où va
+le logiciel.</p>
+
+<p>C'est souvent très utile de pouvoir prendre des morceaux d'un programme
+existant, de gros morceaux la plupart du temps, et ensuite d'écrire une
+certaine quantité de code de votre cru pour créer un programme qui fasse
+exactement ce dont vous avez besoin, et qui vous aurait coûté les yeux de la
+tête à développer vous-même de zéro si vous n'aviez pu cannibaliser de
gros
+morceaux d'un programme libre existant.</p>
+
+<p>Un autre résultat de la puissance de l'utilisateur, c'est que nous tendons
Ã
+être bons en matière de normalisation et de compatibilité. Pourquoi ? Parce
+que les utilisateurs aiment ça ! Les utilisateurs rejetteront
+vraisemblablement un programme qui est délibérément incompatible avec les
+autres. Cela dit, certains groupes d'utilisateurs ont besoin d'une certaine
+incompatibilité, et ils l'obtiennent ; c'est très bien. Mais quand le
+souhait des utilisateurs est de respecter une norme, nous les développeurs
+devons la respecter. Nous le savons et nous le faisons. Par contre, si vous
+regardez les développeurs de logiciel privateur, ils trouvent souvent
+avantage à <em>ne pas</em> respecter de norme, délibérément â pas parce
+qu'ils pensent que cela bénéficiera à l'utilisateur, mais plutôt pour
+s'imposer à lui, pour l'enfermer. Vous en trouverez même qui modifient leurs
+formats de fichiers de temps à autre, juste pour obliger les utilisateurs Ã
+se procurer la dernière version.</p>
+
+<p>Les archivistes ont un problème actuellement parce que des fichiers écrits
+sur ordinateur il y a des années ne sont plus accessibles. Ils ont été
+écrits avec des programmes privateurs qui sont maintenant perdus, ou tout
+comme. S'ils avaient été écrits avec des logiciels libres, ces programmes
+pourraient être mis à jour et fonctionner. Et ces choses, ces archives, ne
+seraient plus inaccessibles. Il y a eu des gens pour s'en plaindre sur NPR<a
+id="TransNote9-rev" href="#TransNote9"><sup>9</sup></a> récemment et pour
+citer le logiciel libre comme solution. Donc en réalité, en utilisant un
+logiciel privateur pour stocker vos données, vous mettez la tête dans un
+nÅud coulant.</p>
+
+<p>J'ai donc parlé de la façon dont le logiciel libre affecte la majeure
partie
+de l'économie. Mais comment affecte-t-il le domaine plus particulier de
+l'industrie du logiciel ? Eh bien, la réponse est : pratiquement pas. Et la
+raison, c'est que 90% de l'industrie du logiciel (d'après ce que j'entends
+dire) développe du logiciel sur mesure, du logiciel qui n'est pas destiné Ã
+la diffusion. Pour le logiciel sur mesure, la question éthique, libre ou
+privateur, ne se pose pas. Vous voyez, la question est de savoir si, en tant
+qu'utilisateur, vous pouvez modifier et redistribuer le logiciel. S'il n'y a
+qu'un utilisateur et qu'il a ces droits, il n'y a pas de problème. Cet
+utilisateur <em>est libre</em> de faire tout ça. Par conséquent un programme
+<em>sur mesure</em> qui a été développé par une entreprise pour usage
+interne est un logiciel libre, du moins s'ils ont assez de bon sens pour
+réclamer le code source avec tous les droits.</p>
+
+<p>Cet enjeu n'existe pas pour un logiciel embarqué dans une montre ou un four
+à microonde, ou dans le système d'allumage d'une voiture, parce que ce ne
+sont pas des endroits où l'on télécharge des logiciels pour les
+installer. Du point de vue de l'utilisateur, ce ne sont pas de vrais
+ordinateurs. Les questions éthiques ne les concernent pas suffisamment pour
+qu'ils soient un enjeu important. Donc, pour l'essentiel, l'industrie du
+logiciel continuera comme auparavant. Ce qui est intéressant c'est que, la
+plupart des emplois étant dans cette fraction de l'industrie, même s'il
+n'était pas possible d'avoir une économie du libre les développeurs de
+logiciel libre pourraient quand même trouver un emploi dans le sur mesure
+<i>[rires]</i>. Il y en a tellement, une si grande proportion !</p>
+
+<p>Mais il se trouve qu'il existe une industrie du logiciel libre. Il y a des
+entreprises de logiciel libre. à la conférence de presse que je vais faire,
+des représentants de quelques unes d'entre elles vont se joindre à nous. Et
+naturellement, il y a des sociétés qui <em>ne sont pas</em> des entreprises
+de logiciel libre mais qui néanmoins développent et publient des logiciels
+libres très utiles en quantité considérable.</p>
+
+<p>Comment travaille l'industrie du libre ? Eh bien, certains vendent des
+copies. On est libre de copier un programme mais ils arrivent quand même Ã
+vendre des centaines d'exemplaires par mois. Et d'autres vendent de
+l'assistance et des services variés. Personnellement dans les années 80,
+j'ai vendu de l'assistance sur les logiciels libres. En gros, pour 200Â $ de
+l'heure je changeais ce que vous vouliez dans les programmes GNU que j'avais
+écrits. Oui, c'était un tarif élevé, mais c'était pour des programmes que
+j'avais écrits et les gens pensaient que j'y passerais moins de temps
+<i>[rires]</i>. Et j'ai gagné ma vie avec ça. En fait, j'ai gagné plus que
+jamais auparavant. J'ai aussi enseigné. J'ai continué jusqu'en 1990 où j'ai
+obtenu une récompense importante ; alors je n'ai plus eu à le faire.</p>
+
+<p>C'est en 1990 que la première entreprise de logiciel libre a été formée,
+<cite>Cygnus Support</cite>. Leur travail était essentiellement le même que
+le mien. J'aurais certainement pu travailler pour eux si j'en avais eu
+besoin. Comme ce n'était pas le cas, j'ai pensé qu'il était bon pour le
+mouvement que je reste indépendant. De cette façon je pouvais dire du bien
+et du mal des différentes entreprises de logiciel, libre ou non, sans
+conflit d'intérêt. Je pensais que cela servirait mieux le mouvement. Mais si
+j'avais dû en vivre j'aurais travaillé pour eux. C'est un travail éthique,
+il n'y aurait eu aucune raison d'en avoir honte. Et cette société a été
+rentable dès la première année. Elle a été fondée avec très peu de
capital,
+juste l'argent de ses trois fondateurs. Elle a grossi chaque année et est
+restée rentable jusqu'à ce qu'ils soient trop cupides et cherchent des
+investisseurs extérieurs ; alors ils se sont plantés. Mais elle a eu
+plusieurs années de succès avant qu'ils ne soient trop gourmands.</p>
+
+<p>Cela illustre une des choses intéressantes sur le logiciel libre : on n'a
+pas besoin de lever du capital pour le développer. J'admets que c'est utile,
+que cela <em>peut</em> aider ; si vous levez du capital, vous pouvez
+recruter des gens et leur faire écrire un tas de logiciel. Mais vous pouvez
+faire beaucoup avec peu de gens. Et en fait, la formidable efficacité du
+processus de développement du logiciel libre est une des raisons pour
+lesquelles il est important que le monde passe au libre. De plus, cela
+démentit ce que dit Microsoft quand ils prétendent que la GNU GPL est
+mauvaise parce qu'elle leur rend difficile l'appel au capital pour
+développer du logiciel non libre â prendre notre logiciel libre puis mettre
+notre code dans leurs programmes qu'ils ne partageront pas avec nous. En
+réalité nous n'avons pas besoin qu'ils lèvent du capital de cette
+manière. Nous ferons le travail de toute façon. Nous sommes en train de le
+faire.</p>
+
+<p>Les gens disaient que nous ne pourrions jamais faire un système
+d'exploitation libre complet. Maintenant nous l'avons fait, et beaucoup plus
+encore. Je dirais que nous sommes à peu près à un ordre de grandeur de
+couvrir l'ensemble des besoins de la planète en développement de logiciels
+publiés d'usage courant, et ceci dans un monde où 90% des utilisateurs ne se
+servent pas encore de nos logiciels libres ; ceci dans un monde où â bien
+que ce soit dans certains secteurs de l'économie â plus de la moitié des
+serveurs web tournent sous GNU/Linux avec Apache.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : <i>[inaudible]</i> Qu'avez vous dit avant
+Linux ?…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : J'ai dit GNU/Linux.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Ah bon ?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Oui, si je parle du noyau je dis Linux. Comme
+vous savez, c'est son nom. Le noyau a été écrit par Linus Torvalds et nous
+devons l'appeler du nom qu'il a choisi, par respect pour l'auteur.</p>
+
+<p>Mais la plupart des utilisateurs professionnels ne s'en servent
généralement
+pas et la plupart des particuliers n'utilisent pas encore notre
+système. Lorsqu'ils l'utiliseront, nous devrions avoir automatiquement dix
+fois plus de bénévoles et dix fois plus de clients pour l'industrie du
+logiciel libre qui existera alors. Ainsi nous obtiendrons cette croissance
+d'un ordre de grandeur. Au point où nous en sommes, je suis très confiant
+dans le fait que nous <em>pouvons</em> y arriver.</p>
+
+<p>C'est très important, parce que Microsoft nous demande de céder au
+désespoir. Ils disent : « La seule façon d'avoir des logiciels à faire
+fonctionner, la seule façon d'avoir des innovations, c'est de nous donner le
+pouvoir. Laissez-nous vous dominer. Laissez-nous contrôler ce que vous
+pouvez faire avec les programmes que vous utilisez de façon à pouvoir vous
+soutirer beaucoup d'argent, utiliser une certaine fraction de cet argent
+pour développer et garder le reste comme profit. »</p>
+
+<p>Eh bien nous ne devons pas être aussi désespérés. Il ne faut pas être
+désespéré au point d'abandonner sa liberté. C'est très dangereux.</p>
+
+<p>Un autre problème, c'est que Microsoft… en fait pas seulement
+Microsoft, les gens qui n'encouragent pas le logiciel libre adoptent en
+général un système de valeurs où seuls comptent les bénéfices à court
+terme : « Combien d'argent gagnerons-nous cette année ? Quel travail
puis-je
+faire aujourd'hui ? » Pensée à court terme et pensée étroite. Ils
estiment
+ridicule d'imaginer que quiconque puisse jamais faire un sacrifice pour la
+liberté.</p>
+
+<p>Pas plus tard qu'hier, beaucoup de gens faisaient des discours sur les
+Américains qui ont fait des sacrifices pour la liberté de leurs
+compatriotes, de grands sacrifices pour certains. Ils ont été jusqu'Ã
+sacrifier leur vie pour ces liberté dont tout le monde dans notre pays a au
+moins entendu parler (du moins dans certains cas ; je suppose qu'il faut
+oublier la guerre du Vietnam).</p>
+
+<p><i>[Note de l'éditeur : la veille, c'était le Memorial Day aux
Ãtats-Unis,
+le jour où l'on commémore les héros des guerres.]</i></p>
+
+<p>Mais heureusement, garder notre liberté dans l'utilisation des logiciels
+n'exige pas de grands sacrifices. Juste de petits sacrifices minuscules,
+comme apprendre à utiliser la ligne de commande si l'on n'a pas encore
+d'interface graphique. Comme faire le travail de cette façon-ci parce qu'on
+n'a pas encore de logiciel libre pour le faire de cette façon-là . Comme
+payer une société pour développer tel logiciel libre pour que nous puissions
+en disposer dans quelques années. Divers petits sacrifices que nous pouvons
+tous faire. Et dans le long terme, nous en tirerons même avantage ! En
+réalité c'est plus un investissement qu'un sacrifice. Il nous faut seulement
+voir assez loin pour réaliser qu'il est bon de travailler à l'amélioration
+de la société, sans compter les centimes et les francs du retour sur
+investissement ni se préoccuper de qui en bénéficie.</p>
+
+<p>Maintenant j'ai à peu près fini.</p>
+
+<p>Je voudrais mentionner qu'il existe une autre approche de l'économie du
+logiciel libre qui a été proposée par Tony Stanco et qu'il appelle
+<cite>Free Developers</cite> (les développeurs libres). Elle implique une
+certaine structure économique qui espère un jour verser un certaine partie
+de ses profits à chacun des auteurs de logiciels libres qui auront rejoint
+cette organisation. Et ils espèrent m'obtenir de grands contrats publics de
+développement logiciel en Inde, parce qu'ils vont utiliser des logiciels
+libres là -bas, ce qui leur fera faire des économies de coût
considérables.</p>
+
+<p>Je vais donc maintenant passer aux questions.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : <i>[inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Pourriez-vous parler plus fort s'il vous
plaît ?
+Je ne peux vraiment pas vous entendre.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Comment une société comme Microsoft
+pourrait-elle inclure un contrat pour du logiciel libre ?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Eh bien en réalité, Microsoft prévoit de
+transformer beaucoup de ses activités en services. Et ce qu'ils nous
+préparent, c'est un sale coup et c'est dangereux. En effet ils veulent
+associer les services aux programmes, dans une sorte de zig-zag, vous
+voyez ? Si bien que pour utiliser tel service, vous devrez utiliser tel
+programme Microsoft, ce qui veut dire que vous aurez besoin d'utiliser ce
+service dédié pour faire tourner le programme Microsoft ; ainsi tout est
+lié. Voilà leur projet.</p>
+
+<p>Ce qu'il y a d'intéressant, c'est que vendre ces services n'engage pas la
+question éthique du logiciel libre ou non libre. Ãa pourrait être très bien
+de proposer cette activité aux entreprises qui vendent leurs services sur le
+net. Mais ce qu'ils essaient d'obtenir avec ce système, c'est un
+verrouillage encore plus fort, un renforcement de leur monopole sur les
+logiciels et les services. Cela a été décrit récemment dans un article, de
+<cite>Business Week</cite>, je crois. Et d'autre ont dit que cela allait
+transformer le net en « Microsoft-Ville ».</p>
+
+<p>C'est pertinent car, vous le savez, au procès antitrust contre Microsoft le
+tribunal a recommandé de couper la société en deux â mais d'une certaine
+manière cela n'a pas de sens, cela ne donnerait rien de bon du tout â une
+partie système d'exploitation et une partie applications.</p>
+
+<p>Mais ayant lu cet article, je vois une autre façon, efficace celle-là , de
+diviser Microsoft. On mettrait d'un côté les services et de l'autre le
+logiciel et on les obligerait à garder leurs distances. La division services
+devrait publier ses interfaces afin que n'importe qui puisse écrire un
+programme client pour ces services. Je suppose qu'on devrait payer pour ces
+services. Rien à dire contre ça, il s'agit d'un problème tout à fait
+différent.</p>
+
+<p>Si Microsoft est divisée en deux de cette façon […] services et
+logiciel, ils ne pourront pas utiliser leurs logiciels pour écraser la
+concurrence avec leurs services et ils ne pourront pas utiliser les services
+pour écraser la concurrence avec les logiciels Microsoft. Ainsi nous
+pourrons faire des logiciels libres, que vous autres utiliserez peut-être
+pour accéder aux services de Microsoft sans que nous y trouvions Ã
redire.</p>
+
+<p>Parce qu'après tout, bien que Microsoft soit la société de logiciel
+privateur qui a sous sa coupe le plus de monde, si les autres n'en ont pas
+autant ce n'est pas faute d'avoir essayé <i>[rires]</i>. Simplement ils
+n'ont pas si bien réussi. Donc le problème n'est pas Microsoft et uniquement
+Microsoft. Microsoft est seulement le plus grand exemple du problème que
+nous voulons résoudre, à savoir que le logiciel privateur éloigne les
+utilisateurs de la liberté de coopérer et de former une société
+éthique. Aussi ne faut-il pas trop se focaliser sur Microsoft. Vous savez,
+bien qu'ils m'aient donné l'occasion d'être ici, ça ne les rend pas plus
+importants. Ils ne sont pas l'alpha et l'oméga.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Plus tôt, vous avez expliqué les différences
+entre le logiciel open source et le logiciel libre. Que pensez-vous de la
+tendance actuelle des distributions GNU/Linux à se limiter à la plateforme
+Intel ? Et du fait que, semble-t-il, de moins en moins de programmeurs
+programment correctement et font des logiciels qui compilent partout ? Et
+font des logiciels qui fonctionnent seulement sur les systèmes Intel ?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Je ne vois pas là d'enjeu éthique, bien qu'en
+fait les sociétés qui fabriquent des ordinateurs réalisent parfois des
+portages de GNU/Linux. HP semble avoir fait cela récemment. Ils n'ont pas
+cherché à porter Windows car cela aurait coûté trop cher, mais adapter
+GNU/Linux était l'affaire de cinq ingénieurs pendant quelques mois, je
+crois. C'était tout à fait faisable.</p>
+
+<p>Maintenant, bien sûr, j'encourage les gens à utiliser
<code>autoconf</code>,
+un logiciel GNU qui vous aide à rendre vos programmes portables. Je les y
+encourage. Ou bien si quelqu'un corrige le bogue qui empêche de compiler sur
+cette version du système et vous envoie le correctif, vous devriez
+l'incorporer. Mais je ne vois pas là d'enjeu éthique.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Deux commentaires. Primo : récemment vous
avez
+parlé au MIT. J'ai lu la transcription. Quelqu'un vous a interpellé sur les
+brevets et vous avez dit : « Les brevets sont un tout autre problème ; je
+n'ai pas de commentaire là -dessus. »</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Exact. En réalité j'ai beaucoup à dire sur
les
+brevets. Ãa prendrait une heure <i>[rires]</i>.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Je voulais dire ceci. Il me semble qu'il y a un
+problème. Il y a une raison pour que les entreprises appellent les brevets
+et le copyright quelque chose comme de la « propriété concrète ». Elles
+veulent utiliser le pouvoir de l'Ãtat pour leur assurer un monopole. Ce
+qu'il y a de commun n'est pas que ces sujets tournent autour des mêmes
+enjeux, mais que la motivation des entreprises à leur égard ne soit pas
+vraiment le service public, mais plutôt l'intérêt privé des sociétés dans
+l'obtention d'un monopole.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Je comprends. Mais bon, il ne reste pas
beaucoup
+de temps, alors tant qu'à faire je voudrais répondre à ça.</p>
+
+<p>Vous avez raison de dire que c'est ce qu'elles veulent. Mais il y a une
+autre raison pour qu'elles veuillent utiliser le terme « propriété
+intellectuelle », c'est qu'elles ne veulent pas que les gens réfléchissent
+convenablement sur les questions du copyright ou sur les questions des
+brevets. Parce que le droit du copyright n'est pas du tout le même que le
+droit des brevets. Leurs effets sur le logiciel sont totalement
différents.</p>
+
+<p>Les brevets logiciels sont des restrictions pour les programmeurs qui leur
+interdisent d'écrire certaines sortes de programmes, tandis que le copyright
+ne fait pas cela. Avec le copyright, du moins si vous les avez écrits
+vous-même, vous pouvez les distribuer. Donc il est terriblement important de
+séparer ces deux questions.</p>
+
+<p>Elles ont un petit quelque chose en commun à un très bas niveau et tout le
+reste est différent. Alors, s'il vous plaît, pour rendre la discussion plus
+claire, discutez du copyright ou discutez des brevets mais ne parlez pas de
+« propriété intellectuelle ». J'ai des opinions sur le copyright, et sur
les
+brevets, et sur le logiciel.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Vous avez mentionné au début les travaux
+fonctionnels, comme les recettes et les programmes d'ordinateurs. C'est
+évidemment un peu différent des autres sortes de travaux créatifs. Ceci pose
+aussi problème dans le cas des DVD.<a id="TransNote10-rev"
+href="#TransNote10"><sup>10</sup></a></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Les problèmes sont en partie similaires, mais
+aussi en partie différents, pour des choses qui ne sont pas de nature
+fonctionnelle. Une partie est commune aux deux, mais pas
+tout. Malheureusement, il faudrait une heure de plus pour en parler. Je n'ai
+pas le temps de rentrer dans les détails, mais je dirais que les Åuvres
+fonctionnelles devraient être libres dans le même sens que les
+logiciels. Vous savez, les cours, les manuels, les dictionnaires, les
+recettes, etc.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Je m'interrogeais sur la musique en ligne. Il y
+a des similarités et des différences à travers toute la création.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Exact. Je dirais que la liberté minimum, celle
+dont nous devons disposer pour toute information publiée, est le droit de la
+redistribuer non commercialement, sous forme de copie intégrale. Pour les
+Åuvres fonctionnelles, nous avons besoin de la liberté d'en redistribuer
+commercialement des versions modifiées, parce que c'est extrêmement utile Ã
+la société. Quant aux Åuvres non fonctionnelles, vous savez, les choses
+destinées à être divertissantes ou esthétiques, ou à refléter les vues
d'une
+personne, peut-être qu'elles ne doivent pas être modifiés. Et cela veut
+peut-être dire que c'est justifié d'avoir un copyright qui couvre toute
+distribution commerciale.</p>
+
+<p>Rappelez-vous que selon la Constitution des Ãtats-Unis, la raison d'être
du
+copyright est de bénéficier au public, de modifier la conduite de certaines
+entités privées pour qu'elles publient plus de livres. Le bénéfice, c'est
+que le public se mette à discuter des différentes questions et Ã
+s'instruire. Ainsi nous avons la littérature, nous avons les écrits
+scientifiques. Le but est d'encourager cela. Le copyright n'a pas été créé
+pour les auteurs ni les éditeurs, mais pour les lecteurs et tous ceux qui
+bénéficient de la transmission d'information qui se produit quand des gens
+écrivent et d'autres lisent. Et cet objectif, je l'approuve !</p>
+
+<p>Mais à l'âge des réseaux informatiques la méthode n'est plus
appropriée,
+parce qu'elle exige des lois draconiennes qui envahissent l'intimité de
+chacun et terrorisent tout le monde. Vous savez, des années de prison pour
+avoir partagé avec son voisin. Ce n'était pas la même chose du temps de la
+presse à imprimer. Le copyright était alors une réglementation industrielle
+qui s'appliquait aux éditeurs. Maintenant, c'est une restriction imposée par
+les éditeurs au public. Ainsi la relation de pouvoir a viré à 180°, bien
que
+ce soit la même loi.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Ainsi on peut avoir la même chose â comme
+lorsqu'on fait de la musique à partir d'une autre musique ?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Exact. C'est intéressant…</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Et unique. De nouvelles Åuvres, c'est encore
+beaucoup de coopération.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Tout à fait. Et je suppose que cela demande
une
+sorte de concept d'« usage raisonnable » <cite>[fair use]</cite>.<a
+id="TransNote11-rev" href="#TransNote11"><sup>11</sup></a> Certainement
+faire un sample de quelques secondes et l'utiliser pour faire une Åuvre
+musicale, ce doit être un usage raisonnable. Même l'idée ordinaire d'usage
+raisonnable renferme cela, si vous y réfléchissez. Je ne sais pas si les
+tribunaux seraient d'accord mais ils le devraient. Ce ne serait pas un vrai
+changement du système tel qu'il existe.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Que pensez-vous de la publication des données
+publiques dans des formats privateurs ?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Oh, c'est à proscrire. L'Ãtat ne doit jamais
+exiger des citoyens qu'ils utilisent un programme non libre pour accéder aux
+services publics ou pour communiquer avec eux, que ce soit en émission ou en
+réception, quel qu'en soit le moyen.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Je suis, comment diriez-vous, un utilisateur de
+GNU/Linux…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Merci <i>[rires]</i>.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : …Â depuis quatre ans. La seule chose qui
+m'ait parue problématique et qui est quelque chose d'essentiel, je crois,
+pour nous tous, c'est de surfer sur le web.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Oui.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Une chose qui est décidément une faiblesse de
+GNU/Linux est la navigation sur le web, parce que le principal outil pour
+cela, Netscape…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : …Â n'est pas un logiciel libre.</p>
+
+<p>Laissez moi répondre à cela. Je veux mettre les choses au point. Donc oui,
+il y a une tendance déplorable chez les utilisateurs de GNU/Linux à utiliser
+Netscape Navigator sur leur système GNU/Linux. Et en fait les distributions
+commerciales viennent avec. Voilà bien une situation ironique : nous avons
+travaillé dur pour faire un système d'exploitation libre, et maintenant, si
+vous allez dans un magasin, vous pouvez trouver des versions de GNU/Linux
+(la plupart d'entre elles appelées Linux) qui ne sont pas libres, du moins
+en partie. Il y a Netscape Navigator et peut-être d'autres logiciels non
+libres. Donc il est très difficile de trouver un système libre, sauf si vous
+savez ce que vous faites. Ou bien naturellement vous pouvez ne pas installer
+Netscape Navigator.</p>
+
+<p>Cela dit, il y a des navigateurs libres depuis de nombreuses années. Il y
en
+a un que j'utilise et qui s'appelle Lynx. Il n'est pas graphique, il est en
+mode texte. Il a l'extraordinaire avantage de ne pas afficher les publicités
+<i>[rires et applaudissements]</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Mais de toute façon il y a un projet libre de navigateur graphique appelé
+Mozilla, qui est pratiquement au point. Et je l'utilise à l'occasion.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Konqueror 2.01 est très bon aussi.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Très bien. Voila donc un autre navigateur
+graphique libre. Donc nous sommes finalement en train de résoudre ce
+problème, je suppose.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Pouvez-vous me parler de la différence
+philosophique ou éthique entre le logiciel libre et l'open source ?
+Pensez-vous que les deux soient irréconciliables ? […]</p>
+
+<p><i>[la fin de la question et le début de la réponse ont sauté au
changement
+de cassette.]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : […] à une liberté et à une éthique,
ou
+bien si on dit seulement : « Eh bien, j'espère que vous, les entreprises,
+déciderez qu'il est plus profitable de nous autoriser à faire tout ça.Â
»</p>
+
+<p>Mais comme je le disais, dans une grande partie du travail concret, les
+opinions de chacun ne comptent pas. Quand une personne offre son aide au
+projet GNU, nous ne lui disons pas : « Vous devez être d'accord avec notre
+politique. » Nous disons que dans un paquet GNU il faut appeler le système
+« GNU/Linux » et le paquet lui-même « logiciel libre ». Ce que vous
dites Ã
+l'extérieur du projet GNU, ça vous regarde.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : IBM a commencé une campagne adressée aux
+services de l'Ãtat pour vendre leurs nouvelles grosses machines en utilisant
+Linux comme argument de vente, en disant « Linux ».</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Oui, bien sûr c'est en réalité le système
+GNU/Linux <i>[rires]</i>.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : C'est vrai. Eh bien le responsable des ventes,
+il n'y connaît rien à GNU.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Je dois le dire à qui ?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Au responsable des ventes.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Oh oui. Le problème c'est qu'ils ont déjÃ
+préparé soigneusement ce qu'ils voulaient mettre en avant comme arguments de
+vente. Et la question de savoir ce qu'est une description précise, juste ou
+correcte n'est pas primordiale pour une société comme celle-là . Dans une
+petite entreprise, oui, il y a un patron. Si le patron est enclin Ã
+réfléchir sur ce genre de choses, il peut prendre une décision de cette
+façon. Mais pas une société géante. C'est dommage, vous savez.</p>
+
+<p>Il y a un autre question plus tangible à propos de ce que fait IBM. Ils
+disent qu'ils mettent un milliard de dollars dans « Linux ». Mais
peut-être
+faut-il aussi mettre « dans » entre guillemets. Parce qu'une partie de cet
+argent sert à payer des gens pour faire des logiciels libres ; c'est
+réellement une contribution à notre communauté. Mais une autre partie sert
Ã
+créer du logiciel privateur ou à porter des logiciels privateurs vers
+GNU/Linux et ce n'est <em>pas</em> une contribution à notre
+communauté. Cependant IBM mélange tout ça. Il pourrait y avoir une part de
+publicité, qui est une contribution même si elle est en partie fausse. Donc
+c'est une situation compliquée. Une partie de ce qu'ils font est une
+contribution, une autre non et une troisième est entre les deux. On ne peut
+pas mélanger tout ça et penser « Ouah ! Un milliard de dollars d'IBM !Â
»
+<i>[rires]</i> C'est simplifier à outrance !</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Pouvez-vous en dire plus sur la pensée qui
+sous-tend la licence GNU GPLÂ ?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Bon, voici le… Je suis désolé, je suis
en
+train de répondre à sa question <i>[rires]</i>.</p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Voulez-vous réserver du temps pour la
conférence
+de presse ? Ou souhaitez-vous continuer ici ?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Qui est ici pour la conférence de presse ? Pas
+beaucoup de journalistes. Oh, trois… OK. Est-ce que cela vous dérange
+si nous… si je continue à répondre aux questions pendant encore dix
+minutes ? Parfait. Donc nous continuons à répondre aux questions de tout le
+monde.</p>
+
+<p>La pensée qui sous-tend la licence GNU GPL ? C'est en partie que je
voulais
+protéger la liberté de la communauté des phénomènes que j'ai décrits Ã
+propos de XÂ Windows et qui se sont produits avec d'autres logiciels
+libres. En fait, quand j'ai pensé à cette question, X Windows n'était pas
+encore sorti mais j'avais vu le problème se poser avec d'autres programmes
+libres, par exemple TeX. Je voulais être sûr que les utilisateurs auraient
+tous la liberté. Je me suis rendu compte que, sinon, je pourrais écrire un
+programme que peut-être beaucoup de gens utiliseraient, mais qu'ils
+n'auraient pas la liberté. Alors à quoi bon ?</p>
+
+<p>Mais l'autre raison, c'est que je voulais donner le sentiment à la
+communauté qu'elle n'était pas un paillasson, le sentiment qu'elle ne serait
+pas la proie du premier parasite venu. Si vous n'utilisez pas le copyleft,
+vous dites en substance : <i>[voix mièvre]</i> « Prenez mon code. Faites ce
+que vous voulez. Je ne dis pas non. » Alors n'importe qui peut arriver en
+disant : <i>[voix très ferme]</i> « Aah ! je veux en faire une version non
+libre. Je le prends. » Puis il va très probablement faire quelques
+améliorations. Ces versions non libres intéresseront les utilisateurs et
+remplaceront les versions libres. Au final, qu'est-ce que vous aurez
+accompli ? Vous aurez simplement fait une donation à un projet de logiciel
+privateur.</p>
+
+<p>Et quand les gens verront ce qui s'est produit, quand des gens verront que
+les autres prennent et ne donnent jamais, ça peut les démoraliser. Ce n'est
+pas pure spéculation, je l'ai constaté. Cela a participé à la disparition
de
+l'ancienne communauté dont je faisait partie dans les années 70. Certaines
+personnes sont devenues non coopératives et nous avons supposé qu'elles en
+tiraient profit. En tout cas elles agissaient comme si elles pensaient
+qu'elles en tiraient profit. Et nous nous sommes rendu compte qu'on pouvait
+coopérer à sens unique : prendre sans rien donner en retour. Nous ne
+pouvions rien y faire, c'était très décourageant. Nous qui ne suivions pas
+la tendance, nous en avons discuté et ne sommes pas arrivés à trouver une
+idée pour arrêter ça.</p>
+
+<p>Donc la GPL est conçue pour éviter cela. Elle dit : « Vous êtes
invité Ã
+vous joindre à la communauté et à utiliser ce code. Vous pouvez l'utiliser
+de toutes les façons possibles, mais si vous publiez une version modifiée,
+vous devez la publier pour notre communauté, comme participation à notre
+communauté, au monde du libre. »</p>
+
+<p>En fait, il reste bien des façons pour les gens de profiter de notre
travail
+sans y contribuer, comme ne pas écrire de logiciels. Bien des gens utilisent
+GNU/Linux et n'écrivent pas de logiciels. Il n'y a aucune obligation à faire
+quelque chose pour nous, mais si vous faites certaines choses vous devez
+contribuer. Ãa signifie que notre communauté n'est pas un paillasson. Et je
+pense que cela donne aux gens un sentiment de force : « Oui, nous ne serons
+pas piétinés par n'importe qui. Nous tiendrons. »</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Oui, ma question portait sur le logiciel libre,
+mais sans copyleft. Puisque tout le monde peut le prendre et en faire du
+logiciel privateur, n'est-il pas également possible de le prendre, de faire
+quelques modifications et de le placer sous GPLÂ ?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Oui, c'est possible.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Ãa placerait toutes les copies futures sous
GPL.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Ã partir de cette branche. Mais voici pourquoi
+nous ne le faisons pas.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Hein ?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Nous ne faisons pas cela
+généralement. Laissez-moi vous expliquer pourquoi.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Oui d'accord.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Nous pourrions si nous le voulions prendre
+XÂ Windows, faire une copie sous GPL et faire des modifications. Mais il y a
+un groupe beaucoup plus important de gens qui travaillent à son amélioration
+et qui ne veulent <em>pas</em> le placer sous GPL. Si nous faisions cela
+nous créerions une branche, et ce n'est pas très sympa vis-à -vis d'eux. Ils
+<em>font partie</em> de notre communauté ; ils contribuent à notre
+communauté.</p>
+
+<p>Deuxièmement, cela se retournerait contre nous, parce qu'ils ont fait
+beaucoup plus de travail sur X que nous n'en ferions. Notre version serait
+inférieure à la leur et les gens ne l'utiliseraient pas, alors à quoi bonÂ
?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Mmm hmm.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Alors quand une personne apporte une
+amélioration à X, je dis à cette personne : coopérez avec l'équipe de
+développement de X Windows. Envoyez-leur votre travail et laissez-les s'en
+servir, parce qu'ils développent un logiciel libre très important. C'est bon
+pour nous de coopérer avec eux.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Sauf que, si on considère X en particulier,
il y
+a deux ans le Consortium X qui était allé très loin dans l'open source non
+libre…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : En fait ce <em>n'était pas</em> vraiment open
+source. Ils ont peut-être dit que ça l'était, je ne peux pas me rappeler
+s'ils l'ont dit ou non. Mais ce n'était pas open source, Il y avait des
+restrictions. On ne pouvait pas distribuer commercialement, je crois. Ou on
+ne pouvait pas distribuer commercialement une version modifiée, ou quelque
+chose comme ça. Il y avait une restriction considérée comme inacceptable Ã
+la fois par la Free Software Foundation et par le mouvement Open Source.</p>
+
+<p>Oui, c'est à cela que mène l'utilisation d'une licence sans copyleft. En
+fait, le consortium X avait une politique très rigide. Ils disaient : « Si
+votre programme est sous copyleft, nous ne le distribuerons pas du
+tout. Nous ne le mettrons pas dans notre distribution. »</p>
+
+<p>Alors un grand nombre de personnes ont été poussées à ne pas utiliser le
+copyleft. Le résultat, c'est que tous leurs logiciels étaient grands
+ouverts. Puis après avoir demandé aux gens d'être trop permissifs, ils ont
+dit : « Maintenant nous pouvons mettre des restrictions. » Ce n'était pas
+très éthique de leur part.</p>
+
+<p>Mais, la situation étant ce qu'elle est, allons-nous gaspiller des
+ressources pour maintenir une version GPL de XÂ ? Ãa n'aurait aucun sens. Il
+y a tant d'autres choses à faire. Laissons-les faire plutôt. Nous pouvons
+coopérer avec les développeurs de X.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Avez-vous un commentaire, GNU est-il une marque
+déposée ? Et est-ce faisable de l'inclure dans une partie de la licence
+publique générale GNU autorisant les marques ?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Nous cherchons effectivement à déposer GNU
comme
+marque, mais cela n'aurait rien à voir avec la GPL ; c'est une longue
+histoire d'expliquer pourquoi.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Vous pourriez exiger que la marque déposée
soit
+affichée dans les programmes sous GPL.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Non, je ne pense pas. Les licences ne couvrent
+que les programmes individuels, et quand un programme fait partie du projet
+GNU personne ne cherche à le cacher. Mais le nom du système dans son
+ensemble, c'est une autre question. C'est un à -côté, cela ne vaut pas la
+peine d'en discuter plus longtemps.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : S'il y avait un bouton qui forçait toutes les
+sociétés à libérer leurs logiciels, l'utiliseriez-vous ?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Je ne l'utiliserais que pour les logiciels
+publiés. Vous savez, je pense que les gens ont le droit d'écrire des
+logiciels privés et de les utiliser, et cela inclut les entreprises. C'est
+une question de vie privée. Il peut y avoir des moments, c'est vrai, où il
+est mal de garder par devers soi quelque chose de très utile Ã
+l'humanité. Mais c'est une autre sorte de préjudice, même si cela concerne
+le même secteur.</p>
+
+<p>Mais oui, je pense que tout logiciel publié doit être libre. Et
+rappelez-vous, quand ce n'est pas un logiciel libre, c'est à cause de
+l'intervention du gouvernement. Le gouvernement intervient pour faire du non
+libre. Il crée des pouvoirs juridiques particuliers qu'il délègue aux
+propriétaires de programmes, de sorte qu'ils puissent se servir de la police
+pour nous empêcher d'utiliser les programmes de certaines façons. Je
+voudrais mettre un terme à cela, c'est certain. </p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong> : Les interventions de Richard génèrent
+invariablement une quantité énorme d'énergie intellectuelle. Je suggère
+qu'une partie soit consacrée à utiliser des logiciels libres, et peut-être
Ã
+en écrire.</p>
+
+<p>Nous allons bientôt nous interrompre. Je voulais dire que Richard a
injecté
+dans la profession, qui est connue dans le public pour son attitude
+apolitique, un niveau de discussion morale et politique sans précédent. Et
+nous lui devons beaucoup pour cela. Je voudrais signaler au public qu'il y a
+maintenant une pause.</p>
+
+<p><i>[applaudissements]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Vous êtes libres de sortir quand vous voulez
+<i>[rires]</i>. Je ne vous retiens pas prisonniers ici, vous savez.</p>
+
+<p><i>[Le public sort…]</i></p>
+
+<p><i>[Conversations diffuses…]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Un dernier mot, notre site web :
www.gnu.org.</p>
+
+<div class="translators-notes">
+
+<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes.-->
+<hr /><b>Notes de traduction</b><ol>
+<li id="TransNote1"><cite>Proprietary software</cite> se traduit souvent par
+« logiciel propriétaire ». « Privateur » est un néologisme inventé
par RMS
+pour exprimer la notion que les logiciels propriétaires privent
+l'utilisateur de ses libertés. <a href="#TransNote1-rev"
+class="nounderline">↑</a></li>
+<li id="TransNote2">Traduction : Bien ! <a
+href="#TransNote2-rev">↑</a></li>
+<li id="TransNote3">Zwei était Eine à l'origine. <a href="#TransNote3-rev"
+class="nounderline">↑</a></li>
+<li id="TransNote4">Prononcer « nou » ; traduction : nouveau. <a
+href="#TransNote4-rev" class="nounderline">↑</a></li>
+<li id="TransNote5">Nouveau système d'exploitation. <a
+href="#TransNote5-rev" class="nounderline">↑</a></li>
+<li id="TransNote6">Le mot français « libre » n'a pas cette ambiguïté
car
+« entrée libre » est à peu près le seul cas où l'on peut lui donner le
sens
+de « gratuit ». On constate malgré tout que le logiciel libre est souvent
+assimilé (par erreur) à du logiciel gratuit. <a href="#TransNote6-rev"
+class="nounderline">↑</a></li>
+<li id="TransNote7">Déclaration d'indépendance <em>américaine</em>. <a
+href="#TransNote7-rev" class="nounderline">↑</a></li>
+<li id="TransNote8">« X Windows » est une abréviation de « système X
+Window ». Cela n'a rien à voir avec un système d'exploitation privateur
bien
+connu. <a href="#TransNote8-rev" class="nounderline">↑</a></li>
+<li id="TransNote9">Anciennement <cite>National Public Radio</cite>Â :
+fédération de radios locales non commerciales, produisant des programmes
+culturels ou d'actualité diffusés sur tout le territoire des Ãtats-Unis. <a
+href="#TransNote9-rev" class="nounderline">↑</a></li>
+<li id="TransNote10">L'enregistrement de ce paragraphe était probablement
+difficile à comprendre, ce qui a donné une transcription à peu près
+intraduisible. Nous en avons fait une interprétation très libre. <a
+href="#TransNote10-rev" class="nounderline">↑</a></li>
+<li id="TransNote11">Un concept juridique propre au copyright américain. <a
+href="#TransNote11-rev" class="nounderline">↑</a></li>
+</ol></div>
+</div>
+
+<!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.fr.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Veuillez envoyer les requêtes concernant la FSF et GNU à <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>. Il existe aussi <a
+href="/contact/">d'autres moyens de contacter</a> la FSF. Les liens
+orphelins et autres corrections ou suggestions peuvent être signalés à <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></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";>
+
+ <address@hidden></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>. -->
+Nous faisons le maximum pour proposer des traductions fidèles et de bonne
+qualité, mais nous ne sommes pas parfaits. Merci d'adresser vos commentaires
+sur cette page, ainsi que vos suggestions d'ordre général sur les
+traductions, Ã <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>
+<address@hidden></a>.</p>
+<p>Pour tout renseignement sur la coordination et la soumission des
+traductions de nos pages web, reportez-vous au <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">guide de traduction</a>.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) 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. -->
+<p>Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman</p>
+
+<p>Cette page peut être utilisée suivant les conditions de la licence <a
+rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/deed.fr";>Creative
+Commons attribution de paternité, pas de modification, 3.0 Ãtats-Unis
+(CCÂ BY-ND 3.0Â US)</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.fr.html" -->
+<div class="translators-credits">
+
+<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.-->
+Traduction : Xavier Dumont.<br />Révision : <a
+href="mailto:trad-gnu@april.org";>trad-gnu@april.org</a></div>
+
+<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
+Dernière mise à jour :
+
+$Date: 2015/09/15 05:45:29 $
+
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
Index: philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html
diff -N philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html 15 Sep 2015 05:45:30 -0000
1.3
@@ -0,0 +1,2127 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation</h2>
+
+<blockquote><p>Transcript of
+Richard M. Stallman's speech,
+“Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation”,
+given at New York University in New York, NY,
+on 29 May 2001</p></blockquote>
+
+<div class="announcement">
+<blockquote><p>A <a href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt">plain
+text</a> version of this transcript and
+a <a href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt">summary</a> of the speech
+are also available.</p></blockquote>
+</div>
+
+<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: I'm Mike Uretsky. I'm over at the Stern
+School of Business. I'm also one of the Co-Directors of the Center
+for Advanced Technology. And, on behalf of all of us in the Computer
+Science Department, I want to welcome you here. I want to say a few
+comments, before I turn it over to Ed, who is going to introduce the
+speaker.</p>
+
+<p>The role of a university is a place to foster debate and to have
+interesting discussions. And the role of a major university is to
+have particularly interesting discussions. And this particular
+presentation, this seminar falls right into that mold. I find the
+discussion of open source particularly interesting. In a sense
+… <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I do free software. Open source is a
+different movement. <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: When I first started in the field in the
+'60's, basically software was free. And we went in cycles. It became
+free, and then software manufacturers, in the need to expand their
+markets, pushed it in other directions. A lot of the developments
+that took place with the entry of the PC moved in exactly the same
+kind of a cycle.</p>
+
+<p>There's a very interesting French philosopher, Pierre Levy, who
+talks about movement to this direction and who talks about the move
+into cyberspace as not only relating to technology but also relating
+to social restructuring, to political restructuring, through a change
+in the kinds of relationships that will improve the well-being of
+mankind. And we're hoping that this debate is a movement in that
+direction, that this debate is something that cuts across a lot of the
+disciplines that normally act as solace within the University. We're
+looking forward to some very interesting discussions. Ed?</p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: I'm Ed Schonberg from the Computer
+Science Department at the Courant Institute. Let me welcome you all
+to this event. Introducers are usually, and particularly, a useless
+aspect of public presentations, but in this case, actually, they serve
+a useful purpose, as Mike easily demonstrated, because an introducer
+for instance, told him, by making inaccurate comments, can allow him
+to straighten out and correct and <i>[Laughter]</i> sharpen
+considerably the parameters of the debate.</p>
+
+<p>So, let me make the briefest possible introduction to somebody who
+doesn't need one. Richard is the perfect example of somebody who, by
+acting locally, started thinking globally from problems concerning the
+unavailability of source code for printer drivers at the AI Lab many
+years ago. He has developed a coherent philosophy that has forced all
+of us to re-examine our ideas of how software is produced, of what
+intellectual property means, and what the software community actually
+represents. Let me welcome Richard Stallman. <i>[Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can someone lend me a
+watch? <i>[Laughter]</i> Thank you. So, I'd like to thank Microsoft
+for providing me the opportunity to <i>[Laughter]</i> be on this
+platform. For the past few weeks, I have felt like an author whose
+book was fortuitously banned somewhere. <i>[Laughter]</i> Except that
+all the articles about it are giving the wrong author's name, because
+Microsoft describes the GNU GPL as an open source license, and most of
+the press coverage followed suit. Most people, of course just
+innocently don't realize that our work has nothing to do with open
+source, that in fact we did most of it before people even coined the
+term open source.</p>
+
+<p>We are in the free software movement, and I'm going to speak about
+what the free software movement is about, what it means, what we have
+done, and, because this is partly sponsored by a school of business,
+I'll say some things more than I usually do about how free software
+relates to business, and some other areas of social life.</p>
+
+<p>Now, some of you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps
+you cook. And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably
+use recipes. And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the
+experience of getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing
+it. And you've probably also had the experience — unless you're
+a total neophyte — of changing a recipe. You know, it says
+certain things, but you don't have to do exactly that. You can leave
+out some ingredients. Add some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms.
+Put in less salt because your doctor said you should cut down on salt
+— whatever. You can even make bigger changes according to your
+skill. And if you've made changes in a recipe, and you cook it for
+your friends, and they like it, one of your friends might say,
+“Hey, could I have the recipe?” And then, what do you do?
+You could write down your modified version of the recipe and make a
+copy for your friend. These are the natural things to do with
+functionally useful recipes of any kind.</p>
+
+<p>Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program. A computer
+program's a lot like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to
+get some result that you want. So it's just as natural to do those
+same things with computer programs — hand a copy to your friend.
+Make changes in it because the job it was written to do isn't exactly
+what you want. It did a great job for somebody else, but your job is
+a different job. And after you've changed it, that's likely to be
+useful for other people. Maybe they have a job to do that's like the
+job you do. So they ask, “Hey, can I have a copy?” Of
+course, if you're a nice person, you're going to give a copy. That's
+the way to be a decent person.</p>
+
+<p>So imagine what it would be like if recipes were packaged inside
+black boxes. You couldn't see what ingredients they're using, let
+alone change them, and imagine if you made a copy for a friend, they
+would call you a pirate and try to put you in prison for years. That
+world would create tremendous outrage from all the people who are used
+to sharing recipes. But that is exactly what the world of proprietary
+software is like. A world in which common decency towards other
+people is prohibited or prevented.</p>
+
+<p>Now, why did I notice this? I noticed this because I had the good
+fortune in the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who
+shared software. Now, this community could trace its ancestry
+essentially back to the beginning of computing. In the 1970's,
+though, it was a bit rare for there to be a community where people
+shared software. And, in fact, this was sort of an extreme case,
+because in the lab where I worked, the entire operating system was
+software developed by the people in our community, and we'd share any
+of it with anybody. Anybody was welcome to come and take a look, and
+take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do. There were no
+copyright notices on these programs. Cooperation was our way of life.
+And we were secure in that way of life. We didn't fight for it. We
+didn't have to fight for it. We just lived that way. And, as far as
+we knew, we would just keep on living that way. So there was free
+software, but there was no free software movement.</p>
+
+<p>But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that
+happened to it. Ultimately it was wiped out. Ultimately, the PDP-10
+computer which we used for all our work was discontinued. And you
+know, our system — the Incompatible Timesharing System —
+was written starting in the '60's, so it was written in assembler
+language. That's what you used to write an operating system in the
+'60's. So, of course, assembler language is for one particular
+computer architecture; if that gets discontinued, all your work turns
+into dust — it's useless. And that's what happened to us. The
+20 years or so of work of our community turned into dust.</p>
+
+<p>But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me,
+helped me see what to do, helped prepare me to see what to do when
+this happened, because at certain point, Xerox gave the Artificial
+Intelligence Lab, where I worked, a laser printer, and this was a
+really handsome gift, because it was the first time anybody outside
+Xerox had a laser printer. It was very fast, printed a page a second,
+very fine in many respects, but it was unreliable, because it was
+really a high-speed office copier that had been modified into a
+printer. And, you know, copiers jam, but there's somebody there to
+fix them. The printer jammed and nobody saw. So it stayed jammed for
+a long time.</p>
+
+<p>Well, we had an idea for how to deal with this problem. Change it
+so that whenever the printer gets a jam, the machine that runs the
+printer can tell our timesharing machine, and tell the users who are
+waiting for printouts, or something like that, you know, tell them, go
+fix the printer. Because if they only knew it was jammed, of course,
+if you're waiting for a printout and you know that the printer is
+jammed, you don't want to sit and wait forever, you're going to go fix
+it.</p>
+
+<p>But at that point, we were completely stymied, because the software
+that ran that printer was not free software. It had come with the
+printer, and it was just a binary. We couldn't have the source code;
+Xerox wouldn't let us have the source code. So, despite our skill as
+programmers — after all, we had written our own timesharing
+system — we were completely helpless to add this feature to the
+printer software.</p>
+
+<p>And we just had to suffer with waiting. It would take an hour or
+two to get your printout because the machine would be jammed most of
+the time. And only once in a while — you'd wait an hour
+figuring “I know it's going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and
+go collect my printout,” and then you'd see that it had been
+jammed the whole time, and in fact, nobody else had fixed it. So
+you'd fix it and you'd go wait another half hour. Then, you'd come
+back, and you'd see it jammed again — before it got to your
+output. It would print three minutes and be jammed thirty minutes.
+Frustration up the whazzoo. But the thing that made it worse was
+knowing that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his own
+selfishness, was blocking us, obstructing us from improving the
+software. So, of course, we felt some resentment.</p>
+
+<p>And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a
+copy of that software. So I was visiting there later, so I went to
+his office and I said, “Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of
+the printer source code?” And he said “No, I promised not
+to give you a copy.” <i>[Laughter]</i> I was stunned. I was so
+— I was angry, and I had no idea how I could do justice to it.
+All I could think of was to turn around on my heel and walk out of his
+room. Maybe I slammed the door. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I thought
+about it later on, because I realized that I was seeing not just an
+isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was important and affected
+a lot of people.</p>
+
+<p>This was — for me — I was lucky, I only got a taste of
+it, but other people had to live in this all the time. So I thought
+about it at length. See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with
+us — his colleagues at MIT. He had betrayed us. But he didn't
+just do it to us. Chances are he did it to you too. <i>[Pointing at
+member of audience.]</i> And I think, mostly likely, he did it to you
+too. <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.] [Laughter]</i> And
+he probably did it to you as well. <i>[Pointing to third member of
+audience.]</i> He probably did it to most of the people here in this
+room — except a few, maybe, who weren't born yet in 1980.
+Because he had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about the
+entire population of the Planet Earth. He had signed a non-disclosure
+agreement.</p>
+
+<p>Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure
+agreement, and it taught me an important lesson — a lesson
+that's important because most programmers never learn it. You see,
+this was my first encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was
+the victim. I, and my whole lab, were the victims. And the lesson it
+taught me was that non-disclosure agreements have victims. They're
+not innocent. They're not harmless. Most programmers first encounter
+a non-disclosure agreement when they're invited to sign one. And
+there's always some temptation — some goody they're going to get
+if they sign. So, they make up excuses. They say, “Well, he's
+never going to get a copy no matter what, so why shouldn't I join the
+conspiracy to deprive him?” They say, “This is the way
+it's always done. Who am I to go against it?” They say,
+“If I don't sign this, someone else will.” Various excuses
+to gag their consciences.</p>
+
+<p>But when somebody invited me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, my
+conscience was already sensitized. It remembered how angry I had
+been, when somebody promised not to help me and my whole lab solve our
+problem. And I couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to
+somebody else who had never done me any harm. You know, if somebody
+asked me to promise not to share some useful information with a hated
+enemy, I would have said yes. You know? If somebody's done something
+bad, he deserves it. But, strangers — they haven't done me any
+harm. How could they deserve that kind of mistreatment? You can't
+let yourself start treating just anybody and everybody badly. Then
+you become a predator on society. So I said, “Thank you very
+much for offering me this nice software package. But I can't accept
+it in good conscience, on the conditions you are demanding, so I will
+do without it. Thank you so much.” And so, I have never
+knowingly signed a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful
+technical information such as software.</p>
+
+<p>Now there are other kinds of information which raise different
+ethical issues. For instance, there's personal information. You
+know, if you wanted to talk with me about what was happening between
+you and your boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody —
+you know, I could keep — I could agree to keep that a secret for
+you, because that's not generally useful technical information. At
+least, it's probably not generally useful. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>There is a small chance — and it's a possibility though
+— that you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex
+technique, <i>[Laughter]</i> and I would then feel a moral
+duty <i>[Laughter]</i> to pass it onto the rest of humanity, so that
+everyone could get the benefit of it. So, I'd have to put a proviso
+in that promise, you know? If it's just details about who wants this,
+and who's angry at whom, and things like that — soap opera
+— that I can keep private for you, but something that humanity
+could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't withhold. You see,
+the purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information
+for humanity to help people live their lives better. If we promise to
+withhold that information — if we keep it secret — then we
+are betraying the mission of our field. And this, I decided I
+shouldn't do.</p>
+
+<p>But, meanwhile my community had collapsed, and that was collapsing,
+and that left me in a bad situation. You see, the whole Incompatible
+Timesharing System was obsolete, because the PDP-10 was obsolete, and
+so there was no way that I could continue working as an operating
+system developer the way that I had been doing it. That depended on
+being part of the community using the community software and improving
+it. That no longer was a possibility, and that gave me a moral
+dilemma. What was I going to do? Because the most obvious
+possibility meant to go against that decision I had made. The most
+obvious possibility was to adapt myself to the change in the world.
+To accept that things were different, and that I'd just have to give
+up those principles and start signing non-disclosure agreements for
+proprietary operating systems, and most likely writing proprietary
+software as well. But I realized that that way I could have fun
+coding, and I could make money — especially if I did it other
+than at MIT — but at the end, I'd have to look back at my career
+and say, “I've spent my life building walls to divide
+people,” and I would have been ashamed of my life.</p>
+
+<p>So I looked for another alternative, and there was an obvious one.
+I could leave the software field and do something else. Now I had no
+other special noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a
+waiter. <i>[Laughter]</i> Not at a fancy restaurant; they wouldn't
+hire me, <i>[Laughter]</i> but I could be a waiter somewhere. And
+many programmers, they say to me, “The people who hire
+programmers demand this, this and this. If I don't do those things,
+I'll starve.” It's literally the word they use. Well, you know,
+as a waiter, you're not going to starve. <i>[Laughter]</i> So,
+really, they're in no danger. But — and this is important, you
+see — because sometimes you can justify doing something that
+hurts other people by saying otherwise something worse is going to
+happen to me. You know, if you were <em>really</em> going to starve,
+you'd be justified in writing proprietary software. <i>[Laughter]</i>
+If somebody's pointing a gun at you, then I would say, it's
+forgivable. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, I had found a way that I could
+survive without doing something unethical, so that excuse was not
+available. So I realized, though, that being a waiter would be no fun
+for me, and it would be wasting my skills as an operating system
+developer. It would avoid misusing my skills. Developing proprietary
+software would be misusing my skills. Encouraging other people to
+live in the world of proprietary software would be misusing my skills.
+So it's better to waste them than misuse them, but it's still not
+really good.</p>
+
+<p>So for those reasons, I decided to look for some other alternative.
+What can an operating system developer do that would actually improve
+the situation, make the world a better place? And I realized that an
+operating system developer was exactly what was needed. The problem,
+the dilemma, existed for me and for everyone else because all of the
+available operating systems for modern computers were proprietary.
+The free operating systems were for old, obsolete computers, right?
+So for the modern computers — if you wanted to get a modern
+computer and use it, you were forced into a proprietary operating
+system. So if an operating system developer wrote another operating
+system, and then said, “Everybody come and share this; you're
+welcome to this” — that would give everybody a way out of
+the dilemma, another alternative. So I realized that there was
+something I could do that would solve the problem. I had just the
+right skills to be able to do it. And it was the most useful thing I
+could possibly imagine that I'd be able to do with my life. And it
+was a problem that no one else was trying to solve. It was just sort
+of sitting there, getting worse, and nobody was there but me. So I
+felt, “I'm elected. I have to work on this. If not me,
+who?” So I decided I would develop a free operating system, or
+die trying … of old age, of course. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>So, of course I had to decide what kind of operating system it
+should be. There are some technical design decisions to be made. I
+decided to make the system compatible with Unix for a number of
+reasons. First of all, I had just seen one operating system that I
+really loved become obsolete because it was written for one particular
+kind of computer. I didn't want that to happen again. We needed to
+have a portable system. Well, Unix was a portable system. So if I
+followed the design of Unix, I had a pretty good chance that I could
+make a system that would also be portable and workable. And
+furthermore, why <i>[Tape unclear]</i> be compatible with it in the
+details. The reason is, users hate incompatible changes. If I had
+just designed the system in my favorite way — which I would have
+loved doing, I'm sure — I would have produced something that was
+incompatible. You know, the details would be different. So, if I
+wrote the system, then the users would have said to me, “Well,
+this is very nice, but it's incompatible. It will be too much work to
+switch. We can't afford that much trouble just to use your system
+instead of Unix, so we'll stay with Unix,” they would have
+said.</p>
+
+<p>Now, if I wanted to actually create a community where there would
+be people in it, people using this free system, and enjoying the
+benefits of liberty and cooperation, I had to make a system people
+would use, a system that they would find easy to switch to, that would
+not have an obstacle making it fail at the very beginning. Now,
+making the system upward compatible with Unix actually made all the
+immediate design decisions, because Unix consists of many pieces, and
+they communicate through interfaces that are more or less documented.
+So if you want to be compatible with Unix, you have to replace each
+piece, one by one, with a compatible piece. So the remaining design
+decisions are inside one piece, and they could be made later by
+whoever decides to write that piece. They didn't have to be made at
+the outset.</p>
+
+<p>So all we had to do to start work was find a name for the system.
+Now, we hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program,
+because thinking of people being amused by the name is half the fun of
+writing the program. <i>[Laughter]</i> And we had a tradition of
+recursive acronyms, to say that the program that you're writing is
+similar to some existing program. You can give it a recursive acronym
+name which says: this one's not the other. So, for instance, there
+were many Tico text editors in the '60's and '70's, and they were
+generally called something-or-other Tico. Then one clever hacker
+called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico — the first recursive
+acronym. In 1975, I developed the first Emacs text editor, and there
+were many imitations of Emacs, and a lot of them were called
+something-or-other Emacs, but one was called Fine, for Fine Is Not
+Emacs, and there was Sine, for Sine Is Not Emacs, and Eine for Ina Is
+Not Emacs, and MINCE for Mince Is Not Complete
+Emacs. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was a stripped down imitation. And
+then, Eine was almost completely rewritten, and the new version was
+called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>So I looked for a recursive acronym for Something is not Unix. And
+I tried all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word.
+<i>[Laughter]</i> Hmm, try another way. I made a contraction. That
+way I could have a three-letter acronym, for Something's not Unix.
+And I tried letters, and I came across the word “GNU”
+— the word “GNU” is the funniest word in the English
+language. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was it. Of course, the reason it's
+funny is that according to the dictionary, it's pronounced
+“new”. You see? And so that's why people use it for a
+lot of wordplay. Let me tell you, this is the name of an animal that
+lives in Africa. And the African pronunciation had a click sound in
+it. <i>[Laughter]</i> Maybe still does. And so, the European
+colonists, when they got there, they didn't bother learning to say
+this click sound. So they just left it out, and they wrote a
+“G” which meant “there's another sound that's
+supposed to be here which we are not
+pronouncing.” <i>[Laughter]</i> So, tonight I'm leaving for
+South Africa, and I have begged them, I hope they're going to find
+somebody who can teach me to pronounce click sounds, <i>[Laughter]</i>
+so that I'll know how to pronounce GNU the correct way, when it's the
+animal.</p>
+
+<p>But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is
+“guh-NEW” — pronounce the hard “G”. If
+you talk about the “new” operating system, you'll get
+people very confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years
+now, so it is not new any more. <i>[Laughter]</i> But it still is,
+and always will be, GNU — no matter how many people call it
+Linux by mistake. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces
+of GNU. They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities
+though. And, at the time, I thought we would write all these pieces,
+and make an entire GNU system, and then we'd say, “Come and get
+it”, and people would start to use it. That's not what
+happened. The first pieces I wrote were just equally good
+replacements, with fewer bugs for some pieces of Unix, but they
+weren't tremendously exciting. Nobody particularly wanted to get them
+and install them. But then, in September 1984, I started writing GNU
+Emacs, which was my second implementation of Emacs, and by early 1985,
+it was working. I could use it for all my editing, which was a big
+relief, because I had no intention of learning to use VI, the Unix
+editor. <i>[Laughter]</i> So, until that time, I did my editing on
+some other machine, and saved the files through the network, so that I
+could test them. But when GNU Emacs was running well enough for me to
+use it, it was also — other people wanted to use it too.</p>
+
+<p>So I had to work out the details of distribution. Of course, I put
+a copy in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people
+who were on the net They could then just pull over a tar file, but a
+lot of programmers then even were not on the net in 1985. They were
+sending me emails saying “How can I get a copy?” I had to
+decide what I would answer them. Well, I could have said, I want to
+spend my time writing more GNU software, not writing tapes, so please
+find a friend who's on the internet and who is willing to download it
+and put it on a tape for you. And I'm sure people would have found
+some friends, sooner or later, you know. They would have got copies.
+But I had no job. In fact, I've never had a job since quitting MIT in
+January 1984. So, I was looking for some way I could make money
+through my work on free software, and therefore I started a free
+software business. I announced, “Send me $150 dollars, and I'll
+mail you a tape of Emacs.” And the orders began dribbling in.
+By the middle of the year they were trickling in.</p>
+
+<p>I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month. And, if necessary, I could
+have lived on just that, because I've always lived cheaply. I live
+like a student, basically. And I like that, because it means that
+money is not telling me what to do. I can do what I think is
+important for me to do. It freed me to do what seemed worth doing.
+So make a real effort to avoid getting sucked into all the expensive
+lifestyle habits of typical Americans. Because if you do that, then
+people with the money will dictate what you do with your life. You
+won't be able to do what's really important to you.</p>
+
+<p>So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, “What do you
+mean it's free software if it costs $150
+dollars?” <i>[Laughter]</i> Well, the reason they asked this was
+that they were confused by the multiple meanings of the English word
+“free”. One meaning refers to price, and another meaning
+refers to freedom. When I speak of free software, I'm referring to
+freedom, not price. So think of free speech, not free
+beer. <i>[Laughter]</i> Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many years
+of my life to making sure programmers got less money. That's not my
+goal. I'm a programmer and I don't mind getting money myself. I
+won't dedicate my whole life to getting it, but I don't mind getting
+it. And I'm not — and therefore, ethics is the same for
+everyone. I'm not against some other programmer getting money either.
+I don't want prices to be low. That's not the issue at all. The
+issue is freedom. Freedom for everyone who's using software, whether
+that person be a programmer or not.</p>
+
+<p>So at this point I should give you the definition of free software.
+I better get to some real details, you see, because just saying
+“I believe in freedom” is vacuous. There's so many
+different freedoms you could believe in, and they conflict with each
+other, so the real political question is: Which are the important
+freedoms, the freedoms that we must make sure everybody has?</p>
+
+<p>And now, I will give my answer to that question for the particular
+area of using software. A program is free software for you, a
+particular user, if you have the following freedoms:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>First, Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the program for any
+purpose, any way you like.</li>
+<li>Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
+program to suit your needs.</li>
+<li>Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
+copies of the program.</li>
+<li>And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
+publishing an improved version so others can get the benefit of your
+work.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software,
+for you — and that's crucial. That's why I phrase it that way.
+I'll explain why later, when I talk about the GNU General Public
+License, but right now I'm explaining what free software means, which
+is a more basic question.</p>
+
+<p>So, Freedom Zero's pretty obvious. If you're not even allowed to
+run the program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive
+program. But as it happens, most programs will at least give you
+Freedom Zero. And Freedom Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of
+Freedoms One, Two, and Three — that's the way that copyright law
+works. So the freedoms that distinguish free software from typical
+software are Freedoms One, Two, and Three, so I'll say more about them
+and why they are important.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
+software to suit your needs. This could mean fixing bugs. It could
+mean adding new features. It could mean porting it to a different
+computer system. It could mean translating all the error messages
+into Navajo. Any change you want to make, you should be free to
+make.</p>
+
+<p>Now, it's obvious that professional programmers can make use of
+this freedom very effectively, but not just them. Anybody of
+reasonable intelligence can learn a little programming. You know,
+there are hard jobs, and there are easy jobs, and most people are not
+going to learn enough to do hard jobs. But lots of people can learn
+enough to do easy jobs, just the way, you know, 50 years ago, lots and
+lots of American men learned to repair cars, which is what enabled the
+U.S. to have a motorized army in World War II and win. So, very
+important, having lots of people tinkering.</p>
+
+<p>And if you are a people person, and you really don't want to learn
+technology at all, that probably means that you have a lot of friends,
+and you're good at getting them to owe you favors. <i>[Laughter]</i>
+Some of them are probably programmers. So you can ask one of your
+programmer friends. “Would you please change this for me? Add
+this feature?” So, lots of people can benefit from it.</p>
+
+<p>Now, if you don't have this freedom, it causes practical, material
+harm to society. It makes you a prisoner of your software. I
+explained what that was like with regard to the laser printer. You
+know, it worked badly for us, and we couldn't fix it, because we were
+prisoners of our software.</p>
+
+<p>But it also affects people's morale. You know if the computer is
+constantly frustrating to use, and people are using it, their lives
+are going to be frustrating, and if they're using it in their jobs,
+their jobs are going to be frustrating; they're going to hate their
+jobs. And you know, people protect themselves from frustration by
+deciding not to care. So you end up with people whose attitude is,
+“Well, I showed up for work today. That's all I have to do. If
+I can't make progress, that's not my problem; that's the boss's
+problem.” And when this happens, it's bad for those people, and
+it's bad for society as a whole. That's Freedom One, the freedom to
+help yourself.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
+copies of the program. Now, for beings that can think and learn,
+sharing useful knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship. When
+these beings use computers, this act of friendship takes the form of
+sharing software. Friends share with each other. Friends help each
+other. This is the nature of friendship. And, in fact, this spirit
+of goodwill — the spirit of helping your neighbor, voluntarily
+— is society's most important resource. It makes the difference
+between a livable society and a dog-eat-dog jungle. Its importance
+has been recognized by the world's major religions for thousands of
+years, and they explicitly try to encourage this attitude.</p>
+
+<p>When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach
+us this attitude — the spirit of sharing — by having us do
+it. They figured if we did it, we'd learn. So they said, “If
+you bring candy to school, you can't keep it all for yourself; you
+have to share some with the other kids.” Teaching us, the
+society was set up to teach, this spirit of cooperation. And why do
+you have to do that? Because people are not totally cooperative.
+That's one part of human nature, and there are other parts of human
+nature. There are lots of parts of human nature. So, if you want a
+better society, you've got to work to encourage the spirit of sharing.
+You know, it'll never get to be 100%. That's understandable. People
+have to take care of themselves too. But if we make it somewhat
+bigger, we're all better off.</p>
+
+<p>Nowadays, according to the U.S. Government, teachers are supposed
+to do the exact opposite. “Oh, Johnny, you brought software to
+school. Well, don't share it. Oh no. Sharing is wrong. Sharing
+means you're a pirate.”</p>
+
+<p>What do they mean when they say “pirate”? They're
+saying that helping your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking
+a ship. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>What would Buddha or Jesus say about that? Now, take your favorite
+religious leader. I don't know, maybe Manson would have said
+something different. <i>[Laughter]</i> Who knows what L. Ron Hubbard
+would say? But …</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Of course, he's dead. But they don't
+admit that. What?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: So are the others, also
+dead. <i>[Laughter] [Inaudible]</i> Charles Manson's also
+dead. <i>[Laughter]</i> They're dead, Jesus's dead, Buddha's
+dead…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, that's true. <i>[Laughter]</i> So
+I guess, in that regard, L. Ron Hubbard is no worse than the
+others. <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway — <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: L. Ron always used free software —
+it freed him from Zanu. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Anyway, so, I think this is actually the
+most important reason why software should be free: We can't afford to
+pollute society's most important resource. It's true that it's not a
+physical resource like clean air and clean water. It's a
+psycho-social resource, but it's just as real for all that, and it
+makes a tremendous difference to our lives. You see, the actions we
+take influence the thoughts of other people. When we go around
+telling people, “Don't share with each other”, if they
+listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's not a good one.
+That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor.</p>
+
+<p>Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just
+cause this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes
+waste — practical, material harm. If the program has an owner,
+and the owner arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay
+in order to be able to use it, some people are going to say,
+“Never mind, I'll do without it.” And that's waste,
+deliberately inflicted waste. And the interesting thing about
+software, of course, is that fewer users doesn't mean you have to make
+less stuff. You know, if fewer people buy cars, you can make fewer
+cars. There's a saving there. There are resources to be allocated,
+or not allocated, into making cars. So that you can say that having a
+price on a car is a good thing. It prevents people from diverting
+lots of wasted resources into making cars that aren't really needed.
+But if each additional car used no resources, it wouldn't be doing any
+good saving the making of these cars. Well, for physical objects, of
+course, like cars, it is always going to take resources to make an
+additional one of them, each additional exemplar.</p>
+
+<p>But for software that's not true. Anybody can make another copy.
+And it's almost trivial to do it. It takes no resources, except a
+tiny bit of electricity. So there's nothing we can save, no resource
+we're going to allocate better by putting this financial disincentive
+on the use of the software. You often find people taking economic,
+the consequences of economic reasoning, based on premises that don't
+apply to software, and trying to transplant them from other areas of
+life where the premises may apply, and the conclusions may be valid.
+They just take the conclusions and assume that they're valid for
+software too, when the argument is based on nothing, in the case of
+software. The premises don't work in that case. It is very important
+to examine how you reach the conclusion, and what premises it depends
+on, to see where it might be valid. So, that's Freedom Two, the
+freedom to help your neighbor.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
+publishing an improved version of the software. People used to say to
+me, “If the software's free, then nobody will get paid to work
+on it, so why should anybody work on it?” Well, of course, they
+were confusing the two meanings of free, so their reasoning was based
+on a misunderstanding. But, in any case, that was their theory.
+Today, we can compare that theory with empirical fact, and we find
+that hundreds of people are being paid to write free software, and
+over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers. We get lots of people
+working on free software, for various different motives.</p>
+
+<p>When I first released GNU Emacs — the first piece of the GNU
+system that people actually wanted to use — and when it started
+having users, after a while, I got a message saying, “I think I
+saw a bug in the source code, and here's a fix.” And I got
+another message, “Here's code to add a new feature.” And
+another bug fix. And another new feature. And another, and another,
+and another, until they were pouring in on me so fast that just making
+use of all this help I was getting was a big job. Microsoft doesn't
+have this problem. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>Eventually, people noted this phenomenon. You see, in the 1980's a
+lot of us thought that maybe free software wouldn't be as good as the
+non-free software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay
+people. And, of course, people like me, who value freedom and
+community said, “Well, we'll use the free software
+anyway.” It's worth making a little sacrifice in some mere
+technical convenience to have freedom. But what people began to note,
+around 1990 was that our software was actually better. It was more
+powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary alternatives.</p>
+
+<p>In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific
+measurement of reliability of software. Here's what he did. He took
+several sets of comparable programs that did the same jobs — the
+exact same jobs — in different systems. Because there were
+certain basic Unix-like utilities. And the jobs that they did, we
+know, was all, more or less, imitating the same thing, or they were
+following the POSIX spec, so they were all the same in terms of what
+jobs they did, but they were maintained by different people, written
+separately. The code was different. So they said, OK, we'll take
+these programs and run them with random data, and measure how often
+they crash, or hang. So they measured it, and the most reliable set
+of programs was the GNU programs. All the commercial alternatives
+which were proprietary software were less reliable. So he published
+this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he did the
+same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same result.
+The GNU versions were the most reliable. People — you know
+there are cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system,
+because it's so reliable, and reliability is very important to
+them.</p>
+
+<p>Anyway, there's even a group of people who focus on this particular
+benefit as the reason they give, the main reason they give, why users
+should be permitted to do these various things, and to have these
+freedoms. If you've been listening to me, you've noticed, you've seen
+that I, speaking for the free software movement, I talk about issues
+of ethics, and what kind of a society we want to live in, what makes
+for a good society, as well as practical, material benefits. They're
+both important. That's the free software movement.</p>
+
+<p>That other group of people — which is called the open source
+movement — they only cite the practical benefits. They deny
+that this is an issue of principle. They deny that people are
+entitled to the freedom to share with their neighbor and to see what
+the program's doing and change it if they don't like it. They say,
+however, that it's a useful thing to let people do that. So they go
+to companies and say to them, “You know, you might make more
+money if you let people do this.” So, what you can see is that
+to some extent, they lead people in a similar direction, but for
+totally different, for fundamentally different, philosophical
+reasons.</p>
+
+<p>Because on the deepest issue of all, you know, on the ethical
+question, the two movements disagree. You know, in the free software
+movement we say, “You're entitled to these freedoms. People
+shouldn't stop you from doing these things.” In the open source
+movement, they say, “Yes, they can stop you if you want, but
+we'll try to convince them to deign to let you to do these
+things.” Well, they have contributed — they have convinced
+a certain number of businesses to release substantial pieces of
+software as free software in our community. So they, the open source
+movement, has contributed substantially to our community. And so we
+work together on practical projects. But, philosophically, there's a
+tremendous disagreement.</p>
+
+<p>Unfortunately, the open source movement is the one that gets the
+support of business the most, and so most articles about our work
+describe it as open source, and a lot of people just innocently think
+that we're all part of the open source movement. So that's why I'm
+mentioning this distinction. I want you to be aware that the free
+software movement, which brought our community into existence and
+developed the free operating system, is still here — and that we
+still stand for this ethical philosophy. I want you to know about
+this, so that you won't mislead someone else unknowingly.</p>
+
+<p>But also, so that you can think about where you stand.</p>
+
+<p>You know, which movement you support is up to you. You might agree
+with the free software movements and my views. You might agree with
+the open source movement. You might disagree with them both. You
+decide where you stand on these political issues.</p>
+
+<p>But if you agree with the free software movement — if you see
+that there's an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled
+and directed by this decision deserve a say in it — then I hope
+you'll say that you agree with the free software movement, and one way
+you can do that is by using the term free software and just helping
+people know we exist.</p>
+
+<p>So, Freedom Three is very important both practically and
+psycho-socially. If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical
+material harm, because this community development doesn't happen, and
+we don't make powerful, reliable software. But it also causes
+psycho-social harm, which affects the spirit of scientific cooperation
+— the idea that we're working together to advance human
+knowledge. You see, progress in science crucially depends on people
+being able to work together. And nowadays though, you often find each
+little group of scientists acting like it's a war with each other gang
+of scientists and engineers. And if they don't share with each other,
+they're all held back.</p>
+
+<p>So, those are the three freedoms that distinguish free software
+from typical software. Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself,
+making changes to suit your own needs. Freedom Two is the freedom to
+help your neighbor by distributing copies. And Freedom Three is the
+freedom to help build your community by making changes and publishing
+them for other people to use. If you have all of these freedoms, the
+program is free software for you. Now, why do I define it that way in
+terms of a particular user? Is it free software for
+you? <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> Is it free software for
+you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Is it free
+software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i>
+Yes?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you explain a bit about the
+difference between Freedom Two and Three? <i>[inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, they certainly relate, because if
+you don't have freedom to redistribute at all, you certainly don't
+have freedom to distribute a modified version, but they're different
+activities.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Oh.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Freedom Two is, you know, read it, you
+make an exact copy, and hand it to your friends, so now your friend
+can use it. Or maybe you make exact copies and you sell them to a
+bunch of people, and then they can use it.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom Three is where you make improvements — or at least
+you think they're improvements, and some other people may agree with
+you. So that's the difference. Oh, and by the way, one crucial
+point. Freedoms One and Three depend on your having access to the
+source code. Because changing a binary-only program is extremely
+hard. <i>[Laughter]</i> Even trivial changes like using four digits
+for the date, <i>[Laughter]</i> if you don't have source. So, for
+compelling, practical reasons, access to the source code is a
+precondition, a requirement, for free software.</p>
+
+<p>So, why do I define it in terms of whether it's free software for
+<em>you</em>? The reason is that sometimes the same program can be
+free software for some people, and non-free for others. Now, that
+might seem like a paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example
+to show you how it happens. A very big example — maybe the
+biggest ever — of this problem was the X Window System which was
+developed at MIT and released under a license that made it free
+software. If you got the MIT version with the MIT license, you had
+Freedoms One, Two, and Three. It was free software for you. But
+among those who got copies were various computer manufacturers that
+distributed Unix systems, and they made the necessary changes in X to
+run on their systems. You know, probably just a few thousand lines
+out of the hundreds of thousands of lines of X. And, then they
+compiled it, and they put the binaries into their Unix system and
+distributed it under the same non-disclosure agreement as the rest of
+the Unix system. And then, millions of people got these copies. They
+had the X Window System, but they had none of these freedoms. It was
+not free software for <em>them</em>.</p>
+
+<p>So, the paradox was that whether X was free software depended on
+where you made the measurement. If you made the measurement coming
+out of the developers' group, you'd say, “I observe all these
+freedoms. It's free software.” If you made the measurements
+among the users you'd say, “Hmm, most users don't have these
+freedoms. It's not free software.” Well, the people who
+developed X didn't consider this a problem, because their goal was
+just popularity, ego, essentially. They wanted a big professional
+success. They wanted to feel, “Ah, lots of people are using our
+software.” And that was true. Lots of people were using their
+software but didn't have freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Well, in the GNU project, if that same thing had happened to GNU
+software, it would have been a failure, because our goal wasn't just
+to be popular; our goal was to give people liberty, and to encourage
+cooperation, to permit people to cooperate. Remember, never force
+anyone to cooperate with any other person, but make sure that
+everybody's allowed to cooperate, everyone has the freedom to do so,
+if he or she wishes. If millions of people were running non-free
+versions of GNU, that wouldn't be success at all. The whole thing
+would have been perverted into nothing like the goal.</p>
+
+<p>So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening. The method I
+came up with is called “copyleft”. It's called copyleft
+because it's sort of like taking copyright and flipping it
+over. <i>[Laughter]</i> Legally, copyleft works based on copyright.
+We use the existing copyright law, but we use it to achieve a very
+different goal. Here's what we do. We say, “This program is
+copyrighted.” And, of course, by default, that means it's
+prohibited to copy it, or distribute it, or modify it. But then we
+say, “You're authorized to distribute copies of this. You're
+authorized to modify it. You're authorized to distribute modified
+versions and extended versions. Change it any way you
+like.”</p>
+
+<p>But there is a condition. And the condition, of course, is the
+reason why we go to all this trouble, so that we could put the
+condition in. The condition says: Whenever you distribute anything
+that contains any piece of this program, that whole program must be
+distributed under these same terms, no more and no less. So you can
+change the program and distribute a modified version, but when you do,
+the people who get that from you must get the same freedom that you
+got from us. And not just for the parts of it — the excerpts
+that you copied from our program — but also for the other parts
+of that program that they got from you. The whole of that program has
+to be free software for them.</p>
+
+<p>The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become
+inalienable rights — a concept from the Declaration of
+Independence. Rights that we make sure can't be taken away from you.
+And, of course, the specific license that embodies the idea of
+copyleft is the GNU General Public License, a controversial license
+because it actually has the strength to say no to people who would be
+parasites on our community.</p>
+
+<p>There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of
+freedom. And they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done,
+and use it to get a head start in distributing a non-free program and
+tempting people to give up their freedom. And the result would be
+— you know, if we let people do that — that we would be
+developing these free programs, and we'd constantly have to compete
+with improved versions of our own programs. That's no fun.</p>
+
+<p>And, a lot of people also feel — you know, I'm willing to
+volunteer my time to contribute to the community, but why should I
+volunteer my time to contribute to that company's, to improving that
+company's, proprietary program? You know, some people might not even
+think that that's evil, but they want to get paid if they're going to
+do that. I, personally, would rather not do it at all.</p>
+
+<p>But both of these groups of people — both the ones like me
+who say, “I don't want to help that non-free program to get a
+foothold in our community” and the ones that say, “Sure,
+I'd work for them, but then they better pay me” — both of
+us have a good reason to use the GNU General Public License. Because
+that says to that company, “You can't just take my work, and
+distribute it without the freedom.” Whereas, the non-copyleft
+licenses, like the X Windows license, do permit that.</p>
+
+<p>So that is the big division between the two categories of free
+software — license-wise. There are the programs that are
+copylefted so that the license defends the freedom of the software for
+every user. And there are the non-copylefted programs for which
+non-free versions are allowed. Somebody <em>can</em> take those
+programs and strip off the freedom. You may get that program in a
+non-free version.</p>
+
+<p>And that problem exists today. There are still non-free versions
+of X Windows being used on our free operating systems. There is even
+hardware — which is not really supported — except by a
+non-free version of X Windows. And that's a major problem in our
+community. Nonetheless, I wouldn't say that X Windows is a bad thing,
+you know. I'd say that the developers did not do the best possible
+thing that they could have done. But they <em>did</em> release a lot
+of software that we could all use.</p>
+
+<p>You know, there's a big difference between less than perfect, and
+evil. There are many gradations of good and bad. We have to resist
+the temptation to say, if you didn't do the absolute best possible
+thing, then you're no good. You know, the people that developed X
+Windows made a big contribution to our community. But there's
+something better that they could have done. They could have
+copylefted parts of the program and prevented those freedom-denying
+versions from being distributed by others.</p>
+
+<p>Now, the fact that the GNU General Public License defends your
+freedom, uses copyright law to defend your freedom, is, of course, why
+Microsoft is attacking it today. See, Microsoft would really like to
+be able to take all the code that we wrote and put it into proprietary
+programs, have somebody make some improvements, or even just
+incompatible changes is all they need. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>You know, with Microsoft's marketing clout, they don't need to make
+it better to have their version supplant ours. They just have to make
+it different and incompatible. And then, put it on everybody's
+desktop. So they really don't like the GNU GPL. Because the GNU GPL
+won't let them do that. It doesn't allow “embrace and
+extend”. It says, if you want to share our code in your
+programs, you can. But, you've got to share and share alike. The
+changes that you make we have to be allowed to share. So, it's a
+two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation.</p>
+
+<p>Many companies — even big companies like IBM and HP are
+willing to use our software on this basis. IBM and HP contribute
+substantial improvements to GNU software. And they develop other free
+software. But, Microsoft doesn't want to do that, so they give it out
+that businesses just can't deal with the GPL. Well, if businesses
+don't include IBM, and HP and SUN, then maybe they're
+right. <i>[Laughter]</i> More about that later.</p>
+
+<p>I should finish the historical story. You see, we set out in 1984
+not just to write some free software but to do something much more
+coherent: to develop an operating system that was entirely free
+software. So that meant we had to write piece after piece after
+piece. Of course, we were always looking for shortcuts. The job was
+so big that people said we'd never be able to finish. And, I thought
+that there was at least a chance that we'd finish it but, obviously,
+it's worth looking for shortcuts. So we kept looking around. Is there
+any program that somebody else has written that we could manage to
+adapt, to plug into here, and that way we won't have to write it from
+scratch? For instance, the X Window system. It's true it wasn't
+copylefted, but it was free software, so we could use it.</p>
+
+<p>Now, I had wanted to put a window system into GNU from day one. I
+wrote a couple of window systems at MIT before I started GNU. And so,
+even though Unix had no window system in 1984, I decided that GNU
+would have one. But, we never ended up writing a GNU window system,
+because X came along. And I said, Goody! One big job we don't have
+to do. We'll use X. So I basically said, let's take X, and put it
+into the GNU system. And we'll make the other parts of GNU, you know,
+work with X, when appropriate. And we found other pieces of software
+that had been written by other people, like the text formatter TeX,
+some library code from Berkeley. At that time there was Berkeley
+Unix, but it was not free software. This library code, initially, was
+from a different group at Berkeley, that did research on floating
+point. And, so, we kept, we fit in these pieces.</p>
+
+<p>In October 1985, we founded the Free Software Foundation. So
+please note, the GNU project came first. The Free Software Foundation
+came after, about almost two years after the announcement of the
+Project. And the Free Software Foundation is a tax-exempt charity
+that raises funds to promote the freedom to share and change software.
+And in the 1980's, one of the main things we did with our funds was to
+hire people to write parts of GNU. And essential programs, such as
+the shell and the C library were written this way, as well as parts of
+other programs. The <code>tar</code> program, which is absolutely
+essential, although not exciting at all <i>[Laughter]</i> was written
+this way. I believe GNU grep was written this way. And so, we're
+approaching our goal.</p>
+
+<p>By 1991, there was just one major piece missing, and that was the
+kernel. Now, why did I put off the kernel? Probably because it
+doesn't really matter what order you do the things in, at least
+technically it doesn't. You've got to do them all anyway. And partly
+because I'd hoped we'd be able to find a start at a kernel somewhere
+else. And we did. We found Mach, which had been developed at
+Carnegie Mellon. And it wasn't the whole kernel; it was the bottom
+half of the kernel. So we had to write the top half, but I figured,
+you know, things like the file system, the network code, and so on.
+But running on top of Mach they're running essentially as user
+programs, which ought to make them easier to debug. You can debug
+with a real source-level debugger running at the same time. And so, I
+thought that way we'd be able to get these, the higher level parts of
+the kernel, done in a short time. It didn't work out that way. These
+asynchronous, multi-threaded processes, sending messages to each other
+turned out to be very hard to debug. And the Mach-based system that
+we were using to bootstrap with had a terrible debugging environment,
+and it was unreliable, and various problems. It took us years and
+years to get the GNU kernel to work.</p>
+
+<p>But, fortunately, our community did not have to wait for the GNU
+kernel. Because in 1991, Linus Torvalds developed another free kernel
+called Linux. And he used the old-fashioned monolithic design and it
+turns out that he got his working much faster than we got ours
+working. So maybe that's one of the mistakes that I made: that design
+decision. Anyway, at first, we didn't know about Linux, because he
+never contacted us to talk about it. Although he did know about the
+GNU Project. But he announced it to other people and other places on
+the net. And so other people then did the work of combining Linux
+with the rest of the GNU system to make a complete free operating
+system. Essentially, to make the GNU plus Linux combination.</p>
+
+<p>But, they didn't realize that's what they were doing. You see,
+they said, We have a kernel — let's look around and see what
+other pieces we can find to put together with the kernel. So, they
+looked around — and lo and behold, everything they needed was
+already available. What good fortune, they said. <i>[Laughter]</i>
+It's all here. We can find everything we need. Let's just take all
+these different things and put it together, and have a system.</p>
+
+<p>They didn't know that most of what they found was pieces of the GNU
+system. So they didn't realize that they were fitting Linux into the
+gap in the GNU system. They thought they were taking Linux and making
+a system out of Linux. So they called it a Linux system.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can't hear you — what?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, it's just not — you know,
+it's provincial.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: But it's more good fortune then finding
+X and Mach?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. The difference is that the
+people who developed X and Mach didn't have the goal of making a
+complete free operating system. We're the only ones who had that.
+And, it was our tremendous work that made the system exist. We
+actually did a larger part of the system than any other project. No
+coincidence, because those people — they wrote useful parts of
+the system. But they didn't do it because they wanted the system to
+be finished. They had other reasons.</p>
+
+<p>Now the people who developed X — they thought that designing
+across the network window system would be a good project, and it was.
+And it turned out to help us make a good free operating system. But
+that's not what they hoped for. They didn't even think about that.
+It was an accident. An accidental benefit. Now, I'm not saying that
+what they did was bad. They did a large free software project.
+That's a good thing to do. But they didn't have that ultimate vision.
+The GNU Project is where that vision was.</p>
+
+<p>And, so, we were the ones whose — every little piece that
+didn't get done by somebody else, we did it. Because we knew that we
+wouldn't have a complete system without it. And even if it was
+totally boring and unromantic, like <code>tar</code>
+or <code>mv</code>. <i>[Laughter]</i> We did it. Or ld, you know
+there's nothing very exciting in <code>ld</code> — but I wrote
+one. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I did make efforts to have it do a minimal
+amount of disk I/O so that it would be faster and handle bigger
+programs. But, you know, I like to do a good job. I like to improve
+various things about the program while I'm doing it. But the reason
+that I did it wasn't that I had brilliant ideas for a
+better <code>ld</code>. The reason I did it is that we needed one
+that was free. And we couldn't expect anyone else to do it. So, we
+had to do it, or find someone to do it.</p>
+
+<p>So, although at this point thousands of people in projects have
+contributed to this system, there is one project which is the reason
+that this system exists, and that's the GNU Project. It <em>is</em>
+basically the GNU System, with other things added since then.</p>
+
+<p>So, however, the practice of calling the system Linux has been a
+great blow to the GNU Project, because we don't normally get credit
+for what we've done. I think Linux, the kernel, is a very useful
+piece of free software, and I have only good things to say about it.
+But, well, actually, I can find a few bad things to say about
+it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, basically, I have good things to say about
+it. However, the practice of calling the GNU system, Linux, is just a
+mistake. I'd like to ask you please to make the small effort
+necessary to call the system GNU/Linux, and that way to help us get a
+share of the credit.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You need a mascot! Get yourself a
+stuffed animal! <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have one.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You do?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have an animal — a
+gnu. <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway. So, yes, when you draw a penguin,
+draw a gnu next to it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, let's save the
+questions for the end. I have more to go through.</p>
+
+<p>So, why am I so concerned about this? You know, why do I think it
+is worth bothering you and perhaps giving you a, perhaps lowering your
+opinion of me, <i>[Laughter]</i> to raise this issue of credit?
+Because, you know, some people when I do this, some people think that
+it's because I want my ego to be fed, right? Of course, I'm not
+saying — I'm not asking you to call it “Stallmanix,”
+right? <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p>I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to
+get credit. And there's a very specific reason for that, which is a
+lot more important than anybody getting credit, in and of itself. You
+see, these days, if you look around in our community most of the
+people talking about it and writing about it don't ever mention GNU,
+and they don't ever mention these goals of freedom — these
+political and social ideals, either. Because the place they come from
+is GNU.</p>
+
+<p>The ideas associated with Linux — the philosophy is very
+different. It is basically the apolitical philosophy of Linus
+Torvalds. So, when people think that the whole system is Linux, they
+tend to think: “Oh, it must have been all started by Linux
+Torvalds. His philosophy must be the one that we should look at
+carefully”. And when they hear about the GNU philosophy, they
+say: “Boy, this is so idealistic, this must be awfully
+impractical. I'm a Linux-user, not a
+GNU-user.” <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>What irony! If they only knew! If they knew that the system they
+liked — or, in some cases, love and go wild over — is our
+idealistic, political philosophy made real.</p>
+
+<p>They still wouldn't have to agree with us. But at least they'd see
+a reason to take it seriously, to think about it carefully, to give it
+a chance. They would see how it relates to their lives. You know, if
+they realized, “I'm using the GNU system. Here's the GNU
+philosophy. This philosophy is <em>why</em> this system that I like
+very much exists,” they'd at least consider it with a much more
+open mind. It doesn't mean that everybody will agree. People think
+different things. That's OK. You know, people should make up their
+own minds. But I want this philosophy to get the benefit of the
+credit for the results it has achieved.</p>
+
+<p>If you look around in our community, you'll find that almost
+everywhere, the institutions are calling the system Linux. You know,
+reporters mostly call it Linux. It's not right, but they do. The
+companies mostly say it that package the system. Oh, and most of
+these reporters, when they write articles, they usually don't look at
+it as a political issue, or social issue. They're usually looking at
+it purely as a business question or what companies are going to
+succeed more or less, which is really a fairly minor question for
+society. And, if you look at the companies that package the GNU/Linux
+system for people to use, well, most of them call it Linux. And they
+<em>all</em> add non-free software to it.</p>
+
+<p>See, the GNU GPL says that if you take code, and some code out of a
+GPL-covered program, and add some more code to make a bigger program,
+that whole program has to be released under the GPL. But you could
+put other separate programs on the same disk (of either kind, hard
+disk, or CD), and they can have other licenses. That's considered
+mere aggregation, and, essentially, just distributing two programs to
+somebody at the same time is not something we have any say over. So,
+in fact, it is not true — sometimes, I wish it were true —
+that if a company uses a GPL-covered program in a product that the
+whole product has to be free software. It's not — it doesn't go
+to that range — that scope. It's the whole program. If there
+are two separate programs that communicate with each other at arm's
+length — like by sending messages to each other — then,
+they're legally separate, in general. So, these companies, by adding
+non-free software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically
+and politically, a very bad idea. They're telling the users,
+“It is OK to use non-free software. We're even putting it on
+this as a bonus.”</p>
+
+<p>If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system,
+most of them have a title like “Linux-something or other”.
+So they're calling the system Linux most of the time. And they're
+filled with ads for non-free software that you could run on top of the
+GNU/Linux system. Now those ads have a common message. They say:
+Non-free Software Is Good For You. It's So Good That You Might Even
+<em>Pay</em> To Get It. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>And they call these things “value-added packages”,
+which makes a statement about their values. They're saying: Value
+practical convenience, not freedom. And, I don't agree with those
+values, so I call them “freedom-subtracted
+packages”. <i>[Laughter]</i> Because if you have installed a
+free operating system, then you now are living in the free world. You
+enjoy the benefits of liberty that we worked for so many years to give
+you. Those packages give you an opportunity to buckle on a chain.</p>
+
+<p>And then if you look at the trade shows — about the use of
+the, dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call
+themselves “Linux” shows. And they're filled with booths
+exhibiting non-free software, essentially putting the seal of approval
+on the non-free software. So, almost everywhere you look in our
+community, the institutions are endorsing the non-free software,
+totalling negating the idea of freedom that GNU was developed for.
+And the only place that people are likely to come across the idea of
+freedom is in connection with GNU, and in connection with free
+software, the term, free software. So this is why I ask you: please
+call the system GNU/Linux. Please make people aware where the system
+came from and why.</p>
+
+<p>Of course, just by using that name, you won't be making an
+explanation of the history. You can type four extra characters and
+write GNU/Linux; you can say two extra syllables. But, GNU/Linux is
+fewer syllables than Windows 2000. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, you're not
+telling them a lot, but you're preparing them, so that when they hear
+about GNU, and what it's all about, they'll see how that connects to
+them and their lives. And that, indirectly, makes a tremendous
+difference. So please help us.</p>
+
+<p>You'll note that Microsoft called the GPL an “open source
+license”. They don't want people to be thinking in terms of
+freedom as the issue. You'll find that they invite people to think in
+a narrow way, as consumers, and, of course, not even think very
+rationally as consumers, if they're going to choose Microsoft
+products. But they don't want people to think as citizens or
+statesmen. That's inimical to them. At least it's inimical to their
+current business model.</p>
+
+<p>Now, how does free software…well, I can tell you about how
+free software relates to our society. A secondary topic that might be
+of interest to some of you is how free software relates to business.
+Now, in fact, free software is <em>tremendously</em> useful for
+business. After all, most businesses in the advanced countries use
+software. Only a tiny fraction of them develop software.</p>
+
+<p>And free software is tremendously advantageous for any company that
+uses software, because it means that you're in control. Basically,
+free software means the users are in control of what the program does.
+Either individually, if they care enough to be, or, collectively, when
+they care enough to be. Whoever cares enough can exert some
+influence. If you don't care, you don't buy. Then you use what other
+people prefer. But, if you do care, then you have some say. With
+proprietary software, you have essentially no say.</p>
+
+<p>With free software, you can change what you want to change. And it
+doesn't matter that there are no programmers in your company; that's
+fine. You know, if you wanted to move the walls in your building, you
+don't have to be a carpentry company. You just have to be able to go
+find a carpenter and say, “What will you charge to do this
+job?” And if you want to change around the software you use, you
+don't have to be a programming company. You just have to go to a
+programming company and say, “What will you charge to implement
+these features? And when will you have it done?” And if they
+don't do the job, you can go find somebody else.</p>
+
+<p>There's a free market for support. So, any business that cares
+about support will find a tremendous advantage in free software. With
+proprietary software, support is a monopoly, because one company has
+the source code, or maybe a small number of companies that paid a
+gigantic amount of money have the source code, if it's Microsoft's
+shared source program, but, it's very few. And so, there aren't very
+many possible sources of support for you. And that means, that unless
+you're a real giant, they don't care about you. Your company is not
+important enough for them to care if they lose your business, or what
+happens. Once you're using the program, they figure you're locked in
+to getting the support from them, because to switch to a different
+program is a gigantic job. So, you end up with things like paying for
+the privilege of reporting a bug. <i>[Laughter]</i> And once you've
+paid, they tell you, “Well, OK, we've noted your bug report.
+And in a few months, you can buy an upgrade, and you can see if we've
+fixed it.” <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>Support providers for free software can't get away with that. They
+have to please the customers. Of course, you can get a lot of good
+support gratis. You post your problem on the Internet. You may get
+an answer the next day. But that's not guaranteed, of course. If you
+want to be confident, you better make an arrangement with a company
+and pay them. And this is, of course, one of the ways that free
+software business works.</p>
+
+<p>Another advantage of free software for businesses that use software
+is security and privacy. And this applies to individuals as well, but
+I brought it up in the context of businesses. You see, when a program
+is proprietary, you can't even tell what it really does.</p>
+
+<p>It could have features, deliberately put in that you wouldn't like
+if you knew about them, like it might have a backdoor to let the
+developer get into your machine. It might snoop on what you do and
+send information back. This is not unusual. Some Microsoft software
+did this. But it's not only Microsoft. There are other proprietary
+programs that snoop on the user. And you can't even tell if it does
+this. And, of course, even assuming that the developer's totally
+honest, every programmer makes mistakes. There could be bugs that
+affect your security which are nobody's fault. But the point is: If
+it's not free software, you can't find them. And you can't fix
+them.</p>
+
+<p>Nobody has the time to check the source of every program he runs.
+You're not going to do that. But with free software there's a large
+community, and there are people in that community who are checking
+things. And you get the benefit of their checking, because if there's
+an accidental bug, there surely are, from time to time, in any
+program, they might find it and fix it. And people are much less
+likely to put in a deliberate Trojan horse, or a snooping feature, if
+they think they might get caught. The proprietary software developers
+figure they won't get caught. They'll get away with it undetected.
+But a free software developer has to figure that people will look at
+that and see it's there. So, in our community, we don't feel we can
+get away with ramming a feature down the users' throats that the users
+wouldn't like. So we know that if the users don't like it, they'll
+make a modified version which doesn't have it. And then, they'll all
+start using that version.</p>
+
+<p>In fact, we can all reason enough, we can all figure this out
+enough steps ahead, that we probably won't put in that feature. After
+all, you're writing a free program; you want people to like your
+version; you don't want to put in a thing that you know a lot of
+people are going to hate, and have another modified version catch on
+instead of yours. So you just realize that the user is king in the
+world of free software. In the world of proprietary software, the
+customer is <em>not</em> king. Because you are only a customer. You
+have no say in the software you use.</p>
+
+<p>In this respect, free software is a new mechanism for democracy to
+operate. Professor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions
+as a kind of law. Whoever gets to write the code that just about
+everybody uses for all intents and purposes is writing the laws that
+run people's lives. With free software, these laws get written in a
+democratic way. Not the classical form of democracy — we don't
+have a big election and say, “Everybody vote which way should
+this feature be done.” <i>[Laughter]</i> Instead we say,
+basically, those of you who want to work on implementing the feature
+this way, do it. And if you want to work on implementing the feature
+that way, do it. And, it gets done one way or the other, you know?
+And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done this way.
+So, in this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by
+simply taking steps in the direction that he wants to go.</p>
+
+<p>And you're free to take as many steps, personally, as you want to
+take. A business is free to commission as many steps as they find
+useful to take. And, after you add all these things up, that says
+which direction the software goes.</p>
+
+<p>And it's often very useful to be able to take pieces out of some
+existing program, presumably usually large pieces, of course, and then
+write a certain amount of code of your own, and make a program that
+does exactly what you need, which would have cost you an arm and a leg
+to develop, if you had to write it all from scratch, if you couldn't
+cannibalize large pieces from some existing free software package.</p>
+
+<p>Another thing that results from the fact that the user is king is
+that we tend to be very good about compatibility and standardization.
+Why? Because users like that. Users are likely to reject a program
+that has gratuitous incompatibilities in it. Now, sometimes there's a
+certain group of users which actually have a need for a certain kind
+of incompatibility, and then they'll have it. That's OK. But when
+users want is to follow a standard, we developers have to follow it,
+and we know that. And we do it. By contrast, if you look at
+proprietary software developers, they often find it advantageous to
+deliberately <em>not</em> follow a standard, and not because they
+think that they're giving the user an advantage that way, but rather
+because they're imposing on the user, locking the user in. And you'll
+even find them making changes in their file formats from time to time,
+just to force people to get the newest version.</p>
+
+<p>Archivists are finding a problem now, that files written on
+computers ten years ago often can't be accessed; they were written
+with proprietary software that's essentially lost now. If it were
+written with free software, then it could be brought up-to-date and
+run. And those things would not, those records would not be lost,
+would not be inaccessible. They were even complaining about this on
+NPR recently in citing free software as a solution. And so, in
+effect, by using a non-free program to store your own data, you are
+putting your head in a noose.</p>
+
+<p>So, I've talked about how free software affects most business. But
+how does it affect that particular narrow area which is software
+business? Well, the answer is mostly not at all. And the reason is
+that 90% of the software industry, from what I'm told, is development
+of custom software, software that's not meant to be released at all.
+For custom software, this issue, or the ethical issue of free or
+proprietary, doesn't arise. You see, the issue is, are you users free
+to change, and redistribute, the software? If there's only one user,
+and that user owns the rights, there's no problem. That
+user <em>is</em> free to do all these things. So, in effect, any
+<em>custom</em> program that was developed by one company for use
+in-house is free software, as long as they have the sense to insist on
+getting the source code and all the rights.</p>
+
+<p>And the issue doesn't really arise for software that goes in a
+watch or a microwave oven or an automobile ignition system. Because
+those are places where you don't download software to install. It's
+not a real computer, as far as the user is concerned. And so, it
+doesn't raise these issues enough for them to be ethically important.
+So, for the most part, the software industry will go along, just as
+it's been going. And the interesting thing is that since such a large
+fraction of the jobs are in that part of the industry, even if there
+were no possibilities for free software business, the developers of
+free software could all get day jobs writing custom
+software. <i>[Laughter]</i> There's so many; the ratio is so big.</p>
+
+<p>But, as it happens, there is free software business. There are
+free software companies, and at the press conference that I'm going to
+have, people from a couple of them will join us. And, of course,
+there are also companies which are <em>not</em> free software
+businesses but do develop useful pieces of free software to release,
+and the free software that they produce is substantial.</p>
+
+<p>Now, how do free software businesses work? Well, some of them sell
+copies. You know, you're free to copy it but they can still sell
+thousands of copies a month. And others sell support and various
+kinds of services. I, personally, for the second half of the '80's, I
+sold free software support services. Basically I said, for $200 an
+hour, I'll change whatever you want me to change in GNU software that
+I'd written. And, yes, it was a stiff rate, but if it was a program
+that I was the author of, people would figure that I might get the job
+done in a lot fewer hours. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I made a living that
+way. In fact, I'd made more than I'd ever made before. I also taught
+classes. And I kept doing that until 1990, when I got a big prize and
+I didn't have to do it any more.</p>
+
+<p>But, 1990 was when the first corporation free software business was
+formed, which was Cygnus Support. And their business was to do,
+essentially, the same kind of thing that I'd been doing. I certainly
+could have worked for them, if I had needed to do that. Since I
+didn't need to, I felt it was good for the movement if I remained
+independent of any one company. That way, I could say good and bad
+things about the various free software and non-free software
+companies, without a conflict of interest. I felt that I could serve
+the movement more. But, if I had needed that to make a living, sure,
+I would have worked for them. It's an ethical business to be in. No
+reason I would have felt ashamed to take a job with them. And that
+company was profitable in its first year. It was formed with very
+little capital, just the money its three founders had. And it kept
+growing every year and being profitable every year until they got
+greedy, and looked for outside investors, and then they messed things
+up. But it was several years of success, before they got greedy.</p>
+
+<p>So, this illustrates one of the exciting things about free
+software. Free software demonstrates that you don't need to raise
+capital to develop free software. I mean, it's useful;
+it <em>can</em> help. You know, if you do raise some capital, you can
+hire people and have them write a bunch of software. But you can get
+a lot done with a small number of people. And, in fact, the
+tremendous efficiency of the process of developing free software is
+one of the reasons it's important for the world to switch to free
+software. And it also belies what Microsoft says when they say the
+GNU GPL is bad, because it makes it harder for them to raise capital
+to develop non-free software and take our free software and put our
+code into their programs that they won't share with us. Basically, we
+don't need to have them raising capital that way. We'll get the job
+done anyway. We are getting the job done.</p>
+
+<p>People used to say we could never do a complete free operating
+system. Now we've done that and a tremendous amount more. And I
+would say that we're about an order of magnitude away from developing
+all the general purpose published software needs of the world. And
+this is in a world where more than 90% of the users don't use our free
+software yet. This is in a world where, although in certain areas of
+business, you know, more than half of all the web servers in the world
+are running on GNU/Linux with Apache as the web server.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i> … What did you
+say before, Linux?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I said GNU/Linux.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You did?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, if I'm talking about the kernel, I
+call it Linux. You know, that's it's name. The kernel was written by
+Linus Torvalds, and we should only call it by the name that he chose,
+out of respect for the author.</p>
+
+<p>Anyway, but in general, in business most users are not using it.
+Most home users are not using our system yet. So, when they are, we
+should automatically get 10 times as many volunteers and 10 times as
+many customers for the free software businesses that there will be.
+And so that will take us that order of magnitude. So at this point, I
+am pretty confident that we <em>can</em> do the job.</p>
+
+<p>And, this is important, because Microsoft asks us to feel
+desperate. They say, The only way you can have software to run, the
+only way you can have innovation, is if you give us power. Let us
+dominate you. Let us control what you can do with the software you're
+running, so that we can squeeze a lot of money out of you, and use a
+certain fraction of that to develop software, and take the rest as
+profit.</p>
+
+<p>Well, you shouldn't ever feel that desperate. You shouldn't ever
+feel so desperate that you give up your freedom. That's very
+dangerous.</p>
+
+<p>Another thing that Microsoft, well, not just Microsoft, people who
+don't support free software generally adopt a value system in which
+the only thing that matters is short-term practical benefits: How much
+money am I going to make this year? What job can I get done today?
+Short-term thinking and narrow thinking. Their assumption is that it
+is ridiculous to imagine that anybody ever might make a sacrifice for
+the sake of freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Yesterday, a lot of people were making speeches about Americans who
+made sacrifices for the freedom of their compatriots. Some of them
+made great sacrifices. They even sacrificed their lives for the kinds
+of freedom that everyone in our country has heard about, at least.
+(At least, in some of the cases; I guess we have to ignore the war in
+Vietnam.)</p>
+
+<p><i>[Editor's note: The day before was “Memorial Day” in
+the USA. Memorial Day is a day where war heros are
+commemorated.]</i></p>
+
+<p>But, fortunately, to maintain our freedom in using software,
+doesn't call for big sacrifices. Just tiny, little sacrifices are
+enough, like learning a command-line interface, if we don't have a GUI
+interface program yet. Like doing the job in this way, because we
+don't have a free software package to do it that way, yet. Like,
+paying some money to a company that's going to develop a certain free
+software package, so that you can have it in a few years. Various
+little sacrifices that we can all make. And, in the long run, even we
+will have benefited from it. You know, it is really an investment
+more than a sacrifice. We just have to have enough long-term view to
+realize it's good for us to invest in improving our society, without
+counting the nickels and dimes of who gets how much of the benefit
+from that investment.</p>
+
+<p>So, at this point, I'm essentially done.</p>
+
+<p>I'd like to mention that there's a new approach to free software
+business being proposed by Tony Stanco, which he calls “Free
+Developers”, which involves a certain business structure which
+hopes eventually to pay out a certain share of the profits to every,
+to all the authors of the free software who've joined the
+organization. And they're looking at the prospects of getting me some
+rather large government software development contracts in India now,
+because they're going to be using free software as the basis, having
+tremendous cost savings that way.</p>
+
+<p>And so now I guess that I should ask for questions.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Could you speak up a bit louder please?
+I can't really hear you.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: How could a company like Microsoft
+include a free software contract?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually, Microsoft is planning to
+shift a lot of its activity into services. And what they're planning
+to do is something dirty and dangerous, which is tie the services to
+the programs, one to the next, in a sort of zigzag, you know? So that
+to use this service, you've got to be using this Microsoft program,
+which is going to mean you need to use this service, to this Microsoft
+program, so it's all tied together. That's their plan.</p>
+
+<p>Now, the interesting thing is that selling those services doesn't
+raise the ethical issue of free software or non-free software. It
+might be perfectly fine for them to have the business for those
+businesses selling those services over the net to exist. However,
+what Microsoft is planning to do is to use them to achieve an even
+greater lock, an even greater monopoly, on the software and the
+services, and this was described in an article, I believe in Business
+Week, recently. And, other people said that it is turning the net
+into the Microsoft Company Town.</p>
+
+<p>And this is relevant because, you know, the trial court in the
+Microsoft antitrust trial recommended breaking up the company,
+Microsoft. But in a way, that makes no sense — it wouldn't do
+any good at all — into the operating part and the applications
+part.</p>
+
+<p>But having seen that article, I now see a useful, effective way to
+split up Microsoft into the services part and the software part, to
+require them to deal with each other only at arm's length, that the
+services must publish their interfaces, so that anybody can write a
+client to talk to those services, and, I guess, that they have to pay
+to get the service. Well, that's OK. That's a totally different
+issue.</p>
+
+<p>If Microsoft is split up in this way […] services and
+software, they will not be able to use their software to crush
+competition with Microsoft services. And they won't be able to use
+the services to crush competition with Microsoft software. And we
+will be able to make the free software, and maybe you people will use
+it to talk to Microsoft services, and we won't mind.</p>
+
+<p>Because, after all, although Microsoft is the proprietary software
+company that has subjugated the most people — the others have
+subjugated fewer people, it's not for want of
+trying. <i>[Laughter]</i> They just haven't succeeded in subjugating
+as many people. So, the problem is not Microsoft and only Microsoft.
+Microsoft is just the biggest example of the problem we're trying to
+solve, which is proprietary software taking away users' freedom to
+cooperate and form an ethical society. So we shouldn't focus too much
+on Microsoft, you know, even though they did give me the opportunity
+for this platform. That doesn't make them all-important. They're not
+the be-all and end-all.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Earlier, you were discussing the
+philosophical differences between open source software and free
+software. How do you feel about the current trend of GNU/Linux
+distributions as they head towards supporting only Intel platforms?
+And the fact that it seems that less and less programmers are
+programming correctly, and making software that will compile anywhere?
+And making software that simply works on Intel systems?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I don't see an ethical issue there.
+Although, in fact, companies that make computers sometimes port the
+GNU/Linux system to it. HP apparently did this recently. And, they
+didn't bother paying for a port of Windows, because that would have
+cost too much. But getting GNU/Linux supported was, I think, five
+engineers for a few months. It was easily doable.</p>
+
+<p>Now, of course, I encourage people to use <code>autoconf</code>,
+which is a GNU package that makes it easier to make your programs
+portable. I encourage them to do that. Or when somebody else fixes
+the bug that it didn't compile on that version of the system, and
+sends it to you, you should put it in. But I don't see that as an
+ethical issue.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Two comments. One is: Recently, you
+spoke at MIT. I read the transcript. And someone asked about
+patents, and you said that “patents are a totally different
+issue. I have no comments on that.”</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I actually have a lot to say
+about patents, but it takes an hour. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I wanted to say this: It seems to me
+that there is an issue. I mean, there is a reason that companies call
+both patents and copyrights things like hard property in trying to get
+this concept which is, if they want to use the power of the State to
+create a course of monopoly for themselves. And so, what's common
+about these things is not that they revolve around the same issues,
+but that motivation is not really the public service issues but the
+motivation of companies to get a monopoly for their private
+interests.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I understand. But, well, I want to
+respond because there's not too much time. So I'd like to respond to
+that.</p>
+
+<p>You're right that that's what they want. But there's another
+reason why they want to use the term intellectual property. It's that
+they don't want to encourage people to think carefully about copyright
+issues or patent issues. Because copyright law and patent law are
+totally different, and the effects of software copyrighted and
+software patents are totally different.</p>
+
+<p>Software patents are a restriction on programmers, prohibiting them
+from writing certain kinds of programs, whereas copyright doesn't do
+that. With copyright, at least if you wrote it yourself, you're
+allowed to distribute it. So, it's tremendously important to separate
+these issues.</p>
+
+<p>They have a little bit in common, at a very low level, and
+everything else is different. So, please, to encourage clear
+thinking, discuss copyright or discuss patents. But don't discuss
+intellectual property. I don't have an opinion on intellectual
+property. I have opinions on copyrights and patents and software.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You mentioned at the beginning that a
+functional language, like recipes, are computer programs. There's a
+cross a little bit different than other kinds of language created on.
+This is also causing a problem in the DVD case.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: The issues are partly similar but partly
+different, for things that are not functional in nature. Part of the
+issue transfers but not all of it. Unfortunately, that's another hour
+speech. I don't have time to go into it. But I would say that all
+functional works ought to be free in the same sense as software. You
+know, textbooks, manuals, dictionaries, and recipes, and so on.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I was just wondering on online
+music. There are similarities and differences created all through.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I'd say that the minimum freedom
+that we should have for any kind of published information is the
+freedom to non-commercially redistribute it, verbatim. For functional
+works, we need the freedom to commercially publish a modified version,
+because that's tremendously useful to society. For non-functional
+works, you know, things that are to entertain, or to be aesthetic, or
+to state a certain person's views, you know, perhaps they shouldn't be
+modified. And, perhaps that means that it's OK, to have copyright
+covering all commercial distribution of them.</p>
+
+<p>Please remember that according to the U.S. Constitution, the
+purpose of copyright is to benefit the public. It is to modify the
+behavior of certain private parties, so that they will publish more
+books. And the benefit of this is that society gets to discuss issues
+and learn. And, you know, we have literature. We have scientific
+works. The purpose is encourage that. Copyrights do not exist for
+the sake of authors, let alone for the sake of publishers. They exist
+for the sake of readers and all those who benefit from the
+communication of information that happens when people write and others
+read. And that goal I agree with.</p>
+
+<p>But in the age of the computer networks, the method is no longer
+tenable, because it now requires draconian laws that invade
+everybody's privacy and terrorize everyone. You know, years in prison
+for sharing with your neighbor. It wasn't like that in the age of the
+printing press. Then copyright was an industrial regulation. It
+restricted publishers. Now, it's a restriction imposed by the
+publishers on the public. So, the power relationship is turned around
+180 degrees, even if it's the same law.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: So you can have the same thing —
+but like in making music from other music?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. That is an interesting
+…</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: And unique, new works, you know, it's
+still a lot of cooperation.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: It is. And I think that probably
+requires some kind of fair use concept. Certainly making a few
+seconds of sample and using that in making some musical work,
+obviously that should be fair use. Even the standard idea of fair use
+includes that, if you think about it. Whether courts agree, I'm not
+sure, but they should. That wouldn't be a real change in the system
+as it has existed.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: What do you think about publishing
+public information in proprietary formats?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, it shouldn't be. I mean, the
+government should never require citizens to use a non-free program to
+access, to communicate with the government in any way, in either
+direction.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I have been, what I will now say, a
+GNU/Linux user…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Thank you. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: …for the past four years. The one
+thing that has been problematical for me and is something that is
+essential, I think, to all of us, is browsing the web.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: One thing that has been decidedly a
+weakness in using a GNU/Linux system has been browsing the web,
+because the prevailing tool for that, Netscape…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: …is not free software.</p>
+
+<p>Let me respond to this. I want to get to the point, for the sake
+of getting in more. So, yes. There has been a terrible tendency for
+people to use Netscape Navigator on their GNU/Linux systems. And, in
+fact all the commercially packaged systems come with it. So this is
+an ironic situation: we worked so hard to make a free operating
+system, and now, if you go to the store, and you can find versions of
+GNU/Linux there, most of them are called Linux, and they're not free.
+Oh, well, part of them is. But then, there's Netscape Navigator, and
+maybe other non-free programs as well. So, it's very hard to actually
+find a free system, unless you know what you're doing. Or, of course,
+you can not install Netscape Navigator.</p>
+
+<p>Now, in fact, there have been free web browsers for many years.
+There is a free web browser that I used to use called Lynx. It's a
+free web browser that is non-graphical; it's text-only. This has a
+tremendous advantage, in you don't see the ads. <i>[Laughter]
+[Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p>But anyway, there is a free graphical project called Mozilla, which
+is now getting to the point where you can use it. And I occasionally
+use it.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 has been very good.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, OK. So that's another free
+graphical browser. So, we're finally solving that problem, I
+guess.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk to me about that
+philosophical/ethical division between free software and open source?
+Do you feel that those are irreconcilable? …</p>
+
+<p><i>[Recording switches tapes; end of question and start of answer
+is missing]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: … to a freedom, and ethics. Or
+whether you just say, Well, I hope that you companies will decide it's
+more profitable to let us be allowed to do these things.</p>
+
+<p>But, as I said, in a lot of practical work, it doesn't really
+matter what a person's politics are. When a person offers to help the
+GNU project, we don't say: “You have to agree with our
+politics.” We say that in a GNU package, you've got to call the
+system GNU/Linux, and you've got to call it free software. What you
+say when you're not speaking to the GNU Project, that's up to you.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: The company, IBM, started a campaign for
+government agencies, to sell their big new machines, that they used
+Linux as selling point, and say Linux.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, of course, it's really the
+GNU/Linux systems. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: That's right! Well, tell the top sales
+person. He doesn't know anything for GNU.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I have to tell who?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: The top sales person.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh yes. The problem is that they've
+already carefully decided what they want to say for reasons of their
+advantage. And the issue of what is a more accurate, or fair, or
+correct way to describe it is not the primary issue that matters to a
+company like that. Now, some small companies, yes, there'll be a
+boss. And if the boss is inclined to think about things like that, he
+might make a decision that way. Not a giant corporation though. It's
+a shame, you know.</p>
+
+<p>There's another more important and more substantive issue about
+what IBM is doing. They're saying that they're putting a billion
+dollars into “Linux”. But perhaps, I should also put
+quotes around “into”, as well, because some of that money
+is paying people to develop free software. That really is a
+contribution to our community. But other parts is paying to pay
+people to write proprietary software, or port proprietary software to
+run on top of GNU/Linux, and that is <em>not</em> a contribution to
+our community. But IBM is lumping that altogether into this. Some of
+it might be advertising, which is partly a contribution, even if it's
+partly wrong. So, it's a complicated situation. Some of what they're
+doing is contribution and some is not. And some is sort is somewhat,
+but not exactly. And you can't just lump it altogether and think,
+Wow! Whee! A billion dollars from IBM. <i>[Laughter]</i> That's
+oversimplification.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk a little bit more about the
+thinking that went into the general public license?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, here's the — I'm sorry, I'm
+answering his question now. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Do you want to reserve some time for
+the press conference? Or do you want to continue here?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Who is here for the press conference?
+Not a lot of press. Oh, three — OK. Can you afford if we
+— if I go on answering everybody's questions for another ten
+minutes or so? OK. So, we'll go on answering everybody's
+questions.</p>
+
+<p>So, the thinking that went into the GNU GPL? Part of it was that I
+wanted to protect the freedom of the community against the phenomena
+that I just described with X Windows, which has happened with other
+free programs as well. In fact, when I was thinking about this issue,
+X Windows was not yet released. But I had seen this problem happen in
+other free programs. For instance, TeX. I wanted to make sure that
+the users would all have freedom. Otherwise, I realized that I might
+write a program, and maybe a lot of people would use the program, but
+they wouldn't have freedom. And what's the point of that?</p>
+
+<p>But the other issue I was thinking about was, I wanted to give the
+community a feeling that it was not a doormat, a feeling that it was
+not prey to any parasite who would wander along. If you don't use
+copyleft, you are essentially saying: <i>[speaking meekly]</i>
+“Take my code. Do what you want. I don't say no.” So,
+anybody can come along and say: <i>[speaking very firmly]</i>
+“Ah, I want to make a non-free version of this. I'll just take
+it.” And, then, of course, they probably make some improvements,
+those non-free versions might appeal to users, and replace the free
+versions. And then, what have you accomplished? You've only made a
+donation to some proprietary software project.</p>
+
+<p>And when people see that that's happening, when people see, other
+people take what I do, and they don't ever give back, it can be
+demoralizing. And, this is not just speculation. I had seen that
+happen. That was part of what happened to wipe out the old community
+that I belonged to the '70's. Some people started becoming
+uncooperative. And we assumed that they were profiting thereby. They
+certainly acted as if they thought they were profiting. And we
+realized that they can just take off cooperation and not give back.
+And there was nothing we could do about it. It was very discouraging.
+We, those of us who didn't like the trend, even had a discussion and
+we couldn't come up with any idea for how we could stop it.</p>
+
+<p>So, the GPL is designed to stop that. And it says, Yes, you are
+welcome to join the community and use this code. You can use it to do
+all sorts of jobs. But, if you release a modified version, you've got
+to release that to our community, as part of our community, as part of
+the free world.</p>
+
+<p>So, in fact, there are still many ways that people can get the
+benefit of our work and not contribute, like you don't have to write
+any software. Lots of people use GNU/Linux and don't write any
+software. There's no requirement that you've got to do anything for
+us. But if you do a certain kind of thing, you've got to contribute
+to it. So what that means is that our community is not a doormat.
+And I think that that helped give people the strength to feel, Yes, we
+won't just be trampled underfoot by everybody. We'll stand up to
+this.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Yes, my question was, considering free
+but not copylefted software, since anybody can pick it up and make it
+proprietary, is it not possible also for someone to pick it up and
+make some changes and release the whole thing under the GPL?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, it is possible.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Then, that would make all future copies
+then be GPL'ed.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: From that branch. But here's why we
+don't do that.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Hmm?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Here's why we don't generally do that.
+Let me explain.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: OK, yes.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We could, if we wanted to, take X
+Windows, and make a GPL-covered copy and make changes in that. But
+there's a much larger group of people working on improving X Windows
+and <em>not</em> GPL-ing it. So, if we did that, we would be forking
+from them. And that's not very nice treatment of them. And, they
+<em>are</em> a part of our community, contributing to our
+community.</p>
+
+<p>Second, it would backfire against us, because they're doing a lot
+more work on X than we would be. So, our version would be inferior to
+theirs, and people wouldn't use it, which means, why go to the trouble
+at all?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Mmm hmm.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: So when a person has written some
+improvement to X Windows, what I say that person should do is
+cooperate with the X development team. Send it to them and let them
+use it their way. Because they are developing a very important piece
+of free software. It's good for us to cooperate with them.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Except, considering X, in particular,
+about two years ago, the X Consortium that was far into the non-free
+open source…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually it <em>wasn't</em> open
+sourced. It wasn't open sourced, either. They may have said it was.
+I can't remember if they said that or not. But it wasn't open
+source. It was restricted. You couldn't commercially distribute, I
+think. Or you couldn't commercially distribute a modified version, or
+something like that. There was a restriction that's considered
+unacceptable by both the Free Software movement and the Open Source
+movement.</p>
+
+<p>And yes, that's what using a non-copyleft license leaves you open
+to. In fact, the X Consortium, they had a very rigid policy. They
+say: If your program if copylefted even a little bit, we won't
+distribute it at all. We won't put it in our distribution.</p>
+
+<p>So, a lot of people were pressured in this way into not
+copylefting. And the result was that all of their software was wide
+open, later on. When the same people who had pressured a developer to
+be too all-permissive, then the X people later said, All right, now we
+can put on restrictions, which wasn't very ethical of them.</p>
+
+<p>But, given the situation, would we really want to scrape up the
+resources to maintain an alternate GPL-covered version of X? And it
+wouldn't make any sense to do that. There are so many other things we
+need to do. Let's do them instead. We can cooperate with the X
+developers.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Do you have a comment, is the GNU a
+trademark? And is it practical to include it as part of the GNU
+General Public License allowing trademarks?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We are, actually, applying for trademark
+registration on GNU. But it wouldn't really have anything to do with
+that. It's a long story to explain why.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You could require the trademark be
+displayed with GPL-covered programs.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: No, I don't think so. The licenses
+cover individual programs. And when a given program is part of the
+GNU Project, nobody lies about that. The name of the system as a
+whole is a different issue. And this is an aside. It's not worth
+discussing more.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: If there was a button that you could
+push and force all companies to free their software, would you press
+it?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, I would only use this for
+published software. You know, I think that people have the right to
+write a program privately and use it. And that includes companies.
+This is privacy issue. And it's true, there can be times when it is
+wrong to do that, like if it is tremendously helpful to humanity, and
+you are withholding it from humanity. That is a wrong but that's a
+different kind of wrong. It's a different issue, although it's in the
+same area.</p>
+
+<p>But yes, I think all published software should be free software.
+And remember, when it's not free software, that's because of
+government intervention. The government is intervening to make it
+non-free. The government is creating special legal powers to hand out
+to the owners of the programs, so that they can have the police stop
+us from using the programs in certain ways. So I would certainly like
+to end that. </p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Richard's presentation has invariably
+generated an enormous amount of intellectual energy. I would suggest
+that some of it should be directed to using, and possibly writing,
+free software.</p>
+
+<p>We should close the proceedings shortly. I want to say that
+Richard has injected into a profession which is known in the general
+public for its terminal apolitical nerditude a level of political and
+moral discussion which is, I think, unprecedented in our profession.
+And we owe him very big for this. I'd like to note to people that
+there is a break.</p>
+
+<p><i>[Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: You are free to leave at any time, you
+know. <i>[Laughter]</i> I'm not holding you prisoner here.</p>
+
+<p><i>[Audience adjourns…]</i></p>
+
+<p><i>[overlapping conversations…]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: One final thing. Our website:
+www.gnu.org</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></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";><address@hidden></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";>
+ <address@hidden></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>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) 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. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman</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>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2015/09/15 05:45:30 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
Index: philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.html
diff -N philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.html 15 Sep 2015 05:45:30 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,2289 @@
+<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.en.html" -->
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.pl.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+
+<!-- This file is automatically generated by GNUnited Nations! -->
+<title>Wolne oprogramowanie: wolnoÅÄ i wspóÅpraca - Projekt GNU -
Fundacja
+wolnego oprogramowania (FSF)</title>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pl.html" -->
+<h2>Wolne oprogramowanie: wolnoÅÄ i wspóÅpraca</h2>
+
+<blockquote><p>Transcrypcja przemównienia Richarda M. Stallmana p.t.
„Wolne
+oprogramowanie: wolnoÅÄ i wspóÅpraca” wygÅoszonego na New
+York University w Nowym Jorku, NY, 29. maja 2001 r.</p></blockquote>
+
+<div class="announcement">
+<blockquote><p>Także dostÄpne jako <a
href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt">czysty
+tekst</a> [<em>po angielski</em>] oraz <a
+href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt">streszczenie</a>.</p></blockquote>
+</div>
+
+<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: Nazywam siÄ Mike Uretsky. Jestem pracownikiem
+WydziaÅu DziaÅalnoÅci Handlowej [Stern School of Business]. Jestem także
+jednym z dyrektorów Centrum Zaawansowanych Technologii [Center for
+Advanced Technology]. ChciaÅbym wszystkich przywitaÄ w imieniu
+pracowników WydziaÅu Informatyki [Computer Science Department]. Pozwólcie,
+że powiem jeszcze kilka sÅów zanim przekaÅ¼Ä gÅos Edowi, który
+przedstawi naszego goÅcia.</p>
+
+<p>Uniwersytet powinien byÄ miejscem sprzyjajÄ
cym debatom, w którym
+odbywajÄ
siÄ ciekawe dyskusje. Natomiast na wiodÄ
cym uniwersytecie
+powinny odbywaÄ siÄ dyskusje szczególnie ciekawe. Do tej kategorii
+idealnie pasuje dzisiejsze seminarium. Dla mnie dyskusja poruszajÄ
ca temat
+oprogramowania open source [ang. o otwartych źródÅach] jest szczególnie
+interesujÄ
ca. W pewnym sensie… <i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Ja siÄ zajmujÄ wolnym
+oprogramowaniem. Oprogramowanie open source to osobny ruch. <i>[Åmiech]
+[aplauz]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: Kiedy w latach 60. zaczynaÅem pracÄ
+w tej dziedzinie, oprogramowanie byÅo w zasadzie
+wolne. Ale wszystko siÄ odwróciÅo. StaÅo siÄ wolne, a potem
+producenci oprogramowania, którzy chcieli rozszerzyÄ swoje rynki zbytu,
+popchnÄli je w innych kierunkach. Wiele rzeczy, które pojawiÅy siÄ
wraz
+z architekturÄ
PC, przeszÅo przez podobny cykl.</p>
+
+<p>Jest pewien bardzo interesujÄ
cy francuski filozof, Pierre Levy, który
pisze
+o ruchu w tym kierunku. Pisze także o wkraczaniu
+do cyberprzestrzeni jako czymÅ zwiÄ
zanym nie tylko z technologiÄ
,
+ale również reorganizacjÄ
struktury spoÅecznej i politycznej,
+bÄdÄ
cej wynikiem zmiany typów relacji, które doprowadzÄ
do poprawy
+stanu ludzkoÅci. Mamy nadziejÄ, że ta debata to ruch w tymże
+kierunku, że rozmywa ona granice pomiÄdzy wieloma dziedzinami, które
+zwykle funkcjonujÄ
na Uniwersytecie osobno. Mamy nadziejÄ,
+że dyskusje bÄdÄ
bardzo interesujÄ
ce. Ed?</p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Nazywam siÄ Ed Schonberg i pracujÄ
+na Wydziale Informatyki Instytutu Courant [Courant Institute]. Witam
+wszystkich przybyÅych. Zapowiadacze to zazwyczaj, i w szczególnoÅci,
+niepotrzebny aspekt publicznych wystÄ
pieÅ, jednak w tym przypadku majÄ
+użyteczne zastosowanie, co pokazaÅ Mike czyniÄ
c nieÅcisÅe uwagi.
PozwoliÅ on
+mówcy dodaÄ sprostowanie <i>[Åmiech]</i> i znacznie wyostrzyÄ wstÄpne
+zaÅożenia debaty.</p>
+
+<p>Pozwólcie wiÄc, że w jak najkrótszy sposób przedstawiÄ osobÄ,
która
+przedstawiania nie wymaga. Richard to doskonaÅy przykÅad kogoÅ, kto
+dziaÅajÄ
c lokalnie zaczÄ
Å myÅleÄ globalnie, poczynajÄ
c
od problemów
+zwiÄ
zanych z niedostÄpnoÅciÄ
kodu źródÅowego sterowników drukarki
+w Laboratorium Sztucznej Inteligencji na MIT [AI Lab] wiele lat
+temu. StworzyÅ on spójnÄ
filozofiÄ, która zmusiÅa nas wszystkich
+do ponownego przemyÅlenia kwestii produkcji oprogramowania, znaczenia
+wÅasnoÅci intelektualnej i tego, co reprezentuje sobÄ
Årodowisko
+programistów. Przywitajmy Richarda Stallmana. <i>[aplauz]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Czy ktoÅ mógÅby pożyczyÄ mi zegarek?
+<i>[Åmiech]</i> DziÄkujÄ. No wiÄc, chciaÅbym podziÄkowaÄ firmie
Microsoft
+za stworzenie mi okazji do <i>[Åmiech]</i> przemawiania
+z tego miejsca. Od kilku tygodni czujÄ siÄ jak autor ksiÄ
żki,
+która szczÄÅliwie zostaÅa gdzieÅ zakazana. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Tylko
+że wszystkie artykuÅy na jej temat zawierajÄ
nazwisko
+niewÅaÅciwego autora, bo Microsoft okreÅla GPL jako licencjÄ typu open
+source, a wiÄkszoÅÄ prasy podÄ
ża ich Åladem. WiÄkszoÅÄ ludzi,
+oczywiÅcie bez zÅych intencji, nie zdaje sobie sprawy, że nasze
+dziaÅania nie majÄ
nic wspólnego z ruchem open source, oraz że
+zajmowaliÅmy siÄ tymi sprawami na dÅugo zanim nawet utarÅ siÄ termin
+open source.</p>
+
+<p>JesteÅmy czÄÅciÄ
ruchu wolnego oprogramowania, a ja zamierzam
+opowiedzieÄ, co ten ruch ma na celu, jakie ma znaczenie, co dotychczas
+zrobiliÅmy oraz, ponieważ to wszystko jest po czÄÅci sponsorowane
+przez wydziaÅ handlowy, opowiem trochÄ wiÄcej niż zwykle o stosunku wolnego
+oprogramowania do biznesu i kilku innych obszarów życia
+spoÅecznego.</p>
+
+<p>Dobrze, niektórzy z was mogÄ
nigdy nie napisaÄ Å¼adnego programu,
+ale byÄ może gotujecie. Jako kucharze zapewne korzystacie
+z przepisów, chyba że jesteÅcie naprawdÄ Åwietni. A jeÅli
+korzystacie z przepisów, to pewnie kiedyÅ dostaliÅcie kopiÄ jednego
+z nich od znajomego. ZdarzyÅo siÄ też zapewne, jeÅli tylko nie
+jesteÅcie zupeÅnymi nowicjuszami, że zmieniliÅcie jakiÅ przepis. No
+wiecie, przepis zawiera pewne wskazówki, ale nie musicie siÄ ich
+dokÅadnie trzymaÄ. Możecie opuÅciÄ kilka skÅadników. DodaÄ trochÄ
grzybów,
+bo lubicie grzyby. ZmniejszyÄ iloÅÄ soli, bo lekarz kazaÅ wam
+mniej soliÄ – cokolwiek. JeÅli macie odpowiednie umiejÄtnoÅci,
+możecie nawet wprowadzaÄ wiÄksze zmiany. A kiedy już zmieniliÅcie
+przepis i przygotowaliÅcie danie dla swoich znajomych, a im to
+smakowaÅo, jeden z nich może powiedzieÄ: „Hej, mogÄ dostaÄ
+przepis?”. I co wtedy zrobicie? Możecie zapisaÄ swojÄ
+zmodyfikowanÄ
wersjÄ na kartce i skopiowaÄ jÄ
dla znajomego. To
+naturalne postÄpowanie w przypadku jakiegokolwiek użytecznego
przepisu.</p>
+
+<p>Przepisy sÄ
bardzo podobne do programów komputerowych. Programy
+komputerowe sÄ
bardzo podobne do przepisów: sekwencja kroków, których
+podjÄcie prowadzi do jakiegoÅ pożÄ
danego rezultatu. WiÄc tak
samo
+naturalne jest takie postÄpowanie w przypadku programu
+komputerowego – rozdawanie kopii przyjacioÅom. Wprowadzanie
+do niego zmian, bo cel, dla jakiego zostaÅ stworzony, nie jest
+dokÅadnie tym, co wam jest potrzebne. MógÅ byÄ bardzo pomocny przy
+wykonywaniu czyjegoŠzadania, ale wasze jest inne. A jak już go
+zmienicie, to prawdopodobnie bÄdzie on użyteczny dla innych. Może majÄ
pracÄ
+do wykonania podobnÄ
do waszej. WiÄc spytajÄ
siÄ:
„Hej,
+czy mogÄ dostaÄ kopiÄ?” JeÅli jesteÅcie mili, to oczywiÅcie
im jÄ
+dacie. Tak robiÄ
przyzwoite osoby.</p>
+
+<p>WiÄc wyobraźcie sobie, co by byÅo, gdyby przepisy byÅy pakowane
+do czarnych skrzynek. Nie wiedzielibyÅcie, jakie sÄ
w nich zawarte
+skÅadniki, nie mówiÄ
c już nawet o wprowadzaniu zmian i wyobraźcie
+sobie, że jeÅli wykonalibyÅcie kopiÄ dla przyjaciela, nazwaliby was
+piratami i próbowali wsadziÄ na parÄ lat do wiÄzienia. Taki
+Åwiat wywoÅaÅby wielkie oburzenie u ludzi przyzwyczajonych
+do dzielenia siÄ przepisami. Ale tak wÅaÅnie wyglÄ
da Åwiat
+objÄtego restrykcyjnymi licencjami oprogramowania. W tym Åwiecie
+zwyczajna przyzwoitoÅÄ wobec innych ludzi jest zabroniona
+lub zwalczana.</p>
+
+<p>Dlaczego to zauważyÅem? ZauważyÅem to, ponieważ w latach 70.
miaÅem
+szczÄÅcie należeÄ do spoÅecznoÅci programistów, którzy dzielili
siÄ
+oprogramowaniem. SpoÅecznoÅÄ ta miaÅa korzenie w samych poczÄ
tkach
+informatyki. Jednak w latach 70. byÅo czymÅ odrobinÄ niezwykÅym,
+że istniaÅa spoÅecznoÅÄ, w obrÄbie której ludzie dzielili siÄ
+programami. I byÅ to tak naprawdÄ rodzaj skrajnego przypadku,
+ponieważ w laboratorium, w którym pracowaÅem, caÅy system
+operacyjny skÅadaÅ siÄ z oprogramowania napisanego przez naszÄ
+spoÅecznoÅÄ i dzieliliÅmy siÄ ze wszystkimi każdÄ
jego czÄÅciÄ
.
Każdy
+mógÅ wpaÅÄ i popatrzeÄ, wziÄ
Ä sobie kopiÄ i zrobiÄ
z niÄ
+cokolwiek chciaÅ. Na tych programach nie byÅo informacji o prawach
+autorskich. WspóÅpraca byÅa naszym sposobem na życie. Å»yjÄ
c tak
+czuliÅmy siÄ bezpieczni. Nie walczyliÅmy o to. Nie musieliÅmy o to
+walczyÄ. Po prostu żyliÅmy w ten sposób. I chcieliÅmy
żyÄ tak
+dalej. IstniaÅo wiÄc wolne oprogramowanie, ale nie istniaÅ ruch
+wolnego oprogramowania.</p>
+
+<p>Jednak potem nasza spoÅecznoÅÄ zostaÅa zniszczona przez seriÄ
+nieszczÄÅÄ, które jÄ
dotknÄÅy. W koÅcu przestaÅa istnieÄ.
W koÅcu
+produkcja PDP-10, czyli komputera, którego używaliÅmy do caÅej
+pracy, zostaÅa zawieszona. Wiecie, nasz system – ITS
+[Incompatible Timesharing System, Niezgodny System z PodziaÅem
+Czasu] – zaczÄ
Å byÄ tworzony w latach 60., wiÄc byÅ
+napisany w asemblerze. Tak pisaÅo siÄ systemy operacyjne w latach
+60. Jak wiadomo asembler jest przypisany do konkretnej architektury;
+gdy wychodzi ona z produkcji, caÅa praca idzie
+na marne – staje siÄ bezużyteczna. WÅaÅnie to nam siÄ
+przydarzyÅo. OkoÅo 20 lat pracy naszej spoÅecznoÅci poszÅo
na marne.</p>
+
+<p>Jednak zanim siÄ to staÅo, przydarzyÅo mi siÄ coÅ, co mnie
+przygotowaÅo, pomogÅo mi zrozumieÄ, co trzeba zrobiÄ, pomogÅo mi
przygotowaÄ
+siÄ do zrozumienia co zrobiÄ, gdy to siÄ staÅo, ponieważ pewnego
+razu Xerox podarowaÅ Laboratorium Sztucznej Inteligencji, gdzie pracowaÅem,
+laserowÄ
drukarkÄ i byÅ to naprawdÄ niezÅy prezent, bo po raz
+pierwszy ktokolwiek poza Xeroksem miaÅ dostÄp do laserowej
+drukarki. ByÅa bardzo szybka, wydruk strony zajmowaÅ jej sekundÄ,
+pod wieloma wzglÄdami byÅa bardzo dobra, ale zawodna, bo tak
+naprawdÄ byÅa to szybka kopiarka biurowa, którÄ
zamieniono
+w drukarkÄ. Jak wiecie, kopiarki siÄ zacinajÄ
, ale zawsze znajdzie
+siÄ przy nich ktoÅ, kto je naprawi. Drukarka zacinaÅa siÄ i nikt tego
+nie widziaÅ. WiÄc staÅa zaciÄta przez dÅugi czas.</p>
+
+<p>MieliÅmy pomysÅ jak rozwiÄ
zaÄ ten problem. WprowadziÄ zmiany, żeby
+za każdym razem, kiedy drukarka siÄ zaciÄÅa, komputer, który jÄ
+obsÅugiwaÅ informowaÅ naszÄ
maszynÄ z podziaÅem czasu
i informowaÅ
+użytkowników czekajÄ
cych na wydruk, albo coÅ w tym stylu, no
+wiecie – „Idź napraw drukarkÄ”. Bo gdyby tylko
+wiedzieli, że drukarka siÄ zaciÄÅa, oczywiste jest, że jeÅli
+czekasz na wydruk i wiesz, że drukarka siÄ zaciÄÅa, to nie
+siedzisz i nie czekasz do koÅca Åwiata, tylko idziesz i jÄ
+naprawiasz.</p>
+
+<p>Jednak wtedy nie mogliÅmy zupeÅnie nic zrobiÄ,
+ponieważ oprogramowanie obsÅugujÄ
ce drukarkÄ nie byÅo wolne.
DostaliÅmy
+je razem z drukarkÄ
i byÅ to po prostu plik binarny. Nie dano
+nam kodu źródÅowego – Xerox nie chciaÅ siÄ na to
+zgodziÄ. Tak wiÄc, mimo naszych umiejÄtnoÅci programistycznych –
+jakby nie patrzeÄ napisaliÅmy wÅasny system z podziaÅem
+czasu – nie mogliÅmy w żaden sposób dodaÄ tej funkcji
+do oprogramowania drukarki.</p>
+
+<p>Jedyne, co nam pozostawaÅo, to ÅcierpieÄ czekanie. Wydruk zajmowaÅ
+od jednej do dwóch godzin, ponieważ przez wiÄkszoÅÄ czasu
+drukarka byÅa zaciÄta. I tylko czasami – czekaÅo siÄ
godzinÄ
+myÅlÄ
c: „Na pewno bÄdzie zaciÄta. Poczekam godzinÄ i wtedy
+odbiorÄ wydruk”, a potem okazywaÅo siÄ, że byÅa zaciÄta
+przez caÅy ten czas i że nikt inny jej nie
+naprawiÅ. WiÄc naprawiaÅo siÄ jÄ
i czekaÅo kolejne póÅ
+godziny. Potem siÄ wracaÅo, a ona znów siÄ zaciÄÅa –
zanim
+zaczÄÅa drukowaÄ twój dokument. DrukowaÅa przez trzy minuty, a staÅa
+zaciÄta przez trzydzieÅci. Frustracja siÄgaÅa sufitu. Ale gorsze byÅo
+to, że wiedzieliÅmy, że możemy jÄ
naprawiÄ, jednak ktoÅ
inny,
+z powodu swojego egoizmu, nie pozwalaÅ nam, blokowaÅ możliwoÅÄ
+ulepszenia oprogramowania. WiÄc oczywiÅcie trochÄ Å¼ywiliÅmy
+do nich urazÄ.</p>
+
+<p>I wtedy dowiedziaÅem siÄ, że ktoÅ na uniwersytecie
Carnegie
+Mellon [Carnegie Mellon University] ma kopiÄ tego oprogramowania. ByÅem tam
+jakiÅ czas później, wiÄc poszedÅem do jego biura
i spytaÅem:
+„CzeÅÄ, jestem z MIT. Czy mógÅbym dostaÄ kopiÄ kodu
+źródÅowego oprogramowania drukarki?” a on na to: „Nie,
+obiecaÅem nie dawaÄ ci kopii”. <i>[Åmiech]</i> StaÅem osÅupiaÅy.
ByÅem
+taki – byÅem wÅciekÅy i nie wiedziaÅem jak mogÄ zaradziÄ
+sytuacji. Jedyne co przyszÅo mi do gÅowy, to obróciÄ siÄ
na piÄcie
+i wyjÅÄ z jego biura. ByÄ może trzasnÄ
Åem
+drzwiami. <i>[Åmiech]</i> A potem o tym myÅlaÅem,
ponieważ zdaÅem
+sobie sprawÄ, że nie miaÅem do czynienia z jednym draniem,
+ale ze spoÅecznym zjawiskiem, które miaÅo duże znaczenie
+i dotykaÅo bardzo wielu ludzi.</p>
+
+<p>ByÅo to – dla mnie – miaÅem szczÄÅcie, dostaÅem
tylko
+przedsmak, a inni musieli z tym żyÄ przez caÅy
+czas. WiÄc dÅugo na ten temat myÅlaÅem. a wiÄc on obiecaÅ
+odmówiÄ wspóÅpracy z nami – swoimi kolegami
+z MIT. ZdradziÅ nas. Ale nie tylko nas. Prawdopodobnie zdradziÅ
+też ciebie. <i>[wskazuje palcem któregoÅ ze sÅuchaczy]</i> Wydaje mi siÄ,
+że zapewne zdradziÅ też ciebie. <i>[wskazuje palcem innego sÅuchacza]
+[Åmiech]</i> I ciebie pewno też zdradziÅ. <i>[wskazuje trzeciego
+sÅuchacza]</i> Prawdopodobnie zdradziÅ wiÄkszoÅÄ ludzi w tym
+pomieszczeniu – za wyjÄ
tkiem może kilku, którzy w 1980
+jeszcze siÄ nie urodzili. Bo on obiecaÅ odmówiÄ wspóÅpracy
+w zasadzie z caÅÄ
populacjÄ
planety Ziemia. PodpisaÅ umowÄ o
+poufnoÅci.</p>
+
+<p>To byÅ mój pierwszy, bezpoÅredni kontakt z umowÄ
o poufnoÅci
+i nauczyÅ mnie on pewnej ważnej rzeczy – ważnej,
+bo wiÄkszoÅÄ programistów nigdy siÄ jej nie uczy. ByÅ to mój
pierwszy
+kontakt z umowÄ
o poufnoÅci i ja byÅem ofiarÄ
. Ja i caÅe
moje
+laboratorium byliÅmy ofiarami. a rzecz, której siÄ nauczyÅem, to
+że umowy o poufnoÅci majÄ
swoje ofiary. Nie sÄ
niewinne. Nie sÄ
+nieszkodliwe. WiÄkszoÅÄ programistów po raz pierwszy siÄ z nimi
+styka, gdy majÄ
takÄ
umowÄ podpisaÄ. I zawsze istnieje jakaÅ
+pokusa – jakaÅ nagroda, którÄ
dostanÄ
, jeÅli
+podpiszÄ
. WiÄc wymyÅlajÄ
wymówki. MówiÄ
: „No cóż, on
i tak
+nigdy nie dostanie kopii, choÄby nie wiem co, wiÄc czemu nie miaÅbym
+przyÅÄ
czyÄ siÄ do spisku chcÄ
cego odmówiÄ mu do niej
+dostÄpu?”. MówiÄ
: „Zawsze siÄ to tak robi. Kim ja jestem, żeby
+siÄ temu sprzeciwiaÄ?”. MówiÄ
: „JeÅli ja tego nie podpiszÄ,
ktoÅ
+inny to zrobi”. Przeróżne wymówki, aby uciszyÄ swoje
sumienie.</p>
+
+<p>Lecz kiedy ktoÅ poprosiÅ mnie o podpisanie umowy o poufnoÅci, moje
+sumienie byÅo już wyczulone. PamiÄtaÅo jaki byÅem wÅciekÅy, kiedy ktoÅ
+obiecaÅ, że nie pomoże mi i mojemu laboratorium rozwiÄ
zaÄ
naszego
+problemu. I nie mogÅem obróciÄ siÄ i zrobiÄ dokÅadnie tego
samego
+komuÅ innemu, kto nigdy nie zrobiÅ mi niczego zÅego. Wiecie, gdyby ktoÅ
+poprosiÅ mnie, żebym obiecaÅ, że nie podzielÄ siÄ pewnymi
użytecznymi
+informacjami ze znienawidzonym wrogiem, to zgodziÅbym siÄ. Rozumiecie? JeÅli
+ktoÅ zrobiÅ coÅ zÅego, to na to zasÅuguje. Ale nieznajomi â
nie
+zrobili mi niczego zÅego. W jaki sposób mieliby sobie zasÅużyÄ
+na takie podÅe traktowanie? Nie można sobie pozwoliÄ
+na traktowanie po prostu wszystkich bez wyjÄ
tku źle. Zaczyna
+siÄ wtedy żerowaÄ na spoÅeczeÅstwie. PowiedziaÅem wiÄc:
„DziÄkujÄ
+bardzo za zaoferowanie mi tego wspaniaÅego pakietu
+oprogramowania. Jednak nie mogÄ go przyjÄ
Ä w dobrej wierze
+na warunkach, których siÄ domagacie, wiÄc poradzÄ sobie
+bez niego. DziÄkujÄ bardzo”. I w taki sposób nigdy
Åwiadomie
+nie podpisaÅem umowy o poufnoÅci dotyczÄ
cej powszechnie użytecznych
+informacji technicznych, takich jak oprogramowanie.</p>
+
+<p>IstniejÄ
inne rodzaje informacji, które budzÄ
inne etyczne pytania. SÄ
+na przykÅad informacje osobiste. No wiecie, gdyby jakaÅ dziewczyna
+chciaÅa porozmawiaÄ ze mnÄ
o tym, co dziaÅo siÄ miÄdzy niÄ
a jej
+chÅopakiem i poprosiÅa mnie o utrzymanie tego
+w tajemnicy – to wiecie, mógÅbym to utrzymaÄ –
+mógÅbym zgodziÄ siÄ tego nie ujawniaÄ, ponieważ nie jest to
powszechnie
+użyteczna informacja techniczna. W każdym bÄ
dź razie
+prawdopodobnie nie powszechnie użyteczna. <i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
+
+<p>Istnieje maÅa szansa – ale to tylko
możliwoÅÄ –
+że mogÅaby wyjawiÄ mi jakÄ
Å nowÄ
, wspaniaÅÄ
technikÄ seksualnÄ
+<i>[Åmiech]</i>, a wtedy czuÅbym moralne zobowiÄ
zanie <i>[Åmiech]</i>
+podzieliÄ siÄ niÄ
z resztÄ
ludzkoÅci, tak aby wszyscy mogli
+z niej skorzystaÄ. WiÄc musiaÅbym w tej obietnicy zawrzeÄ
+zastrzeżenie, prawda? JeÅli byÅyby to tylko szczegóÅowe wiadomoÅci, kto
tego
+chce, a kto jest zÅy na kogo, i tak dalej –
+brazylijski serial – to mogÄ to utrzymaÄ w tajemnicy,
+ale wiedzy, na której mogÅaby bardzo skorzystaÄ ludzkoÅÄ nie
mogÄ
+zatrzymaÄ dla siebie. Zadaniem nauki i technologii jest dawanie
+ludzkoÅci użytecznych informacji, dziÄki którym polepsza siÄ Å¼ycie
+ludzi. JeÅli obiecujemy zatrzymaÄ takie informacje dla siebie –
+jeÅli trzymamy je w tajemnicy – to zdradzamy ideaÅy naszej
+dziedziny. A czegoÅ takiego postanowiÅem nie robiÄ.</p>
+
+<p>Tymczasem rozpadÅa siÄ moja spoÅecznoÅÄ, a to byÅo zaÅamujÄ
ce
+i postawiÅo mnie w zÅej sytuacji. CaÅy ITS byÅ przestarzaÅy,
+ponieważ PDP-10 byÅo przestarzaÅe, wiÄc nie byÅo żadnego
sposobu,
+abym mógÅ kontynuowaÄ pracÄ programisty systemowego tak jak
+dotychczas. PolegaÅa ona na byciu czÄÅciÄ
spoÅecznoÅci, korzystaniu
ze
+stworzonego przez niÄ
oprogramowania i ulepszaniu go. Nie byÅo wiÄcej
+takiej możliwoÅci i stanÄ
Åem przed moralnym dylematem. Co miaÅem
robiÄ?
+Bo najbardziej oczywista możliwoÅÄ oznaczaÅa zaprzeczenie podjÄtej
+przeze mnie decyzji. Najbardziej oczywistÄ
możliwoÅciÄ
byÅo dostosowanie
siÄ
+do zmian, jakie zaszÅy w Åwiecie. Zaakceptowanie, że sprawy
+przedstawiaÅy siÄ inaczej i że muszÄ po prostu porzuciÄ swoje
+zasady, i zaczÄ
Ä podpisywaÄ umowy o poufnoÅci dotyczÄ
ce systemów
+operacyjnych objÄtych restrykcyjnymi licencjami,
+oraz najprawdopodobniej pisaÄ oprogramowanie o zamkniÄtych
+źródÅach. ZdaÅem sobie sprawÄ, że w ten sposób mógÅbym miÅo
spÄdzaÄ
+czas programujÄ
c i zarabiaÄ pieniÄ
dze – szczególnie, gdybym
+pracowaÅ poza MIT – ale potem musiaÅbym spojrzeÄ wstecz
+na swojÄ
drogÄ zawodowÄ
i powiedzieÄ: „SpÄdziÅem życie
+budujÄ
c mury dzielÄ
ce ludzi” i wstydziÅbym siÄ swojego
życia.</p>
+
+<p>SzukaÅem wiÄc innej możliwoÅci – istniaÅa jedna
+oczywista. MogÅem odejÅÄ z branży programistycznej i zajÄ
Ä siÄ
+czymÅ innym. Nie miaÅem żadnych innych wartych uwagi umiejÄtnoÅci,
+ale na pewno mogÅem zostaÄ kelnerem. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Nie w drogiej
+restauracji, w takiej by mnie nie zatrudnili <i>[Åmiech]</i>,
+ale gdzieÅ tam mogÅem byÄ kelnerem. Wielu programistów mówi mi:
+„Ludzie zatrudniajÄ
cy programistów wymagajÄ
tego, tego
+i tego. JeÅli nie bÄdÄ tego robiÅ, to bÄdÄ gÅodowaÅ.”
DokÅadnie
+tego sÅowa używajÄ
. No cóż, pracujÄ
c jako kelner nie bÄdziesz
+gÅodowaÅ. <i>[Åmiech]</i> NaprawdÄ nie ma siÄ czego
+obawiaÄ. Jednak – i to jest ważne –
+bo czasami można usprawiedliwiaÄ robienie czegoÅ, co szkodzi innym,
+twierdzÄ
c, że coÅ gorszego spotka nas. GdybyÅcie <em>naprawdÄ</em>
+mieli gÅodowaÄ, to bylibyÅcie usprawiedliwieni piszÄ
c oprogramowanie
objÄte
+restrykcyjnymi licencjami. <i>[Åmiech]</i> JeÅli ktoÅ celowaÅby do was
+z pistoletu, to można by wam to wybaczyÄ. <i>[Åmiech]</i>
+Jednak znalazÅem sposób, aby przeżyÄ nie robiÄ
c czegoÅ
+nieetycznego, wiÄc ta wymówka byÅa na nic. ZdaÅem sobie sprawÄ,
+że bycie kelnerem nie sprawiaÅoby mi przyjemnoÅci i marnowaÅbym
+swoje umiejÄtnoÅci programisty systemowego. Nie powodowaÅoby to
+niewÅaÅciwego wykorzystania moich umiejÄtnoÅci. Pisanie oprogramowania
+objÄtego restrykcyjnymi licencjami byÅoby niewÅaÅciwym ich
+wykorzystaniem. ZachÄcanie innych do życia w Åwiecie takiego
+oprogramowania byÅoby niewÅaÅciwym ich wykorzystaniem. Lepiej jest je
+marnowaÄ niż wykorzystywaÄ niewÅaÅciwie, ale i ta droga nie jest
+naprawdÄ dobra.</p>
+
+<p>Z tych powodów postanowiÅem poszukaÄ innej możliwoÅci. Co może
zrobiÄ
+programista systemowy, aby rzeczywiÅcie poprawiÄ sytuacjÄ, uczyniÄ
+Åwiat lepszym? i zdaÅem sobie sprawÄ, że programista systemowy
byÅ
+wÅaÅnie kimÅ, kto byÅ potrzebny. Ten problem, dylemat miaÅem ja
+i wszyscy pozostali, ponieważ wszystkie dostÄpne systemy
+operacyjne dla nowych komputerów byÅy objÄte restrykcyjnymi
+licencjami. Wolne systemy operacyjne byÅy przeznaczone dla starych,
+przestarzaÅych komputerów, prawda? WiÄc w przypadku nowych
+komputerów – jeÅli chcieliÅcie kupiÄ i korzystaÄ
+z nowego komputera, to byliÅcie zmuszeni używaÄ niewolnego systemu
+operacyjnego. WiÄc jeÅli jakiÅ programista systemowy napisaÅby inny
+system operacyjny, a potem powiedziaÅ: „Niech siÄ wszyscy tym
+dzielÄ
– zachÄcam was do tego”, to pozwoliÅoby
+wszystkim uniknÄ
Ä tego dylematu, daÅoby jeszcze jednÄ
możliwoÅÄ. ZdaÅem
+sobie wiÄc sprawÄ, że byÅo coÅ, co mogÅem zrobiÄ, żeby
rozwiÄ
zaÄ
+mój problem. MiaÅem dokÅadnie te umiejÄtnoÅci, które byÅy do tego
+potrzebne. I byÅa to najbardziej użyteczna rzecz, którÄ
mogÅem
zrobiÄ
+ze swoim życiem, jaka przyszÅa mi do gÅowy. I byÅ to problem,
+którego nikt inny nie próbowaÅ rozwiÄ
zaÄ. On sobie po prostu byÅ,
+stawaÅ siÄ coraz wiÄkszy i nikt oprócz mnie nie zwracaÅ na niego
+uwagi. PomyÅlaÅem wiÄc sobie: „ZostaÅem wybrany. MuszÄ
+nad tym pracowaÄ. JeÅli nie ja, to kto?” Tak
+wiÄc postanowiÅem, że stworzÄ wolny system operacyjny,
+albo umrÄ próbujÄ
c… ze staroÅci, oczywiÅcie.
<i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
+
+<p>MusiaÅem oczywiÅcie zdecydowaÄ, jakiego rodzaju miaÅ to byÄ system.
Trzeba
+podjÄ
Ä pewne decyzje projektowe. Z kilku powodów postanowiÅem,
+że mój system bÄdzie zgodny z Uniksem. Po pierwsze, dopiero
+co patrzyÅem jak system operacyjny, który kochaÅem, stawaÅ siÄ
przestarzaÅy,
+bo zostaÅ stworzony dla jednego rodzaju komputera. Nie chciaÅem,
+aby to siÄ powtórzyÅo. Potrzebny byÅ przenoÅny system. Cóż, Unix
byÅ
+przenoÅnym systemem. WiÄc jeÅli naÅladowaÅbym budowÄ Uniksa, to
miaÅem
+spore szanse, że stworzÄ system, który również bÄdzie przenoÅny
+i możliwy do napisania. Ponadto, dlaczego <i>[zakÅócenia
+na taÅmie]</i> byÄ z nim zgodny w szczegóÅach. Powód jest
+taki, że użytkownicy nie znoszÄ
niezgodnych zmian. JeÅli
po prostu
+zaprojektowaÅbym system w mój ulubiony sposób – co
+sprawiaÅoby mi mnóstwo przyjemnoÅci, jestem tego pewien – to
+stworzyÅbym coÅ niezgodnego. No wiecie, szczegóÅy byÅyby
+inne. WiÄc jeÅli napisaÅbym ten system, użytkownicy powiedzieliby mi:
+„No tak, jest bardzo fajny, ale niezgodny. Przestawienie siÄ
+na niego bÄdzie wymagaÅo zbyt wiele pracy. Nie możemy sobie pozwoliÄ
+na tyle pracy tylko po to, aby korzystaÄ z twojego
+systemu zamiast z Uniksa, wiÄc pozostaniemy przy
+Uniksie” – tak by powiedzieli.</p>
+
+<p>JeÅli chciaÅem stworzyÄ spoÅecznoÅÄ, do której należeliby
ludzie,
+ludzie korzystajÄ
cy z tego wolnego systemu i czerpiÄ
cy korzyÅci
+z wolnoÅci oraz wspóÅpracy, to musiaÅem stworzyÄ system,
którego
+ludzie by używali, system, na który Åatwo byÅoby siÄ przestawiÄ,
który
+nie zawieraÅby przeszkody, z powodu której staÅby siÄ porażkÄ
+na samym poczÄ
tku. Fakt, że system miaÅ byÄ zgodny w górÄ
+z Uniksem automatycznie podjÄ
Å najpilniejsze decyzje projektowe,
+ponieważ Unix skÅada siÄ z wielu kawaÅków, które komunikujÄ
siÄ
+za pomocÄ
w jakimÅ stopniu udokumentowanych interfejsów. JeÅli
+wiÄc chcesz byÄ zgodny z Uniksem, to musisz zastÄ
piÄ każdy
+kawaÅek, jeden po drugim, innym zgodnym kawaÅkiem. PozostaÅe decyzje
+projektowe dotyczÄ
wiÄc tylko poszczególnych kawaÅków i mogÄ
+zostaÄ podjÄte przez dowolnÄ
osobÄ, która zdecyduje siÄ je napisaÄ. Nie
+trzeba ich podejmowaÄ na samym poczÄ
tku.</p>
+
+<p>Tak wiÄc wszystko co pozostaÅo wtedy do zrobienia przed
+rozpoczÄciem pracy to wymyÅlenie nazwy. My hakerzy zawsze staramy siÄ
+wymyÅliÄ dla programu jakÄ
Å ÅmiesznÄ
lub dwuznacznÄ
nazwÄ,
+bo myÅl, że ludziom bÄdzie siÄ podobaÄ nazwa stanowi poÅowÄ
+radoÅci z napisania programu. <i>[Åmiech]</i> MieliÅmy tradycjÄ
+rekursywnych akronimów, które wskazywaÅy, że program, który wÅaÅnie
+piszesz jest podobny do jakiegoÅ już istniejÄ
cego. Możesz nadaÄ mu
+nazwÄ w postaci rekursywnego akronimu, który mówi: ten program nie jest
+tym innym. Na przykÅad w latach 60. i 70. istniaÅo wiele
+edytorów Tico i w zasadzie wszystkie nazywaÅy siÄ jakieÅ-tam Tico. Aż
+jakiÅ bystry haker nazwaÅ swojÄ
wersjÄ Tint, bo „TInt to Nie
+Tico” [<em>Tint Is Not Tico</em>] – byÅ to pierwszy
+rekursywny akronim. W roku 1975 stworzyÅem pierwszy edytor tekstu
+Emacs, powstaÅo wiele jego imitacji i wiÄkszoÅÄ z nich nazywaÅa
+siÄ jakiÅ-tam Emacs, jednak jedna miaÅa nazwÄ Fine,
+ponieważ „FIne to Nie Emacs” [<em>Fine Is Not Emacs</em>],
+byÅ też Sine, bo „SIne to Nie Emacs” [<em>Sine Is Not
+Emacs</em>] oraz Eine, bo „Ina to Nie Emacs” [<em>Ina
+Is Not Emacs</em>], aż wreszcie MINCE, bo „MINCe to niekompletny
+Emacs” [<em>Mince Is Not Complete Emacs</em>]. <i>[Åmiech]</i> ByÅa to
+okrojona imitacja. Potem Eine zostaÅ napisany prawie zupeÅnie od nowa,
+a nowa wersja zostaÅa nazwana Zwei, bo âZWei na poczÄ
tku
+nazywaÅo siÄ EIneâ [<em>Zwei Was Eine Initially</em>]. <i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
+
+<p>SzukaÅem wiÄc rekursywnego akronimu na „CoÅ to nie
+Unix”. WypróbowaÅem wszystkie 26 liter i odkryÅem,
że żadna
+z nich nie jest sÅowem. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Hmm, spróbujmy
+inaczej. StworzyÅem formÄ skróconÄ
. W ten sposób mogÅem wymyÅliÄ
+trzyliterowy akronim na „CoÅ to nie Unix”. PróbowaÅem
+z literami i natrafiÅem na sÅowo
+„GNU” – „GNU” to najzabawniejsze sÅowo
+w jÄzyku angielskim. <i>[Åmiech]</i> To byÅo to. OczywiÅcie, powód
dla
+którego jest to zabawne jest taki, że wedÅug sÅownika czyta siÄ je
tak
+samo jak „new” [<em>ang. nowe</em>]. Rozumiecie?
+Dlatego wÅaÅnie ludzie korzystajÄ
z niego w różnych
żartach
+jÄzykowych. WyjaÅniÄ, że jest to nazwa zwierzÄcia żyjÄ
cego
+w Afryce. AfrykaÅska wymowa zawieraÅa w sobie mlask
+[<em>fon. rodzaj gÅoski</em>]. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Może nadal tak jest. Gdy
+dotarli tam europejscy kolonizatorzy, to nie trudzili siÄ uczeniem tego
+dźwiÄku. Po prostu go omijali i pisali „G”, które
+oznaczaÅo „istnieje pewien dźwiÄk, który powinien tu byÄ
+i którego nie wymawiamy”. <i>[Åmiech]</i> DziÅ wieczorem lecÄ
+do RPA i bÅagaÅem ich, mam nadziejÄ, że znajdÄ
kogoÅ, kto
+nauczy mnie wymawiaÄ mlaski, <i>[Åmiech]</i> żebym wiedziaÅ jak prawidÅowo
+wymawiaÄ GNU, gdy odnosi siÄ do zwierzÄcia.</p>
+
+<p>Jednak gdy chodzi o nazwÄ naszego systemu, prawidÅowa wymowa to
+„g-NU” – wymawiamy „G”. JeÅli mówicie o
+„nowym” [<em>am. ang. /NU/</em>] systemie operacyjnym, to ludzie
+nie bÄdÄ
wiedzieli o co chodzi, bo pracujemy nad nim od 17
+lat, wiÄc nie jest już nowy. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Ale caÅy czas jest
+to, i zawsze bÄdzie, GNU – nieważne ilu ludzi nazwie go
+przez pomyÅkÄ Linuksem. <i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
+
+<p>Tak wiÄc w styczniu 1984 odszedÅem z MIT, żeby zaczÄ
Ä pisaÄ
+kawaÅki GNU. MIT byÅo jednak na tyle miÅe, że mogÅem korzystaÄ
+z ich sprzÄtu. MyÅlaÅem wtedy, że napiszemy wszystkie te kawaÅki
+i stworzymy caÅy system GNU, a potem powiemy: „Chodźcie
+i go sobie weźcie”, a ludzie zacznÄ
go używaÄ. Tak siÄ nie
+staÅo. Pierwsze kawaÅki, które napisaÅem, byÅy tak samo dobre jak uniksowe
+oryginaÅy, które miaÅy zastÄ
piÄ, w niektórych przypadkach
+z mniejszÄ
iloÅciÄ
bÅÄdów, ale nie byÅy zbyt ekscytujÄ
ce.
Nikt
+specjalnie nie chciaÅ ich zdobyÄ i zainstalowaÄ. Ale potem, we
+wrzeÅniu 1984, zaczÄ
Åem pisaÄ GNU Emacs, który byÅ mojÄ
drugÄ
implementacjÄ
+Emacsa, a na poczÄ
tku roku 1985 zaczÄ
Å on dziaÅaÄ. MogÅem go
używaÄ
+do wszystkich zadaÅ wymagajÄ
cych edycji tekstu, co byÅo dużÄ
ulgÄ
,
+bo nie miaÅem zamiaru uczyÄ siÄ VI, Uniksowego
+edytora. <em>[Åmiech]</em> Do tego czasu edycjÄ tekstu wykonywaÅem
+na jakimÅ innym komputerze i zapisywaÅem pliki przez sieÄ,
+aby móc je przetestowaÄ. Lecz potem GNU Emacs dziaÅaÅ
+wystarczajÄ
co dobrze, bym mógÅ go używaÄ, ponadto – inni ludzie
+też chcieli go używaÄ.</p>
+
+<p>WiÄc musiaÅem wymyÅliÄ sposób dystrybucji. UmieÅciÅem
oczywiÅcie kopiÄ
+w katalogu na anonimowym serwerze FTP i byÅo to wystarczajÄ
ce
+dla ludzi korzystajÄ
cych z sieci. Mogli po prostu ÅciÄ
gnÄ
Ä plik
+tar, ale wtedy, w 1985, wielu programistów nie miaÅo nawet dostÄpu
+do sieci. Pisali do mnie emaile z pytaniem: „W jaki
+sposób mogÄ zdobyÄ kopiÄ?”. MusiaÅem zdecydowaÄ, co im odpowiem.
Cóż,
+mogÅem powiedzieÄ, że chcÄ spÄdzaÄ czas na pisaniu wiÄkszej
iloÅci
+oprogramowania GNU, a nie zapisywaniu taÅm, wiÄc znajdźcie
+znajomych, którzy majÄ
dostÄp do sieci i bÄdÄ
chcieli ÅciÄ
gnÄ
Ä
+kopiÄ, oraz nagraÄ jÄ
dla was na taÅmie. Jestem pewien,
+że prÄdzej czy później ludzie znaleźliby sobie takich
+znajomych. Zdobyliby kopie. Ale ja nie miaÅem pracy. Tak naprawdÄ to
+nigdy nie miaÅem pracy od kiedy opuÅciÅem MIT w styczniu
+1984. SzukaÅem wiÄc jakiegoÅ sposobu na zarabianie
+poprzez pisanie wolnego oprogramowania i dlatego zaÅożyÅem firmÄ
+zajmujÄ
cÄ
siÄ wolnym oprogramowaniem. OgÅaszaÅem: „PrzeÅlijcie mi
+150$, a ja wam wyÅlÄ taÅmÄ z Emacsem”. No i zaczÄÅy
+skapywaÄ pierwsze zamówienia. W poÅowie roku skapywaÅo ich już coraz
+wiÄcej.</p>
+
+<p>OtrzymywaÅem od 8 do 10 zamówieÅ na miesiÄ
c. JeÅli
byÅo to
+konieczne, to mogÅem wyżyÄ wyÅÄ
cznie z tego, bo zawsze żyÅem
+oszczÄdnie. Ogólnie rzecz biorÄ
c żyjÄ jak student. I lubiÄ to,
+bo pieniÄ
dze nie mówiÄ
mi, co mam robiÄ. MogÄ robiÄ to, co uważam
+za ważne dla mnie. DaÅo mi to wolnoÅÄ do robienia tego, co
+wydawaÅo siÄ warte zrobienia. WiÄc naprawdÄ postarajcie siÄ uniknÄ
Ä
+wciÄ
gniÄcia we wszystkie drogie nawyki życiowe typowych
+Amerykanów. Bo jeÅli siÄ to stanie, ludzie z pieniÄdzmi bÄdÄ
wam
+mówiÄ, co macie zrobiÄ ze swoim życiem. Nie bÄdziecie mogli robiÄ tego,
co
+dla was naprawdÄ ważne.</p>
+
+<p>WiÄc byÅo OK, ale ludzie pytali mnie: „Co to
za darmowe
+[<em>ang. free oznacza darmowe lub wolne</em>] oprogramowanie, które
+kosztuje 150$?” <i>[Åmiech]</i> Cóż, pytali dlatego,
+że angielskie sÅowo „free” ma wiele znaczeÅ. Jedno
+z nich odnosi siÄ do ceny, a drugie do wolnoÅci. Gdy
+mówiÄ o „free software”, mam na myÅli wolnoÅÄ, a nie
+cenÄ. MyÅlcie o wolnoÅci sÅowa, a nie darmowym piwie. <i>[Åmiech]</i>
+Nie poÅwiÄciÅbym tylu lat mojego życia na staranie siÄ, by
programiÅci
+zarabiali mniej pieniÄdzy. To nie jest mój cel. Jestem programistÄ
+i nie mam nic przeciwko zarabianiu pieniÄdzy. Nie poÅwiÄcÄ na to
+caÅego życia, ale nie mam nic przeciwko zarabianiu. I nie
+jestem – i dlatego, etyka jest dla wszystkich taka sama. Nie
+mam również nic przeciwko, żeby jakiÅ inny programista zarabiaÅ
+pieniÄ
dze. Nie chcÄ, by ceny byÅy niskie. To wcale nie o to chodzi. Chodzi o
+wolnoÅÄ. WolnoÅÄ dla wszystkich użytkowników oprogramowania, czy sÄ
+programistami, czy też nie.</p>
+
+<p>Teraz powinienem podaÄ wam definicjÄ wolnego oprogramowania. Lepiej
przejdÄ
+do konkretów, bo samo mówienie „wierzÄ
w wolnoÅÄ”
+jest puste. Jest tyle wolnoÅci, w które można wierzyÄ i sÄ
one
ze
+sobÄ
sprzeczne, wiÄc prawdziwe polityczne pytanie brzmi: „Jakie
+sÄ
ważne wolnoÅci – wolnoÅci, które powinniÅmy wszystkim
+zapewniÄ?”</p>
+
+<p>Podam wam teraz mojÄ
odpowiedź na to pytanie z punktu widzenia
+korzystania z programów komputerowych. Programy sÄ
dla was, konkretnych
+użytkowników, wolnym oprogramowaniem, jeÅli macie nastÄpujÄ
ce
wolnoÅci:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Po pierwsze, WolnoÅÄ 0, czyli wolnoÅÄ do wykorzystywania
+programu do dowolnego celu i w dowolny sposób.</li>
+<li>WolnoÅÄ 1 to wolnoÅÄ pozwalajÄ
ca na uÅatwianie sobie życia
przez
+wprowadzanie zmian do programu, aby dostosowaÄ go do swoich
+potrzeb.</li>
+<li>WolnoÅÄ 2 to wolnoÅÄ do pomagania swoim bliźnim przez
dystrybucjÄ kopii
+programu.</li>
+<li>Natomiast WolnoÅÄ 3 pozwala na wspieranie rozwoju wÅasnej
+spoÅecznoÅci poprzez publikowanie ulepszonych wersji, tak aby inni
+mogli skorzystaÄ z waszej pracy.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>JeÅli macie wszystkie te wolnoÅci, to program jest wolnym oprogramowaniem,
+dla was – i to jest ważne. Dlatego w taki sposób
+uÅożyÅem zdanie. WyjaÅniÄ później dlaczego, gdy bÄdÄ mówiÅ o GPL,
teraz
+wyjaÅniam co to jest wolne oprogramowanie, a to jest bardziej
+podstawowÄ
kwestiÄ
.</p>
+
+<p>WolnoÅÄ 0 jest doÅÄ oczywista. JeÅli nie możecie nawet korzystaÄ
+z programu w dowolny sposób, to jest on cholernie
+restrykcyjny. Jednak w praktyce wiÄkszoÅÄ programów daje wam
+przynajmniej WolnoÅÄ 0. A WolnoÅÄ 0 wynika, w prawniczym sensie,
+z WolnoÅci 1, 2 oraz 3 – w taki sposób dziaÅa
+prawo autorskie. Tak wiÄc wolnoÅci odróżniajÄ
ce wolne programy
+od typowych to WolnoÅci 1, 2 i 3, dlatego powiem o nich
+wiÄcej i wyjaÅniÄ, dlaczego sÄ
ważne.</p>
+
+<p>WolnoÅÄ 1 to wolnoÅÄ pozwalajÄ
ca na uÅatwienie sobie życia przez
+wprowadzanie zmian do programu, aby dostosowaÄ go do swoich
+potrzeb. Może to oznaczaÄ naprawianie bÅÄdów. Może to oznaczaÄ dodawanie
+nowych funkcjonalnoÅci. Może to oznaczaÄ przeniesienie go na innÄ
+platformÄ. Może oznaczaÄ przetÅumaczenie wszystkich komunikatów bÅÄdów
+na jÄzyk Indian Navajo. PowinniÅcie móc wprowadziÄ każdÄ
zmianÄ,
+na którÄ
macie ochotÄ.</p>
+
+<p>Oczywiste jest, że zawodowi programiÅci mogÄ
bardzo efektywnie
+wykorzystywaÄ tÄ wolnoÅÄ, ale nie tylko oni. Każda przeciÄtnie
+inteligentna osoba może nauczyÄ siÄ trochÄ programowaÄ. No wiecie, sÄ
trudne
+zadania i Åatwe zadania, wiÄkszoÅÄ ludzi nie nauczy siÄ wystarczajÄ
co
+dużo, żeby sprostaÄ tym trudnym. Ale mnóstwo ludzi może siÄ nauczyÄ
+wystarczajÄ
co dużo, aby wykonywaÄ proste zadania, tak samo jak 50 lat
+temu tysiÄ
ce Amerykanów nauczyÅo siÄ naprawiaÄ samochody, co pozwoliÅo
USA
+mieÄ w czasie II wojny Åwiatowej zmotoryzowanÄ
armiÄ
+i wygraÄ. WiÄc bardzo ważne jest, aby wiele osób przy tym
+dÅubaÅo.</p>
+
+<p>A jeÅli wolicie towarzystwo ludzi i naprawdÄ nie chcecie niczego
+siÄ nauczyÄ o technologii, to pewno znaczy, że macie mnóstwo
przyjacióÅ
+i jesteÅcie nieźli w doprowadzaniu do sytuacji,
+w których sÄ
oni wam winni przysÅugÄ. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Niektórzy
+z nich to byÄ może programiÅci. Możecie wiÄc poprosiÄ jednego
+z waszych przyjacióŠprogramistów: „Czy mógÅbyÅ to dla mnie
+zmieniÄ? DodaÄ tÄ funkcjÄ?” Tak wiÄc może na tym
skorzystaÄ
+mnóstwo ludzi.</p>
+
+<p>Gdy nie macie tej wolnoÅci, skutkiem jest namacalna, materialna szkoda dla
+spoÅeczeÅstwa. Czyni was to wiÄźniami wÅasnego oprogramowania.
WyjaÅniaÅem
+już jakie to uczucie na przykÅadzie drukarki laserowej. PracowaÅa źle
+i nie mogliÅmy jej naprawiÄ, bo byliÅmy wiÄźniami naszego
+oprogramowania.</p>
+
+<p>Ale dotyczy to także ludzkiego morale. JeÅli korzystanie
+z komputera budzi frustracjÄ, a ludzie z niego korzystajÄ
, to
+ich życie stanie siÄ frustrujÄ
ce, a jeÅli korzystajÄ
z niego
+w pracy, to ich praca stanie siÄ frustrujÄ
ca â zacznÄ
nienawidziÄ
+swojej pracy. Ludzie chroniÄ
siÄ przed frustracjÄ
majÄ
c wszystko
+w nosie. Ich podejÅcie zaczyna siÄ sprowadzaÄ do: „No tak,
+przyszedÅem dziÅ do pracy. To wszystko, co muszÄ zrobiÄ. JeÅli nie
+robiÄ Å¼adnych postÄpów, to nie mój problem; to problem szefa”. Taka
+sytuacja jest zÅa dla tych ludzi i dla caÅoÅci spoÅeczeÅstwa. To
byÅa
+WolnoÅÄ 1, wolnoÅÄ pozwalajÄ
ca na uÅatwianie sobie życia.</p>
+
+<p>WolnoÅÄ 2 to wolnoÅÄ do pomagania swoim bliźnim przez
dystrybucjÄ kopii
+programu. Dla istot zdolnych do myÅlenia i nauki dzielenie siÄ
+użytecznÄ
wiedzÄ
jest fundamentalnym przejawem przyjaźni. Gdy te istoty
+korzystajÄ
z komputerów, ten przejaw przyjaźni przyjmuje formÄ
+dzielenia siÄ oprogramowaniem. Przyjaciele siÄ dzielÄ
. Przyjaciele sobie
+pomagajÄ
. Taka jest natura przyjaźni. Tak naprawdÄ ten duch dobrej
+woli – duch pomagania bliźnim bez przymusu –
+stanowi najważniejsze dobro spoÅeczeÅstwa. Stanowi on o różnicy pomiÄdzy
+spoÅeczeÅstwem, w którym da siÄ Å¼yÄ, a dżunglÄ
,
w której
+wszyscy pożerajÄ
siÄ nawzajem. Jego wagÄ dostrzegajÄ
od tysiÄcy lat
+najwiÄksze religie Åwiata i wprost starajÄ
siÄ popieraÄ takÄ
postawÄ.</p>
+
+<p>Gdy chodziÅem do przedszkola, nasi opiekunowie starali siÄ nas
nauczyÄ
+takiej postawy – ducha dzielenia siÄ – każÄ
c nam siÄ
+dzieliÄ. Doszli do wniosku, że jak bÄdziemy tak robiÄ, to siÄ
tego
+nauczymy. WiÄc mówili nam: „JeÅli przyniesiecie do szkoÅy
+cukierki, nie możecie po prostu zatrzymaÄ wszystkich dla siebie,
+musicie czÄÅciÄ
podzieliÄ siÄ z innymi dzieÄmi”. Uczyli nas,
+spoÅeczeÅstwo zostaÅo powoÅane do uczenia, takiego ducha
+wspóÅpracy. Dlaczego trzeba robiÄ takie rzeczy? Bo ludzie nie sÄ
+w peÅni wspóÅpracujÄ
cy. To jedna czÄÅÄ ludzkiej natury i sÄ
inne
+jej czÄÅci. Jest wiele czÄÅci ludzkiej natury. WiÄc jeÅli chcecie
mieÄ
+lepsze spoÅeczeÅstwo, musicie pracowaÄ na rzecz ducha dzielenia siÄ.
To
+nigdy nie bÄdzie 100%. To zrozumiaÅe. Ludzie muszÄ
zadbaÄ też o samych
+siebie. Ale jeÅli choÄ trochÄ go wzmocnimy, to wszyscy na tym
+skorzystamy.</p>
+
+<p>Obecnie, wedÅug rzÄ
du USA, nauczyciele majÄ
robiÄ coÅ zupeÅnie
+odwrotnego. „O, Johnny, przyniosÅeÅ do szkoÅy program. No cóż,
+nie dziel siÄ nim z nikim. O, nie. Dzielenie siÄ jest zÅe. Dzielenie
+siÄ czyni ciÄ piratem”.</p>
+
+<p>Co majÄ
na myÅli, gdy mówiÄ
âpiratâ? MajÄ
na myÅli,
+że pomaganie bliźnim jest moralnie równoważne z atakowaniem
+statku. <i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
+
+<p>Co by na to powiedzieli Budda lub Jezus? Wybierzcie sobie
+ulubionego przywódcÄ religijnego. Nie wiem, może Manson powiedziaÅby coÅ
+innego. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Kto wie co powiedziaÅby L. Ron Hubbard?
Ale…</p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: <i>[niewyraźne]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: OczywiÅcie, on nie żyje. Ale oni tego nie
+uznajÄ
. SÅucham?</p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Inni tak samo, również nie żyjÄ
. <i>[Åmiech]
+[niewyraźne]</i> Charles Manson też nie żyje. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Nie żyjÄ
,
+Jezus nie żyje, Budda nie żyje…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tak, to prawda. <i>[Åmiech]</i> No to chyba,
+patrzÄ
c na to z tej strony, L. Ron Hubbard nie jest gorszy niż
+pozostali. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Tak czy inaczej –
+<i>[niewyraźne]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: L. Ron zawsze używaÅ wolnego oprogramowania â
+wyzwoliÅo go od Zanu. <i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tak czy inaczej, uważam, że tak
+naprawdÄ to jest najważniejszy powód, dla którego oprogramowanie powinno
byÄ
+wolne: nie możemy sobie pozwoliÄ na zatruwanie najważniejszego dobra
+posiadanego przez spoÅeczeÅstwo. OczywiÅcie nie jest to dobro materialne,
+takie jak czyste powietrze i czysta woda. Jest to dobro
+psychospoÅeczne, ale równie rzeczywiste i ma wielkie znaczenie dla
+życia nas wszystkich. DziaÅania, jakie podejmujemy, majÄ
wpÅyw
na myÅli
+innych ludzi. JeÅli chodzimy i mówimy wszystkim dookoÅa: „Nie
+dzielcie siÄ niczym ze sobÄ
”, to jeÅli nas posÅuchajÄ
, bÄdziemy
mieli
+wpÅyw na spoÅeczeÅstwo, i to niedobry. To byÅa WolnoÅÄ 2,
wolnoÅÄ
+do pomagania swoim bliźnim.</p>
+
+<p>A tak przy okazji, brak tej wolnoÅci nie wywoÅuje tylko wspomnianej
+szkody dla psychospoÅecznych dóbr spoÅeczeÅstwa, ale również
+marnotrawstwo, czyli szkodÄ praktycznÄ
, materialnÄ
. JeÅli program ma
+wÅaÅciciela, a ten ustawi wszystko w taki sposób, żeby każdy
+musiaÅ pÅaciÄ za używanie programu, to niektórzy powiedzÄ
:
+„Nieważne, poradzÄ sobie bez tego”. A to jest
+marnotrawstwo, spowodowane z premedytacjÄ
marnotrawstwo. InteresujÄ
ce
+w przypadku oprogramowania jest oczywiÅcie to, że mniejsza iloÅÄ
+użytkowników nie oznacza koniecznoÅci zmniejszenia produkcji. No wiecie,
+jeÅli mniejsza iloÅÄ ludzi kupuje samochody, to można produkowaÄ ich
+mniej. Oznacza to oszczÄdnoÅci. IstniejÄ
dobra, które można przeznaczyÄ
+na produkcjÄ samochodów lub nie. Można wiÄc powiedzieÄ,
+że to dobrze by samochody miaÅy ceny. Uniemożliwia to ludziom
+wykorzystywanie wielkich iloÅci marnowanych dóbr na produkcjÄ
+samochodów, których nikt tak naprawdÄ nie potrzebuje. Ale jeÅli każdy
+kolejny samochód nie wymagaÅby żadnych dóbr, to powstrzymywanie siÄ przed
+ich produkcjÄ
nie dawaÅoby niczego pożytecznego. OczywiÅcie,
+w przypadku rzeczy materialnych, takich jak samochody, wykonanie
+kolejnego egzemplarza zawsze bÄdzie pochÅaniaÄ dodatkowe dobra.</p>
+
+<p>Jednak w przypadku oprogramowania nie jest to prawdÄ
. Każdy może
+wykonaÄ nowÄ
kopiÄ. A zrobienie tego jest zadaniem niemal
+trywialnym. Nie wymaga to żadnych dóbr prócz odrobiny
+elektrycznoÅci. WiÄc nie ma tu czego oszczÄdzaÄ, nie ma żadnego
dobra,
+które można by wykorzystaÄ lepiej poprzez ustanowienie tego finansowego
+czynnika zniechÄcajÄ
cego do korzystania z programów. Ludzie
czÄsto
+biorÄ
ekonomiczne, wyniki ekonomicznego rozumowania oparte
+na przesÅankach nijak majÄ
cych siÄ do oprogramowania
+i próbujÄ
przenieÅÄ je z innych dziedzin życia, dla których te
+przesÅanki mogÄ
byÄ prawdziwe, a wnioski prawidÅowe. Po prostu
+biorÄ
te wnioski i zakÅadajÄ
, że sÄ
prawdziwe także dla
+oprogramowania, tymczasem caÅe rozumowanie w przypadku oprogramowania
+jest oparte na niczym. PrzesÅanki nie dziaÅajÄ
. To bardzo ważne, by
+zwracaÄ uwagÄ, w jaki sposób dochodzi siÄ do wniosków,
+w oparciu o jakie przesÅanki, aby zrozumieÄ kiedy mogÄ
byÄ one
+prawidÅowe. ByÅa to wiÄc WolnoÅÄ 2, wolnoÅÄ do pomagania swoim
+bliźnim.</p>
+
+<p>WolnoÅÄ 3 pozwala na wspieranie rozwoju wÅasnej spoÅecznoÅci
+poprzez publikowanie ulepszonych wersji programów. Ludzie mówili mi:
+„JeÅli oprogramowanie bÄdzie darmowe [<em>free</em>], to nikt
+za pracÄ nad nim nie bÄdzie dostawaÄ pieniÄdzy,
wiÄc dlaczego
+ktokolwiek miaÅby to robiÄ?”. OczywiÅcie nie rozróżniali oni dwóch
+znaczeÅ sÅowa „free” [<em>ang. darmowy, wolny</em>],
+wiÄc ich rozumowanie byÅo oparte na nieporozumieniu. Ale tak
+czy inaczej, taka byÅa ich teoria. Dzisiaj możemy porównaÄ tÄ teoriÄ
+z empiriÄ
i okazuje siÄ, że setkom ludzi pÅaci siÄ
+za pracÄ nad wolnym oprogramowaniem, a ponad 100.000 robi to
+jako wolontariusze. Mnóstwo ludzi pracuje nad wolnym oprogramowaniem,
+z różnych powodów.</p>
+
+<p>Gdy po raz pierwszy wydaÅem edytor GNU Emacs – pierwszy
+kawaÅek systemu GNU, którego ludzie rzeczywiÅcie chcieli
używaÄ –
+i gdy pojawili siÄ użytkownicy, to po niedÅugim czasie otrzymaÅem
+wiadomoÅÄ: „Wydaje mi siÄ, że znalazÅem bÅÄ
d w kodzie
+źródÅowym, a oto poprawka”. DostaÅem także kolejnÄ
wiadomoÅÄ:
+„Oto kod dodajÄ
cy nowÄ
funkcjÄ”. I kolejna poprawka
+do bÅÄdu. I kolejna nowa funkcja. I kolejna, i kolejna,
+i kolejna, aż zaczÄÅy napÅywaÄ do mnie tak szybko, że samo
+ich wykorzystywanie staÅo siÄ ciÄżkÄ
pracÄ
. Microsoft nie ma tego
+problemu. <i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
+
+<p>W koÅcu ludzie dostrzegli ten fenomen. Wiecie, w latach 80. wielu
+z nas myÅlaÅo, że byÄ może wolne oprogramowanie nie bÄdzie tak
+dobre jak niewolne, bo nie bÄdziemy mieli tak samo dużo pieniÄdzy
+na pÅacenie ludziom. OczywiÅcie, osoby takie jak ja, które ceniÄ
+wolnoÅÄ i wartoÅci spoÅeczne, mówiÅy: „Cóż, i tak
bÄdziemy
+korzystaÄ z wolnego oprogramowania”. Warto jest poÅwiÄciÄ
trochÄ
+niezbyt istotnej technicznej wygody dla wolnoÅci. Ale to, co ludzie
+zaczÄli dostrzegaÄ okoÅo roku 1990, to byÅ fakt, że nasze
+oprogramowanie jest tak naprawdÄ lepsze. ByÅo potÄżniejsze i bardziej
+niezawodne od alternatywnych programów objÄtych restrykcyjnymi
+licencjami.</p>
+
+<p>Na poczÄ
tku lat 90. ktoÅ wymyÅliÅ jak przeprowadzaÄ naukowe
pomiary
+niezawodnoÅci oprogramowania. Oto co zrobiÅ. WziÄ
Å parÄ zbiorów
+porównywalnych programów, które wykonywaÅy te same zadania –
+dokÅadnie te same zadania – w różnych
+systemach. Ponieważ istniaÅy pewne podstawowe uniksowe
+narzÄdzia. A zadania, które wykonywaÅy, no wiecie, to byÅo wszystko,
+mniej wiÄcej, imitowanie tej samej rzeczy, albo byÅy zgodne ze
+standardami POSIX, wiÄc byÅy takie same w zakresie wykonywanych
+zadaÅ, ale byÅy utrzymywane przez innych ludzi i osobno
+napisane. Kod byÅ inny. WiÄc oni powiedzieli, OK, weźmiemy te programy
+i zaÅadujemy do nich losowe dane, i zmierzymy jak czÄsto
bÄdÄ
+siÄ wywalaÄ albo zawieszaÄ. No wiÄc to zmierzyli
+i najbardziej niezawodnym zbiorem programów okazaÅy siÄ programy
+GNU. Wszystkie komercyjne odpowiedniki objÄte restrykcyjnymi licencjami byÅy
+bardziej zawodne. WiÄc on to opublikowaÅ i przedstawiÅ wszystkim
+programistom, i parÄ lat później wykonaÅ ten sam eksperyment
+z najnowszymi wersjami, i wyniki byÅy takie same. Wersje GNU byÅy
+najbardziej niezawodne. Ludzie – wiecie, istniejÄ
kliniki
+onkologiczne oraz stacje pogotowia ratunkowego, które korzystajÄ
+z systemu GNU, bo jest taki niezawodny, a niezawodnoÅÄ jest
+dla nich bardzo ważna.</p>
+
+<p>W każdym bÄ
dź razie, jest nawet grupa ludzi, którzy skupiajÄ
siÄ
+na tej konkretnej korzyÅci podajÄ
c powód, gÅówny powód, dla którego
+użytkownicy powinni móc robiÄ wszystkie te rzeczy i mieÄ te
+wolnoÅci. JeÅli mnie sÅuchaliÅcie, to zauważyliÅcie, widzieliÅcie,
+że ja, mówiÄ
c w imieniu ruchu wolnego oprogramowania, opowiadam o
+kwestiach etycznych i o spoÅeczeÅstwie, w którym chcemy mieszkaÄ,
+o tym, co tworzy dobre spoÅeczeÅstwo, a także o praktycznych,
+materialnych korzyÅciach. Obie te rzeczy sÄ
ważne. Oto ruch wolnego
+oprogramowania.</p>
+
+<p>Ta druga grupa ludzi – nazywajÄ
ca siÄ ruchem open source
+[<em>open source movement, ruch na rzecz oprogramowania o otwartych
+źródÅach</em>] – oni mówiÄ
tylko o praktycznych
+korzyÅciach. ZaprzeczajÄ
, jakoby byÅa to kwestia zasad. ZaprzeczajÄ
,
+że ludziom należy siÄ wolnoÅÄ dzielenia siÄ z bliźnimi
+i sprawdzania, co robiÄ
programy, oraz zmieniania tego, jeÅli im
+siÄ nie podoba. MówiÄ
oni jednak, że zezwalanie na to jest
+użyteczne. WiÄc chodzÄ
po firmach i mówiÄ
: „Wiecie,
+prawdopodobnie możecie zarabiaÄ wiÄcej pieniÄdzy, jeÅli pozwolicie ludziom
+to robiÄ”. WiÄc, jak widzicie, do pewnego stopnia prowadzÄ
oni
+ludzi w tym samym kierunku, ale z zupeÅnie innych,
+w podstawowym stopniu innych, przesÅanek filozoficznych.</p>
+
+<p>Ponieważ w najgÅÄbszej spoÅród wszystkich kwestii, kwestii
etycznej,
+oba ruchy nie zgadzajÄ
siÄ ze sobÄ
. My z ruchu wolnego oprogramowania
+mówimy: „NależÄ
wam siÄ te wolnoÅci. Nikt nie powinien was
+powstrzymywaÄ przed robieniem tych rzeczy”. Ruch open source mówi:
+„Tak, mogÄ
was powstrzymaÄ, jeÅli chcecie, ale postaramy siÄ ich
+przekonaÄ, aby raczyli pozwoliÄ wam robiÄ te rzeczy”. Cóż, oni
+wnieÅli wkÅad – przekonali pewnÄ
iloÅÄ firm
do wypuszczenia
+znaczÄ
cych kawaÅków oprogramowania w postaci wolnych programów,
+na rzecz naszej spoÅecznoÅci. WiÄc oni, czyli ruch open
+source, wnieÅli znaczny wkÅad do naszej spoÅecznoÅci. Tak
+wiÄc pracujemy razem nad projektami praktycznymi. Jednak pod
+wzglÄdem filozoficznym bardzo siÄ nie zgadzamy.</p>
+
+<p>Niestety, to ruch open source dostaje najwiÄksze wsparcie od firm,
+wiÄc wiÄkszoÅÄ artykuÅów dotyczÄ
cych naszej pracy opisuje jÄ
jako
open
+source i mnóstwo ludzi, bez zÅych intencji, myÅli,
że wszyscy
+jesteÅmy czÄÅciÄ
ruchu open source. Dlatego wÅaÅnie mówiÄ o tej
+różnicy. ChcÄ, abyÅcie zdawali sobie sprawÄ, że ruch wolnego
+oprogramowania, który powoÅaÅ naszÄ
spoÅecznoÅÄ do życia
+i stworzyÅ wolny system operacyjny, nadal istnieje –
+i caÅy czas gÅosimy tÄ etycznÄ
filozofiÄ. ChcÄ, żebyÅcie to
wiedzieli,
+aby bezwiednie nie wprowadzaÄ innych w bÅÄ
d.</p>
+
+<p>Ale także dlatego, żebyÅcie mogli pomyÅleÄ o tym, gdzie sami
należycie.</p>
+
+<p>No wiecie, to, który ruch popieracie, to wasza sprawa. Możecie siÄ
zgadzaÄ
+z ruchami wolnego oprogramowania i moimi poglÄ
dami. Możecie siÄ
+zgadzaÄ z ruchem open source. Możecie siÄ z oboma nie zgadzaÄ. To
+wy decydujecie o waszej postawie wobec tych politycznych kwestii.</p>
+
+<p>Ale jeÅli zgadzacie siÄ z ruchem wolnego
+oprogramowania – jeÅli rozumiecie, że chodzi tu o to,
+aby ludzie, których życie jest kontrolowane i kierowane przez tÄ
+decyzjÄ, mieli coÅ w jej sprawie do powiedzenia – to
+mam nadziejÄ, że powiecie, iż zgadzacie siÄ z ruchem wolnego
+oprogramowania, a jednÄ
z rzeczy, które możecie zrobiÄ,
+aby to pokazaÄ, jest używanie terminu wolne oprogramowanie i po
+prostu zwracanie uwagi ludzi na to, że istniejemy.</p>
+
+<p>Tak wiÄc WolnoÅÄ 3 jest bardzo ważna zarówno pod wzglÄdem
+praktycznym, jak i psychospoÅecznym. JeÅli nie macie tej wolnoÅci,
+powoduje to praktyczne, materialne szkody, bo nie nastÄpuje wspomniany
+rozwój spoÅecznoÅci i nie tworzymy potÄżnego, niezawodnego
+oprogramowania. Ale powoduje również szkody psychospoÅeczne, które
majÄ
+wpÅyw na ducha naukowej wspóÅpracy – ideÄ, która mówi,
+że pracujemy razem na rzecz rozwoju ludzkiej wiedzy. Zrozumcie,
+postÄp naukowy zależy gÅównie od tego, że ludzie mogÄ
razem
+pracowaÄ. Tymczasem w dzisiejszych czasach widzi siÄ poszczególne maÅe
+grupy naukowców, które zachowujÄ
siÄ jakby to byÅa wojna ze wszystkimi
+innymi bandami naukowców i inżynierów. A jeÅli oni nie bÄdÄ
siÄ ze
+sobÄ
dzieliÄ, to nie bÄdÄ
czyniÄ postÄpów.</p>
+
+<p>To sÄ
trzy wolnoÅci, które odróżniajÄ
wolne oprogramowanie
od typowych
+programów. WolnoÅÄ 1 to wolnoÅÄ pozwalajÄ
ca na uÅatwianie sobie
życia
+przez wprowadzanie zmian do programu, aby dostosowaÄ go
+do swoich potrzeb. WolnoÅÄ 2 to wolnoÅÄ do pomagania swoim
bliźnim
+przez dystrybucjÄ kopii. Natomiast WolnoÅÄ 3 pozwala na wspieranie
+rozwoju wÅasnej spoÅecznoÅci poprzez wprowadzanie zmian
+i publikowanie ich, tak aby inni mogli z nich
+skorzystaÄ. JeÅli macie wszystkie te wolnoÅci, to ten program jest dla was
+wolnym oprogramowaniem. Dlaczego definiujÄ to w ten sposób,
+z punktu widzenia konkretnego użytkownika? Czy to jest wolne
+oprogramowanie dla ciebie? <i>[wskazuje któregoÅ ze sÅuchaczy]</i>
+Czy to jest wolne oprogramowanie dla ciebie? <i>[wskazuje innego
+sÅuchacza]</i> Tak?</p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Czy możesz krótko wyjaÅniÄ różnicÄ
pomiÄdzy
+WolnoÅciami 2 i 3? <i>[niewyraźne]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Cóż, z pewnoÅciÄ
sÄ
ze sobÄ
powiÄ
zane,
+bo jeÅli w ogóle nie masz wolnoÅci do redystrybucji, to
+z pewnoÅciÄ
nie masz wolnoÅci do dystrybucji zmodyfikowanych
+wersji, ale to osobne rzeczy.</p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Aha.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: WolnoÅÄ 2 to, no wiecie, skupcie siÄ, robicie
+identycznÄ
kopiÄ i rozdajecie jÄ
znajomym, a oni mogÄ
z niej
+korzystaÄ. Albo robicie identyczne kopie i sprzedajecie je paru
+osobom, a wtedy oni mogÄ
z nich korzystaÄ.</p>
+
+<p>W WolnoÅci 3 chodzi o wprowadzanie ulepszeÅ –
+a przynajmniej wy sÄ
dzicie, że sÄ
to ulepszenia, a inni mogÄ
+siÄ z wami zgodziÄ. WiÄc tu leży różnica. A tak przy
okazji,
+jedna ważna uwaga. WolnoÅci 1 i 3 zależÄ
od dostÄpnoÅci kodu
+źródÅowego. Bo modyfikacja programu dostÄpnego tylko w formie
+binarnej jest niezwykle trudna. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Nawet maÅe modyfikacje,
+takie jak korzystanie z czterocyfrowej daty, <i>[Åmiech]</i> jeÅli nie
+macie źródeÅ. Tak wiÄc z istotnych, praktycznych powodów,
dostÄpnoÅÄ
+kodu źródÅowego jest koniecznym warunkiem, wymaganiem wolnego
+oprogramowania.</p>
+
+<p>Dlaczego wiÄc definiuje to pod kÄ
tem tego, czy jest wolnym
+oprogramowaniem <em>dla was</em>? Dlatego, że czasami ten sam program
+może byÄ wolnym oprogramowaniem dla niektórych ludzi, a niewolnym dla
+innych. Może to wyglÄ
daÄ na paradoks, wiÄc pozwólcie mi podaÄ
+przykÅad, który pokaże wam, na czym to polega. Bardzo dużym
+przykÅadem – może najwiÄkszym w historii – tego
+problemu byÅ system okien X opracowany na MIT i wydany
+na licencji, która czyniÅa go wolnym oprogramowaniem. JeÅli mieliÅcie
+wersjÄ MIT wydanÄ
na licencji MIT, to mieliÅcie WolnoÅci 1, 2
+i 3. ByÅo to dla was wolne oprogramowanie. Ale poÅród tych,
którzy
+otrzymali kopie, znajdowali siÄ różni producenci komputerów, którzy
+dostarczali systemy uniksowe i dokonywali oni zmian koniecznych
+do tego, aby X dziaÅaÅ na ich systemach. JakieÅ parÄ
tysiÄcy
+linii spoÅród setek tysiÄcy skÅadajÄ
cych siÄ na X. Potem to
+kompilowali, dokÅadali binaria do swojego systemu Unix
+i rozprowadzali pod takÄ
samÄ
restrykcyjnÄ
licencjÄ
jak resztÄ
+systemu. Potem takie kopie dostaÅo miliony ludzi. Mieli system okien X,
+ale nie mieli żadnej z tych wolnoÅci. <em>Dla nich</em> to nie
+byÅo wolne oprogramowanie.</p>
+
+<p>Tak wiÄc paradoks polegaÅ na tym, że to czy X byÅo
+wolnym oprogramowaniem zależaÅo od punktu widzenia. JeÅli ktoÅ
patrzyÅ
+z punktu widzenia grupy programistów, to powiedziaÅby:
+„RespektujÄ wszystkie te wolnoÅci. To wolne
+oprogramowanie„. JeÅli patrzyÅ z punktu widzenia użytkowników,
+powiedziaÅby: „Hmm, wiÄkszoÅÄ użytkowników nie ma tych wolnoÅci.
To
+nie jest wolne oprogramowanie”. Cóż, programiÅci X nie uważali tego
+za problem, bo ich celem w gruncie rzeczy byÅa popularnoÅÄ,
+zaspokojenie swojego ego. Chcieli osiÄ
gnÄ
Ä duży sukces
+w branży. Chcieli mieÄ poczucie, że: „Taaak, mnóstwo ludzi
+korzysta z naszego oprogramowania”. I byÅa to
+prawda. Mnóstwo ludzi korzystaÅo z ich oprogramowania, ale nie
+miaÅo wolnoÅci.</p>
+
+<p>W przypadku projektu GNU, jeÅli to samo przydarzyÅoby siÄ
+oprogramowaniu GNU, to byÅaby to porażka, bo naszym celem nie byÅo
+wyÅÄ
cznie zdobycie popularnoÅci; naszym celem byÅo przekazanie ludziom
+wolnoÅci i zachÄcanie ich do wspóÅdziaÅania, pozwolenie im
+na wspóÅdziaÅanie. PamiÄtajcie, nigdy nie zmuszajcie nikogo
+do wspóÅpracy z kimÅ innym, ale zadbajcie o to,
+aby wszyscy mogli ze sobÄ
wspólnie dziaÅaÄ, żeby każdy miaÅ
+do tego wolnoÅÄ, jeÅli tylko tego chce. JeÅli miliony ludzi
+korzystaÅoby z niewolnych wersji GNU, to wcale nie byÅby sukces. CaÅy
+projekt zostaÅby przewrotnie przeksztaÅcony w coÅ zupeÅnie odmiennego
+od pierwotnego celu.</p>
+
+<p>WiÄc szukaÅem sposobu, aby temu zapobiec. Metoda, którÄ
+wymyÅliÅem, nazywa siÄ „copyleft”. Nazywa siÄ
+„copyleft”, bo to tak jakby wziÄ
Ä prawo autorskie
+[<em>ang. copyright</em>] i wywróciÄ je na drugÄ
+stronÄ. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Z prawnego punktu widzenia copyleft dziaÅa
+w oparciu o prawo autorskie. Wykorzystujemy istniejÄ
ce prawo autorskie,
+ale do osiÄ
gniÄcia zupeÅnie odmiennego celu. Oto co robimy. Mówimy:
+„Ten program jest objÄty prawem autorskim”. OczywiÅcie domyÅlnie
+oznacza to, że nie wolno go kopiowaÄ, rozpowszechniaÄ,
+ani modyfikowaÄ. Ale potem mówimy: „Wolno wam
+rozpowszechniaÄ jego kopie. Wolno wam go modyfikowaÄ. Wolno wam
+rozpowszechniaÄ wersje zmodyfikowane i poszerzone. ZmieniaÄ go jak
+tylko siÄ wam podoba”.</p>
+
+<p>Jest jednak pewien warunek. I jest on, oczywiÅcie, powodem, dla
+którego to wszystko robimy, aby móc go tam wstawiÄ. Warunek mówi:
+rozpowszechniajÄ
c kiedykolwiek coÅ zawierajÄ
cego jakikolwiek kawaÅek tego
+programu, musicie rozpowszechniaÄ caÅoÅÄ na tych samych zasadach,
+ni mniej, ni wiÄcej. Możecie wiÄc zmieniÄ program
+i rozpowszechniaÄ jego zmodyfikowanÄ
wersjÄ, ale gdy to robicie,
+ludzie otrzymujÄ
cy od was program muszÄ
dostaÄ takÄ
samÄ
wolnoÅÄ,
jakÄ
+wy dostaliÅcie od nas. I nie tylko wobec czÄÅci
+programu – tych, które skopiowaliÅcie od nas –
+ale także wobec reszty, którÄ
od was dostali. CaÅoÅÄ programu
musi
+byÄ dla nich wolnym oprogramowaniem.</p>
+
+<p>WolnoÅci do modyfikowania i rozpowszechniania tego programu
stajÄ
+siÄ niezbywalnymi prawami – co jest koncepcjÄ
z Deklaracji
+NiepodlegÅoÅci. Prawami, wobec których dbamy o to, aby nikt ich wam nie
+odebraÅ. OczywiÅcie, konkretna licencja, która realizuje ideÄ copyleft to
+GNU GPL, kontrowersyjna licencja, ponieważ rzeczywiÅcie posiada siÅÄ,
+aby powiedzieÄ „nie” ludziom, którzy byliby pasożytami
+żerujÄ
cymi na naszej spoÅecznoÅci.</p>
+
+<p>Jest mnóstwo ludzi, którzy nie doceniajÄ
ideaÅów wolnoÅci. ChÄtnie
wziÄliby
+rezultaty naszej pracy i wykorzystali je do uzyskania przewagi
+w rozpowszechnianiu niewolnego oprogramowania oraz zachÄcaniu
+ludzi do wyzbycia siÄ wÅasnej wolnoÅci. A rezultatem
+byÅoby – no wiecie, jeÅli na to ludziom
+pozwolimy – że rozwijalibyÅmy te wolne programy i caÅy
+czas musielibyÅmy konkurowaÄ z ulepszonymi wersjami naszego wÅasnego
+oprogramowania. A to nie jest fajne.</p>
+
+<p>I mnóstwo ludzi również ma poczucie – no wiecie, chcÄ
+bez przymusu poÅwiÄciÄ mój czas, aby wnieÅÄ wkÅad
+do spoÅecznoÅci, ale dlaczego miaÅbym go poÅwiÄcaÄ,
+aby wnieÅÄ wkÅad na rzecz tamtej firmy, na rzecz ulepszania
+jej objÄtego restrykcyjnÄ
licencjÄ
programu? Wiecie, niektórzy mogÄ
nawet
+sÄ
dziÄ, że to nic zÅego, ale chcÄ
, żeby im za to
+zapÅacono. OsobiÅcie wolaÅbym wcale tego nie robiÄ.</p>
+
+<p>Jednak obie te grupy – zarówno tacy jak ja, którzy mówiÄ
:
+„Nie chcÄ pomagaÄ temu objÄtemu restrykcyjnÄ
licencjÄ
programowi
+rozpowszechniÄ siÄ w spoÅeczeÅstwie” oraz ci, którzy
mówiÄ
:
+„Pewnie, mogÄ dla nich pracowaÄ, ale lepiej żeby mi
+zapÅacili” – obie grupy majÄ
dobry powód,
+aby korzystaÄ z GNU GPL. Bo mówi ona firmie: „Nie
+możecie po prostu wziÄ
Ä sobie wyników mojej pracy
+i rozpowszechniaÄ ich bez wolnoÅci”. Tymczasem licencje
+niezawierajÄ
ce copyleft, takie jak licencja systemu X, umożliwiajÄ
to.</p>
+
+<p>WiÄc to jest wielka różnica pomiÄdzy dwoma kategoriami wolnego
+oprogramowania â pod wzglÄdem licencji. SÄ
programy objÄte przez
+copyleft, w przypadku których licencja chroni wolnoÅci oprogramowania
+dla każdego użytkownika. I sÄ
programy nie objÄte przez copyleft,
+w przypadku których dozwolone sÄ
wersje niewolne. KtoŠ<em>może</em>
+wziÄ
Ä te programy i odrzeÄ je z wolnoÅci. Możecie dostaÄ taki
+program w wersji niewolnej.</p>
+
+<p>A ten problem obecnie istnieje. Nadal istniejÄ
niewolne wersje systemu
+X wykorzystywane w naszych wolnych systemach operacyjnych. Jest nawet
+sprzÄt, który nie jest tak naprawdÄ obsÅugiwany za wyjÄ
tkiem
niewolnych
+wersji X. To dla naszej spoÅecznoÅci ogromny problem. Tak czy inaczej
+nie powiedziaÅbym, że system X to coÅ zÅego. PowiedziaÅbym,
+że jego autorzy nie zrobili najlepszej z możliwych
+rzeczy. Ale <em>wydali</em> wiele programów, które wszyscy mogliÅmy
+wykorzystaÄ.</p>
+
+<p>Wiecie, jest duża różnica pomiÄdzy niedoskonaÅoÅciÄ
i zÅem.
Jest wiele
+odcieni dobrego i zÅego. Musimy oprzeÄ siÄ pokusie mówienia,
+że jeÅli nie zrobiÅeÅ absolutnie najlepszej z możliwych rzeczy,
to
+nie zrobiÅeÅ niczego dobrego. No wiecie, autorzy systemu X wnieÅli duży
+wkÅad do naszej spoÅecznoÅci. Ale mogli zrobiÄ coÅ lepszego.
Mogli
+objÄ
Ä czÄÅci programu licencjÄ
typu copyleft i zapobiec
+rozpowszechnianiu przez innych wersji odrzucajÄ
cych wolnoÅÄ.</p>
+
+<p>Fakt, że GNU GPL broni waszej wolnoÅci, używa prawa autorskiego,
żeby
+jej broniÄ, to oczywiÅcie powód, dla którego Microsoft jÄ
obecnie
+atakuje. Bo Microsoft naprawdÄ chciaÅby móc wziÄ
Ä caÅy kod, który
+napisaliÅmy i wsadziÄ go do objÄtych restrykcyjnymi licencjami
+programów, zleciÄ komuÅ wykonanie paru ulepszeÅ, albo nawet
niezgodnych
+zmian – to wszystko, czego potrzebujÄ
. <i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
+
+<p>DziÄki przewadze marketingowej Microsoft nie musi tych programów
ulepszaÄ,
+żeby ich wersje wyparÅy nasze. MuszÄ
tylko sprawiÄ, aby byÅy inne
+i niezgodne. A potem wrzuciÄ to wszystkim na komputery. Tak
+wiÄc oni naprawdÄ nie lubiÄ
GNU GPL. Bo GNU GPL nie pozwala im
+tego zrobiÄ. Nie pozwala na „przyjÄcie i rozszerzenie”
+[<em>ang. „embrace, extend (and extinguish)” –
+taktyka Microsoftu</em>]. Mówi ona, że jeÅli chcecie wykorzystaÄ
+w swoich programach nasz kod, to możecie to zrobiÄ. Ale musicie
+siÄ również dzieliÄ, dzieliÄ w taki sam sposób. Musicie pozwoliÄ
nam
+na dzielenie siÄ zmianami, które wprowadzicie. Jest to
+wiÄc dwukierunkowa wspóÅpraca, czyli prawdziwa wspóÅpraca.</p>
+
+<p>Wiele firm – nawet dużych, takich jak IBM i HP, jest
+skÅonnych korzystaÄ z naszych programów na tych zasadach. IBM
+i HP wnoszÄ
do oprogramowania GNU ważne ulepszenia. I tworzÄ
+inne wolne oprogramowanie. Jednak Microsoft nie chce tego robiÄ,
+wiÄc ogÅasza, że dla firm GPL jest po prostu nie
+do przyjÄcia. No tak, jeÅli do firm nie zaliczaÅyby siÄ IBM, HP
+i Sun, to może mieliby racjÄ. <i>[Åmiech]</i> WiÄcej na ten temat
+później.</p>
+
+<p>Powinienem dokoÅczyÄ opowieÅÄ historycznÄ
. W 1984 zaczynaliÅmy
+dziaÅalnoÅÄ nie tylko po to, aby napisaÄ trochÄ wolnego
+oprogramowania, ale żeby zrobiÄ coÅ dużo bardziej spójnego: stworzyÄ
+skÅadajÄ
cy siÄ wyÅÄ
cznie z wolnego oprogramowania system
+operacyjny. OznaczaÅo to, że musieliÅmy pisaÄ kawaÅek
+za kawaÅkiem. OczywiÅcie zawsze szukaliÅmy dróg na skróty. Praca
+do wykonania byÅa tak wielka, że ludzie twierdzili, iż nigdy nam
+siÄ nie uda jej skoÅczyÄ. Ja uważaÅem, że istnieje co najmniej maÅa
+szansa, że uda nam siÄ doprowadziÄ to do koÅca,
+ale oczywiÅcie warto jest szukaÄ dróg na skróty. WiÄc ciÄ
gle
+rozglÄ
daliÅmy siÄ dookoÅa. Czy jest jakiÅ program, który napisaÅ
ktoÅ
+inny i który dalibyÅmy radÄ dostosowaÄ, wetknÄ
Ä tutaj, aby nie
+trzeba byÅo pisaÄ go od nowa? Na przykÅad system okien X. To
+prawda, że nie byÅ objÄty przez copyleft, ale byÅ wolnym
+oprogramowaniem, wiÄc mogliÅmy go wykorzystaÄ.</p>
+
+<p>Od samego poczÄ
tku chciaÅem wÅÄ
czyÄ do GNU system okien.
NapisaÅem
+kilka takich systemów na MIT zanim zaczÄ
Åem pracowaÄ
+nad GNU. WiÄc pomimo tego, że w 1984 Unix nie miaÅ systemu
+okien, zdecydowaÅem, że GNU bÄdzie go miaÅo. Ale nigdy nie
+napisaliÅmy systemu okien GNU, bo pojawiÅ siÄ X. A ja
+powiedziaÅem: „Super! Jedno wielkie zadanie, którego nie musimy
+wykonywaÄ. Skorzystamy z X”. WiÄc w zasadzie powiedziaÅem:
+„Weźmy X i doÅÄ
czmy go do systemu GNU. A potem
+dopasujemy inne czÄÅci GNU, żeby z nim wspóÅpracowaÅy, gdy bÄdzie
+potrzeba”. ZnaleźliÅmy również inne oprogramowanie napisane przez
+innych ludzi, takie jak program do skÅadu tekstu TeX i trochÄ
+bibliotek z Berkeley. IstniaÅ wtedy Berkeley Unix, ale nie byÅ
+wolnym oprogramowaniem. Kod bibliotek pochodziÅ na poczÄ
tku
+od innej grupy z Berkeley, zajmujÄ
cej siÄ badaniami
+nad obliczeniami zmiennoprzecinkowymi. WiÄc wziÄliÅmy te kawaÅki
+i dopasowaliÅmy do naszego systemu.</p>
+
+<p>W październiku 1985 zaÅożyliÅmy Free Software Foundation.
ZwróÄcie
+proszÄ uwagÄ, że projekt GNU byÅ pierwszy. FSF powstaÅa potem, niemal
+dwa lata po ogÅoszeniu Projektu. A FSF to wyÅÄ
czona
+z obowiÄ
zku pÅacenia podatków organizacja charytatywna, która zbiera
+fundusze na promowanie wolnoÅci dzielenia siÄ oprogramowaniem
+i jego modyfikowania. Natomiast w latach 80. jednÄ
z gÅównych
+rzeczy, na które przeznaczaliÅmy pieniÄ
dze, byÅo zatrudnianie ludzi,
+aby pisali kawaÅki GNU. W ten sposób zostaÅy napisane
+najważniejsze programy, takie jak powÅoka i biblioteka C, podobnie jak
+czÄÅci innych programów. W ten sposób zostaÅ napisany program tar,
+który jest bardzo ważny, chociaż niezbyt fascynujÄ
cy <i>[Åmiech]</i>.
Wydaje
+mi siÄ, że w ten sposób zostaÅ napisany GNU grep. I tak
+zbliżaliÅmy siÄ do naszego celu.</p>
+
+<p>Do roku 1991 brakowaÅo tylko jednej ważnej czÄÅci, a byÅo to
+jÄ
dro. Dlaczego odkÅadaÅem w czasie pisanie jÄ
dra? CzÄÅciowo
dlatego,
+że kolejnoÅÄ pisania poszczególnych rzeczy nie gra roli, przynajmniej
+pod wzglÄdem technicznym. I tak trzeba napisaÄ je
+wszystkie. CzÄÅciowo również dlatego, że miaÅem nadziejÄ, iż
znajdziemy
+rozpoczÄte jÄ
dro gdzieÅ indziej. I tak siÄ staÅo. ZnaleźliÅmy Mach,
+które byÅo rozwijane na uniwersytecie Carnegie Mellon. I nie byÅo
+to caÅe jÄ
dro; byÅa to dolna poÅowa jÄ
dra. MusieliÅmy wiÄc napisaÄ
+górnÄ
poÅowÄ, ale myÅlaÅem, no wiecie, rzeczy takie jak system
plików,
+kod sieciowy, i tak dalej. Jednak dziaÅajÄ
c na Machu
dziaÅajÄ
+one w zasadzie jako programy poziomu użytkownika, co powinno uczyniÄ je
+Åatwiejszymi do debugowania. Można je debugowaÄ dziaÅajÄ
cym
w tym
+samym czasie prawdziwym debuggerem poziomu źródÅowego. MyÅlaÅem wiÄc,
+że w ten sposób uda nam siÄ napisaÄ te wyższe partie jÄ
dra
+w krótkim czasie. Nie udaÅo siÄ. Te asynchroniczne, wielowÄ
tkowe
+procesy, wysyÅajÄ
ce do siebie komunikaty, okazaÅy siÄ byÄ bardzo
trudne
+do debugowania. A system oparty na Machu, którego używaliÅmy
+do ich Åadowania, miaÅ koszmarne narzÄdzia do debugowania
+i byÅ zawodny, do tego byÅo z nim wiele innych
+problemów. Doprowadzenie jÄ
dra GNU do dziaÅania zajÄÅo nam dÅugie
lata.</p>
+
+<p>Na szczÄÅcie jednak nasza spoÅecznoÅÄ nie musiaÅa czekaÄ
+na jÄ
dro GNU. Ponieważ w 1991 Linus Torvalds stworzyŠinne wolne
+jÄ
dro nazwane Linux. WykorzystaÅ on starodawny, monolityczny projekt
+i okazaÅo siÄ, że jego jÄ
dro zaczÄÅo dziaÅaÄ znacznie
szybciej niż
+nasze. WiÄc może to jest jeden z bÅÄdów, które popeÅniÅem:
decyzja
+projektowa. Tak czy inaczej na poczÄ
tku nie wiedzieliÅmy nic o
+Linuksie, bo nigdy siÄ z nami nie skontaktowaÅ, aby o nim
+porozmawiaÄ. Chociaż wiedziaÅ o Projekcie GNU. Jednak ogÅosiÅ
+informacjÄ o nim innym ludziom w innych miejscach sieci. I wtedy
+inni ludzie wykonali robotÄ ÅÄ
czenia Linuksa z resztÄ
systemu GNU
+w celu stworzenia kompletnego wolnego systemu operacyjnego. W swej
+istocie kombinacji GNU i Linuksa.</p>
+
+<p>Jednak nie zdawali sobie sprawy, że wÅaÅnie to robili. Wiecie,
oni
+mówili: „Mamy jÄ
dro – popatrzmy dookoÅa
+i zobaczmy. jakie inne kawaÅki da siÄ znaleÅºÄ i do niego
+doÅÄ
czyÄ”. WiÄc patrzyli dookoÅa – i oto
okazaÅo
+siÄ, że wszystko, czego potrzebowali, jest już dostÄpne. „Co
+za szczÄÅcie”, powiedzieli. <i>[Åmiech]</i> „Wszystko już
+gotowe. Da siÄ znaleÅºÄ wszystko, czego potrzebujemy. Weźmy po prostu
+wszystkie te poszczególne czÄÅci, zÅóżmy do kupy i bÄdziemy
mieli
+system”.</p>
+
+<p>Nie wiedzieli, że wiÄkszoÅÄ rzeczy, które znaleźli byÅo
kawaÅkami
+systemu GNU. Nie zdawali sobie wiÄc sprawy, że dopasowywali
+Linuksa do luki w systemie GNU. MyÅleli, że biorÄ
Linuksa
+i robiÄ
z niego system. WiÄc nazwali go systemem Linux.</p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: <i>[niewyraźne]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Nie sÅyszÄ – co?</p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: <i>[niewyraźne]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Cóż, to po prostu nie – no
wiesz,
+to margines.</p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Ale to wiÄcej szczÄÅcia niż znalezienie X
+i Macha?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Racja. Różnica polega na tym,
+że autorzy X i Macha nie mieli na celu stworzenia kompletnego
+wolnego systemu operacyjnego. Tylko my mieliÅmy taki cel. I to nasza
+ogromna praca sprawiÅa, że system istnieje. W rzeczywistoÅci
+stworzyliÅmy wiÄkszÄ
czÄÅÄ systemu niż jakikolwiek inny
+projekt. Nieprzypadkowo, bo ci ludzie – napisali użyteczne
+czÄÅci systemu. Ale nie zrobili tego, bo chcieli, żeby system
+zostaÅ ukoÅczony. Mieli inne powody.</p>
+
+<p>Autorzy systemu X – wydawaÅo im siÄ, że stworzenie
+sieciowego systemu okien byÅoby niezÅym projektem, i byÅo
+nim. I okazaÅo siÄ, że pomogÅo to nam zrobiÄ dobry wolny system
+operacyjny. Ale oni nie tego chcieli. Nawet o tym nie myÅleli. To byÅ
+przypadek. Przypadkowa korzyÅÄ. OczywiÅcie nie twierdzÄ, że to, co
+zrobili, byÅo zÅe. Przeprowadzili duży projekt zwiÄ
zany z wolnym
+oprogramowaniem. To dobra rzecz. Ale nie posiadali tej ostatecznej
+wizji. Wizja byÅa w projekcie GNU.</p>
+
+<p>WiÄc to my jesteÅmy tymi, którzy – każdy najmniejszy
+kawaÅek, którego nie zrobiÅ nikt inny, zrobiliÅmy my.
Bo wiedzieliÅmy,
+że bez tego nie bÄdziemy mieli kompletnego systemu. Nawet jeÅli byÅo
to
+zupeÅnie nudne i nieromantyczne, jak <code>tar</code>
+lub <code>mv</code>. <i>[Åmiech]</i> ZrobiliÅmy to. Lub ld,
+wiecie, nie ma nic ekscytujÄ
cego w <code>ld</code> –
+ale ja taki napisaÅem. <i>[Åmiech]</i> I wÅożyÅem dużo wysiÅku
+w to, żeby w minimalnym stopniu korzystaŠz operacji we/wy
+na dysku, tak aby byÅ szybszy i radziÅ sobie z wiÄkszymi
+programami. Ale wiecie, lubiÄ dobrze wykonaÄ swojÄ
pracÄ. LubiÄ
+w jej trakcie ulepszaÄ w programie różne rzeczy. Ale nie
+napisaÅem go dlatego, że miaÅem doskonaÅe pomysÅy na lepszy
+<code>ld</code>. NapisaÅem go, bo potrzebowaliÅmy jego wolnej
+wersji. I nie mogliÅmy oczekiwaÄ, że ktoÅ inny to
+zrobi. WiÄc my musieliÅmy to zrobiÄ, albo znaleÅºÄ kogoÅ, żeby
to
+zrobiÅ dla nas.</p>
+
+<p>WiÄc pomimo tego, że do dzisiaj tysiÄ
ce ludzi z różnych
+projektów wniosÅo wkÅad w ten system, to istnieje jeden projekt,
dziÄki
+któremu system istnieje, a jest to Projekt GNU. On w zasadzie
+<em>jest</em> Systemem GNU, z innymi rzeczami dodanymi od tamtej
+pory.</p>
+
+<p>WiÄc zwyczaj nazywania tego systemu Linuksem to dla Projektu GNU duży
+cios, bo zazwyczaj nie docenia siÄ tego, co zrobiliÅmy. Uważam,
+że Linux, czyli jÄ
dro, jest bardzo użytecznym kawaÅkiem wolnego
+oprogramowania i mam do powiedzenia na jego temat same dobre
+rzeczy. Chociaż, tak naprawdÄ mogÄ znaleÅºÄ parÄ zÅych rzeczy
na jego
+temat. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Ale w zasadzie mam do powiedzenia
+na jego temat dobre rzeczy. Jednak zwyczaj nazywania systemu GNU
+„Linuksem” jest po prostu bÅÄdny. ChciaÅbym was prosiÄ o
+odrobinÄ wysiÅku i nazywanie tego systemu GNU/Linuksem, aby pomóc
+nam w ten sposób uzyskaÄ należne uznanie.</p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Potrzebujecie maskotki! ZaÅatwcie sobie wypchane
+zwierzÄ
tko! <i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Już mamy.</p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Macie?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Mamy zwierzÄ
tko – gnu.
<i>[Åmiech]</i>
+Nieważne. WiÄc tak, jeÅli rysujecie pingwina, narysujcie obok
+gnu. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Ale zostawmy pytania na koniec. Mam jeszcze
+trochÄ do powiedzenia.</p>
+
+<p>Dlaczego tak mi na tym zależy? No wiecie, dlaczego uważam,
+że warto jest zawracaÄ wam gÅowÄ i byÄ może dawaÄ wam,
+prawdopodobnie obniżaÄ waszÄ
opiniÄ o mnie, <i>[Åmiech]</i> podnoszÄ
c
+kwestiÄ uznania zasÅug? Ponieważ niektórzy ludzie, gdy to robiÄ,
+niektórzy ludzie myÅlÄ
, że to dlatego, że chcÄ nakarmiÄ swoje
ego,
+tak? OczywiÅcie nie mówiÄ – nie proszÄ, żebyÅcie nazywali go
+„Stallmanix”, prawda? <i>[Åmiech] [aplauz]</i></p>
+
+<p>ProszÄ, żebyÅcie nazywali go GNU, bo chcÄ, żeby uznane zostaÅy
zasÅugi
+Projektu GNU. Mam konkretny powód, który sam w sobie jest dużo
+ważniejszy niż uznanie czyichkolwiek zasÅug. Bo jeÅli obecnie
+przyjrzycie siÄ naszej spoÅecznoÅci, to wiÄkszoÅÄ ludzi, którzy o niej
mówiÄ
+albo piszÄ
, nigdy nie wspominajÄ
GNU, nigdy nawet nie wspominajÄ
celów
+zwiÄ
zanych z wolnoÅciÄ
– tych politycznych
+i spoÅecznych ideaÅów. Bo miejsce, z którego siÄ wywodzÄ
to
+GNU.</p>
+
+<p>IdeaÅy zwiÄ
zane z Linuksem – filozofia jest bardzo
+odmienna. To jest w zasadzie apolityczna filozofia Linusa
+Torvaldsa. WiÄc gdy ludzie sÄ
przekonani, że caÅy system to
Linux,
+zazwyczaj myÅlÄ
: „Aha, wiÄc to wszystko musiaÅo zostaÄ
+zapoczÄ
tkowane przez Linusa Torvaldsa. To jego filozofii powinniÅmy siÄ
+dokÅadniej przyjrzeÄ”. A gdy sÅyszÄ
o filozofii GNU, to myÅlÄ
:
+„Matko, to takie idealistyczne, musi byÄ strasznie
+niepraktyczne. Jestem użytkownikiem Linuksa, a nie
+GNU”. <i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
+
+<p>Co za ironia! Gdyby tylko wiedzieli! Gdyby wiedzieli, że system,
+który lubiÄ
– a czasami nawet kochajÄ
i szalejÄ
+na jego punkcie – to nasza idealistyczna, polityczna
+filozofia w zmaterializowanej postaci.</p>
+
+<p>Nadal nie musieliby siÄ z nami zgadzaÄ. Ale przynajmniej mieliby
+powód, aby traktowaÄ to poważnie, aby dokÅadnie siÄ nad tym
+zastanowiÄ, aby daÄ temu szansÄ. Zobaczyliby jak to siÄ ma do ich
+życia. Wiecie, gdyby zdali sobie sprawÄ, że: „Korzystam z systemu
+GNU. Oto filozofia GNU. DziÄki <em>tej</em> filozofii system, który tak
+lubiÄ, istnieje”, to przynajmniej traktowaliby jÄ
z dużo
wiÄkszÄ
+otwartoÅciÄ
umysÅu. Nie znaczy to, że wszyscy siÄ bÄdÄ
zgadzaÄ.
Ludzie
+myÅlÄ
różne rzeczy. To jest w porzÄ
dku. No wiecie, ludzie powinni
sami
+wyrobiÄ sobie poglÄ
dy. Ale chcÄ, aby ta filozofia skorzystaÅa
+na uznaniu jej zasÅug wobec rezultatów, jakie osiÄ
gnÄÅa.</p>
+
+<p>JeÅli przyjrzycie siÄ naszej spoÅecznoÅci, to zobaczycie,
że prawie
+wszÄdzie instytucje nazywajÄ
ten system Linuksem. No wiecie, dziennikarze
+nazywajÄ
go gÅównie Linuksem. To niewÅaÅciwe, ale tak robiÄ
. MówiÄ
tak
+przeważnie firmy, które go rozpowszechniajÄ
. Aha, i wiÄkszoÅÄ tych
+dziennikarzy, gdy piszÄ
artykuÅy, zazwyczaj nie patrzy na to
+z punktu widzenia polityki lub spoÅeczeÅstwa. Zazwyczaj rozważajÄ
+to jako kwestiÄ czysto biznesowÄ
, chodzi im mniej wiÄcej o to, które firmy
+odniosÄ
sukces, co jest dosyÄ maÅo ważne dla spoÅeczeÅstwa. A gdy
+popatrzycie na firmy, które rozpowszechniajÄ
system GNU/Linux wÅród
+ludzi, to wiÄkszoÅÄ nazywa go Linuksem. I <em>wszyscy</em> dodajÄ
+do niego niewolne oprogramowanie.</p>
+
+<p>GNU GPL mówi, że jeÅli weźmiecie kod i trochÄ kodu
z programu
+objÄtego przez GPL, i dodacie jeszcze trochÄ kodu, aby zrobiÄ
+wiÄkszy program, to caÅy ten program musi zostaÄ wydany
+na GPL. Ale moglibyÅcie doÅożyÄ osobno inne programy na tym
+samym dysku (jakimkolwiek, dysku twardym lub CD) i mogÄ
one mieÄ
+inne licencje. Uważa siÄ to za zwykÅÄ
agregacjÄ i w gruncie
rzeczy
+rozpowszechnianie dwóch programów jednoczeÅnie nie jest czymÅ, wobec czego
+mamy cokolwiek do powiedzenia. WiÄc, w rzeczywistoÅci, to nie jest
+prawda – czasami żaÅujÄ, że tak nie jest –
+że jeÅli jakaÅ firma wykorzysta program objÄty przez GPL w swoim
+produkcie, to caÅy produkt musi byÄ wolnym oprogramowaniem. To nie
+ma – nie idzie aż tak daleko – takiego zasiÄgu. To
+caÅy program. JeÅli sÄ
dwa programy, które komunikujÄ
siÄ ze sobÄ
+na pewnÄ
odlegÅoÅÄ – na przykÅad przez wysyÅanie
+do siebie komunikatów – to ogólnie rzecz biorÄ
c sÄ
+pod wzglÄdem prawnym rozdzielne. WiÄc te firmy, dodajÄ
c
+do systemu niewolne oprogramowanie, dajÄ
użytkownikom, filozoficznie
+i politycznie, bardzo zÅy sygnaÅ. MówiÄ
oni użytkownikom:
+„Używanie niewolnego oprogramowania jest w porzÄ
dku. Nawet je
+tutaj dodajemy jako bonus”.</p>
+
+<p>JeÅli popatrzycie na magazyny o korzystaniu z GNU/Linuksa, to
+wiÄkszoÅÄ z nich ma tytuÅ typu „Linux coÅ-tam
+coÅ-tam”. WiÄc zazwyczaj nazywajÄ
system Linuksem. I sÄ
+wypeÅnione reklamami niewolnego oprogramowania, które można uruchamiaÄ
+w GNU/Linuksie. Te reklamy majÄ
wspólne przesÅanie. MówiÄ
:
+„Niewolne oprogramowanie jest dla was dobre. Jest tak dobre,
+że może nawet za nie <em>zapÅacicie</em>”.
<i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
+
+<p>I nazywajÄ
te rzeczy „pakietami o zwiÄkszonej wartoÅci”
+[<em>ang. value-added packages</em>], co mówi coÅ o ich wartoÅciach
+[<em>ang. values</em>]. MówiÄ
: „CeÅcie [<em>ang. value</em>]
+praktycznÄ
wygodÄ, a nie wolnoÅÄ”. A ja nie zgadzam siÄ
+z tymi wartoÅciami, wiÄc je nazywam „pakietami o
+zmniejszonej wolnoÅci” [<em>ang. freedom-subtracted
+packages</em>]. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Bo jeÅli zainstalujecie sobie wolny
+system operacyjny, to od tego momentu żyjecie w wolnym
+Åwiecie. Korzystacie z wolnoÅci, na którÄ
pracowaliÅmy dla was
+przez wiele lat. Takie pakiety dajÄ
wam okazjÄ do zakucia siÄ
+w ÅaÅcuchy.</p>
+
+<p>A jeÅli popatrzycie na targi branżowe – dotyczÄ
ce
+korzystania, poÅwiÄcone korzystaniu z GNU/Linuksa, wszystkie one
+nazywajÄ
siÄ targami „linuksowymi”. I sÄ
wypeÅnione
+stoiskami promujÄ
cymi niewolne oprogramowanie, co w swej istocie
+przypieczÄtowuje akceptacjÄ niewolnych programów. WiÄc niemalże
+z którejkolwiek strony nie spojrzy siÄ na naszÄ
spoÅecznoÅÄ,
+instytucje podpisujÄ
siÄ pod niewolnym oprogramowaniem, caÅkowicie
+negujÄ
c ideÄ wolnoÅci, dla której zostaÅo stworzone GNU. I jedyny
+moment, w którym ludzie majÄ
szansÄ zetknÄ
Ä siÄ z ideÄ
wolnoÅci,
+to w nawiÄ
zaniu do GNU i do wolnego oprogramowania, terminu
+„wolne oprogramowanie”. Dlatego proszÄ was: nazywajcie ten
+system GNU/Linux. Zwracajcie uwagÄ ludzi na to, skÄ
d wziÄ
Å siÄ ten
+system i dlaczego.</p>
+
+<p>OczywiÅcie, korzystajÄ
c jedynie z nazwy nie bÄdziecie wyjaÅniaÄ
+historii. Możecie wstukiwaÄ dodatkowe cztery znaki i pisaÄ GNU/Linux;
+możecie wymawiaÄ dwie dodatkowe sylaby. Ale GNU/Linux ma mniej sylab
+niż Windows 2000. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Jednak nie mówicie im wiele,
+ale przygotowujecie ich, wiÄc jak usÅyszÄ
o GNU i o co
+w tym wszystkim chodzi, to zobaczÄ
, jakie to ma znaczenie dla nich
+i ich życia. A to ma poÅrednio wielkie
+znaczenie. WiÄc proszÄ, pomóżcie nam.</p>
+
+<p>Zauważcie, że Microsoft nazwaÅ GPL „licencjÄ
open
+source”. Oni nie chcÄ
, aby ludzie myÅleli, że w tej sprawie
+chodzi o wolnoÅÄ. Zobaczcie, że zachÄcajÄ
ludzi, aby myÅleli
+w wÄ
ski sposób, jak konsumenci, oczywiÅcie żeby nawet jako konsumenci
+myÅleli niezbyt racjonalnie, jeÅli majÄ
wybraÄ produkty
+Microsoftu. Ale nie chcÄ
, by ludzie myÅleli jak obywatele
+lub mÄżowie stanu. To im nie sprzyja. A przynajmniej ich obecnemu
+modelowi biznesowemu.</p>
+
+<p>W jaki sposób wolne oprogramowanie… cóż, mogÄ wam
opowiedzieÄ
+jak wolne oprogramowanie ma siÄ do naszego spoÅeczeÅstwa. DrugorzÄdny
+temat, który może niektórych z was zainteresowaÄ, to jak wolne
+oprogramowanie ma siÄ do biznesu. Tak naprawdÄ to wolne oprogramowanie
+jest dla biznesu <em>niezwykle</em> użyteczne. W koÅcu wiÄkszoÅÄ firm
+w rozwiniÄtych krajach korzysta z oprogramowania. Tylko uÅamek
+z nich tworzy oprogramowanie.</p>
+
+<p>Wolne oprogramowanie ma ogromne zalety dla każdej firmy, która korzysta
+z programów, bo oznacza, że to wy kontrolujecie
+sytuacjÄ. Zasadniczo wolne oprogramowanie oznacza, że użytkownicy
+kontrolujÄ
dziaÅanie programu. Indywidualnie, jeÅli im na tym
+wystarczajÄ
co zależy, lub kolektywnie, jeÅli im na tym
+wystarczajÄ
co zależy. Każdy, komu dostatecznie zależy, może wywrzeÄ
jakiÅ
+wpÅyw. Komu wszystko jedno, ten nie wybiera. Wtedy korzysta z tego, co
+preferujÄ
inni. Ale jeÅli wam zależy, to macie coÅ
+do powiedzenia. W przypadku oprogramowania objÄtego restrykcyjnymi
+licencjami w gruncie rzeczy nie macie nic do gadania.</p>
+
+<p>W przypadku wolnego oprogramowania możecie zmieniaÄ cokolwiek
+chcecie. I nie ma znaczenia, że w waszej firmie nie ma żadnych
+programistów; to nic. Wiecie, gdybyÅcie chcieli przesunÄ
Ä parÄ Åcian
+w swoim budynku, to nie musicie byÄ do tego firmÄ
stolarskÄ
+[<em>w USA Åciany sÄ
zazwyczaj drewniano-gipsowe</em>]. Wystarczy,
+że bÄdziecie mogli znaleÅºÄ stolarza i powiedzieÄ: „Ile
+za wykonanie tej roboty?” A jeÅli chcecie zmieniÄ używane
+przez was oprogramowanie, nie musicie byÄ firmÄ
programistycznÄ
. Musicie
+tylko iÅÄ do firmy programistycznej i powiedzieÄ: „Ile
+za implementacjÄ tych funkcji? I kiedy bÄdzie to
+gotowe?”. A jeÅli oni tego nie zrobiÄ
, możecie iÅÄ
i znaleźÄ
+kogoÅ innego.</p>
+
+<p>Oznacza to wolny rynek usÅug wsparcia. Tak wiÄc każda firma, której
+zależy na wsparciu znajdzie w wolnym oprogramowaniu ogromne
+zalety. W przypadku programów objÄtych restrykcyjnymi licencjami
+wsparcie jest objÄte monopolem, bo tylko jedna firma posiada kod
+źródÅowy, a może ma go kilka firm, które zapÅaciÅy za to
+gigantyczne sumy pieniÄdzy, jeÅli braÅy udziaÅ w programie dzielenia
+kodu Microsoftu, ale jest ich tylko kilka. Tak wiÄc nie ma dla was
+wielu możliwych źródeÅ wsparcia. A to oznacza, że jeÅli nie
+jesteÅcie prawdziwym gigantem, to oni siÄ wami nie interesujÄ
. Wasza firma
+nie jest dla nich wystarczajÄ
co ważna, aby zależaÅo im
+na zatrzymaniu was przy sobie lub na tym, co siÄ zdarzy. Jak już
+bÄdziecie używaÄ ich programu, to bÄdÄ
przekonani, że jesteÅcie
+zmuszeni kupowaÄ wsparcie u nich, bo przesiadka na inny
+program to masa pracy. I koÅczy siÄ na tym, że pÅacicie
+za przywilej zgÅaszania usterek. <i>[Åmiech]</i> A jak już
+zapÅacicie, powiedzÄ
wam: „No tak, odnotowaliÅmy wasze zgÅoszenie
+bÅÄdu. Za kilka miesiÄcy możecie sobie kupiÄ upgrade
i zobaczyÄ,
+czy go naprawiliÅmy”. <i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
+
+<p>Firmom sprzedajÄ
cym wsparcie dla wolnego oprogramowania coÅ takiego nie
+ujdzie na sucho. MuszÄ
staraÄ siÄ, aby klienci byli
+zadowoleni. OczywiÅcie dużo dobrego wsparcia możecie dostaÄ
+za darmo. OgÅaszacie swój problem w Internecie. Odpowiedź możecie
+dostaÄ nastÄpnego dnia. Ale nie ma na to oczywiÅcie
+gwarancji. JeÅli chcecie mieÄ pewnoÅÄ, to lepiej podpiszcie umowÄ
+z jakÄ
Å firmÄ
i jej zapÅaÄcie. I to jest, oczywiÅcie,
jeden
+ze sposobów dziaÅania biznesu opartego na wolnym oprogramowaniu.</p>
+
+<p>Kolejna zaleta wolnego oprogramowania dla firm korzystajÄ
cych
+z programów komputerowych to bezpieczeÅstwo i prywatnoÅÄ. To
+odnosi siÄ również do pojedynczych osób, ale mówiÄ o tym
+w kontekÅcie firm. Wiecie, gdy program jest objÄty restrykcyjnÄ
+licencjÄ
, to nawet nie wiadomo, co tak naprawdÄ robi.</p>
+
+<p>Może mieÄ umyÅlnie dodane funkcje, które by siÄ wam nie spodobaÅy,
+jeÅlibyÅcie o nich wiedzieli, np. może mieÄ tylne wejÅcie [ang. backdoor]
+pozwalajÄ
ce autorowi wejÅÄ na waszÄ
maszynÄ. Może szpiegowaÄ, co
+robicie i wysyÅaÄ informacje z powrotem. To nie jest nic
+niezwykÅego. Niektóre programy Microsoftu to robiÅy. Ale to nie dotyczy
+tylko Microsoftu. SÄ
inne objÄte restrykcyjnymi licencjami programy, które
+szpiegujÄ
swoich użytkowników. I nawet nie można tego
+stwierdziÄ. A nawet zakÅadajÄ
c, że autor jest caÅkowicie
uczciwy,
+każdy programista popeÅnia bÅÄdy. MogÄ
pojawiÄ siÄ bÅÄdy majÄ
ce
wpÅyw
+na wasze bezpieczeÅstwo, które nie sÄ
niczyjÄ
winÄ
. Ale chodzi o
+to, że jeÅli nie jest to wolne oprogramowanie, to nie możecie ich
+znaleźÄ. I nie możecie ich naprawiÄ.</p>
+
+<p>Nikt nie ma czasu na sprawdzanie źródeŠkażdego programu, którego
+używa. Nie bÄdziecie tego robiÄ. Ale w przypadku wolnego oprogramowania
+istnieje duża spoÅecznoÅÄ i sÄ
w niej ludzie, którzy wszystko
+sprawdzajÄ
. I korzystacie na ich sprawdzaniu, bo jeÅli jest
+jakiÅ przypadkowy bÅÄ
d â zawsze jakieÅ sÄ
od czasu do czasu
+w każdym programie – to mogÄ
go znaleźÄ
+i naprawiÄ. Poza tym ludzie znacznie mniej chÄtnie dokÅadajÄ
konia
+trojaÅskiego lub funkcjÄ szpiegujÄ
cÄ
, jeÅli obawiajÄ
siÄ,
że ktoÅ
+może ich zÅapaÄ. Autorzy oprogramowania objÄtego restrykcyjnymi licencjami
+uważajÄ
, że nikt ich nie zÅapie. Ujdzie im to
+na sucho. Ale autor wolnego oprogramowania musi zdawaÄ sobie
+sprawÄ, że ludzie bÄdÄ
na to patrzeÄ i to
+zauważÄ
. WiÄc w naszej spoÅecznoÅci nie uważamy, że może nam
ujÅÄ
+na sucho wciskanie ludziom funkcji, która by im siÄ nie
+spodobaÅa. Wiemy, że jeÅli użytkownikom siÄ nie bÄdzie podobaÅa, to
+zrobiÄ
zmodyfikowanÄ
wersjÄ, która nie bÄdzie jej zawieraÄ. A potem
+zacznÄ
wszyscy jej używaÄ.</p>
+
+<p>Tak naprawdÄ to wszyscy jesteÅmy na tyle rozsÄ
dni, potrafimy
siÄgnÄ
Ä
+wyobraźniÄ
na tyle daleko naprzód, że najpewniej nie dodamy tej
+funkcji. Przecież piszecie wolny program; chcecie, żeby ludziom podobaÅa
siÄ
+wasza wersja; nie chcecie wstawiÄ do niej czegoÅ, czego wiele ludzi
+bÄdzie nienawidziÄ i przez co popularna stanie siÄ inna zmodyfikowana
+wersja zamiast waszej. WiÄc dochodzicie do wniosku, że w
+Åwiecie wolnego oprogramowania użytkownik jest królem Åwiata.
W Åwiecie
+oprogramowania objÄtego restrykcyjnymi licencjami użytkownik <em>nie</em>
+jest królem. Bo jesteÅcie tylko klientem. Nie macie nic
+do powiedzenia w kwestii programów, których używacie.</p>
+
+<p>Pod tym wzglÄdem wolne oprogramowanie to nowy mechanizm
+demokratyczny. Profesor Lessig, pracujÄ
cy obecnie w Stanford, zauważyÅ,
+że kod funkcjonuje jak rodzaj prawa. Ktokolwiek napisaŠkod, którego
+prawie wszyscy używajÄ
do wszelkich celów, napisaŠprawa, które
kierujÄ
+ich życiem. W przypadku wolnego oprogramowania prawa te sÄ
pisane
+w sposób demokratyczny. Nie chodzi tu o klasycznÄ
formÄ
+demokracji – nie mamy wielkich wyborów, na których mówimy:
+„ZagÅosujmy wszyscy jak ma byÄ zaimplementowana ta
+funkcja”. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Zamiast tego w zasadzie mówimy,
+że ci z was, którzy chcÄ
pracowaÄ nad zaimplementowaniem tej
+funkcji w ten sposób, mogÄ
to robiÄ. A jeÅli chcecie pracowaÄ
+nad zaimplementowaniem w inny sposób, możecie to
+robiÄ. I wiecie co, w taki czy inny sposób zostaje ona
+zaimplementowana. I jeÅli wielu ludzi chce, żeby byÅo to zrobione
+w jakiÅ sposób, to tak wÅaÅnie zostanie zrobione. I tak, każdy
+bierze udziaÅ w tej spoÅecznej decyzji po prostu podejmujÄ
c kroki
+w kierunku, który mu odpowiada.</p>
+
+<p>OsobiÅcie macie wolnoÅÄ do zrobienia tylu kroków, ile chcecie.
Firmy
+mogÄ
zrobiÄ tyle kroków, ile wyda im siÄ użyteczne. A po dodaniu tego
+wszystkiego wychodzi kierunek, w którym podÄ
żaÄ bÄdzie
oprogramowanie.</p>
+
+<p>CzÄsto bardzo użyteczna jest możliwoÅÄ wyjÄcia kawaÅków
z istniejÄ
cego
+programu, prawdopodobnie zazwyczaj dużych kawaÅków, a później
napisania
+jakiejÅ iloÅci kodu samemu i zrobienia programu, który robi dokÅadnie
+to, co wam jest potrzebne, i którego napisanie od zera wymagaÅoby
+od was harowania jak wóÅ, gdybyÅcie nie mogli skonsumowaÄ dużych
+kawaÅków jakiegoÅ istniejÄ
cego pakietu wolnego oprogramowania.</p>
+
+<p>Kolejna rzecz, która wynika z tego, że użytkownik jest
królem, to
+że zazwyczaj jesteÅmy bardzo dobrzy jeÅli chodzi o zgodnoÅÄ
+i standaryzacjÄ. Dlaczego? Bo użytkownicy to lubiÄ
. Użytkownicy
+prawdopodobnie odrzucÄ
program, który zawiera w sobie nieuzasadnione
+niezgodnoÅci. Czasami pojawia siÄ jakaÅ grupa użytkowników, która
potrzebuje
+wÅaÅnie jakiejÅ konkretnej niezgodnoÅci i wtedy jÄ
dostanÄ
. To jest
+OK. Ale gdy użytkownicy chcÄ
zgodnoÅci ze standardem, to my, autorzy,
+musimy siÄ temu podporzÄ
dkowaÄ i zdajemy sobie z tego
+sprawÄ. I tak robimy. Dla kontrastu, gdy popatrzycie na autorów
+oprogramowania objÄtego restrykcyjnymi licencjami, to czÄsto widzÄ
oni
+korzyÅci w umyÅlnym <em>ignorowaniu</em> standardów i to nie
+dlatego, że sÄ
dzÄ
, że w ten sposób dajÄ
użytkownikowi coÅ
+lepszego, ale raczej dlatego, że w ten sposób coÅ mu narzucajÄ
,
+zamykajÄ
go. ZmieniajÄ
nawet formaty plików, tylko po to,
+aby zmusiÄ ludzi do kupienia najnowszej wersji.</p>
+
+<p>ArchiwiÅci majÄ
teraz problem, bo plików zapisanych
na komputerach
+10 lat temu nie da siÄ otworzyÄ; zostaÅy zapisane przy użyciu objÄtego
+restrykcyjnÄ
licencjÄ
oprogramowania, które od tamtego czasu
+przepadÅo. Gdyby zostaÅy zapisane przy użyciu wolnego oprogramowania, to
+można by je odnowiÄ i uruchomiÄ. A te rzeczy nie zostaÅyby, te
+archiwa nie zostaÅyby stracone, nie byÅyby niedostÄpne. Narzekano nawet
+na to ostatnio w radiu publicznym i wymieniano wolne
+oprogramowanie jako rozwiÄ
zanie problemu. Tak wiÄc w rezultacie,
+korzystajÄ
c z niewolnego programu do przechowywania waszych
+danych, owijacie sobie wokóŠszyi pÄtlÄ.</p>
+
+<p>PowiedziaÅem wiÄc jakie znaczenie wolne oprogramowanie ma dla
+wiÄkszoÅci firm. Ale jakie ma znaczenie dla konkretnego wÄ
skiego
+obszaru, jakim jest przemysŠprogramistyczny? Odpowiedź brzmi: prawie
+żadne. A to dlatego, że 90% tego przemysÅu, z tego co mi
+mówiono, to rozwój oprogramowania na zamówienie, które nigdy nie
bÄdzie
+wydane. W przypadku takiego oprogramowania kwestia, lub etyczna
+kwestia, âobjÄte restrykcyjnÄ
licencjÄ
czy wolneâ nie ma
+znaczenia. Pytanie brzmi: czy wy, użytkownicy, macie wolnoÅÄ
+do zmieniania i ponownego rozpowszechniania tego oprogramowania?
+JeÅli jest tylko jeden użytkownik i to on posiada prawa, to nie ma
+problemu. Ten użytkownik <em>ma</em> wolnoÅÄ do robienia wszystkich
+tych rzeczy. WiÄc w rezultacie każdy program napisany
+na <em>indywidualne zamówienie</em> przez jakÄ
Å firmÄ
+na wewnÄtrzny użytek to wolne oprogramowanie, jeÅli tylko majÄ
+wystarczajÄ
co oleju w gÅowie, żeby domagaÄ siÄ kodu źródÅowego
+i wszystkich praw.</p>
+
+<p>Kwestia ta nie ma tak naprawdÄ znaczenia również w przypadku
+oprogramowania, które dziaÅa w zegarkach, mikrofalówkach
+lub samochodowych systemach zapÅonu. Bo tutaj nie ÅciÄ
gacie
+oprogramowania, żeby je zainstalowaÄ. Z punktu widzenia użytkownika to
+nie jest prawdziwy komputer. WiÄc nie rozbudza to tych kwestii
+w wystarczajÄ
co dużym stopniu, żeby staÅy siÄ etycznie
+ważne. WiÄc ogólnie rzecz biorÄ
c przemysÅ programistyczny sobie
+poradzi, tak jak robiÅ to dotychczas. InteresujÄ
ce jest to, że skoro
+tak wielka czÄÅÄ dostÄpnej pracy należy do tej kategorii, to nawet
+jeÅli nie byÅoby możliwoÅci zakÅadania firm zajmujÄ
cych siÄ wolnym
+oprogramowaniem, to jego autorzy mogliby znaleÅºÄ sobie pracÄ przy pisaniu
+programów na indywidualne zamówienie. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Jest tego tak
+wiele; stosunek jest tak duży.</p>
+
+<p>Ale zÅożyÅo siÄ tak, że istnieje biznes oparty na wolnym
+oprogramowaniu. SÄ
firmy zajmujÄ
ce siÄ wolnym oprogramowaniem, a na
+mojej konferencji prasowej pojawiÄ
siÄ ludzie z kilku
+z nich. OczywiÅcie, istniejÄ
też firmy, które <em>nie</em> sÄ
firmami
+opierajÄ
cymi dziaÅalnoÅÄ na wolnym oprogramowaniu, ale tworzÄ
+i wydajÄ
użyteczne programy tego typu, a produkowane przez nich
+wolne oprogramowanie ma duże znaczenie.</p>
+
+<p>Jak dziaÅajÄ
firmy zajmujÄ
ce siÄ wolnym oprogramowaniem? Cóż,
niektóre
+z nich sprzedajÄ
kopie. Wiecie, każdy może kopiowaÄ to do woli,
+ale im i tak udaje siÄ sprzedawaÄ tysiÄ
ce kopii
+na miesiÄ
c. Inni sprzedajÄ
wsparcie i różne usÅugi. OsobiÅcie
+w drugiej poÅowie lat 80. sprzedawaÅem usÅugi wsparcia. MówiÅem:
+„Za 200$ za godzinÄ zmieniÄ wszystko, co tylko chcecie,
+w oprogramowaniu GNU, które napisaÅem”. Tak, to byÅa sÅona
+stawka, ale jeÅli byÅ to program, którego byÅem autorem, to ludzie
+oceniali, że uda mi siÄ skoÅczyÄ pracÄ w dużo krótszym
+czasie. <i>[Åmiech]</i> I tak zarabiaÅem na życie. Tak naprawdÄ
to
+zarabiaÅem wiÄcej niż kiedykolwiek wczeÅniej. ProwadziÅem także
+zajÄcia. I robiÅem to do roku 1990, kiedy otrzymaÅem dużÄ
nagrodÄ
+i nie musiaÅem tego wiÄcej robiÄ.</p>
+
+<p>Ale w 1990 powstaÅa pierwsza korporacja opierajÄ
ca dziaÅalnoÅÄ
+na wolnym oprogramowaniu, Cygnus Support. A ich dziaÅalnoÅÄ to
+byÅo w gruncie rzeczy to samo, co ja robiÅem. Z caÅÄ
pewnoÅciÄ
+mógÅbym dla nich pracowaÄ, gdyby byÅa taka potrzeba. Ponieważ takiej
+potrzeby nie byÅo, to stwierdziÅem, że dobrze bÄdzie dla ruchu, gdy
+pozostanÄ niezależny od jakiejÅ konkretnej firmy. W ten sposób
+mogÅem mówiÄ dobre i zÅe rzeczy o różnych firmach programistycznych
+zajmujÄ
cych siÄ wolnym i niewolnym oprogramowaniem bez żadnego
+konfliktu interesów. WydawaÅo mi siÄ, że lepiej siÄ przysÅużÄ
+ruchowi. Ale gdybym potrzebowaÅ pracy u nich, żeby siÄ utrzymaÄ,
+to oczywiÅcie bym dla nich pracowaÅ. To etyczny rodzaj pracy. Nie byÅoby
+powodu, żebym musiaÅ siÄ wstydziÄ pracy u nich. Ta firma zaczÄÅa
+przynosiÄ zyski w pierwszym roku dziaÅalnoÅci. ZostaÅa zaÅożona
+z bardzo maÅym kapitaÅem poczÄ
tkowym skÅadajÄ
cym siÄ wyÅÄ
cznie
+z pieniÄdzy jej trzech zaÅożycieli. I rozwijaÅa siÄ każdego
roku
+i przynosiÅa zyski każdego roku, aż stali siÄ pazerni i zaczÄli
+szukaÄ zewnÄtrznych inwestorów, a potem wszystko
+zepsuli. Ale sukces trwaÅ kilka lat, zanim stali siÄ pazerni.</p>
+
+<p>To sÅuży za przykÅad jednej z ekscytujÄ
cych rzeczy dotyczÄ
cych
+wolnego oprogramowania. Wolne oprogramowanie pokazuje, że nie musicie
+zbieraÄ kapitaÅu, żeby tworzyÄ wolne oprogramowanie. To znaczy, to siÄ
+przydaje; to <em>może</em> pomóc. No wiecie, jak zbierzecie kapitaÅ, to
+możecie zatrudniÄ paru ludzi i kazaÄ im napisaÄ trochÄ
+oprogramowania. Ale wiele można zdziaÅaÄ z niewielkÄ
liczbÄ
+osób. Tak naprawdÄ to olbrzymia wydajnoÅÄ procesu tworzenia wolnego
+oprogramowania jest jednym z powodów, dla których ważne jest,
+aby Åwiat przesiadÅ siÄ na wolne oprogramowanie. I zadaje to
+także kÅam temu, co Microsoft twierdzi mówiÄ
c, że GPL jest zÅa,
+bo z jej powodu trudniej jest im zbieraÄ kapitaÅ na rozwój
+niewolnego oprogramowania i braÄ nasze programy, i wstawiaÄ nasz
+kod do swoich programów, którymi siÄ z nami nie podzielÄ
.
Ogólnie
+rzecz biorÄ
c nie potrzeba nam, żeby w ten sposób zbierali
+kapitaÅ. I tak wykonamy potrzebnÄ
pracÄ. Wykonujemy jÄ
.</p>
+
+<p>KiedyÅ ludzie mówili, że nigdy nie uda nam siÄ stworzyÄ
kompletnego
+wolnego systemu operacyjnego. Nie doÅÄ, że stworzyliÅmy system, to
+zrobiliÅmy jeszcze dużo wiÄcej. PowiedziaÅbym, że jesteÅmy o rzÄ
d
+wielkoÅci od stworzenia caÅego potrzebnego Åwiatu oprogramowania
+ogólnego przeznaczenia. I to w Åwiecie, w którym 90%
+użytkowników nie korzysta jeszcze z naszego
+oprogramowania. W Åwiecie, w którym, chociaż w niektórych
+branżach biznesu, no wiecie, wiÄcej niż poÅowa wszystkich serwerów
+sieciowych na Åwiecie dziaÅa pod GNU/Linuksem i używa Apache
+jako serwera sieciowego.</p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: <i>[niewyraźne]</i> … Co powiedziaÅeÅ,
+Linux?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I said GNU/Linux.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Tak?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tak, gdy mówiÄ o jÄ
drze, to nazywam je Linux.
No
+wiesz, taka jest jego nazwa. JÄ
dro zostaÅo napisane przez Linusa Torvaldsa
+i powinniÅmy je nazywaÄ tylko tak, jak on chciaÅ, z szacunku
+do autora.</p>
+
+<p>Tak czy inaczej, ogólnie w biznesie wiÄkszoÅÄ użytkowników
go nie
+używa. WiÄkszoÅÄ domowych użytkowników nie korzysta jeszcze
z naszego
+systemu. WiÄc gdy zacznÄ
to robiÄ, to powinniÅmy automatycznie zyskaÄ
+10 razy wiÄcej ochotników i 10 razy wiÄcej klientów dla firm
+zajmujÄ
cych siÄ wolnym oprogramowaniem, które powstanÄ
. I to nam
+pozwoli na pokonanie tego rzÄdu wielkoÅci. WiÄc obecnie jestem
+caÅkiem pewny, że <em>może</em> nam siÄ udaÄ.</p>
+
+<p>I to jest ważne, bo Microsoft chce, żebyÅmy czuli siÄ
+zdesperowani. MówiÄ
: „Jedyny sposób, żebyÅcie mieli dziaÅajÄ
ce
+oprogramowanie, żebyÅcie mieli innowacje, to przekazanie nam wÅadzy. Dajcie
+nam siÄ zdominowaÄ. Dajcie nam kontrolÄ nad tym, co robicie ze swoim
+oprogramowaniem, żebyÅmy mogli wycisnÄ
Ä z was górÄ pieniÄdzy
+i użyÄ jej niewielkiej czÄÅci do rozwoju programów,
a resztÄ
+zatrzymaÄ jako zysk”.</p>
+
+<p>Cóż, nie powinniÅcie siÄ nigdy czuÄ tak zdesperowani. Nigdy nie
powinniÅcie
+siÄ czuÄ na tyle zdesperowani, aby oddaÄ swojÄ
wolnoÅÄ. To
bardzo
+niebezpieczne.</p>
+
+<p>Kolejna rzecz, którÄ
Microsoft, cóż, nie tylko Microsoft, ludzie,
którzy nie
+popierajÄ
wolnego oprogramowania ogólnie przyjmujÄ
system wartoÅci,
+w którym jedyna liczÄ
ca siÄ rzecz to krótkoterminowe praktyczne
+korzyÅci: Ile pieniÄdzy zarobiÄ w tym roku? Co mogÄ zrobiÄ dzisiaj?
+Krótkoterminowe i wÄ
skie myÅlenie. Ich zaÅożenie jest takie,
+że niedorzecznie jest myÅleÄ, iż ktokolwiek mógÅby poÅwiÄcaÄ
siÄ dla
+wolnoÅci.</p>
+
+<p>Wczoraj wielu ludzi przemawiaÅo na temat Amerykanów, którzy
poÅwiÄcali
+siÄ dla wolnoÅci swoich rodaków. Niektórzy z nich poÅwiÄcali bardzo
+wiele. PoÅwiÄcali nawet swoje życie za takie wolnoÅci, o których
+wszyscy w naszym kraju przynajmniej sÅyszeli. (Przynajmniej
+w niektórych przypadkach; wydaje mi siÄ, że powinniÅmy
zignorowaÄ
+wojnÄ w Wietnamie).</p>
+
+<p><i>[DzieÅ wczeÅniej w USA miaÅ miejsce Memorial Day, dzieÅ,
+w którym oddawana jest czeÅÄ bohaterom wojennym. –
+przyp. red.]</i></p>
+
+<p>Ale na szczÄÅcie utrzymanie naszej wolnoÅci korzystania
+z oprogramowania nie wymaga wielkich poÅwiÄceÅ. Malutkie, niewielkie
+poÅwiÄcenia wystarczÄ
, na przykÅad nauczenie siÄ interfejsu linii
+poleceÅ, jeÅli nie mamy jeszcze interfejsu graficznego. Na przykÅad
+robienie czegoŠw ten sposób, bo nie mamy jeszcze wolnego pakietu
+umożliwiajÄ
cego zrobienie tego inaczej. Na przykÅad przekazanie trochÄ
+pieniÄdzy firmie, która ma zamiar napisaÄ jakiÅ pakiet wolnego
+oprogramowania, żebyÅcie mogli go za kilka lat używaÄ. Różne maÅe
+poÅwiÄcenia, które wszyscy możemy ponieÅÄ. A na dÅuższÄ
metÄ
nawet
+na tym skorzystamy. No wiecie, to tak naprawdÄ bardziej inwestycja niż
+poÅwiÄcenie. Musimy mieÄ tylko wystarczajÄ
co dalekosiÄżnÄ
perspektywÄ,
+aby dostrzec, że dobre jest dla nas inwestowanie w ulepszanie
+spoÅeczeÅstwa, bez rachowania miedziaków, kto i ile na tej
+inwestycji skorzysta.</p>
+
+<p>W zasadzie tutaj skoÅczyÅem.</p>
+
+<p>ChciaÅbym wspomnieÄ, że istnieje nowe podejÅcie do biznesu
+opartego na wolnym oprogramowaniu zaproponowane przez Tony'ego Stanco,
+które nazywa „Free Developers„ [<em>Wolni Autorzy</em>]
+i które opiera siÄ na pewnej strukturze biznesowej majÄ
cej
+w koÅcu wypÅaciÄ czÄÅÄ zysków każdemu, wszystkim autorom wolnego
+programu, którzy doÅÄ
czyli siÄ do organizacji. W tej chwili
+rozważajÄ
możliwoÅci zaÅatwienia mi dosyÄ dużych kontraktów rzÄ
dowych
+na rozwój programów w Indiach, bo bÄdÄ
używaÄ wolnego
+oprogramowania jako podstawy, co zapewni im olbrzymie oszczÄdnoÅci.</p>
+
+<p>WiÄc zdaje siÄ, że teraz powinienem poprosiÄ o pytania.</p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: <i>[niewyraźne]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Czy mógÅbyÅ mówiÄ odrobinÄ gÅoÅniej?
+NaprawdÄ nic nie sÅyszÄ.</p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Jak mogÅaby firma taka jak Microsoft zawrzeÄ
+kontrakt na wolne oprogramowanie?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Cóż, tak naprawdÄ to Microsoft planuje
+przeniesienie dużej czÄÅci swojej dziaÅalnoÅci
+na usÅugi. I planujÄ
coÅ podÅego i niebezpiecznego,
+tzn. przywiÄ
zanie usÅug do programów, jednego do drugiego,
+w rodzaj wÄzÅa, rozumiecie? WiÄc aby korzystaÄ z tej
usÅugi,
+bÄdziecie musieli używaÄ tego programu Microsoftu, co bÄdzie oznaczaÅo,
+że bÄdziecie musieli korzystaÄ z tej usÅugi w przypadku tego
+programu, wiÄc to wszystko jest powiÄ
zane. Taki jest ich plan.</p>
+
+<p>InteresujÄ
ce jest to, że sprzedawanie tych usÅug nie rodzi etycznej
+kwestii „wolne czy niewolne oprogramowanie”. MogÅoby ich
+zupeÅnie zadowalaÄ to, że ich interes polegaÅby na prowadzeniu
+dziaÅalnoÅci dla firm, które utrzymywaÅyby siÄ ze sprzedaży tych usÅug
przez
+sieÄ. Jednak plan Microsoftu to użycie ich do zdobycia jeszcze
+ÅciÅlejszej kontroli, jeszcze wiÄkszego monopolu na oprogramowanie
+i usÅugi, zostaÅo to ostatnio opisane w artykule w zdaje siÄ,
+że „Business Week”. Inni ludzie stwierdzili, że to
+zmiana sieci w miasteczko firmowe Microsoftu.</p>
+
+<p>A to jest ważne, ponieważ wiecie, w sprawie antytrustowej
sÄ
d
+zaleciÅ podziaÅ Microsoftu. Ale w pewnym sensie to nie ma rÄ
k
+ani nóg – nie daÅoby to niczego dobrego –
+dzielenie na czÄÅÄ operacyjnÄ
i czÄÅÄ zajmujÄ
cÄ
siÄ
aplikacjami.</p>
+
+<p>Ale po przeczytaniu tego artykuÅu widzÄ teraz użytecznÄ
, skutecznÄ
+drogÄ podziaÅu Microsoftu na czÄÅÄ usÅugowÄ
i programistycznÄ
,
+przy czym nie mogÅyby byÄ ze sobÄ
powiÄ
zane, musiaÅyby siÄ trzymaÄ
+na dystans, a czÄÅÄ usÅugowa musiaÅaby opublikowaÄ interfejsy,
tak
+żeby każdy mógÅ napisaÄ program kliencki mogÄ
cy siÄ dogadaÄ z tymi
+usÅugami i, jak przypuszczam, żeby trzeba byÅo pÅaciÄ za otrzymanie
+usÅugi. Cóż, to jest OK. To zupeÅnie inna sprawa.</p>
+
+<p>JeÅli Microsoft zostanie podzielony w ten sposób […] usÅugi
+i oprogramowanie, to nie bÄdÄ
mogli używaÄ swojego oprogramowania
+do miażdżenia konkurencji usÅugami Microsoftu. I nie bÄdÄ
mogli
+używaÄ swoich usÅug do miażdżenia konkurencji oprogramowaniem
+Microsoftu. I bÄdziemy mogli tworzyÄ wolne oprogramowanie, a wy
+może bÄdziecie go używaÄ do komunikowania siÄ z usÅugami
+Microsoftu, a nam to nie bÄdzie przeszkadzaÄ.</p>
+
+<p>Bo w gruncie rzeczy, pomimo tego, że Microsoft jest firmÄ
+rozwijajÄ
cÄ
objÄte restrykcyjnymi licencjami oprogramowanie, która
+zniewoliÅa wiÄkszoÅÄ ludzi – inni zniewolili mniejszÄ
liczbÄ
+osób, ale nie dlatego, że nie próbowali. <i>[Åmiech]</i>
+Po prostu nie udaÅo im siÄ zniewoliÄ aż tylu ludzi.
WiÄc problemem
+nie jest tylko i wyÅÄ
cznie Microsoft. Microsoft jest tylko najwiÄkszym
+przejawem problemu, który chcemy rozwiÄ
zaÄ, czyli faktu,
że objÄte
+restrykcyjnymi licencjami oprogramowanie odbiera użytkownikom wolnoÅÄ
+do wspóÅpracy i tworzenia etycznego spoÅeczeÅstwa. WiÄc nie
+powinniÅmy siÄ zanadto skupiaÄ na Microsofcie, no wiecie, nawet jeÅli
+dali mi okazjÄ do przemawiania z tego miejsca. Nie czyni to ich
+najważniejszymi. Oni nie sÄ
poczÄ
tkiem i koÅcem wszystkiego.</p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: WczeÅniej mówiÅeÅ o filozoficznych różnicach
+miÄdzy wolnym oprogramowaniem i oprogramowaniem open source. Co sÄ
dzisz
+o obecnej tendencji, w której dystrybucje GNU/Linuksa skÅaniajÄ
siÄ ku
+wspieraniu wyÅÄ
cznie platform Intela? Oraz o tym, że, jak siÄ zdaje,
+coraz mniej programistów pisze kod prawidÅowo i tworzy oprogramowanie,
+które bÄdzie siÄ wszÄdzie kompilowaÄ? I o robieniu programów, które
+dziaÅajÄ
po prostu na systemach Intela?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Nie widzÄ tutaj etycznego problemu. Chociaż
+w rzeczywistoÅci firmy produkujÄ
ce komputery czasami portujÄ
+na nie GNU/Linuksa. Jak widaÄ HP ostatnio to zrobiÅo. Nie chcieli
+pÅaciÄ za port Windowsa, bo to kosztowaÅoby zbyt
+wiele. Ale doprowadzenie do dziaÅania GNU/Linuksa zajÄÅo, o ile
+siÄ nie mylÄ, piÄciu inżynierom parÄ miesiÄcy. ByÅo to Åatwe
+do zrobienia.</p>
+
+<p>OczywiÅcie zachÄcam ludzi do korzystania
z <code>autoconf</code>a,
+który jest pakietem GNU uÅatwiajÄ
cym tworzenie przenoÅnego
+oprogramowania. ZachÄcam ich do tego. Albo gdy ktoÅ naprawi bÅÄ
d,
+który powodowaÅ, że nie kompilowaÅo siÄ na innej wersji systemu
+i wam go przeÅle, powinniÅcie to doÅÄ
czyÄ. Ale nie widzÄ tutaj
+etycznego problemu.</p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Dwa komentarze. Pierwszy: Ostatnio przemawiaÅeÅ
+na MIT. CzytaÅem zapis. KtoÅ zapytaÅ o patenty i odpowiedziaÅeÅ,
+że „patenty to zupeÅnie inna kwestia. Nie mam na ten temat
+nic do powiedzenia”.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Racja. Tak naprawdÄ to mam bardzo dużo
+do powiedzenia o patentach, ale to zajmuje
+godzinÄ. <i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: ChciaÅem powiedzieÄ, że wedÅug mnie jest
+w tym problem. To znaczy istnieje powód, dla którego firmy nazywajÄ
+zarówno patenty jak i prawa autorskie wÅasnoÅciÄ
trwaÅÄ
w celu
+przeforsowania tej koncepcji, próby użycia siÅy PaÅstwa do stworzenia
+dla siebie monopolu. WiÄc to, co jest wspólne dla tych rzeczy, to nie
+to, że dotyczÄ
podobnych spraw, ale to, że nie chodzi im tak
+naprawdÄ o sÅużbÄ spoÅeczeÅstwu, motywacjÄ
tych firm jest uzyskanie
monopolu
+dla swoich prywatnych interesów.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Rozumiem. Ale, cóż, chcÄ odpowiedzieÄ,
+bo nie ma zbyt wiele czasu. WiÄc chciaÅbym na to
+odpowiedzieÄ.</p>
+
+<p>Masz racjÄ, to jest to, czego oni chcÄ
. Ale jest jeszcze jeden
powód,
+dla którego chcÄ
używaÄ terminu „wÅasnoÅÄ
+intelektualna”. Bo nie chcÄ
zachÄcaÄ ludzi do dokÅadnego
+przemyÅlenia kwestii prawa autorskiego i kwestii
+patentowych. Bo prawo autorskie i prawo patentowe to dwie osobne
+rzeczy, a skutki objÄcia oprogramowania prawem autorskim
+i opatentowania programów sÄ
zupeÅnie inne.</p>
+
+<p>Patenty na oprogramowanie to ograniczanie programistów, zabranianie im
+pisania pewnych rodzajów programów, podczas gdy prawo autorskie tego nie
+robi. Prawo autorskie pozwala, przynajmniej jeÅli sami to napisaliÅcie,
+na dystrybucjÄ. WiÄc jest ogromnie ważne, żeby rozdzielaÄ te
+kwestie.</p>
+
+<p>MajÄ
trochÄ wspólnego na bardzo niskim poziomie, ale caÅa
reszta
+jest inna. WiÄc, proszÄ, aby zachÄcaÄ do jasnego myÅlenia,
+rozważajcie prawo autorskie albo rozważajcie patenty. Ale nie
+rozważajcie wÅasnoÅci intelektualnej. Nie mam opinii o wÅasnoÅci
+intelektualnej. Mam opinie na temat prawa autorskiego, patentów
+i oprogramowania.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: WspomniaÅeÅ na poczÄ
tku, że jÄzyk
+funkcjonalny, jak przepisy kulinarne, to programy komputerowe. Tworzone jest
+coÅ poÅredniego, krzyżówka odrobinÄ inna niż inne rodzaje jÄzyków. To
także
+problem w przypadku DVD.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Te kwestie sÄ
czÄÅciowo podobne,
+ale czÄÅciowo inne w przypadku rzeczy nie bÄdÄ
cych z natury
+funkcjonalnymi. CzÄÅÄ kwestii zostaje, ale nie wszystkie. Niestety to
+kolejne godzinne przemówienie. Nie mam czasu, żeby siÄ w to
+wgÅÄbiaÄ. Ale uważam, że wszystkie funkcjonalne dzieÅa powinny
byÄ
+wolne w takim samym sensie jak oprogramowanie. No wiecie, podrÄczniki,
+instrukcje, sÅowniki, przepisy i tak dalej.</p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: WÅaÅnie siÄ zastanawiaÅem nad muzykÄ
dostÄpnÄ
+w sieci. W caÅej tej sprawie sÄ
podobieÅstwa i różnice.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Racja. MyÅlÄ, że minimum wolnoÅci, jakie
+powinniÅmy mieÄ wobec każdego rodzaju opublikowanych informacji, to
wolnoÅÄ
+do ich niekomercyjnego rozpowszechniania w niezmienionej
+postaci. W przypadku dzieÅ funkcjonalnych potrzebna nam jest wolnoÅÄ
+do komercyjnej dystrybucji zmienionych wersji, bo jest to ogromnie
+użyteczne dla spoÅeczeÅstwa. Dla dzieÅ niefunkcjonalnych, no wiecie, rzeczy
+rozrywkowych lub majÄ
cych wartoÅÄ estetycznÄ
, lub wyrażajÄ
cych
+czyjeÅ poglÄ
dy, no wiecie, byÄ może nie powinny byÄ modyfikowane.
I byÄ
+może znaczy to, że jest w porzÄ
dku, aby caÅÄ
ich
komercyjnÄ
+dystrybucjÄ obejmowaÅo prawo autorskie.</p>
+
+<p>PamiÄtajcie proszÄ, że wedÅug konstytucji USA celem prawa
autorskiego
+jest korzyÅÄ spoÅeczeÅstwa. Jest nim modyfikowanie zachowania pewnych
+prywatnych podmiotów, aby publikowali wiÄcej ksiÄ
żek. KorzyÅciÄ
+z tego pÅynÄ
cÄ
jest to, że spoÅeczeÅstwo ma o czym dyskutowaÄ
+i siÄ uczy. No i wiecie, mamy literaturÄ. Mamy prace
+naukowe. Celem jest zachÄcanie do ich tworzenia. Prawa autorskie nie
+istniejÄ
dla autorów, a już na pewno nie wydawców. IstniejÄ
dla
+czytelników i wszystkich tych, którzy korzystajÄ
na wymianie
+informacji majÄ
cej miejsce, gdy jedni piszÄ
, a drudzy czytajÄ
. A z
+tym celem siÄ zgadzam.</p>
+
+<p>Ale w dobie sieci komputerowych ta metoda nie jest już dÅużej
możliwa
+do utrzymania, bo wymaga obecnie drakoÅskich praw naruszajÄ
cych
+naszÄ
prywatnoÅÄ i nas terroryzujÄ
cych. No wiecie, lata
+w wiÄzieniu za dzielenie siÄ ze swoim bliźnim. W czasach
+prasy drukarskiej tak nie byÅo. Wtedy prawo autorskie byÅo regulacjÄ
+branżowÄ
. OgraniczaÅo wydawców. Teraz jest ograniczeniem naÅożonym przez
+wydawców na spoÅeczeÅstwo. Tak wiÄc relacja wÅadzy zmieniÅa
swój
+biegun o 180 stopni, chociaż to wciÄ
ż to samo prawo.</p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: WiÄc można mieÄ to samo â ale jak
+w robieniu muzyki z innej muzyki?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Racja. To jest ciekawa…</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I unikalne, nowe dzieÅa, no wiesz, to ciÄ
gle
+mnóstwo wspóÅpracy.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tak jest. I wydaje mi siÄ, że wymaga
to
+jakiejŠkoncepcji dozwolonego użytku. Zdecydowanie robienie krótkiego sampla
+i wykorzystywanie go w jakimÅ dziele muzycznym, to oczywiÅcie
+powinien byÄ dozwolony użytek. Nawet standardowa koncepcja dozwolonego
+użytku to zakÅada, jeÅli sobie przypomnicie. Nie jestem pewien,
+czy zgodzÄ
siÄ z tym sÄ
dy, ale powinny. To nie byÅaby
+rzeczywista zmiana w dotychczasowym systemie.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Co sÄ
dzisz o udostÄpnianiu publicznych
informacji
+w zamkniÄtych formatach?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Och, to nie powinno mieÄ miejsca. To znaczy rzÄ
d
+nigdy nie powinien wymagaÄ od obywateli wykorzystywania niewolnego
+programu w celu dostÄpu, komunikacji z rzÄ
dem w jakikolwiek
+sposób, w obu kierunkach.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Jestem użytkownikiem, nazwÄ go tak teraz,
+GNU/Linuksa…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: DziÄkujÄ. <i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: …od czterech lat. Jedna rzecz,
z którÄ
+miaÅem problem i która jest bardzo ważna chyba dla nas wszystkich, to
+przeglÄ
danie Internetu.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tak.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Jedna rzecz, która zdecydowanie byÅa
+niedogodnoÅciÄ
przy używaniu GNU/Linuksa to byÅo przeglÄ
danie Internetu,
+bo gÅówne narzÄdzie, które do tego sÅuży, Netscape…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: …nie jest wolnym oprogramowaniem.</p>
+
+<p>Pozwólcie, że odpowiem. ChcÄ przejÅÄ do rzeczy,
aby byÅ czas
+na wiÄcej pytaÅ. WiÄc, tak. Istnieje wÅród ludzi bardzo niedobra
+tendencja używania Netscape Navigatora na systemach
+GNU/Linux. WÅaÅciwie jest on dodawany do wszystkich komercyjnie
+wydawanych systemów. WiÄc jest to ironiczna sytuacja: pracowaliÅmy tak
+ciÄżko, aby stworzyÄ wolny system operacyjny, a teraz, jak
+pójdziecie do sklepu, to możecie tam znaleÅºÄ wersje
+GNU/Linuksa – wiÄkszoÅÄ nazywa siÄ Linux – i nie
+sÄ
one wolne. No dobra, czÄÅÄ z nich jest. Ale jest w nich
+Netscape Navigator i może inne niewolne programy też. WiÄc tak
+naprawdÄ ciÄżko jest znaleÅºÄ wolny system, chyba że wiecie, co
+robicie. Lub, oczywiÅcie, możecie nie instalowaÄ Netscape Navigatora.</p>
+
+<p>Tak naprawdÄ to od lat istniejÄ
wolne przeglÄ
darki internetowe. Jest
+wolna przeglÄ
darka, której kiedyÅ używaÅem, nazywajÄ
ca siÄ Lynx. To jest
+wolna niegraficzna przeglÄ
darka internetowa, jest tekstowa. To jest wielka
+zaleta, bo nie oglÄ
da siÄ reklam. <i>[Åmiech] [aplauz]</i></p>
+
+<p>Tak czy inaczej istnieje wolny graficzny projekt o nazwie Mozilla,
+który wÅaÅnie dochodzi do stanu używalnoÅci. I czasami go
używam.</p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 jest bardzo dobry.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Aha, OK. WiÄc oto kolejna wolna graficzna
+przeglÄ
darka. WiÄc wydaje siÄ, że w koÅcu dochodzimy
+do rozwiÄ
zania tego problemu.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Czy możesz mi opowiedzieÄ o tych
+filozoficznych/etycznych podziaÅach pomiÄdzy wolnym oprogramowaniem
+a open source? Czy sÄ
dzisz, że sÄ
nie do pogodzenia?
+…</p>
+
+<p><i>[Zmiana kasety w trakcie nagrywania. Brakuje koÅca pytania
+i poczÄ
tku odpowiedzi.]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: … do wolnoÅci
+i etyki. Albo czy po prostu powiecie: „Cóż, mamy
+nadziejÄ, że wasze firmy zdecydujÄ
, że bardziej zyskowne jest
+pozwolenie nam na robienie tych rzeczy”.</p>
+
+<p>Ale jak mówiÅem, w przypadku dużej iloÅci praktycznej pracy,
+polityka pojedynczych osób nie gra tak naprawdÄ roli. Gdy ktoÅ oferuje pomoc
+projektowi GNU, to nie mówimy: „Musisz siÄ zgadzaÄ z naszÄ
+politykÄ
”. Mówimy, że w pakietach GNU musicie nazywaÄ system
+GNU/Linuksem i nazywaÄ je wolnym oprogramowaniem. To, co mówicie, gdy
+nie odnosicie siÄ do projektu GNU, to wasza sprawa.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Firma IBM rozpoczÄÅa kampaniÄ skierowanÄ
+do agencji rzÄ
dowych, promujÄ
cÄ
ich wielkie maszyny, wymieniali to,
+że korzystajÄ
z Linuksa, jako gÅównÄ
zaletÄ i mówili
+„Linux”.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tak, oczywiÅcie naprawdÄ chodzi o systemy
+GNU/Linux. <i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Tak jest! WiÄc powiedz to ich szefowi
+sprzedaży. On nic nie wie o GNU.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Komu mam powiedzieÄ?</p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Szefowi sprzedaży.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: A, tak. Problem polega na tym, że oni
+już dawno starannie podjÄli decyzjÄ, co chcÄ
powiedzieÄ, aby zyskaÄ
+przewagÄ. A kwestia, co jest trafniejszym lub sprawiedliwszym,
+lub prawidÅowym sposobem jego okreÅlania, nie jest jakÄ
Å zasadniczÄ
+sprawÄ
, która obchodziÅaby takÄ
firmÄ. JakieÅ maÅe firmy, tak, tam
może byÄ
+szef. I jeÅli ten szef jest zdeterminowany mieÄ takie rzeczy
+na uwadze, to może podjÄ
Ä takÄ
decyzjÄ. Ale nie gigantyczna
+korporacja. To wstyd, wiecie.</p>
+
+<p>Jest inna ważniejsza i poważniejsza kwestia dotyczÄ
ca postÄpowania
+IBM. TwierdzÄ
oni, że wkÅadajÄ
miliard dolarów
+w „Linuksa”. Ale byÄ może powinienem wziÄ
Ä
+w cudzysÅów także „w”, bo czÄÅÄ tych pieniÄdzy
idzie
+na pÅacenie ludziom za rozwój wolnego oprogramowania. To naprawdÄ
+jest wkÅad na rzecz naszej spoÅecznoÅci. Ale reszta idzie
+na pÅacenie ludziom za rozwój oprogramowania objÄtego
+restrykcyjnymi licencjami albo za portowanie takiego oprogramowania
+na GNU/Linuksa, a to <em>nie</em> jest wkÅad na rzecz naszej
+spoÅecznoÅci. Ale IBM wkÅada to wszystko do jednego worka.
CzÄÅÄ
+z tego wszystkiego to może byÄ reklama, co jest pewnym wkÅadem, nawet
+jeÅli trochÄ nieprawidÅowym. WiÄc jest to skomplikowana sytuacja.
CzÄÅÄ
+z tego, co robiÄ
, nam sÅuży, a reszta nie. A czÄÅÄ jest
+gdzieÅ po Årodku. I nie można tego po prostu wrzuciÄ
+do jednego worka i krzyczeÄ: „Wow! Hurra! Miliard dolarów
+od IBM”. <i>[Åmiech]</i> To zbytnie uproszczenie.</p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Czy możesz coÅ wiÄcej powiedzieÄ
+na temat pobudek, które doprowadziÅy do powstania GPL?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Cóż, oto – przepraszam, odpowiadam
+teraz na jego pytanie. <i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Czy chcesz zarezerwowaÄ trochÄ czasu
+na konferencjÄ prasowÄ
? Czy kontynuowaÄ z tym?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Kto tu przyszedÅ na konferencjÄ prasowÄ
?
+Niezbyt wielu dziennikarzy. Aha, trzech – OK. Czy nie bÄdzie
+problemu jeÅli bÄdziemy – jeÅli bÄdÄ przez jeszcze jakieÅ 10
+minut odpowiadaÅ na pytania z sali? OK. WiÄc bÄdÄ dalej
+odpowiadaÅ na pytania z sali.</p>
+
+<p>WiÄc jakie byÅy pobudki powstania GNU GPL? Po czÄÅci chciaÅem
+ochroniÄ wolnoÅÄ spoÅecznoÅci przed zjawiskami, które opisaÅem
+na przykÅadzie systemu X, i które przydarzyÅy siÄ także innym
+wolnym programom. Tak naprawdÄ to gdy myÅlaÅem o tej kwestii, X jeszcze nie
+zostaÅ wydany. Ale widziaÅem jak ten problem powstawaÅ przy innych
+wolnych programach. Na przykÅad TeX. ChciaÅem zadbaÄ o to, by wszyscy
+użytkownicy mieli wolnoÅÄ. ZdaÅem sobie sprawÄ, że w innym wypadku
+mógÅbym napisaÄ jakiÅ program i może używaÅoby go wielu ludzi,
+ale nie mieliby wolnoÅci. A jaki to ma sens?</p>
+
+<p>Ale inna sprawa, o której myÅlaÅem, to daÄ spoÅecznoÅci poczucie,
+że nie jest wycieraczkÄ
, poczucie, że nie jest Åupem dla
+pierwszego pasożyta, który akurat bÄdzie przechodziÅ obok. JeÅli nie
+korzystacie z copyleft, to w gruncie rzeczy mówicie <i>[mówi
+potulnym gÅosem]</i>: „Weźcie mój kod. Zróbcie, co chcecie. Nie
+sprzeciwiam siÄ”. WiÄc każdy może przyjÅÄ i powiedzieÄ
+<i>[mówi pewnym siebie gÅosem]</i>: „Tak, chcÄ zrobiÄ z tego
+niewolnÄ
wersjÄ. Po prostu to sobie wezmÄ”. OczywiÅcie potem,
+zrobiÄ
prawdopodobnie jakieÅ ulepszenia, te niewolne wersje mogÄ
spodobaÄ
+siÄ użytkownikom i wyprzeÄ wersje wolne. I co wtedy osiÄ
gnÄliÅcie?
+PrzekazaliÅcie tylko darowiznÄ jakiemuÅ objÄtemu restrykcyjnÄ
licencjÄ
+projektowi programistycznemu.</p>
+
+<p>A kiedy ludzie widzÄ
, że to siÄ dzieje, gdy ludzie widzÄ
, jak
inni
+biorÄ
to co zrobiÅem i nigdy tego nie oddajÄ
, to może byÄ
+demoralizujÄ
ce. I to nie sÄ
tylko przypuszczenia. WidziaÅem to
+na wÅasne oczy. To jest czÄÅÄ tego, co siÄ staÅo, gdy zniszczona
+zostaÅa stara spoÅecznoÅÄ, do której należaÅem w latach
+70. Niektórzy przestali wspóÅpracowaÄ. I uznaliÅmy, że na tym
+korzystajÄ
. Z pewnoÅciÄ
zachowywali siÄ tak, jakby uważali,
+że korzystajÄ
. I zdaliÅmy sobie sprawÄ, że nie mogÄ
tak
+po prostu czerpaÄ z efektów wspóÅpracy i nic nie
+oddawaÄ. A nic nie mogliÅmy z tym zrobiÄ. To byÅo bardzo
+deprymujÄ
ce. My, ci z nas, którym siÄ ta tendencja nie podobaÅa, nawet
+o tym dyskutowaliÅmy i nie mogliÅmy wymyÅliÄ nic, co mogÅoby
poÅożyÄ
+temu kres.</p>
+
+<p>WiÄc GPL zostaÅa zaprojektowana, by to powstrzymaÄ. Mówi ona,
+że tak, zapraszamy ciÄ do przystÄ
pienia do spoÅecznoÅci
+i korzystania z tego kodu. Możesz go wykorzystywaÄ
+do wszelkich zadaÅ. Jednak jeÅli wypuÅcisz zmodyfikowanÄ
wersjÄ,
+to musisz jÄ
udostÄpniÄ naszej spoÅecznoÅci, bÄdÄ
c czÄÅciÄ
tej
spoÅecznoÅci,
+bÄdÄ
c czÄÅciÄ
wolnego Åwiata.</p>
+
+<p>WiÄc w rzeczywistoÅci i tak jest wiele sposobów, na jakie
+ludzie mogÄ
korzystaÄ z naszej pracy, a sami nie wnosiÄ Å¼adnego
+wkÅadu, na przykÅad nie musicie pisaÄ programów. Mnóstwo ludzi
korzysta
+z GNU/Linuksa i nie pisze żadnego oprogramowania. Nie ma wymogu,
+że coÅ musicie dla nas zrobiÄ. Ale jeÅli robicie pewien konkretny
+rodzaj rzeczy, to musicie wnieÅÄ to jako wkÅad. Oznacza to, że nasza
+spoÅecznoÅÄ to nie wycieraczka. I myÅlÄ, że to daÅo ludziom
siÅÄ
+i poczucie, że wszyscy nie bÄdÄ
po nas tak po prostu
+deptaÄ. Przeciwstawimy siÄ temu.</p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Tak, moje pytanie brzmi, biorÄ
c pod uwagÄ
+wolne, ale nie objÄte przez copyleft oprogramowanie, skoro każdy może
+je wziÄ
Ä i objÄ
Ä restrykcyjnÄ
licencjÄ
, to czy nie jest także
+możliwe, żeby ktoÅ je wziÄ
Å, dodaÅ kilka zmian i wydaÅ caÅÄ
rzecz
+na licencji GPL?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tak, to jest możliwe.</p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: WiÄc to by objÄÅo wszystkie przyszÅe
kopie
+licencjÄ
GPL.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Od tego odgaÅÄzienia kodu. Ale oto
+dlaczego tak nie robimy.</p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Hmm?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oto dlaczego ogólnie tak nie robimy. Pozwólcie,
+że wyjaÅniÄ.</p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: OK, oczywiÅcie.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: MoglibyÅmy, gdybyÅmy chcieli, wziÄ
Ä system X,
+zrobiÄ kopiÄ objÄtÄ
przez GPL i wprowadziÄ do niej
+zmiany. Ale istnieje dużo wiÄksza grupa osób pracujÄ
ca
+nad rozwijaniem X, która <em>nie</em> wydaje go na GPL. WiÄc,
+jeÅli byÅmy to zrobili, to odgaÅÄzialibyÅmy ich kod. A to nie byÅoby
+miÅe traktowanie. A oni <em>sÄ
</em> czÄÅciÄ
naszej spoÅecznoÅci,
wnoszÄ
+do niej wkÅad.</p>
+
+<p>Po drugie obróciÅoby siÄ to przeciwko nam, bo oni wkÅadajÄ
+w X dużo wiÄcej pracy niż my byÅmy wkÅadali. WiÄc nasza wersja
+byÅaby gorsza od ich wersji, ludzie by jej nie używali, wiÄc po co
+w ogóle siÄ trudziÄ?</p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Aha.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: WiÄc jeÅli ktoÅ napisaÅ jakieÅ
ulepszenia
+dla X, to uważam, że powinien wspóÅpracowaÄ z zespoÅem
+rozwijajÄ
cym X. PrzeÅlijcie to im i pozwólcie wykorzystaÄ tak, jak
bÄdÄ
+chcieli. Bo oni rozwijajÄ
bardzo istotny kawaÅek wolnego
+oprogramowania. WspóÅpraca z nimi jest dla nas korzystna.</p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Oprócz – biorÄ
c pod uwagÄ
+konkretnie X, okoÅo dwóch lat temu – X Consortium, które byÅo
+bardzo zaangażowane w niewolne oprogramowanie open source…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Cóż, tak naprawdÄ to <em>nie byÅo</em> open
+source. To nie byÅo także open source. Mogli mówiÄ, że byÅo. Nie
+pamiÄtam, czy tak mówili, czy nie. Ale to nie byÅo open
+source. ByÅo objÄte ograniczeniami. Nie można byÅo tego komercyjnie
+rozpowszechniaÄ, z tego co pamiÄtam. Albo nie można byÅo
+komercyjnie rozpowszechniaÄ zmodyfikowanych wersji, albo coÅ
+takiego. ByÅo jakieÅ ograniczenie nie do zaakceptowania zarówno przez
+ruch wolnego oprogramowania, jak i ruch open source.</p>
+
+<p>I tak, oto na co wystawia was wykorzystywanie licencji niezgodnej
+z copyleft. W rzeczywistoÅci X Consortium miaÅo bardzo sztywnÄ
+politykÄ. Mówili: „JeÅli wasz program ma cokolwiek wspólnego
+z copyleft, to nie bÄdziemy go rozpowszechniaÄ. Nie umieÅcimy go
+w naszej dystrybucji”.</p>
+
+<p>WiÄc w ten sposób wielu ludzi zmuszono do zaniechania
korzystania
+z copyleft. A efektem tego byÅo to, że caÅe ich
+oprogramowanie byÅo później caÅkowicie bezbronne. Kiedy ci sami ludzie,
+którzy wczeÅniej naciskali autorów, żeby na zbyt wiele pozwalali,
potem
+ludzie z X mówili później: „OK, teraz możemy naÅożyÄ
+ograniczenia”, co nie byÅo z ich strony etycznym
postÄpowaniem.</p>
+
+<p>Ale, biorÄ
c pod uwagÄ sytuacjÄ, czy naprawdÄ chcielibyÅmy
+organizowaÄ zasoby na utrzymywanie alternatywnej, objÄtej przez GPL
+wersji X? Robienie tego nie miaÅoby sensu. Jest tyle innych rzeczy, które
+musimy zrobiÄ. Zróbmy je zamiast tego. Z autorami X możemy
+wspóÅpracowaÄ.</p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Czy mógÅbyÅ powiedzieÄ, czy GNU to
znak
+towarowy? Czy nie byÅoby praktycznÄ
rzeczÄ
dodanie do GNU GPL
+pozwolenia na wykorzystywanie tego znaku?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: WÅaÅnie wystÄ
piliÅmy o rejestracjÄ znaku
+towarowego GNU. Ale nie miaÅoby to z tym nic
+wspólnego. WyjaÅnienie tego to dÅuga historia.</p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: MoglibyÅcie żÄ
daÄ, aby ten znak towarowy
byÅ
+widoczny na programach objÄtych przez GPL.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Nie, nie sÄ
dzÄ. Licencje obejmujÄ
poszczególne
+programy. A kiedy dany program jest czÄÅciÄ
projektu GNU, to nikt nie
+kÅamie na ten temat. Nazwa caÅego systemu to inna sprawa. Ale to
+sprawa poboczna. Nie warto na ten temat wiÄcej mówiÄ.</p>
+
+<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: JeÅli istniaÅby guzik, którego naciÅniÄcie
+zmusiÅoby wszystkie firmy do uwolnienia swojego oprogramowania,
+nacisnÄ
ÅbyÅ go?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Cóż, wykorzystaÅbym to tylko wobec
opublikowanego
+oprogramowania. No wiecie, uważam, że ludzie majÄ
prawo
+do napisania programu na prywatny użytek i korzystania
+z niego. Dotyczy to także firm. To kwestia prywatnoÅci. To prawda, mogÄ
+byÄ przypadki, w których takie postÄpowanie jest zÅe,
na przykÅad,
+gdy jest on niezwykle przydatny dla ludzkoÅci, a wy go przed ludzkoÅciÄ
+ukrywacie. To jest zÅe, ale w inny sposób. To osobna kwestia, chociaż
+dotykajÄ
ca tego samego obszaru.</p>
+
+<p>Ale tak, sÄ
dzÄ, że caÅe opublikowane oprogramowanie powinno
byÄ
+wolne. I pamiÄtajcie, jeÅli nie jest wolne, to z powodu
+interwencji rzÄ
du. RzÄ
d interweniuje, aby uczyniÄ je niewolnym. RzÄ
d
+tworzy specjalne narzÄdzia prawne dla wÅaÅcicieli programów, aby mogli
+zmusiÄ policjÄ do powstrzymania nas od używania programów
+na pewne sposoby. Z caÅÄ
pewnoÅciÄ
chciaÅbym poÅożyÄ temu
kres. </p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Prezentacja Richarda jak zwykle wyzwoliÅa
+olbrzymiÄ
iloÅÄ intelektualnej energii. SugerujÄ, żeby jej czÄÅÄ
zostaÅa
+wykorzystana na używanie, a może również pisanie, wolnego
+oprogramowania.</p>
+
+<p>PowinniÅmy wkrótce zamknÄ
Ä tÄ sesjÄ. ChcÄ powiedzieÄ,
że Richard
+wstrzyknÄ
Å w profesjÄ, która jest znana ogóÅowi spoÅeczeÅstwa ze
swojej
+caÅkowicie apolitycznej postawy, dawkÄ politycznego i moralnego
+zamieszania, które w naszej profesji nie miaÅo wczeÅniej
+miejsca. I bardzo wiele jesteÅmy mu za to winni. ChciaÅbym
+ogÅosiÄ, że mamy przerwÄ.</p>
+
+<p><i>[aplauz]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Możecie w każdej chwili
+wyjÅÄ. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Nie trzymam was tu pod kluczem.</p>
+
+<p><i>[sÅuchacze siÄ rozchodzÄ
…]</i></p>
+
+<p><i>[nakÅadajÄ
ce siÄ gÅosy…]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Ostatnia sprawa. Nasza witryna internetowa:
+www.gnu.org</p>
+
+<div class="translators-notes">
+
+<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes.-->
+ </div>
+</div>
+
+<!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.pl.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Pytania dotyczÄ
ce GNU i FSF prosimy kierowaÄ na adres <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>. IstniejÄ
także <a
+href="/contact/contact.html">inne sposoby skontaktowania siÄ</a>
+z FSF. <br /> Informacje o niedziaÅajÄ
cych odnoÅnikach oraz inne
+poprawki (lub propozycje) prosimy wysyÅaÄ na adres <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></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";>
+
+ <address@hidden></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>. -->
+Staramy siÄ, aby tÅumaczenia byÅy wierne i wysokiej jakoÅci,
+ale nie jesteÅmy zwolnieni z niedoskonaÅoÅci. Komentarze odnoÅnie
+tÅumaczenia polskiego oraz zgÅoszenia dotyczÄ
ce chÄci wspóÅpracy
+w tÅumaczeniu prosimy kierowaÄ na adres <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";>address@hidden</a>. <br />
+Aby zapoznaÄ siÄ z informacjami dotyczÄ
cymi tÅumaczenia
+i koordynowania tÅumaczeÅ artykuÅów, proszÄ odwiedziÄ stronÄ <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">tÅumaczeÅ</a>.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) 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. -->
+<p>Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman</p>
+
+<p>Ten utwór objÄty jest licencjÄ
Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Bez
+utworów zależnych 3.0 Stany Zjednoczone. Aby zobaczyÄ kopiÄ niniejszej
+licencji przejdź na stronÄ <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/";>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/</a>
+lub napisz do Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San
+Francisco, California 94105, USA.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.pl.html" -->
+<div class="translators-credits">
+
+<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.-->
+TÅumaczenie: RadosÅaw MoszczyÅski 2005, Jan Owoc 2011; poprawki: Jan Owoc
+2015.</div>
+
+<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
+Aktualizowane:
+
+$Date: 2015/09/15 05:45:30 $
+
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
Index: philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pt-br.txt
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pt-br.txt
diff -N philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pt-br.txt
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pt-br.txt 15 Sep 2015 05:45:30
-0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,1806 @@
+Transcrição do discurso de Richar M. Stallman, "Software Livre: Liberdade de
+Cooperação" Universidade de Nova Iorque, em 29 de Maio de 2001.
+
+Original em inglês: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt
+
+Traduzido por Edgard Lemos <address@hidden>
+
+Uma outra tradução pode ser encontrada em:
+http://www.msantunes.com.br/palestra.htm
+
+
+URETSKY: Eu sou Mike Uretsky. Sou da "Escola de Negócios Stern". Também sou
+um dos co-diretores do Centro de Tecnologia Avançada. E, em nome de todos nós
+do Departamento de Ciência da Computação, quero dar-lhes as boas-vindas aqui.
+Quero fazer alguns comentários antes de dar a palavra a Ed, que vai lhes
+apresentar o palestrante.
+
+O papel da Universidade é fomentar o debate e levantar discussões
+interessantes. E o papel de uma universidade proeminente é ter discussões
+particularmente interessantes. E esta apresentação em particular, este
+seminário entra bem dentro desse molde. Eu considero a discussão sobre código
+aberto particularmente interessante. De certo modo, [Risos]
+
+STALLMAN: Meu negócio é "software livre". Código aberto é outro movimento.
+[Risos] [Aplausos]
+
+URETSKY: Quando iniciei nesta área nos anos 60, software era basicamente
+livre. Então entramos numa fase. Ele era livre, e então os fabricantes [[ou
+"alguns dos fabricantes"]] de software, precisando expandir seus mercados, o
+levaram para outras direções. Muito do desenvolvimento que aconteceu com a
+entrada do PC foi exatamente nessa fase.
+
+Há um filósofo francês muito interessante -- Pierre Levy -- que fala sobre
+essas mudanças, e que fala sobre o movimento para o ciberespaço não só tendo a
+ver com tecnologia, mas também com restruturação social e política, através da
+mundança dos relacionamentos para a melhoraria do bem-estar da
+humanidade. E esperamos que este debate seja um movimento nessa direção; pois
+este debate atravessa várias disciplinas que são a base da Universidade.
+Estamos desejosos de discussões verdadeiramente interessantes. Ed?
+
+SCHONBERG: Eu sou Ed Schonberg do Departamento de Ciência da Computação do
+Insituto Courant. Sejam todos bem-vindos a este evento. Apresentadores são
+normalmente, e particularmente, um aspecto inútil em apresentações públicas,
+mas, neste caso, realmente, um deles serviu a um propósito útil como
+demonstrado por Mike. Um apresentador por exemplo, ao fazer
+comentários imprecisos, pode permitir que ele endireite, corrija e [Risos]
+esclareça consideravelmente os parâmetros do debate.
+
+Portanto, vou apresentar da maneira mais rápida possível alguém que dispensa
+apresentações. Richard é o exemplo perfeito de alguém que, agindo localmente,
+começou a pensar globalmente a partir de problemas relativos à não
+disponibilidade de código fonte para drivers de impressora no AI-Lab muitos
+anos atrás. Ele desenvolveu uma filosofia coerente que nos forçou a todos a
+reexaminar nossas idéias de como se produz sofwtare, o que significa
+propriedade intelectual e o que realmente representa a comunidade de software.
+Convido, portanto, Richard Stallman. [Aplausos]
+
+
+STALLMAN: Alguém pode me emprestar um relógio? [Risos] Obrigado. Bem, eu
+gostaria de agradecer à Microsoft por me oferecer esta oportunidade de [Risos]
+estar neste púlpito. Nas últimas semanas, eu me senti como um escritor cujo
+livro tivesse sido fortuitamente proibido. [Risos] Exceto que todos os artigos
+sobre ele davam o nome errado do autor, pois a Microsoft descreve GNU GPL como
+uma licença de código aberto, e a maior parte da cobertura da imprensa adotou
+isso. Muitas pessoas, obviamente inocentemente não percebem que nosso trabalho
+não tem nada a ver com código aberto; de fato, fizemos quase tudo antes de
+cunharem o termo "código aberto".
+
+Somos do Movimento do Software Livre, e vou falar sobre o que é o movimento de
+software livre, o que significa, o que temos feito e, como este evento é
+parcialmente patrocinado pela Escola de Negócios, vou falar algumas coisas a
+mais do que normalmente falo sobre como o software se relaciona com os negócios
+e algumas outras áreas da vida social.
+
+Bem, alguns de vocês talvez não escrevam programas, mas talvez cozinhem. E se
+cozinham, a não ser que sejam muito bons, provavelmente seguem receitas. E se
+seguem receitas, provavelmente já tiveram a experiência de obter uma cópia da
+receita de um amigo. E provavelmente já tiveram a experiência -- a não ser que
+sejam totalmente neófitos -- de alterar a receita. A receita diz certas coisas,
+mas você não está obrigado a segui-la exatamente. Você pode excluir alguns
+ingredientes. Adicionar cogumelos, porque você gosta. Pôr menos sal porque seu
+médico disse para reduzir o sal -- etc. Você pode fazer alterações ainda
+maiores de acordo com sua habilidade. E ao modificar uma receita, e cozinhar
+para amigos e eles gostarem, um deles pode dizer "puxa, dá pra passar a
+receita?" Então o que você faz? Você poderia escrever essa versão modificada da
+receita e entregar uma cópia ao seu amigo. Isto é natural de se fazer com
+receitas de qualquer tipo.
+
+Ora, receitas têm muito em comum com programas. Programas têm muito em comum
+com receitas. Uma série de passos de execução para obter algum resultado que
+se queira. Assim, é natural agir da mesma forma com programas. Ceder uma cópia
+a um amigo. Modificá-lo porque a tarefa para a qual foi escrito não é
+exatamente o que você quer. Até fez uma excelente trabalho para outros, mas
+você tem uma tarefa diferente. E, depois de modificá-lo, pode ser que seja útil
+para outras pessoas ainda. Talvez elas tenham uma tarefa a fazer que seja como
+a sua. Assim, elas pedem, posso conseguir uma cópia? E como você é
+um cara legal, você vai dar a cópia. É assim que agem as pessoas decentes.
+
+Agora imagine como seria se as receitas viessem lacradas dentro de caixas
+pretas -- sem poder ver os ingredientes que estivesse usando, muito menos
+modificá-los -- e imagine, se ao copiá-las para um amigo, eles o chamassem
+de pirata e tentassem colocá-lo na cadeia por anos. Um mundo assim traria
+tremenda indignação para todos aqueles acostumados a trocar receitas. Mas é
+exatamente desse jeito que é o mundo do software proprietário. Um mundo no
+qual a decência comum para com outras pessoas é proibida ou impedida.
+
+E porque eu notei isso? Eu notei isso porque tive sorte, nos anos 70, de fazer
+parte de uma comunidade de programadores que compartilhavam software. Essa
+comunidade tinha sua origem essencialmente lá no início da computação. Nos
+anos 70, porém, já estava ficando raro encontrar uma comunidade em que se
+compartilhava software. E, de fato, era um caso extremo, pois no laboratório
+em que trabalhava, o sistema operacional inteiro era software desenvolvido
+pelas pessoas de nossa comunidade, e o compartilhávamos com qualquer
+pessoa. Qualquer um era convidado a vê-lo e levar uma cópia, e fazer com ele o
+que quisesse. Não havia nenhum aviso de direito de cópia nesses programas.
+Cooperação era nosso modo de vida. E nos sentíamos seguros nesse tipo de vida.
+Não lutávamos por ela. Não tínhamos que lutar por ela. Apenas vivíamos assim.
+E, até onde eu soubesse, continuaríamos a ver daquela maneira. Assim, havia
+software livre, mas não havia movimento de software livre.
+
+Mas então, nossa comunidade foi destruída por uma série de calamidades que
+aconteceram. No fim acabou sendo eliminada. No fim, o computador PDP-10
que
+usávamos para todo nosso trabalho foi descontinuado. E como vocês sabem, nosso
+sistema -- O Sistema de Compartilhamento de Tempo Incompatível -- fora
+escrito nos anos 60, portanto fora escrito em assembler. Era assim que se
+escrevia sistemas operacionais nos anos 60. Obviamente, programas em
+assembler são feitos para uma arquitetura de hardware em particular; se for
+descontinuado, todo o trabalho vira pó -- não serve para mais nada. E foi o
+que aconteceu conosco. 20 anos ou tanto de trabalho da nossa comunidade virou
+pó.
+
+Mas antes que isso acontecesse, eu tive uma experiência que me preparou, me
+ajudou a saber o que fazer, ajudou a me preparar para saber o que fazer quando
+isso acontecesse, porque a certa época, a Xerox deu ao laboratório de
+inteligência artificial em que trabalhava, uma impressora a laser, um presente
+muito interessante, pois era a primeira vez que alguém fora da Xerox tinha uma
+impressora a laser. Ela era muito rápida, imprimia uma página por segundo,
+muito boa em muitos aspectos, mas não era confiável, porque ela era na verdade
+uma copiadora de alta velocidade para escritórios modificada para impressora.
+E vocês sabem, as copiadoras engasgam, mas o operador está junto para reparar.
+A impressora engasgava sem ninguém ver. E ficava assim por longo tempo.
+
+Então tivemos uma idéia para lidar com este problema. Modificá-la de modo
+que quando engasgasse, a máquina que controlava a impressora pudesse avisar
+nosso computador central, e avisar aos usuários que estivessem aguardando
+as impressões, ou algo do tipo, por exemplo, de problemas na impressora. Se
+soubessem que ela tinha engasgado, quer dizer, se você está esperando por
+uma impressão, e sabe que a impressora está engasgada, você não vai ficar
+sentado, você vai lá e resolve o problema da impressora.
+
+Mas, aí ficamos completamente de mãos atadas, porque o software que controlava
+a impressora não era livre -- ele tinha vindo com a impressora, e era apenas
+um binário. Não tínhamos como saber o código fonte -- a Xerox não nos deixava
+obter o código fonte. Assim, apesar de toda nossa habilidade como
+programadores -- afinal, tínhamos escrito nosso próprio sistema operacional --
+estávamos totalmente impedidos de adicionar o novo recurso ao software da
+impressora.
+
+Aí só nos restava sofrer com as demoras -- levava uma ou duas horas para
+conseguir uma impressão porque a máquina engasgava a maior parte do tempo. E de
+vez em quando -- a gente esperava uma hora sabendo que a impressora
+iria engasgar mesmo e na hora de pegar a impressão via que a impressora não
+tinha imprimido nada porque ninguém tinha ido lá desengasgá-la. Daí a gente a
+punha em ordem e esperava mais meia hora. Ao voltar via que ela tinha
+engasgado de novo -- antes de imprimir o seu trabalho. Imprimia três minutos e
+engasgava trinta. Frustante à beça... Mas o pior era saber que nós podíamos
+resolver o problema, mas alguém, por seu próprio egoísmo, nos impediu de
+melhorar o software. Ficamos, então, um tanto ressentidos.
+
+Um dia fiquei sabendo que uma pessoa da Universidade Carnegie Mellon tinha uma
+cópia do software. Fiz uma visita lá um tempo depois e fui a seu escritório e
+disse, "Olá, sou do MIT, posso copiar o código fonte da impressora?" Ao que
+ele respondeu "Não, eu prometi não dá-lo a você". [Risos] Fiquei pasmado.
+Fiquei -- fiquei tão nervoso, não tinha nem idéia de como revidar. Pensei em
+virar as costas ali mesmo e sair da sala. Talvez batendo a porta. [Risos] Mais
+tarde pensei sobre isso, pois percebi que não estava diante de um cretino
+isolado, mas de um fenômeno social que era importante e afetava muita gente.
+
+Isto -- para mim -- Tive sorte de apenas sentir o gosto, mas outras pessoas
+tinham viver o tempo todo assim. Vejam, ele tinha prometido a se recusar a
+cooperar conosco -- colegas seus do MIT. Ele tinha-nos traído. Mas não
+só a nós. Acho até que ele traiu vocês. Com certeza, pensei agora, ele traiu
+vocês. [Risos] E provavelmente ele os traiu também. Ele provavelmente traiu
+todos deste auditório -- com exceção de uns poucos que não eram ainda nascidos
+nos anos 80. Pois ele tinha prometido não cooperar com simplesmente toda a
+população do Planeta Terra. Ele tinha assinado um acordo de confidencialidade.
+
+Este foi, então, meu primeiro encontro direto com um acordo de
+confidencialidade e com isso aprendi uma lição importante -- uma lição
+importante que a maioria dos programadores nunca aprende. Vejam, este foi meu
+primeiro encontro com um acordo de confidencialidade e eu fui a vítima. Eu, e
+todo o meu laboratório, fomos as vítimas. E a lição que aprendi foi que
+acordos de confidencialidade fazem vítimas. Eles não são inocentes. Eles não
+são inofensivos. A maioria dos programadores se deparam com um acordo de
+confidencialidade quando são convidados a assiná-lo. E há sempre aliciamento
+-- a promessa de receber algo em troca se eles assinarem. Então inventam
+desculpas. Daí dizem, "bem, o cliente nunca vai conseguir os fontes mesmo,
+então porque não me unir ao cartel que o explora?" Ou dizem "sempre foi assim.
+Quem sou eu para ir contra?" Ou também, "se eu não assinar isto, outro vai."
+Várias desculpas para abafar sua consciência.
+
+Mas, quando me convidaram para assinar um acordo de confidencialidade, minha
+consciência já estava alerta. Lembrei-me de quanta raiva tinha sentido quando
+alguém prometeu não dar ajuda a mim nem a meu laboratório inteiro para resolver
+um problema. Eu não podia ceder e fazer exatamente a mesma coisa a outros que
+nunca me tinham feito mal nenhum. Sabe, se alguém me pedisse para prometer não
+dar informações úteis a um inimigo odiado, eu teria dito que não daria.
+Entende? Se alguém me fez mal, talvez mereça. Mas, outros -- eles não tinham
+me feito mal algum. Por que serem mal tratados? Não se pode tratar mal toda e
+qualquer pessoa. Senão você se torna um predador da sociedade. Daí falei,
+muito obrigado por me oferecer seu excelente programa. Mas não posso aceitá-lo
+de consciência limpa, nas condições que você exige, vou ter de passar sem ele.
+Muito obrigado. Assim, jamais assinei conscientemente um contrato de
+confidencialidade para informações técnicas de utilidade geral, como software.
+
+Mas há outras informações que levantam questões éticas diferentes. Por
+exemplo, existem informações pessoais. Se você conversar comigo sobre o que
+aconteceu entre você e seu namorado, e me pedir para não contar a ninguém --
+bem, eu posso guardar -- eu posso guardar esse segredo para você, porque não é
+uma informação técnica de utilidade geral.
+
+Pelo menos, não deveria ser de utilidade geral. [Risos] A não ser é claro --
+e é só uma possibilidade, porém -- que você me revele alguma técnica sexual
+tão fantástica, [Risos] que me faça sentir no dever moral [Risos] de
+repassar isso para o resto da humanidade, para que todos possam se beneficiar.
+Assim, teria de colocar uma condição nessa promessa. Detalhes de
+quem quer isso, quem está com raiva de quem, e outras coisas assim -- uma
+novela -- mantenho segredo para você, mas algumas coisas de que a
+humanidade pudesse se beneficiar tremendamente se soubesse, eu não iria
+segurar. Vejam, o propósito da ciência e da tecnologia é desenvolver
+informações úteis para que a humanidade ajude as pessoas a viverem melhor. Se
+prometemos segurar essa informação -- se mantivermos segredo -- então
+estaremos traindo a missão de nossa área. E assim, decidi que não devia
+assinar.
+
+Mas, enquanto isso, minha comunidade tinha sumido, e isso era o fundo do
+posso, daí fiquei numa situação ruim. Vejam, nosso sistema operacional estava
+obsoleto, porque o PDP-10 estava obsoleto, e assim, não havia meio de
+continuar trabalhando como desenvolvedor de sistema operacional do mesmo modo
+como vinha fazendo. Isso dependia de fazer parte da comunidade que usava
+software comunitário, e melhorá-lo. Isso não era mais uma possibilidade, e
+isso me pôs num dilema moral. O que deveria fazer? Pois a possibilidade mais
+óbvia significava ir contra a decisão que tinha tomado. A possibilidade mais
+óbvia era me adaptar à mudança do mundo. Aceitar que as coisas tinham mudado,
+abandonar meus princípios e passar a assinar acordos de confidencialidade
+para sistemas operacionais proprietários, e ainda muito provavelmente escrever
+software proprietário também. Mas percebi que desse modo eu poderia me
+divertir escrevendo programas, ganhar dinheiro -- especialmente se fizesse
+carreira fora do MIT -- mas, no fim, olharia para trás sobre minha carreira e
+diria "Gastei minha vida construindo muros para dividir as pessoas," e teria
+vergonha de minha vida.
+
+Então procurei outra alternativa, e havia uma que era óbvia. Até podia deixar
+a área de software, e fazer outra coisa. Eu não tinha nenhuma outra
+habilidade especial digna de nota, mas estou certo de que poderia me ter me
+tornado garçon. [Risos] Não em restaurante chique, ele não me contratariam,
+[Risos] mas talvez em outro lugar. E muitos programadores me dizem "as
+pessoas que contratam programadores exigem isso, isso e isso -- se não fizer
+do jeito deles, passo fome." É literalmente como dizem. Bem, garçon não
+passar fome. [Risos] Eles não correm esse risco. Mas -- e isso é
+importante, vejam vocês -- como às vezes se pode justificar o fazer algo que
+prejudica outras pessoas dizendo "se não for desse jeito, algo pior vai
+acontecer comigo". Se você está a ponto de passar fome, então está desculpado
+se escrever software proprietário [Risos]. Se alguém estivesse apontando uma
+arma para você, eu diria que é perdoável. [Risos] Mas, eu achei um modo de
+sobreviver sem fazer nada anti-ético, para que não houvesse desculpa. Percebi
+que ser garçon não me realizaria, e desperdiçaria minhas qualidades como
+desenvolvedor de sistemas operacionais. Teria evitado o mal uso de minhas
+habilidades. Desenvolver software proprietário seria mal uso de minhas
+habilidades. Incentivar outras pessoas a viver num mundo de softawre
+proprietário seria fazer mal uso de minhas habilidades. Então seria melhor
+jogá-las fora que usá-las mal, mas ainda não estava bom.
+
+Assim, por essas razões, decidi procurar outra alternativa. O que um
+desenvolvedor de sistemas operacionais pode fazer para melhorar de fato a
+situação, para fazer do mundo um lugar melhor? Percebi que um desenvolvedor de
+sistemas operacionais era exatamente o que era necessário. O problema, o
+dilema, existia para mim e para todos porque todos os sistemas operacionais
+disponíveis para computadores modernos eram proprietários. Os sistemas
+operacionais livres eram para computadores velhos e obsoletos, certo? Assim
+para computadores modernos -- se você quisesse adquirir um computador moderno
+e usá-lo, seria forçado a usar um sistema operacional proprietário. Se um
+desenvolvedor escrevesse um novo sistema operacional -- e
+depois dissesse, todo mundo vem aqui e copia, vocês estão convidados -- isso
+seria uma saída para o dilema, uma outra alternativa. Assim percebi que
+havia algo que podia fazer para resolver o problema. Eu tinha as habilidades
+certas para fazê-lo. E foi a coisa mais útil que eu podia imaginar que seria
+capaz de fazer na minha vida. Era um problema que ninguém mais estava tentando
+resolver. Todo mundo via a coisa toda ficando pior e ninguém se mexia exceto
+eu. Daí me senti um "escolhido". "Quem tem de resolver sou eu. Se não for, quem
+vai?" Então decidi desenvolver um sistema operacional livre -- ou morrer
+tentando. De velho, naturalmente. [Risos]
+
+Naturalmente, eu tinha de decidir que tipo de sistema operacional deveria ser
+-- havia algumas decisões técnicas de projeto a serem feitas. Decidi fazer um
+sistema compatível com UNIX por uma série de razões. Primeiro, eu tinha visto
+um sistema operacional de que eu realmente gostava ficar obsoleto porque ele
+tinha sido escrito para um tipo específico de computador. Eu não queria que
+isso acontecesse de novo. Precisávamos ter um sistema portável. Bem, UNIX era
+um sistema portável. Então se seguisse as linhas de projeto do UNIX, teria uma
+boa chance de fazer um sistema que fosse portável e operável. E além disso ser
+compatível com ele nos detalhes. A razão é que os usuários odeiam mudanças
+incompatíveis. Se tivesse projetado o sistema do jeito que mais gostasse -- o
+que teria adorado fazer, com certeza -- teria produzido algo incompatível.
+Bem, os detalhes seriam diferentes. Assim, se escrevesse o sistema -- os
+usuários teriam-me dito "olha... é bem legal, mas incompatível. Vai dar
+muito trabalho migrar. Não compensa usar seu sistema em vez do UNIX, assim
+ficaremos com o UNIX", eles teriam dito.
+
+Então, se quisesse criar de fato uma comunidade em que houvesse gente --
+pessoas usando este sistema livre, e usufruindo dos benefícios da livre
+cooperação -- eu teria de fazer um sistema que as pessoas usassem, um sistema
+que eles achassem fácil de usar, que não apresentasse obstáculo, levando-o ao
+insucesso logo no início. Ao fazê-lo compatível com UNIX, ficaram definidas
+todas as decisões de projeto imediatas, porque o UNIX é composto de muitas
+peças, e elas se comunicam por interfaces que são de alguma forma documentadas.
+Se quiser ser compatível com UNIX, você precisa substituir cada peça, uma por
+uma, por outra compatível. As decisões de projeto restantes ficam dentro
+de cada peça. E poderiam ser escritas mais tarde por quem decidisse
+escrevê-las; elas não precisavam ser feitas todas desde o início.
+
+Assim, o que precisávamos fazer para começar o trabalho era encontrar um nome
+para o sistema. Nós, hackers, sempre achamos um nome engraçado ou maroto para
+os programas, já que pensar nas pessoas achando graça do nome é metade da
+diversão de se escrever programas. [Risos] E tínhamos uma tradição de usar
+siglas recursivas para dizer que o programa escrito era similar a outro
+existente. Você pode criar uma sigla recursiva que diga -- este programa não
+é o aquele. Assim, por exemplo, havia muitos editores de texto Tico nos anos 60
+e 70, ele eram geralmente chamados de "isto não é o Tico". Um hacker chamou o
+seu de Tint que quer dizer Tint Is Not Tico -- a primeira sigla recursiva. Em
+1975, desenvolvi o primeiro editor de texto Emacs, e houve muitas imitações do
+Emacs, e muitos deles eram chamados de isto não é Emacs, mas um era chamado
+Fine -- Fine Is Not Emacs, e havia o Sine -- Sine Is Not Emacs e IINA, IIna Is
+Not Emacs e MINCE, Mince Is Not Complete Emacs. [Risos] Era uma imitação
+"light". E, então, IINA foi completamente reescrito, e a nova versão se chamou
+ZWII. ZWII Was IINA Initially. [Risos]
+
+Então procurei uma sigla recursiva para "Something Is Not UNIX". Tentei todas
+as 26 letras e descobri que nenhuma delas formava uma palavra. [Risos] Hmm,
+vamos tentar de outro jeito. Fiz uma contração. Assim, podia ter uma sigla com
+três letras, Something's Not UNIX. E aí veio a palavra "GNU" -- a palavra
+"GNU" é a mais engraçada da língua inglesa. [Risos] Foi isso mesmo.
+Naturalmente, a razão de ser engraçada é dada pelo dicionário, sua pronúncia é
+"new". Estão vendo? É por isso que as pessoas a usam para fazer vários
+trocadilhos. Vou contar, este é o nome de um animal que vive na África. A
+pronúncia africana tem um estalo. [Risos] Talvez ainda tenha. Os colonizadores
+europeus, quando chegaram lá, não se incomodaram em aprender a pronunciar este
+estalo. Assim o deixaram de fora, e escreveram o "G" para dizer "existe um som
+aqui que deveria ser pronunciado". [Risos] Hoje à noite eu parto para a África
+do Sul, e já pedi a eles. Espero que me encontrem alguém que possa me ensinar
+a pronunciar esses estalos. [Risos] Assim vou saber como pronunciar GNU
+corretamente, ao me referir ao animal.
+
+Mas, ao se referir ao sistema operacional, a pronúncia correta é G-NU --
+pronuncie um "G" mudo. Se você falar sobre um tal de sistema operacional
+"new", as pessoas vão ficar confusas, já que trabalhamos nele há 17 anos,
+então não é mais novo. [Risos] Mas ainda é, e sempre será GNU -- não importa
+quantas pessoas o chamem erradamente de Linux. [Risos]
+
+Assim, em janeiro de 1984, me demiti do MIT para começar a escrever as peças
+do GNU. Eles foram muito legais em me deixar usar os equipamentos. E, naquela
+época, pensei em escrever todas as peças, fazer um sistema GNU completo, para
+depois dizer "venham e peguem" e aí as pessoas começariam a usá-lo. Mas não
+foi o que aconteceu. As primeiras peças que escrevi eram boas substitutas, com
+poucos bugs para alguns UNIX, mas não eram tremendamente atraentes. Ninguém
+particularmente queria obtê-las nem instalá-las. Daí, em setembro de 1984,
+comecei a escrever o GNU Emacs -- que foi minha segunda implementação do Emacs
+-- no início de 1985, já estava funcionando. Podia usá-lo para tudo que
+editasse, o que foi um grande alívio, porque não tinha nenhuma vontade de usar
+o VI, o editor do UNIX. [Risos] Assim, até aquele momento, eu editava em
+outros máquinas, gravava os arquivos pela rede, assim podia testá-los. Mas
+quando o GNU Emacs estava rodando bem para que eu usasse, também estava --
+outras pessoas queriam usá-lo também.
+
+Assim tive de resolver detalhes de distribuição. Naturalmente, pus uma cópia
+em um diretório de FTP anônimo, o que era bom para as pessoas conectadas na
+rede; eles podiam puxar o arquivo tar, mas muitos programadores estavam fora
+da Internet em 1985. Eles me mandavam emails dizendo "Como consigo uma cópia?"
+Eu tinha de decidir o que responder para eles. Eu poderia ter dito, quero
+gastar meu tempo escrevendo mais software GNU, não gravando fitas, assim por
+favor ache um amigo conectado na Internet e que queira baixá-lo e ponha-o em
+uma fita para você. E tenho certeza de que as pessoas teriam encontrado
+amigos, mais cedo ou mais tarde, não é? Eles teriam conseguido as cópias. Mas
+eu estava desempregado. De fato, estava desempregado desde que saíra do MIT em
+janeiro de 1984. Estava procurando um meio de ganhar dinheiro pelo meu
+trabalho no software livre, e assim iniciei um negócio de software livre. Eu
+anunciava "me manda 150 dólares que eu lhe mando uma fita do Emacs". E os
+pedidos começaram a pingar. Lá pelo meio do ano eles já estavam gotejando.
+
+Eu recebia de 8 a 10 pedidos por mês. E, se necessário, poderia ter vivido só
+com aquilo, porque sempre vivi uma vida modesta; eu vivo como um estudante,
+basicamente. E gosto disso, porque isso significa que o dinheiro não dita o
+que devo fazer. Eu posso fazer aquilo que julgo importante para mim. Isso me
+libera para fazer o que parece valer a pena. Por isso, façam um esforço real
+para evitar serem sugados para dentro de todos esses hábitos de vida
+dispendiosos do americano típico. Pois se fizerem isso, as pessoas com
+dinheiro vão ditar o que você deve fazer com sua vida. Você não vai conseguir
+fazer o que é realmente importante para você.
+
+Assim, ia tudo bem, mas as pessoas me perguntavam "Como você diz que seu
+software é livre se custa 150 dólares?" [Risos] Bem, o motivo da pergunta era
+que eles se confundiam com os múltiplos significados da palavra "free" do
+inglês. Um dos significados se refere a preço, e o outro se refere a
+liberdade. Quando falo software livre, estou me referindo a liberdade não a
+a preço. Assim pensem em imprensa livre, não boca livre. [Risos] Ora, não
+teria dedicado tantos anos de minha vida para fazer os programadores ganhar
+menos. Não é meu objetivo. Eu sou programador e não me importo de receber
+dinheiro. Eu só não vou dedicar minha vida a obtê-lo, mas não me importo em
+receber. E não sou contra -- e portanto, a ética é mesma para todos -- não sou
+contra outros programadores receber dinheiro. Não quero que os preços sejam
+baixos. Não é essa absolutamente a questão. A questão é liberdade. Liberdade
+para todos que usam software, quer a pessoa seja um programador ou não.
+
+Pois agora vou dar a definição de software livre. É melhor descer aos
+detalhes, entendem? Pois dizer "eu acredito na liberdade" é vago. Há tantos
+tipos de liberdade em que posso acreditar, e elas são conflitantes entre si,
+de modo que a questão realmente política é "Quais são as liberdades
+importantes, as liberdades que devemos garantir que as pessoas tenham?" E
+agora vou dar minha resposta a essa questão para a área específica do uso de
+software.
+
+Um programa é livre software livre para você, usuário, se você tem as
+seguintes liberdades: primeiro, liberdade zero é a liberdade de rodar um
+programa para qualquer propósito, do jeito que quiser. Liberdade um é a
+liberdade ajudar a si próprio alterando o programa para atender suas
+necessidades. Liberdade dois é a liberdade de ajudar os outros distribuindo
+cópias do programa. E a liberdade três é a liberdade de ajudar a edificar sua
+comunidade publicando versões melhoradas para que outros possam se beneficiar
+de seu trabalho. Se você tem todas essas liberdades, o programa é livre, para
+você -- isso é crucial, é por isso que uso essa forma de falar. Vou explicar
+por que daqui a pouco, ao falar da Licença Pública Geral GNU, mas agora vou
+explicar o que significa software livre, que é uma questão mais básica.
+
+A liberdade zero é muito óbvia. Se a você não é permitido nem rodar o programa
+do jeito que quiser, é um programa pra lá de restritivo. Mas normalmente, a
+maioria dos programas lhe dão pelo menos a liberdade zero. A liberdade zero
+segue, legalmente, como conseqüência da liberdade um, dois e três -- que é
+como funciona a lei de direitos de cópia. Assim as liberdades que distinguem
+software livre do software típico são as liberdades um, dois e três, por isso
+vou falar mais sobre elas porque são mais importantes. A liberdade um é a
+liberdade de resolver seus problemas através de modificações no sofware que
+atendam suas necessidades. Isso pode significar consertar bugs. Pode significar
+acrescentar novos recursos. Pode significar portá-lo para um computador
+diferente. Pode significar traduzir todas as mensagens de erro para
+uma língua indígena. Qualquer mudança que queira fazer, você deve ter
+a liberdade para fazê-lo.
+
+Agora, é obvio que programadores profissionais podem fazer uso dessa liberdade
+com muita eficácia, mas não somente eles. Qualquer um com inteligência
+razoável pode aprender a programar. Vocês sabem, há tarefas difíceis e tarefas
+leves, mas muitas pessoas não vão aprender o bastante para fazer o trabalho
+difícil. Mas muitas pessoas podem aprender o suficiente para fazer tarefas
+leves, do mesmo modo, como há 50 anos atrás, muitos americanos sabiam reparar
+carros, o que permitiu aos EUA ter um exército motorizado na Segunda Guerra e
+vencer. Assim, é muito importante, ter muitas pessoas fuçando. E se você gosta
+de trabalhar com pessoas, não vai querer aprender tecnologia de modo nenhum --
+isso provavelmente significa que você tem muitos amigos, e é bom em fazê-los
+lhe dever favores. [Risos] Alguns deles provavelmente são programadores. Assim
+você pode pedir a um de seus amigos programadores "Você pode por favor alterar
+isso para mim? Acrescentar esse recurso?" Assim, muitas pessoas podem ser
+beneficiar.
+
+Agora, se não houver essa liberdade, isso causa prejuízos práticos e materiais
+para a sociedade. Isso faz de vocês prisioneiros de seu software. Eu expliquei
+que como era no caso da impressora a laser. Ela trabalhava muito mal para nós e
+não podíamos consertá-la porque éramos prisioneiros de nosso software. Mas
+isso também afeta o ânimo das pessoas. Vocês sabem que se usar o computador
+for uma frustração constante, para as pessoas usam, suas vidas se tornam
+frustrantes, e se eles usam em seu trabalho, seu trabalho se torna frustrante
+também; eles vão odiar o trabalho. E vocês sabem, as pessoas se protegem das
+frustrações decidindo não estar nem aí. Daí você acaba com pessoas cuja
+atitude é "Bem, apareci para trabalhar hoje. E é só o que tenho de
+fazer. Não consigo fazer progressos, mas isso não é problema meu, é do
+chefe." E quando isso acontece é ruim para essas pessoas, é ruim para a
+sociedade como um todo. Esta é a liberdade um, a liberdade de resolver seus
+problemas você mesmo.
+
+A liberdade dois é a liberdade de ajudar os outros, ao distribuir cópias do
+programa. Para seres que podem pensar e aprender, compartilhar conhecimento
+útil é um ato fundamental de amizade. Quando esses seres usam computadores,
+este ato de amizade toma forma de compartilhamento. Amigos compartilham uns
+com os outros. E, de fato, este espírito de boa vontade -- o espírito de
+ajudar seu próximo, voluntariamente -- é o recurso mais importante da
+sociedade. Ele faz a diferença entre uma sociedade em que se pode conviver e
um selva em
+que um devora o outro. Sua importância tem sido reconhecida pelas religiões
+mais importantes do mundo por milhares de anos, e elas procuram incentivar
+explicitamente esta atitude.
+
+Quando ia para o jardim-de-infância, os professores tentavam nos ensinar essa
+atitude -- o espírito da partilha -- obrigando-nos a fazê-lo. Achavam que se o
+fizéssemos, aprenderíamos. Eles diziam "Se você trouxer um chocolate para a
+escola, não fique com ele, compartilhe com outras crianças". Ensinando-nos -- a
+sociedade foi formada para ensinar o espírito de cooperação. E porque ensinar
+desse modo? Porque as pessoas não são totalmente cooperativas. Não é parte da
+natureza humana, e há outras partes da natureza humana. Assim, se quiser uma
+sociedade melhor, você deve trabalhar para incentivar o espírito de
+cooperação. Bem, nunca vai chagar a 100%. Mas isso é compreensível. As pessoas
+também se preocupam consigo. Mas,quanto mais conseguirmos, melhor será para
+todos.
+
+Hoje em dia, de acordo com o Governo dos EUA, os professores devem fazer
+exatamente o contrário. Joãozinho, você trouxe software para a escola. Olha,
+não mostre pra ninguém. Não, não. Compartilhar é errado. Compartilhar
+significa que você é pirata. O que eles querem dizer quando falam "pirata"?
+Eles querem dizer que ajudar os outros é o equivalente moral de um ataque a um
+navio. [Risos] O que Buda e Jesus diriam sobre isso? Escolham seu líder
+religioso favorito. Eu não sei -- talvez Manson tivesse dito algo diferente
+[Risos] Quem sabe o que L. Ron Hubbard diria. Mas, ...
+
+PERGUNTA: [Inaudível]
+
+STALLMAN: naturalmente, ele morreu. Mas eles não admitem. O que?
+
+PERGUNTA: Os outros também, estão mortos. [Risos] [Inaudível] Charles
+Manson também morreu. [Risos] Eles todos morreram, Jesus morreu, Buda
+morreu...
+
+STALLMAN: É, é verdade. [Risos] Eu acredito, nesse aspecto, que L. Ron Hubbard
+não é pior que os outros. [Risos] Então -- [Inaudível]
+
+PERGUNTA: L. Ron usava software livre -- ele ficou livre de Zanu.
+
+[Risos]
+
+STALLMAN: Então -- bem esta é de qualquer forma a razão mais importante de por
+que software deve ser livre. Não podemos deixar que seja poluído o recurso
+mais importante da sociedade. Com certeza não é um recurso físico como ar
+puro e água potável. É um recurso psico-social, mas é tão real quanto, e faz
+uma diferença tremenda em nossas vidas. Vejam, as ações que fazemos
+influenciam os pensamentos das outras pessoas. Quando saímos por aí dizendo
+para as pessoas "não compartilhe com os outros" -- se eles nos ouvirem --
+teremos um efeito na sociedade que não será bom. Essa é a liberdade dois. A
+liberdade de ajudar os outros.
+
+E, a propósito, se você não tiver essa liberdade -- não só prejudica os
+recursos psico-sociais da sociedade -- mas também provoca desperdício --
+prejuízos práticos e materiais. Se o programa tem um dono, e o dono arranja um
+estado de coisas em que cada usuário tem de pagar para poder usá-lo, alguns
+vão dizer "Tudo bem, fico sem ele". E isso é perda, perda deliberadamente
+infringida. E o interessante em software, naturalmente, é que menos
+usuários não significa que você tem de produzir menos. Se poucas pessoas
+compram carros, você pode fabricar menos carros. Aí você economiza. Há
+recursos a serem alocados, ou não alocados, ao fabricar carros. Assim você
+pode dizer que pôr preço num carro é bom. Ele impede que as pessoas
+desperdicem recursos para fabricar carros que não serão realmente necessários.
+Mas, se produzir cada carro adicional, não empregar mais recursos,
+restringir a fabricação de carros não fará nenhum bem. Bem, para objetos
+físicos, obviamente, como carros, sempre vai se usar recursos para fabricar
+cada um deles. Cada exemplar adicional.
+
+Mas para software isso não vale. Qualquer um pode fazer mais um cópia. E é
+quase trivial fazê-lo. Isso não gasta recursos, com exceção de muito pouca
+energia elétrica. Assim não há nada para que se possa economizar; nenhum
+recurso que precisemos alocar melhor que justifique colocar um desincentivo
+financeiro no uso do software. Você sempre encontra pessoas pegando -- as
+conseqüências dos princípios econômicos, baseados nas premissas que não se
+aplicam a software e tentando transplantar de outras área da vida em que essas
+premissas podem se aplicar e que as conclusões podem ser válidas. Eles só pegam
+as conclusões e assumem que sejam válidas para software também -- quando o
+argumento é baseado em nada no caso do software. As premissas não funcionam
+nesse caso. É muito importante examinar como você chega a essa conclusão, e
+de que premissas ela depende, para ver onde ela possa ser válida. Assim,
+essas é a liberdade dois, a liberdade de ajudar os outros.
+
+A liberdade três é a liberdade de contribuir para sua comunidade ao publicar
+uma versão melhor do software. As pessoas costumam me dizer, se o
+software for livre, ninguém receberá para trabalhar nele, porque alguém iria
+querer trabalhar com ele? Bem, naturalmente, elas estão confundindo os dois
+significados de livre, assim seu raciocínio é baseado num mal-entendido. Mas,
+de qualquer modo, essa é a teoria delas. Hoje, podemos comparar a teoria
+delas com fatos empíricos, e descobrir que centenas de pessoas são pagas para
+escrever software livre e mais de 100.000 estão trabalhando como voluntários.
+Temos muitas pessoas trabalhando com software livre por vários motivos
+diferentes.
+
+Quando lancei o GNU Emacs -- a primeira peça do sistema GNU que as pessoas
+realmente queriam usar -- e quando comecei a ter usuários, depois de um tempo,
+alguém mandou uma mensagem dizendo "Acho que vi um bug no código fonte, e aqui
+está o conserto". E recebi outra mensagem "Isto é código para adicionar um
+novo recurso". E mais outro reparo de bug. E mais um novo recurso. E mais
+outro, e outro e outro -- até que estavam vindo tão rápido que fazer uso de
+todo esse apoio que estava recebendo se tornou uma grande tarefa. A Microsoft
+não tem esse problema. [Risos]
+
+Por fim, as pessoas notaram este fenômeno. Vejam, nos anos 80, muitos de nós
+pensavam que software livre talvez não viesse a ser tão bom quando
+software proprietário, porque não teríamos muito dinheiro para pagar às
+pessoas. E, naturalmente, pessoas como eu que valorizam a liberdade e a
+comunidade disseram "É, vamos conseguir usar software livre afinal". Vale a
+pena fazer um pouco de sacrifício em algumas meras comodidades técnicas para
+ter liberdade. Mas o que as pessoas começaram a notar, por volta dos anos 90
+era que nosso software era mesmo melhor. Era mais poderoso, e mais confiável
+que as alternativas proprietárias.
+
+No começo dos anos 90, alguém descobriu um meio de fazer uma medida científica
+da confiabilidade do software. Ele fez o seguinte. Ele pegou vários grupos
+de programas comparáveis que faziam as mesmas tarefas -- exatamente as mesmas
+tarefas -- em sistemas diferentes. Pois havia certos utilitários básicos
+à là UNIX. E as tarefas que realizavam, sabemos, eram todas, mais ou
+menos, imitando a mesma coisa, ou seguiam as especificações POSIX, assim elas
+eram todas iguais em termos das tarefas que cumpriam -- mas eram mantidas por
+pessoas diferentes, escritas separadamente. O código era diferente. Assim ele
+dizia, OK, vamos pegar esses programas e rodar com dados aleatórios, e
+medimos quão freqüentemente eles travam ou dão pau. Assim eles mediram e o
+conjunto de programas mais confiável foi os programas GNU. Todas as
+alternativas comerciais proprietários eram menos confiáveis. Então
+publicamos isso e contamos a todos os desenvolvedores, e alguns anos mais
+tarde, ele fez a mesma experiência com versões mais novas e conseguiu o mesmo
+resultado. As versões GNU eram mais confiáveis. Gente -- vocês sabem que há
+clínicas de tratamento de câncer nas operações 911 [NT.: operações de resgate e
+polícia] que usam sistema GNU, porque são muito confiáveis, e confiabilidade é
+muito importante para eles.
+
+De qualquer modo, há ainda um grupo de pessoas que focam nesse benefício
+particular como como justificativa -- como justificativa -- dada para por que
+ao usuário deveria ser permitido fazer todas essas coisas, e ter toda essa
+liberdade. Se vocês estão me acompanhado, notaram que-- vocês viram que eu --
+falando do movimento de software livre -- falo de questões éticas, e em que
+tipo de sociedade queremos viver; o que contribui para uma boa sociedade --
+bem como benefícios materiais práticos. Eles são ambos importantes. Isso é o
+movimento do software livre.
+
+O outro grupo de pessoas -- chamados de movimento de "código aberto" -- eles
+só citam os benefícios práticos. Eles negam que isso seja uma questão de
+princípios. Eles negam que as pessoas têm direito à liberdade de compartilhar
+com os outros, de verem o que o programa faz e alterá-lo se não gostar dele.
+Eles dizem, no entanto, que é útil permitir que as pessoas façam isso. Eles
+vão às empresas e dizem "Olha, você poderia ganhar mais dinheiro se deixasse
+as pessoas fazerem isso". Assim, o que você vê é que até certo ponto, eles
+levam as pessoas a uma direção similar, mas por razões totalmente --
+razões filosóficas fundamentalmente diferentes. Pois na questão mais profunda
+de todas, nas questões éticas, os dois movimentos discordam entre si. No
+movimento de software livre dizemos "Você tem direito a estas liberdades. As
+pessoas não deveriam impedi-lo de fazer estas coisas". No movimento de
+"código aberto" eles dizem "Eles pode podem impedi-lo sim, mas
+tentaremos convencê-los a deixar você fazer essas coisas". Bem, eles
+contribuíram -- eles convenceram um certo número de empresas a lançar software
+substancial como software livre em nossa comunidade. E trabalhamos juntos em
+projetos práticos. Mas, filosoficamente, há um desacordo tremendo.
+
+Infelizmente, o movimento de código aberto é um dos que mais tem suporte das
+empresas, e assim a maioria dos artigos sobre nosso trabalho o descrevem como
+código aberto, e muitas pessoas inocentemente pensam que somos todos parte do
+movimento de código aberto. É por isso que estou mencionando esta distinção.
+Quero que vocês estejam cientes de que o movimento do software livre, que
+trouxe nossa comunidade à existência e desenvolveu sistemas operacionais
+livres, ainda está aqui -- e que ainda pregamos esta filosofia ética. Quero que
+vocês saibam disso, de modo que não confundam as pessoas sem saber.
+
+Mas também, para que vocês possam pensar sobre a posição vão tomar. O que
+prega o movimento que vocês apóiam. Vocês podem concordar com os
+movimentos de software livre e meus pontos de vista. Vocês podem concordar com
+o movimento de código aberto. Você pode discordar de ambos. Vocês decidem em
+que posição ficar quanto a estas questões políticas. Mas se concordarem com o
+movimento de software livre -- se virem que há alguma idéia aqui tal que as
+pessoas cujas vidas são controladas e dirigidas por esta decisão mereçam ser
+ouvidas -- então espero que digam que vocês concordam com o movimento de
+software livre e uma forma como vocês podem fazer isso é usando o termo
+software livre e assim ajudar as pessoas a saberem que existimos.
+
+Assim, a liberdade três é muito importante tanto prática quanto
+psico-socialmente. Se você não tem esta liberdade, isso vai causar danos
+práticos e materiais, porque o desenvolvimento dessa comunidade não vai
+acontecer e não teremos software poderoso e confiável. Mas também provoca
+danos psico-sociais que afetam o espírito da cooperação científica -- a idéia
+de que estamos trabalhando juntos para avançar o conhecimento humano. Como
+vêem, o progresso da ciência depende crucialmente de pessoas que sejam
+capazes de trabalhar em conjunto. E hoje em dia porém, você sempre acha um
+pequeno grupo de cientistas agindo como se estivessem em guerra com outra
+gangue de cientistas e engenheiros. E se não trocarem informações, eles todos
+perderão.
+
+Assim, estas são as três liberdades que distinguem software livre do software
+típico. A liberdade um é a liberdade de resolver seus problemas você mesmo --
+fazendo mudanças para atender suas próprias necessidades. A liberdade dois é a
+liberdade de ajudar os outros distribuindo cópias. E a liberdade três é a
+liberdade de ajudar a construir uma comunidade ao fazer mudanças e publicá-las
+para que as outras pessoas a usem. Se você tem todos estas liberdades, o
+programa é software livre para você. Agora, porque defino dessa forma em termos
+de um usuário particular? O software é livre para você, o software é livre
+para você, o software é livre para você? Sim?
+
+PERGUNTA: Você pode explicar um pouco a diferença entre a liberdade dois e a
+liberdade três? [inaudível]
+
+STALLMAN: Bem, elas certamente se relacionam, pois se você não tem liberdade
+nenhuma para redistribuir, você certamente não tem liberdade para distribuir
+uma versão modificada, mas elas são atividades diferentes.
+
+QUESTION: Ah.
+
+STALLMAN: A liberdade dois é, como vocês sabem, ler -- você faz uma cópia
+exata e passar para seus amigos, para que eles possam usá-lo. Ou talvez você
+faça cópias exatas e as venda para um monte de gente para que possam usar. A
+liberdade três é quando você faz aperfeiçoamentos -- ou pelos menos você acha
+que são aperfeiçoamentos, e algumas outras pessoas podem achar que são também.
+Assim essa é a diferença. Ah, e a propósito, um ponto crucial. As liberdades
+um e três dependem de você ter acesso ao código-fonte. Pois modificar uma
+programa binário é extremamente difícil [Risos] Mesmo mudanças triviais como
+usar quatro dígitos para a data. [Risos]... se você não tem os fontes. Assim,
+por razões imperativas e práticas o acesso ao código-fonte é uma pré-condição,
+um requisito do software livre.
+
+Então, por que eu defini em termos de software livre ou não para *você*? A
+razão é que algumas vezes o mesmo programa pode ser software livre para alguns
+e pode não ser para outros. Ora, isso pode parecer uma situação paradoxal,
+deixe-me dar um exemplo para mostrar como isso acontece. Um grande exemplo
+-- talvez o maior problema de todos seja o do sistema de janelas X que foi
+desenvolvido no MIT e lançado sob uma licença que fazia dele software livre.
+Se você conseguisse a versão do MIT com a licença do MIT, você tinha
+liberdades um, dois e três. Era software livre para você. Mas entre os que
+obtiveram cópias, estavam vários fabricantes de computador que distribuíam
+sistemas UNIX e eles fizeram todas as mudanças necessárias no X para rodar em
+seus sistemas. Você sabe, provavelmente alguns milhares de linhas dentro de
+centenas de milhares de linhas do X. E, ao compilarem, eles puseram os
+binários no sistema UNIX deles e distribuíram sob o mesmo acordo de
+confidencialidade do resto do sistema UNIX. E então, milhões de pessoas
+obtiveram essas cópias. Eles tinham o sistema de janelas X, mas não tinham
+essas liberdades. Não era software livre para eles.
+
+Assim, o paradoxo era que o X era software livre dependendo de onde você feito
+a observação. Se observassem num grupo de desenvolvedores, vocês diriam "Eu
+observo todas as três liberdades aqui. O software é livre." Se fizessem
+suas observações entre os usuários vocês diriam "Hmm, muitos usuários não têm
+estas liberdades. Não é software livre". Bem, as pessoas que desenvolviam X não
+consideravam isso um problema, pois seu objetivo era popularidade -- ego,
+essencialmente. Eles queriam um grande sucesso profissional. Eles queriam
+sentir "ah, muitas pessoas estão usando nosso software". E foi assim que
+aconteceu. Muitas pessoas estavam usando o software deles, mas não tinham
+liberdade.
+
+Bem, no projeto GNU, se a mesma coisa tivesse acontecido como o software GNU,
+ele teria sido um fracasso, pois nosso objetivo não era sermos populares;
+nosso objetivo era dar liberdade às pessoas e incentivar a cooperação, permitir
+que as pessoas cooperassem. Lembre-se, nunca force ninguém a cooperar com
+qualquer outra pessoa, mas garanta que a todos seja permitido cooperar; todo
+mundo tem a liberedade de agir assim ou não, se quiser. Se milhões de pessoas
+estivessem rodando versões não livres do GNU, não teria sido um sucesso de
+jeito nenhum; e a coisa toda teria se desviado de seus objetivos.
+
+Então procurei uma maneira de impedir que isso acontecesse. O método que criei
+é chamado de "copyleft" [N.T.: uma possível brincadeira com esse nome em
+português seria "esquerdo de cópia"]. É chamado copyleft porque é como
+copyright [N.T.: direito de cópia] só que virado de cabeça para baixo. [Risos]
+Legalmente, copyleft é baseado no direito de cópia. Usamos a lei existente de
+direito de cópia, mas a usamos para atingir um objetivo muito diferente. Isso
+é que fazemos. Dizemos "Este programa tem direitos de cópia". E, naturalmente,
+por default, significa que é proibido copiá-lo, ou distribuí-lo ou
+modificá-lo. Mas então dizemos, "Você está autorizado a distribuir cópias
+dele. Você está autorizado a modificá-lo. Você está autorizado a distribuir
+versões modificadas e estendidas. Mude do modo que quiser."
+
+Mas há uma condição. E a condição, naturalmente -- é a razão pela qual nos
+demos a todo esse trabalho -- para que pudéssemos colocar essa condição. A
+condição diz -- sempre que distribuir algo que contenha qualquer parte dese
+programa, o programa todo deve ser distribuído sob estes mesmos termos -- não
+mais não menos. Assim, você pode mudar o programa e distribuir a versão
+modificada. Mas se o fizer, as pessoas que o obtiverem de você devem ter a
+mesma liberdade que você recebeu de nós. E não só para partes dele -- as parte
+que você copiou do nosso programa -- mas também para as outras partes daquele
+programa que eles obtiveram de você. O programa como um todo deve ser software
+livre para eles.
+
+As liberdades de modificar e redistribuir este programa se tornam direitos
+inalienáveis -- um conceito de nossa Declaração de Independência. Direitos que
+damos garantia de não ser tirados de você. E, naturalmente, a licença
+específica que incorpora a idéia do copyleft é a Licença Geral Pública GNU
+[GNU General Public License, ou GNU GPL]. Uma licença controversa -- porque
+na realidade tem força para dizer não às pessoas que pudessem virar parasitas
+em nossa comunidade.
+
+Há muitas pessoas que não apreciam os ideais da liberdade. E adorariam tomar o
+trabalho que fizemos e usá-lo para conseguir uma vantagem ao distribuir
+programas proprietários e tentando as pessoas a desistir de sua liberdade. E o
+resultado seria -- vocês sabem, se deixarmos as pessoas fazerem isso --
+estaríamos desenvolvendo esses programas livres, e teríamos de competir
+constantemente com versões modificadas de nossos próprios programas. Isso
+não é bom. E muita gente também pensa -- eu quero dar meu tempo
+voluntariamente para contribuir com a comunidade, mas por que deveria
+contribuir voluntariamente para aquela empresa -- para melhorar o programa
+proprietário daquela empresa? Você sabe, algumas pessoas podem nem mesmo achar
+que isso seja ruim - mas elas querem ser pagas se for para fazer isso. Eu,
+pessoalmente, não o faria, mesmo. Mas, estes dois grupos de pessoas -- ambos
+como eu que diriam -- não quero ajudar aquele programa não livre a fincar o pé
+em nossa comunidade -- e os que dizem, claro, eu trabalharia para eles, mas
+então me pagem -- ambos têm uma boa razão para usar GNU GPL. Porque isso diz à
+empresa -- você não pode tomar assim meu trabalho e distribuí-lo sem a
+liberdade. Ao passo que licenças não copyleft -- com a licença do X Window,
+permitem isso.
+
+Isto, portanto é a grande diferença entre as duas categorias de
+software livre -- do ponto de vista das licenças. Há programas com copyleft
+-- de modo que a licença defenda a liberdade do software para todos os
+usuários. E há programas sem copyleft, para os quais se permite versões não
+livres. Você pode obter o programa numa versão não livre. E este problema
+existe até hoje. Ainda há versões não livres do X Windows sendo usadas em
+nossos sistemas operacionais não livres. Há inclusive hardware -- que não é
+suportado -- exceto por uma versão não livre do X Windows. E isso é um grande
+problema em nossa comunidade. Por outro lado, eu não diria que o X Windows é
+algo ruim -- sabe, eu só diria que os desenvolvedores não fizeram o que
+de melhor poderia ter sido feito. Mas eles *de fato* lançaram muito software
+que todos nós poderíamos usar.
+
+Vocês sabem, há uma grande diferença entre menos que perfeito, e ruim. Há
+muitos graus entre bom e ruim. Temos de resistir à tentação de dizer -- se você
+não conseguir fazer o melhor absoluto possível você não é bom. As pessoas que
+desenvolveram o X Windows deram uma grande contribuição a nossa comunidade.
+Mas, há algo melhor que poderiam ter feito. Eles poderiam ter feito copylefts
+de partes do programa e impedido versões que negam a liberdade de serem
+distribuídas por outros. Ora, o fato de que a GNU GPL defende sua liberdade --
+usa a lei de copyright para defender sua liberdade -- é, naturalmente, a razão
+pela qual a Microsoft a está atacando hoje. Vejam, a Microsoft realmente
+adoraria poder pegar todos os códigos que escrevemos e pô-los em programas
+proprietários. Pedir para que alguém fizesse alguns aperfeiçoamentos. Ou talvez
+só algumas mudanças incompatíveis é tudo o que precisassem. [Risos]
+
+Mas, com a influência de marketing da Microsoft, eles não precisam
+aperfeiçoá-lo para ter uma versão que suplante a nossa. Eles só têm de fazê-la
+diferente e incompatível. E então, colocá-la no desktop de todo o mundo. Assim,
+eles não gostam mesmo da GNU GPL. Pois a GNU GPL não os deixa fazê-lo. Não
+permite adotar e estender [N.T.: embrace and extend]. Ela [a GPL] diz [à
+Microsoft], se você quiser usar nosso código em seus programas, você pode. Mas,
+você vai ter de compartilhar e compartilhar da mesma forma. As mudanças que
+fizer teremos permissão de usar. Assim, é uma cooperação de mão dupla, que é a
+cooperação real.
+
+Muitas empresas -- mesmo grandes empresas como IBM e HP querem usar nosso
+software nesta base [GPL].A IBM e a HP contribuem com aperfeiçoamentos
+substanciais ao software GNU. E desenvolvem outros software livres. Mas a
+Microsoft não quer fazer isso, assim eles passam a idéia de que as empresas
+não podem lidar com a GPL. Bem, se [o que chamamos de] empresas não incluir
+IBM, HP e Sun então talvez eles estejam certos. [Risos]
+
+Mais sobre isso adiante. Eu preciso terminar a história. Como vêem, começamos
+em 1984 -- não só para escrever software livre -- mas também para fazer algo
+muito mais coerente: desenvolver um sistema operacional que fosse inteiramente
+software livre. Assim, isso significava que tínhamos que escrever parte por
+parte. E naturalmente, estávamos a procura de meios mais rápidos. O trabalho
+era tão grande que as pessoas diziam que não conseguiríamos terminar nunca. E,
+eu achava que havia pelo menos uma chance de terminá-lo, mas obviamente, valia
+a pena queimar etapas. Assim ficamos procurando -- há algum programa que alguém
+escreveu que poderíamos conseguir adaptar, para acoplar aqui de modo que não
+precisássemos escrever do zero? Por exemplo, o sistema X Window -- é verdade
+que não tinha copyleft, mas era software livre -- assim podíamos usar.
+
+Bem, eu queria colocar um sistema de janelas no GNU desde o primeiro dia. Eu
+escrevi uma série de sistemas de janelas no MIT antes de começar o GNU. E
+apesar do Unix não ter um sistema de janelas em 1984, eu decidi que o
+GNU deveria ter. Mas, acabamos não escrevendo o Sistema de Janelas GNU, porque
+o X apareceu. Daí eu disse, beleza! Um grande trabalho que não temos de fazer.
+Usaremos o X. Então falei, vamos pegar X e colocá-lo no sistema GNU. Então
+faremos as outras partes do GNU, você sabe, trabalhar com o X, quando
+apropriado. E o encontramos outros programas que tinham sido escritos por
+outras pessoas, tal como o formatador de texto TeX. Alguns códigos de
+bibliotecas da Berkeley. E naquela época tinha o Berkeley Unix -- mas não era
+software livre. O código de biblioteca, inicialmente, era de um grupo
+diferente na Berkeley, que fazia pesquisas sobre ponto flutuante. E assim
+continuamos -- encaixamos estas peças.
+
+Em outrubro de 1985, fundamos a Fundação do Software Livre [N.T.: Free Software
+Foundation, ou FSF]. Notem que o projeto GNU veio primeiro. A Fundação do
+Software Livre veio depois. Depois de quase dois anos do anúncio do projeto. E
+a Fundação de Software Livre é uma entidade isenta de impostos, sem fins
+lucrativos, que levanta fundos para promover a liberdade de compartilhar e
+modificar software. E nos anos 80, uma das coisa principais que fizemos com
+nosso fundo foi contratar pessoas para escrever partes do GNU. E, programas
+essenciais, tais como o Shell e as bibliotecas C foram escritos dessa forma,
+bem como outras parte de outros programas. O programa tar, que é absolutamente
+essencial -- apesar de nenhum pouco empolgante [Risos] foi escrito dessa
+forma. Eu acredito que o GNU grep foi escrito dessa forma. E assim, fomos
+chegando perto do objetivo.
+
+Em 1991, havia apenas uma parte importante faltando, e era o kernel. Ora,
+por que tinha deixado o kernel de fora? Provavelmente porque na verdade não
+importa a ordem em que você faz as coisas. Pelo menos, tecnicamente, não.
+Você tem que fazê-las todas até chegar ao fim de qualquer jeito. E,
+parcialmente, porque eu esperava encontrar um kernel já começado em algum
+lugar. E encontramos. Encontramos o Mach, que tinha sido desenvolvido na
+Carnegie Mellon. Não era um kernel completo, era a metade de baixo do kernel.
+Assim, tivemos que escrever a metade de cima, mas tinha de imaginar coisas
+como o sistema de arquivos, o código da rede, etc. Mas o Mach roda
+essencialmente como fazem os programas dos usuários, o que devia fazê-los mais
+fácil de debugar. Você pode debugar com um debugador no nível do código real
+ao mesmo tempo. E assim, pensava eu, desse modo, poderemos ter isto, as partes
+mais altas do kernel, terminadas em pouco tempo. Não funcionou dessa maneira.
+Aqueles processos assíncronos e multifilamentados [multithreaded], enviando
+mensagens uns aos outros, acabaram-se tornando muito difíceis de debugar. E o
+sistema baseado no Mach que usamos para alavancar o desenvolvimento tinha um
+ambiente de debug terrível, não funcionava direito, e vários problemas. Levou
+anos e anos para conseguir que um kernel GNU funcionasse.
+
+Mas, felizmente, nossa comunidade não precisou esperar pelo kernel GNU. Pois
+em 1991, Linus Torvalds desenvolveu um kernel livre chamado Linux. E ele usou
+a antiga tecnologia monolítico e aconteceu que ele conseguiu fazê-lo funcionar
+muito mais rápido que o nosso. Assim talvez esse tenha sido um dos erros que
+cometi: aquela decisão de projeto. De qualquer forma, a princípio, não
+sabíamos sobre Linux, pois ele nunca nos contatou para falar sobre ele. Apesar
+de saber do projeto GNU. Mas ele o anunciou para outras pessoas e para outras
+partes da Internet. E assim, outras pessoas então, fizeram o trabalho de
+combinar Linux com o resto do sistema GNU fazendo um sistema operacional livre
+completo. Essencialmente, fazendo uma combinação GNU mais Linux.
+
+Mas não percebiam que era isso que estavam fazendo. Veja, eles disseram, temos
+um kernel -- vamos dar uma olhada e ver que outras partes podemos juntar ao
+kernel. Assim, procuraram -- e eis que, de repente -- tudo o que precisavam já
+estava disponível. Que sorte, eles disseram. [Risos] Está tudo aí. Podemos
+achar tudo o que precisamos. Vamos pegar todas essas partes diferentes e
+juntá-las e compor um sistema. Eles não sabiam que a maioria das cosias que
+achavam eram partes do sistema GNU. Eles não pensavam que estavam encaixando o
+Linux num espaço vazio do sistema GNU. Eles achavam que estavam construindo um
+sistema em cima do Linux. E daí chamaram o sistema de Linux.
+
+PERGUNTA: [Inaudível]
+
+STALLMAN: Não ouvi -- o quê?
+
+PERGUNTA: [Inaudível]
+
+STALLMAN: Bem, não é só -- você sabe, é provincial.
+
+PERGUNTA: Mas foi sorte maior que achar o X e o Mach?
+
+STALLMAN: Certo. A diferença é que as pessoas que desenvolveram o X e o Mach
+não tinham por objetivo fazer um sistema operacional livre completo. Éramos os
+únicos com essa idéia. E, foi nosso trabalho tremendo que fez o sistema
+existir. Fizemos a maior parte do sistema que qualquer outro projeto. Não é
+coincidência que essas pessoas -- elas escreveram partes úteis do sistema. Mas
+não fizeram isso porque queriam ver o sistema terminado. Elas tinham outras
+razões.
+
+Por exemplo, as pessoas que desenvolveram o X -- achavam que projetar um
+sistema de janelas com suporte a rede seria um bom projeto, e foi. E acabou
+nos ajudando a fazer um sistema operacional bom e livre. Mas isso não era o
+que esperavam. Eles nem pensavam nisso. Foi acidental. Um benefício acidental.
+Agora, eu não estou dizendo que o que eles fizeram foi ruim. Eles fizeram um
+grande projeto livre. Uma coisa boa de se fazer. Mas não tinham uma visão além
+disso. O Projeto GNU é onde estava essa visão.
+
+E assim, éramos os únicos cuja -- cada partezinha não era feita por ninguém,
+nós sim. Porque sabíamos que não teríamos um sistema completo sem isso. E
+até mesmo quando era totalmente entediante e pouco romântico como o tar ou o
+mv. [Risos]. Fazíamos. Ou ld, vocês sabem, não há nada muito empolgande no ld
+-- mas eu o escrevi. [Risos] E envidei esforços para que ele usasse uma
+quantidade mínima de I/O [N.T.: tráfego] no disco para que fosse rápido e
+desse conta de programas maiores. Mas, eu gosto fazer um bom trabalho. Eu
+gosto de aperfeiçoar várias coisas nos programas enquanto os escrevo. Mas a
+razão pela qual o fiz, não foi porque eu tinha idéias brilhantes para um ld
+melhor. A razão pela qual o fiz é que precisávamos de um que fosse livre. E
+não podíamos esperar que outros o fizessem. Então, tivemos de fazê-lo, ou
+encontrar alguém que fizesse.
+
+Assim, apesar de nesse ponto, milhares de pessoas em projetos terem
+contribuído para esse sistema [GNU/Linux], havia um projeto que era a razão
+pela qual o sistema existia, e era o Projeto GNU. *É* basicamente o Sistema
+GNU, com outras coisas acrescentadas desde então.
+
+Assim, no entanto, a prática de chamar o sistema de Linux tem sido um grande
+golpe no Projeto GNU, porque nós normalmente não recebemos crédito pelo que
+temos feito. E penso que Linux, o kernel, é uma parte muito útil do software
+livre, e tenho só coisas boas a dizer sobre ele. Mas , bem, na realidade,
+podemos achar algumas coisas ruins para falar dele. [Risos] Mas, basicamente,
+temos duas coisas a dizer sobre ele. No entanto, a prática de chamar o sistema
+GNU de Linux é apenas um engano. Eu pediria que vocês por favor fizessem um
+pequeno esforço necessário para chamá-lo de sistema GNU/Linux, e desse modo,
+ajudar-nos a dividir o crédito.
+
+
+PERGUNTA: Você precisa de um mascote! Arrume um bicho de pelúcia!
+
+[Risos]
+
+STALLMAN: Nós temos.
+
+QUESTION: Ah, têm?
+
+STALLMAN: Temos um bicho -- um gnu. [Risos] Mas então. Bem,
+sim, quando desenhar um pingüim --desenhe um gnu perto dele. [Risos]
+
+Mas, vamos deixar as perguntas para o final. Eu tenho mais para discorrer. Por
+que estou tão preocupado com isso? Sabe, acho que isso incomoda
+vocês, e talvez talvez esteja dando a vocês uma -- talvez inferiorizando sua
+opinião sobre mim [Risos] ao levantar essa questão sobre créditos? Porque,
+vocês sabem, algumas pessoas, quando faço isso, algumas pessoas acham que é
+porque eu quero que meu ego seja alimentado, certo? Naturalmente, eu não estou
+dizendo -- chamando -- eu não estou pedindo que vocês o chamem de "Stallmanix"
+-- certo? [Risos e aplausos]
+
+Eu estou pedindo para o que o chamem de GNU, porque quero que o Projeto GNU
+tenha crédito. E há uma razão muito específica para isso, a qual é muito mais
+importante que qualquer pessoa receber crédito. Vejam, nestes dias, se você
+olhar para todos os lados em nossa comunidade, a maior parte das pessoas que
+falam e escrevem sobre isso nem sequer mencionam GNU, e elas nem
+sequer mencionam os objetivos da liberdade -- nem os ideais políticos e
+sociais, tampouco. Pois o lugar de onde eles vêm é do GNU. As idéias associadas
+ao Linux -- a filosofia é muito diferente. É basicamente uma filosofia
+apolítica de Linus Torvalds. Assim, quando as pessoas acham que o sistema todo
+é Linux, elas tendem a pensar: "Ah, tudo deve ter sido iniciado pelo Linus
+Torvalds. Devemos observar sua filosofia cuidadosamente". E quando ouvem sobre
+a filosofia GNU, eles dizem: "Cara, isso é tão idealista, que deve ser
+terrivelmente impraticável. Ah, eu sou usuário de Linux, não de GNU." [Risos]
+
+Que ironia! Ah, se eles soubessem! Se soubessem que o sistema de que gostam --
+ou, em alguns casos, adoram ou pelo qual são loucos -- é nossa filosofia
+política e idealista posta em prática. Eles nem precisam concordar conosco.
+Mas pelo menos eles vêem razão para levá-la a sério -- pensar sobre ela
+cuidadosamente -- e dar a ela uma chance. Eles veriam como ela se relaciona
+com suas vidas. Se percebessem: "Estou usando um sistema GNU. Veja a
+filososfia GNU. Esta filosofia é a razão do porquê este sistema que eu gosto
+existe de verdade." Eles pelo menos pensariam sobre ela com uma mente muito
+mais aberta. Não significa que todo mundo concordaria. As pessoas pensam
+coisas diferentes. Tudo bem. As pessoas devem ter suas próprias idéias. Mas eu
+quero que esta filosofia colha os benefícios do crédito pelos resultados que
+ela conseguir.
+
+Se olharmos a toda a volta em nossa comunidade, veremos que, em quase
+todos os lugares, as instituições estão chamando o sistema de Linux. E sabem,
+os repórteres, a maioria, o chamam de Linux. Não deveriam, mas chamam. A
+maioria das empresas dizem -- tal pacote, tal sistema. Ah, e a maioria dos
+repórteres, quando escrevem artigos, eles normalmente não vêem como uma
+questão política, ou social. Eles normalmente vêem a coisa puramente como uma
+questão de negócios ou quanto de sucesso vão ter empresas, o que é realmente
+uma questão muito menor para a sociedade. E se vocês olharem para as empresas
+que empacotam o sistema GNU/Linux para as pessoas usarem, bem, todas elas o
+chamam de Linux e *todas* acrescentam software não livre a ele.
+
+Veja, a GNU GPL diz que se você pega código, e código de um programa coberto
+pela GPL, e acrescenta mais código para fazer dele um programa maior, aquele
+programa todo deve ser lançado sob a GPL. Mas vocês podem pôr outros
+programas separados no mesmo disco (de qualquer tipo, disco rígido, ou CD), e
+eles podem ter outras licenças. Considera-se isso mera agregação. E,
+essencialmente, apenas distribuir dois programas para alguém ao mesmo tempo é
+algo de que não temos o que dizer. Mas, de fato, gostaríamos. Algumas vezes,
+gostaria de que fosse verdadeiro para uma empresa que use programa coberto
+pela GPL em um produto, que o produto todo fosse software livre. Não é -- não
+chaga a esse ponto . É o programa como um todo. Se houver dois programas
+separados que se comunicam entre si a distância de um braço -- como ao enviar
+mensagens um ao outro -- então eles são legalmente separados, em geral.
+Assim, essas empresas, ao acrescentar um software não livre ao sistema, dão
+aos usuários, filosófica e politicamente, uma idéia muito ruim. Eles estão
+dizendo aos usuários: "É normal usar software proprietário. Estamos até
+colocando eles junto como bônus.
+
+Se você olhar as revistas, sobre o uso do sistema GNU/Linux, a maioria deles
+tem um título assim "Linux isso ou aquilo". Eles estão chamando o
+sistema de Linux a maior parte do tempo. E estão cheios de anúncios de
+software proprietários os quais podem rodar sobre o sistema GNU/Linux. Mas
+estes anúncios têm uma mensagem comum. Eles dizem: "software proprietário é
+bom para você. É tão bom que você pode até *pagar* para obter." [Risos] E
+eles chamam isso de "pacotes de valor agregado", o que diz muito sobre seus
+valores. Eles estão dizendo "Dê valor à conveniência prática, não à
+liberdade". Não concordo com esse valores e os chamo de "pacotes subtraídos de
+liberdade". [Risos] Pois se você instalou um sistema operacional livre, você
+está no mundo livre. Você desfruta dos benefícios da liberdade, a qual
+trabalhamos tantos anos para dar a você. Estes pacotes dâo a você a
+oportunidade de ficar amarrado por uma corrente.
+
+E se você vai a feiras de negócio -- sobre o uso do -- dedicada ao uso do
+sistema GNU/LINUX. Elas todos se chamam "Feiras do Linux". E ficam cheias de
+estandes exibindo software proprietário, essencialmente pondo um selo de
+aprovação em software proprietário. Assim, para quase todo o lugar que você
+olhe em nossa comunidade -- as instituições estão endossando o software
+proprietário -- negando totalmente a idéia para a qual o GNU foi
+desenvolvido. E o único lugar em que as pessoas provavelmente se deparam com a
+idéia de liberdade é em conexão com GNU, e em conexão com software livre: o
+termo "software livre". Assim, é por isso que eu peço a vocês: por favor
+chamem o sistema de "GNU/Linux". Por favor, conscientizem as pessoas de onde o
+sistema veio e por quê.
+
+Naturalmente, só de usar o nome, não estarão explicando a história
+toda. Vocês podem digitar quatro caracteres adicionais e escrever "GNU/Linux";
+vocês podem pronunciar duas sílabas extras. Mas, GNU/Linux tem menos
+sílabas que Windows 2000. [Risos] Mas, vocês não vão estar dizendo muito, mas
+preparando-os, para que quando ouvirem sobre o GNU, e do que se trata, eles
+vejam como isso tem relação com eles, e suas vidas. E isso, indiretamente, faz
+uma tremenda diferença. Assim, por favor ajudem-nos.
+
+Vocês vão notar que a Microsoft chamou a GPL de "licença de código aberto".
+Eles não querem que as pessoas pensem em termos de liberdade como ponto
+central. Vocês vão ver que eles convidam as pessoas a pensar de forma
+estreira, como consumidores. (E, claro, nem mesmo pensar muito racionalmente
+como consumidores, se forem escolher os produtos Microsoft). Mas eles não
+querem que as pessoas pensem como cidadãos ou estadistas. Isso é hostil para
+eles. Pelo menos é hostil para seu modelo de negócio atual.
+
+Agora, como age o software livre? Bem, eu posso falar como o "software livre"
+ser relaciona com nossa sociedade. Um tópico secundário que pode ser de
+interesse para alguns de vocês é como o software livre se relaciona com os
+negócios. Afinal, a maioria das empresas dos países avançados usam software.
+Só uma pequena fração desenvolve software. E software livre é tremendamente
+vantajoso para qualquer empresa que usa software, pois isso significa que você
+está no controle. Basicamente, software livre significa que os usuários estão
+no controle do que o programa faz. Tanto individualmente, se precisarem,
+quanto coletivamente, quando precisarem. Quem precisar pode exercer
+influência. Se você não precisar você pode usar o que os outros preferem. Mas
+se precisar, você tem vez.
+
+No software proprietário, essencialmente, você não tem vez. Com software
+livre, você pode modificar o que quiser modificar. E não importa que não haja
+programadores na sua empresa; tudo bem. Se você quiser mudar as divisórias de
+sua empresa, você não deve ser capaz de achar um carpinteiro e perguntar,
+quanto você vai cobrar pelo trabalho? E, se você quiser mudar algo no software
+que você usa, sua empresa não precisa ser do ramo de software. É só ir a
+uma empresa de software e dizer: "quanto você quer cobrar para implementar
+essas mudanças? E quando quer que sejam feitas?" E se não fizerem o trabalho,
+você pode pode achar outra pessoa que faça.
+
+Há um mercado livre para suporte. Assim, qualquer empresa que dê importância a
+suporte vai encontrar uma vantagem tremenda no software livre. Com software
+proprietário, o suporte é um monopólio. Porque uma só empresa tem o código, ou
+talvez um pequeno número de empresas que pagaram uma quantidade gigantesca de
+dinheiro para obter o código-fonte, se for um programa de fonte
+compartilhado da Microsoft. Mas, é muito novo. E assim, não há muitas fontes
+de suporte para você. E isso significa que a menos que você seja gigante
+mesmo, eles não vão dar bola para você. Sua empresa não é tão importante para
+que se sintam incomodados se a perderem como cliente, ou o que quer que
+aconteça. Uma vez usando o programa, eles imaginam que você está amarrado ao
+suporte deles, pois migrar para um programa diferente é um trabalho
+gigantesco. Assim você acaba em situações com a de ter que pagar pelo
+privilégio de reportar um bug. [Risos] E depois de pago, eles dizem: "Bem, OK,
+vimos seu registro do bug. Compre o upgrade que sai daqui a alguns meses para
+ver se o consertamos". [Risos] Provedores de suporte de software livre não
+podem se dar bem dessa maneira. Eles têm de agradar os clientes. Claro que não
+dá para obter todo tipo de suporte de graça. Você posta mensagem de seu
+problema na Internet. É bem possível que receba a respota no dia seguinte. Mas
+não é garantido, naturalmente. Se você quiser ter mais garantia, é melhor fazer
+um acordo com uma empresa e pagá-los. E isto é, naturalmente, uma das maneiras
+como funcionam os negócios em software livre.
+
+Outra vantagem do software livre para empresas é a segurança e a privacidade.
+(E isto se aplica a indivíduos também. Mas eu mencionei no contexto das
+empresas). Vejam, quando um programa é proprietário, você nem sequer pode
+saber o que ele realmente faz. Ele pode ter funções, colocadas
+deliberadamente, das quais você não gostaria se soubesse. Por exemplo,
+ele poderia ter uma porta dos fundos, para permitir que o desenvolvedor
+entre em sua máquina. Ele poderia xeretar o que você faz, e enviar a
+informação para ele. Isso não é incomum. Alguns programas da Microsoft faziam
+isso. Mas não é somente a Microsoft. Há outros programas proprietários que
+espreitam os usuários. E, você nem consegue saber se eles fazem isso ou não. E,
+claro, mesmo assumindo que o desenvolvedor seja totalmente honesto, todo
+programador comete erros. Poderia haver bugs que afetam sua segurança, e
+que não é culpa de ninguém. Mas, a questão é: se não for software livre, você
+não vai achá-los, e não poderá consertá-los.
+
+Ninguém tem tempo de ver o código de todos os programas que roda. Vocês não
+vão fazer isso. Mas com o software livre há uma grande comunidade , e há
+pessoas na comunidade que verificam essas coisas. E você tem o benefício da
+verificação deles. Pois, se houver um bug acidental (com certeza há, de tempos
+em tempos, em qualquer programa), eles pode achá-lo e consertá-lo. E as
+pessoas estão muito menos propensas a pôr deliberadamente um cavalo-de-tróia,
+ou uma função de espionagem, se imaginam que podem ser pegos. Os
+desenvolvedores de software proprietário acham que não serão pegos. Eles se
+safam sem serem detectados. Mas o desenvolvedor de software livre têm de
+saber que as pessoas vão ver sua presença. Assim, em nossa comunidade, sabemos
+que não podemos nos dar bem se empurrarmos uma função que os usuários não
+querem goela abaixo. Assim, sabemos que se os usuários não gostarem, ele farão
+uma versão modificada que não tem essa função. E só ai começarão a usar essa
+versão.
+
+De fato, podemos todos pensar bastante; podemos todos imaginar muitos passos
+adiante tal que provavelmente não venhamos a criar tal função. Afinal de
+contas, você está escrevendo um programa livre, você quer que as pessoas
+gostem de sua versão. Você não vai colocar uma coisa que você sabe que muita
+gente vai odiar, e ver uma outra versão modificada ser aceita em vez da sua.
+Assim, percebam que o usuário é rei, no mundo do software livre. No mundo do
+software proprietário, o cliente *não* é rei. Porque você é apenas um cliente,
+você não tem vez no software que você usa.
+
+Neste aspecto, software livre é um novo mecanismo para a democracia operar.
+Professor Lessig, agora em Stanford, observou que código de programação
+funciona como um tipo de lei. Quem se põe a escrever código usado por quase
+todos, para todos os fins e intenções, está escrevendo leis que dirigem a vida
+das pessoas. No software livre, estas leis são escritas de modo democrático.
+Não na forma clássica da democracia; não temos uma grande eleição e dizemos:
+"vamos todos votar para sabermos como deve ser esta função". [Risos] Em vez
+disso dizemos, basicamente, aqueles que quiserem trabalhar na implementação
+deste recurso, estão convidados. E, se você quiser trabalhar na implementação
+da função deste modo, trabalhe. E o resultado acaba aparecendo, sabem? E
+assim, se muitas pessoas o querem assim, assim ele será. Assim,
+portanto, todo mundo contribui para uma decisão social simplesmente dando
+passos na direção que queira ir.
+
+E, você está livre, pessoalmente, para dar tantos passos, quantos queira dar.
+A empresa está livre para dar quantos passos achar útil. E, depois de
+adicionar todas essas coisas, isso diz para que direção vai o software.
+
+E também é muito útil pegar partes de algum programa existente,
+presume-se, normalmente partes grandes, lógico. Para depois escrever uma
+quantidade de linhas de código suas próprias. E fazer um programa que faça
+exatamente o que você precisar, o qual teria custado os dois olhos da cara
+para desenvolver se tivesse que escrevê-lo do zero -- Você não poderia
+canibalizar grandes partes de pacotes de software livre existente.
+
+Outra coisa que resulta do fato de que o usuário é rei, é que tendemos a ser
+muito bons em compatibilidade e padronização. Por quê? Porque os usuários
+gostam disso! Usuários têm a tendência de rejeitar programas com
+incompatibilidades gratuitas. Mas, algumas vezes há certos grupos de usuários
+que na realidade têm necessidade de certos tipos de incompatibilidades. E daí
+eles terão; e tudo bem. Mas, quando os usuários querem seguir um padrão, nós
+desenvolvedores temos de segui-lo. E, sabemos disso. E fazemos assim. Em
+contraste, se você olha para os desenvolvedores de software proprietário, eles
+sempre acham vantajoso *não* seguir padrões deliberadamente. E, não porque
+pensam que estão dando uma vantagem ao usuário, mas sim, porque estão se
+impondo sobre os clientes -- prendendo o usuário. E você vai vê-los fazendo
+mudanças em seus formatos de arquivo de tempos em tempos, apenas para forçar
+as pessoas a obter a nova versão.
+
+Arquivistas estão enfrentando um problema agora, pois arquivos escritos em
+computadores há dez anos muitas vezes não podem ser acessados. Eles foram
+escritos com software proprietário, está essencialmente perdido agora. Se
+fosse escrito com software livre, então poderia ser atualizado e executado. E
+essas coisas não -- esses registros não estariam perdidos, não estariam
+inacessíveis. Eles estavam reclamando sobre isso recentemente na NPR [National
+Public Radio], citando o software livre como solução. E assim, com efeito, ao
+usar programas proprietários para armazenar seus próprios dados, você está
+pondo a corda no pescoço.
+
+Bom, falei como o software livre afeta muitas empresas. Mas, como ele afeta
+estritamente a área particular que é o mercado de software? Bem, a resposta é
+não afeta. A razão é que 90% da indústria de software, (me disseram), é
+desenvolvimento de software sob medida. Software que não se destina a ser
+lançado. Para software sob medida, esta questão, ou a questão ética do livre
+ou proprietário, não aparece. Vejam, a questão é: "Vocês usuários estão livres
+para modificar e redistribuir o software?" Se há apenas um usuário, e o
+usuário é dono dos direitos, não há problema. O usuário *é* livre para fazer
+todas essas coisas. Assim, com efeito, qualquer programa *sob medida*
+desenvolvido por uma empresa para uso interno é software livre, contanto que
+insistam em ter o código fonte, e todos os direitos.
+
+E a questão realmente não faz sentido para software que vai em relógios de
+pulso e fornos de microondas, ou no sistema de ignição do automóvel. Porque
+estes não são lugares para onde você baixa software e instala. Não é um
+computador real, até onde o usuário saiba. E assim, estas questões não vêm à
+tona o bastante para que sejam eticamente importantes. Assim, para a maior
+parte, a indústria de software vai continuar do mesmo jeito que vem fazendo.
+E o interessante é que, como uma grande parte dos empregos estão nessa parte da
+indústria, mesmo que não houvesse possibilidades para as empresas de software
+livre, os desenvolvedores de software livre poderiam todos arranjar empregos
+fixos escrevendo software sob medida. [Risos] Há tantos; a proporção é muito
+grande.
+
+Mas, mesmo assim, há mercado de software livre. Há empresas de software livre.
+E, na coletiva de imprensa que vou dar, pessoas de algumas dessas empresas vão
+estar junto conosco. E, naturalmente, há também empresas que *não* são do
+mercado de software livre, mas desenvolvem partes úteis de software livre
+para lançar. E, o software livre que produzem é substancial.
+
+Agora, como funciona o negócio de software livre? Bem, alguns vendem
+cópias. Vocês sabem, você está livre para copiar, mas eles conseguem mesmo
+assim vender milhares de cópias por mês. E, outros vendem suporte e vários
+tipos de serviços. Eu, pessoalmente, na segunda metade dos anos 80, vendia
+serviços de suporte de software livre. Basicamente eu dizia, por US$200 por
+hora, eu mudo qualquer coisa que você queira no software GNU que escrevi. E,
+claro, era uma taxa salgada, mas se era um programa do qual eu era o autor, as
+pessoas imaginavam que pudesse terminar o trabalho em muito menos horas.
+[Risos] E tirei meu sustento dessa maneira. De fato, ganhava mais que nunca.
+Eu também dava aulas. E continuei assim até 1990, quando ganhei um grande
+prêmio, e não tive mais que fazê-lo.
+
+Mas, 1990 foi quando a primeira empresa de software livre foi criada, a Cygnus
+Support. E o negócio deles era fazer, essencialmente, o mesmo tipo de coisas
+que estava fazendo. Eu certamente poderia ter trabalhado para eles, se
+precisasse fazê-lo. Como não precisava, senti que era bom para o Movimento se
+permanecesse independente do qualquer empresa. Assim, poderia dizer
+coisas boas e ruins sobre várias empresas de software livre e não livre, sem
+conflito de interesses. Senti que poderia servir mais ao Movimento. Mas, se
+tivesse precisado disso para ganhar a vida, claro, teria trabalhado para eles.
+É um negócio ético de se fazer parte. Não haveria razão para me envergonhar de
+trabalhar para eles. E, aquela empresa conseguiu ser rentável em seu primeiro
+ano. Foi formada com muito pouco capital, apenas o dinheiro que seus três
+fundadores tinham. E continuou crescendo a cada ano, e sendo rentável a cada
+ano, até que ficaram gananciosos, e buscaram investidores externos, e então
+confundiram tudo. Foram vários anos de sucesso, antes que ficassem gananciosos.
+
+Assim, isso ilustra uma das coisas mais empolgantes sobre software livre.
+Software livre demonstra que você não precisa levantar capital para
+desenvolver software livre. Quer dizer, é útil; ele *pode* ajudar. Vocês
+sabem, se você levantar capital, você pode contratar pessoas e pedir que
+escrevam um punhado de software. Mas você pode produzir muito com um pequeno
+número de pessoas. E, de fato, a eficiência tremenda do processo de
+desenvolvimento de software livre é uma das razões pelas quais é importante
+que o mundo mude para o software livre. Isso desmente o que a Microsoft diz,
+quando dizem: "GNU GPL é ruim, porque fica mais difícil para eles levantar
+capital para desenvolver software não livre", e pegar nosso software livre e
+pôr nosso código em seus programas que não querem compartilhar conosco.
+Basicamente, não precisamos que levantem capital dessa forma. Faremos o
+trabalho de mesmo modo. *Estamos* fazendo o trabalho.
+
+As pessoas diziam que nunca seríamos capazes de fazer um sistema operacional
+livre completo. Agora fizemos isso e tremendamente mais. E eu diria que
+estamos a uma ordem de grandeza do desenvolvimento toda a necessidade
+mundial de software de uso geral publicado. E isso num mundo em que mais de
+90% dos usuários não usam nosso software ainda! Isto é em um mundo em que...
+apesar de certas áreas de negócio, bem, mais de metade de todos os servidores
+da web no mundo rodam GNU/Linux com servidor web Apache.
+
+PERGUNTA: [Inaudível] ... O que você disse antes do Linux?
+
+STALLMAN: Eu disse GNU/Linux.
+
+QUESTION: Disse?
+
+STALLMAN: Sim, estou falando do kernel, eu chamo de Linux. Vocês sabem, este é
+o seu nome. O kernel foi escrito por Linus Torvalds, e devemos chamá-lo pelo
+nome que ele escolheu, por respeito ao autor.
+
+Pois bem, mas em geral nas empresas, a maioria dos usuários não o estão
+usando. A maioria dos usuários domésticos não o estão usando ainda. Assim,
+quando estiverem, deveremos ter 10 vezes mais voluntários, e 10 vezes mais
+clientes para empresas de software livre que haverá. E assim, isso nos dará
+esta ordem de grandeza. Assim, neste ponto, estou muito confiante de que
+*podemos* fazer o trabalho.
+
+E, é importante, porque a Microsoft nos pede para ficarmos desesperados. Eles
+dizem:
+
+"O único modo de você ter software funcionando; o único modo de você receber
+inovação, é se você nos der poder! Deixe-nos dominar você. Deixe que
+controlemos o que você pode fazer com o software que você está rodando, de
+modo que possamos arrancar muito dinheiro de você e usar só uma parte disso
+para desenvolver software e ficar com o resto como lucro."
+
+Bem, você não deve se sentir tão desesperado. Você não deve se sentir tão
+desesperado ao perder sua liberdade [Ironia]. Isso é muito perigoso.
+
+Outra coisa que a Microsoft (bem, não só a Microsoft) -- as pessoas que não
+dão suporte ao software livre geralmente adotam um sistema de valores para o
+qual a única coisa que importa são os benefícios práticos de curto prazo.
+"Quanto dinheiro vou ganhar este ano? Que trabalho posso fazer hoje?"
+Raciocínio estreito e para o curto prazo. Eles assumem que é ridículo
+imaginar que alguém sequer possa fazer um sacrifício pela causa da liberdade.
+
+No passado, muitas pessoas faziam discursos sobre americanos que fizeram
+sacrifícios pela liberdade de seus compatriotas. Alguns deles fizeram grandes
+sacrifícios. Eles até mesmo sacrificaram suas vidas pelas liberdades que todos
+em nosso país já ouviram, pelo menos. (Pelo menos, em alguns casos; acho que
+temos de ignorar a guerra do Vietnã.)
+
+[Nota do editor: o dia anterior foi "Dia da Memória" nos EUA. O Dia da Memória
+é o dia em que os heróis de guerra são lembrados.]
+
+Mas, infelizmente, para manter nossa liberdade de usar software, não peça
+grandes sacrifícios, pois sacrifícios pequenos, bem pequenos já são
+suficientes. Tal como aprender uma interface de linha de comando se ainda não
+tivermos uma interface gráfica para o programa. Tal como fazer o trabalho
+desta forma, porque ainda não temos um pacote de software livre para fazer de
+outra forma. Tal como pagar a uma empresa para desenvolver um pacote de
+software livre, de modo que possamos tê-lo em alguns anos. Vários sacrifícios
+pequenos que todos podemos fazer. E, no longo prazo, até mesmo *nós* vamos nos
+beneficiar. Vocês sabem, é de fato um investimento mais que um sacrifício!
+Temos de ter uma visão de longo prazo o suficiente para perceber que é bom
+para nós investir em melhorar nossa sociedade, sem contar com os tostões e
+vinténs de quem obtém o benefício desse investimento.
+
+Assim, por hora, termino por aqui.
+
+Eu gostaria de mencionar que há uma nova abordagem para o mercado de software
+livre proposto por Tony Stanco, o qual ele chama de "Desenvolvedores Livres".
+E que envolve uma certa estrutura de negócios que espera com o tempo pagar um
+certa parte dos lucros para todos -- para todos os autores de software livre
+que trabalharem para a empresa. E estão trabalhando agora para obter para mim
+alguns contratos de desenvolvimento de software muito grandes no governo da
+Índia. Pois vão usar software livre desse modo -- com tremenda economia de
+custos desse modo.
+
+E assim, agora gostaria de saber se há dúvidas.
+
+PERGUNTA: [Inaudível]
+
+STALLMAN: Você poderia falar uma pouco mais alto por favor? Não consigo mesmo
+ouvir você.
+
+PERGUNTA: Como uma empresa como a Microsoft poderia incluir um contrato de
+software livre?
+
+STALLMAN: Bem, na realidade, a Microsoft está planejando transformar muito de
+sua atividades em serviços. E, o que estão planejando fazer é algo sujo e
+perigoso, que é amarrar serviços a programas, um com outros, em uma espécie de
+círculo vicioso, sabe? De modo que para usar este serviço, você terá de usar o
+programa da Microsoft, que vai implicar na necessidade de usar este serviço,
+para este programa da Microsoft, assim tudo fica amarrado. Este é o plano
+deles.
+
+Agora, o interessante é que vender estes serviços não levanta questões éticas
+sobre software livre e software proprietário! Pode até ser perfeitamente normal
+para eles fazer existir o mercado para aquelas empresas que vendem serviços
+pela Internet. No entanto, o que a Microsoft está planejando fazer é usá-los
+para prender o usuário ainda mais -- um monopólio ainda maior -- em software e
+serviços. E, isto foi descrito em um artigo, creio, na Business Week,
+recentemente. E, outras pessoas disseram que isso vai transformar a Internet
+em uma Vila Industrial Microsoft.
+
+E isso é relevante, porque, sabem, o tribunal do julgamento do monopólio da
+Microsoft recomendou dividir a empresa, a Microsoft. Mas de certa forma,
+isso não faz sentido; não faria bem nenhum: uma parte operacional, outra de
+aplicações.
+
+Mas, ao ver aquele artigo, agora vejo uma maneira útil e eficiente para
+dividir a Microsoft numa parte de serviços outra de software. E exigir que se
+relacionem uma com a outra à distância de um braço. E que a [divisão] de
+serviços tenha de publicar suas interfaces, de modo qualquer um possa escrever
+um cliente que converse com esses serviços. E, imagino, que eles tenham de
+pagar para acessar o serviço; bem, isso tudo bem. É uma questão totalmente
+diferente.
+
+Se a Microsoft for dividida desse modo [...], "serviços e software", eles não
+poderão usar seu software para esmagar a concorrência com serviços Microsoft.
+E não poderão usar [a divisão de] serviços para esmagar a concorrência com
+software Microsoft. E poderemos fazer software livre, e talvez vocês o usarão
+para conversar com os serviços Microsoft, e não nos importaremos!
+
+Porque, afinal de contas, apesar de a Microsoft ser a empresa de software
+proprietário que tem subjugado a maioria das pessoas, os outros subjugaram
+menos pessoas; não é por falta de tentar [Risos], eles só não conseguiram
+subjugar a mesma quantidade de pessoas. Assim, o problema não é a Microsoft, e
+só a Microsoft. Microsoft é só o maior exemplo do problema que estamos
+tentando resolver, que á o software proprietário tirando a liberdade dos
+usuário de cooperar e formar uma sociedade ética. Assim, não devemos nos focar
+muito na Microsoft. Você sabem, mesmo que eles não me dessem a oportunidade
+desta tribuna, isso não faz deles tão importantes. Eles não são a razão nem o
+fim de tudo.
+
+PERGUNTA: Lá atrás, você estava discutindo as diferenças filosóficas entre
+software de código aberto e software livre. O que você acha da
+tendência das distribuições GNU/Linux à medida que partem para o suporte
+somente para plataformas Intel? E o fato de que parece que cada vez menos
+programadores estão programando corretamente e fazendo software que compile em
+qualquer lugar. E fazendo software que só funciona em sistemas Intel.
+
+STALLMAN: Não vejo problemas éticos aí. Apesar, é verdade, de que alguns
+fabricantes de computador algumas vezes portam o sistema GNU/Linux para ele.
+HP aparentemente fez isso recentemente. E, eles não se dignaram a pagar
+pelo porte do Windows, porque lhes teria custado caro. Mas para ter suporte
+para GNU/Linux foi, penso eu, cinco engenheiros por uns poucos meses. Foi
+facilmente executável.
+
+Agora, naturalmente, eu incentivo as pessoas a usar autoconf, que é um pacote
+GNU que facilita tornar seus programas portáveis. Incentivo a usá-lo. Ou
+quando alguém conserta um bug que não compila naquela versão do sistema, e o
+envia a você, você deve colocá-lo. Mas eu não vejo uma questão ética.
+
+PERGUNTA: Dois comentários. Um é: recentemente, você falou no MIT. Eu li a
+transcrição. E alguns perguntaram sobre patentes, e você disse que "patente é
+uma questão totalmente diferente. Não tenho comentários sobre isso."
+
+STALLMAN: Certo. Eu na realidade tenho muito a dizer sobre patentes, mas leva
+uma hora. [Risos]
+
+PERGUNTA: Queria dizer o seguinte: a mim me parece que há uma questão. Quer
+dizer, há uma razão pela qual as empresas reivindicam patentes e direitos de
+cópia -- tem a ver com propriedade, para tentar entender o conceito. E que é
+usar o poder do Estado para criar um monopólio. E assim, o que é comum nessas
+coisas não é que eles passam por cima dessas questões, mas que a motivação não
+é mesmo uma questão de servir ao público, mas a motivação das empresas de
+fazer um monopólio para seus interesses privados.
+
+STALLMAN: Eu entendo. Mas, bem, vou responder, pois não temos muito tempo.
+Assim quero responder a isso.
+
+Você está certo que isso é o que querem. Mas há outra razão por que querem
+usar o termo "propriedade intelectual". É porque eles não querem que as
+pessoas pensem com cuidado sobre as questões do direito de cópia ou patentes.
+Porque as leis de direito de cópia e as leis de patente são totalmente
+diferentes, e os efeitos dos direitos de cópia de software e de patente de
+software são totalmente diferentes.
+
+As patentes de software são uma restrição aos programadores -- proibindo-os de
+escrever certos tipos de programa. Ao passo que o direito de cópia não faz
+isso. Com direito de cópia, pelo menos, se você escreveu tudo, você tem
+permissão de distribui-lo. Assim, é tremendamente importante separar essas
+questões.
+
+Elas têm pouco em comum, numa intensidade muito baixa. E tudo mais é
+diferente. Assim, por favor, para incentivar o esclarecimento, discutam
+direito de cópia ou discutam patentes. Não discutam "propriedade intelectual".
+E não tenho opinião sobre "propriedade intelectual". Tenho opiniões sobre
+direitos de cópia e patentes e software.
+
+PERGUNTA: Você mencionou no começo que uma linguagem funcional, como receitas,
+são programas de computador. Há um ponto um pouco diferente de outros tipos
+de linguagem criadas a partir daí. Isto está causando um problema no caso do
+DVD.
+
+STALLMAN: As questões são em parte similares, em parte diferentes, para coisa
+que não são funcionais por natureza. Parte da questão se aplica, mas não tudo.
+Infelizmente, isso significa mais uma hora de palestra. Eu não tenho tempo
+para discorrer sobre isso. Mas, eu diria que todas as obras funcionais
+deveriam ser livres do mesmo jeito que software. Por exemplo: livros-texto,
+manuais, dicionários, receitas, assim por diante.
+
+PERGUNTA: Eu estava pensando na música pela rede, há similaridades e
+diferenças totais criadas.
+
+STALLMAN: Correto. eu diria que a liberdade mínima que deveríamos ter para
+*qualquer* tipo de informação publicada, é a liberdade de redistribuí-la não
+comercialmente, inalterada. Para obras funcionais, precisamos da liberdade de
+publicar *comercialmente* a versão modificada, porque isso é tremendamente
+útil para a sociedade. Para trabalhos não funcionais, você sabe, coisas para
+entreter, ou estéticas, ou para afirmar os pontos de vista de uma pessoa,
+talvez não devessem ser modificadas. E, talvez isso seja OK, ter direito de
+cópia cobrindo toda a distribuição *comercial* dele.
+
+Por favor, lembrem-se de que de acordo com a Constituição dos EUA, a
+finalidade do direito de cópia é beneficiar o público. É para modificar o
+comportamento de certas instituições privadas, para que publiquem mais livros.
+E o benefício é que a sociedade discuta questões, aprenda e tenhamos
+literatura. Tenhamos trabalhos científicos. E o propósito é incentivar isso.
+Direitos de cópia não existem por causa dos autores, muito menos por causa dos
+editores. Eles existem por causa dos leitores e daqueles que se beneficiam da
+comunicação da informação que acontece quando as pessoas escrevem e as outras
+lêem. E com o objetivo, eu concordo!
+
+Mas, na era das redes de computadores, o *método* não é mais defensável,
+porque agora exige leis draconianas que invadem a privacidade de todos e
+aterrorizam todo mundo. Você sabe, anos de prisão por compartilhar com os
+outros. Não era assim nos tempos da imprensa impressa. Naquela época, o
+direito de cópia era uma regulamentação industrial. Restringia os editores!
+*Agora*, é uma restrição imposta pelo editores ao público. Assim, o
+relacionamento do poder deu uma volta de 180 graus, mesmo sendo a mesma lei.
+
+PERGUNTA: Assim, você pode ter a mesma coisa -- tal como ao fazer uma
+música a partir de outra.
+
+STALLMAN: Correto. Isso é interessante.
+
+PERGUNTA: E trabalhos novos e exclusivos, você sabe, muito ainda é cooperação.
+
+STALLMAN: É. Eu penso que isso provavelmente exige algum tipo de conceito do
uso
+justo. Certamente samplear alguns segundos e usar isso ao fazer uma obra
+musical: obviamente deveria ser uso justo. Mesmo que a idéia padrão do uso
+justo inclua isso, se você pensar sobre isso. Os tribunais vão concordar? Não
+sei ao certo, mas deveriam. Isso *não* seria uma mudança real no sistema do
+modo como existiu.
+
+PERGUNTA: O que você acha de publicar informações *públicas* em formatos
+proprietários?
+
+STALLMAN: Ah, não deveria ser. Quero dizer, o Governo nunca deveria pedir aos
+cidadãos que usassem programas não livres para acessar e se comunicar com o
+Governo desse modo, em todos os sentidos.
+
+PERGUNTA: Tenho sido, o que agora vou dizer, um usuário GNU/Linux...
+
+STALLMAN: Obrigado. [Risos]
+
+PERGUNTA: ... nos últimos quatro anos. E uma coisa que tem sido problemática
+para mim e é algo essencial, eu acho, para todos nós, é navegar na Internet.
+
+STALLMAN: Sim.
+
+QUESTION: Uma das coisa que decididamente tem sido um ponto fraco ao usar o
+sistema GNU/Linux tem sido navergar na Internet, porque a ferramenta principal
+para isso, Netscape...
+
+STALLMAN: ...Não é software livre.
+
+Deixe-me responder isso. Eu quero chegar ao ponto, para falar um pouco mais.
+Portanto, sim. Tem havido uma tendência terrível das pessoas usarem o Netscape
+Navigator em seus sistema GNU/Linux. E, de fato, todos os pacotes comerciais
+vem com ele. Assim é uma situação irônica: trabalhamos tanto para fazer um
+sistema operacional *livre*, e agora, se você vai na loja, você pode encontrar
+as versões lá do GNU/Linux (a maioria delas se chama "Linux"), e não são
+livres. Ah, bem, uma parte deles é. Mas então, há o Netscape Navigator, e
+talvez outros programas proprietários também. Assim é muito difícil realmente
+encontrar um sistema livre, a não ser que você saiba o que está fazendo! Ou,
+obviamente, você pode [simplesmente] não instalar o Netscape Navigator (com
+os sistema comerciais].
+
+Agora, na verdade, tem havido navegadores livres por muitos anos. Há o
+navegador livre que usava chamado "Lynx". É um navegador livre não gráfico; é
+só texto. É uma vantagem tremenda já que você não vê os anúncios. [Risos]
+[Aplausos]
+
+Mas de qualquer forma, há o projeto gráfico livre chamado "Mozilla", que está
+chegando ao pondo em que se pode usá-lo. Eu o uso de vez em quando.
+
+PERGUNTA: O Konqueror 2.01 tem sido muito bom.
+
+STALLMAN: Ah, OK. Então, este é outro nevegador gráfico gratuito. Assim,
+estamos finalmente resolvendo o problema, penso eu.
+
+PERGUNTA: Você pode me falar sobre aquela divisão ética/filosófica entre
+software livre e código aberto? Você acha que elas são irreconciliáveis?...
+
+[troca de fitas de gravação; o fim da pergunta e o começo da resposta não
+foram gravados]
+
+STALLMAN: .... para uma liberdade, e ética. Ou quer você apenas diga: "bem,
+espero que suas empresas decidam o que é mais lucrativo para deixar-nos fazer
+essas coisas"
+
+Mas, como eu disse, em muitos trabalhos práticos, não importa de fato o qual é
+a política da pessoa. Quando alguém se oferece para ajudar o projeto GNU,
+dizemos: "Você tem de concordar com nossa política". Dizemos isso no pacote
+GNU, você tem chamar o sistema, GNU/Linux, e você tem de chamá-lo de software
+livre. O que você diz quando não fala com o projeto GNU; fica a seu critério.
+
+PERGUNTA: A IBM começou uma campanha para agências do governo para vender
+suas novas máquinas de grande porte usando Linux como ponto de venda, e dizem
+"Linux"!
+
+STALLMAN: Sim, naturalmente, é de fato o sistema GNU/Linux. [Risos]
+
+QUESTION: É isso aí! Bem, fale com os vendedores-chefe. Eles não sabem nada do
+GNU.
+
+STALLMAN: Tenho que falar com quem?
+
+QUESTION: Com o líder dos vendedores.
+
+STALLMAN: Ah sim. O problema é que eles já cuidadosamente decidiram o que
+querem dizer por razões que lhes tragam vantagens. E a questão do que como
+mencioná-lo de forma mais precisa, ou justa ou correta não é a questão
+principal que importa a uma empresa como essa. Agora, algumas empresas
+pequenas, sim, têm um dono E se o dono estiver inclinado a pensar desse
+modo, ele pode tomar essa decisão. Não uma empresa gigante, porém. É uma
+vergonha, vocês sabem.
+
+Há um outra questão mais importante e mais substancial sobre o que a IBM está
+fazendo. Eles estão dizendo que estão investindo bilhões de dólares no "Linux".
+Mas talvez, eu devesse dizer "no" entre aspas, também, porque parte do
+dinheiro é para pagar a pessoas para desenvolver software livre. Isso é uma
+contribuição de fato para nossa comunidade. Mas, outra parte é para pagar
+pessoas para escrever software proprietário, ou portar software proprietário
+para rodar no GNU/Linux, e isso *não* é uma contribuição para nossa
+comunidade. Mas, a IBM está juntando tudo [num pacote só]. Uma parte disse
+poderá ser para publicidade, que, é em parte uma contribuição, mesmo que
+parcialmente errado. Assim, é uma situação complicada. Parte do que estão
+fazendo é um contribuição e parte não é. E parte é de certa forma, mas não
+exatamente. E não dá para juntar tudo isso e pensar:"Nossa! Puxa! um bilhão de
+dólares da IBM." [Risos] Isso é simplificar demais.
+
+PERGUNTAS: Você pode falar um pouco mais sobre as idéias presentes na licença
+pública geral?
+
+STALLMAN: Bem, este é o -- desculpe, estou respondendo a pergunta dele agora.
+[Risos]
+
+SCHONBERG: Você quer reservar algum tempo mais para a coletiva de imprensa? Ou
+quer continuar aqui?
+
+STALLMAN: Quem está aqui para a coletiva de imprensa? Não muita gente da
+imprensa. Ah, três -- OK. Dá para segurar se nós -- seu eu continuar
+respondendo as perguntas de todos por mais dez minutos? OK. Bem, vamos
+continuar respondendo as perguntas de todos.
+
+Bem, a idéia presente na GNU GPL? Parte dela é que eu queria proteger a
+liberdade da comunidade contra o fenômeno que eu descrevi sobre o X Windows,
+que aconteceu com outros programas livres também. De fato, quando pensava sobre
+esta questão, o X Windows não tinha sido lançado ainda. Mas tinha visto este
+problema acontecer em outros programas livres. Por exemplo, o TeX. Queria
+garantir que os usuários todos tivessem liberdade. Doutro modo, eu pensava que
+pudesse escrever um programa, e talvez muita gente usasse o programa, mas não
+teriam liberdade. E daí veja que problema?!
+
+Mas, a outra questão em que estava pensando era: eu quero dar à comunidade o
+sentimento de que não somos capacho -- um sentimento de que não éramos presas
+de nenhum parasita que se misturasse com a gente. Se você não usa copyleft,
+você essencialmente está dizendo: [falando baixinho] "Leve meu código. Faça o
+que quiser. E não digo não". Assim, qualquer um pode vir e dizer: [falando bem
+firme] "Ah, eu quero fazer uma versão proprietária disso. Vou pegar isso". E
+então, provavelmente, fazem alguns aperfeiçoamentos. Estas versões
+proprietárias podem ter apelo para os usuários, e substituir as versões
+livres. E daí veja o que você fez! Você fez fez uma doação para um projeto de
+software proprietário!
+
+E quando as pessoas vêem o que está acontecendo -- quando as pessoas vêem:
+"outras pessoas pegam o que faço e nem sequer me devolvem", isso pode ser
+desmoralizante. E, isto não é só especulação. Eu tinha visto isso acontecer.
+Isso foi parte do que aconteceu, fazendo desaparecer a antiga comunidade à
+qual eu pertencia nos anos 70. Algumas pessoas passara a não ser mais
+cooperativas. E achávamos que elas estavam lucrando com isso. Elas certamente
+agiam como se estivessem lucrando. Mas percebemos que elas recebiam
+cooperação, mas não davam contrapartida. E não havia nada que pudéssemos
+fazer. Foi muito desencorajador. Nós, os que não gostávamos dessa tendência,
+até discutimos o assunto e não conseguíamos apresentar uma idéia para
+impedir isso.
+
+Assim, a GPL foi pensada para impedir isso. Ela diz: "Sim, você está convidado
+a se *unir* à comunidade e usar este código. Você pode usá-lo para fazer todo
+o tipo de trabalho. Mas, se você lançar uma versão modificada, você tem de
+lançá-la *para* nossa comunidade, como parte de nossa comunidade -- como parte
+do mundo livre".
+
+Então, de fato, ainda há muitos modos de as pessoas se beneficiarem de nosso
+trabalho e não contribuir. Por exemplo, você não é obrigado a escrever nenhum
+software. Muitas pessoas usam o GNU/Linux, e não escrevem software. Ninguém
+exige que você tenha de fazer algo para nós. Mas se fizer certas coisas, você
+tem de contribuir com ela. Isso significa que nossa comunidade não é capacho.
+E acho que isso ajudou a dar às pessoas a força para sentir: "Sim, não seremos
+simplesmente pisoteados por todo mundo. Seremos capazes de resistir a isso".
+
+PERGUNTA: Sim, minha pergunta era, considerando software livre mas não com
+copyleft. Como todo mundo pode pode pegá-lo e fazê-lo proprietário, não é
+possível pegá-lo, e fazer mundanças e lançar a coisa toda sob GPL?
+
+STALLMAN: Sim, é possível.
+
+PERGUNTA: Então, isso faria todas as cópias daí serem GPL?
+
+STALLMAN: Deste ramo em diante. Mas veja por que não fazemos isso.
+
+PERGUNTA: Hmm?
+
+STALLMAN: Veja por que normalmente não fazemos isso. Deixe-me explicar.
+
+QUESTION: OK, sim.
+
+STALLMAN: Poderíamos, se quiséssemos, pegar o X Windows, e fazer uma versão
+coberta pela GPL, e fazer mudanças nele. Mas, mas há um grupo muito maior de
+pessoas trabalhando na melhoria do X Windows e *não* tornando-o GPL. Assim, se
+fizéssemos isso, estaríamos produzindo um fork [bifurcação na linha de
+desenvolvimento]. E não é um tratamento muito legal. E, eles *são* parte de
+nossa comunidade, contribuindo com nossa comunidade.
+
+Segundo, isso seria um tiro pela culatra, porque eles estão fazendo um
+trabalho muito maior no X que nós faríamos. Assim, nossa versão seria inferior
+à deles, e as pessoas não iriam querer usá-lo, o que significa: por que se dar
+ao trabalho?
+
+PERGUNTA: Mmm hmm.
+
+STALLMAN: Assim, quando um pessoa escreve algum melhoramento do X Windows, o
+o que eu digo que essa pessoa deveria fazer é: cooperar com a Equipe de
+Desenvolvimento do X. Envie a eles e deixe que usem desse modo. Porque eles
+*estão* desenvolvendo um parte muito importante do software livre. É bom para
+nós cooperar com eles!
+
+PERGUNTA: Exceto, considerando o X, em particular, há mais ou menos dois anos,
+O Consórcio X que estava bem mergulhado no código aberto "não livre"...
+
+STALLMAN: Bem, na realidade *não era* código aberto. Não era código aberto,
+mesmo. Eles podem ter dito que era. (Não me lembro se disseram isso ou não.)
+Mas não era código aberto.
+
+Era restrito. Você poderia distribuir comercialmente, eu acho. Ou não poderia
+distribuir comercialmente a versão modificada, ou algo do tipo. Havia uma
+restrição considerada inaceitável tanto pelo Movimento de Software Livre
+quanto pelo Movimento de Código Aberto.
+
+E sim, é aberto para um uso que a licença "não copyleft" permite. De
+fato, o Consórcio X; eles têm uma política muito rígida. Eles dizem: "Se seu
+programa tiver copyleft mesmo que seja um pouquinho, não o distribuiremos de
+jeito nenhum. Não vamos colocá-lo em nossa distribuição." Assim, muita gente
+foi pressionada a não usar copyleft. E o resultado foi que todo o software
+dessa gente estava por aí, mais tarde. Quando as mesmas pessoas que tinham
+pressionado o desenvolvedor a ser permissivo demais, o pessoa do X depois
+disse: "Muito bem. Agora vamos colocar restrições", o que não foi muito ético
+da parte deles.
+
+Mas, dada a situação, não iríamos querer gastar os recursos para manter uma
+versão alternativa do X coberta pela GPL. E não faria sentido nenhum fazer
+isso. Há muitas outras coisa que precisamos fazer. Vamos fazê-las então. E
+podemos cooperar com os desenvolvedores do X.
+
+PERGUNTA: Você tem um comentário: o GNU é uma marca registrada? E é possível
+incluir como parte da Licença Geral Pública [GPL] GNU marcas registradas?
+
+STALLMAN: Estamos, na realidade, registrando a marca GNU. Mas isso não teria
+nada a ver com isso. É uma longa história explicar por quê.
+
+PERGUNTA: Você poderia exigir que a marca registrada fosse apresentada em
+programas cobertos pela GPL.
+
+Não, não acho. As licenças cobrem programas individuais. E, quando um dado
+programa é parte do projeto GNU, ninguém está mentido. O nome do sistema como
+um todo, é uma questão diferente. E isto é um detalhe. Não vale a pena
+discutir adiante.
+
+PERGUNTA: Se houvesse um botão, que você, pressionando, forçasse
+todas as empresas a liberar o software deles você o pressionaria?
+
+STALLMAN: Bem, eu o usaria para software publicado. Você sabe, eu acho que as
+pessoas têm o direito de escrever programas privados, e usá-los. E isso inclui
+as empresas. É uma questão de privacidade. E é verdade, pode haver momentos em
+que seja errado fazer isso, exemplo, se for tremendamente útil para a
+humanidade e você está segurando isso da humanidade, o que é um erro, mas esse
+é um tipo de erro diferente. É um tipo diferente de questão, apesar de ser da
+mesma área.
+
+Mas sim, eu acho que todo o software publicado deveria ser software livre. E
+lembrem-se de que, quando o software não é livre, é por causa da intervenção
+do Governo. O Governo está intervindo para fazê-lo não livre. O Governo está
+criando poderes legais especiais para dar aos donos dos programas, assim eles
+podem mandar a polícia nos impedir de usar os programas de certas maneiras. Eu
+certamente gostaria de dar fim a isso.
+
+SCHONBERG: A apresentação de Richard invariavelmente gerou enorme quantidade
+de energia intelectual. Eu sugeriria que parte dela deva ser dirigida para
+usar e possivelmente escrever software livre.
+
+Temos de encerrar o evento, rapidamente. Eu quero dizer que Richard injetou
+numa profissão, conhecida do público em geral pela "nerditude apolítica"
+terminal, um nível de discussão política e moral, penso eu, sem precedentes em
+nossa profissão. E devemos muito a ele por isso. Gostaria de avisar a todos
+que haverá um intervalo.
+
+[Aplausos]
+
+STALLMAN: Vocês estão livres para sair quando quiserem, tá? [Risos] Não os
+estou mantendo prisioneiros aqui.
+
+[A platéia sai...]
+
+[Conversas paralelas....]
+
+STALLMAN: Só mais uma coisa. Nosso site é : www.gnu.org
Index: philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.html
diff -N philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.html 15 Sep 2015 05:45:30 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,2100 @@
+<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.en.html" -->
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.tr.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+
+<!-- This file is automatically generated by GNUnited Nations! -->
+<title>Ãzgür Yazılım: Ãzgürlük ve Ä°ÅbirliÄi - GNU Projesi - Ãzgür
Yazılım Vakfı</title>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.tr.html" -->
+<h2>Ãzgür Yazılım: Ãzgürlük ve Ä°ÅbirliÄi</h2>
+
+<blockquote><p>Richard M. Stallman'ın âÃzgür Yazılım: Ãzgürlük ve
Ä°ÅbirliÄiâ isimli, New
+York'taki New York Ãniversitesi'nde, 29 Mayıs 2001 tarihinde yaptıÄı
+konuÅmanın metnidir.</p></blockquote>
+
+<div class="announcement">
+<blockquote><p>Bu konuÅmanın <a
href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt">düz metin</a>
+sürümü ve <a href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt">özeti</a> de
vardır.</p></blockquote>
+</div>
+
+<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: Ben Mike Uretsky. Stern Ä°Åletme Fakültesiâni
+bitirdim. Ayrıca Ä°leri Teknoloji Merkeziânin Müdür Yardımcılarından
+biriyim. Ve Bilgisayar Bilimi Departmanında hepimiz adına, sizlere burada
+hoÅ geldiniz demek istiyorum. Size konuÅmacıyı takdim edecek olan Edâe
+mikrofonu vermeden önce bazı açıklamalarda bulunmak istiyorum.</p>
+
+<p>Ãniversitenin rolü, tartıÅmaların yapılması için uygun bir alan
olması ve
+ilginç tartıÅmaların yapılabilmesidir. Ve büyük bir üniversitenin
rolü,
+özellikle ilginç tartıÅmaların yapılabilmesidir. Ve bu özel sunum, bu
+seminer bu kalıba girer. Açık kaynak tartıÅmasını özellikle ilginç
+buluyorum. Bir anlamdaâ¦.<i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Ãzgür yazılım yapıyorum. Açık kaynak
farklı bir
+harekettir. <i>[dinleyiciler güler] [AlkıÅ]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: 1960âlarda ilgili alanda çalıÅmaya ilk
+baÅladıÄımda, temel olarak yazılım özgürdü. Ve çevrimlere girdik.
Ãzgür hale
+geldi ve daha sonra pazarlarını geniÅletme ihtiyacında olan yazılım
+üreticileri, bunu baÅka taraflara doÄru çektiler. PCânin giriÅiyle
+gerçekleÅen birçok hareket, tam olarak da benzer bir çevrim tipinde hareket
+etti.</p>
+
+<p>Pierre Levy adında çok ilginç bir Fransız filozof vardır, bu filozof,
+insanlıÄın refahını geliÅtirecek iliÅki tiplerindeki deÄiÅim ile,
yalnızca
+teknolojiyle ilgili olarak deÄil ayrıca sosyal yeniden yapılanma, politik
+yeniden yapılanma ile iliÅkili olarak bu yöne doÄru olan hareketten ve
siber
+aleme doÄru olan hareketten bahsetmektedir. Ve bu tartıÅmanın söz konusu
+yöndeki bir hareket olmasını ve bu tartıÅmanın, normalde Ãniversitede
bir
+teselli gibi olan çok sayıda disiplinin sınırlarının ötesine giden bir
Åey
+olmasını umuyoruz. Bazı çok ilginç tartıÅmaları dört gözle
bekliyoruz. Ed?</p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Ben Courant Enstitüsüândeki Bilgisayar
Bilimi
+Departmanından Ed Schonberg. Hepinize öncelikle hoŠgeldiniz demek
+istiyorum. GiriÅ konuÅmasını yapanlar genellikle ve özellikle halka
+sunumların yararsız bir kısmını yapanlardır ancak bu durumda, gerçekte
+yararlı bir amaca hizmet etmektedirler, Mikeâın da kolayca gösterdiÄi
gibi,
+giriÅ konuÅmasını yapan kiÅi, örneÄin, hatalı açıklamalar yaparak,
+tartıÅmanın parametrelerini ciddi ölçüde düzeltebilir ve
<i>[dinleyiciler
+güler]</i> keskin hale getirebilir.</p>
+
+<p>Bu nedenle, açıklamaya ihtiyaç duymayan birine anlatır gibi mümkün
olan en
+kısa giriÅi yapayım. Richard, yıllar önce MIT YZ Laboratuarında yazıcı
+sürücüleri için kaynak kodunun elveriÅli olmamasına iliÅkin
problemlerden
+küresel olarak düÅünen ve yerel hareket eden biri için mükemmel bir
+örnektir. Yazılımın nasıl oluÅturulduÄu, hangi fikri mülkiyet
araçlarına
+sahip olduÄu ve yazılım topluluÄunun gerçekte neyi temsil ettiÄi
fikirlerini
+yeniden incelemek için hepimizi zorlamıŠolan baÄlı bir felsefe
+geliÅtirmiÅtir. Richard Stallmanâa hoÅ geldiniz demek
+istiyorum. <i>[AlkıÅ]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Biri bana bir saat ödünç verebilir mi?
+<i>[Dinleyiciler güler]</i> TeÅekkür ederim. Bu vesileyle, bu platformda
+olma imkânı verdikleri için Microsoftâa <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i>
teÅekkür
+ederim. Son birkaç haftadır, kitabı bir yerlerde kazara yasaklanmıŠolan
bir
+yazar gibi hissediyorum.<i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Ancak buna iliÅkin
+yazıların tümünde yanlıŠyazarın adı verilmektedir çünkü Microsoft
GNU
+GPLâyi açık kaynaklı bir lisans olarak tanımlamaktadır ve bunu izleyen
baskı
+kapsamının çoÄunluÄu buna uygundur. Tabi ki, insanların çoÄunluÄu,
+çalıÅmamızın açık kaynakla iÅinin olmadıÄını fark etmemektedir,
çünkü
+insanlar âaçık kaynakâ ifadesini bulmadan önce iÅin çoÄunu
gerçekleÅtirdik.</p>
+
+<p>Ãzgür yazılım hareketindeyiz ve özgür yazılım hareketinin ne
hakkında
+olduÄu, ne anlama geldiÄi, ne yaptıÄımız üzerine konuÅacaÄım ve bu
bir
+iÅletme okulu tarafından desteklendiÄi için, özgür yazılımın
iÅletmeyle
+nasıl bir ilgisi olduÄu hakkında ve sosyal hayatın bazı diÄer alanları
+hakkında bir Åeyler söyleyeceÄim.</p>
+
+<p>Åimdi, bazılarınız hayatında hiç bilgisayar programı yazmamıÅ
olabilir ama
+belki de yemek piÅirdiniz. Ve yemek piÅirdiyseniz, çok mükemmel
deÄilseniz,
+muhtemelen yemek tariflerini kullandınız. Ve yemek tariflerini
+kullandıysanız, bir arkadaÅınızla muhtemelen bir yemek tarifinin
kopyasını
+paylaÅtınız. Ve tam anlamıyla bir acemi deÄilseniz, yemek tarifi
alıÅveriÅi
+yapmıÅsınızdır. Yemek tariflerinde belirli Åeyler söylenmektedir ancak
tam
+olarak aynı Åeyleri yapmanız gerekmez. İçeriklerden bazılarını
+katmayabilirsiniz. Mantarı sevdiÄiniz için biraz mantar
+ekleyebilirsiniz. Doktorunuz tuzu azaltmanız gerektiÄini söylediÄi için
daha
+az tuz koyabilirsiniz. YeteneÄinize göre daha büyük deÄiÅiklikler bile
+yapabilirsiniz. Ve bir yemek tarifinde deÄiÅiklik yaptıysanız ve bu yemek
+tarifine göre arkadaÅlarınıza yemek piÅirdiyseniz ve yemeÄi sevdilerse,
size
+Åunu söyleyebilirler: âTarifini bana da verir misin?â Ve o zaman ne
+yaparsınız? Yemek tarifinin deÄiÅmiÅ halini yazıp arkadaÅınıza bir
kopyasını
+verebilirsiniz. Bunlar, herhangi bir tipteki iÅlevsel olarak yararlı yemek
+tarifleriyle yapabileceÄiniz doÄal Åeylerdir.</p>
+
+<p>Åimdi yemek tarifi, bir bilgisayar programına çok benzemektedir. Bir
+bilgisayar programı yemek tarifine çok benzemektedir: istediÄiniz bir sonuca
+ulaÅmak için gerçekleÅtirilecek bir seri adımdan ibarettir. Bu nedenle,
+yemek tarifleriyle yaptıÄınız Åeyleri bilgisayar programlarıyla da
yapmanız
+çok doÄaldır, örneÄin, arkadaÅınıza bir kopyasını vermek gibi.
Farklı bir
+iÅlevi görmesi için bilgisayar programını deÄiÅtirebilirsiniz de.
BaÅka biri
+için iyi bir iŠgörmüŠolabilir ancak sizinki farklı bir iŠolabilir. Bu
+nedenle programı deÄiÅtirirsiniz. Ve deÄiÅtirdikten sonra, baÅka insanlar
+için yararlı olabilir. Belki de sizin yaptıÄınız iÅe benzer bir iÅ
için
+kullanılacaktır. Bu nedenle, Åu soruyu sorarlar: âBana bilgisayar
+programının bir kopyasını verir misin?â Tabi ki, kibar bir insan
olduÄunuz
+için, bilgisayar programınızın bir kopyasını verirsiniz. Bu, nazik bir
insan
+olmanın yoludur.</p>
+
+<p>Bu nedenle, yemek tariflerinin kara kutular içine yerleÅtirildiÄi durumu
+düÅünün. Hangi içerikleri kullandıÄınızı göremezsiniz ve
deÄiÅtiremezsiniz
+ve arkadaÅınıza bir kopyasını vermeye kalktıÄınızda size korsan
dendiÄini ve
+yıllarca hapiste yattıÄınızı düÅünün. Böyle bir dünya, yemek
tariflerini
+paylaÅmaya alıÅmıŠinsanlar için büyük bir zulümdür. Ancak özel
mülk yazılım
+dünyasında durum aynen böyledir. Bu, diÄer insanlara karÅı genel
inceliÄin
+olmadıÄı ya da engellendiÄi bir dünyadır. </p>
+
+<p>Åimdi bunu neden farkettim? Bunu farkettim çünkü 1970âlerde
yazılımı
+paylaÅan bir programcı birliÄinin parçası olma Åansına ulaÅmıÅtım.
Bu
+topluluÄun temelleri bilgisayarın baÅlangıcına dayanmaktadır. Ancak,
+1970âlerde, insanların yazılımı paylaÅtıÄı bir topluluk zor bulunan
bir
+Åeydi. Ve gerçekte bu uç bir durumdu çünkü çalıÅtıÄım
laboratuarda, tüm
+iÅletim sistemi, topluluÄumuz tarafından geliÅtirilen yazılımdı ve bu
+yazılımın herhangi bir kısmını herhangi bir kimseyle
+paylaÅmaktaydık. Ä°steyen herkes gelebiliyor ve bir kopya alabiliyordu ve ne
+yapmak isterse yapıyordu. Bu programlar üzerinde hiçbir telif hakkı
uyarısı
+yoktu. Ä°ÅbirliÄi bizim yaÅam biçimimizdi. Ve bu yaÅam Åeklinde
+güvendeydik. Bunun için savaÅmıyorduk. Bunun için savaÅmamız
+gerekmiyordu. Sadece bu Åekilde yaÅıyorduk. Ve bildiÄimiz kadarıyla, bu
+Åekilde yaÅamayı sürdürecektik. Bu nedenle özgür yazılım vardı ama
özgür
+yazılım hareketi yoktu. </p>
+
+<p>Ama daha sonra topluluÄumuz çeÅitli felaketlerle yıkıldı. Sonunda
tamamen
+yok oldu. Sonunda tüm çalıÅmalarımız için kullandıÄımız PDP-10
bilgisayarı1
+ortadan kalktı. Sistemimiz olan, Uyumlu Olmayan Zaman PaylaÅımlı Sistem,
+1960âlarda baÅlayarak yazılmıÅtı, bu nedenle assembler dilinde
+yazılmıÅtı. 1960âlarda bir iÅletim sistemi yazmak için assembler
+kullanılmaktaydı. Bu nedenle, tabi ki, assembler dili belirli bir bilgisayar
+mimarisi içindir; bunun devamı gelmezse, tüm çalıÅmanız boÅa gider,
iÅe
+yaramaz. Ve bizim baÅımıza da bu geldi. 20 yıllık çalıÅma boÅa gitti.
</p>
+
+<p>Ancak bu durum meydana gelmeden önce, bu durum meydana geldiÄinde ne
+yapacaÄıma iliÅkin olarak beni hazırlayan ve ne yapacaÄımı görmeme
yardımcı
+olan bir olay oldu çünkü belirli bir noktada, Xerox çalıÅtıÄım yer
olan
+Yapay Zeka Laboratuvarına bir lazer yazıcısı hediye etti ve bu hediye
+gerçekten de güzel bir hediyeydi çünkü Xerox dıÅında birilerinin bir
lazer
+yazıcısına sahip olduÄu ilk durumdu. Bu yazıcı çok hızlıydı,
saniyede bir
+sayfa yazıyordu, birçok anlamda çok iyiydi ancak güvenilir deÄildi
çünkü
+yüksek hızlı bir kopyalayıcının yazıcı olarak deÄiÅtirilmiÅ
biçimiydi. Ve
+bildiÄiniz gibi kopyalayıcılarda sıkıÅma meydana gelmektedir ancak
genelde
+bu sıkıÅmayı çözecek birileri bulunur. Yazıcıda sıkıÅma oldu ve
kimse
+görmedi. Bu nedenle yazıcı uzun süre sorunlu halde kaldı.</p>
+
+<p>Biz de bu sorunu çözmek için bir fikir geliÅtirdik. Sistemi, yazıcı
her ne
+zaman bir sıkıÅma durumu yaÅarsa, yazıcıyı çalıÅtıran makine zaman
+paylaÅımlı makinemize durumu bildirecek ve çıktı bekleyen kullanıcılara
+yazıcıdaki problemi çözmelerini söyleyecek bir Åekilde deÄiÅtirdik.
Tabi ki
+kullanıcılar, bir çıktı bekliyorlarsa ve yazıcıda sıkıÅma olduÄunu
+biliyorlarsa, sonsuza kadar oturup beklemeyecek ve sorunu çözeceklerdi. </p>
+
+<p>Ancak bu noktada tamamen felce uÄradık çünkü söz konusu yazıcıyı
çalıÅtıran
+yazılım özgür yazılım deÄildi. Söz konusu yazılım yazıcı ile
birlikte
+gelmiÅti ve yalnızca bir ikiliydi (binary). Kaynak kodunu alamamıÅtık;
+Xerox, kaynak kodunu bize vermemiÅti. Bu nedenle, programlayıcılar olarak
+yetenekli olmamıza raÄmen, ne de olsa kendi zaman paylaÅımlı sistemimizi
+yazmıÅtık, bu özelliÄi yazıcı yazılımına ekleme konusunda tamamıyla
+çaresizdik. </p>
+
+<p>Ve beklemek zorundaydık. Ãıktımızı almanız bir ya da iki saat
sürüyordu
+çünkü makine çoÄu zaman sıkıÅma yapıyordu. Bir saat bekleyip
âSıkıÅacaÄını
+biliyorum. Bir saat bekleyeceÄim ve çıktımı alacaÄımâ diyorduk ve
daha sonra
+tüm zaman boyunca sıkıÅmıŠolduÄunu ve gerçekte baÅka kimsenin tamir
+etmediÄini gördük. Bu nedenle, biz tamir ettik ve yarım saat daha
+bekledik. Daha sonra, geri döndük ve çıktı haline gelmeden önce yine
+sıkıÅtıÄını gördük. Ãç dakika basma iÅlemi yapıp otuz dakika
+sıkıÅmaktaydı. Bu durum hayal kırıklıÄı yarattı. Ancak daha
kötüsü, tamir
+edebileceÄimizi biliyor olmamızdı ancak kendi bencilliÄi için baÅka
+birileri, yazılımı geliÅtirmemizi önleyerek bizi engellemekteydi. Bu
nedenle
+tabi ki bir miktar küskünlük hissettik.</p>
+
+<p>Ve daha sonra Carneige Mellon Ãniversitesiânden birilerinin söz konusu
+yazılımın bir kopyasını aldıÄını duydum. Ãniversiteyi ziyaret
ediyordum, bu
+nedenle ilgili kimsenin ofisine gittim ve dedim ki: âMerhaba, ben
+MITâdenim. Yazıcı kaynak kodunun bir kopyasını alabilir miyim?â O da
bana
+dedi ki: âHayır, kimseye kopya vermemeye söz verdim.â <i>[Dinleyiciler
+güler]</i> ÅaÅırmıÅtım. Aynı zamanda da kızmıÅtım ve nasıl adil
olacaÄıma
+iliÅkin hiçbir fikrim kalmamıÅtı. Belki de kapıyı çarptım.
<i>[Dinleyiciler
+güler]</i> Ve daha sonra da bu konuyu düÅündüm çünkü yalnızca
soyutlanmıÅ
+bir olay deÄil ayrıca önemli olan ve çok sayıda kimseyi etkileyen sosyal
bir
+fenomen görmekte olduÄumu fark ettim.</p>
+
+<p>Åanslıydım, çünkü bu durumu yalnızca bir kere yaÅadım. DiÄer
insanlar ise
+her zaman bu durumla yaÅamak zorundalar. Bu nedenle bu konuyu kapsamlı
+olarak düÅündüm. MITâdeki çalıÅma arkadaÅları bizimle iÅbirliÄi
yapmaktan
+kaçındı. Bize ihanet etti. Ama bunu yalnızca bize karÅı yapmadı. Bunu
size
+de yaptı <i>[Dinleyicilerden birini gösteriyor]</i>. Ve zannediyorum ki,
+bunu size de yaptı. <i>[BaÅka bir dinleyiciyi
+gösteriyor]</i>. <i>[Dinleyiciler gülüyor]</i> Ve bunu muhtemelen size de
+yaptı <i>[Dinleyiciler arasında üçüncü bir dinleyiciyi gösteriyor]</i>.
Bunu
+bu odadaki insanların çoÄuna yaptı, belki çok azınıza yapmadı, onlar da
+zaten 1980âde henüz doÄmamıŠolanlardır. Ãünkü Dünya gezegeninin
tüm nüfusu
+ile iÅbirliÄi yapmayı reddetmeye söz verdi. Bir gizlilik anlaÅması
+imzaladı. </p>
+
+<p>Åimdi bu benim bir gizlilik anlaÅmasıyla ilk doÄrudan karÅılaÅmamdı
ve bu
+bana önemli bir ders verdi, bu önemli bir dersti çünkü birçok programcı
bunu
+hiçbir zaman öÄrenmedi. Bu, benim bir gizlilik anlaÅmasıyla ilk
+karÅılaÅmamdı ve kurban bendim. Ben ve benim tüm laboratuarım kurbandı.
Ve
+bu bana gizlilik anlaÅmalarının kurbanlarının var olduÄunu gösterdi.
Masum
+deÄildiler. Zararsız deÄildiler. Birçok programcı bir gizlilik anlaÅması
+imzalamaya davet edildiÄinde, ilk olarak bir gizlilik anlaÅmasıyla
+karÅılaÅmaktadır. Ve her zaman istek uyandırıcı bir Åey vardır â bu
+anlaÅmayı imzalarlarsa bundan iyi bir sonuç elde edeceklerini
düÅünürler. Bu
+nedenle özürler oluÅtururlar. Åöyle derler: âNe olursa olsun bir kopya
+alamayacak, bu nedenle onu yoksun bırakmak için niçin bir komploya
+katılayım?â Åöyle derler: âBu, bu iÅin her zaman yapıldıÄı
yoldur. Buna
+karÅı kime gideyim?â Åöyle derler: âBunu ben imzalamazsam baÅka biri
+imzalayacak.â Vicdanlarını rahatlatmak için çeÅitli bahaneler
bulurlar.</p>
+
+<p>Ama birileri beni bir gizlilik anlaÅması imzalamaya çaÄırdıÄında,
vicdanım
+zaten duyarlı hale gelmiÅti. Birisi bana yardım etmemeye söz verdiÄinde ne
+kadar sinirlenmiÅ olduÄumu hatırladım ve laboratuvarım sorunumuzu
çözdü. Ve
+ben ise, bana hiç zarar vermemiÅ birine aynı Åeyi yapamazdım. Birileri
+benden nefret edilen bir düÅmanla bazı yararlı bilgileri paylaÅmamam için
+söz vermemi isteseydi, evet derdim. Birileri kötü bir Åeyler yapmıÅsa,
bunu
+hak etmektedir. Ancak yabancılar â bana hiç zarar vermemiÅlerdir. Bu gibi
+bir hatalı muameleyi nasıl hak edebilirler? Herhangi birine ve herkese kötü
+davranmaya baÅlayamazsınız. O zaman toplumda yırtıcı bir hayvan haline
+gelirsiniz. Bu nedenle dedim ki: âBana bu güzel yazılım paketini
sunduÄunuz
+için çok teÅekkür ederim. Ama talep ettiÄiniz Åartlarda bu paketi kabul
+edemem, bu paket olmaksızın çalıÅacaÄım. Ãok teÅekkür ederim.â Ve
böylece,
+yazılım gibi genel olarak yararlı teknik bilgi için bir gizlilik
anlaÅması
+imzalamadım.</p>
+
+<p>Åimdi farklı etik hususlara iliÅkin baÅka bilgi tipleri vardır.
ÃrneÄin,
+kiÅisel bilgiler vardır. Kendinizle erkek arkadaÅınız arasındaki bir olay
+hakkında konuÅmak isterseniz ve benden bunu kimseye söylemememi isterseniz,
+bunu sizin için sır olarak saklarım çünkü bu gerçekte yararlı bir
teknik
+bilgi deÄildir. En azından, muhtemelen genel olarak yararlı deÄildir
+<i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i>. </p>
+
+<p>Bana harika yeni bir seks tekniÄi anlatma olasılıÄınız da vardır
+[dinleyiciler güler] ve o zaman bunu toplumun geri kalanına aktarmayı görev
+bilirim <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i>, böylece tüm insanlar bundan
+faydalanır. Bu nedenle, söz konusu söze bir Åart koymalıyım. Kim neyi
ister,
+kim kime kızgındır ve bu gibi pembe dizi hususları hakkında sizin için
gizli
+tutabileceÄim ayrıntılarsa; ancak toplumun bildiÄi için çok
faydalandıÄı bir
+husussa, o zaman bu bilgileri saklı tutmamalıyım. Görüyorsunuz, bilimin ve
+teknolojinin hedefi, insanların hayatlarını daha iyi yaÅamaları için
+insanlık için yararlı bilgiler geliÅtirmektir. Söz konusu bilgileri saklı
+tutmaya söz verirsek â gizli tutarsak â o zaman alanımızın misyonuna
ihanet
+ederiz. Ve bunu yapmamaya karar verdim.</p>
+
+<p>Ancak bu arada topluluÄum çöktü ve bu da beni kötü bir duruma
+soktu. Görüyorsunuz, tüm Uyumlu olmayan Zaman PaylaÅımlı Sistem eskidi
çünkü
+PDP-10 eskiydi ve bu nedenle, eskiden yapmıŠolduÄum gibi bir iÅletim
+sistemi geliÅtiricisi olarak çalıÅmaya devam etmemin bir yolu yoktu. Bu,
+topluluÄun yazılımını kullanmama ve geliÅtirmeme, baÅka bir deyiÅle
+topluluÄun bir parçası olmama baÄlıydı. Bu artık bir ihtimal deÄildi
ve bu
+da beni törel bir ikileme soktu. Ne yapacaktım? Ãünkü en açık ihtimal,
+vermiÅ olduÄum karara karÅı gelmek anlamına geliyordu. En açık ihtimal,
+dünyadaki deÄiÅime kendimi uyarlamaktı. Bir Åeylerin farklı olduÄunu
kabul
+etmem ve bu ilkeleri bırakmam ve özel mülk iÅletim sistemleri için
gizlilik
+anlaÅmaları imzalamaya baÅlamam ve muhtemelen özel mülk yazılım yazmam
+gerekiyordu. Ancak kod yazmaktan zevk aldıÄımı ve para kazanabileceÄimi
â
+özellikle MIT dıÅında yazarsam â ama sonunda kariyerimde geriye dönüp
+baktıÄımda, âHayatımı insanlar arasında duvarlar örmek için
harcadımâ
+diyeceÄimi ve hayatımdan utanç duyacaÄımı fark ettim. </p>
+
+<p>Bu nedenle baÅka bir alternatif aradım ve açık bir alternatif vardı.
Yazılım
+alanını bırakıp baÅka bir Åeyler yapabilirdim. BaÅka bir özel kayda
deÄer
+yeteneÄe sahip deÄildim ancak bir garson olabileceÄimden
+emindim. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Ancak Åık bir restoranda
çalıÅamazdım;
+beni iÅe almazlardı <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> ancak baÅka bir yerlerde
+garson olabilirdim. Ve birçok programcı bana Åunu dedi: âProgramcıları
iÅe
+alan insanlar Åunu, Åunu ve Åunu talep etmektedir. Bu iÅleri yapmazsam, o
+zaman açlıktan ölürüm.â Kullandıkları sözcükler böyleydi. Garson
olarak
+açlıktan ölmezsiniz. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Bu nedenle, gerçekte
+tehlikede deÄilsiniz. Ancak â ve bu önemlidir, görüyorsunuz â bazen
diÄer
+insanlara zarar veren bir Åey yaparsınız ve bunu yapmasaydım ben daha çok
+zarar görecektim diyerek kendinizi haklı çıkartırsınız.
<em>Gerçekten</em>
+de açlıktan ölseniz, özel mülk yazılım yazma konusunda
+haklısınızdır. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Birileri size silah tutsa, o
+zaman affedilebilir bir iÅ yaptıÄınızı söyleyebilirim. <i>[dinleyiciler
+güler]</i> Ancak etik olmayan bir Åeyler yapmayarak yaÅantımı
sürdürmenin
+bir yolunu bulmuÅtum, bu nedenle bir bahane yoktu. Ancak garsonluk yapmanın
+benim için eÄlenceli bir iÅ olmayacaÄının farkına vardım, bir iÅletim
+sistemi geliÅtiricisi olarak yeteneklerimi boÅa harcamama neden
+olacaktı. özel mülk yazılım geliÅtirmek ise yeteneklerimi kötüye
kullanmak
+olurdu. DiÄer insanları özel mülk yazılım dünyasında yaÅamak için
+yüreklendirmek yeteneklerimi kötüye kullanmam anlamına gelirdi. Bu nedenle,
+yeteneklerimi kötüye kullanmak yerine harcamak daha iyidir ancak hâlâ yine
+de gerçekten de iyi deÄildir. </p>
+
+<p>Bu nedenlerden ötürü, baÅka bir alternatif aramaya karar verdim. Durumu
+gerçekten de geliÅtirecek olan bir iÅletim sistemi geliÅtiricisi dünyayı
+daha iyi bir yer haline getirmek için ne yapabilir? Ve gerçekten de gerekli
+olanın bir iÅletim sistemi geliÅtiricisi olduÄunu fark ettim. Problem ve
+ikilem benim için ve herkes için mevcuttu çünkü modern bilgisayarlara
+iliÅkin mevcut iÅletim sistemlerinin tümü özel mülkydi. Ãzgür iÅletim
+sistemleri eski, zamanı geçmiÅ bilgisayarlar içindi, deÄil mi? Bu nedenle
+modern bilgisayarlar için â modern bir bilgisayarı alıp kullanmak
+isterseniz, özel mülk bir iÅletim sistemi kullanmaya zorlanmaktaydınız. Bu
+nedenle bir iÅletim sistemi geliÅtiricisi baÅka bir iÅletim sistemi yazar
ve
+daha sonra Åunu derse: âHerkes gelsin ve bunu paylaÅsın; hoÅ geldinizâ
â bu,
+herkese ikilemden bir çıkıŠyolu, baÅka bir alternatif saÄlayacaktır. Bu
+nedenle, problemi çözebilecek bir Åeyler yapabileceÄimi fark ettim. Bunu
+yapmak için doÄru özelliklere sahiptim. Ve bu, hayatımla ilgili
+yapabileceÄimi hayal ettiÄim en yararlı Åeydi. Ve bu, baÅka hiç kimsenin
+çözmeye çalıÅmadıÄı bir problemdi. Bu yalnızca orada oturmak ve
iÅlerin
+kötüye gitmesini seyretmekti ve orada benden baÅka hiç kimse yoktu. Bu
+nedenle Åöyle hissettim: âBen seçildim. Bu konu üzerinde çalıÅmam
lazım. Ben
+deÄilsem kim çalıÅacak ki?â Bu nedenle, özgür bir iÅletim sistemi
+geliÅtirirken ya da geliÅtirmeye çalıÅırken...yaÅlı bir halde tabi ki
ölmeye
+karar verdim. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i></p>
+
+<p>Tabi ki, bunun nasıl bir iÅletim sistemi olması gerektiÄine karar vermem
+gerekiyordu. Bazı teknik tasarım kararlarının verilmesi gerekiyordu.
Belirli
+nedenlerden ötürü, sistemi Unix ile uyumlu bir sistem haline getirmeye karar
+verdim. Ä°lk olarak, gerçekten de sevdiÄim bir iÅletim sisteminin
kullanılmaz
+hale geldiÄini gördüm çünkü bu iÅletim sistemi, belirli bir bilgisayar
tipi
+için yazılmıÅtı. Bu durumun yeniden meydana gelmesini istemedim.
TaÅınabilir
+bir sistemimizin olması gerekiyordu. Unix taÅınabilir bir sistemdi. Bu
+nedenle, Unixâin tasarımını izleseydim, taÅınabilir ve
çalıÅtırılabilir bir
+sistem oluÅturma Åansına sahip olabilirdim. Ve dahası, <i>[kayıt
anlaÅılır
+deÄil]</i> ayrıntıda niçin uyumlu bir sistem olmasın ki? Bunun nedeni,
+kullanıcıların, uyumlu olmayan deÄiÅikliklerden nefret etmesidir. Sistemi
en
+sevdiÄim Åekilde tasarımlamıŠolsaydım ki böyle yapmak isterdim, eminim
ki â
+uyumlu olmayan bir Åeyler üretmiÅ olurdum. Ayrıntılar farklı olurdu. Bu
+nedenle sistemi yazsaydım, o zaman kullanıcılar bana Åunu diyeceklerdi:
âBu
+çok güzel, ancak uyumlu deÄil. GeçiÅ yapmak için çok fazla çalıÅma
+gerekiyor. Unix yerine sizin sisteminizi kullanmamız çok zorlayıcı, bu
+nedenle Unixâle çalıÅmaya devam edeceÄizâ.</p>
+
+<p>İçinde insanların, bu özgür sistemi kullanan ve özgürlüÄün ve
iÅbirliÄinin
+faydalarının tadını çıkaran insanların olduÄu bir topluluk oluÅturmak
+isteseydim, insanların kullanacaÄı, insanların kolay bir Åekilde
+dönebilecekleri ve baÅlangıçta baÅarısız olması için bir engelin
olmadıÄı
+bir sistem yapmak isterdim. Åimdi ise, sistemi Unix ile uyumlu hale
+getirmek, tasarım kararlarının tümünü gerçekleÅtirmiÅtir çünkü
Unix, birçok
+parçadan oluÅmaktadır ve bu parçalar, oldukça iyi bir Åekilde klavuzları
+yazılmıŠolan ara yüzler üzerinden haberleÅmektedir. Bu nedenle, Unix ile
+uyumlu olmak isterseniz, her bir parçayı birer birer uyumlu bir parça ile
+deÄiÅtirmeniz gereklidir. Bu nedenle, kalan tasarım kararları bir
parçanın
+içindedir ve söz konusu parçayı kim yazmaya karar verirse, o kiÅi
tarafından
+gerçekleÅtirilebilir. BaÅlangıçta gerçekleÅtirilmeleri gerekmez. </p>
+
+<p>ÃalıÅmayı baÅlatmak için tüm yapmamız gereken sistem için bir isim
+bulmaktı. Åimdi, biz hackerâlar, bir program için her zaman komik ya da
+haylaz bir isim ararız çünkü programın ismi ile eÄlenen insanları
düÅünmek,
+programı yazmanın eÄlencesinin yarısı kadardır. <i>[dinleyiciler
güler]</i>
+Ve sözcüklerin baÅ harflerinden oluÅan yinelemeli isimleri verme
geleneÄine
+sahiptik, bu, yazmakta olduÄunuz programın, mevcut bir programa benzer bir
+isme sahip olduÄu anlamına gelmektedir. Programınıza, Åunu söyleyen ve
+sözcüklerin baÅ harflerinden oluÅan (akronim) yinelemeli bir isim
+verebilirsiniz: bu, diÄeri deÄil. Böylece örneÄin, 1960âlarda ve
1970âlerde
+çok sayıda Tico metin editörü vardı ve bunlar genellikle birileri ya da
+diÄerleri TECO olarak adlandırılmaktaydı. Daha sonra akıllı bir hacker
bunu
+Tint olarak adlandırdı çünkü Tint, TECO DeÄildi â ilk yinelemeli
+kısaltmaydı. 1975 yılında, ilk Emacs metin editörünü geliÅtirdim ve
Emacsâin
+birçok taklidi vardı ve bunların birçoÄu biri ya da baÅka Emacs olarak
+adlandırıldı ancak biri Fine olarak adlandırıldı, çünkü Fine Emacs
DeÄildi
+ve Sine vardı çünkü Sine Emacs DeÄildi ve Eine, çünkü Eine Emacs
deÄildi ve
+MINCE çünkü Mince Tamamen Emacs DeÄildi. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i>
+DaraltılmıŠbir taklit vardı. Ve Eine daha sonra tamamen yeniden yazıldı
ve
+yeni sürüm Zwei olarak adlandırıldı, BaÅlangıçta Zwei Eine
+İdi. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i></p>
+
+<p>Bu nedenle, Bir Åeyler Unix deÄil (Somethingâs not Unix) için
yinelemeli bir
+akronim aradım. Ve 26 harfin tümünü denedim ve hiçbirinin bir sözcük
+oluÅturmadıÄını fark ettim. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Hım, baÅka bir
+yoldan denemeliydim. Bir küçültmeye karar verdim. Bu Åekilde, Bir Åeyler
+Unix deÄil için üç harfli bir akronimim oldu. Ve harfleri denedim ve
âGNUâ
+sözcüÄüyle karÅılaÅtım â âGNUâ sözcüÄü Ä°ngilizcedeki en
komik
+sözcüktür. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Bu oldu. Tabi ki, komik olmasının
+nedeni, sözlüÄe göre âyeniâ olarak telaffuz edilmesiydi. Ä°nsanların
onu
+kelime oyunu için kullanmasının nedeni de buydu. Ayrıca size söyleyeyim
ki,
+bu, Afrikaâda yaÅayan bir hayvanın adıdır. Ve Afrika telaffuzu, bu isim
+üzerinde bir tıklama sesine sahipti. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Belki de
+hâlâ öyledir. Ve böylece Avrupalı koloniciler, oraya vardıklarında, bu
+tıklama sesini söylemeyi öÄrenmekte sıkıntı çekmediler. Bu nedenle onu
orada
+bıraktılar ve bir âgâ yazdılar, bu da âtelaffuz etmediÄimiz baÅka
bir sesin
+burada olması gerektiÄiâ anlamına gelmekteydi. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]
</i>
+Bu nedenle, bu gece Güney Afrikaâya gidiyorum ve onlardan rica edeceÄim,
+umarım ki, bana tıklama seslerini telaffuz etmeyi öÄretecek birilerini
+bulabilirler <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> böylece GNUâyu, bu bir hayvan adı
+olduÄunda, doÄru Åekilde telaffuz etmeyi öÄreneceÄim.</p>
+
+<p>Ancak bu sistemimizin adı olduÄunda, doÄru telaffuz âguh-NEWâ dir,
sert
+âgâyi telaffuz edin. âYeniâ iÅletim sistemi hakkında
konuÅuyorsanız,
+insanların kafasını karıÅtıracaksınız çünkü halen bu konu hakkında
17 yıldır
+çalıÅıyoruz, yani bu konu artık yeni deÄil. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i>
+Ancak yine de yenidir ve her zaman da öyle olacaktır, GNU â kaç tane insan
+yanlıÅlıkla onu Linux olarak adlandırırsa adlandırsın. <i>[dinleyiciler
+güler]</i></p>
+
+<p>Bu nedenle, 1984 yılının Ocak ayında GNUânun parçalarını yazmak
için
+MITâdeki iÅimden ayrıldım1. Ancak imkânlarını kullanmama izin verecek
kadar
+kibardılar. Bu arada, tüm parçaları yazacaÄımızı ve komple bir GNU
sistemi
+yapabileceÄimizi düÅündüm ve daha sonra Åunu diyecektik: âGelin ve
alınâ ve
+insanlar, GNUâyu kullanmaya baÅlayacaklardı. Ancak durum böyle
+olmadı. YazdıÄım ilk parçalar, Unixâin bazı parçalarının yerine
eÅit
+derecede iyi bir Åekilde geçmekteydiler ve daha az hataya sahiptiler ancak
+ciddi ölçüde heyecan verici deÄildiler. Hiç kimse özellikle onları alıp
+kurmak istemiyordu. Ancak daha sonra 1984 yılının Eylül ayında GNU
Emacsâi
+yazmaya baÅladım, bu, Emacsâin ikinci implementasyonuydu ve 1985âin
+baÅlarında, çalıÅıyordu. Tüm düzenleme iÅlemlerim için GNU Emacsâı
+kullanabiliyordum, bu, büyük bir rahatlamaydı çünkü Unix editörü olan
viâyı
+öÄrenmeye hiç niyetim yoktu. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Bu nedenle, o
+zamana kadar, düzenleme iÅlemlerimi baÅka bir makinede yaptım ve dosyaları
+network üzerinden kaydettim, böylece dosyaları test edebiliyordum. Ancak GNU
+Emacs benim kullanabilmem için yeterince iyi bir Åekilde çalıÅtıÄında,
diÄer
+insanlar da onu kullanmak istemiÅtir.</p>
+
+<p>Bu nedenle, daÄıtımın ayrıntılarını çalıÅmam gerekti. Tabi ki,
yazarı
+bilinmeyen FTP dizinine bir kopya koydum ve nette olan insanlar için bu iyi
+bir durumdu â bir tar dosyasını taÅıyabiliyorlardı ancak 1985 yılında
nette
+çok sayıda programcı yoktu. âBir kopyasını nasıl temin edebilirim?â
diyen
+e-postalar gönderiyorlardı. Onları nasıl yanıtlayacaÄıma karar
+vermeliydim. Åunu diyebilirdim: âZamanımı daha fazla GNU yazılımı
yazarak
+harcamak istiyorum, bant yazarak zaman kaybetmek istemiyorum, bu nedenle
+İnternette olan ve yazılımı indirmek isteyen ve sizin için bir banda
koyacak
+olan bir arkadaÅ bulun,â ve eminim ki, er ya da geç insanlar birtakım
+arkadaÅlar bulacaktı. Kopyaları alacaklardı. Ancak bir taraftan da
+iÅsizdim. Gerçekte, 1984 yılının Ocak ayında MITâden ayrıldıÄımdan
beri
+iÅsizdim. Bu nedenle, özgür yazılım üzerindeki çalıÅmam sayesinde para
+kazanmanın bir yolunu aramaya baÅladım ve böylece bir özgür yazılım
iÅine
+baÅladım. Åu bildiride bulundum: âBana 150 dolar gönderin ve ben de size
+Emacsâın bandını yollayayım.â Ve sipariÅler gelmeye baÅladı.
Yılın ortası
+itibariyle sipariÅler arttı.</p>
+
+<p>Ayda 8 ilâ 10 arasında sipariŠalıyordum. Ve gerekli olursa, bu parayla
+geçinebilirdim çünkü her zaman az parayla yaÅamaya alıÅıktım. Temel
olarak
+bir öÄrenci gibi yaÅıyorum. Ve bunu seviyorum çünkü bu, paranın bana ne
+yapmam gerektiÄini söylemediÄi anlamına gelmektedir. Benim için neyin
önemli
+olduÄunu düÅünüyorsam onu yapabilirim. Bu, yapılmaya deÄer Åeyleri
yapmam
+konusunda beni özgür kıldı. Tipik Amerikalıların pahalı yaÅam
+alıÅkanlıklarına gömülmemi önlemek için gerçek bir çaba gösterdim.
Ãünkü
+pahalı yaÅarsanız (50), o zaman parası olan insanlar hayatınızla ilgili
+olarak ne yapmanız gerektiÄini zorla kabul ettirir. Sizin için gerçekten de
+önemli olan Åeyi yapamazsınız. </p>
+
+<p>Bu iyiydi ancak insanlar bana Åunu sormaktaydı: âBu yazılım 150 dolar
+tutuyorsa, nasıl özgür yazılım olur?â <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Bunu
+sormalarının nedeni, Ä°ngilizcedeki âfree (özgür - ücretsiz)â
sözcüÄünün
+çeÅitli anlamlarıyla kafalarının karıÅmasıydı. Bir anlamı fiyata ve
diÄer
+anlamı özgürlüÄe atıf yapmaktadır. Ãzgür yazılım dediÄimde,
özgürlükten
+bahsediyorum paradan deÄil. Ãzgür konuÅmayı düÅünün, ücretsiz birayı
+deÄil. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Åimdi yani, hayatımın bu kadar çok
yılını
+programcıların daha az para kazanmasını saÄlamaya adamadım. Hedefim bu
+deÄil. Ben bir programcıyım ve para kazanmaya çok önem vermiyorum. Tüm
+ömrümü para kazanmaya adamayacaÄım, para kazanmayı kafama takmıyorum.
Ancak
+â ahlak kuralları herkes için aynı olduÄundan â para kazanan baÅka
+programcılara karÅı deÄilim. Ãcretlerin düÅük olmasını istemiyorum.
Ãnemli
+olan konu bu deÄil. Burada önemli olan konu özgürlük. Kullanan kiÅi
+programcı olsun olmasın, yazılımı kullanan herkes için özgürlük.</p>
+
+<p>Bu noktada size özgür yazılımın tanımını vermeliyim. En iyisi bazı
gerçek
+ayrıntılara gireyim çünkü yalnızca âözgürlüÄe inanıyorumâ demek
+saçmadır. Ä°nanabileceÄiniz birçok farklı özgürlük mevcuttur ve bunlar
+birbiriyle çatıÅmaktadır, bu nedenle, gerçek politik soru Åudur: Ãnemli
+özgürlükler nelerdir, herkesin sahip olduÄundan emin olduÄumuz
özgürlükler
+midir?</p>
+
+<p>Åimdi, yazılımın kullanılmasına iliÅkin belirli alan için söz
konusu soruya
+iliÅkin cevabı vereceÄim. AÅaÄıdaki özgürlüklere sahipseniz, bir
program
+sizin için âözgür yazılımâdır:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Ä°lk olarak, Ãzgürlük Sıfır, programı istediÄiniz amaç için,
istediÄiniz
+Åekilde çalıÅtırabilme özgürlüÄüdür.</li>
+<li>Ãzgürlük Bir, programı ihtiyaçlarınıza uygun olacak Åekilde
deÄiÅtirebilme
+özgürlüÄüdür.</li>
+<li>Ãzgürlük Ä°ki, programın kopyalarını daÄıtarak komÅunuza yardım
edebilme
+özgürlüÄüdür.</li>
+<li>Ve son olarak Ãzgürlük Ãç, geliÅmiÅ sürümü yayınlayarak
topluluÄunuzu
+oluÅturma özgürlüÄüdür, böylece baÅkaları da çalıÅmalarınızdan
+faydalanabilir.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>Bu özgürlüklerin tümüne sahipseniz, program sizin için özgür
yazılımdır â ve
+bu önemlidir. Bunu bu Åekilde ifade etmemin nedeni budur. Bunun nedenini
+daha sonra, GNU Genel Kamu Lisansı hakkında konuÅtuÄumda açıklayacaÄım
ama
+Åimdi özgür yazılımın ne olduÄunu açıklayacaÄım, bu, çok daha
temel bir
+sorudur.</p>
+
+<p>Ãzgürlük Sıfır oldukça açıktır. Programı istediÄiniz herhangi
bir Åekilde
+çalıÅtırmanıza izin verilmezse, bu, oldukça kötü kısıtlayıcı bir
+programdır. Ancak gerçekte, birçok program size en azından Ãzgürlük
Sıfırı
+saÄlayacaktır. Ve Ãzgürlük Bir, Ä°ki ve Ãçün bir sonucu olarak yasal
biçimde
+Ãzgürlük Sıfır bu özgürlükleri izler â telif hakkı kanununun
çalıÅma biçimi
+budur. Ãzgür yazılımı tipik yazılımdan ayıran özgürlükler
Ãzgürlük Bir, Ä°ki
+ve Ãçtür, bu nedenle bu özgürlükleri ve niçin önemli olduklarını
+açıklayacaÄım.</p>
+
+<p>Ãzgürlük Bir, programı ihtiyaçlarınıza uygun olacak Åekilde
deÄiÅtirebilme
+özgürlüÄüdür. Bu özgürlük, hataların ayıklanması anlamına
gelebilir. Yeni
+özelliklerin eklenmesi anlamına da gelebilir. Tüm hata mesajlarının
+Navajoâya dönüÅtürülmesi anlamına gelebilir. Herhangi bir deÄiÅiklik
yapmak
+isterseniz, söz konusu deÄiÅikliÄi özgürce yapabilmelisiniz. </p>
+
+<p>Åimdi, profesyonel programcılar bu özgürlüÄü çok etkin bir Åekilde
+kullanabilir ancak profesyonel programcılar yalnızca bu özgürlüÄü
deÄil, tüm
+özgürlükleri etkin bir Åekilde kullanabilir. Akıllı bir kimse biraz
+programlama öÄrenebilir. Zor iÅler vardır ve kolay iÅler vardır ve çoÄu
+insan, zor iÅleri yapmaya yetecek kadar bilgi öÄrenmeyecektir. Ancak birçok
+insan, 50 yıl önce olduÄu gibi, kolay iÅleri yapmaya yetecek kadar bilgi
+öÄrenebilir, çok sayıda Amerikalı erkek, araba tamir etmeyi
öÄrenmiÅtir, bu
+durum da, ABD.ânin 2. Dünya SavaÅında motorize bir orduya sahip
olmasını ve
+savaÅı kazanmasını saÄlamıÅtır. Bu tip insanlara sahip olmak çok
önemlidir. </p>
+
+<p>Sosyal bir insansanız ve aslında teknolojiye hiç merakınız yoksa, bu
durum
+muhtemelen çok sayıda arkadaÅınızın olduÄu ve kendinize iyilik
yaptırmak
+konusunda iyi olduÄunuz anlamına gelmektedir. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Bu
+arkadaÅlardan bazıları muhtemelen programcılardır. Böylece
programlayıcı
+arkadaÅlarınızdan birine sorabilirsiniz. âLütfen bunu benim için
deÄiÅtirir
+misin? Bu özelliÄi ekler misin?â Böylece, çok sayıda insan programdan
+faydalanabilir.</p>
+
+<p>Åimdi, bu özgürlüÄe sahip deÄilseniz, bu, toplum için pratik ve maddi
+kayıplara neden olur. Sizi, programınızın bir kölesi haline getirir. Lazer
+yazıcısına göre bunun nasıl bir Åey olduÄunu açıklamıÅtım. Bu,
bizim için
+kötü bir Åekilde çalıÅmıÅtır ve bu sorunu gideremezdik çünkü
yazılımımızın
+kölesiydik.</p>
+
+<p>Ama ayrıca bu durum, insanların moralini de etkilemektedir. Bilgisayarın
+kullanılması sürekli olarak hayal kırıklıÄına uÄratıcı bir durum
+oluÅturuyorsa ve insanlar onu kullanıyorsa, yaÅamları da hayal
kırıklıÄı
+içinde olacaktır ve bunu iÅlerinde kullanıyorlarsa, iÅleri de onları
hayal
+kırıklıÄına uÄratacaktır ve iÅlerinden nefret edeceklerdir. Ve
biliyorsunuz,
+insanlar bir konu hakkında hayal kırıklıÄına uÄramamak için, o konuya
önem
+vermemeyi tercih eder. Böylece yaklaÅımları Åu Åekilde olan insanlarla
+karÅılaÅırsınız: âBugün iÅimle uÄraÅtım. Tüm yapmam gereken de
+buydu. Ä°lerleme kaydedemezsem, bu benim problemim deÄildir; bu, patronumun
+problemidir.â Ve bu durum meydana geldiÄinde, bu, bu insanlar için
kötüdür
+ve bu, toplumun bütünü için kötüdür. Bu, Ãzgürlük Birdir, kendinize
yardım
+etme özgürlüÄüdür. </p>
+
+<p>Ãzgürlük Ä°ki, programınızın kopyalarını daÄıtarak komÅunuza
yardım etme
+özgürlüÄünüzdür. Åimdi, düÅünebilen ve öÄrenebilen canlılar
için, yararlı
+bilginin paylaÅılması önemli bir arkadaÅlık iÅlevidir. Bu canlılar
+bilgisayarı kullandıkları zaman, bu arkadaÅlık iÅlevi yazılımın
paylaÅılması
+biçimini almaktadır. ArkadaÅlar birbirleriyle birçok Åeyi
+paylaÅmaktadır. ArkadaÅlar birbirine yardım eder. Bu, arkadaÅlıÄın
doÄasında
+vardır. Ve aslında, bu iyi niyet ruhu â komÅunuza yardım etme ruhu,
gönüllü
+olarak â toplumun en önemli kaynaÄıdır. YaÅanabilir bir toplumla vahÅi
bir
+toplum arasındaki farkı oluÅturur. Binlerce yıldır dünyadaki büyük
dinler
+tarafından paylaÅmanın önemi fark edilmiÅtir ve açık bir Åekilde bu
+davranıÅı yüreklendirmeye çalıÅmaktadırlar.</p>
+
+<p>Anaokuluna giderken, öÄretmenlerimiz bize bu yaklaÅımı benimsetmeye
+çalıÅıyordu â paylaÅmamızı saÄlayarak paylaÅmanın ruhunu
benimsememizi
+istiyorlardı. PaylaÅırsak bunu öÄrenebileceÄimizi anlamıÅlardı. Bu
nedenle
+Åöyle söylemekteydiler: âOkula Åeker getirirseniz, hepsini kendiniz
+yememelisiniz; bir kısmını baÅka çocuklarla paylaÅmalısınız.â
Toplum, bu
+iÅbirliÄi ruhunu öÄretmek için kurulmuÅtu. Ve niçin bunu yapmanız
+gereklidir? Ãünkü insanların hepsi iÅbirliÄi yapma taraftarı deÄildir.
Bu,
+insan ruhunun bir parçasıdır ve insan ruhunun baÅka parçaları da
+vardır. Ä°nsan doÄasının çok sayıda parçası vardır. Bu nedenle, daha
iyi bir
+toplum istiyorsanız, paylaÅma ruhunu cesaretlendirmek için çalıÅmanız
+gereklidir. Bu, hiçbir zaman % 100 olamayacaktır. Bu, anlaÅılabilir bir
+durumdur. İnsanların kendilerine de özen göstermeleri gereklidir. Ancak
bunu
+biraz daha büyütebilirsek, hepimiz daha iyi durumda olacaÄız. </p>
+
+<p>Bugünlerde, ABD hükümetine göre, öÄretmenler bunun tam tersini
+yapmaktadır. âJohnny, yazılımı okula getirdin. PaylaÅma. Hayır.
PaylaÅmak
+yanlıÅtır. PaylaÅmak senin bir korsan olduÄun anlamına gelir.â</p>
+
+<p> âKorsanâ dediklerinde ne demek isterler? KomÅunuza yardım etmenin bir
+gemiye saldırmakla ahlaki açıdan eÅ deÄer olduÄunu
+söylerler. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i></p>
+
+<p>Buda ya da Ä°sa bu konuda ne diyor? Åimdi en sevdiÄiniz dini lideri ele
+alın. Bilmiyorum, belki de Manson farklı bir Åeyler söyler.
<i>[dinleyiciler
+güler]</i> L. Ron Hubbardâın ne söyleyeceÄini kim bilir ki? Ama
…</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: <i>[Ä°Åitilememektedir]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tabi ki, o ölmüÅtür. Ama bunu kabul
+etmezler. Nedir?</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>:ÃlmüŠolan baÅkaları da vardır. <i>[dinleyiciler
+güler]</i> <i>[Ä°Åitilememektedir]</i> Charles Manson da
+ölüdür. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Onlar ölüdür, İsa ölüdür, Buda
+ölüdür…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>:Evet, bu doÄru. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Bu
+nedenle tahmin ediyorum ki, bu anlamda, L. Ron Hubbard diÄerlerinden daha
+kötü deÄil. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Her neyse â
<i>[Ä°Åitilemez]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>:L. Ron her zaman özgür yazılım kullandı â bu,
onu
+Zanuâdan kurtardı. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Her neyse, zannediyorum ki, bu, yazılımın
özgür
+olmasının gerekli olmasının en önemli nedenidir: toplumun en önemli
+kaynaÄını kirletemeyiz. Bunun temiz hava ve temiz su gibi fiziksel bir
+kaynak olmadıÄı doÄrudur. Psikososyal bir kaynaktır ancak tüm bunlar
için
+gerçektir ve hayatlarımızda büyük bir fark yaratmaktadır. YaptıÄımız
+hareketler baÅka insanların düÅüncelerini etkilemektedir. Ä°nsanlara
+âBirbirinizle paylaÅmayınâ dersek ve onlar da bizi dinlerlerse, toplum
+üzerinde bir etkimiz olacaktır ve bu, iyi bir etki deÄildir. Bu, Ãzgürlük
+Ä°kidir, komÅunuza yardım etme özgürlüÄünüzdür.</p>
+
+<p>Bu arada, söz konusu özgürlüÄe sahip deÄilseniz, bu, yalnızca
toplumun
+psikososyal kaynaÄına zarar vermekle kalmaz ayrıca harcama uygulamalı,
maddi
+zarara da neden olur. Programın bir sahibi varsa ve bu sahip, kullanmak için
+ödemesinin gerekli olduÄu gidiÅatı düzenlerse, bazı insanlar Åunu
+diyeceklerdir: âKafana takma, onsuz da yapabilirimâ. Ve bu boÅa
harcamadır,
+kasıtlı olarak boÅa harcamaya neden olmaktadır. Ve tabi ki yazılım
+hakkındaki ilginç Åey, daha az kullanıcının daha az malzeme
oluÅturmanız
+gerektiÄi anlamına gelmemesidir. Daha az sayıda insan araba satın alırsa,
+daha az sayıda araba yapabilirsiniz. Burada bir tasarruf vardır. Araba
+yapımı için tahsis edilecek ya da tahsis edilmeyecek kaynaklar
+vardır. Böylece bir arabanın fiyatının olmasının iyi bir Åey olduÄunu
+söyleyebilirsiniz. Gerçekten de ihtiyaç duyulmayan arabaların yapılması
için
+kaynaklar harcanmamıŠolur. Ancak her bir ilâve araba hiçbir kaynaÄı
+kullanmasaydı, o zaman bu arabaların yapılmasından tasarruf
saÄlanmasının
+bir anlamı olmayacaktı. Arabalar gibi fiziksel nesneler için, ilâve
+nesneler, her bir numuneyi üretmek için kaynaklar kullanılacaktır.</p>
+
+<p>Ancak yazılım için bu durum doÄru deÄildir. Herhangi biri, baÅka bir
kopya
+oluÅturabilir. Ve bunun yapılması hemen hemen önemsizdir. Hiçbir kaynaÄı
+gerektirmez, yalnızca çok azıcık elektrik gerektirir. Bu nedenle
tasarrufunu
+yapabileceÄimiz bir Åey yoktur, yazılımın kullanımı üzerindeki bu
finansal
+engelleyiciyi koyarak daha iyi tahsis edebileceÄimiz bir kaynak
+yoktur. İnsanların yazılıma uygulanmayan dayanak noktalarını esas alarak
+çoÄunlukla ekonomik muhakemenin sonuçlarını deÄerlendirdiÄini ve dayanak
+noktalarının uygulanabildiÄi hayatın baÅka alanlarından nakletmeye
+çalıÅtıklarını fark edersiniz ve sonuçlar geçerli olabilir. Ä°ddia
hiçbir
+Åeyi esas almadıÄında ve yazılım söz konusu olduÄunda, sonuçları
alırlar ve
+yazılım için de geçerli olduÄunu varsayarlar. Dayanak noktaları bu
durumda
+çalıÅmaz. Nerede geçerli olabildiÄinin görülmesi için bu sonuca nasıl
+ulaÅtıÄınızın ve hangi dayanak noktalarına baÄlı olduÄunun
incelenmesi çok
+önemlidir. Bu nedenle, bu Ãzgürlük Ä°kidir, komÅunuza yardım edebilme
+özgürlüÄünüzdür. </p>
+
+<p>Ãzgürlük Ãç, yazılımın geliÅmiÅ bir sürümünü yayınlayarak
kendi
+topluluÄunuzu oluÅturma özgürlüÄünüzdür. Ä°nsanlar bana Åunu
söylemekteydi:
+âYazılım özgür olursa, o zaman yazılım konusunda çalıÅmak için
kimse para
+almayacaktır, o zaman insanlar yazılım konusunda neden çalıÅsınlar?â
Tabi
+ki, özgür kelimesinin anlamını karıÅtırmaktadırlar, bu nedenle
+deÄerlendirmeleri bir yanlıŠanlamayı esas almaktadır. Ancak, her durumda,
+bu, onların teorisidir. Bugün, teoriyi deneysel gerçekle
karÅılaÅtırabiliriz
+ve yüzlerce insana özgür yazılım yazmak için para ödenmekte olduÄu ve
+100,000âden fazla insanın ise gönüllü olarak çalıÅtıÄı gerçeÄini
+görürüz. Birçok farklı nedenle özgür yazılım üzerinde çalıÅan
çok sayıda
+insan vardır.</p>
+
+<p>GNU Emacsâı â insanların gerçekten de kullanmak istediÄi ilk GNU
sistem
+parçasıdır â ilk olarak yayınladıÄım zaman ve kullanıcıları olmaya
baÅladıÄı
+zaman, bir süre sonra, Åu gibi mesajlar aldım: âKaynak kodunda bir hata
+gördüm ve iÅte bu da çözümü.â Ve baÅka bir mesaj daha aldım, âBu,
yeni bir
+özellik ekleme kodu.â Ve baÅka bir hata düzeltmesi daha aldım. Ve baÅka
bir
+yeni özellik daha aldım. Ve daha da baÅka mesajlar geldi, o kadar çok mesaj
+geldi ki, bu kadar çok yardımın kullanılması büyük bir iÅti.
Microsoftâun
+böyle bir problemi yoktur. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i></p>
+
+<p>Sonunda, insanlar bu fenomeni kaydetti. 1980âlerde, birçoÄumuz özgür
+yazılımın özgür olmayan yazılım kadar iyi olmayacaÄını düÅündü
çünkü
+insanlara ödeme yapmak için çok paramız olmayacaktı. Ve tabi ki benim gibi
+özgürlüÄe ve topluma deÄer veren insanlar Åunu dedi: âÃzgür
yazılımı her
+Åekilde kullanacaÄız.â ÃzgürlüÄe sahip olmak için yalnızca
birtakım teknik
+elveriÅlilik konusunda biraz fedakarlık yapmaya deÄer. Ancak insanlar 1990
+yılı civarında yazılımımızın gerçekte daha iyi olduÄunu söylemeye
+baÅladı. Ãzgür yazılım, özel mülk alternatiflerinden daha güçlü ve
+güvenilirdi. </p>
+
+<p>1990âların baÅında, birileri, yazılımın güvenilirliÄinin bilimsel
ölçümüne
+iliÅkin bir yol buldu. Ä°Åte Åimdi bahsedeceklerimi yaptı. Farklı
sistemlerde
+aynı iÅleri â tam olarak aynı iÅleri â yapan çeÅitli
karÅılaÅtırılabilir
+program gruplarını aldı. Ãünkü belirli Unix benzeri temel özellikler
+mevcuttu. Ve yaptıkları iÅler az çok aynı Åeydi â ya da POSIX
+spesifikasyonunu izliyorlardı â böylece yaptıkları iÅler anlamında
tümü
+aynıydı; ancak farklı insanlar tarafından sorunları gideriliyordu ve ayrı
+olarak yazılmıÅlardı. Kod farklıydı. Bu nedenle, Åunu diyorlardı: bu
+programları alacak ve rastgele veriyle çalıÅtıracaÄız ve ne sıklıkta
+çakıldıklarını ölçeceÄiz. Böylece bunu ölçtüler ve en güvenilir
program
+grubu GNU programları oldu. özel mülk yazılım olan tüm ticari
alternatifler
+çok daha az güvenilirdi. Bu nedenle bunu yayınladı ve tüm geliÅtiricilere
+anlattı. Birkaç yıl sonra, aynı deneyi en yeni sürümlerle de yaptı ve
aynı
+sonucu elde etti. GNU sürümleri en güvenilir olanlardı. BildiÄiniz gibi,
GNU
+sistemini kullanan kanser klinikleri ve 911 operasyonları vardır çünkü GNU
+çok güvenilirdir ve güvenilirlik onlar için çok önemlidir. </p>
+
+<p>Her neyse, kullanıcıların bu çeÅitli Åeyleri yapmasına niçin izin
verilmesi
+gerektiÄi ve bu özgürlüklere sahip olması gerektiÄine iliÅkin temel
neden
+olarak bu belirli faydaya odaklanan bir insan grubu bile vardır. Beni
+dinliyorsanız, özgür yazılım hareketi için konuÅursak, nasıl bir
toplumun
+içinde yaÅamak istediÄimiz ve etik, iyi bir toplumun nasıl oluÅturulduÄu
ve
+pratik ve maddi çıkarlar gibi hususlar hakkında konuÅtuÄumu fark
+edersiniz. Bunlar çok önemlidir. Bu, özgür yazılım hareketidir. </p>
+
+<p>Açık kaynak hareketi â olarak adlandırılan bu diÄer insan grubu
yalnızca
+pratik çıkarlardan bahsetmektedir. Bunun bir ilke hususu olduÄunu inkar
+etmektedirler. Ä°nsanların komÅularıyla paylaÅma, programın ne
yaptıÄını
+görme ve sevmedikleri durumda programı deÄiÅtirme özgürlüÄüne sahip
olduÄunu
+inkar ederler. Ancak insanların bu özgürlüklere sahip olmasının iyi bir
Åey
+olduÄunu söylerler. Böylece firmalara giderler ve onlara Åunu derler:
+âÄ°nsanların bunları yapmasına izin verirseniz, daha fazla para
+kazanabilirsiniz.â Bu nedenle, görebileceÄiniz Åey, belirli bir dereceye
+kadar budur, insanları benzer bir yöne sürerler ancak tamamıyla farklı â
+temel olarak farklı felsefi nedenler için bunu yaparlar. </p>
+
+<p>En derin husus olarak, etik soruda, iki hareket birbiriyle uyumsuzdur.
Ãzgür
+yazılım hareketinde Åunu deriz: âBu özgürlükler hakkınızdır.
Ä°nsanlar, bu
+Åeyleri yapmanızı engellememelidir.â Açık kaynak hareketinde, Åunu
derler:
+âEvet, isterlerse sizi durdurabilirler ancak bu Åeyleri yapmanız için size
+izin vermelerine tenezzül etmeleri için onları ikna etmeye
çalıÅacaÄız.â
+Bunu gerçekleÅtirdiler â belirli sayıda iÅyerini önemli yazılım
parçalarını,
+topluluÄumuzda özgür yazılım olarak yayınlamaya ikna ettiler. Açık
kaynak
+hareketi, topluluÄumuza büyük oranda katkıda bulunmuÅtur ve pratik
+projelerde [onlarla] birlikte çalıÅırız. Ancak felsefi olarak, burada,
büyük
+bir anlaÅmazlık mevcuttur.</p>
+
+<p>Maalesef, açık kaynak hareketi, iÅ hayatının en çok desteÄini alan
+harekettir ve çalıÅmamız hakkındaki birçok makale onu açık kaynak
olarak
+tanımlamaktadır ve çok sayıda insan, açık kaynak hareketinin bir
parçası
+olduÄumuzu düÅünmektedir. Bu nedenle, bu, bu ayrımı yapmamın
+nedenidir. TopluluÄumuzu oluÅturan ve özgür iÅletim sistemini geliÅtiren
+özgür yazılım hareketinin hâlâ burada olduÄunu bilmenizi isterim â ve
biz,
+bu etik felsefenin tarafını tutacaÄız. Bunu bilmenizi isterim, bilmeden
+baÅka birilerini yanlıŠyönlendirmenizi istemem.</p>
+
+<p>Ancak ayrıca, nerede durduÄunuzu da bilmenizi isterim.</p>
+
+<p>Hangi hareketi desteklediÄiniz size kalmıÅtır. Ãzgür yazılım
hareketleriyle
+ve benim görüÅlerimle aynı fikirde olabilirsiniz. Açık kaynak hareketiyle
+aynı fikirde olabilirsiniz. Ama her ikisiyle de farklı fikirlerde de
+olabilirsiniz. Bu politik alanlarda nerede duracaÄınıza karar verin.</p>
+
+<p>Ancak özgür yazılım hareketiyle fikir birliÄi içindeyseniz â
yaÅamları bu
+karar tarafından kontrol edilen ve yönlendirilen insanların bu konuda bir
+fikir sahibi olmayı hak ettiklerini görürseniz â o zaman umarım ki,
özgür
+yazılım hareketiyle fikir birliÄi içinde olduÄunuzu söyleyeceksiniz ve
bunu
+yapmanızın bir yolu, âözgür yazılımâ terimini kullanmak ve
insanların bizim
+var olduÄumuzu bilmelerini saÄlamaya yardımcı olmaktır.</p>
+
+<p>Bu nedenle, Ãzgürlük Ãç hem pratik olarak hem de psikososyal olarak
çok
+önemlidir. Bu özgürlüÄe sahip deÄilseniz, bu, pratik maddi zarara neden
+olmaktadır çünkü bu topluluk geliÅimi gerçekleÅmez ve güçlü ve
güvenilir
+yazılım hazırlayamayız. Ayrıca, psikososyal zarara da neden olur, bu da
+bilimsel iÅbirliÄinin ruhunu etkiler â bu, insanlıÄın ortak bilgi
birikimini
+geliÅtirmek için birlikte çalıÅma fikridir. GördüÄünüz gibi,
bilimdeki
+ilerleme insanların birlikte çalıÅabilme gücüne baÄlıdır. Ancak
bugünlerde,
+her bir küçük bilim adamı grubunun her bir bilim adamı ve mühendis
takımıyla
+bir savaÅtaymıŠgibi davrandıÄını görürsünüz. Ancak birbirleriyle
paylaÅımda
+bulunmazlarsa, tümü geride tutulmuŠolur.</p>
+
+<p>Böylece, bunlar, özgür yazılımı tipik yazılımdan ayıran üç
+özgürlüktür. Ãzgürlük Bir, yazılımı kendi ihtiyaçlarınıza göre
+deÄiÅtirebilme özgürlüÄüdür. Ãzgürlük Ä°ki, kopyaları daÄıtarak
komÅunuza
+yardım edebilme özgürlüÄüdür. Ve Ãzgürlük Ãç, deÄiÅiklik yaparak
ve diÄer
+insanların kullanması için yayınlayarak topluluÄunuzun oluÅmasına
yardım
+edebilme özgürlüÄüdür. Tüm bu özgürlüklere sahipseniz, bu program
sizin için
+özgür yazılımdır. Åimdi, bunu niçin belirli bir kullanıcı
açısından bu
+Åekilde tanımlamıyorum? Bu, sizin için özgür yazılım mıdır?
+<i>[Dinleyicilerden birini gösterir.]</i> Bu, sizin için özgür yazılım
+mıdır? <i>[BaÅka bir dinleyiciyi gösterir.]</i> Bu, sizin için özgür
yazılım
+mıdır? <i>[BaÅka bir dinleyiciyi gösterir.]</i> Evet?</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Ãzgürlük Ä°ki ile Ãzgürlük Ãç arasındaki
fark hakkında
+biraz bilgi verir misiniz? <i>[iÅitilemiyor]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>:Kesinlikle aralarında bir iliÅki vardır
çünkü
+daÄıtma özgürlüÄünüz yoksa, kesinlikle deÄiÅtirilmiÅ bir sürümü
daÄıtma
+özgürlüÄünüz de yoktur ancak bunlar farklı iÅlemlerdir.</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>:Oh.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Ãzgürlük Ä°ki, biliyorsunuz, okursunuz, bir
+kopyasını hazırlarsınız ve arkadaÅlarınıza verirsiniz, böylece Åimdi
+arkadaÅınız da kullanabilir. Ya da belki de kopyalar hazırlayabilir ve
+onları bir grup insana satabilirsiniz ve onlar da bu yazılımı
+kullanabilirler.</p>
+
+<p>Ãzgürlük Ãç, geliÅtirme yaptıÄınız â ya da en azından
geliÅtirme yaptıÄınızı
+düÅündüÄünüz ve bazı insanların sizinle farklı fikirde olduÄu
+özgürlüktür. Bu nedenle, fark budur. Bu arada, önemli bir nokta:
Ãzgürlük
+Bir ve Ãç, kaynak koduna eriÅiminize baÄlıdır. Ãünkü âyalnızca
ikiliâ
+[:binary-only] olan bir programın deÄiÅtirilmesi çok zordur
<i>[dinleyiciler
+güler]</i> â tarih için dört basamak kullanmak gibi basit deÄiÅiklikler
bile
+â kaynak koduna sahip deÄilseniz, çok zordur. Bu nedenle, zorlama için,
+uygulamadaki nedenler için, kaynak koduna eriÅim, özgür yazılım için
bir ön
+Åarttır, bir Åarttır. </p>
+
+<p>Böylece, bunu niçin <em>sizin için</em> özgür yazılım olup
olmadıÄı
+cinsinden tanımlıyorum? Bunun nedeni, bazen aynı yazılımın bazı insanlar
+için özgür yazılımken, diÄerleri için özgür olmayan yazılım
+olabilmesidir. Åimdi, bu paradoksal bir durum gibi görünebilir, bu nedenle
+bu durumun nasıl meydana geldiÄini size göstereyim. Ãok büyük bir
örnek, bu
+probleme iliÅkin çok büyük bir örnek â belki de en büyük örnek â X
Window
+Sistemidir, bu sistem MITâde geliÅtirilmiÅtir ve kendisini özgür
yazılım
+haline getiren bir lisans altında yayınlanmıÅtır. MIT lisansıyla beraber
MIT
+sürümünü aldıysanız, Ãzgürlük Bir, Ä°ki ve Ãçe sahipsiniz. Bu,
sizin için
+özgür yazılımdır. Ancak kopyaları alanların arasında, Unix sistemlerini
+daÄıtan çeÅitli bilgisayar üreticileri mevcuttur ve sistemleri üzerinde
+çalıÅtırmak için Xâte gerekli deÄiÅiklikleri yapmıÅlardır.
BildiÄiniz gibi,
+bu, Xâin yüz binlerce satırından yalnızca birkaç bin satırdır. Ve daha
+sonra, onu derlemiÅlerdir ve ikilileri (binary) Unix sistemine koymuÅlardır
+ve Unix sisteminin geri kalanı gibi aynı gizlilik sözleÅmesi altında
+daÄıtmıÅlardır. Ve daha sonra, milyonlarca insan bu kopyaları
almıÅtır. X
+Window Sistemine sahiptiler ancak bu özgürlüklerin hiçbirine sahip
+deÄildiler. Bu, <em>onlar</em> için özgür yazılım deÄildi.</p>
+
+<p>Bu nedenle, buradaki paradoks, ölçümü nerede yaptıÄınıza baÄlı
olarak Xâin
+özgür yazılım olup olmamasıydı. GeliÅtiricilerin grubundan gelen
ölçümü
+yaptıysanız, Åunu diyebilirdiniz: âTüm bu özgürlükleri
gözlemliyorum. Bu,
+özgür yazılımdır.â Ãlçümleri kullanıcılar arasında yaptıysanız,
Åunu
+diyecektiniz: âBirçok kullanıcı bu özgürlüklere sahip deÄil. Bu,
özgür
+yazılım deÄil.â Xâi geliÅtirmiÅ insanlar bunu bir sorun olarak
görmezler
+çünkü hedefleri, esasen yalnızca popülerlik egosudur. Büyük bir
profesyonel
+baÅarı istemektedirler. Åunu hissetmek isterler: âÃok sayıda insan bizim
+yazılımımızı kullanıyor.â Ve bu, doÄrudur. Ãok sayıda insan
yazılımlarını
+kullanıyordu ancak özgürlüÄe sahip deÄildi. </p>
+
+<p>GNU Projesinde, GNU yazılımının baÅına aynı Åey gelseydi, bu bir
sorun
+olurdu çünkü tek hedefimiz popüler olmak deÄil insanlara özgürlük
saÄlamak,
+iÅbirliÄini yüreklendirmek ve insanların iÅbirliÄi yapmalarını
+saÄlamaktır. Unutmayın, hiç kimseyi baÅka herhangi bir insanla iÅbirliÄi
+yapmaya zorlamayın ancak herkesin iÅbirliÄi yaptıÄından emin olun,
isterse
+herkes bu özgürlüÄe sahiptir. Milyonlarca insan GNUânun özgür olmayan
+sürümlerini çalıÅtırıyorsa, bu, bir baÅarı olmayacaktır. Her Åey,
hedefe
+benzemeyen bir yola sapacaktır.</p>
+
+<p>Bu nedenle, bu durumun meydana gelmemesi için bir yol aradım. Sonunda
+bulduÄum metot, âcopyleftâ olarak adlandırılan metottu. Bu metot,
copyleft
+olarak adlandırılıyordu çünkü telif hakkını alıp ters çevirmek
+Åeklindeydi. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Yasal olarak, copyleft, telif
+hakkını esas alarak çalıÅmaktadır. Mevcut telif hakkı kanununu
+kullanmaktayız ancak bunu, çok farklı bir amacı saÄlamak için
+kullanırız. Ä°Åte Åunu yaparız. Deriz ki, âBu program telif hakkına
+tâbidirâ. Ve tabi ki, ön tanımlı olarak, bu, programın
kopyalanmasının,
+daÄıtılmasının ya da deÄiÅtirilmesinin yasak olduÄu anlamına
+gelmektedir. Ancak daha sonra, Åunu deriz: âBunun kopyalarını daÄıtma
+yetkiniz var. Programı deÄiÅtirme yetkiniz var. deÄiÅtirilmiÅ ve
+geniÅletilmiÅ sürümleri daÄıtma hakkınız var. Ä°stediÄiniz gibi
deÄiÅtirin.â</p>
+
+<p>Ancak bir Åart vardır. Ve bu Åart tabi ki, Åartı içine koymamız
için tüm bu
+zorluklara girmemizin nedenidir. Åart Åunu söyler: bu programın herhangi
bir
+parçasını içeren herhangi bir Åeyi daÄıttıÄınızda, tüm program bu
aynı
+ifadelerle daÄıtılmalıdır, daha fazla ya da daha azı olmamalıdır. Bu
+nedenle, programı deÄiÅtirebilir ve deÄiÅtirilmiÅ sürümü
daÄıtabilirsiniz
+ancak bunu yaptıÄınızda, bunu sizden alan insanlar, sizin bizden
aldıÄınız
+özgürlükle aynı özgürlüÄü almalıdır. Ve yalnızca programımızdan
+kopyaladıÄınız kısımlar için deÄil, ayrıca sizden aldıkları söz
konusu
+programın diÄer kısımları için de bu durum geçerlidir. Söz konusu
programın
+tümü, onlar için özgür yazılım olmalıdır.</p>
+
+<p>Bu programın deÄiÅtirilmesi ve yeniden daÄıtılmasına iliÅkin
özgürlükler,
+geri alınamaz haklar haline gelmektedir â bu, BaÄımsızlık Deklarasyonuna
+iliÅkin bir kavramdır. Emin olduÄunuz haklar sizden alınamaz. Copyleft
+fikrini yapılandıran spesifik lisans, GNU Genel Kamu Lisansıdır, bu,
+tartıÅmaya yol açan bir lisanstır çünkü gerçekten de topluluÄumuzda
parazit
+gibi davranan kimselere hayır deme gücüne sahiptir.</p>
+
+<p>ÃzgürlüÄün ideallerini takdir etmeyen çok sayıda insan mevcuttur. Ve
bu
+insanlar, yapmıŠolduÄumuz çalıÅmaları alma ve özgür olmayan bir
programı
+daÄıtma konusunda yeni bir baÅlangıç yapma ve insanların
özgürlüklerini
+bıraktırma konusunda çok çaba sarf etmektedir ve bunu
gerçekleÅtirdiklerinde
+çok mutlu olacaklardır. Sonuç olarak â bu insanların bunu yapmalarına
izin
+verirsek â bu özgür programları geliÅtiriyor olacaÄız ve kendi
+programlarımızın geliÅmiÅ sürümleriyle sürekli olarak rekabet etmek
zorunda
+kalacaÄız. Bu, eÄlenceli bir durum deÄildir. </p>
+
+<p>Ayrıca çok sayıda insan Åu duyguya kapılmaktadır: âZamanımı
gönüllü olarak
+topluluÄa adamak istiyorum ama niçin zamanımı gönüllü olarak söz konusu
+firmanın özel mülk programına adayayım?â Bazı insanlar bunun kötü
olmadıÄını
+bile düÅünebilir ancak bunu yapacaklarda kendilerine para ödenmesini
+isterler. Ben, kiÅisel olarak, bunu hiç yapmazdım bile. </p>
+
+<p>Ancak bu insan grubunun her ikisinin de â benim gibi Åunu diyenler:
+âTopluluÄumuzda saÄlam bir yer edinmek isteyen bu özgür olmayan programa
+yardım etmek istemiyorumâ ya da Åunu diyenler: âOnlar için
çalıÅırım ama o
+zaman bana para ödemeleri gerekirâ, her iki grubun da GNU Genel Kamu
+Lisansını kullanması için iyi bir nedeni vardır. Ãünkü bu o firmaya
Åunu
+der: âBenim çalıÅmamı alıp özgürlüÄü olmayan bir Åekilde
+daÄıtamazsınâ. Bununla birlikte, X Windows lisansı gibi copyleft olmayan
+lisanslar buna izin vermektedir. </p>
+
+<p>Lisans bakımından bu, iki özgür yazılım kategorisi arasındaki büyük
+ayrımdır. Lisansın her kullanıcı için yazılımın özgürlüÄünü
korumasını
+saÄlayacaÄı Åekilde copyleft edilen programlar vardır. Ve özgür olmayan
+sürümlerin izin verildiÄi copyleft edilmeyen programlar mevcuttur. Söz
+konusu programın özgürlüÄünü kaldırabilirsiniz. Ãzgür olmayan
sürümlerde
+edinebilirsiniz. </p>
+
+<p>Ve bu problem günümüzde de mevcuttur. X Windowsâun özgür olmayan
sürümleri
+hâlâ özgür iÅletim sistemlerinde kullanılmaktadır. X Windowsâun
özgür
+olmayan sürümü hariç olmak üzere gerçekten de desteklenmeyen donanımlar
bile
+mevcuttur. Ve bu, topluluÄumuzda büyük bir problemdir. Bununla birlikte, X
+Windowsâun kötü bir Åey olduÄunu söyleyemem. GeliÅtiricilerin
+yapabilecekleri olası en iyi Åeyi yapmadıklarını söyleyebilirim. Ancak
+hepimizin kullanabileceÄi çok sayıda yazılım yayınlamıÅlardır. </p>
+
+<p>Mükemmelden daha azı ile kötü arasında büyük bir fark vardır. İyi
ve kötünün
+birçok derecesi vardır. Mutlak olarak olası en iyi Åeyi yapmadıysan, o
zaman
+iyi deÄilsin gibi ayartıcı ifadelere karÅı koymalıyız. X Windowsâu
+geliÅtiren insanlar topluluÄumuza büyük bir katkıda bulunmuÅtur. Ancak
daha
+iyi yapabilecekleri bir Åeyler vardır. Programın bazı parçalarını
copyleft
+edebilirlerdi ve özgürlüÄü inkâr eden sürümlerin baÅkaları
tarafından
+daÄıtılmasını önleyebilirlerdi. </p>
+
+<p>GNU Genel Kamu Lisansıânın özgürlüÄünüzü koruduÄu ve
özgürlüÄünüzü korumak
+için telif hakkı kanununu kullandıÄı gerçeÄi, tabi ki, bugün
Microsoftâun
+ona saldırmasının nedenidir. Görüyorsunuz, Microsoft, yazdıÄımız
kodların
+tümünü almak ve özel mülk programlarına koymak istemektedir, birilerine
+geliÅtirme yapmak istemektedir, ya da yalnızca uyumsuz deÄiÅikliklere
+ihtiyaç duyarlar. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i></p>
+
+<p>Microsoftâun pazarlama gücüyle, sürümlerinin bizimkilerin yerine
geçmesi
+için daha iyi bir yazılım oluÅturmaları gerekmez. Tek yapmaları gereken
+farklı ve uyumsuz bir yazılım hazırlamaktır. Ve daha sonra bunu herkesin
+masaüstüne koymaktır. Bu nedenle gerçekte GNU GPLâyi sevmezler. Ãünkü
GNU
+GPL onların bunu yapmalarına izin vermez. âKapsama ve geniÅletmeâye izin
+vermez. Programlarınızda kodumuzu paylaÅmak istiyorsanız, bunu
+yapabilirsiniz der. Ancak yalnızca benzerleri paylaÅmanız gerektiÄini
+söyler. YaptıÄınız deÄiÅiklikler, bizim paylaÅmamıza izin verilen
+deÄiÅiklikler olmalıdır. Bu nedenle bu, iki yollu bir iÅbirliÄidir,
gerçek
+bir iÅbirliÄidir. </p>
+
+<p>IBM ve HP gibi büyük firmalar bile â bu temelde bizim yazılımımızı
+kullanmayı istemektedir. IBM ve HP GNU yazılımına büyük katkılarda
+bulunmuÅtur. Ve onlar da, baÅka özgür yazılımlar geliÅtirmiÅtir. Ancak
+Microsoft bunu yapmak istememiÅtir, bu nedenle iÅyerlerinin GPL ile baÅa
+çıkamadıÄını söylemiÅlerdir. Bu iÅyerleri IBM ve HP ve Sunâı
içermiyorsa, o
+zaman haklı olabilirler. [Dinleyiciler güler] Bu konu hakkında daha sonra
+açıklama yapacaÄım. </p>
+
+<p>Tarihsel hikayeyi bitirmeliyim. Görüyorsunuz, 1984 yılında yalnızca
birtakım
+özgür yazılım yazmak için deÄil ayrıca çok daha tutarlı bir Åeyler
yapmak
+için yola çıktık: tamamen özgür yazılım olan bir iÅletim sistemi
geliÅtirmek
+istedik. Bu bizim parça ardına parça ardına parça yazmamız gerektiÄi
+anlamına gelmekteydi. Tabi ki, her zaman kısa yolları arıyorduk. İŠo
kadar
+büyüktü ki, insanlar hiçbir zaman bitiremeyeceÄimizi söylüyordu. Bitirme
+Åansımız olduÄunu düÅündüm ancak açık bir Åekilde, kısa yollara
bakmaya
+deÄerdi. Bu nedenle bakınmaya devam ettik. BenimseyebildiÄimiz, burayla
+irtibatlandırabildiÄimiz ve böylece baÅtan yazmak zorunda olmadıÄımız
baÅka
+birilerinin yazdıÄı herhangi bir program var mıdır? ÃrneÄin, X Window
+sistemi vardır. Copyleft edilmediÄi doÄrudur ancak bu, özgür
yazılımdır, bu
+nedenle onu kullanabiliriz. </p>
+
+<p>Åimdi, ilk günden GNUâya bir pencere sistemi koymak istedim. GNUâya
+baÅlamadan önce MITâde birtakım pencere sistemleri yazdım. Ve Unixâin
1984
+yılında herhangi bir pencere sistemine sahip olmamasına raÄmen, GNUânun
bir
+pencere sistemine sahip olmasına karar verdim. Ancak hiçbir zaman bir GNU
+pencere sistemi yazmayı beceremedik çünkü X birlikte geldi. Ve ben de Åunu
+dedim: âYapmamızın gerekli olmadıÄı büyük bir iÅ. Xâi
kullanacaÄız.â Åunu
+dedim: Xâi alalım ve GNU sistemine koyalım. Ve uygun olduÄunda, GNUânun
+diÄer kısımlarının X ile birlikte çalıÅmasını saÄlayacaÄız. Ve
metin
+biçimlendiricisı TEX gibi ya da Berkeleyâden birtakım kütüphane
kodları gibi
+baÅka insanlar tarafından yazılmıŠolan baÅka yazılım parçalarını
bulduk. O
+zamanlar Berkeley Unix vardı ancak bu, özgür yazılım deÄildi. Bu
kütüphane
+kodu, baÅlangıç olarak, Berkeleyâdeki kayan nokta üzerinde araÅtırma
yapan
+farklı bir gruba aitti. Ve bu nedenle, bu parçalara uyduk. </p>
+
+<p>1985 yılının Ekim ayında, Ãzgür Yazılım Vakfını kurduk. Bu
nedenle, lütfen
+GNU Projesinin ilk proje olduÄunu unutmayın. Ãzgür Yazılım Vakfı, GNU
+Projesinden hemen hemen iki yıl sonra geldi. Ve Ãzgür Yazılım Vakfı
yazılımı
+paylaÅmak ve deÄiÅtirmek için özgürlüÄü saÄlamak üzere fon toplayan
vergiden
+muaf bir hayır kurumudur. Ve 1980âlerde, fonlarımızla yaptıÄımız temel
+Åeylerden biri, GNUânun parçalarının yazılması için birilerini tutmak
+oldu. Ve kabuk [:shell] ve C kütüphanesi gibi önemli programlar, diÄer
+programların parçaları gibi bu Åekilde yazılmıÅtı. Ãok önemli olan
ancak
+heyecan verici olmayan <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> <code>tar</code>
+programı, bu Åekilde yazılmıÅtı. GNUânun bir kısmının da bu
Åekilde yazılmıÅ
+olduÄuna inanmaktayım. Ve böylece hedefimize yaklaÅmaktayız.</p>
+
+<p>1991 yılı itibariyle, eksik olan yalnızca tek bir büyük kısım vardı
ve bu da
+çekirdekti. Åimdi, niçin çekirdeÄi geciktirdim? Bu, muhtemelen iÅleri
hangi
+sırada yaptıÄınızın önemli olmamasından kaynaklanmaktadır, en
azından teknik
+açıdan durum böyledir. Her Åekilde iÅlerin tümünü yapmanız
gereklidir. Ve
+kısmen, baÅka bir yerlerde bir çekirdekte bir baÅlangıç bulabileceÄimizi
+umduÄum içindir. Ve bunu baÅardık. Carnegie Mellonâda geliÅtirilmiÅ
olan
+Machâı bulduk. Ve bu, tüm çekirdek deÄildi; çekirdeÄin alt
yarısıydı. Bu
+nedenle, üst yarıyı; dosya sistemi, network kodu, vb. gibi bir Åeyler
+yazmamız gerekti. Ancak Machâın üstünde çalıÅarak, esas olarak
kullanıcı
+programları olarak çalıÅmaktadırlar, bu nedenle hatalarının
ayıklanması daha
+kolay olmalıdır. Aynı zamanda çalıÅan gerçek bir kaynak seviyesi hata
+ayıklayıcıyla hata ayıklayabilirsiniz. Bu Åekilde, çekirdeÄin daha
yüksek
+seviyedeki parçalarını daha kısa sürede yaptırmamızın daha uygun
olacaÄını
+düÅündüm. Birbirine mesajlar gönderen bu asenkron çoklu kullanımlı
+süreçlerin hatalarının ayıklanmasının çok zor olduÄu ortaya
çıkmıÅtır. Ve
+önyükleme yapmak için kullandıÄımız Mach tabanlı sistem korkunç bir
hata
+ayıklama ortamına sahipti ve güvenilmezdi. GNU çekirdeÄinin
çalıÅtırılması
+bizim yıllarımızı aldı.</p>
+
+<p>Ancak neyse ki, topluluÄumuzun GNU çekirdeÄini beklemesi gerekmiyordu.
Ãünkü
+1991 yılında, Linus Torvalds, Linux olarak adlandırılan baÅka bir özgür
+çekirdeÄi geliÅtirdi. Eski moda tek parça tasarımı kullandı ve
çalıÅmasını,
+bizimkilerin çalıÅmasından çok daha hızlı bir Åekilde aldıÄı ortaya
+çıktı. Bu nedenle belki de, bu, yapmıŠolduÄum hatalardan biridir: bu
+tasarım kararı yapmıŠolduÄun hatalardan biridir. Her neyse, ilk baÅta
Linux
+hakkında bir Åey bilmiyorduk çünkü GNU Projesini bildiÄi halde, bunun
+hakkında konuÅmak için hiçbir zaman bizimle temas kurmadı. Ancak bunu,
+netteki diÄer insanlara ve yerlere bildirdi. Ve bu nedenle diÄer insanlar,
+tam bir iÅletim sistemi elde etmek için Linuxâı GNU sisteminin geri
+kalanıyla birleÅtirdi. Esasen, GNU artı Linux birleÅimini
oluÅturdular.</p>
+
+<p>Ancak ne yaptıklarını görmüyorlardı. Ä°Åte, Åunu dediler: âBir
çekirdeÄimiz
+var â bakınalım ve çekirdekle bir araya getirebileceÄimiz baÅka hangi
+parçaların olduÄunu görelim.â Bu nedenle, etraflarına bakındılar â
ve iÅte,
+ihtiyaç duydukları her Åey mevcuttu. Ne kadar Åanslıyız
+dediler. <i>[Dinleyiciler güler]</i> Tümü burada. Ä°htiyaç duyduÄumuz her
+Åeyi bulabiliriz. Tüm bu farklı Åeyleri alalım ve bir araya getirelim ve
bir
+sistem elde edelim.</p>
+
+<p>Buldukları Åeylerin çoÄunun GNU sisteminin parçaları olduÄunu
+bilmiyorlardı. Bu nedenle, Linuxâı GNU sistemindeki boÅluÄa
doldurduklarının
+farkında deÄildiler. Linuxâı alıp Linuxâtan bir sistem yaptıklarını
+düÅünüyorlardı. Bu nedenle bunu bir Linux sistemi olarak
adlandırdılar.</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: <i>[Ä°Åitilememektedir]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Sizi duyamadım - efendim?</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: <i>[Ä°Åitilememektedir]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Güzel, sadece o deÄil, biliyorsun, dar
+görüÅlülük.</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>:Ancak bu durum, X Window Sistemini ve Machâı
bulmaktan
+daha Åanslı bir durum deÄil midir?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>:DoÄru. Buradaki fark, Xâi ve Machâı
geliÅtiren
+insanlar, tam bir özgür iÅletim sistemi geliÅtirme hedefine sahip
+deÄildiler. Bunu isteyen yalnızca bizdik. Ve, sistemin var olmasını
saÄlayan
+bizim yoÄun çabalarımızdı. Gerçekte baÅka herhangi bir projeden çok
sistemin
+daha büyük bir parçasını oluÅturduk. Tesadüf yoktur, çünkü bu
insanlar â
+sistemin yararlı kısımlarını yazmıÅtır. Ancak bunu, sistemin
tamamlanmasını
+istedikleri için yapmamıÅlardır. BaÅka nedenleri vardı.</p>
+
+<p>Åimdi Xâi geliÅtiren insanlar â iyi bir proje olduÄunu
düÅündükleri network
+üzerinden pencere sistemini tasarımlamıÅlardır ve gerçekten de bu iyi bir
+proje olmuÅtur. Ve bu, bizim iyi bir özgür iÅletim sistemi yapmamızı
+saÄlamıÅtır. Ancak umdukları bu deÄildir. Hatta bunun hakkında
+düÅünmemiÅlerdir bile. Bu, bir kazaydı. Kazara bundan faydalandılar.
Åimdi,
+yaptıklarının kötü bir Åey olduÄunu söylemiyorum. Büyük bir özgür
yazılım
+projesi gerçekleÅtirdiler. Bu, iyi bir Åeydir. Ancak esas vizyona sahip
+deÄildirler. Bu vizyon GNU Projesindedir. </p>
+
+<p>Ve, bu nedenle, biz, her küçük parçayı baÅka birilerine hazırlatmayan
+birileriyiz. Ve <code>tar</code> ya da <code>mv</code> gibi tamamen sıkıcı
+ve romantiklikten uzak olsa bile <i>[Dinleyiciler güler]</i>, bunu
+yaptık. Ya da <code>ld</code> gibi â bildiÄiniz gibi, <code>ld</code>âde
çok
+heyecan verici bir Åeyler yoktur ancak ben bir tane yazdım. <i>[Dinleyiciler
+güler]</i> Ve minimal disk I/Oâsu kaplaması için çaba gösterdim
böylece daha
+hızlı olmuÅtur ve daha büyük programları kontrol edebilmektedir. Ä°yi iÅ
+çıkarmayı severim; bir programı yazarken, program hakkında birçok Åeyi
+geliÅtirmek isterim. Ancak bunu yapmamın nedeni, daha iyi bir Id için parlak
+fikirlerimin olması deÄildi. Bunu yapmamın nedeni, özgür bir programa
+ihtiyaç duymamızdı. Ve baÅka birinin bunu yapmasını bekleyemezdik. Bu
+nedenle, bunu yapmamız ya da baÅka birilerine yaptırmamız gerekliydi.</p>
+
+<p>Bu nedenle, bu noktada binlerce insanın ya da projenin bu sisteme
+katılmasına raÄmen, bu sistemin var olmasının nedeni olan bir proje
+mevcuttur ve bu da GNU Projesidir. Bu <em>sistem</em> temelde GNU
+Sistemidir, o zamandan beri baÅka Åeyler de eklenmiÅtir. </p>
+
+<p>Sistemi Linux olarak adlandırmak GNU Projesi için büyük bir övünç
olmuÅtur
+çünkü normalde yapmıŠolduÄumuz Åeyler için itibar kazanmayız.
ÃekirdeÄin,
+Linuxâın çok yararlı bir özgür yazılım parçası olduÄunu
düÅünüyorum ve onun
+hakkında yalnızca iyi Åeyler söyleyebilirim. Aslında, onun hakkında
+söyleyecek kötü Åeyler de bulabilirim. <i>[Dinleyiciler güler]</i> Ancak
+temelde iyi Åeyler söyleyebilirim. Ancak GNU sisteminin âLinuxâ olarak
+adlandırılması yalnızca bir hatadır. Sistemi GNU/Linux olarak
adlandırmanızı
+rica ederim ve böylece itibardan da faydalanabiliriz.</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>:Bir maskota ihtiyacınız var! Dolgulu bir hayvan
alın!
+<i>[Dinleyiciler güler]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>:Bir tane var.</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>:Var mı?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>:Bizim bir hayvanımız var â bir gnu
+(antilop). <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Böylece, evet, bir penguen
+çizdiÄinizde, yanına bir de gnu çizin. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Ancak
+soruları sona saklayalım. Daha anlatacak çok Åeyim var.</p>
+
+<p>Bu arada, niçin bu konuyla bu kadar ilgiliyim? Bu itibar hususunu ortaya
+koymak için, sizin canınızı niye sıkıyorum ve belki de sizin
gözünüzdeki
+deÄerimi neden düÅürüyorum? <i>[Dinleyiciler güler]</i> Bunu
yaptıÄımda,
+bazı insanlar bunu egomu beslemek için yaptıÄımı düÅünebilir, öyle
deÄil mi?
+Tabi ki, bu programı âStallmanixâ olarak adlandırmanızı istemiyorum,
öyle
+deÄil mi? <i>[Dinleyiciler güler]</i> <i>[AlkıÅ]</i></p>
+
+<p>Sizden bunu GNU olarak adlandırmanızı istiyorum çünkü GNU Projesinin
+itibarının olmasını istiyorum. Ve bunun için çok spesifik bir neden
vardır,
+bu, herhangi birinin itibar kazanmasından çok daha önemlidir.
Görüyorsunuz,
+bugünlerde, topluluÄumuza göz atacak olursanız, onun hakkında konuÅan ve
+yazan kimseler GNUâyu ifade bile etmez ve özgürlüÄün bu amaçlarından
â bu
+politik ve sosyal ideallerden â bahsetmezler. Ãünkü onların [baÅka bir
+deyiÅle, bunların] geldikleri yer GNUâdur. </p>
+
+<p>Linuxâla ilgili fikirler â felsefesi çok farklıdır. Bu, temelde Linus
+Torvaldsâın apolitik felsefesidir. Bu nedenle, insanlar tüm sistemin Linux
+olduÄunu düÅündüklerinde, Åu Åekilde düÅünme eÄilimdedirler: âOh,
bu, Linus
+Torvalds tarafından baÅlatılmıŠolmalıdır. Felsefesini dikkatli bir
Åekilde
+incelemeliyiz.â Ve GNU felsefesini duyduklarında, Åunu derler: âBu çok
+idealistçi bir yaklaÅım, korkunç Åekilde uygulanamaz olması lazım. Ben
bir
+Linux kullanıcısıyım, GNU kullanıcısı deÄil.â [Dinleyiciler
güler]</p>
+
+<p>Ne ironi! Yalnızca bilselerdi! HoÅlandıkları â ya da bazı durumlarda
+sevdikleri ve vahÅice üzerinden geçtikleri â sistemin politik felsefenin
+gerçek kıldıÄı bu Åeyin bizim idealimiz olduÄunu bilselerdi. </p>
+
+<p>Yine de bizimle fikir birliÄi içinde olmazlardı. Ancak en azından bunu
ciddi
+bir Åekilde hesaba katmak, bu konu hakkında düÅünmek ve bir Åans vermek
için
+bir nedenleri olurdu. Bunun, hayatlarıyla nasıl bir iliÅkisinin olduÄunu
+görürlerdi. Åunu fark etselerdi: âGNU sistemini kullanıyorum. Bu da GNU
+felsefesidir. Bu felsefe, hoÅlandıÄım bu sistemin var olma nedenidir,â o
+zaman bunu en azından çok daha açık bir zihinle deÄerlendirirlerdi. Bu,
+herkesin bu konuda fikir birliÄi içinde olacaÄı anlamına gelmez. Ä°nsanlar
+farklı Åeyler düÅünür. Bu uygundur â insanlar kendileri karar
+vermelidirler. Ancak bu felsefenin saÄladıÄı sonuçlar için itibarının
+yararını saÄlamasını isterim.</p>
+
+<p>TopluluÄumuza göz atarsak, hemen hemen her yerde kurumların sistemi Linux
+olarak adlandırdıÄını görürüz. Muhabirler bunu genelde Linux olarak
+adlandırmaktadır. Bu, doÄru deÄildir ancak bunu yaparlar. Sistemi
paketleyen
+firmalar sistemi genelde [Linux] olarak adlandırır. Ve bu muhabirlerin
+birçoÄu, makale yazdıklarında, bunu genelde politik bir husus ya da sosyal
+bir husus olarak görmezler. Buna genelde safça bir iŠsorusu ya da hangi
+firmaların az ya da çok baÅarılı olacaÄı olarak bakarlar, bu, temelde
toplum
+için küçük bir sorudur. Ve insanların kullanımı için GNU/Linux
sistemini
+paketleyen firmalara baktıÄınızda, bu firmaların birçoÄu bu sistemi
Linux
+olarak adlandırmaktadır. Ve tümü de bu sisteme özgür olmayan yazılım
ekler.</p>
+
+<p>GNU GPL, kodu alırsanız ve GPL kapsamlı bir programdan birtakım kodları
+alırsanız ve daha büyük bir program oluÅturmak için bir miktar daha fazla
+kod eklerseniz, söz konusu tüm programın GPL altında yayınlanması
+gerektiÄini söyler. Ancak aynı disk (hard disk ya da CD) üzerine ayrı
+programlar koyabilirsiniz ve bunların baÅka lisansları olabilir. Bu,
+yalnızca toplama olarak deÄerlendirilir ve esasen aynı zamanda iki
programın
+birilerine daÄıtılması, hakkında herhangi bir Åey söyleyebileceÄimiz
bir
+durum deÄildir. Bu nedenle, gerçekte, bu durum doÄru deÄildir â bazen
doÄru
+olmasını ummaktayım â bir firma bir üründe GPL kapsamlı bir programı
+kullanırsa, tüm ürün özgür yazılım olmalıdır. Bu ürün, söz konusu
aralıÄa
+girmez â söz konusu kapsamda deÄildir. Bu ürün, tüm programdır.
Emsallerine
+uygun bir Åekilde birbiriyle iletiÅim kuran â örneÄin, birbirine mesaj
+gönderen â iki ayrı program mevcutsa, o zaman bu iki program genellikle
+yasal olarak ayrıdır. Bu nedenle, bu firmalar, sisteme özgür olmayan
yazılım
+ekleyerek, kullanıcılara, felsefi ve politik açıdan çok kötü bir fikir
+vermektedir. Kullanıcılara Åunu söylemektedirler: âÃzgür olmayan
yazılımın
+kullanılması iyidir. Hatta bunu hediye olarak veriyoruz.â</p>
+
+<p>GNU/Linux sisteminin kullanımı hakkındaki dergilere baktıÄınız zaman,
+çoÄunluÄunun Åu Åekilde bir baÅlıÄa sahip olduÄunu görürsünüz:
+âLinux-bir-Åeyler-ya-da-diÄer-Åeyler.â Böylece sistemi çoÄunlukla
Linux
+olarak adlandırırlar. Ve bu dergiler, GNU/Linux sisteminin üstünde
+çalıÅtırabileceÄiniz özgür olmayan yazılıma iliÅkin reklamlarla
+doludur. Åimdi, bu reklamlar ortak bir mesaja sahiptir. Åöyle demektedirler:
+âÃzgür olmayan yazılım sizin için iyidir. O kadar iyidir ki, bu
yazılıma
+sahip olmak için <em>para</em> bile ödeyebilirsiniz.â [Dinleyiciler
güler]</p>
+
+<p>Ve bu Åeyleri âkatma deÄer paketleriâ olarak adlandırırız, bu,
onların
+deÄerleri hakkında bir ifade saÄlar. Åöyle demektedirler: ÃzgürlüÄü
deÄil,
+pratik elveriÅliliÄi deÄerlendirin. Ve bu deÄerlerle fikir birliÄi içinde
+deÄilim, bu nedenle onları âözgürlüÄü eksilmiÅ paketlerâ olarak
+adlandırıyorum. [Dinleyiciler güler] Ãzgür bir iÅletim sistemi
kurduysanız,
+o zaman Åimdi özgür dünyada yaÅıyorsunuz demektir. Yıllardır size
vermek
+için uÄraÅtıÄımız özgürlüÄün faydalarının tadını çıkarın.
Bu paketler, size
+bir zincir üzerinde eÄilme imkânını vermektedir. </p>
+
+<p>Ve GNU/Linux sisteminin kullanımına adanmıŠticari gösterilere
bakarsanız,
+bu gösteriler, kendilerini âLinuxâ gösterileri olarak
adlandırmaktadır. Ve
+özgür olmayan yazılımı sergileyen satıŠreyonlarıyla doludurlar,
özellikle,
+onay damgasını özgür olmayan yazılımın üzerine vururlar. Bu nedenle,
+toplumumuzda baktıÄımız her yerde, kurumlar özgür olmayan yazılımı
+desteklemektedir, GNUânun kendisi için geliÅtirildiÄi özgürlük fikrini
+tamamen yadsırlar. Ve insanların özgürlük fikriyle karÅı karÅıya
+gelebilecekleri tek yer, GNU ile ve özgür yazılımla iliÅkilidir. Bu
nedenle
+sizden sistemi GNU/Linux olarak adlandırmanızı istememin nedeni
+budur. Lütfen insanları sistemin nereden ve niçin geldiÄi konusunda
+bilgilendirin.</p>
+
+<p>Tabi ki, yalnızca bu ismi kullanarak, tarihsel bir açıklama
+yapmayacaksınız. Dört ekstra karakter girebilir ve GNU/Linuxâı
+yazabilirsiniz; iki ekstra hece söyleyebilirsiniz. Ancak GNU/Linux Windows
+2000âden daha az heceden oluÅmaktadır. [Dinleyiciler güler] Onlara çok
fazla
+Åey anlatmıyorsunuz ancak onları hazırlıyorsunuz, böylece GNU hakkında
bir
+Åeyler öÄrenecekler ve konunun ne olduÄunu duyduklarında, bunun
kendileriyle
+ve yaÅamlarıyla nasıl bir iliÅkisinin olduÄunu göreceklerdir. Ve bu,
+doÄrudan büyük bir fark yaratmaktadır. Bu nedenle, lütfen bize yardım
edin. </p>
+
+<p>Microsoft, GPLâi âaçık kaynaklı bir lisansâ olarak adlandırdı.
İnsanların,
+ana husus olarak özgürlük açısından düÅünüyor olmalarını
+istemediler. İnsanları, Microsoft ürünlerini seçeceklerse, tüketici
olarak
+dar bir Åekilde düÅünmeye ve tabi ki tüketiciler olarak çok rasyonel bir
+Åekilde düÅünmemeye davet ettiklerini bulacaksınız. Ancak insanların
+vatandaÅ ya da devlet adamı gibi düÅünmesini istemezler, Bu, onlar için
+zıttır, düÅmancadır. En azından mevcut iÅ modellerine karÅı
zıttır.</p>
+
+<p>Åimdi, özgür yazılım nasıl…evet, özgür yazılımın
toplumumuzla nasıl
+bir iliÅkisinin olduÄunu anlatabilirim. Bazılarınız için önemli
olabilecek
+ikinci bir baÅlık ise özgür yazılımın iÅle nasıl bir ilgisi
+olduÄudur. Åimdi, gerçekte, özgür yazılım iÅ için <em>büyük</em>
ölçüde
+yararlıdır. Ne de olsa, geliÅmiŠülkelerdeki birçok iÅyerinde yazılım
+kullanılmaktadır. Yalnızca küçük bir kısmı yazılım
geliÅtirmektedir. </p>
+
+<p>Ve özgür yazılım, yazılım kullanan herhangi bir firma için büyük
ölçüde
+avantajlıdır çünkü bu, kontrolün sizde olduÄunu göstermektedir. Temel
+olarak, özgür yazılım, kullanıcıların, programın ne yaptıÄına
iliÅkin
+kontrole sahip oldukları anlamına gelmektedir. Münferit olarak ya da toplu
+olarak, yeterince dikkatli olurlarsa, durum böyledir. Yeterince dikkat
+gösteren herkes, bazı etkileri uygulayabilir. Dikkat etmezseniz, satın
+almazsınız. O zaman baÅka insanların tercih ettiklerini kullanırsınız.
Ancak
+dikkat eder, özen gösterirseniz, o zaman söyleyecek bir Åeyleriniz
+olur. özel mülk yazılım söz konusu olduÄunda, söyleyecek bir Åeyiniz
olmaz. </p>
+
+<p>Ãzgür yazılımla, deÄiÅtirmek istediÄiniz Åeyleri
deÄiÅtirebilirsiniz. Ve
+firmanızda programlayıcıların olup olmaması fark etmez; bu,
+iyidir. Binanızdaki duvarları hareket ettirmek isterseniz, bir marangozluk
+firması olmanız gerekmez. Bir marangoz bulup, âBu iÅi yapmak için ne
kadar
+para istersin?â diye sormanız yeterlidir. Ve kullandıÄınız yazılımı
+deÄiÅtirmek isterseniz, bir programlama firması olmanız gerekmez. Tek
+yapmanız gereken bir programlama firmasına gidip Åunu söylemektir: âBu
+özellikleri implement etmek için ne kadar para istersiniz? Ve ne zamana
+bitirirsiniz?â Ve iÅi yapmazlarsa, gidip baÅka birilerini
bulabilirsiniz.</p>
+
+<p>Destek için özgür bir piyasa mevcuttur. Bu nedenle destekle ilgilenen her
+türlü iÅyeri, özgür yazılımda büyük bir avantaj bulacaktır. özel
mülk
+yazılımla, destek bir tekeldir çünkü bir firma, bu, Microsoftâun
paylaÅılan
+bir kaynak programı ise kaynak koduna sahiptir â ya da belki de yüklü bir
+miktar para ödeyen az sayıda firma kaynak koduna sahiptir â ancak, bu sayı
+çok azdır. Bu nedenle, sizin için çok fazla sayıda olası kaynak mevcut
+deÄildir. Ve bu, gerçekten de büyük bir dev deÄilseniz, sizinle
+ilgilenmedikleri anlamına gelmektedir. Firmanız, sizin iÅinizi
+kaybederlerse, bu duruma önem vermelerini gerektirecek kadar önemli
+deÄildir. Bir kere programı kullandıÄınızda, onlar için desteÄi almakta
+kilitlendiÄinizi anlarlar çünkü farklı bir programa geçmek çok büyük
bir
+iÅtir. Bu nedenle, bir hatanın raporlanması ayrıcalıÄının ödenmesi
gibi
+Åeylerle karÅılaÅırsınız. [Dinleyiciler güler] Ve bir kere ödeme
yaptıktan
+sonra, Åöyle derler: âÄ°yi, tamam, hata raporunuzu kaydettik. Ve birkaç ay
+içinde, bir yükseltme [:upgrade] satın alabilirsiniz ve bu hatayı giderip
+gidermediÄimizi görebilirsiniz.â [Dinleyiciler güler]</p>
+
+<p>Ãzgür yazılıma iliÅkin destek saÄlayıcıları, bundan ucuz
+kurtulamaz. MüÅterileri memnun etmek zorundadırlar. Tabi ki, birçok iyi
+bedava destek alabilirsiniz. Probleminizi İnternetten gönderirsiniz. Ertesi
+gün bir yanıt alabilirsiniz. Ancak bu, tabi ki garantili deÄildir. Güvende
+olmak isterseniz, en iyisi bir firma ile anlaÅma yapın ve onlara ücret
+ödeyin. Ve bu, tabi ki, özgür yazılım iÅinin çalıÅma Åekillerinden
+birisidir. </p>
+
+<p>Yazılım kullanan iÅler için özgür yazılımın baÅka bir avantajı,
güven ve
+gizliliktir. Ve bu, bireyler için de geçerlidir ancak bunu, iÅyerleri
+baÄlamında gündeme getirdim. Ä°Åte, bir program özel mülk olduÄunda,
+gerçekten de ne yaptıÄını bile söyleyemezsiniz.</p>
+
+<p>Bunların hakkında bir Åeyler biliyorsanız, hoÅlanmayacaÄınız bir
Åekilde
+kasıtlı olarak ortaya konan özelliklere sahip olabilir. ÃrneÄin,
+geliÅtiricinin makinenize girmesine izin veren bir arka kapıya sahip
+olabilir. YaptıÄınız iÅlere burnunu sokabilir ve bilgileri geri
+gönderebilir. Bu, yaygın bir durumdur. Birtakım Microsoft yazılımları
bunu
+yapmaktadır. Ancak bunu yapan yalnızca Microsoft deÄildir. Kullanıcının
+iÅine burnunu sokan baÅka özel mülk programlar mevcuttur. Ve bunu
yaptıkları
+zaman fark edemezsiniz bile. Ve tabi ki, geliÅtiricinin tamamen dürüst
+olduÄu varsayıldıÄında bile, her programcı hata yapar. Bunlar,
güvenliÄinizi
+etkileyen ve kimseden kaynaklanmayan hatalar olabilir. Ancak buradaki ana
+nokta Åudur: Bu, özgür yazılım deÄildir, bu hataları bulamazsınız. Ve
bu
+hataları gideremezsiniz.</p>
+
+<p>Hiç kimse, çalıÅtırdıÄı her programın kaynaÄını kontrol etmek
için gereken
+zamana sahip deÄildir. Bunu yapmayacaksınız. Ancak özgür yazılımla,
büyük
+bir topluluk mevcuttur ve bu toplulukta olayları kontrol eden insanlar
+vardır. Ve onların kontrolünden faydalanırsınız çünkü kazara bir hata
varsa,
+ki kesinlikle vardır, zaman zaman, herhangi bir programda, bu hatayı
+bulabilir ve giderebilirler. Ve yakalanacaklarını düÅündükleri zaman,
+insanların, kasıtlı bir Truva atı (kullanılacaÄı bilgisayara bilerek
hasar
+verme amacıyla hazırlanmıŠbilgisayar programı) ya da burnunu sokan bir
+özelliÄi koyma ihtimali çok daha düÅüktür. özel mülk yazılım
+geliÅtiricileri, yakalanmayacaklarını düÅünür. Bu durumun tespit
edilmeden
+geçeceÄini düÅünürler. Ancak özgür bir yazılım geliÅtiricisi
insanların ona
+bakacaÄını ve orada olduÄunu göreceÄini bilir. TopluluÄumuzda,
+kullanıcıların hoÅlanmayacakları bir Åekilde boÄazlarına bastırarak bu
+durumdan kurtulmayı düÅünmeyiz. Biliriz ki, kullanıcılar bundan
hoÅlanmazsa,
+bu özelliÄe sahip olmayan deÄiÅtirilmiÅ bir sürüm hazırlanacaktır. Ve
daha
+sonra tümü de söz konusu sürümü kullanarak çalıÅmaya
baÅlayacaktır.</p>
+
+<p>Gerçekte, muhtemelen bu özelliÄi koymayacaÄımız sonucunu hepimiz
+çıkarabiliriz, yeterince adım önceden bunu anlayabiliriz. Ne de olsa,
özgür
+bir program yazıyorsunuz; insanların sürümünüzdenhoÅlanmasını
istersiniz;
+birçok insanın nefret edeceÄi bir özelliÄi koymazsınız ve kendinizinki
+yerine baÅka bir deÄiÅtirilmiÅ sürümü kullanmazsınız. Böylece,
özgür yazılım
+dünyasında kralın kullanıcı olduÄunu fark edersiniz. özel mülk
yazılım
+dünyasında, kral, müÅteri deÄildir. Ãünkü siz yalnızca bir
+müÅterisinizdir. KullandıÄınız yazılımda söz hakkınız yoktur.</p>
+
+<p>Bu anlamda, özgür yazılım, demokrasinin iÅlemesi için yeni bir
+mekanizmadır. Åimdi Stanfordâda olan Profesör Lessig, bir kanun çeÅidi
+olarak söz konusu kod fonksiyonlarını söylemiÅtir. Tüm amaçlar ve
hedefler
+için herkesin kullandıÄı kod hakkında yazan her kimse, insanların
+hayatlarını belirleyen kanunlar yazmaktadır. Ãzgür yazılım söz konusu
+olduÄunda, bu kanunlar demokratik bir Åekilde yazılır. Ancak bu, klasik
+demokrasi biçimi deÄildir â büyük bir seçim yapıp Åunu demiyoruz:
âHerkes,
+bu iÅin nasıl yapılmasını istiyorsa ona göre oy versin.â [Dinleyiciler
+güler] Bunun yerine, temel olarak Åunu diyoruz: özelliÄin Åu Åekilde
+implement edilmesini isteyenler, o Åekilde yapsın. Ve söz konusu özelliÄi
+söz konusu Åekilde gerçekleÅtirmek için çalıÅmak isterseniz, öyle
+yaparsınız. Ve bir Åekilde ya da diÄer Åekilde yapılır, deÄil mi? Ve
böylece
+çok sayıda insan bu Åekilde isterse, bu Åekilde yapılacaktır. Bu
Åekilde,
+herkes, gitmek istediÄi yönde basitçe adımlar atarak sosyal karara katkıda
+bulunur. </p>
+
+<p>Ve kiÅisel olarak istediÄiniz kadar adım atmakta özgürsünüz. Bir
iÅyeri,
+atmalarının yararlı olduÄu kadar adımı atmakta özgürdür. Ve tüm bu
Åeyleri
+topladıÄınızda, bu, yazılımın hangi yönde gittiÄini söyler.</p>
+
+<p>Ve mevcut birtakım programlardan â genellikle büyük parçalardan â
bazı
+parçaların alınması ve daha sonra kendinize ait belirli miktardaki kodun
+yazılması ve ihtiyacınızı tam olarak karÅılayan bir programın
hazırlanması
+tabi ki çok yararlıdır; mevcut birtakım özgür yazılım paketlerinden
büyük
+parçaları alamazsanız, tamamını yeni baÅtan yazmak size pahalıya mal
+olacaktır.</p>
+
+<p>Kralın kullanıcı olduÄu gerçeÄinden kaynaklanan baÅka bir Åey de,
uyumluluk
+ve standardizasyon konusunda çok iyi olma eÄilimimizdir. Niçin? Ãünkü
+kullanıcılar bundan hoÅlanmaktadır. Kullanıcılar, içinde büyük
+uyumsuzlukların olduÄu bir programı reddedecektir. Åimdi, bazen belirli bir
+uyumsuzluk tipine iliÅkin ihtiyacı olan belirli bir kullanıcı grubu vardır
+ve o zaman ona sahip olacaklardır. Bu tamamdır. Ancak kullanıcılar bir
+standardı izlemek istediklerinde, biz geliÅtiriciler de bunu izlemeliyiz ve
+bunu biliriz. Ve bunu yaparız. Bunun zıttı olarak, özel mülk yazılım
+geliÅtiricilerine bakarsanız, genellikle kasıtlı olarak bir standardı
+izlememeyi avantajlı bulurlar ve bunun nedeni, bu Åekilde kullanıcıya bir
+avantaj saÄladıklarını düÅündükleri için <em>deÄil</em>, ancak daha
çok
+kullanıcı üzerinde bir Åeyler dayattıkları, kullanıcıyı kilitledikleri
+içindir. Ve özel mülk yazılım geliÅtiricilerinin zaman zaman dosya
+biçimlerinde deÄiÅiklikler yaptıklarını görürsünüz, bunun tek nedeni,
+insanların en yeni sürümü satın almalarını saÄlamaktır. </p>
+
+<p>ArÅivciler Åimdi bir problem bulmaktadır, on yıl önce bilgisayarlarda
+yazılan dosyalara genellikle eriÅilememektedir; bunlar, Åimdi kaybolmuÅ
olan
+özel mülk yazılımla yazılan dosyalardır. Bu dosyalar özgür yazılımla
+yazılmıŠolsalardı, güncelleÅtirilebilip çalıÅtırılabilirlerdi. Ve
söz
+konusu kayıtlar kaybolmazdı, eriÅilemeyen duruma gelmezdi. NPR'de bile bu
+konuda Åikayetler vardı ve çözüm olarak özgür yazılım
+önerilmekteydi. Aslında, kendi verilerinizi saklamak için özgür olmayan
+programı kullanarak, kendinizi tuzaÄa düÅürüyorsunuz.</p>
+
+<p>Böylece, özgür yazılımın birçok iÅi nasıl etkilediÄini anlattım.
Ancak,
+yazılım iÅi olan bu özel dar alanı nasıl etkilemektedir? Evet, bu sorunun
+cevabı, çoÄunlukla hemen hemen hiç etkilemediÄidir. Ve bana
anlatılanlardan,
+bunun nedeni, yazılım endüstrisinin % 90âının özel yazılımın
geliÅimine
+ayrılmasıdır, baÅka bir deyiÅle, yayınlanmayan yazılıma
ayrılmasıdır. Ãzel
+yazılım için, bu husus ya da özgür ya da özel mülk olma hususu gündeme
+gelmez. GördüÄünüz gibi, buradaki husus, siz kullanıcıların yazılımı
+deÄiÅtirmek ve yeniden daÄıtmak için özgür olup olmadıÄınızdır.
Yalnızca tek
+bir kullanıcı varsa ve söz konusu kullanıcı haklara sahipse, o zaman
problem
+yoktur. Söz konusu kullanıcı tüm bu Åeyleri yapmakta özgürdür. Bu
nedenle,
+aslında, kaynak kodunu ve tüm hakları alma konusunda ısrar ediyorlarsa,
+firma içinde kullanım için bir firma tarafından geliÅtirilen her türlü
özel
+program özgür yazılımdır.</p>
+
+<p>Bu husus, bir saatteki ya da bir mikrodalga fırındaki ya da bir otomobilin
+ateÅleme sistemindeki yazılım için söz konusu deÄildir çünkü bu
durumlarda,
+kurmak için yazılım indirmezsiniz. Kullanıcı söz konusu olduÄu sürece,
bu,
+gerçek bir bilgisayar deÄildir, bu nedenle, etik açıdan önemli olmaya
+yetecek kadar bu hususları büyütmez. Bu nedenle, en önemli kısım için,
+yazılım endüstrisi, olduÄu gibi gitmeye devam edecektir. Ve ilginç Åey
Åudur
+ki, bu gibi büyük bir iÅ oranı endüstrinin ilgili kısmında olduÄu
için,
+özgür yazılım iÅi için hiçbir olasılık olmasa bile, özgür yazılım
+geliÅtiricileri, özel yazılım yazmak için günlük iÅler
+alabilirler. [Dinleyiciler güler] Bunlardan çok fazla vardır; oran çok
+büyüktür.</p>
+
+<p>Ancak görüldüÄü gibi, özgür yazılım iÅi vardır. Ãzgür
yazılım firmaları
+vardır ve katılacaÄım basın toplantısında, birkaç özgür yazılım
firmasından
+insanlar bize katılacaktır. Ve tabi ki, özgür yazılım iÅi olmayan ancak
+yayınlamak için yararlı özgür yazılım parçaları geliÅtiren firmalar
da
+vardır ve onların geliÅtirdiÄi özgür yazılım önemli ölçüdedir.</p>
+
+<p>Åimdi, Åu soruyu sorarız: özgür yazılım iÅ dünyası nasıl
çalıÅmaktadır?
+Bazıları kopyaları satmaktadır. Kopyalamakta özgürsünüzdür ancak yine
de
+ayda binlerce kopya satabilirler. Ve diÄerleri, destek ve çeÅitli hizmet
+tiplerini satmaktadır. KiÅisel olarak ben, 1980âlerin ikinci yarısı
boyunca,
+özgür yazılım destek hizmetleri sattım. Temel olarak saatte $200 için,
+yazmıŠolduÄum GNU yazılımında deÄiÅtirmemi istediÄiniz her Åeyi
+deÄiÅtiririm dedim. Evet, bu, ciddi bir ücrettir ancak bu, benim
geliÅtirmiÅ
+olduÄum bir programdı ve çok daha kısa bir sürede aynı iÅi
+gerçekleÅtirebileceÄimi insanlar anladı. [Dinleyiciler güler] Ve bu
Åekilde
+ekmeÄimi kazandım. Aslında, daha önce yaptıÄımdan daha fazlasını
+yaptım. Ayrıca dersler de verdim. Ve 1990 yılına kadar bunu yapmayı
+sürdürdüm. 1990 yılında büyük bir ödül kazandım ve bunu yapmayı
bıraktım.</p>
+
+<p>Ancak 1990 yılında, Cygnus Support (Cygnus Destek) adında ilk ortak
özgür
+yazılım iÅi oluÅturuldu. Ve onların iÅi, benim yaptıÄım Åeyle aynı
tip Åeyi
+yapmaktı. Ä°htiyaç duysaydım kesinlikle onlar için çalıÅabilirdim. Ancak
+ihtiyaç duymadım ve herhangi bir firmadan baÄımsız kalsaydım bunun
hareket
+için iyi olacaÄını hissettim. Bu Åekilde, herhangi bir çıkar
çatıÅması
+olmaksızın çeÅitli özgür ve özgür olmayan yazılım firmaları için
iyi ve kötü
+Åeyler söyleyebilirdim. Harekete daha fazla hizmet edebileceÄimi
+hissettim. Ancak yaÅamımı kazanmak için buna ihtiyaç duysaydım, onlar
için
+çalıÅacaktım. Bu, içinde bulunmak adına etik bir iÅtir. Onlarla iÅ
yapmak
+için utanmama hiç gerek yoktu. Ve söz konusu firma ilk yılında
kârdaydı. Ãok
+az ana para ile, üç kurucusunun sahip olduÄu para ile oluÅturulmuÅtu. Ve
her
+geçen yıl daha da büyüdüler ve kârlı oldular, sonunda iyice büyümek
+istediler, açgözlü oldular, dıŠyatırımcılara açıldılar ve daha
sonra her
+Åeyi bozdular. Ancak açgözlü olmadan önce, yıllarını baÅarı içinde
+geçirdiler.</p>
+
+<p>Bu, özgür yazılım hakkındaki heyecan verici Åeylerden birini
+göstermektedir. Ãzgür yazılım, özgür yazılım geliÅtirmek için
anapara
+saÄlamanızın gerekli olmadıÄını göstermektedir. Demek istiyorum ki,
ana para
+yararlıdır; yardımcı olabilir. Bir miktar anapara toplayabilirseniz, insan
+tutabilir ve bu insanlara kod yazdırabilirsiniz. Ancak az sayıda insanla çok
+iÅ baÅarabilirsiniz. Aslında, özgür yazılımı geliÅtiren süreçin
çok etkin
+olması, dünyanın özgür yazılıma geçmesi için önemli nedenlerden
biridir. Ve
+bu, ayrıca Microsoftâun söylediÄini yalanlar, Microsoft, GNU GPLânin
kötü
+olduÄunu söyler çünkü özgür olmayan yazılımı geliÅtirmek için
anapara
+toplamak, özgür yazılımımızı alıp bizimle paylaÅmayacakları
programlara
+kodumuzu koymak onlar için zorlaÅır. Temel olarak, bu Åekilde anaparayı
+yükseltmelerine ihtiyaç duymamaktayız. Her Åekilde iÅi yaptırırız.
Ä°Åi zaten
+yaptırıyoruz.</p>
+
+<p>Ä°nsanlar, bizim hiçbir zaman tamamen özgür bir iÅletim sistemi
+yapamayacaÄımızı söylemekteydiler. Åimdi bunu ve ilâve olarak önemli
bir
+oranı daha gerçekleÅtirdik. Ve söyleyebilirim ki, dünyanın tüm genel
amaçlı
+olarak yayınlanan yazılımını geliÅtirmemize az kaldı. Ve bunu,
+kullanıcılardan % 90âından fazlasının henüz bizim özgür
yazılımımızı
+kullanmadıÄı bir dünyada baÅardık. Bu, dünyadaki tüm Web
sunucularının
+yarısından fazlasının Web sunucusu olarak Apache ile GNU/Linux üzerinde
+çalıÅtıÄı bir dünyada gerçekleÅmiÅtir.</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>:[Duyulamıyor] … Daha önce ne dediniz, Linux
mı?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>:GNU/Linux dedim.</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>:Ãyle mi dediniz?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>:Evet, çekirdek hakkında konuÅuyorsam, onu Linux
+olarak adlandırırım. Biliyorsunuz, bu, onun adıdır. Ãekirdek Linus
Torvalds
+tarafından yazılmıÅtır ve yazara duyulan saygıdan ötürü, bu
çekirdeÄi
+yalnızca onun verdiÄi isimle adlandırabiliriz.</p>
+
+<p>Genel olarak, iÅ dünyasında, birçok kullanıcı GNU/Linuxâı
+kullanmamaktadır. Birçok ev kullanıcısı henüz bizim sistemimizi
+kullanmamaktadır. Ev kullanıcıları da sistemimizi kullanmaya
baÅladıÄında,
+özgür yazılım için 10 kat daha fazla gönüllü ve 10 kat daha fazla
müÅteri
+saÄlayacaÄız. Ve bu bizi büyütecektir. Bu nedenle, bu noktada, bu iÅi
+yapabileceÄimiz konusunda oldukça güvenim var.</p>
+
+<p>Ve bu önemlidir çünkü Microsoft bizim çaresiz hissetmemizi
+istemektedir. Åöyle derler: âÃalıÅtırılacak yazılıma sahip
olmanızın tek
+yolu, yeniliÄe sahip olmanızın tek yolu, gücü bize vermenizle
+saÄlanabilir. Biz baskınız. ÃalıÅtırdıÄınız programla ne
yapabileceÄinizi
+kontrol edelim, böylece sizden çok para alabiliriz ve bu paranın belirli bir
+oranını yazılım geliÅtirmek için kullanıp geri kalanını kâr
yaparız.â</p>
+
+<p>Hiçbir zaman çaresiz hissetmemelisiniz. Ãok çaresiz hissedip
özgürlüÄünüzü
+feda etmemelisiniz. Bu çok tehlikelidir.</p>
+
+<p>Microsoftâun, yalnızca Microsoft olmamakla beraber özgür yazılımı
+desteklemeyen insanların genelde benimsediÄi deÄer sistemi, kısa vadeli
+kârdır: Bu sene ne kadar para kazanacaÄım? Bugün ne kadar iÅ
yaptırabilirim?
+Kısa vadeli düÅünme ve dar düÅünme. Onların varsayımına göre,
birilerinin
+özgürlük adına fedakarlık yapması saçmadır.</p>
+
+<p>Dün yurttaÅlarının özgürlüÄü için fedakarlık yapmıŠolan
Amerikalılar
+hakkında birçok insan konuÅma yapıyordu. Bu insanların bazıları büyük
+fedakarlıklar yapmıÅlardı. Ãlkemizde herkesin duyduÄu özgürlük
çeÅitleri
+için yaÅamlarını bile feda etmiÅlerdi. (En azından bazı durumlarda;
tahmin
+ederim ki, Vietnamâdaki savaÅı burada görmezden gelmeliyiz.)</p>
+
+<p><i>[Editörün notu: Ãnceki gün, Yurt Åehitleri anma günüydü,
kahramanların
+anıldıÄı bir ABD tatil günüydü.]</i></p>
+
+<p>Ancak neyse ki, yazılımın kullanılmasındaki özgürlüÄümüzün
korunması bu gibi
+büyük fedakarlıkları gerektirmemektedir. Grafiksel Kullanıcı Ara yüzü
(GUI)
+programınız henüz yoksa, komut satırı ara yüzünün öÄrenilmesi gibi
yalnızca
+küçük ve az fedakarlıklar yeterlidir. Bunu bu Åekilde yapmak için
özgür bir
+yazılım paketine sahip olmadıÄımız için, bu, iÅin bu Åekilde
yapılması
+gibidir. Birkaç yılda sahip olabileceÄiniz gibi, belirli bir özgür
yazılım
+paketini geliÅtirecek olan bir firmaya bir miktar paranın ödenmesi
+gibidir. Bunlar, hepimizin yapabileceÄi küçük fedakarlıklardır. Ve uzun
+vadede, bundan fayda görürüz. BildiÄiniz gibi, bir fedakarlıktan çok bir
+yatırım gibidir. Toplumumuzun geliÅmesinde bizim için iyi olduÄunu bilmek
+için, yalnızca söz konusu yatırımdan kimin beÅ on senti alacaÄını
saymadan
+yeterli uzun vadeli görüÅe sahip olmamız gereklidir.</p>
+
+<p>Böylece, bu noktada, anlatacaklarım sona erdi.</p>
+
+<p>Tony Stanco tarafından önerilen özgür yazılım iÅine iliÅkin yeni bir
+yaklaÅımın olduÄunu ifade etmek isterim, bu yaklaÅım âÃzgür
GeliÅtiricilerâ
+olarak adlandırılmaktadır ve organizasyona katılan tüm yazılım
+geliÅtiricilere kârdan belirli bir oranın verilmesini uman belirli bir iÅ
+yapısını içermektedir. Ve halen Hindistanâda bazı büyük hükümet
yazılım
+geliÅtirme sözleÅmelerinin gerçekleÅtirilmesini ummaktadırlar çünkü
taban
+olarak özgür yazılımı kullanıyor olacaklardır, bu Åekilde büyük
maliyet
+tasarrufu saÄlamayı planlamaktadırlar.</p>
+
+<p>Ve Åimdi sorularınızı bekliyorum.</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: <i>[Ä°Åitilememektedir]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Biraz yüksek sesle konuÅabilir misiniz lütfen?
+Sizi gerçekten duyamıyorum.</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Microsoft gibi bir firma bir özgür yazılım
+sözleÅmesini nasıl içerebilir?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Microsoft aslında eylemlerinin birçoÄunu
+hizmetlere kaydırmayı planlamaktadır. Ve yapmayı planladıkları Åey
kirli ve
+tehlikeli bir Åeydir, zikzak biçiminde hizmetleri birini diÄerine olacak
+Åekilde baÄlamayı planlamaktadırlar. Böylece bu hizmeti kullanmak için,
bu
+Microsoft programını kullanıyor olmanız gereklidir, bu da, bu hizmeti ve bu
+Microsoft programını kullanmanız gerektiÄi anlamına gelecektir â¦
böylece
+tümü birbiriyle iliÅkilidir. Planları budur. </p>
+
+<p>Åimdi, ilginç olan Åey, bu hizmetlerin satılmasının özgür yazılım
ya da
+özgür olmayan yazılım etik hususunu gündeme getirmemesidir. Onlar için,
net
+üzerinden bu hizmetleri satan bu gibi iÅyerlerinin olması çok iyi
+olabilir. Ancak, Microsoftâun planladıÄı, yazılım ve hizmetler
üzerinde daha
+bile büyük bir tekel, daha bile büyük bir kilit elde etmek için onları
+kullanmaktır ve bu, yakın zamanda bir makalede açıklanmıÅtır. DiÄer
+insanlar, bunun, neti Microsoft Firma Kasabasına dönüÅtürdüÄünü
söylemiÅtir.</p>
+
+<p>Ve bu baÄlantılıdır çünkü Microsoft anti güven mahkemesindeki asliye
+mahkemesi Microsoftâun â anlamsız bir Åekilde, hiçbir iÅe yaramayacak
+biçimde â iÅletim sistemi kısmına ve uygulama kısmına bölünmesini
+önermiÅtir. </p>
+
+<p>Ancak o makaleyi gördükten sonra, Åimdi yalnızca emsallerine uygun bir
+Åekilde birbirleriyle baÅa çıkmalarını gerektirmek için Microsoftâun
+hizmetler kısmına ve yazılım kısmına bölünmesinin yararlı ve etkin bir
+yolunu görmekteyim, hizmetler ara yüzlerini yayınlamalıdır, böylece
+hizmetlerle konuÅabilmek için herkes bir istemci yazabilir ve tahmin
+ediyorum ki, hizmeti almak için ödeme yapmaları gereklidir. Evet, bu
+tamamdır. Bu, tamamen farklı bir konudur. </p>
+
+<p>Microsoft bu Åekilde […] baÅka bir deyiÅle, hizmetler ve
yazılım
+Åeklinde bölünürse, Microsoft hizmetleriyle rekabete girmek için
+yazılımlarını kullanamayacaklardır. Ve Microsoft yazılımıyla rekabete
girmek
+için hizmetleri kullanamayacaklardır. Ve özgür yazılım yapabileceÄiz ve
+belki de siz insanlar bunu Microsoft hizmetleriyle konuÅmak için
+kullanacaksınız, bu bizim için önemli deÄildir.</p>
+
+<p>Ãünkü ne de olsa, Microsoftâun birçok insana boyun eÄdiren özel
mülk yazılım
+firması olmasına raÄmen â diÄerleri daha az insana boyun eÄdirmiÅtir,
bu,
+uÄraÅma isteÄinden kaynaklanmamaktadır; [dinleyiciler güler] o kadar çok
+sayıda insana boyun eÄdirmeyi baÅaramamıÅlardır. Bu nedenle, problem
+yalnızca ve yalnızca Microsoft deÄildir. Microsoft, çözmeye
çalıÅtıÄımız
+problemin yalnızca en büyük örneÄidir, iÅbirliÄi yapmak ve etik bir
toplum
+oluÅturmak için kullanıcıların özgürlüÄünü alan özel mülk
yazılımdır. Bu
+nedenle, bu platform için bana imkân vermiŠolsalar bile, Microsoft üzerine
+çok fazla odaklanmamalıyız. Bu, onları çok önemli yapmaz. Bu, hepsi ve
+hepsinin sonu deÄildir.</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Daha önceden, açık kaynaklı yazılımla özgür
yazılım
+arasındaki felsefi farkları açıklıyordunuz. Yalnızca Intel
platformlarını
+desteklerlerken, GNU/Linux daÄıtımlarının mevcut eÄilimi hakkında nasıl
+hissediyorsunuz? Ve gitgide daha az sayıda programcının doÄru Åekilde
+programlama yaptıÄı ve herhangi bir yerde derleme yapacak olan yazılımı
+hazırladıÄı görülmektedir? Ve basitçe Intel sistemlerinde çalıÅan
yazılımın
+hazırlandıÄı görülmektedir?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Burada etik bir husus görmüyorum. Ancak,
+gerçekte, bilgisayar üreten firmalar, bazen GNU/Linux sistemini bilgisayara
+taÅımaktadır. HP açık bir Åekilde bunu yakın bir zamanda yapmıÅtır.
Ve
+Windowsâun bir portu için ödeme yapma konusunda canlarını
sıkmamıÅlardı,
+çünkü bu, çok fazla maliyete sahip olacaktı. Ancak zannediyorum ki
+GNU/Linuxâın desteklenmesi birkaç ay boyunca beÅ mühendisin
çalıÅmasını
+gerektirecekti. Bu, kolayca yapılabilir bir Åeydi.</p>
+
+<p>Åimdi tabi ki, insanların <code>autoconf</code>âu kullanmasını
öneriyorum,
+autoconf, programlarınızı taÅınabilir hale getirmeyi kolaylaÅtıran bir
GNU
+paketidir. Bunu yapmaları için onları yüreklendiriyorum. Ya da sistemin
söz
+konusu sürümünde derlenmeyen bir hatayı baÅka birileri giderdiÄinde ve
size
+gönderdiÄinde, o zaman bunu göz önünde bulundurmalısınız. Ancak bunu
etik
+bir husus olarak görmüyorum.</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Ä°ki yorum. Birisi: Yakın zamanda, MITâde
+konuÅtunuz. Kopyasını okudum. Ve birileri, patentler hakkında bir Åeyler
+sordu ve siz dediniz ki âpatentler tamamen farklı bir konudur. Bu konuda
+yorumum yok.â</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: DoÄru. Patentler hakkında aslında söyleyecek
çok
+Åeyim var ama bu, bir saati bulur. [Dinleyiciler güler]</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Åunu demek istedim: Bana öyle geliyor ki, burada
+önemli bir husus var. Demek istiyorum ki, bu konsepti almaya çalıÅırken,
+firmaların, kendileri için bir tekel biçimi oluÅturmaya çalıÅırken
Devletin
+gücünü kullanmak isterlerse, patentler ve telif hakkı gibi Åeyleri sert
+özellik olarak adlandırmalarının bir nedeni vardır. Ve böylece, bu
Åeyler
+hakkındaki yaygın olan Åey, aynı hususlar etrafında dolaÅmaları
deÄildir
+ancak söz konusu motivasyon, gerçekten de genel hizmet hususu deÄildir ama
+özel çıkarları için firmaların tekel saÄlama motivasyonudur. </p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Anlıyorum. Ama, iyi, yanıtlamak istiyorum
çünkü
+çok fazla zaman yok. Bu yüzden bunu yanıtlamak istiyorum.</p>
+
+<p>Onların istediÄinin bu olduÄu konusunda haklısınız. Ancak fikri
mülkiyet
+terimini kullanmak istemelerinin baÅka bir nedeni vardır. Bunun nedeni,
+insanların, telif hakkı hususları ya da patent hususları hakkında dikkatli
+bir Åekilde düÅünmesini istememeleridir. Telif hakkı kanunu ve patent
kanunu
+tamamen farklı olduÄu için, yazılım telif haklarının ve yazılım
+patentlerinin etkileri tamamen farklıdır. </p>
+
+<p>Yazılım patentleri, programcıları belirli program tiplerini yazmaktan
+alıkoydukları için, programcılar üzerindeki bir kısıtlamadır ancak
telif
+hakkı bunu yapmaz. Telif hakkı söz konusu olduÄunda, en azından kendi
+kendinize yazıyorsanız, daÄıtmanıza izin verilmektedir. Bu nedenle, bu
+hususların ayrılması çok önemlidir.</p>
+
+<p>Bunların, çok düÅük bir seviyede ortak bir özelliÄi vardır ve
diÄer her Åey
+farklıdır. Bu nedenle, lütfen, açık bir Åekilde düÅünmeyi
cesaretlendirmek
+için, telif hakkını ve patentleri tartıÅın. Ancak fikri mülkiyeti
+tartıÅmayın. fikri mülkiyet hakkında bir fikrim yoktur. Telif hakları,
+patentler ve yazılım hakkında düÅüncelerim vardır. </p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: BaÅlangıçta fonksiyonel bir dilin, yemek tarifleri
+gibi, bilgisayar programları olduÄunu ifade ettiniz. Ancak yemek
+tariflerinden bilgisayar programlarına ve İngilizce dilinden bilgisayar
+programlarına büyük bir geçiÅ vardır â âfonksiyonel dilâin
tanımı çok
+geniÅtir. DVD konusunda bu, neden olan problemi oluÅturmaktadır. </p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Hususlar, doÄadaki fonksiyonel olmayan
Åeylerden
+ötürü kısmen benzer ancak kısmen de farklıdır. Hususun bir kısmı
aktarılır
+ancak tamamı aktarılmaz. Maalesef, bu da bir saatlik bir konuÅma ile
+açıklanabilir. Bu konuya burada girmek için yeterli vaktimiz yok. Ancak
Åunu
+söylemek isterim ki, yazılımla aynı anlamda tüm fonksiyonel çalıÅmalar
özgür
+olmalıdır. Biliyorsunuz, ders kitapları, belgeler, sözlükler ve tarifler
+özgür olmalıdır.</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Yalnızca online müziÄi merak ediyordum. Bir yandan
+öbür yana oluÅturulmuÅ benzerlikler ve farklar mevcuttur.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: DoÄru. Yayınlanan her türlü bilgi için sahip
+olmamız gereken minimum özgürlük bu yayını ticari olmayan bir Åekilde
+yeniden aynen daÄıtma özgürlüÄüdür. Fonksiyonel çalıÅmalar için,
+deÄiÅtirilmiÅ bir sürümü ticari olarak yayınlama özgürlüÄüne
ihtiyaç duyarız
+çünkü bu, toplum için çok yararlıdır. Fonksiyonel olmayan çalıÅmalar
için â
+insanları eÄlendirecek ya da estetik olacak ya da belirli bir insanın
+görüÅlerini ifade edecek olan Åeyler, biliyorsunuz â belki de
+deÄiÅtirilmemelidir. Ve bu belki de onların tüm ticari daÄıtımını
kapsayan
+telif hakkına sahip olunmasının tamam olduÄu anlamına gelmektedir. </p>
+
+<p>Lütfen unutmayın ki, A.B.D. Anayasasına göre, telif hakkının amacı
halkın
+yararlanmasıdır. Telif hakkı, belirli özel tarafların davranıÅını
+deÄiÅtirmek böylece daha fazla kitap yayınlamalarını saÄlamak içindir.
Ve
+bunun yararı, toplumun hususları tartıÅmasının ve öÄrenmesinin
+saÄlanmasıdır. Ve, bildiÄiniz gibi, literatürümüz vardır. Bilimsel
+çalıÅmalarımız vardır. Hedef, bunu cesaretlendirmektir. Telif hakları,
+yazarların iyiliÄi için deÄil, yalnızca yayıncıların iyiliÄi
içindir. Telif
+hakkı, okuyucuların ve insanlar yazdıÄında ve diÄerleri okuduÄunda
+gerçekleÅen bilgi alıÅveriÅinden faydalananların iyiliÄinedir. Ve bu
hedefle
+fikir birliÄi içerisindeyim.</p>
+
+<p>Ancak bilgisayar aÄları çaÄında, yöntem, artık inanılabilen ve
makul bir
+yöntem deÄildir çünkü Åimdi herkesin özel hayatına giren ve herkes
için
+terör estiren katı kanunları gerektirmektedir. KomÅunuzla paylaÅımda
+bulunduÄunuz için yıllarınız hapiste geçer. Matbaa zamanında durum
böyle
+deÄildi. O zamanlar telif hakkı endüstriyel bir düzenlemeydi.
Yayıncıları
+kısıtlamaktaydı. Åimdi yayıncılar tarafından kamu üzerine dayatılan
bir
+kısıtlamadır. Bu nedenle güç iliÅkisi, aynı kanun yürürlükte olsa
bile, 180
+derece döndü.</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Böylece baÅka bir müzikten müzik yapmak gibi bir
Åeye
+sahip olabilir misiniz?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: DoÄru. Bu ilginç …</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Ve benzersiz, yeni çalıÅmalar, iÅte, hâlâ çok
+miktarda iÅbirliÄi var.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: DoÄru. Ve bunun muhtemelen adil kullanım
+kavramını gerektirdiÄini düÅünüyorum. Kesinlikle birkaç saniyelik
numune
+yapmak ve bunu bazı müziksel çalıÅmaların hazırlanmasında kullanmak,
açık
+bir Åekilde bu, adil kullanım olmalıdır. Bu konu hakkında
düÅünürseniz, adil
+kullanıma iliÅkin standart fikir bunu içermektedir. Mahkemeler fikir
birliÄi
+içinde olurlarsa, emin deÄilim, ama olmalılar. Sistemde mevcut olduÄu
+haliyle gerçek bir deÄiÅiklik var olmayacaktır.</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Ãzel mülk biçimlerde genel bilgilerin
yayınlanması
+hakkında ne düÅünüyorsunuz?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Bu olmamalıdır. Hükümet, vatandaÅlardan
herhangi
+bir Åekilde ya da herhangi bir yönde kendisiyle haberleÅmeleri için ya da
+kendisine eriÅmeleri için özgür olmayan bir programın kullanılmasını
hiçbir
+zaman istememelidir. </p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Åimdi söyleyeceÄim Åeyi yani GNU/Linux
kullanıcısı
+olmuÅtum.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: TeÅekkürler. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: …son dört yıldır. Benim için problemli ve
+hepimiz için önemli olan Åeylerden biri de zannediyorum ki Webâe göz
+atmaktır. </p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Evet.</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: GNU/Linux sisteminin kullanılmasındaki zayıf
+noktalardan bir tanesi Webâde tarama yapılmasıdır çünkü bu konudaki
yaygın
+araç Netscapeâtirâ¦</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: …ve özgür yazılım deÄildir.</p>
+
+<p>Bu soruyu yanıtlayayım. Daha fazlasını elde etme adına ana noktaya
+varayım. Evet. Ä°nsanların GNU/Linux sistemlerinde Netscape Navigatörâü
+kullanma eÄilimlerinde büyük bir artıŠvardır. Gerçekte, ticari olarak
+paketlenmiŠtüm sistemlerde Netscape Navigatör otomatik olarak
+vardır. Böylece bu, ironik bir durumdur: özgür bir iÅletim sistemi
+geliÅtirmek için çok çalıÅtık ve Åimdi maÄazaya gittiÄinizde, orada
+GNU/Linuxâın sürümlerini bulabilirsiniz, çoÄu Linux olarak
+adlandırılmaktadır ve özgür deÄildirler. Neyse, bazıları özgürdür
+aslında. Ancak Netscape Navigatör ve belki de baÅka özgür olmayan
programlar
+da var olabilir. Bu nedenle, gerçekte ne yaptıÄınızı bilmiyorsanız,
özgür
+bir sistemin bulunması çok zordur. Ya da tabi ki, Netscape Navigatörü
+kuramazsınız. </p>
+
+<p>Åimdi, gerçekte, yıllardır özgür Web tarayıcıları mevcuttur. Lynx
olarak
+adlandırılan ve eskiden kullandıÄım özgür bir Web tarayıcısı vardır:
+Grafiksel olmayan özgür bir Web tarayıcısıdır; yalnızca metinden
+ibarettir. Bunun büyük bir avantajı vardır, bunda reklamları
+görmezsiniz. [Dinleyiciler güler] [AlkıÅ]</p>
+
+<p>Ama her neyse, Mozilla olarak adlandırılan ve kullanabileceÄiniz noktaya
+ulaÅan özgür bir grafik arayüzlü proje vardır. Ve ben onu arada sırada
+kullanıyorum. </p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 çok iyidir.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Evet, Tamam. Bu, baÅka bir özgür grafiksel
+arayüzlü tarayıcıdır. Böylece, sonunda tahmin ediyorum ki bu problemi
+çözüyoruz.</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Bana özgür yazılımla açık kaynak arasındaki
+felsefi/etik ayrımdan bahsedebilir misiniz? Bunların uzlaÅtırılamaz
olduÄunu
+mu hissediyorsunuz? …</p>
+
+<p>[Kayıtlar arasında kaset deÄiÅtiriliyor; sorunun sonu ve cevabın baÅı
+eksiktir]</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: … bir özgürlüÄe ve etiÄe. Ya da sizin
+henüz söylediÄiniz gibi, umarım ki, siz firmalar, bizim bu Åeyleri
yapmamıza
+izin vermemizin daha kârlı olduÄuna karar verirsiniz. </p>
+
+<p>Ancak, söylediÄim gibi, çok sayıdaki pratik çalıÅmada, bir kimsenin
+politikasının ne olduÄu gerçekten de fark etmemektedir. Bir kimse GNU
+projesine yardımcı olmayı teklif ettiÄinde, Åunu demeyiz: âBizim
+politikalarımızla fikir birliÄi içinde olmanız gereklidir.â Bir GNU
+paketinde, sistemi GNU/Linux olarak adlandırmanızın gerekli olduÄunu ve
+bunları özgür yazılım olarak adlandırmanız gerektiÄini söyleriz. GNU
Projesi
+hakkında konuÅmadıÄınızda ne söylediÄiniz, size kalmıÅtır.</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Yeni büyük makinelerini satmak amacıyla hükümet
+birimleri için IBM firması bir kampanya baÅlatmıÅtır, satıŠnoktası
olarak
+Linuxâı kullanmıÅlar ve Linux olarak adlandırmıÅlardır. </p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Evet. Tabi ki, bunlar gerçekten de GNU/Linux
+sistemleridir. [Dinleyiciler güler]</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Bu doÄrudur. En üstteki satıŠelemanına
söyleyin. GNU
+hakkında bir Åey bilmiyor. </p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Kime söylemeliyim?</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: En üstteki satıŠelemanı.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Ya, evet. Buradaki problem, avantajları için
+söylemek istedikleri Åeylere halihazırda dikkatli bir Åekilde karar vermiÅ
+olmalarıdır. Ve bunu tanımlamanın daha doÄru, daha adil ya da daha kesin
+yolunun ne olduÄu hususu, bu gibi bir firma için önemli olan temel husus
+deÄildir. Evet, Åimdi bazı küçük firmalarda, bir patron olacaktır. Ve
patron
+bu gibi hususlar hakkında düÅünmekteyse, bu Åekilde bir karara
+varabilir. Ancak bu çok büyük bir ortaklık deÄildir. Bu, bir utançtır,
+ayıptır. </p>
+
+<p>IBMâin yaptıÄı Åey hakkında daha önemli ve daha baÄımsız bir
husus
+vardır. âLinuxâa bir milyar dolar yatırdıklarını söylüyorlar. Ancak
belki de
+âLinuxâa ifadesindeki aâyı da çift tırnak içine almalıyım çünkü
bu paranın
+bir kısmı insanların özgür yazılım geliÅtirmesi için harcanmaktadır.
Bu
+gerçekten de topluluÄumuz için büyük bir katkıdır. Ancak diÄer
kısımları,
+insanlara özel mülk yazılım yazmaları ya da özel mülk yazılımı
GNU/Linuxâın
+üstünde çalıÅtırmak üzere taÅımak için ödeme yapmaktadır ve bu,
topluluÄumuz
+için bir katkı deÄildir. Ancak IBM, tümünü bunda toplamaktadır.
Bunların
+bazıları reklam olabilir, bu da kısmen bir katkıdır ancak kısmen de
+yanlıÅtır. Bu nedenle, bu, karmaÅık bir durumdur. Yaptıkları Åeylerden
+bazıları katkıdır ve bazıları deÄildir, ancak bunlar da kesin
deÄildir. Ve
+hepsini bir araya toplayıp âVav! IBMâden bir milyar dolar aldımâ
+diyemezsiniz. [Dinleyiciler güler] Bu, olayların aÅırı derecede
+basitleÅtirilmesidir.</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Genel Kamu Lisansıâna iliÅkin düÅünceler
hakkında
+biraz bilgi verebilir misiniz?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Åimdi, burada — özür dilerim, sorusunu
+Åimdi yanıtlıyorum. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Basın toplantısı için zaman ayırmak istiyor
+musunuz? Yoksa burada mı devam etmek istiyorsunuz?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Basın toplantısı için kimler burada? Ãok
fazla
+basın yok. Oh, üç - Tamam. EÄer herkesin sorusunu yanıtlamak üzere on
dakika
+gibi bir Åey istesek kabul eder misiniz? Tamam. O zaman, herkesin sorusunu
+yanıtlamayla devam edelim.</p>
+
+<p>GNU GPLâye yol açan düÅünceler mi? Bunun bir kısmı, topluluÄun
özgürlüÄünü,
+X Windowsâta tanımladıÄım fenomenlere karÅı korumak istememdi, bu durum
+diÄer programlarda da meydana geldi. Aslında, bu husus hakkında
düÅünürken,
+X Windows henüz yayınlanmamıÅtı. Ancak bu problemin baÅka özgür
programlarda
+meydana geldiÄini görmüÅtüm. ÃrneÄin, TeX gibi. Kullanıcıların
tümünün
+özgürlüÄe sahip olduÄundan emin olmak istedim. Aksi takdirde, bir program
+yazabileceÄimi ve çok sayıda insanın programı kullanacaÄını
düÅündüm, ancak
+o insanların özgürlüÄü olmayacaktı. Ve bunun ana noktası nedir?</p>
+
+<p>Ancak düÅündüÄüm diÄer bir husus, topluluÄa, bunun bir paspas
olmadıÄı
+duygusunu vermekti, bu, ortalıkta dolanan herhangi bir parazite av olmadıÄı
+duygusuydu. Copyleftâi kullanmıyorsanız, esas olarak Åunu diyorsunuzdur:
+[Uysal bir Åekilde konuÅarak] âKodumu al. Ne istersen yap. Hayır demem.â
+Böylece herhangi biri gelip Åunu diyebilir: [kesinkes konuÅarak] âA, bunun
+özgür olmayan bir sürümünü yapmak istiyorum. O zaman bunu alacaÄım.â
Ve daha
+sonra, tabi ki, muhtemelen bazı geliÅtirmeler eklediler, bu özgür olmayan
+sürümler kullanıcılara çekici geldi ve özgür sürümlerin yerini aldı.
Ve o
+zaman, neyi baÅarmıŠoldunuz? Yalnızca bir özel mülk yazılım projesine
+katkıda bulunmuŠoldunuz. </p>
+
+<p>Ve insanlar bu durumun meydana geldiÄini gördüÄünde, benim yaptıÄım
Åeyi
+diÄer insanların aldıÄını gördüklerinde ve insanlar hiçbir zaman geri
+vermediÄinde, bu, moral bozucu bir durum olabilir. Ve bu yalnızca
+spekülasyon deÄildir. Bunun gerçekleÅtiÄini gördüm. Bu, 1970âlerde
üyesi
+olduÄum eski topluluÄu bozmak için meydana gelen Åeyin bir parçasıdır.
Bazı
+insanlar iÅbirliÄinden uzaklaÅmaya baÅladı. Ve biz de bu Åekilde kâr
+yaptıklarını varsaydık. Kesinlikle kâr yaptıklarını düÅünüyor gibi
+davrandılar. Ve biz de, ortaklıÄımızı alabileceÄimizi ve geri
+vermeyebileceÄimizi fark ettik. Ve bu konu hakkında yapabileceÄimiz hiçbir
+Åey yoktu. Ãok umutsuzluk vericiydi. Bizim gibi bu eÄilimden hoÅlanmayan
+insanlar bir tartıÅma bile yaÅadılar ancak bunu nasıl durdurabileceÄimize
+iliÅkin bir fikrimiz yoktu.</p>
+
+<p>GPL bunu durdurmak için tasarımlanmıÅtır. Åöyle der: Evet,
topluluÄa girmek
+ve bu kodu kullanmak konusunda özgürsünüz. Her türlü iÅi yapmak için
bu kodu
+kullanabilirsiniz. Ancak deÄiÅtirilmiÅ bir sürümü yayınlarsanız, bunu,
+topluluÄumuza, topluluÄumuzun bir kısmına, özgür dünyanın bir kısmına
+yayınlamanız gereklidir.</p>
+
+<p>Bu nedenle, gerçekte, insanların bizim çalıÅmalarımızdan
faydalanmasının ve
+herhangi bir yazılım yazmak zorunda olmamanız gibi bir katkısının
+olmamasının hâlâ birçok yolu vardır. Birçok insan GNU/Linuxâı
kullanmakta ve
+hiçbir yazılım yazmamaktadır. Bizim için bir Åeyler yapmanız gibi bir
Åart
+yoktur. Ancak belirli bir Åey yaparsanız, buna katkıda bulunmanız
+gerekir. Bu nedenle, bu, bizim topluluÄumuzun bir paspas olmadıÄı anlamına
+gelmektedir. Ve zannediyorum ki, bu durum insanlara Åunu hissetme gücü
+verdi: Evet, herkes tarafından ayakaltına alınmayacaÄız. Bunun
karÅısında
+ayakta duracaÄız.</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Evet sorum Åuydu, özgür ancak copyleft edilmemiÅ
+yazılım dikkate alındıÄında, herhangi bir kimse bu yazılımı alıp
özel mülk
+hale getirebileceÄi için, birilerinin bu yazılımı alıp üzerinde bazı
+deÄiÅiklikler yapıp sonuçtaki yazılımı GPL altında yayınlaması
mümkün müdür?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Evet, bu mümkündür.</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: O zaman bu, gelecekteki tüm kopyaların
GPLâlenmesine
+neden olacaktır.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: O açıdan öyle. Ancak neden bunu
yapmadıÄımızın
+nedenleri Åunlardır.</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Hım?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Neden genellikle bunu yapmıyoruz, açıklamama
izin
+verin.</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Tamam, evet.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Ä°steseydik, X Windowsâu alıp GPL kapsamlı
bir
+kopya hazırlayıp bunda deÄiÅiklikler yapabilirdik. Ancak X Windowâun,
+GPLâlenmesi yerine geliÅtirilmesi üzerinde çalıÅan çok daha büyük
bir grup
+vardır. Bu nedenle, bunu yaparsak, onlardan bir Åeyler eÅelemiÅ olurduk. Ve
+bu, iyi bir davranıŠdeÄildir. Ve onlar, bizim topluluÄumuzun bir
+parçasıdır, topluluÄumuza katkıda bulunmaktadırlar.</p>
+
+<p>İkinci olarak, bu bize geri tepecektir çünkü X üzerinde bizim
yapacaÄımızdan
+çok daha fazla iŠyapmaktadırlar. Bu nedenle, bizim sürümümüz onların
+sürümünden daha kötü olacaktır ve insanlar, bizim sürümümüzü
+kullanmayacaktır, neden baÅımızı derde sokalım ki?</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Mmm hmm.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Bu nedenle, bir insan X Windowsâa birtakım
+geliÅtirmeler ilâve ettiÄinde, o insanın yapması gereken Åey bence X
+geliÅtirme takımıyla iÅbirliÄi yapmaktır. Bu ilâveleri onlara gönderin
ve
+kendi bildikleri gibi kullanmalarına izin verin. Ãünkü çok önemli bir
özgür
+yazılım parçası geliÅtirmektedirler. Onlarla iÅbirliÄi yapmak bizim
için
+iyidir. </p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: YaklaÅık iki yıl önceki özgür olmayan açık
kaynaÄa
+çok yakın olan X Konsorsiyumu hariç olmak üzere…</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Aslında, o açık kaynak <em>deÄildi</em>.
Açık
+kaynak olduÄunu söylemiÅ olabilirler. Ãyle söylemiÅ olup olmadıklarını
+hatırlamıyorum. Ama açık kaynak deÄildi. Kısıtlıydı. Zannediyorum ki
ticari
+olarak daÄıtamıyordunuz. Ya da ticari olarak deÄiÅtirilmiÅ bir
sürümünü ya
+da benzeri bir Åeyleri daÄıtamıyordunuz. Bu, hem Ãzgür Yazılım
hareketi hem
+de Açık Kaynak hareketi tarafından kabul edilemez olan bir kısıtlamaydı.
</p>
+
+<p>Ve evet, bu, copyleft olmayan bir lisansın sizi maruz bıraktıÄı bir
+durumdur. Aslında, X Konsorsiyumunun çok katı bir politikası vardı. Åunu
+demekteydiler: Programınız azıcık bile copyleft edilmiŠolsa,
daÄıtmayız
+bile. DaÄıtımımıza koymayacaÄız.</p>
+
+<p>Böylece, çok sayıda insan bu Åekilde copyleft etmeme konusunda baskıya
+uÄramıÅtır. Ve sonuçta, daha sonra onların tüm yazılımları çok
açıktı. Bir
+geliÅtiriciye her Åeye aÅırı izin verme konusunda baskı yapmıŠolan
+insanlar, daha sonra âTamam, Åimdi kısıtlamalar getirebilirizâ
dediklerinde,
+bu onların çok da etik olmayan hareketler yaptıklarını göstermiÅtir.</p>
+
+<p>Ancak bu durumda, Xâin alternatif bir GPL kapsamlı sürümünü elde
etmek için
+kaynakları gerçekten de zar zor toplamak ister miydik? Ve bunu yapmamızın
+hiçbir anlamı olmayacaktı. Yapmamız gereken baÅka birçok Åey vardır.
Bunun
+yerine onları yapalım. X geliÅtiricileriyle iÅbirliÄi yapabiliriz. </p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: GNUânun ticari bir marka olduÄu konusunda bir
+yorumunuz var mı? Ve ticari markalara izin vererek bunu, GNU Genel Kamu
+Lisansının bir parçası olarak içermek pratik midir?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Aslında, GNU üzerinde ticari marka kaydı
+uygulamaktayız. Ancak, bunun bir önemi yok. Bunun sebebini açıklamak uzun
+sürer.</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Ticari markanın GPL kapsamlı programlarda
+görüntülenmesine gereksinim duyardınız.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Hayır, öyle zannetmiyorum. Lisanslar tekil
+programları kapsamaktadır. Ve belirli bir program GNU Projesinin
parçasıysa,
+hiç kimse bu konu hakkında yalan söylemez. Bir bütün olarak sistemin ismi
+farklı bir husustur. Ve bu, bir yan husustur. Daha fazla tartıÅılmaya
+deÄmez.</p>
+
+<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Bir düÄme olsaydı ve bu düÄmeye
bastıÄınızda, bütün
+firmaları yazılımlarını özgürleÅtirmeye zorlayabilseydiniz, bu
düÄmeye basar
+mıydınız?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Bu düÄmeyi yalnızca yayınlanan yazılımlar
için
+kullanırdım. İnsanların özel olarak bir program yazıp onu özel olarak
+kullanma hakkına sahip olduÄunu düÅünüyorum. Ve bu düÅüncem,
firmaları da
+içermektedir. Bu, gizlilik hususudur. Ve bu doÄrudur, yazılımın halka
+açılmamasının yanlıŠolduÄu zamanlar da olabilir, örneÄin, insanlık
için çok
+yararlı bir yazılım insanlardan gizli tutuluyorsa, bu yanlıŠbir
+durumdur. Bu yanlıÅtır, ancak farklı bir yanlıŠtipidir. Aynı alanda
+olmasına raÄmen, farklı bir husustur. </p>
+
+<p>Ama evet, bence yayınlanan tüm yazılımlar özgür yazılım
olmalıdır. Ve
+unutmayın ki, bu yazılımlar özgür yazılım olmadıÄında, bunun nedeni,
+hükümetin müdahalesidir. Hükümet, yazılımın özgür olmayan yazılım
olması
+için müdahale etmektedir. Hükümet, programların sahiplerine verilmek
üzere
+özel yasal güçler oluÅturmaktadır, böylece belirli Åekillerde
programları
+kullanmamızı polis gücüyle önleyebilir. Bu nedenle kesinlikle bunun bir
sona
+erdirilmesini isterim. </p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Richardâın sunumu, önemli oranda
entelektüel
+enerji oluÅturmuÅtur. Umarım ki, bu enerjinin bir kısmı özgür
yazılımın
+kullanılmasına ve muhtemelen de yazılmasına dönüÅür.</p>
+
+<p>Bu konuyu burada sona erdirmeliyiz. Åunu söylemek isterim ki Richard
politik
+ve ahlaksal seviyede kamuoyunda nihai politik durumundan dolayı bilinen bir
+uzmanlık alanına girmiÅtir ve bu, bizim uzmanlık alanımızda emsali
+görülmemiÅ bir davranıÅtır. Ve bunun için ona çok borçluyuz. Åimdi
bir ara
+olduÄunu belirtmek isterim.</p>
+
+<p><i> [Dinleyiciler alkıÅlar]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Ä°stediÄiniz zaman gitmekte özgürsünüz,
+biliyorsunuz. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Sizi burada köle olarak
+tutmuyorum.</p>
+
+<p><i>[dinleyiciler daÄılır…]</i></p>
+
+<p><i>[çakıÅan konuÅmalar…]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Son bir Åey. AÄ sayfamız: www.gnu.org</p>
+
+<div class="translators-notes">
+
+<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes.-->
+ </div>
+</div>
+
+<!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.tr.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Lütfen FSF ve GNU ile ilgili sorularınızı <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a> adresine iletin. FSF
ile
+iletiÅim kurmanın <a href="/contact/">baÅka yolları</a> da vardır. Lütfen
+çalıÅmayan baÄlantıları ve baÅka düzeltmeleri veya önerilerinizi <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a> adresine
+gönderin.</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";>
+
+ <address@hidden></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>. -->
+Ãevirilerimizde bulmuÅ olabileceÄiniz hataları, aklınızdaki soru ve
+önerilerinizi lütfen <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";>bize bildirin</a>.</p><p>Bu
+yazının çeviri düzenlemesi ve sunuÅu ile ilgili bilgi için lütfen <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Ãeviriler BENÄ°OKU</a>
+sayfasına bakın. Bu sayfanın ve diÄer tüm sayfaların Türkçe çevirileri
+gönüllüler tarafından yapılmaktadır; Türkçe niteliÄi yüksek bir <a
+href="/home.html">www.gnu.org</a> için bize yardımcı olmak istiyorsanız, <a
+href="https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/www-tr";>çalıÅma sayfamızı</a>
+ziyaret edebilir.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) 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. -->
+<p>Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman</p>
+
+<p>Bu sayfa a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/deed.tr";>Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a> ile
+lisanslanmıÅtır.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.tr.html" -->
+<div class="translators-credits">
+
+<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.-->
+<p><strong>Ãeviriye katkıda bulunanlar:</strong></p>
+<ul>
+
+<li>
+<a href="http://yzgrafik.ege.edu.tr/~tekrei/";>Tahir Emre Kalaycı</a>
+<a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>,
+2009.
+</li>
+
+<li>
+ÃiÄdem ÃzÅar,
+2009.
+</li>
+
+<li>
+Birkan SarıfakıoÄlu,
+2009.
+</li>
+
+<li>
+Serkan Ãapkan,
+2009.
+</li>
+
+<li>
+Ä°zlem GözükeleÅ,
+2009.
+</li>
+
+</ul></div>
+
+<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
+Son Güncelleme:
+
+$Date: 2015/09/15 05:45:30 $
+
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
Index: philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt
diff -N philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt 15 Sep 2015 05:45:31 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,1893 @@
+ Transcript of
+ Richard M. Stallman's speech,
+ "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation"
+ New York University in New York, New York
+ on 29 May 2001
+
+URETSKY: I'm Mike Uretsky. I'm over at the Stern School of Business. I'm
+also one of the Co-Directors of the Center for Advanced Technology. And,
+on behalf of all of us in the Computer Science Department, I want to
+welcome you here. I want to say a few comments, before I turn it over to
+Ed, who is going to introduce the speaker.
+
+The role of a university is a place to foster debate and to have
+interesting discussions. And the role of a major university is to have
+particularly interesting discussions. And this particular presentation,
+this seminar falls right into that mold. I find the discussion of open
+source particularly interesting. In a sense ... [Laughter]
+
+STALLMAN: I do free software. Open source is a different movement.
+[Laughter] [Applause]
+
+URETSKY: When I first started in the field in the '60's, basically
+software was free. And we went in cycles. It became free, and then
+software manufacturers, in the need to expand their markets, pushed it
+in other directions. A lot of the developments that took place with
+the entry of the PC moved in exactly the same kind of a cycle.
+
+There's a very interesting French philosopher, Pierre Levy, who talks
+about movement to this direction and who talks about the move into
+cyberspace as not only relating to technology but also relating to social
+restructuring, to political restructuring, through a change in the kinds
+of relationships that will improve the well-being of mankind. And we're
+hoping that this debate is a movement in that direction, that this debate
+is something that cuts across a lot of the disciplines that normally act
+as solace within the University. We're looking forward to some very
+interesting discussions. Ed?
+
+SCHONBERG: I'm Ed Schonberg from the Computer Science Department at the
+Courant Institute. Let me welcome you all to this event. Introducers are
+usually, and particularly, a useless aspect of public presentations, but
+in this case, actually, they serve a useful purpose, as Mike easily
+demonstrated, because an introducer for instance, told him, by making
+inaccurate comments, can allow him to straighten out and correct and
+[Laughter] sharpen considerably the parameters of the debate.
+
+So, let me make the briefest possible introduction to somebody who
+doesn't need one. Richard is the perfect example of somebody who, by
+acting locally, started thinking globally from problems concerning the
+unavailability of source code for printer drivers at the AI Lab many
+years ago. He has developed a coherent philosophy that has forced all
+of us to re-examine our ideas of how software is produced, of what
+intellectual property means, and what the software community actually
+represents. Let me welcome Richard Stallman. [Applause]
+
+STALLMAN: Can someone lend me a watch? [Laughter] Thank you. So, I'd
+like to thank Microsoft for providing me the opportunity to [Laughter] be
+on this platform. For the past few weeks, I have felt like an author
+whose book was fortuitously banned somewhere. [Laughter] Except that all
+the articles about it are giving the wrong author's name, because
+Microsoft describes the GNU GPL as an open source license, and most of
+the press coverage followed suit. Most people, of course just
+innocently don't realize that our work has nothing to do with open
+source, that in fact we did most of it before people even coined the
+term open source.
+
+We are in the free software movement, and I'm going to speak about what
+the free software movement is about, what it means, what we have done, and,
+because this is partly sponsored by a school of business, I'll say some
+things more than I usually do about how free software relates to business,
+and some other areas of social life.
+
+Now, some of you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps you
+cook. And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably use
+recipes. And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the experience of
+getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing it. And you've
+probably also had the experience -- unless you're a total neophyte -- of
+changing a recipe. You know, it says certain things, but you don't have
+to do exactly that. You can leave out some ingredients. Add some
+mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms. Put in less salt because your
+doctor said you should cut down on salt -- whatever. You can even make
+bigger changes according to your skill. And if you've made changes in a
+recipe, and you cook it for your friends, and they like it, one of your
+friends might say, "Hey, could I have the recipe?" And then, what do you
+do? You could write down your modified version of the recipe and make a
+copy for your friend. These are the natural things to do with
+functionally useful recipes of any kind.
+
+Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program. A computer program's a lot
+like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to get some result
+that you want. So it's just as natural to do those same things with
+computer programs -- hand a copy to your friend. Make changes in it
+because the job it was written to do isn't exactly what you want. It did
+a great job for somebody else, but your job is a different job. And
+after you've changed it, that's likely to be useful for other people.
+Maybe they have a job to do that's like the job you do. So they ask, "Hey,
+can I have a copy?" Of course, if you're a nice person, you're going to
+give a copy. That's the way to be a decent person.
+
+So imagine what it would be like if recipes were packaged inside black
+boxes. You couldn't see what ingredients they're using, let alone change
+them, and imagine if you made a copy for a friend, they would call you
+a pirate and try to put you in prison for years. That world would create
+tremendous outrage from all the people who are used to sharing recipes.
+But that is exactly what the world of proprietary software is like. A
+world in which common decency towards other people is prohibited or
+prevented.
+
+Now, why did I notice this? I noticed this because I had the good fortune in
+the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who shared software.
+Now, this community could trace its ancestry essentially back to the
+beginning of computing. In the 1970's, though, it was a bit rare for there
+to be a community where people shared software. And, in fact, this was
+sort of an extreme case, because in the lab where I worked, the entire
+operating system was software developed by the people in our community,
+and we'd share any of it with anybody. Anybody was welcome to come and
+take a look, and take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do. There
+were no copyright notices on these programs. Cooperation was our way of
+life. And we were secure in that way of life. We didn't fight for it.
+We didn't have to fight for it. We just lived that way. And, as far as
+we knew, we would just keep on living that way. So there was free
+software, but there was no free software movement.
+
+But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that
+happened to it. Ultimately it was wiped out. Ultimately, the PDP-10
+computer which we used for all our work was discontinued. And you know,
+our system -- the Incompatible Timesharing System -- was written starting
+in the '60's, so it was written in assembler language. That's what you
+used to write an operating system in the '60's. So, of course, assembler
+language is for one particular computer architecture; if that gets
+discontinued, all your work turns into dust -- it's useless. And that's
+what happened to us. The 20 years or so of work of our community turned
+into dust.
+
+But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me, helped me
+see what to do, helped prepare me to see what to do when this happened,
+because at certain point, Xerox gave the Artificial Intelligence Lab,
+where I worked, a laser printer, and this was a really handsome gift,
+because it was the first time anybody outside Xerox had a laser printer.
+It was very fast, printed a page a second, very fine in many respects, but
+it was unreliable, because it was really a high-speed office copier that
+had been modified into a printer. And, you know, copiers jam, but there's
+somebody there to fix them. The printer jammed and nobody saw. So it
+stayed jammed for a long time.
+
+Well, we had an idea for how to deal with this problem. Change it so that
+whenever the printer gets a jam, the machine that runs the printer can tell
+our timesharing machine, and tell the users who are waiting for
+printouts, or something like that, you know, tell them, go fix the
+printer. Because if they only knew it was jammed, of course, if you're
+waiting for a printout and you know that the printer is jammed, you
+don't want to sit and wait forever, you're going to go fix it.
+
+But at that point, we were completely stymied, because the software
+that ran that printer was not free software. It had come with the
+printer, and it was just a binary. We couldn't have the source code;
+Xerox wouldn't let us have the source code. So, despite our skill as
+programmers -- after all, we had written our own timesharing system
+-- we were completely helpless to add this feature to the printer
+software.
+
+And we just had to suffer with waiting. It would take an hour or two to
+get your printout because the machine would be jammed most of the time.
+And only once in a while -- you'd wait an hour figuring "I know it's
+going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and go collect my printout," and
+then you'd see that it had been jammed the whole time, and in fact,
+nobody else had fixed it. So you'd fix it and you'd go wait another
+half hour. Then, you'd come back, and you'd see it jammed again -- before
+it got to your output. It would print three minutes and be jammed
+thirty minutes. Frustration up the whazzoo. But the thing that made it
+worse was knowing that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his
+own selfishness, was blocking us, obstructing us from improving the software.
+So, of course, we felt some resentment.
+
+And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a copy
+of that software. So I was visiting there later, so I went to his
+office and I said, "Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of the printer
+source code?" And he said "No, I promised not to give you a
+copy." [Laughter] I was stunned. I was so -- I was angry, and I had no
+idea how I could do justice to it. All I could think of was to turn
+around on my heel and walk out of his room. Maybe I slammed the door.
+[Laughter] And I thought about it later on, because I realized that I was
+seeing not just an isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was
+important and affected a lot of people.
+
+This was -- for me -- I was lucky, I only got a taste of it, but other
+people had to live in this all the time. So I thought about it at length.
+See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with us -- his colleagues at
+MIT. He had betrayed us. But he didn't just do it to us. Chances are he
+did it to you too. [Pointing at member of audience.] And I think, mostly
+likely, he did it to you too. [Pointing at another member of audience.]
+[Laughter] And he probably did it to you as well. [Pointing to third member
+of audience.] He probably did it to most of the people here in this room --
+except a few, maybe, who weren't born yet in 1980. Because he had promised
+to refuse to cooperate with just about the entire population of the Planet
+Earth. He had signed a non-disclosure agreement.
+
+Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure agreement,
+and it taught me an important lesson -- a lesson that's important because
+most programmers never learn it. You see, this was my first encounter
+with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was the victim. I, and my whole
+lab, were the victims. And the lesson it taught me was that
+non-disclosure agreements have victims. They're not innocent. They're
+not harmless. Most programmers first encounter a non-disclosure agreement
+when they're invited to sign one. And there's always some temptation --
+some goody they're going to get if they sign. So, they make up excuses.
+They say, "Well, he's never going to get a copy no matter what, so why
+shouldn't I join the conspiracy to deprive him?" They say, "This is the
+way it's always done. Who am I to go against it?" They say, "If I don't
+sign this, someone else will." Various excuses to gag their consciences.
+
+But when somebody invited me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, my
+conscience was already sensitized. It remembered how angry I had been,
+when somebody promised not to help me and my whole lab solve our problem.
+And I couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to somebody else
+who had never done me any harm. You know, if somebody asked me to promise
+not to share some useful information with a hated enemy, I would have said
+yes. You know? If somebody's done something bad, he deserves it. But,
+strangers -- they haven't done me any harm. How could they deserve that
+kind of mistreatment? You can't let yourself start treating just anybody
+and everybody badly. Then you become a predator on society. So I said,
+"Thank you very much for offering me this nice software package. But I
+can't accept it in good conscience, on the conditions you are demanding,
+so I will do without it. Thank you so much." And so, I have never
+knowingly signed a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful technical
+information such as software.
+
+Now there are other kinds of information which raise different ethical
+issues. For instance, there's personal information. You know, if you
+wanted to talk with me about what was happening between you and your
+boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody -- you know, I could keep
+-- I could agree to keep that a secret for you, because that's not
+generally useful technical information. At least, it's probably not
+generally useful. [Laughter]
+
+There is a small chance -- and it's a possibility though -- that you might
+reveal to me some marvelous new sex technique, [Laughter] and I would
+then feel a moral duty [Laughter] to pass it onto the rest of
+humanity, so that everyone could get the benefit of it. So, I'd have
+to put a proviso in that promise, you know? If it's just details
+about who wants this, and who's angry at whom, and things like that --
+soap opera -- that I can keep private for you, but something that
+humanity could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't
+withhold. You see, the purpose of science and technology is to
+develop useful information for humanity to help people live their
+lives better. If we promise to withhold that information -- if we
+keep it secret -- then we are betraying the mission of our field. And
+this, I decided I shouldn't do.
+
+But, meanwhile my community had collapsed, and that was collapsing, and
+that left me in a bad situation. You see, the whole Incompatible
+Timesharing System was obsolete, because the PDP-10 was obsolete, and
+so there was no way that I could continue working as an operating system
+developer the way that I had been doing it. That depended on being part
+of the community using the community software and improving it. That
+no longer was a possibility, and that gave me a moral dilemma. What was I
+going to do? Because the most obvious possibility meant to go against
+that decision I had made. The most obvious possibility was to adapt
+myself to the change in the world. To accept that things were different,
+and that I'd just have to give up those principles and start signing
+non-disclosure agreements for proprietary operating systems, and most
+likely writing proprietary software as well. But I realized that that
+way I could have fun coding, and I could make money -- especially if I did
+it other than at MIT -- but at the end, I'd have to look back at my
+career and say, "I've spent my life building walls to divide people,"
+and I would have been ashamed of my life.
+
+So I looked for another alternative, and there was an obvious one. I
+could leave the software field and do something else. Now I had no other
+special noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a
+waiter. [Laughter] Not at a fancy restaurant; they wouldn't hire
+me, [Laughter] but I could be a waiter somewhere. And many programmers,
+they say to me, "The people who hire programmers demand this, this and
+this. If I don't do those things, I'll starve." It's literally the word
+they use. Well, you know, as a waiter, you're not going to
+starve. [Laughter] So, really, they're in no danger. But -- and this is
+important, you see -- because sometimes you can justify doing something
+that hurts other people by saying otherwise something worse is going to
+happen to me. You know, if you were *really* going to starve, you'd be
+justified in writing proprietary software. [Laughter] If somebody's
+pointing a gun at you, then I would say, it's forgivable. [Laughter] But,
+I had found a way that I could survive without doing something unethical,
+so that excuse was not available. So I realized, though, that being a
+waiter would be no fun for me, and it would be wasting my skills as an
+operating system developer. It would avoid misusing my skills.
+Developing proprietary software would be misusing my skills.
+Encouraging other people to live in the world of proprietary software
+would be misusing my skills. So it's better to waste them than
+misuse them, but it's still not really good.
+
+So for those reasons, I decided to look for some other alternative. What
+can an operating system developer do that would actually improve the
+situation, make the world a better place? And I realized that an
+operating system developer was exactly what was needed. The problem, the
+dilemma, existed for me and for everyone else because all of the
+available operating systems for modern computers were proprietary. The
+free operating systems were for old, obsolete computers, right? So for
+the modern computers -- if you wanted to get a modern computer and use it,
+you were forced into a proprietary operating system. So if an operating
+system developer wrote another operating system, and then said,
+"Everybody come and share this; you're welcome to this" -- that would give
+everybody a way out of the dilemma, another alternative. So I realized
+that there was something I could do that would solve the problem. I had
+just the right skills to be able to do it. And it was the most useful
+thing I could possibly imagine that I'd be able to do with my life.
+And it was a problem that no one else was trying to solve. It was just
+sort of sitting there, getting worse, and nobody was there but me. So I
+felt, "I'm elected. I have to work on this. If not me, who?" So I
+decided I would develop a free operating system, or die trying. . . .of
+old age, of course. [Laughter]
+
+So, of course I had to decide what kind of operating system it should be.
+There are some technical design decisions to be made. I decided to
+make the system compatible with UNIX for a number of reasons.
+First of all, I had just seen one operating system that I really loved
+become obsolete because it was written for one particular kind of
+computer. I didn't want that to happen again. We needed to have a
+portable system. Well, UNIX was a portable system. So if I followed
+the design of UNIX, I had a pretty good chance that I could make a system
+that would also be portable and workable. And furthermore, why [Tape unclear]
be
+compatible with it in the details. The reason is, users hate
+incompatible changes. If I had just designed the system in my favorite
+way -- which I would have loved doing, I'm sure -- I would have produced
+something that was incompatible. You know, the details would be
+different. So, if I wrote the system, then the users would have said to
+me, "Well, this is very nice, but it's incompatible. It will be too
+much work to switch. We can't afford that much trouble just to use
+your system instead of UNIX, so we'll stay with UNIX," they would have
+said.
+
+Now, if I wanted to actually create a community where there would be
+people in it, people using this free system, and enjoying the benefits
+of liberty and cooperation, I had to make a system people would
+use, a system that they would find easy to switch to, that would not
+have an obstacle making it fail at the very beginning. Now, making the
+system upward compatible with UNIX actually made all the immediate
+design decisions, because UNIX consists of many pieces, and they
+communicate through interfaces that are more or less documented. So if
+you want to be compatible with UNIX, you have to replace each piece, one
+by one, with a compatible piece. So the remaining design decisions are
+inside one piece, and they could be made later by whoever decides to
+write that piece. They didn't have to be made at the outset.
+
+So all we had to do to start work was find a name for the system.
+Now, we hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program,
+because thinking of people being amused by the name is half the fun of
+writing the program. [Laughter] And we had a tradition of recursive
+acronyms, to say that the program that you're writing is similar to
+some existing program. You can give it a recursive acronym name which
+says: this one's not the other. So, for instance, there were many Tico
+text editors in the '60's and '70's, and they were generally called
+something-or-other Tico. Then one clever hacker called his Tint,
+for Tint Is Not Tico -- the first recursive acronym. In 1975, I developed
+the first Emacs text editor, and there were many imitations of Emacs,
+and a lot of them were called something-or-other Emacs, but one was
+called Fine, for Fine Is Not Emacs, and there was Sine, for Sine Is
+Not Emacs, and Eine for Ina Is Not Emacs, and MINCE for Mince Is Not
+Complete Emacs. [Laughter] That was a stripped down imitation. And
+then, Eine was almost completely rewritten, and the new version was called
+Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially. [Laughter]
+
+So I looked for a recursive acronym for Something is not UNIX. And I
+tried all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word.
+[Laughter] Hmm, try another way. I made a contraction. That way I
+could have a three-letter acronym, for Something's not UNIX. And I
+tried letters, and I came across the word "GNU" -- the word "GNU" is
+the funniest word in the English language. [Laughter] That was it. Of
+course, the reason it's funny is that according to the dictionary,
+it's pronounced "new". You see? And so that's why people use it for
+a lot of wordplay. Let me tell you, this is the name of an animal
+that lives in Africa. And the African pronunciation had a click sound
+in it. [Laughter] Maybe still does. And so, the European colonists,
+when they got there, they didn't bother learning to say this click
+sound. So they just left it out, and they wrote a "G" which meant
+"there's another sound that's supposed to be here which we are not
+pronouncing." [Laughter] So, tonight I'm leaving for South Africa,
+and I have begged them, I hope they're going to find somebody who can
+teach me to pronounce click sounds, [Laughter] so that I'll know how to
+pronounce GNU the correct way, when it's the animal.
+
+But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is
+"guh-NEW" -- pronounce the hard "G". If you talk about the "new"
+operating system, you'll get people very confused, because
+we've been working on it for 17 years now, so it is not new any
+more. [Laughter] But it still is, and always will be, GNU -- no matter
+how many people call it Linux by mistake. [Laughter]
+
+So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces of
+GNU. They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities
+though. And, at the time, I thought we would write all these pieces,
+and make an entire GNU system, and then we'd say, "Come and get it", and
+people would start to use it. That's not what happened. The first
+pieces I wrote were just equally good replacements, with fewer bugs
+for some pieces of UNIX, but they weren't tremendously exciting.
+Nobody particularly wanted to get them and install them. But then,
+in September 1984, I started writing GNU Emacs, which was my second
+implementation of Emacs, and by early 1985, it was working. I could
+use it for all my editing, which was a big relief, because I had no
+intention of learning to use VI, the UNIX editor. [Laughter] So, until
+that time, I did my editing on some other machine, and saved the
+files through the network, so that I could test them. But when GNU
+Emacs was running well enough for me to use it, it was also -- other
+people wanted to use it too.
+
+So I had to work out the details of distribution. Of course, I put a copy
+in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people who were on
+the net They could then just pull over a tar file, but a lot of
+programmers then even were not on the net in 1985. They were sending me
+emails saying "How can I get a copy?" I had to decide what I would
+answer them. Well, I could have said, I want to spend my time writing
+more GNU software, not writing tapes, so please find a friend who's on
+the internet and who is willing to download it and put it on a tape for
+you. And I'm sure people would have found some friends, sooner or later,
+you know. They would have got copies. But I had no job. In fact, I've
+never had a job since quitting MIT in January 1984. So, I was looking
+for some way I could make money through my work on free software,
+and therefore I started a free software business. I announced, "Send me
+$150 dollars, and I'll mail you a tape of Emacs." And the orders began
+dribbling in. By the middle of the year they were trickling in.
+
+I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month. And, if necessary, I could have
+lived on just that, because I've always lived cheaply. I live like a
+student, basically. And I like that, because it means that money is not
+telling me what to do. I can do what I think is important for me to do.
+It freed me to do what seemed worth doing. So make a real effort to
+avoid getting sucked into all the expensive lifestyle habits of typical
+Americans. Because if you do that, then people with the money will
+dictate what you do with your life. You won't be able to do what's really
+important to you.
+
+So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, "What do you mean it's
+free software if it costs $150 dollars?" [Laughter] Well, the reason
+they asked this was that they were confused by the multiple
+meanings of the English word "free". One meaning refers to price,
+and another meaning refers to freedom. When I speak of free software,
+I'm referring to freedom, not price. So think of free speech, not
+free beer. [Laughter] Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many years of
+my life to making sure programmers got less money. That's not my
+goal. I'm a programmer and I don't mind getting money myself. I
+won't dedicate my whole life to getting it, but I don't mind
+getting it. And I'm not -- and therefore, ethics is the same for
+everyone. I'm not against some other programmer getting money either.
+I don't want prices to be low. That's not the issue at all. The
+issue is freedom. Freedom for everyone who's using software, whether
+that person be a programmer or not.
+
+So at this point I should give you the definition of free software. I
+better get to some real details, you see, because just saying "I
+believe in freedom" is vacuous. There's so many different freedoms
+you could believe in, and they conflict with each other, so the real
+political question is: Which are the important freedoms, the freedoms
+that we must make sure everybody has?
+
+And now, I will give my answer to that question for the particular
+area of using software. A program is free software for you, a particular
+user, if you have the following freedoms:
+
+ First, Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the
+program for any purpose, any way you like.
+
+ Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the program
+to suit your needs.
+
+ Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing copies
of the
+program.
+
+ And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your
+community by publishing an improved version so others can get the
+benefit of your work.
+
+If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software, for you --
+and that's crucial. That's why I phrase it that way. I'll explain why later,
+when I talk about the GNU General Public License, but right now I'm explaining
+what free software means, which is a more basic question.
+
+So, Freedom Zero's pretty obvious. If you're not even allowed to run
+the program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive program.
+But as it happens, most programs will at least give you Freedom Zero.
+And Freedom Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of Freedoms One,
+Two, and Three -- that's the way that copyright law works. So the
+freedoms that distinguish free software from typical software are
+Freedoms One, Two, and Three, so I'll say more about them and why they
+are important.
+
+Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the software to
+suit your needs. This could mean fixing bugs. It could mean adding new
+features. It could mean porting it to a different computer system. It
+could mean translating all the error messages into Navajo. Any change
+you want to make, you should be free to make.
+
+Now, it's obvious that professional programmers can make use of this
+freedom very effectively, but not just them. Anybody of reasonable
+intelligence can learn a little programming. You know, there are hard
+jobs, and there are easy jobs, and most people are not going to learn
+enough to do hard jobs. But lots of people can learn enough to do easy
+jobs, just the way, you know, 50 years ago, lots and lots of American
+men learned to repair cars, which is what enabled the U.S. to have a
+motorized army in World War II and win. So, very important, having lots
+of people tinkering.
+
+And if you are a people person, and you really don't want to learn technology
+at all, that probably means that you have a lot of friends, and you're good
+at getting them to owe you favors. [Laughter] Some of them are probably
+programmers. So you can ask one of your programmer friends. "Would you
+please change this for me? Add this feature?" So, lots of people can benefit
from it.
+
+Now, if you don't have this freedom, it causes practical, material harm to
+society. It makes you a prisoner of your software. I explained what that
+was like with regard to the laser printer. You know, it worked badly for
+us, and we couldn't fix it, because we were prisoners of our software.
+
+
+But it also affects people's morale. You know if the computer is constantly
+frustrating to use, and people are using it, their lives are going to
+be frustrating, and if they're using it in their jobs, their jobs are
+going to be frustrating; they're going to hate their jobs. And you
+know, people protect themselves from frustration by deciding not to care.
+So you end up with people whose attitude is, "Well, I showed up for work
+today. That's all I have to do. If I can't make progress, that's not my
+problem; that's the boss's problem." And when this happens, it's bad for
+those people, and it's bad for society as a whole. That's Freedom One,
+the freedom to help yourself.
+
+Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing copies
+of the program. Now, for beings that can think and learn, sharing
+useful knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship. When these beings
+use computers, this act of friendship takes the form of sharing software.
+Friends share with each other. Friends help each other. This is the
+nature of friendship. And, in fact, this spirit of goodwill -- the
+spirit of helping your neighbor, voluntarily -- is society's most important
+resource. It makes the difference between a livable society and a
+dog-eat-dog jungle. Its importance has been recognized by the world's
+major religions for thousands of years, and they explicitly try to
+encourage this attitude.
+
+When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach us
+this attitude -- the spirit of sharing -- by having us do it. They figured
+if we did it, we'd learn. So they said, "If you bring candy to school, you
+can't keep it all for yourself; you have to share some with the other
+kids." Teaching us, the society was set up to teach, this spirit of
+cooperation. And why do you have to do that? Because people are not
+totally cooperative. That's one part of human nature, and there are
+other parts of human nature. There are lots of parts of human nature.
+So, if you want a better society, you've got to work to encourage the
+spirit of sharing. You know, it'll never get to be 100%. That's
+understandable. People have to take care of themselves too. But if we
+make it somewhat bigger, we're all better off.
+
+Nowadays, according to the U.S. Government, teachers are supposed to do
+the exact opposite. "Oh, Johnny, you brought software to school. Well,
+don't share it. Oh no. Sharing is wrong. Sharing means you're a pirate."
+
+What do they mean when they say "pirate"? They're saying that helping
+your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship. [Laughter]
+
+What would Buddha or Jesus say about that? Now, take your favorite religious
+leader. I don't know, maybe Manson would have said something different.
+[Laughter] Who knows what L. Ron Hubbard would say? But ...
+
+QUESTION: [Inaudible]
+
+STALLMAN: Of course, he's dead. But they don't admit that. What?
+
+QUESTION: So are the others, also dead. [Laughter] [Inaudible] Charles
+Manson's also dead. [Laughter] They're dead, Jesus's dead, Buddha's
+dead...
+
+STALLMAN: Yes, that's true. [Laughter] So I guess, in that regard, L. Ron
+Hubbard is no worse than the others. [Laughter] Anyway -- [Inaudible]
+
+QUESTION: L. Ron always used free software -- it freed him from Zanu.
[Laughter]
+
+STALLMAN: Anyway, so, I think this is actually the most important reason
+why software should be free: We can't afford to pollute society's most
+important resource. It's true that it's not a physical resource like
+clean air and clean water. It's a psycho-social resource, but it's just
+as real for all that, and it makes a tremendous difference to our lives.
+You see, the actions we take influence the thoughts of other people. When
+we go around telling people, "Don't share with each other", if they
+listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's not a good one.
+That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor.
+
+Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just
+cause this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes
+waste -- practical, material harm. If the program has an owner, and the
+owner arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay in order to
+be able to use it, some people are going to say, "Never mind, I'll do
+without it." And that's waste, deliberately inflicted waste. And the
+interesting thing about software, of course, is that fewer users doesn't
+mean you have to make less stuff. You know, if fewer people buy cars, you
+can make fewer cars. There's a saving there. There are resources to be
+allocated, or not allocated, into making cars. So that you can say that
+having a price on a car is a good thing. It prevents people from
+diverting lots of wasted resources into making cars that aren't really
+needed. But if each additional car used no resources, it wouldn't be
+doing any good saving the making of these cars. Well, for physical
+objects, of course, like cars, it is always going to take resources to
+make an additional one of them, each additional exemplar.
+
+But for software that's not true. Anybody can make another copy. And
+it's almost trivial to do it. It takes no resources, except a tiny bit of
+electricity. So there's nothing we can save, no resource we're going to
+allocate better by putting this financial disincentive on the use of the
+software. You often find people taking economic, the consequences of
+economic reasoning, based on premises that don't apply to software, and
+trying to transplant them from other areas of life where the
+premises may apply, and the conclusions may be valid. They just take the
+conclusions and assume that they're valid for software too, when the
+argument is based on nothing, in the case of software. The premises don't
+work in that case. It is very important to examine how you reach the
+conclusion, and what premises it depends on, to see where it might be
+valid. So, thats Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor.
+
+Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by publishing an
+improved version of the software. People used to say to me, "If the
+software's free, then nobody will get paid to work on it, so why should
+anybody work on it?" Well, of course, they were confusing the two meanings
+of free, so their reasoning was based on a misunderstanding. But, in any
+case, that was their theory. Today, we can compare that theory with
+empirical fact, and we find that hundreds of people are being paid to
+write free software, and over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers. We
+get lots of people working on free software, for various different
+motives.
+
+When I first released GNU Emacs -- the first piece of the GNU system that
+people actually wanted to use -- and when it started having users, after
+a while, I got a message saying, "I think I saw a bug in the source code,
+and here's a fix." And I got another message, "Here's code to add a new
+feature." And another bug fix. And another new feature. And another, and
+another, and another, until they were pouring in on me so fast that just
+making use of all this help I was getting was a big job. Microsoft
+doesn't have this problem. [Laughter]
+
+Eventually, people noted this phenomenon. You see, in the 1980's a lot of
+us thought that maybe free software wouldn't be as good as the nonfree
+software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay people. And, of
+course, people like me, who value freedom and community said, "Well, we'll
+use the free software anyway." It's worth making a little sacrifice in
+some mere technical convenience to have freedom. But what people began
+to note, around 1990 was that our software was actually better. It was
+more powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary alternatives.
+
+In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific measurement of
+reliability of software. Here's what he did. He took several sets of
+comparable programs that did the same jobs -- the exact same jobs -- in
+different systems. Because there were certain basic UNIX-like utilities.
+And the jobs that they did, we know, was all, more or less, imitating the
+same thing, or they were following the POSIX spec, so they were all the
+same in terms of what jobs they did, but they were maintained by
+different people, written separately. The code was different. So they
+said, OK, we'll take these programs and run them with random data, and
+measure how often they crash, or hang. So they measured it, and the
+most reliable set of programs was the GNU programs. All the commercial
+alternatives which were proprietary software were less reliable. So he
+published this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he
+did the same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same
+result. The GNU versions were the most reliable. People -- you know
+there are cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system,
+because it's so reliable, and reliability is very important to them.
+
+Anyway, there's even a group of people who focus on this particular
+benefit as the reason they give, the main reason they give, why users
+should be permitted to do these various things, and to have these
+freedoms. If you've been listening to me, you've noticed, you've seen
+that I, speaking for the free software movement, I talk about issues
+of ethics, and what kind of a society we want to live in, what makes for
+a good society, as well as practical, material benefits. They're both
+important. That's the free software movement.
+
+That other group of people -- which is called the open source movement
+-- they only cite the practical benefits. They deny that this is an
+issue of principle. They deny that people are entitled to the freedom to
+share with their neighbor and to see what the program's doing and change
+it if they don't like it. They say, however, that it's a useful thing to
+let people do that. So they go to companies and say to them, "You know,
+you might make more money if you let people do this." So, what you can see
+is that to some extent, they lead people in a similar direction, but for
+totally different, for fundamentally different, philosophical reasons.
+
+Because on the deepest issue of all, you know, on the ethical
+question, the two movements disagree. You know, in the free software
+movement we say, "You're entitled to these freedoms. People shouldn't
+stop you from doing these things." In the open source movement, they
+say, "Yes, they can stop you if you want, but we'll try to convince them to
+deign to let you to do these things." Well, they have contributed -- they
+have convinced a certain number of businesses to release substantial
+pieces of software as free software in our community. So they, the
+open source movement, has contributed substantially to our community. And
+so we work together on practical projects. But, philosophically, there's
+a tremendous disagreement.
+
+Unfortunately, the open source movement is the one that gets the support
+of business the most, and so most articles about our work describe it as
+open source, and a lot of people just innocently think that we're all
+part of the open source movement. So that's why I'm mentioning this
+distinction. I want you to be aware that the free software movement,
+which brought our community into existence and developed the free
+operating system, is still here -- and that we still stand for this
+ethical philosophy. I want you to know about this, so that you won't
+mislead someone else unknowingly.
+
+But also, so that you can think about where you stand.
+
+You know, which movement you support is up to you. You might agree with the
free
+software movements and my views. You might agree with the open source
+movement. You might disagree with them both. You decide where you stand
+on these political issues.
+
+But if you agree with the free software movement -- if you see that there's
+an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled and directed by this
+decision deserve a say in it -- then I hope you'll say that you agree with
+the free software movement, and one way you can do that is by using the term
free
+software and just helping people know we exist.
+
+So, Freedom Three is very important both practically and
+psycho-socially. If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical
+material harm, because this community development doesn't happen, and we
+don't make powerful, reliable software. But it also causes psycho-social
+harm, which affects the spirit of scientific cooperation -- the idea that
+we're working together to advance human knowledge. You see, progress in
+science crucially depends on people being able to work together. And
+nowadays though, you often find each little group of scientists acting
+like it's a war with each other gang of scientists and engineers. And if
+they don't share with each other, they're all held back.
+
+So, those are the three freedoms that distinguish free software from
+typical software. Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself, making
+changes to suit your own needs. Freedom Two is the freedom to help your
+neighbor by distributing copies. And Freedom Three is the freedom to help
+build your community by making changes and publishing them for other
+people to use. If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free
+software for you. Now, why do I define it that way in terms of a
+particular user? Is it free software for you? [Pointing at member of
+audience.] Is it free software for you? [Pointing at another member
+of audience.] Is it free software for you? [Pointing at another member
+of audience.] Yes?
+
+QUESTION: Can you explain a bit about the difference between Freedom Two
+and Three? [inaudible]
+
+STALLMAN: Well, they certainly relate, because if you don't have freedom
+to redistribute at all, you certainly don't have freedom to
+distribute a modified version, but they're different activities.
+
+QUESTION: Oh.
+
+STALLMAN: Freedom Two is, you know, read it, you make an exact copy, and
+hand it to your friends, so now your friend can use it. Or maybe you make
+exact copies and you sell them to a bunch of people, and then they can use
+it.
+
+Freedom Three is where you make improvements -- or at least you think
+they're improvements, and some other people may agree with you. So
+that's the difference. Oh, and by the way, one crucial point. Freedoms
+One and Three depend on your having access to the source code. Because
+changing a binary-only program is extremely hard. [Laughter] Even trivial
+changes like using four digits for the date, [Laughter] if you don't
+have source. So, for compelling, practical reasons, access to the
+source code is a precondition, a requirement, for free software.
+
+So, why do I define it in terms of whether it's free software for
+*you*? The reason is that sometimes the same program can be free
+software for some people, and nonfree for others. Now, that might
+seem like a paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example to
+show you how it happens. A very big example -- maybe the biggest ever --
+of this problem was the X Window System which was developed at MIT and
+released under a license that made it free software. If you got the
+MIT version with the MIT license, you had Freedoms One, Two, and
+Three. It was free software for you. But among those who got copies
+were various computer manufacturers that distributed UNIX systems, and
+they made the necessary changes in X to run on their systems. You
+know, probably just a few thousand lines out of the hundreds of
+thousands of lines of X. And, then they compiled it, and they put the
+binaries into their UNIX system and distributed it under the same
+non-disclosure agreement as the rest of the UNIX system. And then,
+millions of people got these copies. They had the X Window System,
+but they had none of these freedoms. It was not free software for
+*them*.
+
+So, the paradox was that whether X was free software depended on where
+you made the measurement. If you made the measurement coming out of the
+developers' group, you'd say, "I observe all these freedoms. It's free
+software." If you made the measurements among the users you'd say, "Hmm,
+most users don't have these freedoms. It's not free software." Well,
+the people who developed X didn't consider this a problem, because their
+goal was just popularity, ego, essentially. They wanted a big
+professional success. They wanted to feel, "Ah, lots of people are using
+our software." And that was true. Lots of people were using their
+software but didn't have freedom.
+
+Well, in the GNU project, if that same thing had happened to GNU software,
+it would have been a failure, because our goal wasn't just to be popular;
+our goal was to give people liberty, and to encourage cooperation, to
+permit people to cooperate. Remember, never force anyone to cooperate
+with any other person, but make sure that everybody's allowed to
+cooperate, everyone has the freedom to do so, if he or she wishes. If
+millions of people were running nonfree versions of GNU, that wouldn't be
+success at all. The whole thing would have been perverted into nothing
+like the goal.
+
+So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening. The method I came
+up with is called "copyleft". It's called copyleft because it's
+sort of like taking copyright and flipping it over. [Laughter] Legally,
+copyleft works based on copyright. We use the existing copyright law,
+but we use it to achieve a very different goal. Here's what we do. We
+say, "This program is copyrighted." And, of course, by default, that means
+it's prohibited to copy it, or distribute it, or modify it. But then we
+say, "You're authorized to distribute copies of this. You're authorized to
+modify it. You're authorized to distribute modified versions and
+extended versions. Change it any way you like."
+
+But there is a condition. And the condition, of course, is the reason
+why we go to all this trouble, so that we could put the condition in.
+The condition says: Whenever you distribute anything that contains any
+piece of this program, that whole program must be distributed under these
+same terms, no more and no less. So you can change the program and
+distribute a modified version, but when you do, the people who get that
+from you must get the same freedom that you got from us. And not just for
+the parts of it -- the excerpts that you copied from our program -- but
+also for the other parts of that program that they got from you. The
+whole of that program has to be free software for them.
+
+The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become inalienable
+rights--a concept from the Declaration of Independence. Rights that we
+make sure can't be taken away from you. And, of course, the specific
+license that embodies the idea of copyleft is the GNU General Public
+License, a controversial license because it actually has the strength
+to say no to people who would be parasites on our community.
+
+There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of freedom. And
+they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done, and use it to get a
+head start in distributing a nonfree program and tempting people to give
+up their freedom. And the result would be -- you know, if we let people
+do that -- that we would be developing these free programs, and we'd
+constantly have to compete with improved versions of our own programs.
+That's no fun.
+
+And, a lot of people also feel -- you know, I'm willing to
+volunteer my time to contribute to the community, but why should I
+volunteer my time to contribute to that company's, to improving that
+company's, proprietary program? You know, some people might not even think
+that that's evil, but they want to get paid if they're going to do that.
+I, personally, would rather not do it at all.
+
+But both of these groups of people -- both the ones like me who say, "I don't
+want to help that nonfree program to get a foothold in our community" and the
+ones that say, "Sure, I'd work for them, but then they better pay me" -- both
of us
+have a good reason to use the GNU General Public License. Because that
+says to that company, "You can't just take my work, and distribute it
+without the freedom." Whereas, the non-copyleft licenses, like the
+X Windows license, do permit that.
+
+So that is the big division between the two categories of free software --
+license-wise. There are the programs that are copylefted so that the
+license defends the freedom of the software for every user. And there are
+the non-copylefted programs for which nonfree versions are allowed.
+Somebody *can* take those programs and strip off the freedom. You may get
+that program in a non-free version.
+
+And that problem exists today. There are still nonfree versions of X Windows
+being used on our free operating systems. There is even hardware --
+which is not really supported -- except by a nonfree version of X Windows.
+And that's a major problem in our community. Nonetheless, I wouldn't say that
+X Windows is a bad thing, you know. I'd say that the developers did not do the
+best possible thing that they could have done. But they *did* release a lot
+of software that we could all use.
+
+You know, there's a big difference between less than perfect, and evil.
+There are many gradations of good and bad. We have to resist the
+temptation to say, if you didn't do the absolute best possible thing,
+then you're no good. You know, the people that developed X Windows made a
+big contribution to our community. But there's something better that
+they could have done. They could have copylefted parts of the program
+and prevented those freedom-denying versions from being distributed by
+others.
+
+Now, the fact that the GNU General Public License defends your
+freedom, uses copyright law to defend your freedom, is, of course,
+why Microsoft is attacking it today. See, Microsoft would really like to
+be able to take all the code that we wrote and put it into proprietary
+programs, have somebody make some improvements, or even just incompatible
+changes is all they need. [Laughter]
+
+You know, with Microsoft's marketing clout, they don't need to make it
+better to have their version supplant ours. They just have to make it
+different and incompatible. And then, put it on everybody's desktop. So
+they really don't like the GNU GPL. Because the GNU GPL won't let them do
+that. It doesn't allow "embrace and extend". It says, if you want to share
+our code in your programs, you can. But, you've got to share and share
+alike. The changes that you make we have to be allowed to share. So,
+it's a two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation.
+
+Many companies -- even big companies like IBM and HP are willing to use
+our software on this basis. IBM and HP contribute substantial
+improvements to GNU software. And they develop other free software. But,
+Microsoft doesn't want to do that, so they give it out that businesses
+just can't deal with the GPL. Well, if businesses don't include IBM, and
+HP and SUN, then maybe they're right. [Laughter] More about that later.
+
+I should finish the historical story. You see, we set out in 1984 not just
+to write some free software but to do something much more coherent: to develop
+an operating system that was entirely free software. So that meant we had to
+write piece after piece after piece. Of course, we were always looking for
+shortcuts. The job was so big that people said we'd never be able to finish.
+And, I thought that there was at least a chance that we'd finish it but,
obviously,
+it's worth looking for shortcuts. So we kept looking around. Is there any
+program that somebody else has written that we could manage to adapt, to
+plug into here, and that way we won't have to write it from scratch? For
+instance, the X Window system. It's true it wasn't copylefted, but it
+was free software, so we could use it.
+
+Now, I had wanted to put a window system into GNU from day one. I wrote a
+couple of window systems at MIT before I started GNU. And so, even though
+Unix had no window system in 1984, I decided that GNU would have one.
+But, we never ended up writing a GNU window system, because X came along.
+And I said, Goody! One big job we don't have to do. We'll use X. So I
+basically said, let's take X, and put it into the GNU system. And we'll
+make the other parts of GNU, you know, work with X, when appropriate. And
+we found other pieces of software that had been written by other people,
+like the text formatter TeX, some library code from Berkeley. At that
+time there was Berkeley Unix, but it was not free software. This
+library code, initially, was from a different group at Berkeley, that did
+research on floating point. And, so, we kept, we fit in these pieces.
+
+In October 1985, we founded the Free Software Foundation. So please note,
+the GNU project came first. The Free Software Foundation came after, about
+almost two years after the announcement of the Project. And the
+Free Software Foundation is a tax-exempt charity that raises funds to
+promote the freedom to share and change software. And in the 1980's, one
+of the main things we did with our funds was to hire people to write parts
+of GNU. And essential programs, such as the shell and the C library were
+written this way, as well as parts of other programs. The tar program,
+which is absolutely essential, although not exciting at all [Laughter]
+was written this way. I believe GNU grep was written this way. And so,
+we're approaching our goal.
+
+By 1991, there was just one major piece missing, and that was the kernel.
+Now, why did I put off the kernel? Probably because it doesn't really
+matter what order you do the things in, at least technically it doesn't.
+You've got to do them all anyway. And partly because I'd hoped we'd be
+able to find a start at a kernel somewhere else. And we did. We found
+Mach, which had been developed at Carnegie Mellon. And it wasn't the
+whole kernel; it was the bottom half of the kernel. So we had to write
+the top half, but I figured, you know, things like the file system, the
+network code, and so on. But running on top of Mach they're running
+essentially as user programs, which ought to make them easier to debug.
+You can debug with a real source-level debugger running at the same time.
+And so, I thought that way we'd be able to get these, the higher level
+parts of the kernel, done in a short time. It didn't work out that way.
+These asynchronous, multi-threaded processes, sending messages to each
+other turned out to be very hard to debug. And the Mach-based system
+that we were using to bootstrap with had a terrible debugging
+environment, and it was unreliable, and various problems. It took us
+years and years to get the GNU kernel to work.
+
+But, fortunately, our community did not have to wait for the GNU kernel.
+Because in 1991, Linus Torvalds developed another free kernel called
+Linux. And he used the old-fashioned monolithic design and it turns out
+that he got his working much faster than we got ours working. So maybe
+that's one of the mistakes that I made: that design decision. Anyway, at
+first, we didn't know about Linux, because he never contacted us to talk
+about it. Although he did know about the GNU Project. But he announced
+it to other people and other places on the net. And so other people
+then did the work of combining Linux with the rest of the GNU system to
+make a complete free operating system. Essentially, to make the GNU plus
+Linux combination.
+
+But, they didn't realize that's what they were doing. You see, they said,
+We have a kernel -- let's look around and see what other pieces we can
+find to put together with the kernel. So, they looked around -- and lo
+and behold, everything they needed was already available. What good
+fortune, they said. [Laughter] It's all here. We can find everything we
+need. Let's just take all these different things and put it together, and
+have a system.
+
+They didn't know that most of what they found was pieces
+of the GNU system. So they didn't realize that they were fitting Linux
+into the gap in the GNU system. They thought they were taking Linux and
+making a system out of Linux. So they called it a Linux system.
+
+QUESTION: [Inaudible]
+
+STALLMAN: Can't hear you -- what?
+
+QUESTION: [Inaudible]
+
+STALLMAN: Well, it's just not -- you know, it's provincial.
+
+QUESTION: But it's more good fortune then finding X and Mach?
+
+STALLMAN: Right. The difference is that the people who developed X and
+Mach didn't have the goal of making a complete free operating system.
+We're the only ones who had that. And, it was our tremendous work that
+made the system exist. We actually did a larger part of the system than
+any other project. No coincidence, because those people -- they wrote
+useful parts of the system. But they didn't do it because they wanted the
+system to be finished. They had other reasons.
+
+Now the people who developed X -- they thought that designing across the
+network window system would be a good project, and it was. And it turned
+out to help us make a good free operating system. But that's not what
+they hoped for. They didn't even think about that. It was an accident.
+An accidental benefit. Now, I'm not saying that what they did was bad.
+They did a large free software project. That's a good thing to do. But
+they didn't have that ultimate vision. The GNU Project is where that
+vision was.
+
+And, so, we were the ones whose -- every little piece that didn't get done by
+somebody else, we did it. Because we knew that we wouldn't have a
+complete system without it. And even if it was totally boring and
+unromantic, like tar or mv. [Laughter] We did it. Or ld, you know there's
+nothing very exciting in ld -- but I wrote one. [Laughter] And I did make
+efforts to have it do a minimal amount of disk I/O so that it would be
+faster and handle bigger programs. But, you know, I like to do a good
+job. I like to improve various things about the program while I'm doing
+it. But the reason that I did it wasn't that I had brilliant ideas for a
+better ld. The reason I did it is that we needed one that was free. And
+we couldn't expect anyone else to do it. So, we had to do it, or find
+someone to do it.
+
+So, although at this point thousands of people in projects have
+contributed to this system, there is one project which is the reason that
+this system exists, and that's the GNU Project. It *is* basically the GNU
+System, with other things added since then.
+
+So, however, the practice of calling the system Linux has been a great
+blow to the GNU Project, because we don't normally get credit for what
+we've done. I think Linux, the kernel, is a very useful piece of free
+software, and I have only good things to say about it. But, well,
+actually, I can find a few bad things to say about it. [Laughter] But,
+basically, I have good things to say about it. However, the practice of
+calling the GNU system, Linux, is just a mistake. I'd like to ask you
+please to make the small effort necessary to call the system GNU/Linux,
+and that way to help us get a share of the credit.
+
+QUESTION: You need a mascot! Get yourself a stuffed animal! [Laughter]
+
+STALLMAN: We have one.
+
+QUESTION: You do?
+
+STALLMAN: We have an animal -- a gnu. [Laughter] Anyway. So, yes, when
+you draw a penguin, draw a gnu next to it. [Laughter] But, let's save
+the questions for the end. I have more to go through.
+
+So, why am I so concerned about this? You know, why do I think it is
+worth bothering you and perhaps giving you a, perhaps lowering your
+opinion of me, [Laughter] to raise this issue of credit? Because, you
+know, some people when I do this, some people think that it's because I
+want my ego to be fed, right? Of course, I'm not saying -- I'm
+not asking you to call it "Stallmanix," right? [Laughter] [Applause]
+
+I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to get
+credit. And there's a very specific reason for that, which is a lot more
+important than anybody getting credit, in and of itself. You see, these
+days, if you look around in our community most of the people talking
+about it and writing about it don't ever mention GNU, and they don't ever
+mention these goals of freedom -- these political and social ideals,
+either. Because the place they come from is GNU.
+
+The ideas associated with Linux -- the philosophy is very different.
+It is basically the apolitical philosophy of Linus Torvalds. So, when
+people think that the whole system is Linux, they tend to think: "Oh, it
+must have been all started by Linux Torvalds. His philosophy must be the
+one that we should look at carefully". And when they hear about the GNU
+philosophy, they say: "Boy, this is so idealistic, this must be awfully
+impractical. I'm a Linux-user, not a GNU-user." [Laughter]
+
+What irony! If they only knew! If they knew that the system they liked
+-- or, in some cases, love and go wild over -- is our idealistic,
+political philosophy made real.
+
+They still wouldn't have to agree with us. But at least they'd see a reason
+to take it seriously, to think about it carefully, to give it a chance.
+They would see how it relates to their lives. You know, if they realized,
+"I'm using the GNU system. Here's the GNU philosophy. This philosophy is
+*why8 this system that I like very much exists," they'd at least consider it
+with a much more open mind. It doesn't mean that everybody will agree.
People
+think different things. That's OK. You know, people should make up their own
+minds. But I want this philosophy to get the benefit of the credit for the
+results it has achieved.
+
+If you look around in our community, you'll find that almost everywhere,
+the institutions are calling the system Linux. You know, reporters mostly
+call it Linux. It's not right, but they do. The companies mostly say it
+that package the system. Oh, and most of these reporters, when they write
+articles, they usually don't look at it as a political issue, or social
+issue. They're usually looking at it purely as a business question or
+what companies are going to succeed more or less, which is really a fairly
+minor question for society. And, if you look at the companies that
+package the GNU/Linux system for people to use, well, most of them call
+it Linux. And they *all* add nonfree software to it.
+
+See, the GNU GPL says that if you take code, and some code out of a
+GPL-covered program, and add some more code to make a bigger program, that
+whole program has to be released under the GPL. But you could put other
+separate programs on the same disk (of either kind, hard disk, or CD), and
+they can have other licenses. That's considered mere aggregation, and,
+essentially, just distributing two programs to somebody at the same time
+is not something we have any say over. So, in fact, it is not true --
+sometimes, I wish it were true -- that if a company uses a GPL-covered
+program in a product that the whole product has to be free software.
+It's not -- it doesn't go to that range -- that scope. It's the whole
+program. If there are two separate programs that communicate with each
+other at arm's length -- like by sending messages to each other -- then,
+they're legally separate, in general. So, these companies, by adding
+nonfree software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically and
+politically, a very bad idea. They're telling the users, "It is OK to use
+nonfree software. We're even putting it on this as a bonus."
+
+If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system, most
+of them have a title like "Linux-something or other". So they're calling
+the system Linux most of the time. And they're filled with ads for
+nonfree software that you could run on top of the GNU/Linux system. Now
+those ads have a common message. They say: Nonfree Software Is Good
+For You. It's So Good That You Might Even *Pay* To Get It." [Laughter]
+
+And they call these things "value-added packages", which makes a statement
+about their values. They're saying: Value practical convenience, not
+freedom. And, I don't agree with those values, so I call them
+"freedom-subtracted packages". [Laughter] Because if you have installed a
+free operating system, then you now are living in the free world. You
+enjoy the benefits of liberty that we worked for so many years to give
+you. Those packages give you an opportunity to buckle on a chain.
+
+And then if you look at the trade shows -- about the use of the,
+dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call themselves
+"Linux" shows. And they're filled with booths exhibiting nonfree
+software, essentially putting the seal of approval on the nonfree
+software. So, almost everywhere you look in our community, the
+institutions are endorsing the nonfree software, totalling negating
+the idea of freedom that GNU was developed for. And the only place that
+people are likely to come across the idea of freedom is in connection with
+GNU, and in connection with free software, the term, free software. So
+this is why I ask you: please call the system GNU/Linux. Please make
+people aware where the system came from and why.
+
+Of course, just by using that name, you won't be making an explanation of
+the history. You can type four extra characters and write GNU/Linux;
+you can say two extra syllables. But, GNU/Linux is fewer syllables than
+Windows 2000. [Laughter] But, you're not telling them a lot, but you're
+preparing them, so that when they hear about GNU, and what it's all about,
+they'll see how that connects to them and their lives. And that,
+indirectly, makes a tremendous difference. So please help us.
+
+You'll note that Microsoft called the GPL an "open source license". They
+don't want people to be thinking in terms of freedom as the issue. You'll
+find that they invite people to think in a narrow way, as consumers, and,
+of course, not even think very rationally as consumers, if they're
+going to choose Microsoft products. But they don't want people to think
+as citizens or statesmen. That's inimical to them. At least it's
+inimical to their current business model.
+
+Now, how does free software...well, I can tell you about how free
+software relates to our society. A secondary topic that might be of
+interest to some of you is how free software relates to business. Now, in
+fact, free software is *tremendously* useful for business. After all,
+most businesses in the advanced countries use software. Only a tiny
+fraction of them develop software.
+
+And free software is tremendously advantageous for any company that uses
+software, because it means that you're in control. Basically, free software
+means the users are in control of what the program does. Either individually,
+if they care enough to be, or, collectively, when they care enough to be.
Whoever
+cares enough can exert some influence. If you don't care, you don't buy.
+Then you use what other people prefer. But, if you do care, then you have
+some say. With proprietary software, you have essentially no say.
+
+With free software, you can change what you want to change. And it doesn't
matter
+that there are no programmers in your company; that's fine. You know, if
+you wanted to move the walls in your building, you don't have to be a
+carpentry company. You just have to be able to go find a carpenter and
+say, "What will you charge to do this job?" And if you want to change
+around the software you use, you don't have to be a programming company.
+You just have to go to a programming company and say, "What will you
+charge to implement these features? And when will you have it done?" And
+if they don't do the job, you can go find somebody else.
+
+There's a free market for support. So, any business that cares about
+support will find a tremendous advantage in free software. With
+proprietary software, support is a monopoly, because one company has the
+source code, or maybe a small number of companies that paid a gigantic
+amount of money have the source code, if it's Microsoft's shared source
+program, but, it's very few. And so, there aren't very many possible
+sources of support for you. And that means, that unless you're a real
+giant, they don't care about you. Your company is not important enough
+for them to care if they lose your business, or what happens. Once you're
+using the program, they figure you're locked in to getting the support
+from them, because to switch to a different program is a gigantic job.
+So, you end up with things like paying for the privilege of reporting a
+bug. [Laughter] And once you've paid, they tell you, "Well, OK, we've
+noted your bug report. And in a few months, you can buy an upgrade, and
+you can see if we've fixed it." [Laughter]
+
+Support providers for free software can't get away with that. They have
+to please the customers. Of course, you can get a lot of good support
+gratis. You post your problem on the Internet. You may get an answer the
+next day. But that's not guaranteed, of course. If you want to be
+confident, you better make an arrangement with a company and pay them.
+And this is, of course, one of the ways that free software business works.
+
+Another advantage of free software for businesses that use software is
+security and privacy. And this applies to individuals as well, but I
+brought it up in the context of businesses. You see, when a program is
+proprietary, you can't even tell what it really does.
+
+It could have features, deliberately put in that you wouldn't like if you
+knew about them, like it might have a backdoor to let the developer get into
your
+machine. It might snoop on what you do and send information back. This
+is not unusual. Some Microsoft software did this. But it's not only
+Microsoft. There are other proprietary programs that snoop on the user.
+And you can't even tell if it does this. And, of course, even assuming
+that the developer's totally honest, every programmer makes mistakes.
+There could be bugs that affect your security which are nobody's fault.
+But the point is: If it's not free software, you can't find them. And you
+can't fix them.
+
+Nobody has the time to check the source of every program he runs. You're
+not going to do that. But with free software there's a large community,
+and there are people in that community who are checking things. And you
+get the benefit of their checking, because if there's an accidental bug,
+there surely are, from time to time, in any program, they might find it
+and fix it. And people are much less likely to put in a deliberate Trojan
+horse, or a snooping feature, if they think they might get caught. The
+proprietary software developers figure they won't get caught. They'll get
+away with it undetected. But a free software developer has to figure
+that people will look at that and see it's there. So, in our community,
+we don't feel we can get away with ramming a feature down the users'
+throats that the users wouldn't like. So we know that if the users don't
+like it, they'll make a modified version which doesn't have it. And then,
+they'll all start using that version.
+
+In fact, we can all reason enough, we can all figure this out enough steps
+ahead, that we probably won't put in that feature. After all, you're
+writing a free program; you want people to like your version; you don't
+want to put in a thing that you know a lot of people are going to hate,
+and have another modified version catch on instead of yours. So you
+just realize that the user is king in the world of free software. In the
+world of proprietary software, the customer is *not* king. Because you
+are only a customer. You have no say in the software you use.
+
+In this respect, free software is a new mechanism for democracy to
+operate. Professor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions as
+a kind of law. Whoever gets to write the code that just about everybody
+uses for all intents and purposes is writing the laws that run people's
+lives. With free software, these laws get written in a democratic way.
+Not the classical form of democracy -- we don't have a big election and say,
+"Everybody vote which way should this feature be done." [Laughter]
+Instead we say, basically, those of you who want to work on implementing
+the feature this way, do it. And if you want to work on implementing the
+feature that way, do it. And, it gets done one way or the other, you
+know? And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done this
+way. So, in this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by
+simply taking steps in the direction that he wants to go.
+
+And you're free to take as many steps, personally, as you want to take.
+A business is free to commission as many steps as they find useful to
+take. And, after you add all these things up, that says which direction
+the software goes.
+
+And it's often very useful to be able to take pieces out of some existing
+program, presumably usually large pieces, of course, and then write a
+certain amount of code of your own, and make a program that does exactly
+what you need, which would have cost you an arm and a leg to develop, if
+you had to write it all from scratch, if you couldn't cannibalize large
+pieces from some existing free software package.
+
+Another thing that results from the fact that the user is king is that we
+tend to be very good about compatibility and standardization. Why?
+Because users like that. Users are likely to reject a program that has
+gratuitous incompatibilities in it. Now, sometimes there's a certain
+group of users which actually have a need for a certain kind of
+incompatibility, and then they'll have it. That's OK. But when users
+want is to follow a standard, we developers have to follow it, and we
+know that. And we do it. By contrast, if you look at proprietary
+software developers, they often find it advantageous to deliberately *not*
+follow a standard, and not because they think that they're giving the
+user an advantage that way, but rather because they're imposing on the
+user, locking the user in. And you'll even find them making changes in
+their file formats from time to time, just to force people to get the
+newest version.
+
+Archivists are finding a problem now, that files written on computers ten
+years ago often can't be accessed; they were written with proprietary
+software that's essentially lost now. If it were written with free
+software, then it could be brought up-to-date and run. And those things
+would not, those records would not be lost, would not be inaccessible.
+They were even complaining about this on NPR recently in citing free
+software as a solution. And so, in effect, by using a nonfree program to
+store your own data, you are putting your head in a noose.
+
+So, I've talked about how free software affects most business. But how
+does it affect that particular narrow area which is software business?
+Well, the answer is mostly not at all. And the reason is that 90% of the
+software industry, from what I'm told, is development of custom
+software, software that's not meant to be released at all. For custom
+software, this issue, or the ethical issue of free or proprietary, doesn't
+arise. You see, the issue is, are you users free to change, and
+redistribute, the software? If there's only one user, and that user owns
+the rights, there's no problem. That user *is* free to do all these
+things. So, in effect, any *custom* program that was developed by one
+company for use in-house is free software, as long as they have the sense
+to insist on getting the source code and all the rights.
+
+And the issue doesn't really arise for software that goes in a watch or a
+microwave oven or an automobile ignition system. Because those are
+places where you don't download software to install. It's not a real
+computer, as far as the user is concerned. And so, it doesn't raise these
+issues enough for them to be ethically important. So, for the most part,
+the software industry will go along, just as it's been going. And the
+interesting thing is that since such a large fraction of the jobs are in
+that part of the industry, even if there were no possibilities for free
+software business, the developers of free software could all get day jobs
+writing custom software. [Laughter] There's so many; the ratio is so
+big.
+
+But, as it happens, there is free software business. There are free
+software companies, and at the press conference that I'm going to have,
+people from a couple of them will join us. And, of course, there are also
+companies which are *not* free software businesses but do develop useful
+pieces of free software to release, and the free software that they
+produce is substantial.
+
+Now, how do free software businesses work? Well, some of them sell
+copies. You know, you're free to copy it but they can still sell
+thousands of copies a month. And others sell support and various kinds
+of services. I, personally, for the second half of the '80's, I sold free
+software support services. Basically I said, for $200 an hour, I'll
+change whatever you want me to change in GNU software that I'd written.
+And, yes, it was a stiff rate, but if it was a program that I was the
+author of, people would figure that I might get the job done in a lot
+fewer hours. [Laughter] And I made a living that way. In fact, I'd made
+more than I'd ever made before. I also taught classes. And I kept doing
+that until 1990, when I got a big prize and I didn't have to do it any
+more.
+
+But, 1990 was when the first corporation free software business was
+formed, which was Cygnus Support. And their business was to do,
+essentially, the same kind of thing that I'd been doing. I certainly
+could have worked for them, if I had needed to do that. Since I didn't
+need to, I felt it was good for the movement if I remained independent of
+any one company. That way, I could say good and bad things about the
+various free software and nonfree software companies, without a conflict
+of interest. I felt that I could serve the movement more. But, if I had
+needed that to make a living, sure, I would have worked for them. It's an
+ethical business to be in. No reason I would have felt ashamed to take a
+job with them. And that company was profitable in its first year. It
+was formed with very little capital, just the money its three founders
+had. And it kept growing every year and being profitable every year
+until they got greedy, and looked for outside investors, and then they
+messed things up. But it was several years of success, before they got
+greedy.
+
+So, this illustrates one of the exciting things about free software. Free
+software demonstrates that you don't need to raise capital to develop free
+software. I mean, it's useful; it *can* help. You know, if you do raise
+some capital, you can hire people and have them write a bunch of software.
+But you can get a lot done with a small number of people. And, in fact,
+the tremendous efficiency of the process of developing free software is
+one of the reasons it's important for the world to switch to free
+software. And it also belies what Microsoft says when they say the GNU
+GPL is bad, because it makes it harder for them to raise capital to
+develop nonfree software and take our free software and put our code
+into their programs that they won't share with us. Basically, we don't
+need to have them raising capital that way. We'll get the job done
+anyway. We are getting the job done.
+
+People used to say we could never do a complete free operating system.
+Now we've done that and a tremendous amount more. And I would say that
+we're about an order of magnitude away from developing all the general
+purpose published software needs of the world. And this is in a world
+where more than 90% of the users don't use our free software yet. This is
+in a world where, although in certain areas of business, you know, more
+than half of all the web servers in the world are running on GNU/Linux
+with Apache as the web server.
+
+QUESTION: [Inaudible] ... What did you say before, Linux?
+
+STALLMAN: I said GNU/Linux.
+
+QUESTION: You did?
+
+STALLMAN: Yes, if I'm talking about the kernel, I call it Linux. You
+know, that's it's name. The kernel was written by Linus Torvalds, and we
+should only call it by the name that he chose, out of respect for the
+author.
+
+Anyway, but in general, in business most users are not using it. Most
+home users are not using our system yet. So, when they are, we should
+automatically get 10 times as many volunteers and 10 times as many
+customers for the free software businesses that there will be. And so
+that will take us that order of magnitude. So at this point, I am pretty
+confident that we *can* do the job.
+
+And, this is important, because Microsoft asks us to feel desperate. They
+say, The only way you can have software to run, the only way you can have
+innovation, is if you give us power. Let us dominate you. Let us
+control what you can do with the software you're running, so that we
+can squeeze a lot of money out of you, and use a certain fraction of
+that to develop software, and take the rest as profit.
+
+Well, you shouldn't ever feel that desperate. You shouldn't ever feel so
+desperate that you give up your freedom. That's very dangerous.
+
+Another thing that Microsoft, well, not just Microsoft, people who
+don't support free software generally adopt a value system in which the
+only thing that matters is short-term practical benefits: How much money
+am I going to make this year? What job can I get done today? Short-term
+thinking and narrow thinking. Their assumption is that it is ridiculous
+to imagine that anybody ever might make a sacrifice for the sake of
+freedom.
+
+Yesterday, a lot of people were making speeches about Americans who made
+sacrifices for the freedom of their compatriots. Some of them made great
+sacrifices. They even sacrificed their lives for the kinds of freedom
+that everyone in our country has heard about, at least. (At least, in
+some of the cases; I guess we have to ignore the war in Vietnam.)
+
+[Editor's note: The day before was "Memorial Day" in the USA. Memorial
+ Day is a day where war heros are commemorated.]
+
+But, fortunately, to maintain our freedom in using software, doesn't call
+for big sacrifices. Just tiny, little sacrifices are enough, like
+learning a command-line interface, if we don't have a GUI interface
+program yet. Like doing the job in this way, because we don't have a free
+software package to do it that way, yet. Like, paying some money to a
+company that's going to develop a certain free software package, so that
+you can have it in a few years. Various little sacrifices that we can all
+make. And, in the long run, even we will have benefitted from it. You
+know, it is really an investment more than a sacrifice. We just have to
+have enough long-term view to realize it's good for us to invest in
+improving our society, without counting the nickels and dimes of who gets
+how much of the benefit from that investment.
+
+So, at this point, I'm essentially done.
+
+I'd like to mention that there's a new approach to free software business
+being proposed by Tony Stanco, which he calls "Free Developers", which
+involves a certain business structure which hopes eventually to pay out a
+certain share of the profits to every, to all the authors of the free
+software who've joined the organization. And they're looking at the
+prospects of getting me some rather large government software development
+contracts in India now, because they're going to be using free software
+as the basis, having tremendous cost savings that way.
+
+And so now I guess that I should ask for questions.
+
+QUESTION: [Inaudible]
+
+STALLMAN: Could you speak up a bit louder please? I can't really hear
+you.
+
+QUESTION: How could a company like Microsoft include a free software
+contract?
+
+STALLMAN: Well, actually, Microsoft is planning to shift a lot of its
+activity into services. And what they're planning to do is something
+dirty and dangerous, which is tie the services to the programs, one to the
+next, in a sort of zigzag, you know? So that to use this service, you've
+got to be using this Microsoft program, which is going to mean you need to
+use this service, to this Microsoft program, so it's all tied together.
+That's their plan.
+
+Now, the interesting thing is that selling those services doesn't raise
+the ethical issue of free software or nonfree software. It might be
+perfectly fine for them to have the business for those businesses selling
+those services over the net to exist. However, what Microsoft is planning
+to do is to use them to achieve an even greater lock, an even greater
+monopoly, on the software and the services, and this was described in
+an article, I believe in Business Week, recently. And, other people
+said that it is turning the net into the Microsoft Company Town.
+
+And this is relevant because, you know, the trial court in the Microsoft
+antitrust trial recommended breaking up the company, Microsoft. But in a
+way, that makes no sense -- it wouldn't do any good at all -- into the
+operating part and the applications part.
+
+But having seen that article, I now see a useful, effective way to split
+up Microsoft into the services part and the software part, to require
+them to deal with each other only at arm's length, that the services
+must publish their interfaces, so that anybody can write a
+client to talk to those services, and, I guess, that they have to pay to
+get the service. Well, that's OK. That's a totally different issue.
+
+If Microsoft is split up in this way [...] services and software, they
+will not be able to use their software to crush competition with Microsoft
+services. And they won't be able to use the services to crush
+competition with Microsoft software. And we will be able to make the free
+software, and maybe you people will use it to talk to Microsoft services,
+and we won't mind.
+
+Because, after all, although Microsoft is the proprietary software company
+that has subjugated the most people -- the others have subjugated fewer
+people, it's not for want of trying. [Laughter] They just haven't
+succeeded in subjugating as many people. So, the problem is not
+Microsoft and only Microsoft. Microsoft is just the biggest example of
+the problem we're trying to solve, which is proprietary software taking
+away users' freedom to cooperate and form an ethical society. So we
+shouldn't focus too much on Microsoft, you know, even though they did
+give me the opportunity for this platform. That doesn't make them
+all-important. They're not the be-all and end-all.
+
+QUESTION: Earlier, you were discussing the philosophical differences
+between open source software and free software. How do you feel about the
+current trend of GNU/Linux distributions as they head towards supporting
+only Intel platforms? And the fact that it seems that less and less
+programmers are programming correctly, and making software that will
+compile anywhere? And making software that simply works on Intel systems?
+
+STALLMAN: I don't see an ethical issue there. Although, in fact,
+companies that make computers sometimes port the GNU/Linux system to it.
+HP apparently did this recently. And, they didn't bother paying for a
+port of Windows, because that would have cost too much. But getting
+GNU/Linux supported was, I think, five engineers for a few months. It was
+easily doable.
+
+Now, of course, I encourage people to use autoconf, which is a GNU package
+that makes it easier to make your programs portable. I encourage them to
+do that. Or when somebody else fixes the bug that it didn't compile on
+that version of the system, and sends it to you, you should put it in.
+But I don't see that as an ethical issue.
+
+QUESTION: Two comments. One is: Recently, you spoke at MIT. I read the
+transcript. And someone asked about patents, and you said that "patents
+are a totally different issue. I have no comments on that."
+
+STALLMAN: Right. I actually have a lot to say about patents, but it takes
+an hour. [Laughter]
+
+QUESTION: I wanted to say this: It seems to me that there is an issue. I
+mean, there is a reason that companies call both patents and copyrights
+things like hard property in trying to get this concept which is, if
+they want to use the power of the State to create a course of monopoly for
+themselves. And so, what's common about these things is not that they
+revolve around the same issues, but that motivation is not really the
+public service issues but the motivation of companies to get a monopoly
+for their private interests.
+
+STALLMAN: I understand. But, well, I want to respond because there's not
+too much time. So I'd like to respond to that.
+
+You're right that that's what they want. But there's another reason why
+they want to use the term intellectual property. It's that they don't
+want to encourage people to think carefully about copyright issues or
+patent issues. Because copyright law and patent law are totally
+different, and the effects of software copyrighted and software patents are
+totally different.
+
+Software patents are a restriction on programmers, prohibiting them from
+writing certain kinds of programs, whereas copyright doesn't do that.
+With copyright, at least if you wrote it yourself, you're allowed to
+distribute it. So, it's tremendously important to separate these issues.
+
+They have a little bit in common, at a very low level, and everything
+else is different. So, please, to encourage clear thinking, discuss
+copyright or discuss patents. But don't discuss intellectual property.
+I don't have an opinion on intellectual property. I have opinions on
+copyrights and patents and software.
+
+QUESTION: You mentioned at the beginning that a functional language, like
+recipes, are computer programs. There's a cross a little bit different
+than other kinds of language created on. This is also causing a problem
+in the DVD case.
+
+STALLMAN: The issues are partly similar but partly different, for things
+that are not functional in nature. Part of the issue transfers but not
+all of it. Unfortunately, that's another hour speech. I don't have time
+to go into it. But I would say that all functional works ought to be
+free in the same sense as software. You know, textbooks, manuals,
+dictionaries, and recipes, and so on.
+
+QUESTION: I was just wondering on online music. There are similarities
+and differences created all through.
+
+STALLMAN: Right. I'd say that the minimum freedom that we should have for
+any kind of published information is the freedom to non-commercially
+redistribute it, verbatim. For functional works, we need the freedom to
+commercially publish a modified version, because that's tremendously
+useful to society. For non-functional works, you know, things that are to
+entertain, or to be aesthetic, or to state a certain person's views, you
+know, perhaps they shouldn't be modified. And, perhaps that means that
+it's OK, to have copyright covering all commercial distribution of them.
+
+Please remember that according to the U.S. Constitution, the purpose of
+copyright is to benefit the public. It is to modify the behavior of
+certain private parties, so that they will publish more books. And the
+benefit of this is that society gets to discuss issues and learn. And, you
+know, we have literature. We have scientific works. The purpose is
+encourage that. Copyrights do not exist for the sake of authors, let
+alone for the sake of publishers. They exist for the sake of readers and
+all those who benefit from the communication of information that happens
+when people write and others read. And that goal I agree with.
+
+But in the age of the computer networks, the method is no longer
+tenable, because it now requires draconian laws that invade everybody's
+privacy and terrorize everyone. You know, years in prison for sharing
+with your neighbor. It wasn't like that in the age of the printing press.
+Then copyright was an industrial regulation. It restricted publishers.
+Now, it's a restriction imposed by the publishers on the public. So,
+the power relationship is turned around 180 degrees, even if it's the
+same law.
+
+QUESTION: So you can have the same thing - but like in making music from
+other music?
+
+STALLMAN: Right. That is an interesting. . .
+
+QUESTION: And unique, new works, you know, it's still a lot of
+cooperation.
+
+STALLMAN: It is. And I think that probably requires some kind of fair use
+concept. Certainly making a few seconds of sample and using that in
+making some musical work, obviously that should be fair use. Even the
+standard idea of fair use includes that, if you think about it. Whether
+courts agree, I'm not sure, but they should. That wouldn't be a real
+change in the system as it has existed.
+
+QUESTION: What do you think about publishing public information in
+proprietary formats?
+
+STALLMAN: Oh, it shouldn't be. I mean, the government should never
+require citizens to use a nonfree program to access, to communicate with
+the government in any way, in either direction.
+
+QUESTION: I have been, what I will now say, a GNU/Linux user ...
+
+STALLMAN: Thank you. [Laughter]
+
+QUESTION: ...for the past four years. The one thing that has been
+problematical for me and is something that is essential, I think, to all
+of us, is browsing the web.
+
+STALLMAN: Yes.
+
+QUESTION: One thing that has been decidedly a weakness in using a
+GNU/Linux system has been browsing the web, because the prevailing tool
+for that, Netscape...
+
+STALLMAN: ...is not free software.
+
+Let me respond to this. I want to get to the point, for the sake of
+getting in more. So, yes. There has been a terrible tendency for people
+to use Netscape Navigator on their GNU/Linux systems. And, in fact all
+the commercially packaged systems come with it. So this is an ironic
+situation: we worked so hard to make a free operating system, and now,
+if you go to the store, and you can find versions of GNU/Linux there, most
+of them are called Linux, and they're not free. Oh, well, part of them
+is. But then, there's Netscape Navigator, and maybe other nonfree
+programs as well. So, it's very hard to actually find a free system,
+unless you know what you're doing. Or, of course, you can not
+install Netscape Navigator.
+
+Now, in fact, there have been free web browsers for many years. There is
+a free web browser that I used to use called Lynx. It's a free
+web browser that is nongraphical; it's text-only. This has a tremendous
+advantage, in you don't see the ads. [Laughter] [Applause]
+
+But anyway, there is a free graphical project called Mozilla, which is
+now getting to the point where you can use it. And I occasionally use it.
+
+QUESTION: Konqueror 2.01 has been very good.
+
+STALLMAN: Oh, OK. So that's another free graphical browser. So, we're
+finally solving that problem, I guess.
+
+QUESTION: Can you talk to me about that philosophical/ethical division
+between free software and open source? Do you feel that those are
+irreconcilable? ...
+
+[Recording switches tapes; end of question and start of answer is missing]
+
+STALLMAN: ... to a freedom, and ethics. Or whether you just say, Well,
+I hope that you companies will decide it's more profitable to let us be
+allowed to do these things.
+
+But, as I said, in a lot of practical work, it doesn't really matter what
+a person's politics are. When a person offers to help the GNU project, we
+don't say: "You have to agree with our politics." We say that in a GNU
+package, you've got to call the system GNU/Linux, and you've got to call
+it free software. What you say when you're not speaking to the GNU
+Project, that's up to you.
+
+QUESTION: The company, IBM, started a campaign for government agencies, to
+sell their big new machines, that they used Linux as selling point, and say
+Linux.
+
+STALLMAN: Yes, of course, it's really the GNU/Linux systems. [Laughter]
+
+QUESTION: That's right! Well, tell the top sales person. He doesn't know
+anything for GNU.
+
+STALLMAN: I have to tell who?
+
+QUESTION: The top sales person.
+
+STALLMAN: Oh yes. The problem is that they've already carefully decided
+what they want to say for reasons of their advantage. And the issue of
+what is a more accurate, or fair, or correct way to describe it is not the
+primary issue that matters to a company like that. Now, some small
+companies, yes, there'll be a boss. And if the boss is inclined to think
+about things like that, he might make a decision that way. Not a giant
+corporation though. It's a shame, you know.
+
+There's another more important and more substantive issue about what IBM
+is doing. They're saying that they're putting a billion dollars into
+"Linux". But perhaps, I should also put quotes around "into", as well,
+because some of that money is paying people to develop free software.
+That really is a contribution to our community. But other parts is
+paying to pay people to write proprietary software, or port proprietary
+software to run on top of GNU/Linux, and that is *not* a contribution to
+our community. But IBM is lumping that altogether into this. Some of it
+might be advertising, which is partly a contribution, even if it's partly
+wrong. So, it's a complicated situation. Some of what they're doing is
+contribution and some is not. And some is sort is somewhat, but not
+exactly. And you can't just lump it altogether and think, Wow! Whee! A
+billion dollars from IBM. [Laughter] That's oversimplification.
+
+QUESTION: Can you talk a little bit more about the thinking that went into
+the general public license?
+
+STALLMAN: Well, here's the -- I'm sorry, I'm answering his question now.
[Laughter]
+
+SCHONBERG: Do you want to reserve some time for the press conference?
+Or do you want to continue here?
+
+STALLMAN: Who is here for the press conference? Not a lot of press. Oh,
+three -- OK. Can you afford if we -- if I go on answering everybody's
+questions for another ten minutes or so? OK. So, we'll go on answering
+everybody's questions.
+
+So, the thinking that went into the GNU GPL? Part of it was that I wanted
+to protect the freedom of the community against the phenomena that I just
+described with X Windows, which has happened with other free programs as
+well. In fact, when I was thinking about this issue, X Windows was not
+yet released. But I had seen this problem happen in other free programs.
+For instance, TeX. I wanted to make sure that the users would all have
+freedom. Otherwise, I realized that I might write a program, and maybe a
+lot of people would use the program, but they wouldn't have freedom. And
+what's the point of that?
+
+But the other issue I was thinking about was, I wanted to give the
+community a feeling that it was not a doormat, a feeling that it was not
+prey to any parasite who would wander along. If you don't use copyleft,
+you are essentially saying: [speaking meekly] "Take my code. Do what you
+want. I don't say no." So, anybody can come along and say: [speaking
+very firmly] "Ah, I want to make a nonfree version of this. I'll just
+take it." And, then, of course, they probably make some improvements,
+those nonfree versions might appeal to users, and replace the free
+versions. And then, what have you accomplished? You've only made a
+donation to some proprietary software project.
+
+And when people see that that's happening, when people see, other people
+take what I do, and they don't ever give back, it can be demoralizing.
+And, this is not just speculation. I had seen that happen. That was part
+of what happened to wipe out the old community that I belonged to the
+'70's. Some people started becoming uncooperative. And we assumed that
+they were profiting thereby. They certainly acted as if they thought they
+were profiting. And we realized that they can just take off cooperation
+and not give back. And there was nothing we could do about it. It was
+very discouraging. We, those of us who didn't like the trend, even had a
+discussion and we couldn't come up with any idea for how we could stop it.
+
+So, the GPL is designed to stop that. And it says, Yes, you are welcome
+to join the community and use this code. You can use it to do all sorts
+of jobs. But, if you release a modified version, you've got to release
+that to our community, as part of our community, as part of the free
+world.
+
+So, in fact, there are still many ways that people can get the benefit of
+our work and not contribute, like you don't have to write any software.
+Lots of people use GNU/Linux and don't write any software. There's no
+requirement that you've got to do anything for us. But if you do a
+certain kind of thing, you've got to contribute to it. So what that means
+is that our community is not a doormat. And I think that that helped give
+people the strength to feel, Yes, we won't just be trampled underfoot by
+everybody. We'll stand up to this.
+
+QUESTION: Yes, my question was, considering free but not copylefted
+software, since anybody can pick it up and make it proprietary, is it not
+possible also for someone to pick it up and make some changes and release
+the whole thing under the GPL?
+
+STALLMAN: Yes, it is possible.
+
+QUESTION: Then, that would make all future copies then be GPL'ed.
+
+STALLMAN: From that branch. But here's why we don't do that.
+
+QUESTION: Hmm?
+
+STALLMAN: Here's why we don't generally do that. Let me explain.
+
+QUESTION: OK, yes.
+
+STALLMAN: We could, if we wanted to, take X Windows, and make a
+GPL-covered copy and make changes in that. But there's a much larger
+group of people working on improving X Windows and *not* GPL-ing it. So,
+if we did that, we would be forking from them. And that's not very nice
+treatment of them. And, they *are* a part of our community, contributing
+to our community.
+
+Second, it would backfire against us, because they're doing a lot more
+work on X than we would be. So, our version would be inferior to theirs,
+and people wouldn't use it, which means, why go to the trouble at all?
+
+QUESTION: Mmm hmm.
+
+STALLMAN: So when a person has written some improvement to X Windows,
+what I say that person should do is cooperate with the X development
+team. Send it to them and let them use it their way. Because they are
+developing a very important piece of free software. It's good for us to
+cooperate with them.
+
+QUESTION: Except, considering X, in particular, about two years ago, the X
+Consortium that was far into the nonfree open source...
+
+STALLMAN: Well, actually it *wasn't* open sourced. It wasn't open
+sourced, either. They may have said it was. I can't remember if they
+said that or not. But it wasn't open source. It was restricted. You couldn't
+commercially distribute, I think. Or you couldn't commercially distribute
+a modified version, or something like that. There was a restriction that's
+considered unacceptable by both the Free Software movement and the Open
+Source movement.
+
+And yes, that's what using a non-copyleft license leaves you open to. In
+fact, the X Consortium, they had a very rigid policy. They say: If your
+program if copylefted even a little bit, we won't distribute it at all.
+We won't put it in our distribution.
+
+So, a lot of people were pressured in this way into not copylefting. And
+the result was that all of their software was wide open, later on. When
+the same people who had pressured a developer to be too all-permissive,
+then the X people later said, All right, now we can put on restrictions,
+which wasn't very ethical of them.
+
+But, given the situation, would we really want to scrape up the resources
+to maintain an alternate GPL-covered version of X? And it wouldn't make
+any sense to do that. There are so many other things we need to do. Let's
+do them instead. We can cooperate with the X developers.
+
+QUESTION: Do you have a comment, is the GNU a trademark? And is it
+practical to include it as part of the GNU General Public License allowing
+trademarks?
+
+STALLMAN: We are, actually, applying for trademark registration on GNU.
+But it wouldn't really have anything to do with that. It's a long
+story to explain why.
+
+QUESTION: You could require the trademark be displayed with GPL-covered
+programs.
+
+No, I don't think so. The licenses cover individual programs. And when
+a given program is part of the GNU Project, nobody lies about that. The
+name of the system as a whole is a different issue. And this is an
+aside. It's not worth discussing more.
+
+QUESTION: If there was a button that you could push and force all
+companies to free their software, would you press it?
+
+STALLMAN: Well, I would only use this for published software. You know, I
+think that people have the right to write a program privately and use it.
+And that includes companies. This is privacy issue. And it's true, there
+can be times when it is wrong to do that, like if it is tremendously
+helpful to humanity, and you are withholding it from humanity. That is a
+wrong but that's a different kind of wrong. It's a different issue,
+although it's in the same area.
+
+But yes, I think all published software should be free software. And
+remember, when it's not free software, that's because of government
+intervention. The government is intervening to make it nonfree. The
+government is creating special legal powers to hand out to the owners of
+the programs, so that they can have the police stop us from using the
+programs in certain ways. So I would certainly like to end that.
+
+SCHONBERG: Richard's presentation has invariably generated an enormous
+amount of intellectual energy. I would suggest that some of it should be
+directed to using, and possibly writing, free software.
+
+We should close the proceedings shortly. I want to say that Richard has
+injected into a profession which is known in the general public for its
+terminal apolitical nerditude a level of political and moral
+discussion which is, I think, unprecedented in our profession. And we owe
+him very big for this. I'd like to note to people that there is a break.
+
+[Applause]
+
+STALLMAN: You are free to leave at any time, you know. [Laughter] I'm not
+holding you prisoner here.
+
+[Audience adjourns...]
+
+[overlapping conversations....]
+
+STALLMAN: One final thing. Our website: www.gnu.org
Index: events/rms-nyu-2001-summary.pt.txt
===================================================================
RCS file: events/rms-nyu-2001-summary.pt.txt
diff -N events/rms-nyu-2001-summary.pt.txt
--- events/rms-nyu-2001-summary.pt.txt 3 Jul 2001 22:10:01 -0000 1.2
+++ /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
@@ -1,320 +0,0 @@
-Stallman Condensado
--------------------
-O que se segue é um resumo da palestra de Richard M. Stallman em 29 de Maio
-de 2001 na Universidade de Nova Iorque entitulada "Software livre: Liberdade
-e Cooperação".
-Como o discurso original é extenso, espero que esta versão reduzida seja mais
-adequada ao leitor casual.
-
-Tradução de Edgard Lemos <address@hidden>
-
-O texto completo em português pode ser encontrado em:
-http://www.fsf.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pt.txt
-
-Uma outra tradução pode ser encontrada em:
-http://www.msantunes.com.br/palestra.htm
-
-O texto original em inglês pode ser encontrado aqui:
-http://www.gnu.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt
-
-
-
-Nem todo mundo é programador
-----------------------------
-
-RMS começa sua apresentação com uma analogia que se pode usar para explicar
-software livre para pessoas sem conhecimento técnico: a troca de receitas
-culinárias. "Alguns de vocês talvez não escrevam programas, mas talvez
-cozinhem", e a analogia continua, "e se seguem receitas, provavelmente já
-tiveram a experiência de obter uma cópia da receita de um amigo." Compartilhar
-é uma característica muito próxima do princípio sobre o qual se fundamenta o
-movimento de software livre: esta informação útil, especificamente o código do
-qual os programas distribuídos publicamente são compilados, devem estar
-disponíveis para todos. Continuando a comparação, uma vez que você tenha uma
-cópia da receita, você está livre para mudá-la para satisfazer seus gostos
-individuais, "acrescentar cogumelos, porque você gosta de cogumelos", por
-exemplo. Este é outro princípio do software livre: deve-se ser capaz de
-modificar o código do programa conforme se deseja. Se você cozinha para seus
-amigos a partir dessa receita modificada, eles podem gostar da sua criação e
-querer conhecer a nova receita. Assim como ao distribuir uma cópia modificada
-de software livre, você compartilha porque "é assim que agem as pessoas
-decentes".
-
-Agora o argumento principal: se as receitas fossem como software proprietário,
-daí a história toda seria muito diferente. Suponha que você receba a receita
-como uma caixa preta, cujo conteúdo você não possa mudar, mas que produza o
-mesmo prato exatamente como o do seu amigo. Daí você não poderia modificar o
-prato de acordo com seu gosto e jamais poderia compartilhar com seus amigos a
-versão modificada (e possivelmente melhorada) daquele prato. Software
-proprietário é baseado em um sistema de valores "no qual a decência comum para
-com outras pessoas é proibida ou impedida.", e que se opõe ao sistema de troca
-que as pessoas normalmente entendem e usam com receitas culinárias.
-
-
-O massacre da impressora a laser
---------------------------------
-
-Contando um pouco de sua própria história, RMS explica como veio a perceber os
-perigos do software proprietário durante os anos 1970 quando trabalhava no
-Laboratório de Inteligência Artificial do MIT. Seu grupo recebeu uma impressora
-a laser da Xerox nova em folha para usar com seu computador PDP-10, mas ela
-engasgava freqüentemente. Isto causava muitos transtornos já que não havia meio
-de saber, sem ir fisicamente examinar a impressora, que ela havia engasgado.
-Assim, eles tiveram a idéia de modificar o software da impressora para
-notificar os usuários do sistema de que ela tinha engasgado. Isto parecia muito
-natural para este grupo particular de pesquisadores já que o laboratório
-trocava código de programas e informações livremente. Afinal de contas, eles
-tinham criado seu próprio sistema operacional em linguagem assembly e este era
-meramente um software para impressão. Infelizmente, o software tinha sido
-fornecido de somente de forma binária e eles não tinha o código-fonte para
-fazer modificações [N.T.: o código-fonte contém as instruções do programa
-inteligíveis por humanos e a forma binária é entendida pelo processador da
-máquina e só contém zeros e uns]. Pior ainda, a Xerox se recusou a dar-lhes o
-código-fonte. E assim, "só nos restava sofrer com as demoras "; "frustrante à
-beça," ele explica.
-
-
-Acordos de confidencialidade fazem vítimas
-------------------------------------------
-
-A história da impressora continua: uma pessoa da Universidade Carnegy Mellon
-tinha o código-fonte, mas se recusou a dá-lo ao grupo do MIT porque "ele tinha
-prometido a se recusar a cooperar conosco ... ele tinha assinado um acordo de
-confidencialidade". Pelos termos do acordo, esse cidadão que tinha o código
-fonte "tinha prometido não cooperar com simplesmente toda a população do
-Planeta Terra". Isto levou RMS a chegar à conclusão de que, apesar das
-compensações e das tentações do toma-lá-dá-cá, os acordos de confidencialidade
-fazem vítimas porque forçam a pessoa a recusar a troca de informações de uso
-geral, e portanto tornando a vida de seus pares humanos mais difícil, Como
-conseqüência, RMS diz: "jamais assinei um contrato de confidencialidade para
-informações técnicas de utilidade geral, como software".
-
-Nasce o GNU
------------
-
-Depois do desaparecimento de seu grupo no MIT e da contemplação das lições
-aprendidas até então, RMS decidiu que "desenvolveria um sistema operacional
-livre -- ou morreria tentando... de velho".
-Ele decidiu modelar seus sistema pelo UNIX, por causa da compatibilidade e
-portabilidade. A modularidade do sistema permitia que suas partes fossem
-desenvolvidas uma a uma, produzindo assim gradualmente um sistema completo,
-removendo as partes proprietárias que compõem a maior parte dos sistemas UNIX.
-No espírito da cultura hacker, ele usou uma sigla recursiva para designar o
-software GNU, que quer dizer "GNU's Not UNIX" e se pronuncia "guh-NEW".
-
-Lentamente, partes do sistema começaram a ser escritas, e elas eram
-"substitutos igualmente bons, com menos bugs ... mas não eram programas
-tremendamente empolgantes". Então em princípios de 1985, como RMS "não tinha
-intenção de aprender a usar VI, o editor UNIX" para arquivos texto, ele
-completou o GNU Emacs, um editor de texto versátil. Rapidamente outros usuários
-queriam uma cópia e RMS percebeu que tinha definir um esquema de distribuição.
-Qualquer um com acesso a rede e um cliente FTP poderia obter o software de
-graça, e os que não tinham poderiam obter uma fita por $150.
-
-
-$150 por software livre - os dois sentidos de "free"
-----------------------------------------------------
-
-Este é um ponto de confusão geral: como pode software livre custar $150? A
-resposta é que a palavra inglesa "free"" em dois sentidos diferentes. O "free"
-do movimento de software livre tem a ver com compartilhar e promover
-liberdades. No entanto, muitas pessoas acham que significa "livre" como em
-"livre de ônus"" e ao passo que muito software livre pode ser obtido sem
-pagamento, ninguém está impedido de cobrar pela cópia. RMS apresenta este
-argumento ao dizer "pensem em liberdade de expressão, não boca-livre". De fato,
-isso é o que faz quase toda a distribuição GNU/Linux: reúne software livre para
-atender as necessidades de um grupo de usuários. Sobre a questão do preço do
-software, RMS diz, "não sou contra outros programadores receber dinheiro. Não
-quero que os preços sejam baixos. Não é essa absolutamente a questão. A questão
-é liberdade."
-
-
-As quatro liberdades do software livre
---------------------------------------
-
-Tendo aludido às qualidades do software livre até aqui, RMS agora expõe as
-quatro liberdades do software livre. (Note que são indexadas em zero).
-
-A primeira é a Liberdade Zero, a liberdade para usar software do jeito que
-quiser. RMS nota que "a maioria dos programas lhe dão pelo menos a Liberdade
-Zero", e que o software que não dá "é um programa para lá de restritivo".
-
-A Liberdade Um é a liberdade de modificar o software para atender sua
-necessidade. Lembre-se do exemplo da impressora a laser da Xerox no laboratório
-de IA do MIT, e como esta liberdade os teria permitido re-escrever o software
-para facilitar suas vidas. Em geral, quando não se concede esta liberdade,
-"você fica prisioneiro de seu software" e "causa prejuízos práticos e materiais
-à sociedade", tanto quanto os pesquisadores eram prisioneiros do software de
-sua impressora e sofreram por causa dele.
-
-A Liberdade Dois é a liberdade de distribuir o software para qualquer outra
-pessoa, e ao fazer isso "ajudar os outros". Lembre-se da analogia das receitas
-culinárias e de que trocá-las é "é o recurso mais importante da sociedade".
-RMS argumenta que as leis impedem compartilhar software são baseadas na lógica
-que se aplica normalmente a bens físicos, quando na realidade há vastas
-diferenças entre bens físicos e software. Por exemplo, gasta-se muito mais
-recurso para produzir um exemplar de um automóvel que para produzir cópia de
-software.
-
-A Liberdade Três é a liberdade de distribuir versões alteradas do software, e
-fazendo assim cultivar uma comunidade centrada na evolução do software. Quando
-você compartilha uma versão modificada de uma receita culinária que obteve de
-um amigo, você está exercitando uma analogia desta liberdade.
-
-
-Código aberto e software livre: dois objetivos diferentes
-----------------------------------------------------------
-
-Uma fonte de confusão sobre o movimento de software livre é a insistência que
-de ele e o movimento de software livre são inerentemente diferentes. RMS afirma
-que eles diferem em seus objetivos: software livre tem o objetivo filosófico de
-promover as quatro liberdades listadas acima ao passo que o software de código
-aberto tem o objetivo prático de promover lançamento de software cujos fontes
-estejam disponíveis sob um licença que atenda uma certa definição. Em geral,
-isso significa que as liberdades concedidas pelos vários tipos de licenças de
-software de código aberto são um subconjunto das liberdades maiores concedidas
-pelas licenças de software livre. RMS diz que os membros do Movimento do Código
-Aberto "citam apenas os benefícios práticos" do software livre e apesar de
-terem "contribuído substancialmente para nossa comunidade", ele diz que
-"filosoficamente, há um tremendo desacordo".
-
-
-Como se mede a liberdade?
--------------------------
-
-Saber se um software é livre ou não pode depender de onde a medida é feita. No
-exemplo do X Windows, a licença permite liberdades diferentes para grupos
-diferentes. Os desenvolvedores do X Windows têm todas as quatro liberdades e
-assim, para eles é software livre. Os usuários, em geral, não têm nenhuma das
-quatro liberdades exceto a Liberdade Zero, e assim não é software livre para
-eles. De modo similar, algumas empresas pegam os fontes, modificam-no, lançam
-somente versões binárias e então seus usuário só ficam com a Liberdade Zero.
-
-RMS temia que "se a mesma coisa tivesse acontecido com o software GNU, ele
-teria sido um fracasso". Assim ele pensou num jeito de evitar que isso
-acontecesse, um modo de dar liberdade a todos os usuários de software,
-independente das modificações.
-
-
-Copyleft
---------
-
-O método que RMS inventou é chamado de "copyleft", assim chamado porque "é como
-copyright [direito autoral] só que de cabeça para baixo". Software livre dá
-todas as quatro liberdades e, via copyleft, usa a lei do direito autoral para
-garantir que todos os trabalhos derivados [tenham] todas as quatro liberdades.
-Sob estas condições, o paradoxo do X Windows, software livre que nem sempre é
-livre, não acontece. A licença que permite isso, a qual é usada em muitos
-softwares livres, é a Licença Pública Geral ou GNU GPL (General Publica
-License), "uma licença controversa -- porque na realidade tem o poder de dizer
-não a pessoas que queiram ser parasitas de nossa comunidade."
-
-
-Por que GNU/Linux?
-------------------
-
-Primeiro apareceu o GNU em 1984 e subseqüentemente em 1985 a Fundação do
-Software Livre foi criada. O trabalho continuou no sistema GNU e em 1991 apenas
-uma parte crucial estava faltando: o kernel [N. T.: o núcleo, parte central do
-sistema operacional]. Foi então que Linus Torvalds combinou o sistema GNU com
-seu kernel Linux monolítico para criar o primeiro sistema GNU/Linux. E este é
-o ponto que RMS mais enfatiza: "quando falo do kernel, eu o chamo de Linux" ,
-de outro modo, o sistema completo deve ser chamado de GNU/Linux uma vez que
-ambos, o sistema GNU e o kernel [Linux], têm de ser combinados para criar um
-todo completo.
-
-
-Software livre e os negócios
-----------------------------
-
-Tendo já discutido como software livre dá poder na mão dos usuários, RMS se
-ocupa em esclarecer por que, apesar da recente investida da Microsoft, o
-software livre é bom para os negócios.
-
-Usuários com as quatro liberdades é a primeira vantagem que as empresas podem
-receber do software livre, já que as próprias empresas são usuários de
-software, normalmente em larga escala. Assim uma empresa tem a oportunidade de
-controlar o software que usa, em vez de ficar à mercê dos bugs e dos recursos
-decididos pelo fabricante de software proprietário. Além disso, as empresas
-podem se beneficiar da inspeção do código do software livre para garantir
-privacidade para seu próprio bem (impedindo o uso de "spyware""[N. T.:
-recursos ou programas para invasão de privacidade] e agir para sanar quaisquer
-falhas de segurança que possam existir (em vez de esperar que o fabricante de
-software proprietário teste e distribua a solução).
-
-Para as empresas que desenvolvem suas próprias aplicações internas, software
-livre promove re-uso de código, eliminando assim perdas, poupando tempo e
-dinheiro. Como uma licença do tipo GPL requer que os fontes só sejam fornecidos
-quando o software modificado é disponibilizado ao público, as aplicações
-desenvolvidas para uso interno que possam incorporar tencologia proprietária
-não precisam rodar em conflito com a GPL. Este argumento parece contrariar
-especificamente o questionamento da Microsoft de que as empresas não podem usar
-software livre sem pôr em risco sua própria tecnologia proprietária, uma
-posição que RMS acredita ser não verdadeira.
-
-RMS também afirma que o uso do software livre promove padronização e
-compatibilidade. As empresas poderão achar isso atraente já que podem impedir a
-aparente obsolescência planejada de produtos e formatação de dados, os quais
-ocorrem com software proprietário. Um exemplo óbvio neste caso pode ser o Word
-do Microsft Office, para cujas novas encarnações freqüentemente se introduz
-documentos incompatíveis retroativamente.
-
-Isso não responde a questão das empresas de software livre e que modelos de
-negócios há disponíveis para elas. No entanto, vários modelos já existem e RMS
-dedica algum tempo para descrevê-los. O primeiro deles é o modelo de suporte,
-o qual quase toda distribuição GNU/Linux oferece. As distribuições também
-conseguem ganhar dinheiro com vendas a varejo da versão de seu pacote
-GNU/Linux; no entanto, é ainda possível baixar estes sistemas de graça. A
-Cygnus Support também oferece suporte a software GNU, desde 1989. Um método de
-ganhar dinheiro com software livre é cobrar do cliente pela adição de
-funcionalidades a uma aplicação existente, RMS também aponta o movimento
-recente FreeDevelopers de Tony Stanco como um modelo que tem potencial de
-sucesso ao pagar programadores para desenvolver software livre.
-
-
-Fechamento
-----------
-
-Antes de ouvir as perguntas dos presentes, RMS expressa sua tese de que o
-movimento de software livre deve focar em ganhos de longo prazo, e que as
-"pessoas que não dão suporte ao software livre geralmente adotam um sistema de
-valores no qual a única coisa que importa são benefícios práticos a curto
-prazo". Traçando um paralelo com o feriado do Dia da Memória nos EUA, durante
-o qual os heróis de guerra americanos são homenageados, Stallman apela para
-que os que apoiam o software livre façam "vários sacrifícios" pela causa. Ao
-contrário dos heróis de guerra, no entanto, estes sacrifícios podem ser tão
-pequenos quanto "aprender uma interface de linha de comandos" ou "pagar algum
-dinheiro a uma empresa que vai desenvolver um pacote de software livre, para
-que você possa tê-lo daqui a alguns anos". Como alguém que já devotou os
-últimos 17 anos de vida para esta causa, ele é excepcionalmente qualificado
-para falar de tal compromisso.
-
-Em seu discurso, RMS destacou muitas das qualidades salientes e muitas vezes
-mal entendidas do software livre: que ele promove as quatro liberdades que
-todos conhecemos a partir de nossa tradição social de compartilhar; que
-"livre" (free) do software livre se refere à liberdade do usuário, não ao
-custo; que software que nega quaisquer das quatro liberdade pode levar a perdas
-e sofrimento; que software de código aberto e sofware livre são filosofias
-fundamentalmente diferentes, mas que juntas têm levado muitas pessoas a lançar
-muito software útil como software livre; que a GPL protege as liberdades dos
-usuário de exploração contra interesses comerciais parasitas; e finalmente,
-talvez mais importante, que as empresas e o software livre podem coexistir,
-apesar das recentes afirmações de o software livre destrói a assim chamada
-propriedade intelectual.
-
-------------
-Referências:
- GNU Project and Free Software Foundation:
- http://www.gnu.org
- Palestra Original (inglês):
- http://www.gnu.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt
- Palestra Original (português)
-http://www.fsf.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pt.txt
- Iniciativa do Código Aberto:
- http://www.opensource.org/
-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-Copyright (C) 2001 Matt Matthews (address@hidden, address@hidden)
-Distribuição e cópia literal deste artigo inteiro são permitidas em qualquer
-meio desde que este aviso seja preservado.
-
Index: events/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt
===================================================================
RCS file: events/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt
diff -N events/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt
--- events/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt 9 Jun 2001 17:23:00 -0000 1.1
+++ /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
@@ -1,284 +0,0 @@
-Stallman Condensed
-------------------
-
-What follows is a summary of Richard M. Stallman's 29 May 2001 speech at NYU
-entitled "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation". As the length of the
-original speech is intimidating, my hope is that this distilled version will
-be more approachable to the casual reader.
-
-The original text can be found here:
-http://www.gnu.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt
-
-Not everyone is a programmer
-----------------------------
-
-RMS starts out his presentation with an analogy one might use to explain free
-software to a person who is not technically savvy: sharing recipes. "Some of
-you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps you cook," the analogy
-goes, "and, if you use recipes, you've probably had the experience of getting
-a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing it." This quality of sharing is
-very close to the principle upon which the free software movement is based:
-that useful information, specifically the code from which publicly distributed
-programs are built, should be available to everyone. Continuing the
-comparison, once you own a copy of a recipe, you are free to change it to suit
-your individual tastes, to "add some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms",
-for example. This is another principle of free software: that one should be
-able to make changes to the code of a program as desired. If you cook for
-friends from this modified recipe, they may like your creation and then ask
-for the new recipe. As with distributing modified free software, you share it
-with them because "that's the way to be a decent person".
-
-Now the punch line: if recipes were like proprietary, non-free software, then
-this story would be far different. Suppose the recipe were given to you as a
-black box, the insides of which you could not change, but which would produce
-the same dish exactly as your friend had made it. Then you might not be able
-to change the dish to your liking and thus could never share with your friends
-a modified (hopefully better) version of that dish. Non-free software is based
-on a value system "in which common decency towards other people is prohibited
-or prevented", one which opposes the system of sharing that people commonly
-use and understand with recipes.
-
-Laser printer debacle
----------------------
-
-With a bit of his own story, RMS explains how he came to see the dangers of
-proprietary software during the 1970s when he worked at the MIT Artificial
-Intelligence Lab. His group had been given a brand new Xerox laser printer for
-use with their PDP-10 computer, but it jammed frequently. This caused much
-aggravation as there was no way of knowing, without physically examining the
-printer itself, that it had jammed. So they got the idea of changing the
-printer software to notify the users on the system that a jam had occurred.
-This seemed natural enough to this particular group of researchers since the
-lab internally shared code and information freely. After all, they had created
-their own operating system in assembly language and this was merely software
-for a printer. Unfortunately, that software had been provided in binary form
-only and they had no source with which they could make changes. Even worse,
-Xerox refused to let them have the source. And so they "just had to suffer
-with waiting"; "frustration up the whazzoo," he explains.
-
-NDAs have victims
------------------
-
-The story of the printer driver continues: someone at Carnegie Mellon
-University did have the source code, yet refused to give a copy to the MIT
-group because "he had promised to refuse to cooperate with us ... he had
-signed a non-disclosure agreement". By the terms of this agreement, the person
-with the source "had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about the
-entire population of the Planet Earth". This led RMS to draw the conclusion
-that, despite rationalizations and quid pro quo temptations, NDAs have victims
-since they bind a person to potentially refusing to share generally useful
-information, and thereby making life more difficult for fellow humans. As a
-consequence, RMS has "never knowingly signed a non-disclosure agreement for
-generally useful technical information, such as software".
-
-Birth of GNU
-------------
-
-After the collapse of his group at MIT and contemplation upon the lessons
-learned there, RMS decided he "would develop a free operating system -- or die
-trying...of old age". He decided to model his system after the UNIX system,
-for the sake of compatibility and portability. The modularity of the system
-allowed the pieces to be developed one at a time, thus building the whole
-system gradually, replacing the proprietary bits that comprised most UNIX
-systems. In the spirit of the hacker culture, he used a recursive acronym to
-describe the software: GNU, which stands for "GNU's Not UNIX" and is
-pronounced "guh-NEW".
-
-Slowly bits of the system started getting written, and they were "equally good
-replacements, with fewer bugs ... but they weren't tremendously exciting".
-Then in early 1985, as RMS "had no intention of learning to use VI, the UNIX
-editor" for text files, he completed GNU Emacs, a versatile text editor.
-Quickly other users wanted a copy and RMS realized he had to work out the
-rules of distribution. Anyone with network access and an FTP client could get
-the software for free, and those without could get it on a tape for $150.
-
-$150 for free software - two meanings of "free"
------------------------------------------------
-
-This is a point of widespread confusion: how can free software cost $150? The
-answer is that the English word "free" has two distinct meanings. The "free"
-in the free software movement is about sharing and promoting freedoms.
-However, many people think that it means "free" and in "free of cost" and
-while most free software can be had without paying for it, no one is prevented
-for charging people for a copy. RMS makes this point by asking us to "think of
-free speech, not free beer". In effect, this is what almost every GNU/Linux
-distribution does: package free software to suit the needs of a group of
-users. On the subject of the price of software, RMS says, "I'm not against
-some other programmer getting money either. I don't want prices to be low.
-That's not the issue at all. The issue is freedom."
-
-The Four Freedoms of free software
-----------------------------------
-
-Having alluded to the qualities of free software earlier, RMS now takes time
-spell out the four freedoms of free software. (Note that they are zero-
-indexed.)
-
-First is Freedom Zero, the freedom to use software however you wish. RMS notes
-that "most programs will at least give you Freedom Zero", and that any
-software that doesn't "is a pretty damn restrictive program".
-
-Freedom One is the freedom to change software to suit your needs. Remember the
-example with the Xerox laser printer at the MIT AI lab, and how this freedom
-would have allowed them to rewrite the software to make their lives easier. In
-general when this freedom is not granted "it makes you a prisoner of your
-software" and "causes practical, material harm to society", just as the
-researchers at the lab were prisoners to their printer software and suffered
-under it.
-
-Freedom Two is the freedom to distribute the software to anyone else, and in
-doing so "to help your neighbor". Remember the analogy with recipes and how
-sharing is "society's most important resource". RMS makes the point that the
-laws that are used to prevent sharing of software are based on the logic one
-normally applies to physical goods, when in fact there are vast differences
-between physical goods and software. For example, it takes greater resources
-to produce a copy of a car than it does to produce a copy of software.
-
-Freedom Three is the freedom to distribute altered versions of the software,
-and in doing so cultivate a community centered around the evolution of the
-software. When you share a modified version of a recipe you obtained from a
-friend, you are exercising an analogue of this freedom.
-
-Open source and free software: two different goals
---------------------------------------------------
-
-One source of confusion about the free software movement is the insistence
-that they and the open source software movement are inherently different. RMS
-claims that they differ in their goals: free software has a philosophical goal
-to promote the four freedoms listed above while open source software has the
-practical goal to promote the release of software for which the source is
-available under a license fitting a certain definition. In general, this means
-the freedoms granted by various types of open source licenses are a subset of
-the greater freedoms granted by free software licenses. RMS says that members
-of the OSS movement "only cite the practical benefits" of free software and
-while they have "contributed substantially to our community", he says that
-"philosophically, there's a tremendous disagreement".
-
-Where to measure freedom?
--------------------------
-
-The measurement of whether a piece of software is free software can depend on
-where the measurement takes place. In the example of X Windows, the license
-allows for different freedoms for different groups. The developers of the X
-Windows system have all four freedoms and thus, it is free software to them.
-The users do not, in general, have any of the four freedoms except Freedom
-Zero, and so it is not free software to them. Similarly, some companies take
-the source, change it, release binary-only versions, and then their users have
-only Freedom Zero.
-
-RMS worried that "if that same thing had happened to GNU software, it would
-have been a failure". So he sought a way to prevent it from happening, a way
-to grant freedoms to all users of the software, regardless of the
-modifications.
-
-Copyleft
---------
-
-The method RMS came up with is called "copyleft", so called since "it's sort
-of like taking copyright and flipping it over". Free software grants all four
-freedoms and, via copyleft, uses copyright law to enforce on all derived works
-those same four freedoms. Under these conditions, the paradox of X Windows,
-free software that isn't always free software, cannot occur. The license that
-accomplishes this, and which is used on much free software, is the GNU General
-Public License (or GPL), "a controversial license -- because it actually has
-the strength to say no to people who would be parasites on our community."
-
-Why GNU/Linux?
---------------
-
-First came GNU in 1984 and subsequently in 1985 the Free Software Foundation
-was created. Work continued on the GNU system and in 1991 only one crucial
-piece was missing: the kernel. It was then that Linus Torvalds combined the
-GNU system with his monolithic Linux kernel to create the first GNU/Linux
-system. And this is a point that RMS feels strongly upon: "if I'm talking
-about the kernel, I call it Linux" and otherwise the complete system should be
-called GNU/Linux since both the GNU system and the kernel must be combined to
-create a complete whole.
-
-Free software and business
---------------------------
-
-Having already discussed how free software puts power in the hands of users,
-RMS then takes time to clarify why, despite the recent invective from
-Microsoft, free software is a good for business.
-
-That users are granted the four freedoms is the first advantage that business
-can receive from free software, as businesses are themselves users of
-software, often on a large scale. Thus a business has the opportunity to
-control the software they use, instead of being at the mercy of the bugs and
-feature decisions of the proprietary software vendor. Further, business can
-benefit from inspecting the code of the software to ensure privacy for its own
-sake (effectively preventing the use of spyware) and take action to fix any
-security flaws that might exist (instead of waiting for the proprietary
-software vendor to test and release a fix).
-
-For businesses that develop their own in-house applications, free software
-promotes code reuse, thus eliminating waste while saving time and potentially
-money. Since a free software license like the GPL requires that source be
-provided only when modified software is made available to the public,
-applications developed for internal use which potentially incorporate
-proprietary technology need not run afoul of the GPL. This point seems
-specifically targeted at Microsoft's contention that businesses cannot use
-free software without putting at risk their own proprietary technology, a
-position that RMS believes to be untrue.
-
-RMS also claims that the use of free software promotes standardization and
-compatibility. Businesses might find this attractive since it could prevent
-the seemingly planned obsolescence of products and their data formats that can
-occur with proprietary software. An obvious example here might be Microsoft
-Office's Word, for which new incarnations often introduce non-backward
-compatible document formats.
-
-These don't address the question of free software companies and what business
-models are available to them. However, several models already exist and RMS
-takes the time to point them out. Primary among these is the support model,
-which almost every GNU/Linux distribution offers. Distributions also attempt
-to make money off of the retail sales of their packaged versions of GNU/Linux;
-however, one can still download those systems for free. Cygnus Support also
-offers services to support GNU software, and has since 1989. One method of
-making money from free software is to to charge a client to add desired
-features to an existing application. RMS also points to Tony Stanco's recent
-FreeDevelopers movement as a potentially successful model to pay programmers
-to develop free software.
-
-In Closing
-----------
-
-Before taking questions from the audience, RMS expresses his stance that
-a free software movement should focus on long term gain, and that "people who
-don't support free software generally adopt a value system in which the only
-thing that matters is short-term practical benefits". Drawing a parallel with
-the US holiday Memorial Day, during which American heroes of war are honored,
-Stallman urges free software supporters to make "various sacrifices" for the
-cause. Unlike those made by war heroes, however, these sacrifices can be small
-like "learning a command-line interface" or "paying some money to a
-company that's going to develop a certain free software package, so that
-you can have it in a few years". As one that has devoted the past 17 years of
-his life to this cause, he is exceptionally qualified to speak to such a
-commitment.
-
-In this speech, RMS has outlined many of the salient and oft misunderstood
-qualities of free software: that it promotes the four freedoms that we all
-know from our social tradition of sharing; that the "free" in "free software"
-refers to freedom for the user, not cost; that software that denies any of the
-four freedoms can lead to waste and suffering; that open source software and
-free software are fundamentally philosophically different yet have together
-led many people to release much useful software as free software; that the GPL
-protects the freedoms of users from exploitation by parasitic commercial
-interests; and finally, perhaps most importantly, that business and free
-software can coexist, despite recent claims that free software destroys
-so-called intellectual property.
-
---
-
-Reference information:
- GNU Project and Free Software Foundation:
- http://www.gnu.org
- Original speech:
- http://www.gnu.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt
- Open Source Initiative:
- http://www.opensource.org/
-
-Copyright (C) 2001 Matt Matthews (address@hidden, address@hidden)
-Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any
-medium, provided this notice is preserved.
Index: events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.cs.html
===================================================================
RCS file: events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.cs.html
diff -N events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.cs.html
--- events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.cs.html 30 Jul 2008 20:58:05 -0000
1.1
+++ /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
@@ -1,2182 +0,0 @@
-
-<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">
-<HTML>
-<HEAD>
-<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-2">
-<TITLE>Svobodný software - Free Software Foundation (FSF)</TITLE>
-<LINK REV="made" HREF="mailto:address@hidden";>
-<META HTML-EQUIV="Keywords"
- CONTENT="GNU, GNU Project, FSF, Free Software, Free Software Foundation,
- History">
-</HEAD>
-<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#000000" LINK="#1F00FF" ALINK="#FF0000"
VLINK="#9900DD">
-<IMG SRC="/graphics/whats-gnu-sm.jpg"
- ALT=" [obrazek Co je to gnu] " WIDTH="125" HEIGHT="120">
-
-
-<pre>
- Pøepis pøedná¹ky
- Richarda M. Stallmana
- ,,Svobodný software: Svoboda a spolupráce''
- New York University v New Yorku
- 29. kvìtna 2001
-</pre>
-
-<P>
-URETSKY: Jsem Mike Uretsky. Vystudoval jsem Stern School of Business.
-Jsem jedním z øeditelù Centra pro pokroèilé technologie.
-Jménem nás v¹ech v Oddìlení pro výzkum poèítaèù bych vás zde chtìl pøivítat.
-Ne¾ pøedám mikrofon Edovi, který
-pøedstaví øeèníka, dovolil bych si nìkolik poznámek.
-
-<P>
-Úlohou univerzity je podporovat debaty a poøádat zajímavé diskuze
-A úlohou vìt¹í univerzity je poøádat
-zvlá¹tì zajímavé diskuze. A tato zvlá¹tní pøedná¹ka dopadá na úrodnou
-pùdu. Debata o open source mi pøipadá
-zvlá¹tì zajímavá. V jiném smyslu, [Smích]
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Já dìlám svobodný software. Open Source je odli¹ný smìr.
-[Smích] [Potlesk]
-
-<P>
-URETSKY: Kdy¾ jsem v tomto oboru zaèínal v ¹edesátých letech,
-software byl vpodstatì svobodný.
-A pro¹li jsme tím v cyklech. Zaèal svobodnì a potom ho výrobci software
-ve snaze roz¹íøit obchod zaèali postrkávat jinými smìry.
-Mnoho vývoje, který pøi¹el s nástupem PC, pro¹lo tím samým cyklem.
-
-<P>
-Existuje jeden velmi zajímavý francouzský filosof -- Pierre Levy -- který
-mluví o pohybu tímto smìrem a který mluví o pohybu smìrem ke kybersvìtu
-a to nejen v souvislosti s technologiemi, ale také se sociální
-restrukturalizací, politickou restrukturalizací, skrze zmìny ve vztazích
-mezi námi, které mohou zlep¹it blahobyt lidstva. A my doufáme,
-¾e tato debata se bude ubírat tímto smìrem. Tato debata se týká
-mnoha oborù na¹í univerzity, které normálnì vystupují samostatnì.
-Tì¹íme se na velmi zajímavou diskuzi. Ede?
-
-
-<P>
-SCHONBERG: Já jsem Ed Schonberg z Computer Science Department na
-Courant Institute. Dovolte mi pøivítat vás tu dnes. Lidé, kteøí
-pouze pøedstavují jiné, jsou vìt¹inou jen neu¾iteèným rysem
-veøejných konferencí, ale v tomto pøípadì jsou vlastnì docela u¾iteèní,
-jak nám dokázal Mike.
-
-<P>
-Dovolte mi tedy krátce pøedstavit nìkoho, kdo vlastnì vùbec ¾ádné pøedstavení
-nepotøebuje. Richard je perfektní pøíklad èlovìka, který pøi
-øe¹ení lokálních problémù zaèal pøemý¹let globálnì. Pøed mnoha
-lety zaèal pøemý¹let o problémech spojených s nedostupností zdrojového
-kódu k ovladaèùm tiskárny. Vytvoøil filosofii, která nás v¹echny donutila
-pøehodnotit na¹e my¹lenky o vývoji software, o tom, co to vlastnì je
-intelektuální vlastnictví a kdo to je softwarová komunita.
-Pøivítejme Richarda Stallmana.
-[Potlesk]
-
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Mù¾e mi nìkdo pùjèit hodinky? [Smích] Díky.
-Rád bych podìkoval Microsoftu za to, ¾e mi poskytl mo¾nost
-[Smích] stát na tomto podiu.
-V posledních týdnech jsem se cítil jako autor, jeho¾ kniha byla
-bez jeho zavinìní nìkde zakazována.
-Pomiòme, ¾e v¹echny èlánky vìc ¹patnì pojmenovávají, jeliko¾
-Microsoft popisuje GNU GPL jako Open Source licenci a
-tisk ho následuje. Vìt¹ina lidí si prostì neuvìdomuje,
-¾e na¹e práce s open source nijak nesouvisí; ve skuteènosti
-jsme udìlali vìt¹inu z toho, je¹tì ne¾ byl termín ,,open source´´
-vytvoøen.
-
-<P>
-Budu dnes mluvit o Free Software Movement, co to je, co to znamená,
-co jsme ji¾ udìlali a proto¾e je to èásteènì sponzorované
-School of Business, øeknu také pár vìcí navíc o tom,
-jak se svobodný software spojuje
-s obchodem a nìkterými dal¹ími oblastmi sociálního ¾ivota.
-
-<P>
-Nìkteøí z vás mo¾ná je¹tì nepsali poèítaèové programy, ale mo¾ná
-vaøíte. A jestli vaøíte, tak pokud nejste opravdu
-velmi dobøí, asi pou¾íváte recepty.
-A pokud pou¾íváte recepty, pravdìpodobnì ji¾ máte zku¹enost s tím,
-¾e jste si poøídili kopii receptu od kamaráda. Také asi máte, pokud nejste
-úplný zaèáteèník, zku¹enost s obmìnou receptu. Jistì, recept vám radí urèité
kroky,
-ale vy ve skuteènosti nemusíte dìlat pøesnì to. Mù¾ete vynechat nìkteré
pøísady,
-nebo mù¾ete
-pøidat nìjaké houby, jestli je máte rádi, dát ménì soli, proto¾e
-vám doktor øekl, ¾e byste mìli sùl omezit -- cokoliv. Pokud máte zku¹enosti,
-mù¾ete udìlat dokonce je¹tì vìt¹í zmìny. A poté tøeba pøijdou pøátelé, kterým
-to bude chutnat a jeden z nich vám mù¾e øíci: ,,Hej, nemohl bys mi dát
recept?´´
-Co tedy udìláte? Mù¾ete si zapsat tu modifikovanou verzi receptu a opsat ho
-kamarádovi. To jsou pøirozené vìci, které mù¾ete dìlat se v¹emi recepty.
-
-<P>
-Recept je hodnì podobný poèítaèovému programu a poèítaèový program je hodnì
-podobný receptu. Série krokù, které musíte jeden po druhém vykonat,
-abyste se dostali k po¾adovanému výsledku. Tak¾e je také tak pøirozené
-dìlat tyto vìci s poèítaèovými programy. Dát kopii kamarádovi, dìlat v nìm
-zmìny, proto¾e to, co dìlá, není pøesnì to, co bychom chtìli, aby dìlal.
-Program mo¾ná odvádìl perfektní práci pro nìkoho jiného, ale va¹e
-práce je odli¹ná.
-Po tom, co ho zmìníte, je mo¾né, ¾e takto bude u¾iteèný i pro nìkoho jiného.
-Mo¾ná dìlají práci, která je velmi podobná té va¹í. Tak¾e pøijdou
-a zeptají se: ,,Hej, dal bys mi kopii?´´ Samozøejmì, pokud jste ohleduplný
-èlovìk, dáte jim ji -- budete slu¹ný.
-
-<P>
-A teï si pøedstavte, jaké by to bylo, pokud by byly recepty umístìny
-v èerných skøíòkách. Nemohl byste se podívat jaké pøísady pou¾ívají,
-ani je mìnit. A pøedstavte si, ¾e pokud byste udìlal kamarádovi kopii,
-nazývali by vás pirátem a sna¾ili se vás na roky uvìznit. To by vyvolalo
-v lidech zvyklých sdílet recepty stra¹né rozhoøèení. Ale takto
-pøesnì vypadá svìt propietárního software. Svìt, ve kterém
-je slu¹nost k ostatním lidem zakázána a je vám v ní bránìno.
-
-<P>
-Kdy jsem to zpozoroval? V¹iml jsem si toho díky tomu, ¾e jsem v sedmdesátých
-letech mìl to ¹tìstí být souèástí komunity programátorù, kteøí sdíleli
software.
-Minulost téhle komunity sahá vpodstatì a¾ k úplným zaèátkùm poèítaèù.
-V 70. letech to bylo tro¹ku zvlá¹tní být komunita, kde lidé sdíleli software.
-Ve skuteènosti to byl extrémní pøípad, proto¾e v laboratoøi, kde jsem pracoval,
-byl celý ná¹ operaèní systém napsaný lidmi z na¹í komunity a my
-bychom jej sdíleli s kýmkoliv. Ka¾dý byl vítán. A» ji¾ se chtìl pouze
-podívat, odnést si kopii, nebo udìlat cokoliv jiného, co se mu zachtìlo.
-Na programech nebyla ¾ádná upozornìní o copyrightu. Ná¹ zpùsob ¾ivota byla
-spolupráce. Byli jsme si jisti v takovém zpùsobu ¾ivota. Nebojovali jsme za
nìj.
-Nemuseli jsme za nìj bojovat. Prostì jsme tak ¾ili. A pokud vím,
-prostì bychom tak ¾ili i dále. Tak¾e svobodný software tu ji¾ byl, ale nebyl
-tu ¾ádný Free Software Movement.
-
-<P>
-Pak se pøes nás ale pøehnala série kalamit
-a na¹e komunita byla v troskách, nakonec byla úplnì znièena. Museli jsme
-pøestat pou¾ívat PDP-10, ná¹ poèítaè. A jak víte,
-ná¹ systém -- Nekompatibilní systém pro sdílení èasu
-[The Incompatibile Time Sharing Machine -- to byl název systému -- pozn.
-pøekl.] -- byl psán
-v ¹edesátých letech, tak¾e byl celý v assembleru. Tak se to prostì
-v ¹edesátýchy letech dìlalo. Assembler je samozøejmì v¾dy pouze pro jednu
-architekturu. Kdy¾ ta zastará, v¹echna va¹e práce se zmìní v odpad.
-A pøesnì to se nám stalo. Dvacet let, nebo tak nìjak, na¹í práce bylo vyhozeno
-do ko¹e.
-
-<P>
-Je¹tì ne¾ se to stalo, mìl jsem zku¹enost, která mì pøipravila,
-pomohla mi rozhodnout se co dìlat... pomohla mi pøipravit se na to,
-abych vìdìl co dìlat, a¾ se toto stane. Jednou dal Xerox laboratoøi
-umìlé inteligence,
-kde jsem pracoval, laserovou tiskárnu. Byl to opravdu skvìlý dárek,
-bylo to poprvé co získal laserovou tiskárnu nìkdo mimo Xerox.
-Byla velmi rychlá, vytiskla stránku za sekundu. To bylo perfektní v mnoha
-ohledech, ale bylo to nespolehlivé. Ve skuteènosti to byla
-vysokorychlostní kopírka pøemìnìná v tiskárnu. Znáte
-to, kopírky maèkají papír a zablokují se, ale v¾dy je tam nìkdo, kdo to spraví.
-Tiskárna se zasekla, ale nikdo to nevidìl, tak¾e zùstala mimo provoz dlouho.
-
-<P>
-Dobøe, napadlo nás, jak ten problém vyøe¹it. Chtìli jsme pozmìnit program tak,
-aby to v¾dy, kdy¾ se tiskárna zasekne, poèítaè, co ji obsluhuje oznámil
-na¹emu hlavnímu poèítaèi a ten informoval u¾ivatele, kteøí èekají na
-výstupy. ©li by to spravit. Jenom aby vìdìli.
-Kdy¾ èekáte na výtisk a víte, ¾e tiskárna je zablokovaná, nebudete
-sedìt a èekat na Vánoce, pùjdete to spravit.
-
-<P>
-Ale to jsme tvrdì narazili, proto¾e software, který ovládal tiskárnu
-nebyl svobodný software -- dostali jsme ho s tiskárnou a byla to pouze
-binárka. Nemohli jsme mít zdrojový kód -- Xerox nám ho nedal, tak¾e napøíè
tomu,
-¾e jsme mìli velké zku¹enosti -- po tom v¹em, napsali jsme vlastní operaèní
-systém... -- jsme nebyli schopni pøidat tohle roz¹íøení do software na¹í
-tiskárny.
-
-<P>
-A tak jsme museli jen trpìt a èekat. Trvalo i hodinu èi dvì dostat
-své výtisky, proto¾e stroj byl vìt¹inu èasu zablokovaný.
-A tak jste si øíkali. ,,Vím, ¾e se to zasekne, poèkám hodinu a pak
-si pùjdu pro výstup´´ a pak jste pøi¹li a zjistili, ¾e to bylo zaseklé
-celou dobu a nikdo jiný to mezitím nespravil. Tak¾e jste to spravili
-a èekali dal¹í pùlhodinu. A pak jste pøi¹li a vidìli, ¾e se to zas zaseklo
-døíve, ne¾ se to dostalo k va¹í úloze. Tisklo to tøi minuty a tøicet neèinnì
-stálo zablokované. ©ílená otrava.
-Ale je¹tì hor¹í bylo vìdìt, ¾e jsme to mohli opravit,
-ale nìkdo jiný, kvùli své vlastní sobeckosti, nás blokoval, zabraòoval
-nám vylep¹it ten software. Samozøejmì, ¾e jsme cítili vztek.
-
-<P>
-Jednou jsem se doslechl, ¾e nìkdo na univerzitì Carnagie Mellon mìl kopii
-toho software. ©el jsem tedy do jeho kanceláøe a øekl: ,,Ahoj, já jsem z MIT,
-mohl bys mi dát kopii zdrojových kódù té tiskárny?´´ A on øekl: ,,Ne,
-slíbil jsem, ¾e ti nedám kopii.´´ Pokou¹ely se o mne mrákoty.
-Byl jsem tak... byl jsem na¹tvaný, a nenapadalo mì jak to ospravedlnit.
-V¹e, na co jsem mohl pomyslet, bylo otoèit se na podpatku a odejít z jeho
-místnosti. Mo¾ná jsem práskl dvìømi. [Smích] A pozdìji jsem na to musel
-myslet, proto¾e jsem si uvìdomil, ¾e to, co jsem pozoroval, nebyl pouze
ojedinìlý
-pøípad, ale dùle¾itý sociální fenomén, který ovlivnil mnoho lidí.
-
-<P>
-Bylo to... pro mne... já mìl ¹tìstí. Jen jsem to ochutnal, ale
-nìkteøí lidé v tom museli ¾ít celou dobu. Podívejte, on slíbil
-odmítnout s námi spolupracovat -- se svými kolegy na MIT.
-Zradil nás. Ale neudìlal to jen nám. Je mo¾né, ¾e to udìlal i vám. [Smích]
-A myslím, ¾e to nejspí¹ udìlal i vám. Udìlal to vìt¹inì lidí, kteøí
-jsou teï v této místnosti, s výjimkou tìch pár, kteøí je¹tì nebyli v roce 1980
-na svìtì, proto¾e on odmítl spolupracovat s celou planetou Zemí.
-Podepsal non-disclosure agreement. [do èe¹tiny volnì pøelo¾eno jako
-dohoda o neodhalení, ale i v Èechách se bì¾nì pou¾ívá tento anglický
-termín a jeliko¾ jsem na ¾ádný moc chytrý pøeklad nepøi¹el, budu
-non-disclosure agreement pou¾ívat také -- pozn. pøekl.]
-
-<P>
-To bylo moje první pøímé setkání s non-disclosure agreement
-a to mì nauèilo nìèemu dùle¾itému. Dùle¾itému proto,
-¾e vìt¹ina programátorù se tomu nenauèila. Vidíte, ¾e toto
-bylo moje první setkání s non-disclosure agreement a byl jsem obì»,
-já a celá moje laboratoø jsme byli obì»mi. A tak jsem vidìl,
-¾e non-disclosure agreements má obìti. Non-disclosure agreements
-nejsou nevinné. Nejsou
-ne¹kodné. Vìt¹ina programátorù se poprvé setká s non-disclosure agreement,
-kdy¾ je nìkdo pozve k podepsání. A v¾dy je tu nìjaké lákání
--- nìjaký bonbon, který dostanou, pokud podepí¹í. Dìlají si omluvy.
-Øíkají: ,,Stejnì bych nikdy kopii nedostal, tak proè bych se nemohl
-k tomuhle spinkutí proti nìmu pøipojit?''
-
-<P>
-Øíkají, ¾e takhle se to dìlá v¾dy. ,,Kdo jsem, abych se proti tomu stavìl?''
-Øíkají ,,Kdy¾ to nepodepí¹u, tak nìkdo jiný to podepí¹e za mì.´´
-Mají rùzné omluvy, aby si vyléèili svìdomí.
-
-<P>
-Ale kdy¾ mì nìkdo pozval, abych podepsal non-disclosure agreement,
-moje svìdomí ji¾ bylo ve støehu. Pamatoval jsem si, jak jsem byl na¹tvaný,
-kdy¾ nìkdo slíbil nepomoci mnì a mé laboratoøi vyøe¹it ná¹ problém.
-A nemohl jsem to jen tak pøejít a udìlat tu samou vìc nìkomu jinému,
-kdo mi nikdy nijak neublí¾il. Víte, kdyby mnì nìkdo po¾ádal o slib,
-¾e nebudu sdílet u¾iteèné informace s nenávidìným nepøítelem,
-vyhovìl bych mu. Kdy¾ nìkdo udìlal nìco ¹patného, zaslou¾í si to.
-Ale cizinci -- nic zlého mi neudìlali. Proè bych s nimi mìl zacházet
-tak ¹patnì? Zaslou¾í si to? Nemù¾ete s ka¾dým, s kýmkoliv, jednat ¹patnì.
-Stanete se tak ¹kùdce spoleènosti. Odvìtil jsem: ,,Díky moc, ¾e mi nabízíte
-tenhle pìkný softwarový balík, ale nemohu s èistým svìdomím pøistoupit na
podmínky,
-které po¾adujete, tak¾e se rad¹i obejdu bez nìj. Díky moc.´´ Nikdy jsem úmyslnì
-nepodepsal non-disclosure agreement na obecnì u¾iteènou technickou informaci,
-jako napøíklad software.
-
-<P>
-Existují i jiné typy informací, které mohou vzná¹et podobné etické otázky.
-Napøíklad osobní informace. Kdybyste se mnou chtìli mluvit o tom,
-co se dìje mezi vámi a va¹í holkou, a poprosili byste mne, abych
-o tom nikomu neøíkal, abych si to nechal... souhlasil bych s tím, ¾e
-si to nechám pro sebe, proto¾e to není obecnì u¾iteèná technická informace.
-
-<P>
-Pøinejmen¹ím to pravdìpodobnì není obecnì u¾iteèné. [Smích] Je tu malá ¹ance
--- a to je samozøejmì také mo¾nost -- ¾e jste odhalili nìjakou
-ú¾asnou novou sexuální techniku [Smích] a já bych potom cítil jako
-svoji morální povinnost pøedat tu informaci zbytku lidstva,
-aby z toho mohl také tì¾it. Musím tedy do toho slibu zahrnout výjimku --
-v¹ak víte. Pokud to jsou jen detaily o tom, kdo to chce, kdo je na koho
na¹tvaný
-a takové vìci -- cajdák -- tak si to nechám pro sebe, ale nìco, z èeho by mohla
-spoleènost obrovsky tì¾it, prostì musím zveøejnit. Úèel vìdy a technologie
-je objevovat u¾iteèné informace pro lidstvo, které by pomohly lidem
-¾ít lépe své ¾ivoty. Kdy¾ slíbíme neposkytnout takovou informaci --
-kdy¾ si ji ponecháme v tajnosti -- tak zrazujeme misi svého odvìtví.
-A já jsem se rozhodl, ¾e bych to nemìl dìlat.
-
-<P>
-Ale mezitím moje komunita zkrachovala a to byl krach, který mì zanechal
-v tì¾ké situaci. Jak jsem ji¾ øekl, ná¹ systém byl zastaralý, proto¾e
-PDP-10 bylo zastaralé, a proto ji¾ nebylo mo¾né, abych pokraèoval jako
-vývojáø operaèního systému stejným zpùsobem jako pøedtím.
-To záviselo na tom, ¾e jsem byl souèástí komunity, která pou¾ívala
-software a vylep¹ovala ho. To ji¾ od té doby nebylo mo¾né a to
-mi pøipravilo morální dilema. Co budu dìlat? Nejjednodu¹¹í mo¾nost
-znamenala jít proti rozhodnutím, která jsem uèinil. [zde myslí RMS
-rozhodnutí nepodepsat nikdy non-disclosure agreement -- pozn. pøekl]
-Nejjednodu¹¹í mo¾nost znamenala pøizpùsobit se zmìnì svìta. Akceptovat,
-¾e vìci se zmìnily a ¾e budu muset obìtovat moje principy a zaèít podpisem
-non-disclosure agreement na operaèní systém. A nejspí¹ také psát proprietární
-software. Ale uvìdomil jsem si, ¾e touhle cestou bych mohl mít nadále zábavu
-z kódování a mohl jsem mít peníze -- hlavnì kdybych to dìlal nìkde jinde, ne¾
-na MIT -- ale nakonec bych se jednou musel ohlédnout za svojí kariérou
-a øíct si: ,,Strávil jsem ¾ivot budováním zdí k oddìlení lidí,´´ a mohl
-bych být znechucen svým ¾ivotem.
-
-<P>
-Tak jsem se poohlí¾el po jiné alternativì. Byla tu jedna zøejmá.
-Mohl jsem opustit softwarové odvìtví a dìlat nìco jiného. Nemìl
-jsem ¾ádné pozoruhodné schopnosti, ale jsem si jistý,
-¾e jsem se mohl stát èí¹níkem. [Smích] Ne v nìjaké fantastické
-restauraci, nezamìstnali by mì, ale prostì jsem mohl být èí¹ník.
-Nìkde. Mnoho programátorù øíká, ,,lidé, kteøí najímají programátory,
-po¾adují to a to a to ,,a kdy¾ to nebudu akceptovat, budu hladovìt.´´
-Hladovìt, to je pøesnì to slovo,
-které pou¾ívají. Ok, jako èí¹ník hladovìt nebudete.
-[Smích]
-
-<P>
-Opravdu tu není ¾ádné nebezpeèí. To je dùle¾ité,
-obèas mù¾ete ospravedlnit to, ¾e provedete ostatním lidem
-nìco, co je zraní, tím, ¾e øeknete: ,,kdy¾ to neudìlám,
-stane se mi je¹tì nìco hor¹ího.´´ Samozøejmì, kdybyste opravdu
-mìli hladovìt, ospravedlòovalo by vás to psát proprietární software.
-[Smích]
-Kdy¾ na vás nìkdo míøí pistolí, tak bych øekl, ¾e je to omluvitelné.
-[Smích]
-Ale já jsem na¹el cestu jak pøe¾ít bez toho, abych dìlal nìco neetického,
-tak¾e jsem tuto omluvu nemohl pou¾ít. Uvìdomil jsem si, ¾e být èí¹ník by
-pro mne nebyla ¾ádná zábava a zbyteènì bych tak plýtval mými
-zku¹enostmi systémového vývojáøe. To, co budu dìlat, by nemìlo být zneu¾ívání
-mých zku¹eností. Vyvíjet proprietární software by bylo zneu¾íváním
-mých zku¹eností. Povzbuzovat ostatní lidi k tomu, aby ¾ili
-ve svìtì proprietárního software, by bylo zneu¾ívání mých zku¹eností.
-To u¾ by bylo lep¹í s nimi plýtvat, ne¾ je zneu¾ívat, ale
-to stále není pøíli¹ dobré.
-
-<P>
-Z tìchto dùvodù jsem se tedy zaèal rozhlí¾et po nìjaké alternativì.
-Co by mohl udìlat vývojáø operaèních systémù k tomu, aby zlep¹il situaci,
-aby udìlal svìt lep¹ím místem? Uvìdomil jsem si,
-¾e operaèní systém bylo pøesnì to, co bylo tøeba. Ten problém,
-to dilema, existovalo pro mì i pro v¹echny ostatní, proto¾e
-v¹echny dostupné operaèní systémy pro moderní poèítaèe byly
-proprietární. Ten ná¹ svobodný operaèní systém byl pro staré,
-vyslou¾ilé poèítaèe, ¾e? Kdy¾ jste si chtìli poøídit nový
-poèítaè a pou¾ívat ho, byli jste nuceni pou¾ít proprietární systém.
-Kdyby nìjaký vývojáø napsal jiný systém a potom øekl, ¾e ho mù¾e
-ka¾dý sdílet a on bude rád, pokud to budou lidé dìlat, tak by to ka¾dého
-vyvedlo z tì¾kého rozhodování, byla by tu alternativa.
-Uvìdomil jsem si, ¾e bych s tím mohl nìco dìlat. Zrovna já
-jsem mìl ty pravé zku¹enosti, abych to byl schopen udìlat.
-To bylo prostì to neju¾iteènìj¹í co jsem si dokázal pøedstavit,
-jak bych mohl se svým ¾ivotem nalo¾it.
-
-<P>
-Tohle byl zrovna problém, který se v tu chvíli nikdo jiný nesna¾il
-vyøe¹it. Prostì jsme tu jen sedìli a ono se to mezitím je¹tì víc zhor¹ovalo
-a nebyl tu kolem nikdo jiný, kdo by to vyøe¹il, jen já. Cítil jsem,
-¾e jsem ten pravý, ¾e na tom musím pracovat. Kdy¾ ne já, tak kdo?
-Tak¾e jsem se rozhodl, ¾e vyvinu svobodný operaèní systém -- nebo
-umøu pøi tom, jak se stále budu sna¾it vyvinout svobodný operaèní systém.
-Myslel jsem umøít stáøím, samozøejmì. [Smích]
-
-<P>
-Stál jsem tedy pøed rozhodnutím, jaký operaèní systém by to mìl být. Musel
-jsem si upøesnit nìjaké technické otázky týkající se designu systému.
-Nìkolik dùvodù mne pøesvìdèilo udìlat ho kompatibilní s Unixem.
-Zaprvé, bylo to zrovna po tom, co jsem vidìl, jak operaèní systém,
-který jsem opravdu miloval, zastaral, proto¾e byl napsaný pro jeden
-konkrétní typ poèítaèe a ten se pøestal pou¾ívat. Nechtìl jsem,
-aby se to opakovalo. Potøeboval jsem nìjaký portovatelný systém.
-Unix byl portovatelný systém. Kdybych tedy následoval design
-Unixu, mìl jsem docela dobrou ¹anci vytvoøit systém, který
-by byl portovatelný a práceschopný. Ale byl tu je¹tì
-jeden podstatný dùvod, proè být pøesnì kompatibilní s Unixem.
-
-<P>
-Tím dùvodem je, ¾e u¾ivatelé nesná¹ejí nekompatibilní zmìny.
-Kdybych navrhl systém podle sebe -- co¾ bych byl dìlal stra¹nì rád,
-tím jsem si jist -- vyrobil bych nìco nekompatibilního.
-Jistì chápete, detaily by byly odli¹né. Kdybych to tak udìlal,
-lidé by mi øekli: ,,Ok, je to velmi dobré, ale není to kompatibilní.
-Dalo by moc práce na nìj pøejít. Nemù¾eme si dovolit tolik starostí jen proto,
-abysme pøe¹li na tvùj systém místo Unixu.´´ [V té dobì -- v druhé
-polovinì osmdesátých let -- je¹tì nemohl Richard vìdìt, ¾e pøesnì toto
-se mu pozdìji stane. Jen mezitím byl Unix vymìnìn za MS Windows. Ve
-skuteènosti to ale tehdy na konci osmdesátých let splnilo svùj úèel
-a na serverech i v high-end sféøe ho plní poøád. Zpìtnì øeèeno,
-bylo to dobré rozhodnutí, ale s nástupem nekompatibilních MS Windows tehdy
-Richard nepoèítal a tak se dnes èásteènì dostal do situace, kterou popisuje. --
-pozn. pøekl.]
-
-<P>
-Kdy¾ jsem chtìl vybudovat komunitu, ve které by byli vùbec nìjací lidé
--- lidé pou¾ívající svobodný systém, sklízející ovoce svobody a
-spolupráce -- musel jsem vytvoøit systém, který by lidé pou¾ívali,
-na který by mohli jednodu¹e pøejít, který by nemìl ¾ádnou pøeká¾ku,
-která by to zastavila hned na zaèátku. Rozhodnutí udìlat systém
-kompatibilní s Unixem za mì vlastnì vyøe¹ilo v¹echny technické otázky
-ohlednì designu, proto¾e Unix se skládá z malých èástí, které spolu
-komunikují pøes rozhraní, která jsou víceménì dokumentovaná.
-Z toho plyne, ¾e kdy¾ chcete být kompatibilní s Unixem,
-musíte nahradit ka¾dý kousek jeden po druhém nìjakým kompatibilním
-kouskem software. Ty zbývající otázky designu se vztahují ka¾dá pouze
-na vnitøek tìch malých souèástí a rozhodnutí mù¾e udìlat ten,
-kdo bude zrovna ten kousek programovat a to vpodstatì kdykoliv.
-Nemusel jsem to v¹e rozhodnout hned na zaèátku.
-
-<P>
-V¹e, co jsme potøebovali k tomu, abychom mohli zaèít pracovat,
-bylo najít nìjaké jméno toho systému. Podívejte, my hackeøi v¾dy
-hledáme pro program nìjaký ¾ertovný, nezbedný název, proto¾e
-pøedstavovat si, jak to lidi pobaví, a¾ se o názvu dozvìdí,
-je skoro polovina zábavy, kterou máte s psaním programu.
-[Smích] Mìli jsme také zvyk psát rekurzivní zkratky, kdykoliv jsme chtìli
-vyjádøit, ¾e program, který pí¹eme, je podobný nìjakému jinému programu.
-Mù¾ete dát programu rekurzivní jméno, které øíká: ,,tenhle není tamten.´´
-
-<P>
-Napøíklad tu bylo v ¹edesátých a sedmdesátých letech mnoho textových editorù
-Tico a v¹eobecnì se jmenovali nìjak jinak ne¾ Tico. Potom jeden
-vynalézavý hacker pojmenoval ten svùj Tint, co¾ znamenalo
-Tint Is Not Tico (Tint není Tico). To byla první rekurzivní zkratka.
-V roce 1975 jsem vyvinul první textový editor Emacs. Mìli jsme taky spoustu
-jiných imitací Emacsu a vìt¹ina se jmenovala nìjak jinak, ale jeden z nich se
-jmenoval Fine, co¾ znamenalo Fine Is Not Emacs (Fine není Emacs) a taky
-tu byl Sine -- Sine Is Not Emacs (Sine není Emacs). Mìli jsme i
-IINA -- Ina Is Not Emacs (Ina není Emacs) a také
-MINCE -- Mince Is Not Complete Emacs (Mince není úplný Emacs).
-[Smích] To byla okle¹tìná imitace.
-A pak nìkdo IINA skoro celý pøepsal a svoji novou verzi pojmenoval
-ZWII, co¾ mìlo být ZWII Was IINA Initially (ZWII bylo pùvodnì IINA).
-[Smích]
-
-<P>
-Hledal jsem tedy rekurzivní akronym pro Something Is Not Unix
-(Nìco není Unix) a vyzkou¹el jsem v¹ech 26 písmenek, ale zjistil
-jsem, ¾e ¾ádná z tìch zkratek nedávala slovo.
-[Smích]
-Tak jsem to zkusil jinak. Zkrátil jsem to, tím bych získal tøípísmennou
-zkratku Something's not Unix [neangliètináøùm se omlouvám, ale toto
-asi nepochopíte -- pozn. pøekl.] Zkou¹el jsem tedy zase písmenka
-a¾ jsem do¹el ke slovu ,,GNU´´ -- GNU je nejlegraènìj¹í slovo v
-angliètinì. [Smích] To bylo ono. Je to legraèní proto, ¾e se to slovo
-vyslovuje jako slovo ,,new´´. Lidé ho proto pou¾ívají v rùzných slovních
-hrách. Je to jméno jednoho zvíøete ¾ijícího v Africe.
-[Jedná se o pakonì -- pozn. pøekl.]
-Africká výslovnost v sobì mìla jakési mlasknutí.
-[Smích] Mo¾ná je¹tì má. Kdy¾ pøi¹li kolonisti z Evropy,
-nezatì¾ovali se uèením toho mlasknutí. Prostì ho tedy vypustili
-a napsali tam místo nìj G, co¾ mìlo znamenat ,,mìl by tu být je¹tì nìjaký
-zvuk, který my nevyslovujeme.´´
-[Smích]
-Dnes v noci letím do ji¾ní Afriky, prosil jsem je u¾. Doufám, ¾e
-najdou nìkoho, kdo mne bude moci nauèit vyslovovat to mlasknutí.
-[Smích]
-Abych vìdìl, jak bych mìl správnì vyslovovat GNU, kdy¾ budu mluvit o tom
-zvíøeti.
-
-<P>
-Pokud ov¹em nemáte na mysli zvíøe, ale ná¹ systém, správná výslovnost je
-,,guh-NEW´´ -- vyslovte to tì¾ké G. Kdybyste místo toho mluvili
-o ,,new´´ operaèním systému, velmi byste lidi popletli, proto¾e
-u¾ na nìm pracujeme 17 let, tak¾e u¾ nikdy nový nebude.
-[Smích] Ale poøád je to GNU -- i pøes to, kolik lidí to
-nesprávnì nazývá Linux. [Smích]
-
-<P>
-V lednu 1984 jsem tedy opustil MIT a zaèal psát ty jednotlivé èásti GNU.
-Nicménì byli hodní, ¾e mi dovolili i nadále vyu¾ívat jejich vybavení.
-Tehdy jsem si myslel, ¾e napí¹eme v¹echny tyhle souèásti a udìláme
-kompletní GNU systém a pak øekneme lidem: ,,pojïte a vemte si to´´
-a ildi to zaènou pou¾ívat. Ale to se nestalo. TY první èásti, které jsem
-psal, byly jen pøibli¾nì stejné náhrady s ménì chybami, ale nebylo to nic
-ohromujícího. Vpodstatì nikdo nechtìl je získávat a instalovat. Zvrat
-pøi¹el v záøí 1984, kdy¾ jsem zaèal psát GNU Emacs -- moji druhou
-implementaci Emacsu. Zaèátkem roku 1985 ji¾ fungovala, mohl jsem
-ho pou¾ívat pro editování, co¾ byla velká úleva, proto¾e jsem se nechtìl
-uèit pou¾ívat VI, Unixový editor. [Smích] Proto jsem a¾ do té doby
-dìlal editování na jiném stroji a soubory jsem si posílal pøes sí», abych
-je mohl testovat [my¹leno na Unixu -- pozn. pøekl.]. Kdy¾ u¾ ale Emacs fungoval
-natolik, ¾e jsem ho mohl pou¾ívat já, byl ji¾ také dost dobrý pro
-ostatní -- ostatní ho chtìli pou¾ívat také.
-
-<P>
-Musel jsem propracovat detaily distribuce. Samozøejmì, umístil jsem
-kopii na anonymní FTP server [Anonymní FTP server znamená, ¾e k nìmu mù¾e
pøistupovat
-ka¾dý. Mù¾ete z nìj stahovat data, ani¾ byste potøebovali znát heslo. -- pozn.
pøekl.]
-a to bylo skvìlé pro lidi na síti, mohli si prostì stáhnout soubor .tar
-a nainstalovat, ale hodnì programátorù tehdy v roce 1985 je¹tì pøístup k
-síti nemìlo. Posílali mi maily: ,,Jak mù¾u získat kopii?´´ Musel
-jsem se rozhodnout, co jim budu odpovídat. Ok, mohl jsem øíci,
-¾e chci trávit svùj èas dìláním GNU software, ne dìláním
-pásek, tak a» poprosí pøítele, který je na síti, aby jim to stáhl
-na pásku. Jsem si jist, ¾e lidé by na¹li takové pøátele. Døíve, èi pozdìji.
-Získali by ty kopie, ale já v té dobì nemìl ¾ádné zamìstnání. Ve skuteènosti
-jsem nikdy nemìl ¾ádné zamìstnání od té doby, co jsem v lednu 1984 opustil
-MIT. Hledal jsem tedy nìjakou cestu, jak bych si mohl vydìlat nìjaké peníze
-prací na svobodném software, a proto jsem odstartoval obchod se svobodným
-software.
-Oznámil jsem: ,,Po¹li mi 150 dolarù a já ti po¹lu pásku s Emacsem.´´ A tak
-mi zaèaly chodit první objednávky a v polovinì roku u¾ jich bylo docela dost.
-
-<P>
-Dostával jsem mezi osmi a deseti objednávkami za mìsíc. Kdyby
-to bylo nutné, mohl jsem vy¾ít jen s tímto pøíjmem, proto¾e já jsem
-v¾dy ¾il levnì; vpodstatì ¾iju jako student. Mám to rád, proto¾e to
-znamená, ¾e vám peníze nerozkazují, co máte dìlat. Mohu dìlat to,
-o èem si myslím, ¾e je pro mì dùle¾ité. To je pro mì velké uvolnìní
-a mohu dìlat to, co opravdu dìlat chci. Sna¾te se zabránit tomu,
-abyste se nechali vcucnout do toho drahého kolobìhu ¾ivota
-typických Amerièanù. Kdy¾ to udìláte, tak vám lidé, kteøí mají peníze, budou
-diktovat, co máte dìlat. Nebudete schopni dìlat to, co je pro vás opravdu
-dùle¾ité.
-
-<P>
-Bylo to dobré, ale lidé se mì ptali: ,,Co jsi tím myslel, ¾e to je Free
-Software, kdy¾ to stojí 150 dolarù?´´ [Smích]
-Ptali se prostì proto, ¾e je zmýlila víceznaènost slova ,,free´´.
-Jeden význam se odkazuje na cenu a druhý na svobodu. Kdy¾ mluvím o
-Free Software,
-odkazuji se na svobodu, ne na cenu. Myslím na free speech, ne na free beer.
-[svoboda projevu, nikoliv pivo zdarma -- pozn. pøekl.]
-[Smích] Nestrávil bych tolik let svého ¾ivota tím, ¾e bych nutil
-programátory vydìlávat ménì penìz. To není mùj cíl. Jsem sám programátor a
-nevadí mi dostávat peníze. Nevìnoval bych získávání penìz celý ¾ivot,
-ale nevadí mi mít je. Nejsem ani proti tomu, aby je dostávali jiní
-programátoøi. Nechci, aby ceny za software byly nízké. To s tím nemá
-nic spoleèného. Tohle je o svobodì. O svobodì pro ka¾dého, kdo pou¾ívá
-software, a» ji¾ je programátor, nebo ne.
-
-<P>
-Nyní bych mìl definovat svobodný software. Rad¹i budu mluvit konkrétnì,
-proto¾e pouhé tlachání o víøe ve svobodu je o nièem. Existuje tolik
-rùzných svobod, ve které mù¾ete vìøit a èasto se také mezi sebou vyluèují,
-tak¾e správná politická otázka by byla: ,,Jaké
-jsou tedy ty dùle¾ité svobody, svobody které musí mít ka¾dý?´´
-Já se ji pokusím zodpovìdìt v oboru pou¾ívání software.
-
-<P>
-Program je pro vás svobodný software, pokud máte následující
-svobody: Zaprvé, svoboda nula je svoboda spou¹tìt program
-za jakýmkoliv úèelem a jakýmkoliv zpùsobem. Svoboda jedna
-je svoboda pomoci si k lep¹ímu vyu¾ití programu tím, ¾e ho pozmìníte.
-Svoboda dvì je svoboda pomoci svému kolegovi tím, ¾e mu dáte
-kopii programu. A svoboda tøi je svoboda pomáhat budovat
-komunitu lidí u¾ívajících tento software tak, aby také
-ostatní mohli získat výhody va¹í práce. Pokud máte v¹echny
-tyhle svobody, pak je pro vás daný program svobodný software. To je velmi
-dùle¾ité, vysvìtlím to pozdìji, a¾ budu mluvit o GNU
-General Public License, ale teï vysvìtluji, co to je svobodný software.
-
-<P>
-Svoboda nula je naprosto zøejmá. Kdy¾ nemáte ani právo program
-spustit, je to docela omezující program. Ve skuteènosti
-vám vìt¹ina programù poskytne alespoò svobodu nula. Svoboda
-nula je logickým dùsledkem svobod jedna, dvì a tøi -- tak
-funguje copyrightový systém. Svobody, které odli¹ují
-svobodný software od typického software jsou svobody jedna, dvì a tøi.
-Øeknìme si o nich tedy nìco více a vysvìtleme si, proè jsou dùle¾ité.
-Svoboda jedna je svoboda pomoci si k lep¹ímu vyu¾ití programu tím, ¾e
-ho pozmìníte.
-To mohlo znamenat tøeba opravování chyb. Mohlo to znamenat pøidávání
-nových vylep¹ení. Mohlo to znamenat portování na jiný
-systém. Mohlo to znamenat pøelo¾ení v¹ech chybových hlá¹ení do
-jazyku Navajo. Mìli byste mít právo provést jakoukoliv zmìnu budete chtít.
-
-<P>
-Je zøejmé, ¾e pro profesionální programátory je to velmi u¾iteèné,
-ale nejen pro nì. Ka¾dý èlovìk s rozumnou inteligencí se zvládne
-alespoò tro¹ku nauèit programovat. Samozøejmì, existují
-tì¾ké práce a lehké práce a vìt¹ina lidí se nebude uèit dìlat
-ty tì¾ké. Ale mnoho lidí se mù¾e nauèit dìlat lehkou
-práci stejnì tak, jako se pøed padesáti lety mnoho a mnoho
-amerièanù nauèilo spravovat auta, co¾ Americe umo¾nilo mít
-ve druhé svìtové válce motorizovanou armádu a vyhrát.
-A pokud jste spoleèenská osobnost a opravdu se nechcete
-uèit technologie -- to znamená, ¾e pravdìpodobnì máte spoustu
-pøátel a umíte je pøesvìdèit, aby vám pomohli. Nìkteøí z nich
-jsou pravdìpodobnì programátoøi. Mù¾ete se jich tedy zeptat:
-,,Zmìnil bys prosím tì pro mì tohle?´´ Je vidìt, ¾e ze svobody
-jedna mù¾e tì¾it opravdu hodnì lidí.
-
-<P>
-Kdy¾ tu svobodu nemáte, je to skuteèná, materiální ¹koda pro
-spoleènost. Dìlá to z vás vìznì svého software. Pokusím se to pøirovnat
-k té laserové tiskárnì. Víte, ¾e to fungovalo pro na¹e potøeby ¹patnì
-a ¾e jsme to nemohli opravit, proto¾e jsme byli vìzni svého software.
-Ovlivòuje to ale také morálku lidí. Kdy¾ máte z pou¾ívání poèítaèe
-stále pocit marnosti, budete mít i ze své práce pocit marnosti. Va¹e
-práce se stane otravnou -- budete nenávidìt svoji práci.
-A kdy¾ lidi deprimuje jejich práce, rozhodnou se nestarat se o ni.
-Nakonec to dospìje do stadia, kdy máte lidi s pøístupem ,,Pøi¹el
-jsem dnes do práce. To je v¹e co musím udìlat. Pokud nemohu udìlat
-pokrok, není to mùj problém, je to problém mého ¹éfa.´´ Kdy¾ se toto
-stane, je to ¹patné jak pro tyto lidi, tak pro celou spoleènost.
-To je svoboda jedna. Svoboda pomoci sám sobì.
-
-<P>
-Svoboda dvì je svoboda pomáhat pøíteli tím, ¾e mu zkopírujete
-program. Pro ty, kteøí umìjí pøemý¹let a uèit se, je
-sdílení u¾iteèných znalostí naprosto základním projevem
-pøátelství. Kdy¾ takoví lidé pou¾ívají poèítaèe, tak se sdílení software
-stává tímto základním projevem pøátelství. Pøátelé sdílejí mezi sebou.
-Pøátelé si pomáhají. To je podstata pøátelství. A ve skuteènosti
-je právì tenhle princip dobrého ducha -- princip pomáhání svým bli¾ním,
-dobrovolnì -- tím nejdùle¾itìj¹ím zdrojem ka¾dé spoleènosti. To je ten
-rozdíl mezi ¾ivotaschopnou spoleèností a bezohlednou d¾unglí.
-Tato dùle¾itost byla rozeznána nejvìt¹ími svìtovými nábo¾enstvími
-ji¾ pøed tisícemi let a ta se explicitnì sna¾í posilovat tento pøístup.
-
-<P>
-Kdy¾ jsem chodil do mateøské ¹kolky, tak se nás tomu sna¾ily uèitelky
-nauèit -- sdílení -- tím, ¾e nás to nechali dìlat. Øekly prostì:
-,,Kdy¾ si do ¹koly pøinese¹ bonbóny, nemù¾e¹ si je nechat v¹echny pro sebe,
-musí¹ se podìlit s ostatními.´´ Tím, ¾e nás to uèily... spoleènost se nauèila
-duchu spolupráce. A proè byste to mìli dìlat? Proto¾e lidé nejsou
-úplnì kooperativní. To je jedna z èástí lidské povahy, ale existují
-i jiné èásti. Je mnoho èástí lidské povahy. Kdy¾ chcete lep¹í spoleènost,
-musíte se sna¾it posilovat v lidech principy sdílení. Jistì,
-nikdy to nebude na 100%, to je pochopitelné. Lidé se musí také
-starat o sebe. Pokud se nám to nìjak pøeci jen o kousek povede,
-budeme bohat¹í.
-
-<P>
-Dnes, podle vlády Spojených státù amerických, mají uèitelé
-dìlat pøesný opak. ,,Ach, Johnny, pøinesl jsi si do ¹koly software.
-Dobøe, nesdílej jej. Ne, ne. Sdílení je ¹patné. Sdílení znamená,
-¾e bys byl pirát.´´ Co tím myslí, kdy¾ øíkají ,,pirát´´? Tvrdí,
-¾e pomáhání blízkým je morální ekvivalent napadání lodí?
-[Smích]
-Co by o tom øekl Budha nebo Je¾í¹? Vezmìte si svého nábo¾enského vùdce.
-Nevím, mo¾ná by Manson øekl nìco jiného.
-[Smích] Kdo ví, co by øekl L. Ron Hubbard. Ale, ...
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: [Nesly¹itelné]
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Jistì, je mrtvý. Ale oni si to nepøipou¹tí. Co¾e?
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: Jako ti ostatní, jsou také mrtví. [Smích] [Nesly¹itelné] Charles
-Manson je také mrtvý. [Smích] Je¾í¹ je mrtvý, Budha je mrtvý.
-
-<P>
-
-STALLMAN: Ano, to je pravda. [Smích] Tak¾e hádám, ¾e v tomto ohledu není L.
Ron
-Hubbard hor¹í ne¾ ti ostatní. [Smích] Tak jako tak -- [Nesly¹itelné:]
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: L. Ron v¾dy pou¾íval svobodný software -- uvolnilo ho to od Zanu.
-
-<P>
-[Smích]
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Myslím, ¾e toto je vlastnì ten nejdùle¾itìj¹í dùvod,
-proè by mìl být software svobodný. Nemù¾eme si dovolit ¹pinit
-nejvìt¹í zdroj spoleènosti. Je pravda, ¾e to není fyzický zdroj,
-jako èistý vzuch, èistá voda. Je to psychologicko-sociální zdroj,
-ale je tak opravdový jako ty ostatní a mù¾e zapøíèinit obrovskou zmìnu
-v na¹ich ¾ivotech. To, jak se chováme, ovlivòuje my¹lení
-ostatních lidí. Kdy¾ chodíme kolem a øíkáme ,,nesdílej s ostatními´´
--- kdy¾ nás poslouchají -- ovlivòujeme ostatní a neovlivòujeme je dobøe.
-To je svoboda druhá. Svoboda pomoci pøíteli.
-
-<P>
-No a mimochodem, kdy¾ nemáte tuto svobodu, není to
-jen újma pro spoleènost, je to také újma pro lidi --
-opravdová, materiální újma. Kdy¾ má program svého vlastníka
-a ten vlastník stanoví soubor pravidel, kde musí ka¾dý platit, aby
-mohl software pou¾ívat, nìkteøí lidé budou øíkat: ,,Nevadí, já
-se bez nìj obejdu.´´ Zajímavé na software je, ¾e ménì u¾ivatelù neznamená,
-¾e toho musíte udìlat ménì. Znáte to, kdy¾ si auto koupí ménì lidí,
-mù¾ete dìlat ménì aut. Mù¾ete u¹etøit. K vytoøení kopie auta
-potøebujete urèité zdroje. Mù¾ete øíci, ¾e mít cenu na auta je dobrá vìc.
-Zabraòuje to plýtvání surovinami na auta, která nejsou ve skuteènosti potøeba.
-Ale kdyby dal¹í auta ji¾ nepotøebovala ¾ádné suroviny, nebylo
-by k nièemu dobré ¹etøit na výrobì nových kusù. Fyzické vìci,
-jako auta, v¾dy potøebují nìjaké suroviny k výrobì kopií, k výrobì
-ka¾dého dal¹ího exempláøe.
-<P>
-
-U software tomu tak není. Ka¾dý mù¾e vytvoøit kopii a je to velmi
-jednoduché. Nepotøebuje k tomu ¾ádné suroviny s výjimkou tro¹ky
-elektrické energie. Není tu nic, co bychom mohli u¹etøit; tím, ¾e
-pou¾ijeme tuto finanèní brzdu, nemù¾eme ¾ádné zdroje u¹etøit pro lep¹í vyu¾ití.
-Lidé èasto mluví o ekonomii, ale je tøeba si uvìdomit, ¾e se na
-software sna¾í aplikovat ekonomické zdùvodòování zalo¾ené na premisách, které
-pro software neplatí. Sna¾í se pøenést je z jiných oblastí ¾ivota,
-kde mo¾ná platí, na software, a potom výsledky takové úvahy pova¾ují za platné.
-Prostì vezmou své závìry a pøedpokládají, ¾e platí i pro software, i kdy¾
-argumenty nejsou v pøípadì software na nièem zalo¾ené.
-V takové situaci je velmi dùle¾ité prozkoumat, jakou cestou dosahujete
-výsledku a na jakých pøedpokladech stavíte.
-
-<P>
-Svoboda tøi je svoboda pomáhat budovat komunitu publikováním vylep¹ených
-verzí software. Lidé mi øíkali, ¾e kdy¾ je software ,,free'', tak nebude
-nikdo za práci na nìm placen, proè by se tedy mìl pøipojovat? Ok, samozøejmì
-si pletli dva významy slova ,,free'', tak¾e bylo jejich my¹lení zalo¾eno na
-nepochopení. V ka¾dém pøípadì to byla jejich teorie. Dnes ji¾ mù¾eme srovnat
-jejich teorii s empirickým faktem a zjistíme, ¾e stovky lidí jsou placeny
-za psaní svobodného software a ¾e více ne¾ 100 000 lidí jsou
-dobrovolníci. Na svobodném software pracuje mnoho lidí a mají
-rùzné motivy.
-
-<P>
-Kdy¾ jsem poprvé vydal GNU Emacs -- vlastnì první kousek GNU software,
-který lidé chtìli pou¾ívat -- a kdy¾ zaèal projekt nabírat u¾ivatele,
-za chvíli jsem dostal zprávu ,,Myslím, ¾e jsem vidìl v zdrojovém kódu chybu
-a tady je oprava.´´ Potom jsem dostal dal¹í zprávu ,,Tady ti posílám kód
-pro pøidání nového vylep¹ení.´´ A dal¹í opravu chyby a dal¹í zlep¹ení a dal¹í
-a dal¹í -- a¾ se to na mì zaèalo hrnout tak rychle, ¾e dalo mnoho práce jen
-vyu¾ívat to v¹echno, co jsem dostával. Microsoft takovýto problém nemá. [Smích]
-
-<P>
-Nakonec lidé tento jev zaznamenali. V osmdesátých letech
-si spousta z nás myslela, ¾e svobodný software nikdy nebude tak dokonalý jako
-nesvobodný software, proto¾e jsme nemìli tolik penìz na placení lidí.
-Lidé jako já samozøejmì øíkali ,,Dobøe, stejnì ale pou¾ívejte svobodný
-software.´´
-Je lep¹í uèinit malou obì» v technické dokonalosti a mít svobodu, ne¾ opaènì.
-Kolem roku 1990 si ale lidé zaèali uvìdomovat, ¾e svobodný software se vlastnì
-stává lep¹ím. Bylo to rychlej¹í a spolehlivìj¹í ne¾ proprietární alternativy.
-
-<P>
-Zaèátkem devadesátých let nìkdo vynalezl zpùsob, jak vìdecky mìøit
-spolehlivost software. Vzal nìkolik sad srovnatelných programù, které
-dìlaly tu samou vìc -- pøesnì tu samou vìc -- na rùzných systémech.
-Existovalo mnoho Unixových systémù. Rùzné utility dìlaly to samé,
-nebo» vyhovovaly specifikacím POSIX. Prostì svým chováním se neli¹ily, ale
-li¹ily se tím, kdo je spravoval, byly psány oddìlenì; zdrojový kód
-byl jiný. Ten zpùsob mìøení spolehlivosti tedy spoèíval v tom,
-¾e se vzaly tyhle programy a na vstup jim byly posílána náhodná data.
-Mìøilo se, jak èasto spadnou èi skonèí chybou. Zjistili tehdy, ¾e GNU
-programy byly nejspolehlivìj¹í. V¹echny komerèní proprietární
-alternativy byly spolehlivé ménì. Tyhle výsledky byly publikovány
-a vývojáøi s nimi byli seznámeni a za pár let pozdìji se
-experiment opakoval s novìj¹ími verzemi. Výsledek byl stejný,
-GNU verze byla nejspolehlivìj¹í. V¹ak víte, ¾e nìkteré
-kliniky specializované na rakovinu, které pou¾ívají GNU systém,
-proto¾e je tak spolehlivý a právì spolehlivost je pro nì velmi dùle¾itá.
-<P>
-
-Mluvil jsem tu o etických zále¾itostech a nyní mluvím o praktických
-výhodách. Oba tyto body jsou dùle¾ité. To je Free Software Movement.
-
-<P>
-Je znám i jiný my¹lenkový proud -- Open Source movement -- ten
-se zamìøuje pouze na ty praktické výhody. Popírají, ¾e by to byla
-zále¾itost principu. Popírají, ¾e by lidé mìli být oprávnìni mít
-svobodu sdílet se svým bli¾ním, sledovat co program dìlá a mìnit ho,
-pokud se jim nelíbí. Øíkají, ¾e je u¾iteèná vìc toto lidem dovolit.
-Jdou tedy do firmy a øíkají: ,,Víte, mohl byste vydìlat více penìz,
-pokud lidem dovolíte tohle.´´ V urèité míøe tak vedou lidi ke stejnému
-cíli, ale s vyu¾itím úplnì odli¹ných filosofických dùvodù.
-V hlub¹ím kontextu ale tyto dva proudy nesouhlasí. Free
-Software movement øíká ,,Máte právo mít tyto svobody. Nikdo
-by vám v tomto nemìl bránit.´´ Open Source movement
-øíká ,,Dobøe, mohou tì zastavit, pokud chtìjí, ale zkusíme je rad¹i pøesvìdèit,
-aby tì nechali dìlat tyhle vìci.´´ Také pøispìli svobodnému software --
-pøesvìdèili nìjaké spoleènosti, aby vydaly urèité èásti software jako
-svobodný software a tím pøispìli na¹í komunitì. Open Source movement
-výraznì pøispìl k rozvoji na¹í komunity a pracujeme spolu na rùzných
projektech,
-ale v na¹í a jejich filosofii je obrovský rozdíl.
-
-<P>
-Nane¹tìstí získává nejvíce podpory businessu Open Source a proto
-vìt¹ina èlánkù nazývá na¹i práci Open Source a mnoho lidí si
-zaène myslet, ¾e jsme prostì èástí Open Source Movement. Proto
-tu vysvìtluji ten rozdíl. Chtìl bych, abyste si uvìdomili, ¾e
-Free Software movement, který umo¾nil existenci na¹í komunity
-a umo¾nil vyvinout svobodný operaèní systém je poøád tady --
-a my poøád stojíme za jeho etickou filosofií. Je tøeba si to uvìdomit,
-abyste pøí¹tì nepletli lidi vlastní neznalostí.
-
-<P>
-Ale mìli byste to vìdìt také proto, abyste vùbec vìdìli, kde jste.
-Je jen na vás vybrat si, který proud budete podporovat. Mù¾ete souhlasit
-s Free Software movement a s mými názory. Mù¾ete souhlasit s
-Open Source movement. Mù¾ete nesouhlasit s obìma. Ka¾dý si
-vybírá sám, na jakou stranu politických zále¾itostí se postaví.
-Kdy¾ ale souhlasíte se svobodným software, tak doufám, ¾e
-to také øeknete, ¾e souhlasíte s Free Software movement, a
-jedna z cest, jak to mù¾ete øíci je pou¾ívání termínu
-,,svobodný software.'' Tím budete lidem alespoò pomáhat
-poznat, ¾e vùbec existujeme.
-
-<P>
-Svoboda 3 je velmi dùle¾itá jak prakticky, tak psycho-sociálnì.
-Kdy¾ tuto svobodu nemáte, zpùsobuje to praktickou a materiální
-¹kodu, proto¾e není-li tento software vyvíjen v komunitì,
-nebude výkonný a spolehlivý. Zpùsobuje ale také psycho-sociální
-újmu, která ovlivòuje ducha vìdecké spolupráce -- my¹lenku,
-¾e pracujeme spoleènì na zlep¹ení lidských poznatkù. Pozorujeme,
-¾e pokrok ve vìdì velmi zásadnì závisí na tom, jak jsou lidé schopni
-pracovat dohromady. Dnes najdete i dost skupinek vìdcù chovajících se
-jakoby to byl boj s ostatními skupinami vìdcù a vývojáøù. A kdy¾
-spolu nesdílejí informace, tak se v¹ichni brzdí.
-<P>
-
-Toto jsou tøi základní svobody, které odli¹ují svobodný software od
-typického software. Svoboda jedna je svoboda pomoci sám sobì --
-dìlat zmìny pro svoje potøeby. Svoboda dvì je svoboda pomoci
-kolegovi distribucí kopií. A svoboda tøi je svoboda pomáhat svojí
-komunitì tím, ¾e provádíte zmìny a publikujete, aby je mohli vyu¾ívat
-i ostatní. Kdy¾ máte v¹echny tyto svobody, tak je pro vás ten program svobodným
-software. Proè o tom mluvím vzhledem k jednomu konkrétnímu u¾ivateli?
-Je to pro vás svobodný software? Je to svobodný software pro nìkoho jiného?
-Ano?
-
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: Mù¾ete vysvìtlit rozdíl mezi svobodou dvì a tøi?
-[nesly¹itelné]
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Urèitì spolu souvisí, proto¾e pokud nemáte vùbec ani svobodu
-redistribuovat, tak urèitì nemáte ani svobodu distribuovat modifikovanou verzi,
-ale jsou to rozdílné èinnosti.
-
-<P>
-Otázka: Oh.
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Svoboda dvì je, pøeètìte si to -- udìláte pøesnou kopii
-a dáte ji kamarádùm, tak¾e oni ji teï mohou vyu¾ívat.
-Nebo tøeba udìláte pøesné kopie a potom je prodáváte nìjaké
-skupinì lidí a tak oni je budou moci pou¾ívat. Svoboda tøi
-je o vylep¹ování -- nebo alespoò vy si myslíte, ¾e to jsou
-zlep¹ení, nìkteøí lidé s vámi mo¾ná budou souhlasit.
-To je ten rozdíl. A mimochodem, jeden velmi podstatný
-bod. Svoboda jedna a svoboda tøi závisí na tom, zda máte pøístup
-ke zdrojovému kódu, proto¾e mìnit program v binární podobì je
-extrémnì tì¾ké. [Smích] Dokonce tak triviální vìci jako u¾ití ètyø èíslic
-pro datum [Smích]... kdy¾ nemáte zdrojový kód.
-Tak¾e je zøejmé, ¾e z praktických dùvodù je dostupnost
-zdrojového kódu podmínkou pro svobodný software.
-
-<P>
-Proè to tedy definuji tak, jestli je to svobodný software pro *tebe*?
-Nìjaké programy mohou být nìkdy toti¾ svobodné pro nìkoho a nesvobodné
-pro jiné. To teï mù¾e vypadat jako paradoxní situace, ale dám vám pøíklad,
-jak se tohle stává. Velký pøíklad, mo¾ná ten úplnì nejvìt¹í
-pøíklad tohoto problému je systém X windows , který byl vyvinut na MIT
-a uvolnìn pod licencí, která z nìj dìlá svobodný software. Kdy¾
-si poøídíte tu verzi z MIT s licencí z MIT, máte svobodu jedna, dvì i tøi.
-Je to pro vás svobodný software. Mezi tìmi, kdo získali kopie, byli ale
-i rùzní velcí výrobci, kteøí distribuovali Unixové systémy, a ti v X
-udìlali v¹echny potøebné zmìny tak, aby byla pou¾itelná i na jejich systémech.
-Samozøejmì, ¾e to bylo vìt¹inou jen nìkolik málo tisíc øádkù z nìkolika
-set tisíc celkovì. Potom program zkompilovali, zaøadili ho do svého systému
-a distribuovali pod tou samou licencí jako celý systém. Miliony lidí
-tedy dostali takové kopie. Mìli X windows, ale nemìli
-¾ádné z tìch svobod. Nebyl to pro nì svobodný software.
-
-<P>
-Paradox byl v tom, ¾e jestli jsou X svobodné zále¾elo na tom, kde
-to budeme mìøit. Kdy¾ to budete mìøit mezi vývojáøi, øekli byste:
-,,Mají v¹echny ty svobody, je to svobodný software'', ale kdy¾
-to budete mìøit mezi u¾ivateli, øeknete: ,,Hmm, vìt¹ina u¾ivatelù nemá ty
-svobody. Není to svobodný software.'' Lidé, kteøí vyvíjeli X tohle
-nebrali jako problém, proto¾e oni chtìli v podstatì jen popularitu -- ego.
-Chtìli velký profesní úspìch. Chtìli cítit ,,ach, ná¹ software pou¾ívá
-hodnì lidí.'' A to byla pravda. Hodnì lidí pou¾ívalo jejich software,
-ale nemìli svobodu.
-
-<P>
-Kdyby se to samé stalo GNU projektu, byla by to chyba,
-proto¾e na¹ím cílem nebylo jen být populární, na¹ím cílem
-bylo rozdávat svobodu a posilovat spolupráci, dát lidem mo¾nost spolupracovat.
-Zapamatujte si, nikdy nikoho nenu»te spolupracovat s nìkým jiným,
-ale zajistìte, aby mìl ka¾dý mo¾nost spolupracovat. Kdyby miliony
-lidi pou¾ívali nesvobodnou verzi GNU, nebyl by to úspìch. Hlavní cíl
-by se úplnì zhroutil.
-
-<P>
-Sna¾il jsem se najít nìjaký zpùsob, jak tomu zabránit. Pøi¹el jsem
-s metodou nazývanou ,,copyleft''. Nazývá se to copyleft, proto¾e
-je to jako bychom vzali copyright a pøevrátili ho naruby.
-[Smích]
-Právnì je copyleft zalo¾en na copyrightu. Pou¾íváme platné copyrightové
-právo, ale pou¾íváme ho k dosa¾ení velmi odli¹ných cílù.
-Øekneme ,,Tenhle program je copyrightovaný''. To implicitnì znamená,
-¾e je zakázané ho kopírovat, distribuovat, modifikovat. Ale potom
-øekneme ,,Máte povolení distribuovat kopie, mù¾ete program mìnit.
-Také mù¾ete distribuovat modifikované a roz¹íøené verze. Mìòte si jej
-jak chcete.''
-
-<P>
-Ale stanovili jsme jednu podmínku. Tahle podmínka je to, proè jsme
-vlastnì pou¾ili systém copyrightu a v¹echno tohle kolem.
-Ta podmínka øíká -- kdykoliv distribuuje¹ cokoliv, co obsahuje nìjakou èást
-na¹eho programu, tak celý ten program musí být distribuovaný pod tìmi samými
-podmínkami. Mù¾ete tedy program zmìnit a distribuovat ho dále,
-ale kdykoliv to udìláte, tak lidé, kterým ho dáváte, musí dostat ty
-samé svobody jako jste dostal vy. A nejen na ten kousek programu,
-který je pùvodní, ale na celý program, který distribujete. Ten program
-pro nì musí být svobodný software. Svoboda k modifikování a
-redistribuci se tak stává nezcizitelným právem -- to je pøedstava
-z Deklarace nezávislosti. Jsou to práva, kterými si mù¾ete být
-jisti, ¾e vás o nì nikdo nobere. Licence, která ztìlesòuje tuto
-my¹leanku, je samozøejmì GNU General Public License. GPL je kontroverzní
-licence, proto¾e má sílu øíci rezolutní ,,ne'' lidem, kteøí by
-chtìli parazitovat na na¹í komunitì.
-
-<P>
-Na svìtì je mnoho lidí, kteøí si ideálù svobody necení. Byli bychom velmi
-hodní, pokud bychom dali k dispozici práci, co jsme udìlali, nìkomu,
-kdo by na ní postavil svùj nesvobodný program a zaèal lidi pøesvìdèovat,
-aby se vzdali svých svobod. Výsledkem by bylo, ¾e bychom my tyto
-programy vyvíjeli a poøád bychom museli soupeøit s vylep¹enymi verzemi
-na¹ich vlastních programù. To není zábava. Mnoho lidí si také myslí,
-¾e rád obìtuji svùj èas, abych nìjak pøispìl veøejnosti, ale proè
-bych mìl pøispívat ve svém volném èase spoleènostem k tomu,
-aby vylep¹ili svùj proprietární program? Nìkteøí lidi si ani nemyslí,
-¾e to je ¹patné, ale kdy¾ to dìlají, tak za to chtìjí dostat
-zaplaceno. Já osobnì bych to rad¹i nedìlal vùbec. Obì tyto skupiny,
-jak ti co smý¹lí podobnì jako já, ¾e nechci pomáhat v na¹í
-komunitì proprietárnímu software, tak ti, co øíkají spí¹e:
-,,jasnì, jasnì, pracoval bych pro nì, ale museli by mne
-lépe platit,'' mají dobrý dùvod, proè pou¾ít GNU GPL. Ta toti¾
-øíká firmì, ,,nemù¾ete si prostì vzít moji práci a distribuovat
-ji bez oné svobody.'' Necopyleftové licence svobodného software
-to ale dovolují. To je tøeba pøípad licence X Windows.
-
-<P>
-Existuje velký rozdíl mezi tìmito dvìma kategoriemi svobodného software.
-Existují copyleftované programy, tak¾e licence ochraòuje to, aby
-získal svobodu ka¾dý u¾ivatel. Oproti tomu necopyleftované programy
-mají dovolenu i nesvobodnou distribuci. A dnes na ten problém
-nará¾íme, Poøád existují nesvobodné verze X Windows a jsou pou¾ívány
-na na¹em svobodném operaèním systému.Existuje dokonce i hardware,
-který je podporován pouze nesvobodnými verzemi svobodného software.
-A to je v na¹í komunitì velký problém. Mohl bych øíci, ¾e jsou
-X Windows ¹patná vìc, ¾e vývojáøi neudìlali to nejlep¹í, co mohli
-udìlat, ale oni ve skuteènosti napsali spoustu software, který jsme
-mohli v¹ichni pou¾ívat.
-
-<P>
-Znáte to, je velký rozdíl mezi ménì dokonalým a ¹patným.
-Existuje mnoho stupòù mezi dobrým a ¹patným. Musíme odolat
-poku¹ení øíci -- neudìlali jste to úplnì nejlep¹í, tak nejste
-dobøí. Lidé, kteøí vyvinuli X Windows, na¹í komunitì pøispìli
-velkým dílem. Nìco ale mohli udìlat i lépe. Mohli copyleftovat
-èásti progamu a tak zabránit tìm svobodu-odepírajícím verzím
-v distribuování ostatními. Fakt, ¾e GNU GPL ochraòuje va¹i
-svobodu s vyu¾itím copyrightu, je také pøíèinou toho, proè na
-ni Microsoft dnes útoèí. Podívejte, Microsoft by byl velmi rád,
-pokud by mìl mo¾nost vzít v¹echen kód a zaøadit ho do svého
-proprietárního software. Potøebují jen to, aby nìkdo vytvoøil
-pár zmìn a ,,nekompatibilních vylep¹ení.''
-[Smích]
-
-<P>
-S jejich marketingem nepotøebují na¹i verzi pøevý¹it technicky,
-aby ji s ní nahradili. Staèí jim udìlat ji jinou a nekompatibilní.
-Pak ji roz¹íøí na desktopy. Proto nemají rádi GNU GPL, proto¾e
-ta jim to nedovolí. GPL nedovoluje ,,svázat a roz¹íøit.''
-Øíká, ¾e pokud chcete sdílet kód na¹ich programù, mù¾ete.
-Ale musíte sdílet a sdílet stejnì. Vylep¹ení, která vytvoøíte,
-se musejí dát ¹íøit dál. Je to dvoucestná spolupráce, opravdová
-spolupráce.
-
-<P>
-Mnoho spoleèností, i tìch velkých jako IBM a HP, chce
-ná¹ software pou¾ívat i za tìchto podmínek. IBM i HP podstatnì pøispívají
-do GNU software a vyvíjejí i jiný svobodný software. Microsoft
-ale nechce, tak¾e tvrdí, ¾e obchod se nemù¾e s GNU GPL vypoøádat.
-Jestli business nezahrnuje IBM, HP a Sun, tak mo¾ná mají pravdu.
-Microsoft to ale nechce.
-[Smích]
-
-<P>
-O tom si povíme je¹tì pozdìji. Mìl bych dokonèit tu historii.
-Nechtìli jsme tedy tehdy v roce 1984 jen psát nìjaký
-svobodný software, ale nìco mnohem kompletnìj¹ího. Chtìli
-jsme vyvinout celý svobodný operaèní systém. To znamená, ¾e jsme
-museli postupovat kousek po kousku. V¾dycky jsme samozøejmì hledali
-zkratky. Bylo to tolik práce, ¾e lidé pochybovali, zda
-to budeme nìkdy schopni dokonèit. Øíkal jsem si, ¾e tu
-byla minimálnì ¹ance na dokonèení, ale je samozøejmì v¾dy lep¹í
-hledat zkratky. Rozhlí¾eli jsme se tedy, zda ji¾ neexistují
-nìjaké programy od nìkoho jiného, které bychom mohli zapojit
-do GNU, nebo nìjak pøizpùsobit, abychom to nemuseli psát celé
-znovu. Na¹li jsme napøíklad X Windows systém. Je pravda, ¾e nebyl
-copyleftovaný, ale byl to svobodný software a tak jsme jej
-mohli pou¾ít.
-
-<P>
-Vlo¾it do GNU nìjaký okenní systém jsem chtìl od prvních chvil.
-Je¹tì ne¾ jsem zaèal na GNU pracovat, tak jsem jich na MIT napsal
-nìkolik. A proto i pøes skuteènost, ¾e Unix tehdy ¾ádný nemìl,
-jsem se rozhodl, ¾e GNU by nìjaký mít mìlo.
-Nikdy jsme ale ná¹ GNU Windows System nedokonèili, proto¾e
-pøi¹ly X Windows. Nemuseli jsme tak pracovat na jedné velké
-úloze a tak jsme vzali X Windows a zaøadili je do GNU.
-Rozhodli jsme se postarat, aby ostatní èásti GNU pracovaly
-s X. Na¹li jsme i jiný software, tøeba sázecí systém TeX,
-nìjaké knihovny z Berkley. Existoval tehdy Berkeley Unix,
-ale nebyl svobodný. Tento kód byl ale od jiné skupiny
-z Berkley, která tehdy provádìla nìjaký výzkum na plovoucí
-desetinné èárce. Tak jsme se dohodli, ¾e tyto èásti pou¾ijeme.
-
-<P>
-V øíjnu 1985 jsme zalo¾ili Nadaci pro svobodný software (Free
-Software Foundation). V¹imnìte si prosím, ¾e projekt GNU
-tu byl døíve, ne¾ se na scénì objevila nadace. Skoro dva
-roky po oznámení projektu. Nadace pro svobodný software
-je organizace osvobozená od daní, která sbírá prostøedky
-za úèelem nabídnutí svobody sdílet a upravovat software.
-V osmdesátých letech bylo jednou z hlavních vìcí, kterou
-jsme financovali, najímání lidí na psaní èástí GNU.
-Takto byly vytvoøeny jak èásti rùzných programù, tak také
-základní programy jako Shell a knihovna pro C.
-Program tar, který je naprosto podstatný, aè ne pøíli¹ vzru¹ující,
-byl také napsán takto. Myslím, ¾e i GNU grep byl takto vytvoøen.
-Blí¾íme se tak na¹emu cíli.
-
-<P>
-V roce 1991 ji¾ chybìla jen jedna velká èást a to byl kernel.
-Proè jsem kernel odlo¾il? Proto¾e ve skuteènosti není podstatné,
-v jakém poøadí vìci dìláte. Minimálnì technicky to podstatné není.
-Tak jako tak je musíte udìlat v¹echny. Èásteènì také proto,
-¾e jsem doufal, ¾e budeme moci pou¾ít nìco, co najdeme nìkde jinde.
-A také jsme na¹li. Na¹li jsme Mach, který byl vyvíjen na Carnegie
-Mellon. Zbývalo napsat druhou polovinu -- souborový systém,
-sí»ový kód a tak dále. Pokud jsou ale spou¹tìny nad Machem,
-chovají se skoro jako u¾ivatelské progamy, které se vìt¹inou
-lépe ladí. Mù¾ete je debugovat s opravdovým debugerem na úrovni
-kódu v reálném èase. Øíkal jsem si tedy, ¾e takto se nám podaøí
-získat vy¹¹í èásti jádra v pomìrnì krátkém èase. Ale nefungovalo
-to tak, jak jsme oèekávali. Tyto asynchronní vícevláknové procesy
-posílající si mezi sebou zprávy, se nakonec ukázaly jako velmi
-tì¾ko laditelné. Systém zalo¾ený na Machu, který jsme pou¾ívali
-jako zavadìè, mìl pøí¹erné debugovací prostøedí, byl nespolehlivý
-a trpìl je¹tì dal¹ími problémy. Zabralo nám roky, ne¾ jsme
-jej zprovoznili.
-
-<P>
-Na¹e komunita ale na¹tìstí nemusela èekat na GNU kernel, proto¾e
-v roce 1991 vyvinul Linus Torvalds jiný svobodný kernel,
-nazývaný Linux. Pou¾il zastaralý monolitický design, který
-se nakonec osvìdèil a tak mìl hotov svùj kernel mnohem døíve,
-ne¾ my ten ná¹. Mo¾ná je to jedna z chyb, kterou jsem udìlal,
-chyba v designu. Na zaèátku jsme o Linuxu nevìdìli, proto¾e
-nás nikdy nekontaktoval a neøekl nám o tom i pøesto, ¾e
-o projektu GNU vìdìl. Oznámil to ale jiným lidem na jiných
-místech v síti a tak zkombinovali GNU s Linuxem tito lidé.
-Vpodstatì tak vytvoøili kombinaci GNU plus Linux.
-
-<P>
-Neuvìdomili si ale, co vlastnì dìlali. Øekli si, ¾e mají kernel
-a dívali se kolem po nìjakých vìcech, které by s ním mohli
-dát dohromady. Spatøili, ¾e v¹echno co potøebují ji¾ existuje.
-Jaká náhoda, zvolali.
-[Laughter]
-U¾ to tu v¹echno je. Máme tu v¹echno co potøebujeme. Vezmeme v¹echny
-tyhle vìci, dáme je dohromady a máme systém. Nevìdìli, ¾e vìt¹ina
-toho co na¹li, byly èásti GNU. Neuvìdomovali si tedy, ¾e zasouvají
-Linux do díry v systému GNU. Mysleli si, ¾e berou Linux a staví
-na nìm systém. Nazvali ho tedy Linux.
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: [Nesly¹itelné]
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Nesly¹ím vás -- prosím?
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: [Nesly¹itelné]
-
-<P>
-[Pravdìpodobnì otázka na to, zda se nezachoval projekt GNU
-stejnì, kdy¾ si bral X a Mach. Zda také nezmìnil jméno
-na GNU bez nìjakého odkazu na tyto projekty -- pozn. prekl.]
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Ne, to prostì není -- pøi¹lo to zvenku.
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: Ale bylo to lep¹í, ne¾ najít X a Mach?
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Dobøe. Rozdíl je v tom, ¾e lidé, kteøí vyvíjeli
-X a Mach to nedìlali proto, aby vyvinuli kompletní operaèní
-systém. To jsme dìlali pouze my. A stálo za tím ohromnì moc
-práce. Vyvinuli jsme vìt¹í èást systému ne¾ jakýkoliv jiný
-projekt. Není to to samé, proto¾e tihle lidé vyvinuli
-u¾iteèné souèásti systému. Ale nedìlali to proto, aby
-vyvinuli kompletní systém. Mìli jiné dùvody.
-
-<P>
-Lidi, které vyvíjeli X, napadlo, ¾e by bylo dobré implementovat
-okenní systém pracující po síti a ¾e by to mohlo mít úspìch. A mìlo.
-Nakonec to dopadlo tak, ¾e nám to pomohlo v tvorbì svobodného
-operaèního systému. Ale to nebyl pùvodní úèel. Byla to spí¹e náhoda.
-Nechci tím øíci, ¾e to co udìlali bylo ¹patné. Udìlali velký
-svobodný projekt. To je dobrá vìc. Ale nehledìli a¾ nakonec,
-jak to dìlal projekt GNU.
-A tak jsme to byli my, kdo musel udìlat ka¾dý kousek, který neudìlal
-nikdo jiný, proto¾e jsme vìdìli, ¾e bez toho bychom nemìli kompletní
-systém. A dokonce i kdy¾ to bylo úplnì nudné a neromantické
-jako napøíklad tar nebo mv.
-[Smích]
-Udìlali jsme to. Nebo ld, v¹ak víte, ¾e na ld není nic moc zajímavého
--- ale napsal jsem jej.
-[Smích]
-A dal jsem si práci s tím, aby potøeboval co nejmen¹í poèet I/O operací,
-aby mohl pracovat rychleji a s vìt¹ími programy. Ale znáte mì, rád dìlám
-dobrou práci. Rád do programu pøidám rùzná zlep¹ení, kdy¾ na nìm dìlám,
-ale dùvod, proè jsem to dìlal nebyl v tom, ¾e jsem mìl nìjaký
-geniální nápad na lep¹í ld. Potøebovali jsme nìjaké svobodné
-ld a nemohli jsme oèekávat, ¾e to udìlá nìkdo jiný. Museli jsme to
-tedy udìlat my nebo najít nìkoho, kdo to udìlá.
-
-<P>
-Do systému pøispìly tisíce lidí, ale je tu i projekt, který je dùvodem,
-proè systém existuje, a to je projekt GNU. Vpodstatì to *je*
-systém GNU, spoleènì s ostatními vìcmi, které do nìj byly pøidány.
-
-<P>
-Systém se ale zaèal nazývat Linux a to bylo pro projekt GNU
-velkou ránou, proto¾e takto lidé ani neví, co jsme udìlali.
-Myslím si, ¾e Linux, kernel, je velmi u¾iteèný svobodný
-software. Mohu o nìm mluvit jen v dobrém. No, vlastnì...
-napadá mnì pouze velmi málo ¹patných vìcí, které bych
-o nìm mohl øíci.
-[Smích]
-Ale v podstatì o nìm mohu øíkat jen dobré vìci. Na druhou stranu,
-nazývání GNU systému Linuxem je jen omyl. Poprosil bych vás,
-dejte si tu malou námahu a nazývejte systém GNU/Linux
-a pomozte nám k tomu, abychom za nìj mohli sdílet kredit.
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: Potøebujete maskota! Najdìte si nìjaké zvíøe!
-
-<P>
-[Smích]
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: My jej máme.
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: Máte?
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Máme zvíøe -- gnu [gnu v angliètinì znamená ,,pakùò'' --
-pozn. pøekl.].
-[Smích] V ka¾dém pøípadì, pokud budete kreslit tuèòáka,
-nakreslete vedle nìj pakonì.
-[Smích]
-
-<P>
-Nechme si ale otázky na konec. Mám tu je¹tì nìco, co bych chtìl vysvìtlit.
-
-<P>
-Proè mi o to tolik jde? Proè si myslím, ¾e stojí za to vás zde
-otravovat a mo¾ná zhor¹ovat vá¹ názor na mì
-[Smích] s tím, ¾e zde se zabývám touto otázkou, kdo by mìl dostat
-uznání za projekt? Proto¾e, v¹ak to znáte, kdy¾ to dìlám, tak nìkteøí
-lidé øíkají, ¾e jen chci nasytit svoje ego. Samoøejmì, neøíkám, nevyzývám
-vás, neprosím vás, abyste systém nazývali Stallmanix, ok?
-[Smích a potlesk]
-
-<P>
-Prosím vás, abyste jej nazývali GNU, proto¾e chci, aby
-projekt GNU získal uznání. Existuje jeden velmi dobrý dùvod,
-který je o hodnì dùle¾itìj¹í ne¾ to, zda bude nìjakému
-jednotlivci pøipsáno uznání. Kdy¾ se dnes rozhlédnete,
-vìt¹ina lidí, kteøí o tom mluví a pí¹í vùbec nezmiòuje
-GNU, ani jeho cíle, svobodu --- tyto politické a sociální
-my¹lenky. Místo odkud vze¹ly je GNU. My¹lenky spojené s Linuxem,
-jeho filosofie, jsou velmi odli¹né. Je to hlavnì apolitická
-filosofie Linuse Torvaldse. Kdy¾ si lidé myslí, ¾e ten systém
-je Linux, vìt¹inou si myslí: ,,Jasnì, musel to odstartovat
-Linus Torvalds. Mìli bychom se zabývat jeho filosofií.''
-A kdy¾ pak sly¹í o filosofii GNU, tak øíkají: ,,Hochu,
-to je stra¹nì idealistické, to musí být ohromnì nepraktické.
-Já pou¾ívám Linux, ne GNU.''
-[Smích]
-
-<P>
-Ta ironie. Kdyby vìdìli. Kdyby jen vìdìli, ¾e ten systém,
-který se jim tak líbí, je na¹e idealistická, politická filosofie
-pøevedená do reality... I tak by s námi nemuseli souhlasit,
-ale aspoò by mìli dùvod bár nás vá¾nì -- poøádnì o tom pøemý¹let
--- dát tomu ¹anci. Aspoò by vidìli, jak se to vztahuje k jejich
-¾ivotùm. Kdyby pøemý¹leli ,,Pou¾ívám systém GNU.
-Tady je filosofie GNU. Ta filosofie je dùvod, proè systém,
-který mám tak rád, existuje,'' tak by se k na¹im my¹lenkám
-aspoò stavìli s mnohem otevøenìj¹í myslí. To neznamená, ¾e bude
-ka¾dý souhlasit. Lidé si myslí rùzné vìci. To je vpoøádku.
-Lidé by si mìli sami vytváøet názory. Ale chci, aby tato filosofie
-mìla výhodu z uznání výsledkù práce, kterých dosáhla.
-
-<P>
-Pokud se rozhlédnete, uvidíte, ¾e skoro v¹ude to instituce nazývají
-Linux, stejnì jako novináøi. Není to správnì, ale oni to dìlají.
-Spoleènosti ten balík také nazývají systémem. Ani vìt¹ina novináøù,
-kdy¾ pí¹í èlánky, se na to nedívá jako na politickou a sociální otázku.
-Vìt¹inou se na vìc dívají jako na èistì obchodní otázku, co¾ je pro
-spoleènost o dost ménì podstatná vìc. Kdy¾ se podíváte na spoleènosti,
-které prodávají distribuce GNU/Linuxu lidem, vìt¹ina z nich je
-také nazývá Linuxem. A *v¹echny* k nìmu pøidávají nesvobodný
-software.
-
-<P>
-GNU GPL sice tvrdí, ¾e pokud si vezmete nìjaký kód z GPL programù
-a pøidáte k nìmu nìjaký svùj vlastní kód, musíte tento program
-také vydat pod GNU GPL. Mù¾ete ale dát na jeden disk (jakýkoliv,
-a» ji¾ CD-ROM, harddisk èi jiný) více oddìlených programù s rùznými
-licencemi. Je to pouhé seskupování. Distribuce dvou programù
-jednomu èlovìku v tom samém èase není nìco, do èeho bychom mi mohli
-mluvit. Obèas bych si pøál, aby byla pravda, ¾e pokud spoleènost distribuuje
-nìjaký produkt spoleènì s GPL software, musí i tento produkt být
-svobodným software. Není to ale tak. Nejvìt¹í mo¾ná ¹íøe
-je samotný porgram. Pokud existují dva programy, které spolu pracují
-,,na dosah ruky,'' napø. zasíláním zpráv, jsou právnì naprosto samostatné.
-Pøidáváním tohoto nesvobodného software do distribuce pøedávají u¾ivatelùm
-velmi ¹patné filosofické a politické my¹lenky. Øíkají u¾ivatelùm:
-,,Je vpoøádku pou¾ívat nesvobodný software. Dáváme ho sem jen jako bonus.''
-
-<P>
-Kdy¾ se podíváte na èasopisy o GNU/Linuxu, stì¾í uvidíte nìjaký
-s názvem GNU/Linux, vìt¹inou mají v názvu Linux-nìco. Vìt¹inou
-tedy nazývají systém Linux. Bývají pøeplnìné reklamami na nesvobodný
-software bì¾ící na GNU/Linuxu. Tyto reklamy se vìt¹inou zamìøují
-na stejné poselství. Øíkají: ,,Nesvobodný software je pro vás dobrý.
-Je tak dobrý, ¾e byste za nìj mìli dokonce *platit*.''
-[Smích]
-Nazývají tento software ,,balíèky s pøidanou hodnotou.''
-Øíkají: ,,Va¾te si vhodnosti pro praxi, ne svobody.'' Já s tìmito
-hodnotami nesouhlasím, tak¾e je nazývám ,,o svobodu obrané balíèky.''
-[Smích]
-Jestli jste si instalovali svobodný operaèní systém, ¾ijete ve svodoném
-svìtì. Mù¾ete si u¾ívat výhod svobody, pro které jsme tolik let pracovali.
-Tyto balíèky vám dávají mo¾nost utáhnout si kolem sebe øetìzy.
-
-<P>
-A koneènì, pokud se podíváte na nìjaké obchodní show vìnované
-pou¾ívání systému GNU-Linux, v¹echny se nazývají ,,Linux show.''
-Ukazují jak svobodný software, tak nesvobodný software, a tak
-vlastnì speèe»ují správnost u¾ívání nesvobodného software.
-Témìø kamkoliv se v na¹í komunitì podíváte, instituce schvalují
-nesvobodný software, èím¾ úplnì negují my¹lenky na svobodu, kvùli
-kterým GNU vzniklo. A jediné místo, kde zøejmì lidé pøijdou do styku
-s na¹imi ideemi a svobodou, je projekt GNU -- ve spojení se svobodným
-software. Proto vás ¾ádám: prosím, nazývejte systém ,,GNU/Linux.''
-Vysvìtlete takto tìm lidem, odkud systém vze¹el a proè.
-
-<P>
-Pouhým pou¾íváním toho jména samozøejmì nebudete automaticky
-vysvìtlovat historii. Mù¾ete napsat o ètyøi znaky více, vyslovit
-o dvì slabiky více. GNU/Linux je ale poøád je¹tì ménì slabik
-ne¾ Windows 2000. [Smích] Neøíkáte jim tím moc, ale pøipravujete je,
-tak¾e kdy¾ pøí¹tì usly¹í o GNU -- a o tom to je -- budou
-vìdìt, jak se jich to týká. A v tom je obrovský rozdíl. Pomozte nám
-tedy.
-
-<P>
-Urèitì jste zaznamenali, ¾e Microsoft nazval GPL ,,open source licencí.''
-Nechtìjí, aby o tom lidé pøemý¹leli v souvislosti se svobodou.
-Sna¾í se pøesvìdèit u¾ivatele, aby o tom pøemý¹leli v omezených
-souvislostech, jen jako konzumenti. (A samozøejmì ani konzumenti
-nepøemý¹lejí pøíli¹ racionálnì, kdy¾ si vyberou produkty Microsoftu.)
-Nechtìjí, aby o vìci lidé pøemý¹leli jako obèané èi politici.
-To se jim nehodí. Pøinejmen¹ím je to nepøátelské jejich
-obchodnímu modelu.
-
-<P>
-A teï jak svobodný software... ok, mohu vám øíci jak souvisí svobodný
-software s na¹í spoleèností. Druhé téma, které by nás mohlo zajímat je,
-jak souvisí svobodný software s obchodem. Ve skuteènosti je toti¾
-svobodný software pro obchod ohromnì u¾iteèný. Konec koncù, vìt¹ina
-obchodníkù ve vyspìlých zemích svobodný software pou¾ívá. Pouze malý
-zlomek software také vyvíjí. A svobodný software je velmi výhodný
-pro spoleènost, která software pou¾ívá, proto¾e má nad ním kontrolu.
-U¾ivatelé mají kontrolu nad tím, co program dìlá. Buï individuálnì,
-pokud chtìjí, èi kolektivnì, pokud chtìjí. Ka¾dý, koho to zajímá, mù¾e
-uplatnit jistý vliv. Pokud vás to nezajímá, nekoupíte to.
-Budete pou¾ívat to, co mají rádi ostatní. Ale pokud vás to zajímá,
-máte jistý hlas.
-
-<P>
-U proprietárního software skoro ¾ádný hlas nemáte. U svobodného
-software si mù¾ete zmìnit, co chcete zmìnit. Nevadí, ¾e ve va¹í
-spoleènosti nemáte ¾ádné programátory, to je vpoøádku.
-Kdybyste chtìli pøedìlat stìny va¹í budovy, nemusíte být
-truhláøská spoleènost, musíte mít mo¾nost jít, najít nìjakou
-truhláøskou spoleènost a øíct jim, aby to pro vás udìlali.
-Kdy¾ potøebujete nìjakou zmìnu ve va¹em software, nemusíte
-být programátorská spoleènost, staèí vám do nìjaké zajít a
-øíct: ,,Kolik chcete za implementování téhle vìci a kdy by
-to bylo hotovo?'' A pokud by to odmítli, mù¾ete si najít nìkoho
-jiného.
-
-<P>
-Je tu volný trh. Jakýkoliv business, který se zajímá o podporu,
-najde ve svobodném software velkou výhodu. S proprietárním
-software jste odkázáni s podporou na monopol. Pouze jedna spoleènost
-má zdrojový kód a mo¾ná pár jiných si ho je¹tì koupilo za obrovské
-peníze, pokud se jedná o Microsoft shared source. Ale tìch je velmi
-málo. Nemáte moc na výbìr u koho si zajistit podporu. To znamená,
-¾e pokud nejste opravdový gigant, tak je nezajímáte. Va¹e spoleènost
-pro nì vìt¹inou není dostateènì významná, aby je zajímalo, zda vás neztratí.
-Jak jednou pou¾íváte nìjaký program, je jim jasné, ¾e nemáte jinou
-mo¾nost, ne¾ získávat podporu od nich, proto¾e pøejít na jiný software
-by pøineslo mnoho komplikací. Nakonec si budete platit za privilegium
-oznámit chybu.
-[Smích]
-A kdy¾ si zaplatíte, øeknou vám: ,,Dobøe, ok, zaznamenali
-jsme va¹e oznámení chyby v na¹em produktu. Za pár mìsícù
-si budete moci koupit upgrade a podívat se, zda jsme to
-opravili.''
-[Smích]
-
-<P>
-Poskytovatelé podpory pro svobodný software si s tímto
-nevystaèí. Musí se o zákazníky starat. Samozøejmì mù¾ete
-získat mnoho dobré podpory i zdarma, zasláním dotazu na internet.
-Mo¾ná dostanete odpovìï pøí¹tí den, ale to není samozøejmì jisté.
-Pokud chcete mít jistotu, mìli byste se spí¹ dohodnout s nìjakou
-spoleèností a platit jim za to. A to je jedna z cest, jak mù¾e
-pracovat obchod zalo¾ený na svobodném software.
-
-<P>
-Dal¹í výhodou svobodného software pro obchod je bezpeènost a
-soukromí. (To platí samozøejmì i pro jednotlivce, ale teï o tom
-budu hovoøit v souvislosti s obchodem.) Kdy¾ je program proprietární,
-tak nemù¾ete ani s jistotou øíci co vlastnì dìlá. Mù¾e mít vlastnosti,
-které byste opravdu nemìli rádi, kdybyste o nich vìdìli. Program
-by mohl mít tøeba backdoor, který dovolí vývojáøi dostat se do va¹eho
-stroje. Byl by tøeba schopen sledovat va¹i èinnost a odesílat informace
-zpìt. To není neobvyklé. Software Microsoftu to dìlá, ale není to pouze
-Microsoft. Dìlají to i jiné programy. Nemù¾ete ani øíci, jestli to
-dìlá tohle. A nemù¾ete ani spoléhat na to, ¾e programátor je naprosto
-poctivý, ka¾dý programátor dìlá chyby.
-V programu se mohou vyskytovat chyby, které ohrozí va¹i bezpeènost, ale
-nikdo je úmyslnì nezavinil. Podstatné ale je, ¾e pokud to není svobodný
-software, nemù¾ete je najít a nemù¾ete je ani opravit.
-
-<P>
-Nikdo nemá èas, aby si provìøoval zdrojové kódy ka¾dého programu,
-který pou¾ívá. Nebudete to dìlat. Ale svobodný software je vìt¹í
-komunita a jsou v ní i lidé, kteøí vìci kontrolují. A vy mù¾ete
-z té jejich kontroly tì¾it. Kdy¾ se vyskytne nìjaká nechtìná chyba
-(a ona se èas od èasu vyskytne v ka¾dém programu), mohou ji najít
-a opravit. Je mnohem ménì pravdìpodobnìj¹í, ¾e by lidé dali do svého
-software trojského konì èi nìjaký odposlouchávací kód, kdy¾ si myslí,
-¾e mohou být chyceni. Vývojáøi proprietárního software ví, ¾e chyceni
-nebudou. Projde jim to, nikdo to nezjistí. Ale vývojáø svobodného
-software musí poèítat s tím, ¾e lidé se budou koukat a uvidí, jestli
-to tam je. Ve svobodném software nemù¾eme do programù zabudovávat vìci,
-které by se u¾ivatelùm nelíbily, proto¾e pokud bychom to udìlali,
-vytvoøili by si verzi, ve které by to nebylo. V¹ichni by brzo zaèali
-pou¾ívat tuto verzi. Kdy¾ pí¹ete svobodný program, chcete, aby
-mìli lidé rádi va¹i verzi. Nebudete do programu zabudovávat vìc, o které
-si myslíte, ¾e ji bude mnoho lidí nenávidìt a budou si instalovat
-jiné verze místo té va¹í. Prostì si jen uvìdomíte, ¾e ve svìtì
-svobodného software je králem u¾ivatel. Ve svìtì proprietárního
-software to tak není, tam jste jenom zákazníkem a nemù¾ete do vývoje
-nijak mluvit.
-
-<P>
-V tomto ohledu je svobodný software nový obor, ktde je mo¾né
-zavést demokracii. Profesor Lessig, který je teï ve Stanfordu,
-chytøe poznamenal, ¾e kód programù se chová podobnì jako zákony.
-Ten, kdo vytváøí software, je¾ pou¾ívá vìt¹ina lidí a to k rùzným
-úèelùm, ten vlastnì pí¹e zákony, podle kterých se budou øídit
-lidské ¾ivoty. Se svobodným software mohou tyto zákony
-vzniknout demokraticky. Není sice ta klasická forma demokracie,
-nebudou velké volby a referendum ,,jak by mìla být implementována
-tahle vìc?''
-[Smích]
-Místo toho dáme mo¾nost v¹em, kteøí by na implementaci této funkce
-chtìli pracovat. Kdy¾ budete chtít tu funkci nìjakým zpùsobem naprogramovat,
-udìlejte to. Buï se to udìlá tak, nebo nìjak jinak, to není podstatné.
-Kdy¾ to lidi budou chtít nìjakým zpùsobem, udìlá se to tak.
-Takto ka¾dý pøispívá do veøejných rozhodnutí tím, ¾e prostì
-dìlá vìci tak, jak je chce dìlat on.
-
-<P>
-Mù¾ete uèinit kolik krokù chcete. Obchod mù¾e také udìlat tolik
-krokù, kolik pro nìj bude u¾iteèné. A a¾ v¹echna tato vylep¹ení pøidáte,
-urèíte tím, jak by mìl software dále pokraèovat.
-
-<P>
-Èasto je velmi u¾iteèné mít mo¾nost vzít si èásti z ji¾ existujících
-programù -- vìt¹inou jsou to velké èásti -- a potom dopsat
-zbytek kódu sám. Vytvoøíte tak program, který dìlá pøesnì to,
-co potøebujete, ale který byste vyvíjeli vìky, kdybyste to museli
-dìlat od zaèátku, kdybyste nemohli vykuchat ji¾ existující svobodné
-programy.
-
-<P>
-Jiná výhoda plynoucí z toho, ¾e králem je u¾ivatel, je fakt, ¾e
-software pak bývá velmi dobøe kompatibilní a standardizovaný.
-Proè? Proto¾e to mají rádi u¾ivatelé. U¾ivatelé pravdìpodobnì
-zamítnou program, který by byl výraznì nekompatibilní.
-Obèas se sice objeví skupinka lidí, která z nìjakých specifických dùvodù
-potøebuje nìjaký druh nekompatibility, mají ji mít, to je vpoøádku, ale
-pokud chtìjí u¾ivatelé následovat standardy, vývojáøi to musí
-respektovat. A my to respektujeme. Na druhé stranì vývojáøi proprietárního
-software èasto úmyslnì ignorují standardy proto, proto¾e je to pro nì
-výhodné. Není to proto, ¾e by tím nìjak chtìli pomoci u¾ivatelùm,
-ale spí¹e proto, ¾e je tak mohou omezovat. Mohou je uzamknout ve svém
-produktu. Dokonce èas od èasu i schválnì mìní formáty souborù,
-aby donutili u¾ivatele zakoupit novìj¹í verzi.
-
-<P>
-Archiváøi se støetávají s problémem, proto¾e soubory napsané
-na poèítaèi pøed deseti lety ji¾ nejsou pøístupné. Byly vytvoøeny
-s proprietárním software, který je dnes ji¾ ztracen. Kdyby to bylo
-napsáno se svobodným software, mohli bychom jej oprá¹it a znovu spustit.
-Staré záznamy by tedy nebyly ztraceny, nebyly by nedostupné.
-Stì¾ovali si na to dokonce NPR a zmiòovali svobodný software jako
-øe¹ení. Pokud ukládáte svá data s proprietárním software, vpodstatì
-strkáte hlavu do oprátky.
-
-<P>
-Mluvil jsem o tom, jak souvisí svobodný software s vìt¹inou
-obchodních èinností. Jak se ale dotýká úzké oblasti
-softwarového businessu? Vìt¹inou vùbec nijak. Dùvodem je,
-¾e 90% softwarového prùmyslu (aspoò tak mi to bylo øeèeno)
-tvoøí vývoj na zakázku. Software, který není vùbec urèen k zveøejnìní.
-Takového software se vùbec etické otázky svobody èi vlastnictví
-software netýkají. Jak jsem ji¾ øekl, ta otázka je, zda
-mají u¾ivatelé svobodu modifikovat a redistribuovat program.
-Pokud existuje jenom jeden u¾ivatel a ten má tato práva, ¾ádný problém
-v tom není. Ten u¾ivatel *má* svobodu dìlat tyto vìci. Ve skuteènosti
-je *jakýkoliv* program vyvinutý softwarovou spoleèností pro nìjaké
-konkrétní pou¾ití ve firmì svobodným software. Samozøejmì za pøedpokladu,
-¾e tato firma trvala na pøedání zdrojových kódù a v¹ech práv.
-
-<P>
-Tento problém se také netýká software, který je v hodinkách, mikrovlnné
-troubì èi software, který ovládá elektroniku motoru v autì. To jsou
-pøípady, kde nebudete downloadovat a instalovat. Z pohledu u¾ivatele
-se nejedná o opravdový poèítaè. Tyto etické otázky tedy nejsou v daném
-kontextu tak dùle¾ité. Nejvìt¹í èást softwarového prùmyslu bude tedy
-nedotèenì pokraèovat dále tak jako døíve. Zajímavé na tom je, ¾e
-jeliko¾ je velký zlomek zamìstnání v softwarovém prùmyslu právì
-v tìchto odvìtvích, tak i kdyby neexistovalo nic jako business
-zalo¾ený na svobodném software, mohli by si programátoøi vydìlávat
-takto, psaním software na zakázku.
-[Smích]
-Je jich mnoho, ten pomìr je velký.
-
-<P>
-Ale je tomu tak, ¾e existuje obchod zalo¾ený na svobodném software.
-Spoleènosti se svobodným software existují. Na následující
-tiskové konferenci se objeví lidé z nìkolika takových spoleèností.
-Existují samozøejmì také spoleènosti, které nejsou na svobodném software
-zalo¾ené, ale vyvíjejí i u¾iteèný svobodný software.
-
-<P>
-Jak to chodí v obchodì zalo¾eném na svobodném software?
-No nìkdo tøeba prodává kopie. Máte mo¾nost si program
-zkopírovat, ale i tak mohou prodat tisíce kopií mìsíènì.
-Jiné zase zprostøedkovávají rùzné slu¾by. Já jsem v druhé
-polovinì osmdesátých let také prodával podporu ke svobodnému
-software. Vpodstatì jsem øekl, ¾e za 200 dolarù za hodinu
-zmìním v GNU software, který jsem napsal, co budete chtít.
-To byla velmi tvrdá taxa, ale to se vztahovalo k programùm,
-které jsem já sám napsal a lidé si uvìdomovali, ¾e já
-tu práci mohu udìlat podstatnì rychleji.
-[Smích]
-Vydìlával jsem si tak na ¾ivobytí. Ve skuteènosti jsem si vydìlal
-více ne¾ kdykoliv pøedtím. Také jsem uèil. To jsem dìlal a¾ do roku
-1990, kdy jsem dostal velkou cenu a nemusel jsem se tím ji¾ zabývat.
-
-<P>
-V roce 1990 také vznikla první spoleènost, která mìla obchodovat
-v oblasti svobodného software. Jmenovala se Cygnus Support.
-Náplní práce bylo pøesnì to, co jsem do té doby dìlal já.
-Kdybych to potøeboval, mohl jsem pro nì pracovat, ale uvìdomil
-jsem si, ¾e by bylo pro toto hnutí bylo lep¹í, abych zùstal nezávislý
-na spoleènostech. Tím pádem mohu o rùzných spoleènostech se svobodným
-èi proprietárním software øíkat dobré èi ¹patné vìci bez rizika konfliktu
-zájmù. Cítil jsem, ¾e bych se mohl vìnovat svobodnému software více.
-Samozøejmì bych s nimi ale pracoval, kdybych pro zaji¹tìní penìz pro
-¾ivot musel. Byl to etický business a neexistoval ¾ádný dùvod,
-proè bych se mìl kvùli práci pro nì cítit zahanbený.
-Spoleènost v prvních letech existence profitovala. Byla
-vytvoøena s velmi malým kapitálem, muselo staèit to, co mìli
-její tøi zakladatelé. Ka¾dým rokem rostla a ka¾dý rok vydìlávala,
-a¾ doplatili na chamtivost, zaèali hledat vnìj¹í investory.
-Na to doplatili. Tomu ale pøedcházelo nìkolik úspì¹ných
-let.
-
-<P>
-To poukazuje na jeden zajímavý fakt. K vývoji svobodného software
-nepotøebujete mít kapitál. Nechci øíci, ¾e to je k nièemu, mù¾e
-vám to pomoci. Pokud máte kapitál, mù¾ete najmou t lidi a nechat
-je napsat kopu svobodného software. Hodnì toho ale mù¾ete docílit
-i jako malá skupinka lidí. Tato obrovská efektivita vývoje je jedním
-z dùvodù, proè by se mìl svìt obrátit ke svobodnému software.
-Je le¾, kdy¾ Microsoft øíká: ,,GNU GPL je ¹patná, proto¾e
-jim stì¾uje shroma¾ïování kapitálu k vývoji nesvobodného software.''
-My toti¾ nepotøebujeme, aby nám ten software zvy¹oval kapitál.
-Jsme schopni tu práci dìlat i bez nìj. *Dìláme* to i bez nìj.
-
-<P>
-Lidé øíkali, ¾e se nám nikdy nepovede dokonèit kompletní operaèní systém.
-Dokonèili jsme jej a udìlali jsme toho je¹tì mnohem více. A øekl
-bych, ¾e nám neschází ji¾ tak mnoho k tomu, abychom poskytli v¹echen
-obecný software, který veøejnost potøebuje. A to ve svìtì,
-kde více jak 90% lidí je¹tì ná¹ svobodný software nepou¾ívá!
-A to ve svìtì, kde... Aèkoliv v urèitých oborech obchodní èinnosti,
-v¹ak víte... více jak polovina webových serverù na svìtì funguje
-na GNU/Linuxu s Apachem jako web serverem.
-
-<P>
-
-OTÁZKA: [Nesly¹itelné] ... Co jste to øekl pøed slovem Linux?
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Øekl jsem GNU/Linux.
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: Ano?
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Ano, pokud mluvím o jádøe, nazývám jej Linux.
-V¹ak víte, jmenuje se tak. Jádro bylo napsáno Liusem Torvaldsem
-a mìli bychom jej z respektu k nìmu nazývat jménem, které vybral.
-
-<P>
-Ale v¹eobecnì vzato, v businessu ho vìt¹ina lidí nepou¾ívá.
-Vìt¹ina domácností jej je¹tì nepou¾ívá. A¾ zaènou,
-mìli bychom automaticky dostat desetkrát více dobrovolníkù
-a desetkrát více zákazníkù pro obchod. To pro nás bude dùle¾itým skokem.
-V tomto bodì jsem docela rád, ¾e jsme schopni dìlat na¹i práci.
-
-<P>
-To je velmi dùle¾ité, proto¾e Microsoft se nás sna¾í zastra¹it:
-
-<P>
- "Jediná cesta jak mù¾ete vyvíjet software, jediný zpùsob,
-jak zajistit inovaci je dát nám moc. Dovolte nám, abychom vás
-ovládli. Ponechte nám kontrolu nad tím, co budete moci se software
-dìlat, abychom z vás mohli vy¾dímat mnoho penìz a pou¾ít èást
-z toho na vývoj nového software, zbytek si ponecháme jako zisk.''
-
-<P>
-Nikdy byste se nemìli cítit tak zoufalí, abyste se vzdali svojí
-svobody. To by bylo velmi nebezpeèné.
-
-<P>
-Jiná vìc, kterou Microsoft (dobøe, nejen Microsoft) -- lidé obecnì, kteøí
-nepodporují svobodný software, mají ¾ebøíèek hodnot, ve kterém
-je zajímají pouze krátkodobé výhody. ,,Kolik penìz letos vydìlám?''
-Krátkodobé a omezené my¹lení. Nedovedou si pøedstavit, ¾e by nìkdo
-mohl nìco obìtovat pro získání èi udr¾ení si svobody.
-
-<P>
-Vèera vedlo mnoho lidí projevy o Amerièanech, kteøí se obìtovali
-pro svobodu svých krajanù. Nìkteøí uèinili i velké obìti.
-Obìtovali dokonce své ¾ivoty pro svobody, o kterých ka¾dý
-v na¹i zemi urèitì alespoò sly¹el.
-(Pøinejmen¹ím v nìkterých pøípadech; Asi budeme muset ignorovat
-válku ve Vietnamu.)
-
-<P>
-[Poznámka editora: Pøedchozí den byl v USA Memorial Day.
-Memorial Day (Den vzpomínky) je dnem vzpomínky na váleèné
-hrdiny.]
-
-<P>
-Udr¾et svobodu v pou¾ívání software na¹tìstí nevy¾aduje ¾ádné velké obìti,
-jen malé, malé obìti staèí. Obìti jako nauèit se ovládat pøíkazovou øádku,
-pokud je¹tì nemáme hotové grafické u¾ivatelské rozhraní. Nebo jako
-zaplatit nìjaké softwarové spoleènosti, aby mohla bìhem
-nìkolika let vyvinout nìjaký software, který potøebujeme.
-Existují rùzné malé obìti, které mù¾eme v¹ichni udìlat.
-V dlouhodobém mìøítku to budeme *my*, kdo z nich bude profitovat.
-Vidíte, ¾e je to spí¹ investice, ne¾ obì»! Potøebujeme pouze
-pohlí¾et na vìc dlouhodobì, abychom si uvìdomili, ¾e je pro nás
-výhodné investovat do zlep¹ování na¹í spoleènosti a nesmíme poèítat
-nikláky a centy krátkodobého zisku z takových investicí.
-
-<P>
-Zde moje pøedná¹ka vpodstatì konèí.
-
-<P>
-Rád bych je¹tì zmínil, ¾e Tony Stanco navrhuje nový zpùsob pøístupu
-k obchodu se svobodným software, který on nazývá ,,Free Developers''
-(svobodní vývojáøi). Má to být urèitá obchodní struktura, kde by,
-jak doufáme, mìly být výtì¾ky distribuovány v¹em programátorùm
-svobodného software, kteøí zde pracují. Mají vyhlídky na získání
-rozsáhlého kontraktu na vývoj vládního software v Indii. Proto¾e chtìjí
-jako základ pou¾ít svobodný software, mohou tím u¹etøit obrovské èástky.
-
-<P>
-Tak¾e teï prosím otázky.
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: [Nesly¹itelné]
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Mohl byste prosím mluvit tro¹ku více nahlas? Nesly¹ím vás.
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: Jak by mohla spoleènost jako tøeba Microsoft aplikovat
-smlouvu svobodného software?
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Microsoft ve skuteènosti plánuje pøesunout hodnì svých aktivit
-do oblasti slu¾eb. To, co plánují udìlat, je ¹pinavé a nebezpeèné.
-Chtìjí toti¾ svázat slu¾by s programy, jedno k druhému. K tomu, abyste
-mohli pou¾ít nìjakou slu¾bu, budete muset mít program od Microsoftu,
-a pokud budete naopak k programu potøebovat nìjakou slu¾bu, musí být
-od Microsoftu. Bude to v¹echno provázané dohromady, to je jejich
-plán.
-
-<P>
-Zajímavé je na tom to, ¾e tyto slu¾by nevzná¹í otázku etiky
-svobodného a nesvobodného software! Bylo by absolutnì vpoøádku,
-kdyby pou¾ili tento business k tomu, aby si zaji¹»ovali zisk jejich
-prodáváním. Microsoft ale plánuje udìlat to tak, aby dosáhl je¹tì
-vìt¹ího uzamknutí u¾ivatelù --- a je¹tì vìt¹ího monopolu --- na software
-i na slu¾by. Vy¹el o tom nedávno jeden èlánek... myslím, ¾e v Business
-Weeku. Ostatní øíkají, ¾e to pøemìní Net v mìsto Microsoftu.
-
-<P>
-To je dùle¾ité, proto¾e, jak víte, soud doporuèil rozdìlení
-Microsoftu na èást vyrábìjící operaèní systémy a aplikace.
-To by ale nemìlo ¾ádný smysl, nebylo by to k nièemu dobré.
-
-<P>
-Po tom, co jsem shlédl ten èlánek, myslím, ¾e by bylo u¾iteèné
-a efektivní rozdìlit Microsoft na èást poskytující software a na èást
-poskytující slu¾by a po¾adovat, aby spolu nemìly pøili¹ úzké vztahy.
-Oddìlení slu¾eb by muselo publikovat návrhy rozhraní, aby mohl k takové
-slu¾bì ka¾dý napsat klienta. Asi musí za ty slu¾by platit, ale to je vpoøádku.
-To je zas úplnì jiný problém.
-
-<P>
-
-Kdyby byl Microsoft takto rozdìlen [...], ,,slu¾by a software'',
-nemìli by pøíle¾itost vyu¾ívat slu¾by k rozdrcení konkurence
-svým software. My bychom mìli mo¾nost vyvinout pøíslu¹ný svobodný software
-a vy byste se s ním tøeba mohli pøipojovat na slu¾by Microsoftu.
-Nám by to nevadilo!
-
-<P>
-Konec koncù proto¾e Microsoft si podrobil vìt¹inu u¾ivatelù, ostatní
-si jich podrobili ménì. Problémem tedy není Microsoft a jenom
-Microsoft. Microsoft je pouze nejvìt¹ím pøíkladem problému,
-který se sna¾íme vyøe¹it. Je to problém proprietárního softwre,
-který u¾ivatelùm bere svobody spolupráce a tvoøení etické spoleènosti.
-Nemìli bychom se tak moc zamìøovat na Microsoft. I pøes to,
-¾e mi dali mo¾nost zde vystoupit, nejsou ti jediní dùle¾ití.
-Nejsou zaèátkem a koncem v¹eho.
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: Pøedtím jste mluvil o filosofickém rozdílu mezi
-Open Source software a svobodným software. Jak se díváte na
-souèasný trend distribucí GNU/Linuxu podporovat pouze
-platformu Intel? Èím dál tím ménì programátorù
-programuje korektnì a produkuje software, který
-se bude dát zkompilovat kdekoliv. Dìlají software,
-který prostì funguje na platformì Intel.
-
-<P>
-
-STALLMAN: Já si nemyslím, ¾e by to byla nìjaká otázka etiky.
-Ve skuteènosti ale obèas portují GNU/Linux na nový poèítaè
-spoleènosti, které ten poèíta vyrobí. Toto zøejmì nedávno udìlal
-Hewlett Packard. Neplatili si port Windows, proto¾e by je to stálo
-pøíli¹. Ale myslím, ¾e portování GNU/Linuxu je stálo pìt in¾enýrù
-na pár mìsícù. Bylo to lehké.
-
-<P>
-Samozøejmì, ¾e lidi povzbuzuji, aby pou¾ívali autoconf, GNU program,
-který usnadòuje portování programù. Nebo kdy¾ nìkdo za¹le autorovi
-bug, který není na autorovì verzi systému chybou, mìl by jej
-také zahrnout do programu. Ale nevidím v tom otázku etiky.
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: Dva komentáøe. Prvním je: nedávno jste mìl pøedná¹ku na MIT.
-Èetl jstem pøepis. Nìkdo se ptal na patenty a vy jste øekl
-,,Patenty jsou úplnì jiný problém. Nemám k tomu ¾ádné komentáøe.''
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Ano. Vlastnì mám k patentùm hodnì co øíci, ale
-to zabere tak hodinu.
-[Smích]
-
-<P>
-
-OTÁZKA: Chtìl jsem jen øíci, ¾e dle mého názoru zde je problém.
-Myslím, ¾e existuje dùvod, proè spoleènosti shrnují patenty
-i copyrighty pod spoleènou støechu tì¾kého vlastnictví.
-Chtìjí vyu¾ít sílu státu, aby si zajistili monopol.
-Stejná vìc je na tìchto zále¾itostech ne to, ¾e se týkají podobného
-problému. Ta motivace nespoèívá ve slu¾bách veøejnosti, ale
-v tvorbì monopolu pro své privátní zájmy a to je to, co zále¾itosti
-shrnované pod ,,intelektuální vlastnictví'' spojuje.
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Rozumím. Ale chci ji¾ odpovìdìt, proto¾e nám nezbývá moc
-èasu. Odpovím tedy na tohle.
-
-<P>
-Máte pravdu v tom, ¾e to je opravdu to, co chtìjí. Je ale i jiný dùvod,
-proè chtìjí pou¾ívat termín ,,intelektuální vlastnictví.'' Nechtìjí toti¾
-povzbuzovat lidi, aby pøíli¹ detailnì pøemý¹leli o otázkách copyrightu
-a patentù. Copyrightové a patentové právo je úplnì odli¹né a
-y úèinek copyrightu a patentù na software je úpnì odli¹ný.
-
-<P>
-Softwarové patenty jsou omezením programátorù -- zakazují jim
-vytváøet urèité typy programù. Zatímco copyright tohle nedìlá.
-Copyright øíká, ¾e pokud nìco napí¹ete, mù¾ete to distribuovat.
-
-<P>
-Softwarové patenty jsou omezením pro programátory---zakazují jim psát urèité
-typy programù. Zatímco copyright toto nedìlá.
-S copyrightem, alespoò pokud jste jeho autorem Vy, máte povolení k distribuci.
-Tudí¾ je ohromnì dùle¾ité tyto problémy oddìlovat.
-
-<P>
-Mají toho velmi málo spoleèného, na velmi nízké úrovni. A v¹e
-ostatní je jiné. Tak¾e, prosím, abyste podporovali jasné my¹lení, diskutujte
-o copyright, nebo o patentech. Ale nediskutujte o ,,intelektuálním
vlastnictví.''
-Na intelektuální vlastnictví nemám názor. Názor mám na copyrighty, patenty
-a software.
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: Na zaèátku jste zmínil, ¾e funkèní jazyk, jako tøeba
-recepty, je poèítaèový program. Tady je ale trochu rozdíl
-mezi tímto a jinými typy jazyka.
-To také zpùsobuje problém v pøípadu DVD.
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Tyto body jsou pro vìci z pøírody èásteènì podobné,
-ale èásteènì také odli¹né. Nìjaká èást problému se pøená¹í,
-ale ne celý. To je bohu¾el dal¹í hodinová pøedná¹ka, já nemám
-èas to zde vysvìtlovat. Øeknu ale, ¾e v¹echny normální
-vìci jsou od pøírody svobodné stejným zpùsobem, jako software.
-Víte o èem mluvím: knihy, manuály, slovníky, recepty atd.
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: Mì zajímala on-line hudba, jsou zde podobnosti, ale i
-odli¹nosti.
-
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Správnì. Øekl bych, ¾e minimální svobodou, je¾ bychom mìli mít pro
-*jakýkoliv* typ zveøejnìné informace, je svoboda ji to nekomerènì
-redistribuovat, doslovnì. Pro funkèní díla potøebujeme svobodu
-*komerènì* zveøejnit modifikovanou verzi, proto¾e je to pro spoleènost
stra¹livì
-u¾iteèné. Pro nefunkèní díla, jako napøíklad vìci slou¾ící k zábavì,
-nebo, abych byl estetický, která pøedstavují pohled urèité osoby,
-ta by mo¾ná nemìla být modifikována. A ono mo¾ná znamená, ¾e je vpoøádku
-mít copyright pokrývající jejich ve¹kerá *komerèní* vyu¾ití.
-
-<P>
-Prosím, mìjte na vìdomí, ¾e podle Ústavy USA je úèelem copyrightu prospìt
-veøejnosti. Slou¾í k modifikaci jednání urèitých
-soukromých stran parties, aby vydali více knih. A pøínosem je,
-¾e spoleènost diskutuje o rùzných problémech a uèí se a, jak víte
-máme literaturu. Máme vìdecká díla. Úèelem je povzbuzovat to.
-Copyrighty neexistují kvùli autorùm, nato¾pak kvùli
-vydavtelùm. Existují kvùli ètenáøùm a
-a tìm, co mají prospìch ze sdìlování informací, ke kterému dochází,
-kdy¾ lidé pí¹í nebo ètou. A já s tímto cílem souhlasím!
-
-<P>
-Ale, ve vìku poèítaèových sítí, není tato *metoda* déle udr¾itelná,
-proto¾e nyní vy¾aduje Drákulova práva, která vpadávají do soukromí jednotlivce
-a ka¾dého terorizují. Roky ve vìzení za sdílení s kolegou.
-Nebylo to jako v dobì tiskaøského lisu.
-Tehdy byl copyright prùmyslovou regulací. Omezoval vydavatele!
-*Nyní* je to omezení uvalené vydavateli na veøejnost. Tak¾e, aèkoliv se jedná
-o stejný zákon, právní vztah je otoèený o 180 stupòù.
-
-<P>
-
-OTÁZKA: Tak¾e mù¾ete mít tuté¾ vìc - ale je to jako, kdybyste tvoøil hudbu
-z jiné hudby.
-<P>
-
-STALLMAN: Správnì. To je zajímavé.
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: A jedineèné, u nových dìl, existuje stále velká spolupráce.
-
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Ano. A myslím si, ¾e to pravdìpodobnì vy¾aduje nìjakou koncepci
spravedlivého
-vyu¾ití. Samozøejmì vytvoøení nìkolikavteøinového samplu a jeho pou¾ití
-pro vytvoøení nìjakého hudebního díla: samozøejmì by toto bylo spravedlivé
vyu¾ití. Dokonce
-i standardní my¹lenka ohlednì spravedlivého vyu¾ití to zahrnuje, pomyslíte-li
na to.
-Whether
-courts agree, I'm not sure, but they should. That *wouldn't* be a real
-change in the system as it has existed.
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: Co si myslíte o publikování *veøejných* informací
-v proprietárních formátech?
-
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: No, nemìlo by to být. Myslím tím, ¾e vláda by nikdy
-nemìla nutit obèany, aby pou¾ívali ne svobodné programy
-k pøístupu k informacím a pøi komunikaci s ní.
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: Byl jsem u¾ivatelem, teï øeknu, GNU/Linuxu.
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Dìkuji. [Smích]
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: ...nìkolik posledních let. Chybìla mi ale jedna základní
-vìc, a to se myslím týká v¹ech, toti¾ webový browser.
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Ano.
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: Jedna z vìcí, která byla rozhodnì slabinou v pou¾ívání
-systému GNU/Linux bylo prohlí¾ení webovýsh stránek,
-proto¾e hlevním nástrojem k tomuhle byl Netscape...
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: ..., který nebyl svobodným software.
-Nechte mì odpovìdìt na toto. Chtìl bych nejprve vyøe¹it toto,
-abychom se mohli lépe orientovat v celém problému. Ano.
-Na lidi pùsobil stra¹ný tlak, aby na GNU/Linuxových systémech
-pou¾ívali Netscape Navigator. Vlastnì ho mìly v sobì úplnì v¹echny
-komerèní distribuce. To je ironická situace: tak tì¾ce jsme pracovali
-na tom, abychom vytvoøili *svobodný* operaèná systém
-a kdy¾ se teï vydáte do obchodu, najdete zde rùzné verze GNU/Linuxu
-(vìt¹ina nese název Linux), ale ¾ádná z nich není svobodná.
-Samozøejmì nìkteré èásti svobodné jsou, ale je zde i Netscape
-Navigator a mo¾ná také dal¹í nesvobodné vìci. Ve skuteènosti
-je velmi tì¾ké najít svobodný systém, pokud nevíte úplnì pøesnì,
-co dìláte. Mù¾ete si Netscape
-Navigator neinstalovat i pokud si zakoupíte jen èásteènì svobodný systém.
-
-<P>
-Ve skuteènosti existovaly svobodné prohlí¾eèe po mnoho let.
-Já jsem byl napø. zvyklý pou¾ívat webový browser s názvem
-,,Lynx.'' Je to svobodný negrafický browser; pouze textový.
-Má jednu ohromnou výhodu a to, ¾e nevidíte reklamy.
-[Smích] [Potlesk].
-
-<P>
-Existuje v¹ak i svobodný grafický browser Mozilla, který se nyní dostává
-do stavu, kdy ho ji¾ mù¾ete pou¾ívat. Obèas ho také pou¾ívám.
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: Velmi dobrý byl Konqueror 2.01.
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Ano, samozøejmì. To je dal¹í svobodný grafický browser.
-Já myslím, ¾e u¾ koneènì ten problém s browsery bude vyøe¹en.
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: Mù¾ete mi øíci nìco o filosofickém a etickém rozdìlení
-mezi svobodným software a Open Source? Myslíte, ¾e jsou nesmiøitelné?
-...
-
-<P>
-[mìní se páska v nahrávacím zaøízení, konec otázky a zaèátek odpovìdi
-chybí]
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: .... ke svobodì a etice. Nebo kdykoliv prostì øeknete:
-,,Doufám, ¾e se vy spoleènosti rozhodnete, ¾e je pro vás
-výhodnìj¹í dovolit nám dìlat tyto vìci.''
-
-<P>
-Ale jak jsem øekl, v mnoha praktických úkolech ani nezále¾í,
-jaká je politika dané osoby. Kdy¾ nìkdo nabídne pomoc projektu GNU,
-tak neøíkáme ,,Musí¹ souhlasit s na¹í politikou.'' Øekneme,
-¾e v balíècích GNU musíte nazývat systém GNU/Linux a musíte
-to nazývat svobodný software. Co øíkáte, kdy¾ nemluvíte s projektem
-GNU, je na vás.
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: Spoleènost IBM odstartovala nedávno kampaò pro vládní
-úøady, kterým chtìjí prodat své velké stroje a jako systém si
-vybrali Linux, øíkají mu ,,Linux!''
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Ano, samozøejmì, ve skuteènosti je to systém GNU/Linux. [Smích]
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: Právì! Øeknìte to hlavnímu obchodnímu mana¾erovi. Vùbec
-o GNU neví.
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Komu ¾e bych mìl øíci?
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: Hlavnímu obchodnímu mana¾erovi.
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Aha, jasnì. Problém je v tom, ¾e oni si u¾ døíve peèlivì
-vybrali, co budou øíkat, aby to pro nì bylo co nejvýhodnìj¹í.
-Dùle¾ité toti¾ je, ¾e otázka toho co je správnìj¹í èi spravedlivìj¹í
-není pro takové firmy to nejdùle¾itìj¹í. U malých spoleèností bychom
-mohli najít øeditele, který by pøemý¹lel o takových vìcech, mohl by se
-rozhodnout pou¾ívat správný název. Ne ale takové obrovské spoleènosti.
-Je to ostuda.
-
-<P>
-S tím co dìlá IBM souvisí je¹tì jeden dùle¾itý a podstatný problém
-a to, ¾e oni øíkají, ¾e vkládají do ,,Linuxu'' miliardu dolarù.
-Mo¾ná bych ale mìl také dát uvozovky kolem slova ,,do'',
-proto¾e èást z toho sice je placení lidí, kteøí pí¹í svobodný
-software, ale druhá èást slou¾í k placení lidí, kteøí pí¹í
-proprietární software, nebo proprietární software portují, aby
-bì¾el na GNU/Linuxu. To *není* pøíspìvek na¹í komunitì.
-IBM to ale v¹echno strká na jednu hromadu. Èást z toho mù¾e
-být reklama, co¾ pro nás mù¾e být èásteènì pøínostné, aèkoliv
-by to bylo také èásteènì ¹patné. Je to komplikovaná situace.
-Nìco z toho, co oni dìlají, je pomocí, nìco není a nìco je
-také èásteèná pomoc, ale ne pøesnì. Nemù¾ete to prostì
-v¹echno smíchat dohromady a myslet si ,,Wow! Bomba! Miliarda
-dolarù od IBM.'' [Smích] To je stra¹né zjednodu¹ení.
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: Mù¾ete se tro¹ku více zmínit o dùvodech, které
-vás vedly k navr¾ení nìèeho jako je General Public License.
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Ok, to je -- omlouvám se, ale já teï odpovídám na jeho otázku.
-[Smích]
-
-<P>
-SCHONBERG: Chcete si nechat nìjaký èas na tiskovou konferenci,
-nebo budete rad¹i pokraèovat tady?
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Kdo je tu na tiskovou konferenci? Není tu moc tisku.
-Aha, tøi -- dobøe. Nebude vám vadit, kdy¾ budeme -- kdy¾ budu
-pokraèovat v zodpovídání otázek v¹ech je¹tì tak deset minut?
-OK. Tak budeme pokraèovat v otázkách z publika.
-
-<P>
-Ptáte se tedy na my¹lení, z kterého vze¹la GNU GPL?
-Èást je v tom, ¾e jsem chtìl ochránit svobodu komunity od takových
-vìcí, jaké jsem popisoval u projektu X Windows a které se pøihodily
-i ostatním svobodným programùm. Ve skuteènosti nebyly X Windows je¹tì
-vydány, kdy¾ jsem o GPL pøemý¹lel, ale vidìl jsem, jak se tohle
-stávalo jiným svobodným programùm. Stalo se to tøeba TeXu. Chtìl jsem
-zajistit, aby mìli svobodu v¹ichni u¾ivatelé. Jinak by se mi mohlo stát,
-¾e napí¹u program a mo¾ná ho bude pou¾ívat mnoho lidí, ale
-ti by nemuseli mít svobodu. A jaký by to pak mìlo úèel?
-
-<P>
-Øíkal jsem si ale také: Chci dát veøejnosti pocit, ¾e to není
-koøist pro nìjaké parazity, kteøí zrovna bloudí kolem.
-Kdy¾ nepou¾íváte copyleft, tak vpodstatì øíkáte [Stallman
-mluví mírnì]: ,,Vezmi si mùj kód a dìlej si s ním co chce¹.
-Já neøíkám ne.'' Ka¾dý mù¾e pøijít a øíci [nyní mluví pøísnì]
-Ah, chci vytvoøit nesvobodnou verzi tohohle. Prostì si to
-vezmu.'' Pravdìpodobnì udìlají nìjaká vylep¹ení. Tyto nesvobodné
-verze se pak mohou zalíbit u¾ivatelùm a nahradit svobodné
-verze. Èeho jste tak dosáhli? Pouze jste pøispìli nìjakému
-vlastnickému projektu!
-
-<P>
-Kdy¾ pak lidé vidí, co se dìje, -- kdy¾ vidí ,,ostatní mi vezmou
-co jsem udìlal a ani mi to nevrátí'' -- mù¾e to být pro nì velmi
-demoralizující. To není jen spekulace. Já jsem vidìl, jak se to
-opravdu stalo. Byla to èást toho, co se pøihodilo na¹í
-komunitì, ke které jsem patøil v sedmdesátých letech. Nìkteøí lidé
-s námi pøestávali spolupracovat. Pøedpokládali jsme, ¾e z toho profitují.
-Chovali se tak, jako by si mysleli, ¾e profitují. Uvìdomili jsme si,
-¾e se mohou prostì vzdát spolupráce a nic nám nedají zpìt.
-Neexistovalo nic, co bychom s tím mohli dìlat. To bylo velmi
-odrazující. My, kterým se to nelíbilo, jsme dokonce diskutovali
-o mo¾nostech, jak to zastavit, ale ¾ádnou jsme nena¹li.
-
-<P>
-GPL je tedy navr¾ena k tomu, aby to zastavila. Øíká: ,,Pokud se k na¹í
-komunitì *pøipojíte*, jste vítáni a mù¾ete pou¾ívat ná¹ kód. Mù¾ete
-jej pou¾ívat na jakoukoliv práci. Pokud ale vydáte modifikovanou verzi,
-musíte ji uveøejnit *v* na¹í komunitì, jako souèást na¹í komunity --
-jako souèást svobodného svìta.
-
-<P>
-Vlastnì existuje i mnoho rùzných cest, jak mohou lidé tì¾it
-z výhod na¹eho software a nijak nám nepøispívat; nemusíte tøeba
-psát software, abyste mohli pou¾ívat ná¹ systém. Nepo¾adujeme
-po vás, abyste pro nás cokoliv dìlali. Pokud ale dìláte
-urèitý typ vìcí, musíte nám s nimi pøispìt.
-Tak¾e to znamená, ¾e na¹e komunita není jen tak nìjaká
-roho¾ka u dveøí.
-A myslím, ¾e to dodalo lidem sílu cítit: ,,Jen tak nìkdo si po nás
-nebude dupat. My se mu postavíme.''
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: Ano, moje otázka se týkala svobodného, ale necopyleftovaného
-software. Kdy¾ ho mù¾e ka¾dý vzít a udìlat z nìj vlastnický,
-není také mo¾né vzít ho, udìlat nìjaké zmìny a vydat to celé
-pod GPL?
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Ano, je to mo¾né.
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: To by udìlalo ze v¹ech budoucích kopií GPL software.
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Kopií z té urèité vìtve. Vysvìtlím ale, proè tohle nedìláme.
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: Hmm?
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Vysvìtlím, proè to nedìláme. Nechte mì to vysvìtlit.
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: OK, ano.
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Mohli bychom to udìlat, pokud bychom chtìli. Mohli bychom
-vzít X Windows, udìlat kopii krytou GPL a udìlat v ní nìjaké zmìny.
-Existuje ale mnohem vìt¹í skupina lidí, kteøí vylep¹ují X Windows,
-a ti je nevydávají pod GPL. Kdybychom to tedy udìlali, oddìlovali
-bychom se od nich. To by od nás nebylo moc hezké. Oni *jsou*
-èást na¹í komunity a pøispívají do na¹í komunity.
-
-<P>
-Za druhé, nemìli bychom ¹anci, proto¾e oni na X dìlají mnohem více
-práce ne¾ bychom mohli dìlat my. Na¹e verze by tedy byla podøadná
-té jejich a lidé by ji nepou¾ívali. To znamená: proè podstupovat
-v¹echny tyhle nesnáze?
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: Mmm hmm.
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Kdy¾ tedy nìkdo napí¹e nìjaké vylep¹ení
-do X Windows, øeknu mu, aby spolupracoval s vývojáøi
-X Windows, a» jim to po¹le a nechá je to pou¾ít tak,
-jak to oni uznají za vhodné. Oni *vyvíjejí*
-velmi dùle¾itou èást svobodného software. Pro nás je dobré
-s nimi spolupracovat!
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: S výjimkou, co se týèe X, pøibli¾nì pøed dvìma roky,
-dokonce X Konsorcium vydalo svùj software jako omezený Open Source.
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Oni jej nikdy nevydali jako Open Source. Nakonec
-to nebylo Open Source. Mo¾ná øíkali, ¾e bylo. Nevzpomínám si.
-Ale nebylo to Open Source.
-
-<P>
-Bylo to omezené. Myslím, ¾e jste to nemohli komerènì redistribuovat.
-Nebo jste mo¾ná nemohli komerènì distribuovat modifikovanou verzi,
-nebo nìco takvého. Bylo v tom nìjaké omezení, které jak Hnutí svobodného
-software, tak hnutí Open Source pokládá za nepøijatelné.
-
-<P>
-Ano, to vám necopyleftová licence dovoluje. Ve skuteènosti
-mìlo X Konsorcium velm izvlá¹tní politiku. Øíkají: ,,Pokud
-je vá¹ program alespoò tro¹ku copyleftovaný, nemù¾eme jej
-do na¹í distribuce zahrnout. Nebudeme jej vùbec distribuovat.''
-Hodnì lidí tak bylo nuceno nepou¾ívat copyleft. V¹echen software
-byl naprosto otevøený. Ti samí lidé, kteøí pøedtím tlaèili lidi,
-aby dovolovali s jejich kódem dìlat v¹e, pozdìji prohlásili:
-,,Vpoøádku. Teï si mù¾eme pøidat omezení.'' To od nich nebylo
-pøíli¹ etické.
-
-<P>
-Chceme ale v této situaci opravdu zaplácat mnoho zdrojù na
-udr¾ování alternativní verze X, kryté GPL? Nemìlo by to ¾ádný
-smysl. Máme na práci spoustu jiných vìcí. Pojdmì dìlat
-rad¹i tyto. Je lep¹í s vývojáøi X spolupracovat.
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: Mù¾ete prosím okomentovat, zda je GNU registrovaná
-ochranná známka? Bylo by praktické zahrnout ji do GNU GPL,
-ta pøece povoluje ochranné známky?
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Ve skuteènosti máme momentálnì podanou ¾ádost o regisrtaci
-ochranné známky GNU. Je to ale z jiných dùvodù. Bylo by na dlouho
-to tu v¹e vysvìtlovat.
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: Mohli byste po¾adovat zobrazení této ochranné známky
-ve v¹ech programech krytých GPL.
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: To si nemyslím. Licence kryjí samotné programy a pokud
-je nìjaký program èást projektu GNU, nikdo se nesna¾í to pøekroutit.
-Jméno systému jako celku je ale jiná zále¾itost. To je jen taková
-poznámka, nestojí za to znovu to tu probírat.
-
-<P>
-OTÁZKA: Kdyby existovalo tlaèítko, které byste mohl zmáèknout
-a donutit tak v¹echny spoleènosti, aby udìlali svùj software
-svobodným, zmáèkl byste?
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: No, pou¾il bych ho na publikovaný software. Víte,
-já myslím, ¾e lidé mají právo psát program soukromì,
-a pou¾ívat ho soukromì. To se týká i spoleèností. Je to
-otázka soukromí. Je sice pravda, ¾e mohou nastat situace,
-kdy by daný program byl veøejnosti ohromnì u¾iteèný
-a vy byste zabraòovali jeho vyu¾ití, co¾ by bylo ¹patné.
-To je ale jiný druh ¹patnosti. To by byla jiná otázka,
-aèkoliv v tom samém oboru.
-
-<P>
-Ale ano, já si myslím, ¾e by v¹echen publikovaný software mìl být
-svobodný. A pamatujme si, ¾e pokud tomu tak není, je to
-kvùli zásahu vlády. Vláda zasahuje, aby jej uèinila nesvobodným.
-Vláda vytváøí speciální právní mo¾nosti a rozdává je vlastníkùm
-programù, aby mohli vyu¾ít policii k tomu, aby nám zabránila
-urèitými zpùsoby u¾ívat jejich program. To bych urèitì chtìl ukonèit.
-
-<P>
-SCHONBERG: Richardova pøedná¹ka bez pochyb vyvolala obrovské mno¾ství
-intelektuální energie. Rád bych doporuèil, aby èást z té energie
-byla vyu¾ita k pou¾ívání a mo¾ná i vývoji svobodného software.
-
-<P>
-Mìli bychom to tu nìjak rychle ukonèit. Chci jen øíci, ¾e
-Richard nechal do profese, která je veøejnosti známá pøedev¹ím svým
-apolitickým a nerdovským pøístupem, proniknout i urèitou
-rovinu politické a etické polemiky, co¾ je dle mého názoru v tomto
-oboru bezprecedentní.
-
-<P>
-Chtìl bych oznámit, ¾e nyní je pøestávka.
-
-<P>
-[Potlesk]
-
-<P>
-[Ticho]
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Mù¾ete odejít kdy chcete, v¹ak víte. [Smích]
-Já vás tu nedr¾ím jako ve vìzení.
-
-<P>
-[Publikum se zvedá a odchází...]
-
-<P>
-STALLMAN: Je¹tì nìco. Ná¹ web: www.gnu.org .
-
-<P>
-
-<a href="/philosophy/philosophy.cs.html">Dal¹í texty k pøeètení</a>
-
-<HR>
-
-Návrat na <A HREF="/home.cs.html">domovskou stránku GNU</A>.
-<P>
-FSF & GNU informace & otázky na
-<A HREF="mailto:address@hidden";><EM>address@hidden</EM></A>.
-Dal¹í <A HREF="/home.cs.html#ContactInfo">mo¾nost</A> jak kontaktovat FSF.
-<P>
-Komentáøe k tìmto web stránkám na
-<A HREF="mailto:address@hidden";><EM>address@hidden</EM></A>,
-jiné otázky zasílejte na
-<A HREF="mailto:address@hidden";><EM>address@hidden</EM></A>.
-<P>
-Copyright (C) 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
-51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110, USA
-<P>
-Doslovné kopírování a ¹íøení tohoto celého dokumentu na jakémkoliv médiu
-je dovoleno v pøípadì, ¾e tato podmínka bude zachována.<P>
-<HR>
-</BODY>
-</HTML>
Index: events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.html
===================================================================
RCS file: events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.html
diff -N events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.html
--- events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.html 20 Feb 2015 17:28:07 -0000
1.63
+++ /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
@@ -1,2132 +0,0 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.en.html" -->
-
-<!--#include virtual="/server/header.fr.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
-
-<!-- This file is automatically generated by GNUnited Nations! -->
-<title>Logiciel libre : liberté et coopération - Projet GNU - Free Software
-Foundation</title>
-
-<!--#include virtual="/events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist" -->
-<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.fr.html" -->
-<h2>Logiciel libre : liberté et coopération</h2>
-
-<blockquote><p>Transcription du discours de Richard M. Stallman, « Logiciel
libre : liberté
-et coopération », donné à <cite>New York University</cite> (campus de New
-York, NY) le 29 mai 2001.</p></blockquote>
-
-<div class="announcement">
-<blockquote><p>Une version <a
href="/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt">texte</a> de cette
-transcription et un <a href="/events/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt">résumé</a> du
-discours sont aussi disponibles en anglais.</p></blockquote>
-</div>
-
-<p><strong>URETSKY</strong> : Je suis Mike Uretsky. Je travaille à la
-<cite>Stern Business School</cite> (Ãcole de commerce Stern). Je suis aussi
-l'un des codirecteurs du <cite>Center for Advanced Technology</cite> (Centre
-pour la technologie de pointe). Et au nom de tout le département
-d'informatique, je veux vous souhaiter la bienvenue. Je voudrais faire
-quelques commentaires avant de passer la parole à Ed qui présentera
-l'orateur.</p>
-
-<p>Le rôle d'une université est d'être un lieu de débats et de permettre
des
-discussions intéressantes. Et le rôle d'une grande université est d'offrir
-des discussions particulièrement intéressantes. Cet exposé particulier, ce
-séminaire, répond parfaitement à cet impératif. Je trouve la discussion sur
-l'open source particulièrement intéressante. D'une certaine manière…
-<i>[rires]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Je fais du logiciel libre. L'open source, c'est
-un autre mouvement <i>[rires et applaudissements]</i>.</p>
-
-<p><strong>URETSKY</strong> : Quand j'ai commencer à travailler dans ce
domaine
-dans les années 60, en principe les logiciels étaient libres. Puis nous
-sommes entrés dans un cycle. Au début ils étaient libres, puis les
-fabricants de logiciels, pour étendre leur marché, les ont poussés dans
-d'autres directions. Une grande partie du développement qui a eu lieu Ã
-l'arrivée du PC a suivi exactement le même cycle.</p>
-
-<p>Il y a un philosophe français très intéressant, Pierre Lévy, qui parle
d'un
-mouvement dans cette direction et parle de l'entrée dans le cyberespace, non
-seulement en relation avec la technologie, mais aussi avec la
-restructuration sociale et politique, Ã travers un changement des types de
-relations qui va améliorer le bien-être de l'humanité. Et nous espérons que
-ce débat est un pas dans cette direction, que ce débat traverse de
-nombreuses disciplines qui travaillent généralement en solo Ã
-l'université. Nous espérons donc de très intéressantes discussions. EdÂ
?</p>
-
-<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong> : Je suis Ed Schonberg du département
-d'informatique de l'Institut Courant. Permettez-moi de vous souhaiter la
-bienvenue pour cet événement. Les présentateurs sont, en général et en
-particulier, un aspect inutile des présentations publiques, mais dans ce
-cas, ils servent un but utile comme le propos de Mike vient facilement de le
-prouver. Parce qu'un présentateur, par exemple par des commentaires
-inappropriés, peut permettre à l'orateur de corriger <i>[rires]</i> et
-préciser considérablement les paramètres du débat.</p>
-
-<p>Aussi permettez-moi de faire la présentation la plus brève possible de
-quelqu'un qui n'en a pas besoin. Richard est le parfait exemple de quelqu'un
-qui, agissant localement, commença à penser globalement en partant des
-problèmes d'inaccessibilité du code source des pilotes d'imprimantes au
-Laboratoire d'intelligence artificielle il y a bien des années. Il a
-développé une philosophie cohérente qui nous a tous forcés à réexaminer
nos
-idées sur la façon dont le logiciel est produit, sur ce que signifie la
-propriété intellectuelle et sur ce que représente la communauté du
-logiciel. Bienvenue à Richard Stallman <i>[applaudissements]</i>.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Quelqu'un peut-il me prêter une montre ?
-<i>[rires]</i> Merci. Bien, je voudrais remercier Microsoft de me donner
-l'occasion aujourd'hui <i>[rires]</i> d'être ici. Ces dernières semaines, je
-me sentais comme un auteur dont le livre a été fortuitement interdit quelque
-part <i>[rires]</i>. Sauf que tous les articles le concernant mentionnent un
-nom d'auteur erroné, parce que Microsoft décrit la GNU GPL comme une licence
-open source et que la majorité de la couverture de presse a suivi. La
-plupart des gens, en toute innocence bien sûr, ne se rendent pas compte que
-notre travail n'a rien à voir avec l'open source et qu'en réalité nous en
-avons fait la plus grande part avant même que le terme « open source » ne
-soit inventé.</p>
-
-<p>Nous faisons partie du mouvement du logiciel libre et je vais vous parler de
-ce qu'est ce mouvement, de ce qu'il signifie, de ce que nous avons fait, et
-puisque nous sommes réunis par une école de commerce, je vous en dirai un
-peu plus qu'à l'habitude sur les relations du logiciel libre avec l'économie
-et avec d'autres champs de la vie en société.</p>
-
-<p>Certains d'entre vous n'écriront peut-être jamais de logiciels mais vous
-cuisinez peut-être. Et si vous cuisinez, à moins que vous ne soyez un grand
-chef, vous utilisez probablement des recettes. Si vous utilisez des
-recettes, il vous est probablement déjà arrivé de demander la copie d'une
-recette à un ami, qui l'a partagée avec vous. Et il vous est probablement
-arrivé â à moins d'être un complet néophyte â de changer cette
recette. Vous
-savez, il y a des choses que l'on n'est pas obligé de faire exactement :
-vous pouvez laisser tomber certains ingrédients, ajouter des champignons
-parce que vous aimez les champignons, mettre un peu moins de sel parce que
-votre médecin vous a recommandé de manger moins salé, que sais-je ? Vous
-pouvez même faire des changements plus importants selon vos talents. Si vous
-avez fait des changements dans une recette et que vos amis l'ont appréciée,
-l'un d'entre eux vous a peut-être dit : « Dis donc, je pourrais avoir la
-recette ? » Et alors, qu'est-ce que vous faites ? Vous mettez par écrit
-votre version modifiée et faites une copie pour votre ami. C'est une chose
-qu'on fait naturellement avec des recettes de toute sorte.</p>
-
-<p>En fait, une recette ressemble beaucoup à un programme informatique. Un
-programme informatique est comme une recette : une série d'étapes à mener
-pour obtenir le résultat que vous attendez. Alors il est tout naturel de
-faire la même chose avec un programme : donner une copie à un ami ;
apporter
-des modifications parce que le travail pour lequel il a été écrit n'est pas
-tout à fait ce que vous voulez. Il a bien fonctionné pour quelqu'un d'autre
-mais votre travail est différent. Et une fois que vous avez changé le
-programme, il est probable qu'il pourra servir à d'autres. Peut-être qu'ils
-ont à faire un travail comme le vôtre, alors ils vous en demanderont une
-copie, et si vous êtes gentil, vous allez la leur donner. C'est comme ça
-qu'on doit se comporter.</p>
-
-<p>Alors imaginez que les recettes soient enfermées dans des boîtes
-noires. Vous ne pourriez pas savoir les ingrédients qu'elles utilisent,
-encore moins les changer. Et imaginez, si vous faisiez une copie pour un
-ami, qu'on vous traite de pirate et qu'on essaie de vous mettre en prison
-pour des années. Ce serait un énorme tollé de la part de tous ceux qui sont
-habitués à partager des recettes de cuisine. Mais c'est exactement ce qui se
-passe dans le monde du logiciel privateur<a id="TransNote1-rev"
-href="#TransNote1"><sup>1</sup></a> â un monde dans lequel on empêche et on
-interdit un comportement correct envers les autres personnes.</p>
-
-<p>Maintenant, pourquoi ai-je remarqué cela ? Je l'ai remarqué parce que
j'ai
-eu la bonne fortune dans les années 70 de faire partie d'une communauté
-d'informaticiens qui partageaient les logiciels. On pourrait faire remonter
-ses racines aux origines de l'informatique, mais dans les années 70 c'était
-plutôt rare de trouver une communauté où les gens partageaient du
-logiciel. En fait c'était en quelque sorte un cas extrême parce que, dans le
-laboratoire où je travaillais, l'ensemble du système d'exploitation avait
-été développé par les gens de cette communauté et nous le partagions avec
-n'importe qui. Tout un chacun était invité à venir y jeter un Åil et à en
-emporter une copie pour faire ce qu'il voulait avec. Il n'y avait pas d'avis
-de copyright sur ces programmes. Et rien ne semblait menacer ce mode de
-vie. Ce n'était pas le résultat d'une lutte, c'est comme ça que nous
-vivions. Nous pensions que cela continuerait. Il y avait du logiciel libre
-mais pas de mouvement du logiciel libre.</p>
-
-<p>Mais ensuite notre communauté a été détruite par une série de
calamités. Ã
-la fin elle fut balayée. L'ordinateur PDP-10 que nous utilisions pour tout
-notre travail fut abandonné. Notre système d'exploitation, le « système Ã
-temps partagé incompatible » <cite>[Incompatible Timesharing System]</cite>,
-écrit à partir des années 60, était en langage assembleur. C'est ce qu'on
-utilisait pour écrire les systèmes d'exploitation dans les années
-60. Naturellement, le langage assembleur est spécifique à un type
-particulier d'architecture d'ordinateur ; si elle devient obsolète, tout le
-travail tombe en poussière. Et c'est ce qui nous est arrivé. Les presque 20
-ans de travail de notre communauté sont tombés en poussière.</p>
-
-<p>Pourtant, avant que cela n'arrive, une expérience m'a préparé et m'a
aidé Ã
-voir ce qu'il fallait faire. Un jour, Xerox a donné au Laboratoire
-d'intelligence artificielle, où je travaillais, une imprimante laser ;
-c'était un beau cadeau car c'était la première fois qu'en dehors de Xerox
-quelqu'un possédait une imprimante laser. Elle était très rapide, une page
Ã
-la seconde, excellente à bien des égards, mais elle n'était pas fiable parce
-qu'en fait c'était un copieur rapide de bureau qui avait été modifié pour
-devenir une imprimante. Vous savez, les copieurs font du bourrage de papier
-mais il y a sur place quelqu'un pour les débloquer. L'imprimante bourrait
-mais personne ne le remarquait aussi restait-t-elle hors service pendant
-longtemps.</p>
-
-<p>Nous avions bien une idée pour résoudre ce problème : faire en sorte
qu'Ã
-chaque bourrage elle avertisse notre machine en temps partagé et les
-utilisateurs qui attendaient une sortie d'imprimante. Car bien sûr, si vous
-attendez une sortie d'imprimante et que vous savez qu'elle est en panne,
-vous n'allez pas rester assis pour l'éternité, vous irez la débloquer.</p>
-
-<p>Mais à ce stade, nous étions dans une impasse totale du fait que le pilote
-de l'imprimante n'était pas un logiciel libre. Il était livré avec mais
-c'était un programme binaire. Nous n'avions pas le code source. Xerox ne
-nous avait pas autorisés à l'avoir. Si bien que malgré nos talents
-d'informaticiens (nous avions écrit notre propre système d'exploitation en
-temps partagé) nous étions complètement démunis pour ajouter cette fonction
-au pilote d'imprimante.</p>
-
-<p>Nous pouvions seulement prendre notre mal en patience ; cela vous prenait
-une ou deux heures pour avoir votre impression car la machine était bloquée
-la plupart du temps. De temps à autre vous attendiez une heure en vous
-disant : « Je sais que ça va planter, je vais attendre une heure et aller
-chercher mon texte. » Et alors vous vous aperceviez que la machine était
-restée bloquée pendant tout ce temps-là et que personne d'autre ne l'avait
-remise en état. Alors vous faisiez le nécessaire et attendiez une demi-heure
-de plus. Ensuite vous reveniez et vous voyiez qu'elle s'était bloquée de
-nouveau â avant même de commencer votre impression. Elle imprimait trois
-minutes et se bloquait pendant 30 minutes. Frustration jusque là  ! Le pire
-était de savoir que nous aurions pu la réparer mais que quelqu'un, par pur
-égoÃsme, nous mettait des bâtons dans les roues en nous empêchant
-d'améliorer son programme. D'où notre ressentiment, évidemment…</p>
-
-<p>Et alors j'ai entendu dire que quelqu'un avait une copie de ce programme Ã
-l'université Carnegie-Mellon. En visite là -bas un peu plus tard, je me rends
-à son bureau et je dis : « Salut, je suis du MIT, pourrais-je avoir une
-copie du code source de l'imprimante ? » Et il répond : « Non, j'ai
promis
-de ne pas vous donner de copie » <i>[rires]</i>. J'étais soufflé. J'étais
-si… J'étais tellement en colère ! Je ne savais pas quoi faire pour
-réparer cette injustice. Tout ce qui m'est venu à l'esprit, c'est de tourner
-les talons et sortir de son bureau. Peut-être que j'ai claqué la
-porte… <i>[rires]</i> Et j'y ai repensé plus tard parce que j'ai
-réalisé que je n'étais pas simplement en face d'un fait isolé mais d'un
-phénomène de société qui était important et affectait beaucoup de
gens.</p>
-
-<p>Pour moi par chance, ce n'était qu'un échantillon, mais d'autres gens
-étaient obligés de vivre avec ça tout le temps. Et j'y ai repensé plus
-longuement. Vous voyez, il avait promis de refuser de coopérer avec nous,
-ses collègues du MIT. Il nous avait trahis. Mais il ne l'avait pas fait qu'Ã
-nous. Il y a des chances qu'il vous l'ait fait à vous aussi <i>[pointant du
-doigt un auditeur]</i>. Et je pense, probablement à vous aussi <i>[pointant
-du doigt un autre auditeur â rires]</i> et à vous aussi <i>[pointant du
-doigt un troisième auditeur]</i>. Et certainement à une bonne partie de ceux
-qui sont dans cette salle, à l'exception de quelques-uns, peut-être, qui
-n'étaient pas encore nés en 1980. Il avait promis de ne pas coopérer avec
-l'ensemble de la population de la planète Terre, ou presque. Il avait signé
-un accord de non-divulgation.</p>
-
-<p>C'était ma première confrontation avec un accord de non-divulgation et
cela
-m'a appris une importante leçon, une leçon qui est importante parce que la
-plupart des programmeurs ne l'apprennent jamais. Vous voyez, c'était ma
-première rencontre avec un accord de non-divulgation et j'en étais
-victime. Moi et tout mon laboratoire, nous en étions victimes. Et la leçon
-que j'ai apprise c'est que les accords de non-divulgation font des
-victimes. Ils ne sont pas innocents, ils ne sont pas inoffensifs. La plupart
-des programmeurs rencontrent un accord de non-divulgation lorsqu'ils sont
-invités à en signer un et il y a toujours une sorte de tentation, un bonus
-qu'ils auront s'ils signent. Alors ils s'inventent des excuses. Ils disent :
-« De toute façon, il n'aura pas de copie, alors pourquoi ne rejoindrais-je
-pas la conspiration pour l'en priver ? » Ils disent : « Ãa se fait
toujours
-comme ça, qui suis-je pour m'y opposer ? » Ils disent : « Si je ne signe
-pas, quelqu'un d'autre le fera. » Diverses excuses pour tromper leur
-conscience.</p>
-
-<p>Mais quand on m'a invité à signer un accord de non-divulgation, ma
-conscience était déjà en éveil. Elle se rappelait comme j'étais en colère
-lorsque quelqu'un avait promis de ne pas m'aider, moi et mon labo, Ã
-résoudre notre problème. Je ne pouvais pas retourner ma veste et faire la
-même chose à quelqu'un qui ne m'avait fait aucun mal. Vous savez, si
-quelqu'un me demandait de promettre de ne pas partager une information utile
-avec un ennemi détesté je le ferais. Si quelqu'un a fait quelque chose de
-mal il le mérite. Mais des étrangers… Ils ne m'ont fait aucun
-mal. Comment pourraient-ils mériter un mauvais traitement de ce genre ? On
-ne peut pas se permettre de mal se comporter avec tout un chacun, sinon on
-devient un prédateur de la société. Alors j'ai dit : « Merci de m'offrir
ce
-beau logiciel, mais je ne peux l'accepter en bonne conscience aux conditions
-que vous exigez, donc je vais m'en passer. Merci beaucoup. » Ainsi, je n'ai
-jamais consciemment signé d'accord de non-divulgation pour de l'information
-technique utile comme un programme.</p>
-
-<p>Cela dit, il y a des informations d'autre nature qui posent d'autres
-problèmes éthiques. Par exemple, il y a les informations personnelles. Vous
-savez, si vous voulez me parler de ce qui se passe entre vous et votre petit
-ami et que vous me demandez de n'en parler à personne, je peux accepter de
-garder le secret pour vous, parce que ce n'est pas une information technique
-d'utilité générale. En fait, ce n'est probablement pas d'utilité générale
-<i>[rires]</i>.</p>
-
-<p>Il y a une petite chance, c'est possible, que vous puissiez me révéler une
-merveilleuse nouvelle technique sexuelle <i>[rires]</i> et je me sentirais
-moralement obligé <i>[rires]</i> de la révéler au reste de l'humanité pour
-que chacun puisse en profiter. Donc je devrais mettre une condition à ma
-promesse. Si ce sont juste des détails sur qui veut ceci et qui est en
-colère contre untel, des choses comme ça, du feuilleton télé, cela je peux
-le garder confidentiel… Mais une connaissance dont l'humanité
-tirerait un énorme bénéfice, je ne dois pas la garder pour moi. Vous voyez,
-le but de la science et de la technologie est de produire de l'information
-utile pour l'humanité qui aidera les gens à vivre une vie meilleure. Si nous
-promettons de cacher cette information, si nous la gardons secrète, nous
-trahissons la mission de notre discipline. Et ceci, j'ai décidé de ne pas le
-faire.</p>
-
-<p>Mais en attendant, ma communauté s'était effondrée et c'était terribleÂ
;
-cela me mettait en mauvaise posture. Vous voyez, le système à temps partagé
-incompatible était obsolète parce que le PDP-10 était obsolète. Donc je ne
-pouvais plus travailler en tant que développeur de systèmes d'exploitation
-comme je l'avais fait. C'était conditionné à mon appartenance à la
-communauté qui utilisait ce logiciel pour l'améliorer. Cela n'était plus
-possible et cela m'amena à un dilemme moral. Qu'allais-je faire ? Parce que
-la possibilité la plus évidente impliquait de faire le contraire de ce que
-j'avais décidé. La possibilité la plus évidente était de m'adapter au
-changement du monde ; accepter le fait que les choses étaient différentes,
-que je n'avais qu'à abandonner ces principes et commencer à signer des
-accords de non-divulgation pour des systèmes d'exploitation privateurs, et
-probablement écrire des logiciels privateurs à mon tour. Mais j'ai réalisé
-que, même si de cette façon j'avais un moyen de m'amuser à coder et de
-gagner de l'argent en même temps, surtout si je faisais ça ailleurs qu'au
-MIT, à la fin j'aurais dû me retourner sur ma carrière et dire : « J'ai
-passé ma vie à construire des murs pour diviser les gens. » Et j'aurais eu
-honte de ma vie.</p>
-
-<p>Alors j'ai cherché une alternative, et il y en avait une évidente : je
-pouvais quitter l'informatique et faire autre chose. Je n'avais aucun autre
-talent remarquable mais je suis sûr que j'aurais pu être serveur
-<i>[rires]</i>. Pas dans un restaurant chic, ils n'auraient pas voulu de moi
-<i>[rires]</i>, mais j'aurais pu être serveur quelque part. De nombreux
-programmeurs me disent : « Les employeurs exigent ceci, cela, si je ne le
-fais pas je mourrai de faim. » C'est le mot exact qu'ils utilisent. Bon,
-comme serveur je ne risquais pas de mourir de faim <i>[rires]</i>. En
-réalité, les programmeurs ne courent aucun danger. Et c'est important
-voyez-vous, car vous pouvez quelquefois vous justifier de faire quelque
-chose qui blesse autrui en disant « sinon quelque chose de pire va
-m'arriver ». Si vous êtes <em>vraiment</em> sur le point de crever de faim,
-vous pouvez vous justifier d'écrire du logiciel privateur <i>[rires]</i> ;
-et si quelqu'un vous menace d'une arme je dirais même que c'est pardonnable
-<i>[rires]</i>. Mais j'avais trouvé une façon de survivre sans enfreindre
-mon éthique, aussi cette excuse était-elle irrecevable. Cependant, je
-réalisais qu'être serveur ne serait pas drôle pour moi et que ce serait
-gâcher mes talents de programmeur. Je devais éviter de mal utiliser mes
-talents. Ãcrire des logiciels privateurs aurait été mal utiliser mes
-talents. Encourager les autres à vivre dans un monde de logiciels privateurs
-aurait signifié mal utiliser mes talents. Aussi valait-il mieux les gâcher
-que les utiliser à mauvais escient, mais ce n'était toujours pas la bonne
-solution.</p>
-
-<p>C'est pourquoi j'ai cherché une autre possibilité. Que pouvait faire un
-développeur de systèmes d'exploitation pour améliorer la situation, pour
-rendre le monde meilleur ? J'ai réalisé qu'un développeur de systèmes
-d'exploitation, c'était exactement ce qu'il fallait. Comme tous les autres,
-j'étais placé devant un problème, un dilemme, parce que tous les systèmes
-d'exploitation disponibles pour les ordinateurs modernes étaient
-privateurs. Les systèmes d'exploitation libres étaient pour de vieux
-ordinateurs obsolètes, n'est-ce pas ? Si vous vouliez un ordinateur moderne,
-vous étiez obligé d'adopter un système d'exploitation privateur. Cependant,
-si un développeur écrivait un autre système d'exploitation et disait «Â
Venez
-tous partager ceci, vous êtes les bienvenus », cela permettrait à chacun de
-sortir du dilemme, cela offrirait une alternative. Je me suis alors rendu
-compte que je pouvais faire quelque chose qui résoudrait le
-problème. J'avais les talents requis, c'était la chose la plus utile que je
-puisse faire de ma vie et c'était un problème que personne d'autre
-n'essayait de résoudre. J'étais assis là , de plus en plus mal dans ma peau,
-et j'étais seul. Alors un sentiment m'a envahi : « Je suis élu. C'est
-là -dessus que je dois travailler. Si ce n'est pas moi, qui d'autre ? » J'ai
-donc décidé de développer un système d'exploitation libre ou de
-mourir… de vieillesse, bien sûr <i>[rires]</i>.</p>
-
-<p>Il fallait évidemment décider quelle sorte de système d'exploitation ce
-serait, faire quelques choix techniques. J'ai décidé de rendre le système
-compatible avec Unix pour plusieurs raisons. La principale, c'est que je
-venais de voir un système que j'adorais devenir obsolète parce qu'il était
-écrit pour un type particulier d'ordinateur et je ne voulais pas que cela se
-reproduise. Nous avions besoin d'un système portable. Si je suivais le
-schéma d'Unix, j'avais toute chance de faire un système portable et
-utilisable. Mieux, [les deux systèmes devaient être] compatibles dans les
-moindres détails. Les utilisateurs détestent en effet les changements
-incompatibles. Si j'avais conçu le système de la façon que je préfère
â ce
-que j'aurais adoré, j'en suis sûr â j'aurais produit quelque chose
-d'incompatible. Les détails auraient été différents. Donc, si j'avais
conçu
-le système ainsi les gens m'auraient dit : « Bon, c'est très joli mais
c'est
-incompatible. Ãa nous demandera trop de travail de changer. Nous ne pouvons
-nous permettre tant d'efforts pour utiliser votre système à la place d'Unix,
-alors nous garderons Unix. » Voilà ce qu'ils auraient dit.</p>
-
-<p>Si je voulais créer une communauté où il y aurait des gens, des gens
-utilisant ce nouveau système et bénéficiant de la liberté et de la
-coopération, je devais faire un système que les gens utiliseraient, qu'ils
-trouveraient facile à adopter, qui ne serait pas en échec dès le
-départ. Rendre ce système rétrocompatible avec Unix revenait en fait Ã
-prendre les premières décisions concernant la conception du projet, parce
-qu'Unix consiste en de nombreux morceaux et qu'ils communiquent à travers
-des interfaces plus ou moins documentées. Alors si vous voulez être
-compatible avec Unix, il vous faut remplacer chaque morceau, l'un après
-l'autre, par un morceau compatible. Les décisions concernant la suite sont
-contenues dans chacun des morceaux. Elles peuvent donc être prises plus tard
-par quiconque décidera de l'écrire. Elles n'ont pas à être prises dès le
-départ.</p>
-
-<p>Tout ce que nous avions à faire pour commencer le travail était de trouver
-un nom pour le système. Nous, les hackers, cherchons toujours des noms
-drôles ou méchants pour un programme, parce que penser aux gens qui
-s'amusent du nom, c'est la moitié du plaisir de l'écriture <i>[rires].</i>
-Nous avions aussi une tradition d'acronymes récursifs consistant à dire que
-le programme créé est similaire à un programme existant. On peut lui donner
-un nom récursif disant que celui-ci n'est pas celui-là . Par exemple, il y
-avait beaucoup d'éditeurs de texte <acronym title="Text Editor and
-COrrector">TECO</acronym> dans les années 60 et 70 et ils étaient
-généralement appelés « quelque-chose-TECO ». à cette époque, un
hacker malin
-appela le sien TINT, pour <cite>Tint Is Not Teco</cite>, le premier acronyme
-récursif. En 1975, j'ai développé le premier éditeur de texte Emacs et il y
-eut de nombreuses imitations. Beaucoup s'appelaient quelque-chose-Emacs,
-mais l'une d'elles était nommée FINE<a id="TransNote2-rev"
-href="#TransNote2"><sup>2</sup></a> pour <cite>Fine is not
-Emacs</cite>. Puis il y eut SINE pour <cite>Sine is not Emacs</cite>, et
-EINE pour <cite>Eine Is Not Emacs</cite>, et il eut MINCE pour <cite>Mince
-Is Not Complete Emacs</cite> <i>[rires]</i>, c'était une imitation
-incomplète. Ensuite EINE fut complètement réécrit et la nouvelle version
-s'appela ZWEI pour <cite>Zwei Was Eine Initially</cite><a
-id="TransNote3-rev" href="#TransNote3"><sup>3</sup></a> <i>[rires]</i>.</p>
-
-<p>J'ai donc cherché un acronyme récursif pour <cite>Something is not
-Unix</cite> (quelque chose n'est pas Unix). J'ai essayé les 26 lettres mais
-aucune ne donnait un mot <i>[rires]</i>. Hum, essayons autre chose. J'ai
-fait une contraction. De cette façon, je pouvais avoir un acronyme de trois
-lettres pour <cite>Something's Not Unix</cite>. J'ai essayé des lettres et
-suis arrivé au mot <cite>GNU</cite> (gnou). C'est le plus drôle de la langue
-anglaise <i>[rires]</i>. C'était ça ! Bien sûr, la raison de cette
drôlerie
-vient du fait que, selon le dictionnaire, il doit se prononcer
-<cite>new</cite>.<a id="TransNote4-rev" href="#TransNote4"><sup>4</sup></a>
-Vous voyez ? C'est pourquoi les gens l'utilisent pour de nombreux jeux de
-mots. Laissez-moi vous dire que c'est le nom d'un animal d'Afrique. Et la
-prononciation africaine a un clic à l'intérieur <i>[rires]</i>. Les
-colonisateurs européens, quand ils arrivèrent là -bas, n'ont pas pris la
-peine d'apprendre à prononcer le clic. Alors ils l'ont laissé de côté et
ont
-mis un <em>g</em> qui signifiait : « Il y a un autre son qui est censé
être
-là mais que nous ne prononçons pas. » <i>[rires]</i> Ce soir, je pars pour
-l'Afrique du Sud et je leur ai demandé de me trouver quelqu'un qui puisse
-m'apprendre à prononcer les clics <i>[rires]</i>. Ainsi je saurai prononcer
-correctement <cite>GNU</cite> quand il s'agit de l'animal.</p>
-
-<p>Mais en ce qui concerne le nom de notre système la prononciation correcte
-est Gueu-nou, prononcez le <em>g</em> dur. Si vous parlez du <cite>new
-operating system</cite><a id="TransNote5-rev"
-href="#TransNote5"><sup>5</sup></a>, vous embrouillez l'esprit des gens,
-parce que cela fait 17Â ans que nous travaillons dessus et qu'il n'est plus
-du tout <cite>new</cite>Â ! Mais il est toujours et sera toujours GNUÂ ; peu
-importe le nombre de gens qui l'appellent Linux par erreur <i>[rires]</i>.</p>
-
-<p>Ainsi en janvier 84, je quitte mon job au MIT pour commencer à écrire des
-morceaux de GNU. Tout de même, ils ont été assez sympa pour me laisser
-utiliser leurs installations. à cette époque, je croyais que j'écrirais tous
-les morceaux du système GNU complet, que je dirais « Venez vous servir !Â
»
-et que les gens commenceraient à l'utiliser. Ce n'est pas comme ça que ça
-s'est passé. Les premiers morceaux que j'ai écrits étaient tout aussi bons
-que les originaux, avec moins de bogues, mais ils n'étaient pas terriblement
-excitants. Personne ne souhaitait particulièrement se les procurer pour les
-installer. Mais en septembre 84, j'ai commencé à écrire GNU Emacs, qui
était
-ma seconde implémentation d'Emacs, et début 85 il fonctionnait. Je pouvais
-l'utiliser pour mon travail d'édition, ce qui était un soulagement car je
-n'avais aucune intention d'utiliser VI, l'éditeur d'Unix
-<i>[rires]</i>. Avant cela, je faisais ce travail sur une autre machine et
-je sauvegardais les fichiers sur le réseau pour pouvoir les tester. Mais
-quand GNU Emacs a fonctionné assez bien pour que je puisse l'utiliser,
-d'autres personnes ont voulu l'utiliser également.</p>
-
-<p>J'ai dû travailler les détails de la distribution. Naturellement, j'ai mis
-une copie sur le FTP anonyme et c'était bien pour les gens qui étaient sur
-le net (ils pouvaient télécharger un fichier tar) mais beaucoup de
-programmeurs n'étaient pas sur le net en 85. Ils m'envoyaient des
-courriels : « Puis-je en avoir une copie ? » Je devais décider quoi leur
-répondre. J'aurais pu dire : « Je veux passer mon temps à écrire d'autres
-logiciels GNU plutôt qu'à enregistrer des bandes ; trouvez-vous un ami avec
-un accès au net qui vous le téléchargera et vous l'enregistrera sur bande.Â
»
-Et je suis sûr que les gens auraient trouvé ces amis tôt ou tard, vous
-savez. Ils auraient eu des copies. Mais, je n'avais pas de travail. En fait,
-je n'ai eu aucune profession depuis mon départ du MIT en 84. Je cherchais
-une façon de gagner de l'argent par mon travail sur le logiciel libre et
-donc j'ai fondé une entreprise de logiciel libre. J'ai annoncé :
-« Envoyez-moi 150 dollars et je vous posterai une bande d'Emacs. » Les
-commandes ont commencé à tomber et vers le milieu de l'année il en pleuvait
-régulièrement.</p>
-
-<p>Je recevais 8 Ã 10 commandes par mois. J'aurais pu au besoin en vivre,
parce
-que j'ai toujours vécu simplement. En gros, je vis comme un étudiant. Et
-j'aime ça car cela signifie que l'argent ne me dicte pas ce que je dois
-faire ; je peux faire ce qui me paraît important. Cela m'a libéré pour
faire
-ce qui semble en valoir la peine. Alors faites un effort pour éviter d'être
-englués dans les habitudes dispendieuses de l'<cite>American way of
-life</cite>, parce qu'autrement ceux qui possèdent l'argent vous dicteront
-quoi faire de votre vie et vous ne pourrez pas faire ce qui est réellement
-important pour vous.</p>
-
-<p>Tout allait bien, mais les gens me disaient : « Qu'entendez vous par
-<cite>free software</cite> si cela coûte 150 dollars ? » <i>[rires]</i> La
-raison de cette question était la confusion induite par l'ambiguïté du mot
-anglais <cite>free</cite>. Une des significations se réfère au prix et une
-autre se réfère à la liberté. Quand je parle de logiciel libre, je me
réfère
-à la liberté et non au prix. Pensez à « libre expression » <cite>[free
-speech]</cite>, pas à « bière gratuite » <cite>[free beer]</cite><a
-id="TransNote6-rev" href="#TransNote6"><sup>6</sup></a> <i>[rires]</i>. En
-tout cas je n'aurais pas passé autant d'années de ma vie pour faire gagner
-moins d'argent aux programmeurs. Ce n'est pas mon but. Je suis moi-même
-programmeur et je ne m'offusque pas de gagner de l'argent. Je ne passerais
-pas ma vie à en gagner mais je ne refuse pas d'en gagner. Et je ne suis pas
-â l'éthique est la même pour tous â je ne suis pas contre le fait qu'un
-autre programmeur en gagne. Je ne veux pas faire baisser les prix, ce n'est
-pas du tout le problème. L'enjeu, c'est la liberté, la liberté de chaque
-personne qui utilise un logiciel, qu'elle sache programmer ou non.</p>
-
-<p>à ce stade je dois vous donner une définition de ce qu'est le logiciel
-libre. Je préfère aller au concret car dire simplement « Je crois en la
-liberté » est vide de sens. Il y a tant de libertés différentes en
-lesquelles croire, et qui sont en conflit l'une avec l'autre, que la vraie
-question politique est : « Quelles sont les libertés importantes, celles
-dont on doit s'assurer que tout le monde les possède ? »</p>
-
-<p>Maintenant je vais vous donner ma réponse dans ce domaine particulier
qu'est
-l'usage du logiciel. Un programme est libre pour vous, utilisateur
-particulier, si vous bénéficiez des libertés suivantes :</p>
-
-<ul>
-<li>d'abord, la liberté 0 : la liberté d'utiliser un logiciel pour
n'importe
-quel usage, à votre convenance ;</li>
-<li>la liberté 1 : la liberté de vous aider vous-même en modifiant le
programme
-pour répondre à vos besoins ;</li>
-<li>la liberté 2 : celle d'aider votre prochain en distribuant des copies du
-programme ;</li>
-<li>et la liberté 3 : celle d'aider à bâtir votre communauté en publiant
une
-version améliorée pour que les autres puissent bénéficier de votre
travail.</li>
-</ul>
-
-<p>Si vous avez toutes ces libertés, le programme est un logiciel
libre…
-<em>pour vous</em>, et c'est crucial, c'est pourquoi je le formule de cette
-façon. J'expliquerai pourquoi plus tard quand je parlerai de la licence
-publique générale GNU, mais pour le moment j'en suis à une question plus
-basique, la définition du logiciel libre.</p>
-
-<p>La liberté 0 est assez évidente. Si vous n'êtes même pas autorisé Ã
faire
-fonctionner le programme comme vous le souhaitez, c'est un programme
-sacrément restrictif ! La plupart des programmes vous donnent la liberté 0
-et la liberté 0 découle, juridiquement, des libertés 1, 2 et 3 ; c'est de
-cette façon que fonctionne le droit du copyright. Ainsi les libertés qui
-distinguent le logiciel libre du logiciel ordinaire sont les libertés 1, 2
-et 3 ; je vais donc en parler plus en détail et je dirai en quoi elles sont
-importantes.</p>
-
-<p>La liberté 1 est celle de modifier le logiciel pour l'adapter à vos
-besoins. Cela peut signifier corriger des bogues. Cela peut signifier
-ajouter de nouvelles fonctionnalités. Cela peut signifier porter le logiciel
-sur un autre système informatique. Cela peut signifier traduire tous les
-messages d'erreur en navajo. Vous devez pouvoir apporter toutes les
-modifications que vous voulez, librement.</p>
-
-<p>Il est évident que les programmeurs professionnels peuvent utiliser cette
-liberté de façon très effective, mais ils ne sont pas les seuls. N'importe
-quelle personne d'intelligence normale peut apprendre un peu de
-programmation. Vous savez, il y a des travaux difficiles et des travaux
-faciles. Tout le monde n'apprend pas suffisamment pour faire les travaux
-difficiles, mais beaucoup peuvent apprendre assez pour faire des travaux
-faciles, de la même façon qu'il y a 50 ans, beaucoup, vraiment beaucoup
-d'Américains apprenaient à réparer une voiture, ce qui a permis aux
-Ãtats-Unis d'avoir une armée motorisée pendant la seconde guerre mondiale et
-de gagner. Alors, chose très importante, avoir beaucoup de bricoleurs.</p>
-
-<p>Et si vous refusez d'apprendre la technologie, cela veut dire que vous avez
-probablement beaucoup d'amis et que vous êtes doué dans l'art de les obliger
-Ã vous rendre service <i>[rires]</i>. Certains d'entre eux sont probablement
-informaticiens. Alors vous pouvez demander à l'un de vos amis
-informaticiens : « Pourrais-tu changer ceci pour moi ? Ajouter cette
-fonction ? » Beaucoup de gens peuvent donc bénéficier de la libertéÂ
1.</p>
-
-<p>Si vous n'avez pas cette liberté, cela cause un préjudice pratique,
matériel
-à la société ; cela fait de vous un prisonnier de votre logiciel. J'ai
-expliqué comment c'était dans le cas de l'imprimante laser. Vous savez, elle
-marchait mal et nous ne pouvions la réparer parce que nous étions
-prisonniers de notre logiciel.</p>
-
-<p>Mais cela affecte aussi le moral des gens. Si l'ordinateur est constamment
-frustrant et qu'ils l'utilisent, leur vies vont devenir frustrantes. Et
-s'ils l'utilisent dans leur métier, leur métier va devenir frustrant ; ils
-vont détester leur métier. Vous savez, les gens se protègent de la
-frustration en décidant de s'en moquer. Ils en arrivent à dire : « Bon,
j'ai
-fait acte de présence au boulot, c'est tout ce que j'ai à faire. Si je ne
-peux pas progresser ce n'est pas mon affaire, c'est l'affaire du patron. »
-Et quand ça arrive, c'est mauvais pour eux et c'est mauvais pour la société
-toute entière. C'est la liberté 1, la liberté de s'aider soi-même.</p>
-
-<p>La liberté 2 est celle d'aider votre prochain en distribuant des copies du
-programme. Pour des êtres qui pensent et qui s'instruisent, partager un
-savoir utile est un acte fondamental d'amitié. Quand ces êtres utilisent des
-ordinateurs, cet acte d'amitié prend la forme d'un partage de logiciel. Les
-amis partagent entre eux, les amis s'aident mutuellement. C'est la nature de
-l'amitié. Et de fait, l'esprit d'entraide â la disposition à vouloir aider
-son prochain volontairement â est la ressource la plus importante de la
-société. Elle fait la différence entre une société vivable et une jungle
où
-chacun s'entredévore. Cette importance a été reconnue par les grandes
-religions du monde depuis des milliers d'années et elles essaient
-explicitement d'encourager cette attitude.</p>
-
-<p>Quand j'allais à la maternelle, les institutrices essayaient de nous
-apprendre cette attitude, l'esprit de partage, en nous la faisant
-pratiquer. Elles pensaient qu'on apprend en faisant. Alors elles disaient :
-« Si tu apportes des bonbons à l'école, tu ne peux pas tout garder pour
toi,
-tu dois les partager avec les autres enfants. » En nous éduquant, la
société
-a fait en sorte de nous apprendre cet esprit de coopération. Et pourquoi
-faut-il faire cela ? Parce que les gens ne sont pas totalement
-coopératifs. C'est un aspect de la nature humaine mais il y en a
-d'autres. Il y en a beaucoup. Alors, si vous voulez une société meilleure,
-vous devez travailler à encourager l'esprit de partage. Vous savez, ce ne
-sera jamais à 100%. Ãa se comprend, les gens doivent aussi prendre soin
-d'eux-mêmes. Mais si nous le rendons plus fort, nous nous en porterons tous
-mieux.</p>
-
-<p>De nos jours, selon le gouvernement des Ãtats-Unis, les enseignants sont
-censés faire exactement le contraire. « Oh Johnny, tu as apporté un
-programme à l'école ! Eh bien, ne le partage pas. Oh non ! Le partage c'est
-mal ; le partage, ça veut dire que tu es un pirate. »</p>
-
-<p>Qu'entendent-ils par le mot « pirate » ? Qu'aider son voisin est
-l'équivalent moral d'une attaque de bateau <i>[rires]</i>.</p>
-
-<p>Que diraient Jésus et Bouddha à ce sujet ? Prenez vos chefs religieux
-favoris. Je ne sais pas, peut-être Manson aurait dit quelque chose de
-différent <i>[rires]</i>. Qui sait ce que L. Ron Hubbard aurait dit,
-mais…</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : <i>[inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Bien sûr, il est mort. Mais il ne l'admettent
-pas. Quoi ?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Les autres aussi sont
-morts.. <i>[rires]</i>. Charles Manson aussi est mort <i>[rires]</i>. Ils
-sont morts, Jésus est mort, Bouddha est mort…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Oui, c'est vrai <i>[rires]</i>. De ce point de
-vue Ron Hubbard n'est pas pire que les autres <i>[rires]</i>. De toute
-façon… <i>[inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : L. Ron utilisait du logiciel libre ; ça l'a
-libéré de Zanu <i>[rires]</i>.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Bon, quoi qu'il en soit, je pense que c'est
-vraiment la raison la plus importante pour laquelle les logiciels doivent
-être libres. Nous ne pouvons nous permettre de polluer la ressource la plus
-importante de la société. C'est vrai que ce n'est pas une ressource physique
-comme l'air propre et l'eau propre. C'est une ressource psychosociale, mais
-c'est tout aussi réel et cela fait une formidable différence pour nos vies.
-Les actions que nous menons influencent les pensées des autres. Quand nous
-clamons alentour « Ne partagez pas avec les autres ! », s'ils nous
entendent
-nous avons eu un effet sur la société, et pas un bon effet. C'est la
-liberté 2, celle d'aider son voisin.</p>
-
-<p>Oh, j'oubliais, si vous n'avez pas cette liberté, cela ne cause pas
-seulement un préjudice à cette ressource psychosociale, c'est du gâchis
â un
-préjudice pratique, matériel. Si le programme a un propriétaire et que le
-propriétaire s'arrange pour que chaque utilisateur doive payer pour s'en
-servir, certaines personnes diront : « Pas d'importance, je m'en passerai.Â
»
-Et c'est du gâchis, du gâchis délibéré. Ce qui est intéressant avec les
-logiciels c'est que ce n'est pas parce que vous avez moins d'utilisateurs
-que vous devez en produire moins. Si moins de gens achètent des voitures,
-vous fabriquerez moins de voitures. Là il y a une économie. Il y a des
-ressources à allouer ou non à la fabrication des voitures. Aussi vous pouvez
-dire qu'avoir un prix pour une voiture est une bonne chose. Cela évite que
-les gens ne gaspillent leurs ressources dans l'achat de voitures dont ils
-n'ont pas vraiment besoin. Mais si fabriquer une voiture supplémentaire
-n'utilisait aucune ressource, on n'aurait aucun intérêt à économiser sur la
-fabrication des voitures. Ainsi, pour les objets physiques, comme les
-voitures, il faudra toujours des ressources pour en faire un de plus â pour
-chaque exemplaire supplémentaire.</p>
-
-<p>Mais pour les logiciels ce n'est pas vrai. N'importe qui peut en faire une
-copie, et c'est presque banal de le faire. Cela ne consomme aucune ressource
-sauf un tout petit peu d'électricité. Il n'y a rien à économiser ; aucune
-ressource ne serait mieux utilisée si nous appliquions cette désincitation
-financière à l'usage du logiciel. Vous trouvez souvent des gens qui prennent
-les conséquences d'un raisonnement économique valable pour les autres
-activités et prétendent les transposer au logiciel â où les prémisses
de ce
-raisonnement ne s'appliquent pas â tout en supposant que les résultats
-resteront valables, bien que l'argument n'ait aucune base dans le domaine du
-logiciel. Les prémisses ne marchent pas dans ce cas-là . C'est très important
-de voir comment on arrive à une conclusion et de quelles prémisses elle
-dépend pour voir si elle est valide. Donc, liberté 2, la liberté d'aider
son
-voisin.</p>
-
-<p>La liberté 3 est celle d'aider à bâtir votre communauté en publiant une
-version améliorée du logiciel. Au début les gens me disaient souvent : «Â
Si
-le logiciel est gratuit, personne ne sera payé, alors pourquoi
-travailler ? » Naturellement, ils confondaient les deux significations de
-<cite>free</cite>, donc leur raisonnement était basé sur un
-malentendu. Aujourd'hui nous pouvons comparer cette théorie avec les faits
-empiriques et constater que des centaines de gens sont payés pour faire du
-logiciel libre et que plus de 100 000 le font bénévolement. Il y a plein de
-gens qui font des logiciels libres pour différentes raisons.</p>
-
-<p>Quand j'ai publié le premier GNU Emacs â le premier morceau de GNU que
les
-gens ont réellement voulu utiliser â et qu'il a commencé à avoir des
-utilisateurs, après un certain temps j'ai eu un message disant : « Je pense
-que j'ai vu un bogue dans le code source et voici une solution. » Et j'ai eu
-un autre message : « Voici du code pour ajouter une nouvelle fonction. »
Et
-une nouvelle correction, et une nouvelle fonction. Et une autre, et une
-autre, jusqu'à ce qu'elles se déversent sur moi si vite qu'utiliser toute
-cette aide devenait un gros travail. Microsoft n'a pas ce problème
-<i>[rires]</i>.</p>
-
-<p>En fin de compte, des gens ont remarqué ce phénomène. Vous voyez, dans
les
-années 80, beaucoup parmi nous pensaient que le logiciel libre ne serait
-peut-être pas aussi bon que le non libre parce que nous n'aurions pas assez
-d'argent pour payer des gens. Et bien sûr, les gens qui comme moi accordent
-de la valeur à la communauté et à la liberté ont dit : « Nous
utiliserons
-des logiciels libres tout de même. » Cela vaut le coup de faire un petit
-sacrifice au niveau de la simple commodité technique pour avoir la
-liberté. Mais ce que les gens ont constaté vers 1990, c'est que nos
-logiciels étaient en fait meilleurs, qu'ils étaient plus puissants et plus
-fiables que les alternatives privatrices.</p>
-
-<p>Au début des années 90 quelqu'un a trouvé un moyen de mesurer
-scientifiquement la fiabilité d'un logiciel. Voilà ce qu'il a fait. Il a
-pris plusieurs logiciels qui faisaient les mêmes tâches, exactement les
-mêmes tâches, sur différents systèmes. Parce qu'il y a certains utilitaires
-de base sur tous les systèmes Unix. Et les tâches qu'ils effectuent, nous le
-savons, se ressemblent beaucoup, ou bien elles suivent les spécifications
-POSIX. Les logiciels étaient donc tous les mêmes en termes de tâche
-effectuée, mais ils étaient écrits et maintenus par des gens différents, et
-développés séparément ; leur code était différent. Le chercheur a
décidé
-d'introduire des données aléatoires dans ces programmes et de mesurer quand
-ils plantaient ou se bloquaient. Il a fait les mesures, et les programmes
-les plus fiables étaient les programmes GNU. Toutes les alternatives
-privatrices étaient moins fiables. Alors il a publié ça et l'a dit à tous
-les développeurs, et quelques années plus tard il a fait la même expérience
-avec les dernières versions et a obtenu le même résultat : les versions GNU
-étaient les plus fiables. Vous savez, il y a des cliniques pour le cancer et
-des services d'urgence <cite>[911]</cite> qui utilisent le système GNU parce
-qu'il est très fiable et que la fiabilité est très importante pour eux.</p>
-
-<p>Quoi qu'il en soit, il y a même un groupe de gens qui se concentrent sur
cet
-avantage particulier et en font la raison la plus importante pour que les
-utilisateurs puissent faire ces diverses choses et avoir ces libertés. Si
-vous m'avez écouté, vous aurez noté, vous aurez vu que lorsque je parle du
-mouvement du logiciel libre, je parle d'enjeux éthiques et du type de
-société où nous voulons vivre, de ce qui fait une bonne société, autant
que
-des avantages matériels. Les deux sont importants. C'est cela le mouvement
-du logiciel libre.</p>
-
-<p>Cet autre groupe de gens, qui est appelé mouvement open source, ne parle
que
-d'avantages pratiques. Ils refusent d'en faire une question de principe. Ils
-ne considèrent pas comme un droit que les gens aient la liberté de partager
-avec leur prochain, de voir ce que le programme fait et de le modifier s'il
-ne leur plaît pas. Ils disent cependant que c'est utile que les gens aient
-ces droits. Alors ils vont voir des entreprises et leur disent : « Vous
-savez, vous pourriez gagner plus d'argent si vous laissiez les gens faire
-tout ça. » Ainsi vous voyez que, jusqu'à un certain point, ils mènent les
-gens dans la même direction, mais pour des raisons philosophiques
-complètement, fondamentalement différentes.</p>
-
-<p>Parce que sur l'enjeu de fond, l'enjeu éthique, les deux mouvements ne sont
-pas d'accord. Dans le mouvement du logiciel libre on dit : « Vous avez droit
-à ces libertés ; personne ne doit vous empêcher de faire ces choses. »
Dans
-le mouvement open source on dit : « Oui, on peut vous les interdire mais
-nous allons essayer de les convaincre de daigner vous les laisser faire. »
-D'accord, ils ont apporté leur contribution, ils ont convaincu un certain
-nombre d'entreprises d'apporter des logiciels importants à la communauté du
-libre. Le mouvement open source a donc contribué à notre communauté de
-manière considérable. Nous travaillons ensemble sur des projets pratiques,
-mais philosophiquement il y a un désaccord énorme.</p>
-
-<p>Malheureusement, c'est le mouvement open source qui reçoit le plus d'aide
de
-l'industrie. Beaucoup d'articles sur notre travail le décrivent comme open
-source et beaucoup de gens pensent innocemment que nous faisons tous partie
-du mouvement open source. C'est pour cela que je mentionne cette
-distinction, je veux que vous soyez conscients que le mouvement du logiciel
-libre, qui a amené notre communauté à l'existence et développé le système
-d'exploitation libre, est toujours là , et que nous défendons toujours cette
-philosophie éthique. Je tiens à ce que vous le sachiez pour éviter que vous
-ne désinformiez quelqu'un d'autre sans vous en apercevoir.</p>
-
-<p>Mais c'est aussi pour que vous puissiez vous situer.</p>
-
-<p>Vous savez, c'est à vous de voir quel mouvement vous soutenez. Vous serez
-peut-être d'accord avec le mouvement du logiciel libre et avec mes
-vues. Vous serez peut-être d'accord avec le mouvement open source. Vous
-serez peut-être en désaccord avec les deux. C'est à vous de décider quelle
-est votre position sur ces enjeux politiques.</p>
-
-<p>Mais si vous êtes d'accord avec le mouvement du logiciel libre â si vous
-voyez qu'il y a là un enjeu, que les gens dont les vies sont contrôlées et
-dirigées par cette décision ont aussi leur mot à dire â alors j'espère
que
-vous exprimerez votre accord avec le mouvement du logiciel libre. Une façon
-de le faire est d'utiliser le terme « logiciel libre », ne serait-ce que
-pour aider les gens à savoir qu'il existe.</p>
-
-<p>La liberté 3 est donc très importante pratiquement et sur le plan
-psychosocial. Si vous n'avez pas cette liberté, cela cause un préjudice
-pratique et matériel parce que la communauté ne se développe pas et que nous
-ne pouvons pas faire de logiciels puissants et fiables. Mais cela cause
-aussi un préjudice psychosocial qui affecte l'esprit de coopération
-scientifique â l'idée que nous travaillons ensemble à l'avancement du
savoir
-humain. Vous savez, le progrès scientifique dépend de façon cruciale de la
-capacité des gens à travailler ensemble. Et pourtant, même de nos jours,
-vous voyez souvent chaque petit groupe de scientifiques agir comme s'il
-était en guerre avec chacun des autres gangs de scientifiques et
-d'ingénieurs. Et s'ils ne partagent pas les uns avec les autres, c'est un
-frein pour tous.</p>
-
-<p>Nous venons de voir les trois libertés qui distinguent le logiciel libre du
-logiciel ordinaire. La Liberté 1 est celle de s'aider soi même, d'apporter
-des changements en fonction de ses besoins propres. La liberté 2 est celle
-d'aider son prochain en distribuant des copies. Et la liberté 3 est la
-liberté d'aider à construire sa communauté en apportant des modifications et
-en les publiant à l'usage des autres. Si vous avez toutes ces libertés, ce
-logiciel est libre pour vous. Maintenant pourquoi est-ce que je définis cela
-en terme d'utilisateur particulier ? Est ce que c'est du logiciel libre pour
-vous (<i>en désignant un membre du public</i>) ? Est-ce que c'est du
-logiciel libre pour vous (<i>en désignant un autre membre du public</i>) ?
-Est-ce que c'est du logiciel libre pour vous (<i>en désignant encore un
-autre membre du public</i>) ? Oui ?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Pouvez-vous expliquer un peu la différence
entre
-les libertés 2 et 3 ?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Eh bien, elles sont certainement liées. Parce
-que si vous n'avez pas la liberté de redistribuer vous avez encore moins la
-liberté de distribuer une version modifiée. Mais ce sont des activités
-différentes.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Oh.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : La liberté 2 c'est, vous le savez, lisez-le,
que
-vous pouvez faire une copie exacte et la donner à vos amis de sorte que vos
-amis puissent l'utiliser. Ou bien vous faites des copies exactes et vous les
-vendez à tout un tas de gens pour qu'ils puissent les utiliser.</p>
-
-<p>La liberté 3, c'est quand vous apportez des améliorations ou du moins
quand
-vous pensez que c'est des améliorations et que d'autres personnes sont
-d'accord avec vous. Voilà , c'est cela la différence. Oh, j'oubliais un point
-essentiel. Les libertés 1 et 3 dépendent de l'accès au code source. Parce
-que modifier un programme binaire c'est extrêmement difficile <i>[rires]</i>
-â même des changements très insignifiants comme d'utiliser quatre chiffres
-pour la date <i>[rires]</i>, si vous n'avez pas le source. Aussi pour des
-raisons pratiques l'accès au code source est une condition préalable, un
-prérequis du logiciel libre.</p>
-
-<p>Pourquoi définir le logiciel libre comme logiciel libre <em>pour
vous</em>Â ?
-La raison en est que le même programme peut être libre pour certaines
-personnes et non libres pour d'autres. Cela pourrait sembler paradoxal, mais
-laissez-moi vous donnez un exemple de cette situation. Un très grand
-exemple, peut-être le plus grand exemple de ce problème, est le système
-X Window qui a été développé au MIT et publié sous une licence qui en a
fait
-un logiciel libre. Si vous aviez la version MIT avec la licence MIT, vous
-aviez les libertés 1, 2 et 3. C'était du logiciel libre pour vous. Mais
-parmi ceux qui avaient des copies, il y avait divers fabricants
-d'ordinateurs qui distribuaient des systèmes Unix. Ils ont fait les
-changements nécessaires pour que X fonctionne sur leurs systèmes ; vous
-savez, probablement quelques centaines de lignes sur les centaines de
-milliers de lignes de X. Ensuite ils l'ont compilé, ils ont placé les
-binaires dans leur système Unix et ils ont distribué le tout avec la même
-clause de non-divulgation. Alors des milliers de gens ont eu ces copies. Ils
-avaient le système X Window mais aucune de ces libertés. Ce n'était pas du
-logiciel libre <em>pour eux</em>.</p>
-
-<p>Il y avait donc un paradoxe : qu'X soit libre ou non dépendait de
l'endroit
-où l'on faisait la mesure. Si vous faisiez la mesure à la sortie du groupe
-de développeurs, vous disiez : « J'ai observé toutes ces libertés, c'est
du
-logiciel libre. » Si vous faisiez la mesure parmi les utilisateurs, vous
-disiez : « Hum, la plupart des utilisateurs n'ont pas ces libertés, ce
n'est
-pas du logiciel libre. » Les gens qui développaient X n'y voyaient aucun
-problème car leur principal souci était essentiellement la popularité,
-l'ego. Ils voulaient un grand succès professionnel. Ils voulaient pouvoir se
-dire : « Aah, un tas de gens utilisent nos logiciels ! » Et c'était
vrai, un
-tas de gens utilisaient leurs logiciels, mais ils n'avaient pas la
liberté.</p>
-
-<p>Au projet GNU en revanche, ce serait un échec si la même chose arrivait Ã
un
-logiciel GNU, car notre but n'est pas simplement d'être populaires. Notre
-but est de donner aux gens la liberté, d'encourager la coopération et de
-permettre aux gens de coopérer. Souvenez-vous, ne forcez jamais personne Ã
-coopérer mais faites en sorte que chacun(e) ait la permission de coopérer,
-que chacun(e) ait la liberté de le faire si il ou elle le souhaite. Si des
-millions de personnes utilisaient des versions non libres de GNU, ce ne
-serait pas du tout un succès, l'ensemble aurait été perverti et détourné
de
-son but.</p>
-
-<p>J'ai donc cherché un moyen d'empêcher que cela n'arrive. La méthode que
j'ai
-trouvée est appelée « copyleft ». Ãa s'appelle copyleft car c'est un peu
-comme prendre un copyright et le retourner <i>[rires]</i>. Juridiquement le
-copyleft fonctionne sur la base du copyright. Nous utilisons le droit du
-copyright tel qu'il existe, mais nous l'utilisons pour atteindre un but très
-différent. Voici ce que nous faisons. Nous disons : « Ce programme est sous
-copyright. » Et bien sûr, par défaut, cela signifie qu'il est interdit de
le
-copier, de le distribuer et de le modifier. Mais alors nous disons : « Vous
-êtes autorisé à en distribuer des copies. Vous êtes autorisé à le
-modifier. Vous êtes autorisé à en distribuer des copies modifiées et
-étendues. Changez-le comme vous le souhaitez. »</p>
-
-<p>Mais il y a une condition. Cette condition est évidemment la raison pour
-laquelle nous nous sommes donnés tout ce mal â pour pouvoir
-l'introduire. Cette condition dit : « Chaque fois que vous distribuez
-quelque chose qui contient un morceau de ce programme, vous devez distribuer
-le tout aux mêmes conditions, ni plus, ni moins. Vous pouvez donc modifier
-le programme et le distribuer, mais les gens qui l'auront reçu de vous
-bénéficieront de toute la liberté que vous avez reçue de nous. Pas
seulement
-pour certaines parties de ce programme â les extraits que vous avez prisÂ
â
-mais aussi pour tous les autres morceaux du programme qu'ils ont reçu de
-vous. L'intégralité de ce programme doit être libre pour eux. »</p>
-
-<p>Les libertés de redistribuer et de modifier le programme deviennent des
-droits inaliénables â un concept hérité de la Déclaration
d'indépendance<a
-id="TransNote7-rev" href="#TransNote7"><sup>7</sup></a>Â ; des droits dont
-nous nous assurons qu'ils ne peuvent vous être retirés. Et bien sûr la
-licence spécifique qui incarne l'idée du copyleft est la « licence publique
-générale GNU » (GNU <acronym title="General Public License">GPL</acronym>),
-une licence controversée car elle a la force de dire non à ceux qui
-voudraient parasiter notre communauté.</p>
-
-<p>Il y a beaucoup de gens qui n'apprécient pas nos idéaux de liberté. Ils
-seraient très contents de prendre le travail que nous avons fait, d'en faire
-une base pour la distribution de logiciel non libre et d'inciter les gens Ã
-abandonner leur liberté. Le résultat, si nous les laissions faire, serait
-que nous ne développerions des programmes libres que pour être constamment
-concurrencés par des versions améliorées de nos propres programmes. Ãa ne
-serait pas drôle.</p>
-
-<p>Et beaucoup de gens penseraient : « Je suis volontaire pour donner de mon
-temps afin de contribuer à ma communauté, mais pourquoi contribuer à un
-programme privateur de telle ou telle société ? » Vous savez, certaines
-personnes ne trouvent pas ça forcément mal, mais elles veulent être
-rétribuées si elles le font. Moi, je préférerais ne pas le faire du
tout.</p>
-
-<p>Mais les deux groupes de gens â ceux qui comme moi disent « Je ne veux
pas
-aider un programme non libre à prendre pied dans notre communauté » et ceux
-qui pensent « Je veux bien améliorer un programme non libre, mais ils ont
-intérêt à me payer » â ont une bonne raison d'utiliser la licence GPL.
Parce
-que cela dit à ces sociétés « Vous ne pouvez pas juste prendre mon travail
-et le redistribuer sans la liberté », ce que permettent les licences sans
-copyleft comme la licence de XÂ Windows.<a id="TransNote8-rev"
-href="#TransNote8"><sup>8</sup></a></p>
-
-<p>C'est ça la grande distinction entre les deux catégories de logiciel
libre ;
-elle porte sur la licence. Il y a les programmes placés sous copyleft afin
-que la licence défende la liberté du logiciel pour chaque utilisateur, et il
-y a les programmes sans copyleft, pour lesquels des versions non libres sont
-permises. Quelqu'un <em>a la possibilité</em> de prendre ces programmes et
-d'en ôter la liberté ; on peut donc les obtenir dans une version non
libre.</p>
-
-<p>Et ce problème persiste. Il existe encore des versions non libres de
-X Windows qui sont utilisées sur nos systèmes d'exploitation libres. Il y a
-même des matériels qui ne sont gérés que par des versions non libres et
-c'est un problème majeur dans notre communauté. Cependant, je ne dirais pas
-que X Windows soit une mauvaise chose ; je dirais que les développeurs n'ont
-pas fait du mieux qu'il pouvaient, mais ils ont <em>effectivement</em>
-publié une grande quantité de logiciel que nous pouvons tous utiliser.</p>
-
-<p>Il y a une grande différence entre imparfait et mauvais, vous savez. Il y a
-de nombreux degrés entre le bien et le mal. Nous devons résister à la
-tentation de dire : « Si vous n'avez pas fait absolument du mieux possible,
-vous ne valez rien. » Les gens qui ont développé X Windows ont fait une
-grande contribution à notre communauté, mais ils auraient pu mieux
-faire. Ils auraient pu mettre des morceaux du programme sous copyleft et
-cela aurait empêché ces versions non libres d'être distribuées par
d'autres.</p>
-
-<p>Cela dit, le fait que la GPL défende votre liberté â utilise le droit
du
-copyright pour défendre cette liberté â est la raison pour laquelle
-Microsoft l'attaque aujourd'hui. Voyez, Microsoft voudrait vraiment prendre
-tout ce code que nous avons écrit et le mettre dans des programmes
-privateurs. Faire ajouter quelques améliorations ou simplement des
-changements incompatibles par quelqu'un, cela suffirait. <i>[rires]</i>.</p>
-
-<p>Vous savez, avec leur puissance marketing, les gens de chez Microsoft n'ont
-pas vraiment besoin de faire une version meilleure pour nous supplanter. Ils
-ont juste besoin de la rendre différente et incompatible, et ensuite de la
-mettre sur le bureau de tout le monde. Donc ils n'aiment pas du tout la GPL,
-parce que la GNU GPL ne leur permet pas de le faire. Elle n'autorise pas la
-stratégie de la pieuvre <cite>[embrace and extend]</cite>. Elle dit : « Si
-vous voulez vous servir de notre code dans vos programmes, vous pouvez, mais
-vous devrez aussi partager, et partager à l'identique. Les changements que
-vous avez faits devront pouvoir être partagés. » C'est une coopération
dans
-les deux sens, une vraie coopération.</p>
-
-<p>Beaucoup d'entreprises, même de grosses sociétés comme IBM et HP, sont
-d'accord pour utiliser nos logiciels dans cet esprit. IBM et HP contribuent
-à de substantielles améliorations des logiciels GNU et développent d'autres
-logiciels libres. Mais Microsoft ne veut pas de ça. Ils prétendent que le
-business est incompatible avec la GPL. Eh bien, si le business n'inclut pas
-IBM, et HP, et SUN, peut-être qu'ils ont raison <i>[rires]</i>. J'en dirai
-plus ultérieurement sur le sujet.</p>
-
-<p>Je dois d'abord terminer l'exposé historique. En 1984 nous avons entrepris,
-non seulement d'écrire du logiciel libre, mais de faire quelque chose de
-plus cohérent : développer un système d'exploitation libre qui ne comprenne
-que des logiciels libres. Cela signifiait que nous devions l'écrire morceau
-par morceau. Bien sûr, nous cherchions en permanence des raccourcis. C'était
-un tel travail que les gens disaient que nous ne pourrions pas y arriver. Je
-pensais qu'il y avait tout de même une chance mais que ça valait la peine
-d'essayer des raccourcis. Alors nous avons continué à chercher. Y a-t-il un
-programme déjà écrit que nous pouvons adapter et intégrer, de sorte qu'il
-n'ait pas à être réécrit en entier ? Par exemple le système X Window.
C'est
-vrai qu'il n'était pas sous copyleft, mais il était libre et donc nous
-pouvions l'utiliser.</p>
-
-<p>En fait j'ai toujours voulu inclure un système de fenêtrage. J'en avais
-écrit deux quand j'étais au MIT, avant de commencer GNU. C'est pourquoi,
-bien qu'en 1984 Unix n'ait pas été doté d'un système de fenêtrage, j'ai
-décidé que GNU en aurait un. Mais nous n'avons jamais eu l'occasion de
-l'écrire car X Window est arrivé et j'ai dit : « Super ! Un gros
travail que
-nous n'aurons pas à faire. Utilisons X et nous ferons marcher les autres
-morceaux de GNU avec X le moment venu. » Nous avons aussi trouvé d'autres
-logiciels qui avaient été écrits par d'autres personnes, comme le formateur
-de texte TeX et une bibliothèque provenant de Berkeley. En ce temps-là il y
-avait l'Unix de Berkeley, mais ce n'était pas un logiciel libre. Cette
-bibliothèque venait d'un autre groupe de Berkeley, qui faisait des
-recherches sur la virgule flottante. Nous avons donc agencé ces morceaux.</p>
-
-<p>En octobre 85, nous avons fondé la <cite>Free Software Foundation</cite>
-(Fondation pour le logiciel libre). Veuillez donc noter que le projet GNU
-est venu avant. La FSF est venue après, presque deux ans après l'annonce du
-projet. La FSF est une fondation à but non lucratif qui lève des fonds pour
-promouvoir la liberté de partager et modifier les logiciels. Dans les
-années 80, une des choses principales que nous avons faites avec nos fonds
-fut de recruter des gens pour écrire des morceaux de GNU. Des programmes
-essentiels comme le shell et la bibliothèque C ont été écrits comme cela,
-ainsi que des parties d'autres programmes. Le programme <code>tar</code>,
-qui est absolument essentiel bien que pas du tout passionnant, fut écrit
-comme ça <i>[rires]</i>. Je crois que GNU grep a été écrit comme ça
-également. Si bien que nous approchions du but.</p>
-
-<p>Vers 1991, il ne manquait plus qu'un morceau essentiel, le noyau. Pourquoi
-ai-je tardé à m'occuper du noyau ? Probablement parce que l'ordre dans
-lequel vous mettez les choses n'a pas d'importance, du moins
-techniquement. Il faut tout faire de toute façon. Et aussi parce que nous
-pensions trouver un début de noyau ailleurs. C'est ce qui s'est passé. Nous
-avons trouvé Mach qui avait été développé à Carnegie-Mellon. Ce n'était
pas
-le noyau complet mais sa moitié inférieure, son socle. Il nous fallait
-écrire la partie supérieure, des choses comme le système de fichiers, le
-code réseau, etc. Fonctionnant au-dessus de Mach comme programmes
-utilisateur, ils étaient en principe plus faciles à déboguer. On pouvait
-utiliser un vrai débogueur de code source qui s'exécutait en même temps. Je
-pensais qu'ainsi nous serions capables de faire cette partie supérieure en
-peu de temps. Mais cela n'a pas marché comme prévu. Ces processus
-asynchrones et <cite>multi-threads</cite>, s'envoyant des messages les uns
-aux autres, se sont révélés très difficiles à déboguer et le système
basé
-sur Mach, sur lequel nous démarrions, possédait un environnement de débogage
-calamiteux. Il n'était pas fiable et avait divers problèmes. Cela nous a
-pris des années et des années pour faire fonctionner le noyau GNU.</p>
-
-<p>Mais heureusement notre communauté n'a pas eu à attendre le noyau GNU,
parce
-qu'en 1991 Linus Torvalds développa un autre noyau libre appelé Linux. Il
-utilisait le vieux schéma du noyau monolithique et il se trouve qu'il
-réussit à le faire marcher beaucoup plus vite que nous le nôtre. C'est
-probablement une erreur que j'ai faite, le choix de cette architecture. De
-toute façon, au début on ne savait rien de Linux car il ne nous a jamais
-contacté pour en parler bien qu'il ait été au courant du projet GNU. Mais il
-l'a annoncé à d'autres gens et à d'autres endroits sur le net. Alors
-d'autres gens ont fait le travail de combiner Linux avec le reste du système
-GNU pour en faire un système d'exploitation libre complet ; essentiellement
-pour faire la combinaison GNU plus Linux.</p>
-
-<p>Toutefois ils l'ont fait sans s'en rendre compte. « Vous voyez, »
-disaient-ils, « nous avons un noyau. Allons à la recherche de morceaux qui
-puissent s'assembler avec lui. » Alors ils ont regardé partout, et
-surprise… tout ce dont ils avaient besoin était disponible ! «Â
Quelle
-bonne fortune, » dirent-ils, <i>[rires]</i> « tout est là . Il y a tout ce
-dont nous avons besoin. Prenons simplement tous ces morceaux et mettons-les
-ensemble, ainsi nous aurons un système complet. »</p>
-
-<p>Ils ne savaient pas que la plus grande partie de ce qu'ils trouvaient,
-c'était des morceaux du système GNU. Ils n'ont pas compris qu'ils plaçaient
-Linux dans le dernier trou du système GNU. Ils pensaient qu'ils prenaient
-Linux et qu'ils en faisaient un système. Alors ils l'ont appelé « système
-Linux ».</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : <i>[inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Vous entends pas… Quoi ?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : <i>[inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Bien je crois que ce n'est pas vraiment…
-C'est provincial, vous savez.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Mais c'est plus une bonne fortune que de
trouver
-X et Mach ?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Exact. La différence, c'est que les gens qui
ont
-développé X et Mach n'avaient pas pour but de faire un système
-d'exploitation libre complet. Nous étions les seuls à avoir ce but et c'est
-notre travail acharné qui a fait que le système existe. Nous avons en
-réalité fait plus de travail que n'importe quel autre projet. Ce n'est pas
-une coïncidence car ces gens… ils ont écrit des parties utiles du
-système, mais ne l'ont pas fait parce qu'ils voulaient finir le système. Ils
-avaient d'autres raisons.</p>
-
-<p>Les gens qui ont développé X pensaient que de mettre au point un système
de
-fenêtrage sur le réseau serait une bonne chose, et ça l'était. Et il se
-trouve que cela nous a aidé à faire un bon système d'exploitation
-libre. Mais ils n'y pensaient même pas ; c'était un accident, un bonus
-fortuit. Je ne dis pas que ce qu'ils ont fait était mauvais, ils ont fait un
-grand projet libre. C'est une bonne chose, mais ils n'avaient pas la vision
-ultime. C'est le projet GNU qui avait cette vision.</p>
-
-<p>Et donc, nous sommes ceux… tous les morceaux qui n'ont pas été
faits
-par d'autres, nous les avons faits. Sinon nous n'aurions pas eu un système
-complet. Même quand ils étaient parfaitement fastidieux et pas du tout
-romantiques comme <code>tar</code> ou <code>mv</code> <i>[rires]</i>, nous
-les avons fait. Ou <code>ld</code> ; vous savez, il n'y a rien de très
-passionnant dans <code>ld</code>, mais j'en ai fait un <i>[rires]</i>, et je
-me suis donné du mal pour qu'il utilise un minimum d'entrées-sorties sur
-disque afin qu'il soit plus rapide et qu'il gère de plus gros
-programmes. Vous voyez, j'aime bien faire du bon boulot, j'aime bien
-améliorer différentes choses du programme pendant que je le réalise. Mais la
-raison pour laquelle je l'ai fait n'est pas que j'avais des idées brillantes
-pour un meilleur <code>ld</code>. La raison était que j'avais besoin d'un
-<code>ld</code> qui soit libre. Et nous ne pouvions attendre de personne
-d'autre qu'il le fasse. Il nous fallait donc le faire ou trouver quelqu'un
-pour le faire.</p>
-
-<p>Aussi, bien qu'à ce stade des milliers de gens impliqués dans différents
-projets aient contribué à ce système, il doit son existence à un seul
-projet, qui est le projet GNU. <em>C'est</em> fondamentalement le système
-GNU, avec d'autres choses ajoutées par la suite.</p>
-
-<p>Quoi qu'il en soit, le fait d'appeler ce système Linux a fait du mal au
-projet GNU car d'habitude nous ne sommes pas reconnus pour le travail que
-nous avons fait. Je pense que Linux, le noyau, est un logiciel libre très
-utile et je n'ai que de bonnes choses à en dire. Bon, en fait, je pourrais
-trouver un peu de mal à en dire <i>[rires]</i>, mais pour l'essentiel j'en
-dis du bien. Toutefois, appeler le système GNU « Linux » est juste une
-erreur. Je vous demanderai de faire le petit effort nécessaire pour appeler
-ce système « GNU/Linux », et de cette façon nous aider à en partager le
-crédit.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Vous avez besoin d'une mascotte ! Trouvez-vous
-un animal en peluche ! <i>[rires]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Nous en avons un.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Ah bon ?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Nous avons un animal : un gnou
-<i>[rires]</i>. Alors, oui, lorsque vous dessinez un manchot, dessinez un
-gnou à côté <i>[rires]</i>. Mais gardons les questions pour la fin. Je dois
-encore avancer.</p>
-
-<p>Pourquoi est-ce que je me préoccupe tant de cela ? Pourquoi est-ce que je
-pense que cela vaut la peine de vous ennuyer et peut-être de vous donner une
-piètre opinion de moi-même <i>[rires]</i> pour poser le problème de la
-reconnaissance ? Parce que certaines personnes, quand je parle de ça,
-certaines personnes pensent que je le fais pour nourrir mon ego. Bien sûr,
-je ne vous demande pas de l'appeler « Stallmanix », n'est ce pas ?
<i>[rires
-et applaudissements]</i></p>
-
-<p>Je vous demande de l'appeler GNU parce que je veux que le projet GNU en ait
-le crédit. Il y a une raison très particulière, beaucoup plus importante que
-le simple fait d'être reconnu. Vous voyez, de nos jours â regardez autour
de
-vous dans notre communauté â la plupart des gens qui en parlent ou
écrivent
-à son sujet ne mentionnent même pas GNU, ni ses objectifs de liberté, ni
-d'ailleurs ses idéaux politiques et sociétaux. Parce que c'est de GNU que
-tout cela provient.</p>
-
-<p>Les idées associées à Linux… leur philosophie est très
-différente. C'est fondamentalement la philosophie apolitique de Linus
-Torvalds. Ainsi quand les gens pensent que l'ensemble du système est Linux,
-ils tendent à penser : « Oh, c'est Linus Torvalds qui a dû mettre tout
ça en
-route. C'est sa philosophie que nous devons examiner attentivement. » Et
-quand ils entendent parler de la philosophie GNU ils disent : « Mon Dieu,
-que c'est idéaliste ! Cela semble bien peu réaliste. Je suis un utilisateur
-de Linux, pas de GNU. » <i>[rires]</i></p>
-
-<p>Quelle ironie ! Si seulement ils savaient ! S'ils savaient que le système
-qu'ils apprécient et dans certains cas aiment à la folie, c'est notre
-philosophie politique idéaliste devenue réalité.</p>
-
-<p>Ce n'est pas qu'ils devraient être d'accord avec nous, mais au moins ils
-verraient une raison de la prendre un peu au sérieux, de l'examiner
-attentivement, de lui donner une chance. Ils verraient comme c'est lié Ã
-leur vie. Vous savez, s'ils se disaient « J'utilise le système GNU, voici la
-philosophie GNU, c'est <em>grâce à cette philosophie</em> que le système que
-j'apprécie existe », ils la considéreraient avec un esprit beaucoup plus
-ouvert. Ãa ne veut pas dire que tout le monde serait d'accord. Chacun a ses
-idées. C'est bien, Les gens doivent se faire leur propre opinion. Mais je
-veux que cette philosophie soit créditée des résultats qu'elle a
obtenus.</p>
-
-<p>Si vous regardez autour de vous dans notre communauté, vous verrez que
-presque partout les institutions appellent notre système Linux. Les
-journalistes l'appellent le plus souvent Linux. Ce n'est pas juste mais ils
-le font. Les entreprises qui mettent le système sous forme de paquets
-installables le font la plupart du temps. La plupart de ces journalistes,
-quand ils écrivent des articles, ne l'envisagent pas comme un sujet
-politique ni un sujet de société. Ils l'envisagent habituellement du point
-de vue économique ou s'intéressent au succès plus ou moins grand des
-entreprises, ce qui est une question mineure pour la société. Et si vous
-regardez les entreprises qui empaquettent le système GNU/Linux pour les
-utilisateurs, la plupart d'entre elles l'appellent Linux et elles y ajoutent
-<em>toutes</em> des logiciels non libres.</p>
-
-<p>Voyez, la GNU GPL stipule que si vous prenez du code d'un programme sous GPL
-et que vous lui ajoutez du code pour en faire un programme plus grand,
-l'ensemble de ce programme devra être publié sous GPL. Mais vous pourriez
-mettre d'autres programmes séparés sur le même disque (soit disque dur, soit
-CD) et ils pourraient être sous d'autres licences ; c'est considéré comme
-une simple agrégation. Pour l'essentiel, nous n'avons rien à redire au fait
-de simplement distribuer deux programmes à quelqu'un en même temps. Donc, en
-fait ce n'est pas vrai â j'aimerais quelquefois que ça soit vrai â que
si
-une entreprise utilise un programme sous GPL dans un produit, l'ensemble du
-produit doive être du logiciel libre. Ãa ne va pas jusque là . Il s'agit de
-l'ensemble du <em>programme</em>. S'il y a deux programmes séparés qui
-communiquent l'un avec l'autre à bout de bras, par exemple en s'envoyant des
-messages, ils sont en général juridiquement séparés. Ainsi ces entreprises,
-en ajoutant des logiciels non libres au système, donnent aux utilisateurs
-une très mauvaise idée, philosophiquement et politiquement. Elles disent aux
-utilisateurs : « C'est bien d'utiliser des logiciels non libres. Nous les
-ajoutons même en prime. »</p>
-
-<p>Si vous regardez les magazines sur l'utilisation du système GNU/Linux, la
-plupart ont un titre comme « Linux ceci » ou « Linux cela ». Ainsi la
-plupart du temps, ils appellent le système « Linux ». Et ils sont remplis
de
-publicités pour des programmes non libres que vous pouvez faire fonctionner
-sur le système GNU/Linux. Ces publicités ont un message commun : « Le
-logiciel non libre est bon pour vous, tellement bon que vous pourriez même
-<em>payer</em> pour l'avoir. » <i>[rires]</i></p>
-
-<p>Ils donnent à ces choses le nom de « paquets à valeur ajoutée », ce
qui en
-dit long sur leurs valeurs. Ils disent : « Accordez de la valeur au côté
-pratique, pas à la liberté. » Je n'adhère pas à ces valeurs, aussi je les
-appelle « paquets à liberté soustraite » <i>[rires]</i>. Parce que si
vous
-avez installé un système d'exploitation libre, vous vivez maintenant dans le
-monde du libre. Vous bénéficiez de la liberté que nous avons travaillé
-pendant tant d'années à vous donner. Ces paquets vous donnent l'occasion de
-vous attacher à une chaîne.</p>
-
-<p>Si vous regardez les expositions commerciales autour du système GNU/Linux,
-elles s'appellent toutes « Linux »-expo. Et elles sont remplies de stands
-exposant des logiciels non libres, donnant le sceau de l'approbation à du
-logiciel non libre. Ainsi, où que vous regardiez dans notre communauté, Ã
-peu de choses près, les institutions renforcent le logiciel non libre, niant
-totalement l'idée de liberté pour laquelle GNU a été développé. La seule
-occasion qu'ont les gens de rencontrer l'idée de liberté est la référence
Ã
-GNU et l'utilisation du terme « logiciel libre ». C'est pourquoi je vous
-demande d'appeler le système « GNU/Linux ». S'il vous plaît, faites
prendre
-conscience aux gens de l'origine et de la raison d'être du système.</p>
-
-<p>Bien sûr, en utilisant simplement ce nom vous ne donnerez pas une
-explication historique. Vous pouvez taper quatre lettres supplémentaires et
-écrire « GNU/Linux ». Vous pouvez dire deux syllabes de plus. GNU/Linux,
-c'est moins de syllabes que Windows 2000 <i>[rires]</i>. Vous n'en dites pas
-vraiment beaucoup mais vous les préparez pour le jour où ils entendront
-parler de GNU et de ce qu'il représente. Ils verront alors comment ça se
-rattache à leur vie. Et cela, indirectement, fait une différence
-énorme. Alors s'il vous plaît, aidez-nous.</p>
-
-<p>Vous noterez que Microsoft qualifie la GPL de « licence open source ».
Ils
-ne veulent pas que les gens pensent en termes de liberté. Ils incitent les
-gens à penser étroitement, en tant que consommateurs (et en plus pas très
-rationnels, comme consommateurs, s'ils choisissent les produits
-Microsoft). Mais ils ne veulent pas que les gens pensent en tant que
-citoyens ou hommes d'Ãtat. Ãa leur est défavorable, du moins c'est
-défavorable à leur modèle économique actuel.</p>
-
-<p>Je peux vous expliquer comment le logiciel libre est lié à notre
société. Un
-sujet secondaire, qui pourrait intéresser certains d'entre vous, c'est son
-rapport à l'économie. En réalité, le logiciel libre est
<em>extrêmement</em>
-utile à l'économie. Après tout, la plupart des entreprises utilisent du
-logiciel dans les pays avancés mais seule une minuscule fraction en
-développe.</p>
-
-<p>Le logiciel libre offre un avantage considérable à toute entreprise qui
-utilise des logiciels car cela veut dire que c'est elle qui en a le
-contrôle. En gros, un logiciel est libre si l'utilisateur a le contrôle de
-ce que fait le programme, soit individuellement soit collectivement, Ã
-condition de s'y intéresser suffisamment. N'importe quelle personne qui s'y
-intéresse peut exercer quelque influence. Si cela ne vous intéresse pas,
-vous n'achetez pas, alors vous utilisez ce que d'autres préfèrent. Mais si
-vous vous y intéressez, alors vous avez votre mot à dire. Avec les logiciels
-privateurs, pour l'essentiel, vous n'avez rien à dire. </p>
-
-<p>Avec le logiciel libre vous pouvez modifier ce que vous voulez. Et peu
-importe qu'il n'y ait pas de programmeur dans votre entreprise, ça marche
-quand même. Vous savez, si vous voulez bouger les cloisons de votre
-appartement, vous n'avez pas besoin d'être une entreprise de maçonnerie,
-vous n'avez qu'à trouver un maçon et lui demander « Combien prenez-vous
pour
-faire ce travail ? » Et si vous voulez changer les logiciels que vous
-utilisez vous n'avez pas besoin d'être une entreprise d'informatique, il
-vous suffit d'aller dans une entreprise d'informatique et de leur dire :
-« Combien demandez-vous pour mettre en Åuvre ces fonctionnalités ? Et pour
-quand pouvez-vous le faire ? » Et si la réponse ne vous convient pas, vous
-allez voir quelqu'un d'autre.</p>
-
-<p>Il y a un marché libre pour le service. Alors une entreprise qui
s'intéresse
-au service trouvera un avantage énorme dans le logiciel libre. Dans le
-logiciel privateur, le service est un monopole. Parce qu'une seule société
-possède le code source, ou peut-être quelques sociétés qui ont payé des
-sommes faramineuses, si c'est un <cite>shared source</cite> de
-Microsoft. Mais elles sont très peu nombreuses. Par conséquent vous n'avez
-pas mille prestataires de service à votre disposition. Cela veut dire, sauf
-si vous êtes un géant, qu'ils n'en ont rien à faire de vous. Votre
-entreprise n'est pas assez importante pour qu'ils tiennent à vous avoir
-comme client. Une fois que vous utilisez le programme, vous êtes obligé de
-passer par eux pour l'assistance, parce que migrer vers un autre logiciel
-est un travail énorme. Alors vous finissez par payer pour avoir le privilège
-de signaler un bogue <i>[rires]</i>. Et une fois que vous avez payé ils vous
-disent : « OK, nous avons noté le bogue. Dans quelques mois vous pourrez
-acheter une mise à jour et vous verrez si nous l'avons réparé. »
-<i>[rires]</i></p>
-
-<p>Les sociétés de service dans le logiciel libre ne peuvent pas s'en tirer
-comme ça. Elles doivent satisfaire les consommateurs. Bien sûr vous pouvez
-avoir beaucoup d'assistance gratis. Vous posez votre problème sur Internet
-et vous pouvez recevoir une réponse le lendemain. Mais ça n'est bien sûr pas
-garanti. Si vous voulez être sûr, vous avez intérêt à conclure un accord
-avec une société et à la payer. Et c'est naturellement l'une des façons
dont
-l'économie du logiciel libre fonctionne.</p>
-
-<p>Un des autres avantages du logiciel libre pour les entreprises, c'est la
-sécurité et la protection de la vie privée (cela s'applique aussi aux
-particuliers, mais je me suis placé dans le contexte des entreprises). Quand
-un programme est privateur, vous voyez, on ne peut pas dire ce qu'il fait
-vraiment.</p>
-
-<p>Il pourrait avoir des fonctionnalités, implantées délibérément, que
vous
-n'aimeriez pas si vous étiez au courant de leur existence. Par exemple il
-pourrait avoir une « porte dérobée » <cite>[backdoor]</cite> pour
laisser le
-développeur rentrer dans votre machine. Elle pourrait vous espionner et lui
-renvoyer des informations. Ce n'est pas inhabituel. Certains programmes de
-Microsoft le faisaient, mais pas seulement ceux de Microsoft. Il y a
-d'autres programmes privateurs qui espionnent l'utilisateur et vous ne
-pouvez même pas le savoir. Et, bien sûr, à supposer même que le
développeur
-soit parfaitement honnête, tout programmeur peut commettre des erreurs. Il
-pourrait y avoir des bogues qui affectent votre sécurité, ce qui n'est la
-faute de personne. Mais le point important est que si ce n'est pas du
-logiciel libre, vous ne pouvez pas trouver les erreurs ni les réparer.</p>
-
-<p>Personne n'a le temps de vérifier le code source de chaque programme qu'il
-utilise. Ce n'est pas vous qui allez le faire. Mais, avec les logiciels
-libres il y a une grande communauté. Dans cette communauté il y a des gens
-qui vérifient et vous bénéficiez de leurs vérifications, parce que s'il y a
-un bogue accidentel (et il y en a de temps en temps dans n'importe quel
-programme), ils pourront le trouver et le corriger. Il est donc peu probable
-que quelqu'un place délibérément un cheval de Troie ou une fonction
-d'espionnage dans le programme s'il pense qu'il peut être découvert. Les
-développeurs de logiciel privateur pensent qu'ils ne seront pas pris, que
-cela passera sans être détecté. Mais un développeur du libre devra se dire
-que les gens rechercheront ce genre de chose et le trouveront. De même, dans
-notre communauté nous ne pouvons pas faire avaler aux utilisateurs une
-fonction qu'ils n'aimeraient pas, car nous savons que s'ils ne l'aiment pas
-ils feront une version modifiée sans cette fonction, puis ils se mettront
-tous à utiliser la version modifiée.</p>
-
-<p>En fait nous sommes tous capables de réfléchir et de nous projeter
-suffisamment pour ne pas introduire cette fonction. Après tout, si vous
-écrivez un programme libre, vous voulez que les gens apprécient votre
-version. Vous ne voulez pas y mettre quelque chose que les gens vont
-détester et voir une version modifiée prendre le dessus. Vous comprenez que
-l'utilisateur est roi, dans le monde du libre. Dans le monde privateur par
-contre, l'utilisateur <em>n'est pas</em> roi. Il n'est qu'un consommateur,
-il n'a pas son mot à dire sur le logiciel qu'il utilise.</p>
-
-<p>De ce point de vue, le logiciel libre est un nouveau mécanisme
-démocratique. Le professeur Lessig, qui est maintenant à Stanford, a
-remarqué que le code fonctionne comme une sorte de loi. Celui qui écrit un
-code dont presque tout le monde se sert à toutes fins utiles écrit les lois
-qui régissent la vie des gens. Avec le logiciel libre, ces lois sont écrites
-d'une façon démocratique. Pas comme la démocratie traditionnelle â il
n'y a
-pas de grand référendum où l'on demande : « Comment voulez-vous
implémenter
-cette nouvelle fonctionnalité ? » <i>[rires]</i> à la place nous disons :
-« Que ceux qui veulent travailler à mettre en Åuvre telle fonctionnalité,
de
-telle façon, le fassent ; et si vous voulez le faire autrement, allez-y. »
-Et cela se fait d'une manière ou d'une autre. Si beaucoup de gens veulent le
-faire de cette façon, c'est comme cela que ça se fait. Ainsi, tout le monde
-contribue à la décision de la société simplement en avançant dans la
-direction où l'on veut aller.</p>
-
-<p>Et vous êtes, personnellement, libre d'aller aussi loin que vous voulez.
Une
-entreprise est libre d'avancer dans une direction autant qu'elle le veut.
-Après, vous additionnez toutes ces choses et cela donne la direction où va
-le logiciel.</p>
-
-<p>C'est souvent très utile de pouvoir prendre des morceaux d'un programme
-existant, de gros morceaux la plupart du temps, et ensuite d'écrire une
-certaine quantité de code de votre cru pour créer un programme qui fasse
-exactement ce dont vous avez besoin, et qui vous aurait coûté les yeux de la
-tête à développer vous-même de zéro si vous n'aviez pu cannibaliser de
gros
-morceaux d'un programme libre existant.</p>
-
-<p>Un autre résultat de la puissance de l'utilisateur, c'est que nous tendons
Ã
-être bons en matière de normalisation et de compatibilité. Pourquoi ? Parce
-que les utilisateurs aiment ça ! Les utilisateurs rejetteront
-vraisemblablement un programme qui est délibérément incompatible avec les
-autres. Cela dit, certains groupes d'utilisateurs ont besoin d'une certaine
-incompatibilité, et ils l'obtiennent ; c'est très bien. Mais quand le
-souhait des utilisateurs est de respecter une norme, nous les développeurs
-devons la respecter. Nous le savons et nous le faisons. Par contre, si vous
-regardez les développeurs de logiciel privateur, ils trouvent souvent
-avantage à <em>ne pas</em> respecter de norme, délibérément â pas parce
-qu'ils pensent que cela bénéficiera à l'utilisateur, mais plutôt pour
-s'imposer à lui, pour l'enfermer. Vous en trouverez même qui modifient leurs
-formats de fichiers de temps à autre, juste pour obliger les utilisateurs Ã
-se procurer la dernière version.</p>
-
-<p>Les archivistes ont un problème actuellement parce que des fichiers écrits
-sur ordinateur il y a des années ne sont plus accessibles. Ils ont été
-écrits avec des programmes privateurs qui sont maintenant perdus, ou tout
-comme. S'ils avaient été écrits avec des logiciels libres, ces programmes
-pourraient être mis à jour et fonctionner. Et ces choses, ces archives, ne
-seraient plus inaccessibles. Il y a eu des gens pour s'en plaindre sur NPR<a
-id="TransNote9-rev" href="#TransNote9"><sup>9</sup></a> récemment et pour
-citer le logiciel libre comme solution. Donc en réalité, en utilisant un
-logiciel privateur pour stocker vos données, vous mettez la tête dans un
-nÅud coulant.</p>
-
-<p>J'ai donc parlé de la façon dont le logiciel libre affecte la majeure
partie
-de l'économie. Mais comment affecte-t-il le domaine plus particulier de
-l'industrie du logiciel ? Eh bien, la réponse est : pratiquement pas. Et la
-raison, c'est que 90% de l'industrie du logiciel (d'après ce que j'entends
-dire) développe du logiciel sur mesure, du logiciel qui n'est pas destiné Ã
-la diffusion. Pour le logiciel sur mesure, la question éthique, libre ou
-privateur, ne se pose pas. Vous voyez, la question est de savoir si, en tant
-qu'utilisateur, vous pouvez modifier et redistribuer le logiciel. S'il n'y a
-qu'un utilisateur et qu'il a ces droits, il n'y a pas de problème. Cet
-utilisateur <em>est libre</em> de faire tout ça. Par conséquent un programme
-<em>sur mesure</em> qui a été développé par une entreprise pour usage
-interne est un logiciel libre, du moins s'ils ont assez de bon sens pour
-réclamer le code source avec tous les droits.</p>
-
-<p>Cet enjeu n'existe pas pour un logiciel embarqué dans une montre ou un four
-à microonde, ou dans le système d'allumage d'une voiture, parce que ce ne
-sont pas des endroits où l'on télécharge des logiciels pour les
-installer. Du point de vue de l'utilisateur, ce ne sont pas de vrais
-ordinateurs. Les questions éthiques ne les concernent pas suffisamment pour
-qu'ils soient un enjeu important. Donc, pour l'essentiel, l'industrie du
-logiciel continuera comme auparavant. Ce qui est intéressant c'est que, la
-plupart des emplois étant dans cette fraction de l'industrie, même s'il
-n'était pas possible d'avoir une économie du libre les développeurs de
-logiciel libre pourraient quand même trouver un emploi dans le sur mesure
-<i>[rires]</i>. Il y en a tellement, une si grande proportion !</p>
-
-<p>Mais il se trouve qu'il existe une industrie du logiciel libre. Il y a des
-entreprises de logiciel libre. à la conférence de presse que je vais faire,
-des représentants de quelques unes d'entre elles vont se joindre à nous. Et
-naturellement, il y a des sociétés qui <em>ne sont pas</em> des entreprises
-de logiciel libre mais qui néanmoins développent et publient des logiciels
-libres très utiles en quantité considérable.</p>
-
-<p>Comment travaille l'industrie du libre ? Eh bien, certains vendent des
-copies. On est libre de copier un programme mais ils arrivent quand même Ã
-vendre des centaines d'exemplaires par mois. Et d'autres vendent de
-l'assistance et des services variés. Personnellement dans les années 80,
-j'ai vendu de l'assistance sur les logiciels libres. En gros, pour 200Â $ de
-l'heure je changeais ce que vous vouliez dans les programmes GNU que j'avais
-écrits. Oui, c'était un tarif élevé, mais c'était pour des programmes que
-j'avais écrits et les gens pensaient que j'y passerais moins de temps
-<i>[rires]</i>. Et j'ai gagné ma vie avec ça. En fait, j'ai gagné plus que
-jamais auparavant. J'ai aussi enseigné. J'ai continué jusqu'en 1990 où j'ai
-obtenu une récompense importante ; alors je n'ai plus eu à le faire.</p>
-
-<p>C'est en 1990 que la première entreprise de logiciel libre a été formée,
-<cite>Cygnus Support</cite>. Leur travail était essentiellement le même que
-le mien. J'aurais certainement pu travailler pour eux si j'en avais eu
-besoin. Comme ce n'était pas le cas, j'ai pensé qu'il était bon pour le
-mouvement que je reste indépendant. De cette façon je pouvais dire du bien
-et du mal des différentes entreprises de logiciel, libre ou non, sans
-conflit d'intérêt. Je pensais que cela servirait mieux le mouvement. Mais si
-j'avais dû en vivre j'aurais travaillé pour eux. C'est un travail éthique,
-il n'y aurait eu aucune raison d'en avoir honte. Et cette société a été
-rentable dès la première année. Elle a été fondée avec très peu de
capital,
-juste l'argent de ses trois fondateurs. Elle a grossi chaque année et est
-restée rentable jusqu'à ce qu'ils soient trop cupides et cherchent des
-investisseurs extérieurs ; alors ils se sont plantés. Mais elle a eu
-plusieurs années de succès avant qu'ils ne soient trop gourmands.</p>
-
-<p>Cela illustre une des choses intéressantes sur le logiciel libre : on n'a
-pas besoin de lever du capital pour le développer. J'admets que c'est utile,
-que cela <em>peut</em> aider ; si vous levez du capital, vous pouvez
-recruter des gens et leur faire écrire un tas de logiciel. Mais vous pouvez
-faire beaucoup avec peu de gens. Et en fait, la formidable efficacité du
-processus de développement du logiciel libre est une des raisons pour
-lesquelles il est important que le monde passe au libre. De plus, cela
-démentit ce que dit Microsoft quand ils prétendent que la GNU GPL est
-mauvaise parce qu'elle leur rend difficile l'appel au capital pour
-développer du logiciel non libre â prendre notre logiciel libre puis mettre
-notre code dans leurs programmes qu'ils ne partageront pas avec nous. En
-réalité nous n'avons pas besoin qu'ils lèvent du capital de cette
-manière. Nous ferons le travail de toute façon. Nous sommes en train de le
-faire.</p>
-
-<p>Les gens disaient que nous ne pourrions jamais faire un système
-d'exploitation libre complet. Maintenant nous l'avons fait, et beaucoup plus
-encore. Je dirais que nous sommes à peu près à un ordre de grandeur de
-couvrir l'ensemble des besoins de la planète en développement de logiciels
-publiés d'usage courant, et ceci dans un monde où 90% des utilisateurs ne se
-servent pas encore de nos logiciels libres ; ceci dans un monde où â bien
-que ce soit dans certains secteurs de l'économie â plus de la moitié des
-serveurs web tournent sous GNU/Linux avec Apache.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : <i>[inaudible]</i> Qu'avez vous dit avant
-Linux ?…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : J'ai dit GNU/Linux.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Ah bon ?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Oui, si je parle du noyau je dis Linux. Comme
-vous savez, c'est son nom. Le noyau a été écrit par Linus Torvalds et nous
-devons l'appeler du nom qu'il a choisi, par respect pour l'auteur.</p>
-
-<p>Mais la plupart des utilisateurs professionnels ne s'en servent
généralement
-pas et la plupart des particuliers n'utilisent pas encore notre
-système. Lorsqu'ils l'utiliseront, nous devrions avoir automatiquement dix
-fois plus de bénévoles et dix fois plus de clients pour l'industrie du
-logiciel libre qui existera alors. Ainsi nous obtiendrons cette croissance
-d'un ordre de grandeur. Au point où nous en sommes, je suis très confiant
-dans le fait que nous <em>pouvons</em> y arriver.</p>
-
-<p>C'est très important, parce que Microsoft nous demande de céder au
-désespoir. Ils disent : « La seule façon d'avoir des logiciels à faire
-fonctionner, la seule façon d'avoir des innovations, c'est de nous donner le
-pouvoir. Laissez-nous vous dominer. Laissez-nous contrôler ce que vous
-pouvez faire avec les programmes que vous utilisez de façon à pouvoir vous
-soutirer beaucoup d'argent, utiliser une certaine fraction de cet argent
-pour développer et garder le reste comme profit. »</p>
-
-<p>Eh bien nous ne devons pas être aussi désespérés. Il ne faut pas être
-désespéré au point d'abandonner sa liberté. C'est très dangereux.</p>
-
-<p>Un autre problème, c'est que Microsoft… en fait pas seulement
-Microsoft, les gens qui n'encouragent pas le logiciel libre adoptent en
-général un système de valeurs où seuls comptent les bénéfices à court
-terme : « Combien d'argent gagnerons-nous cette année ? Quel travail
puis-je
-faire aujourd'hui ? » Pensée à court terme et pensée étroite. Ils
estiment
-ridicule d'imaginer que quiconque puisse jamais faire un sacrifice pour la
-liberté.</p>
-
-<p>Pas plus tard qu'hier, beaucoup de gens faisaient des discours sur les
-Américains qui ont fait des sacrifices pour la liberté de leurs
-compatriotes, de grands sacrifices pour certains. Ils ont été jusqu'Ã
-sacrifier leur vie pour ces liberté dont tout le monde dans notre pays a au
-moins entendu parler (du moins dans certains cas ; je suppose qu'il faut
-oublier la guerre du Vietnam).</p>
-
-<p><i>[Note de l'éditeur : la veille, c'était le Memorial Day aux
Ãtats-Unis,
-le jour où l'on commémore les héros des guerres.]</i></p>
-
-<p>Mais heureusement, garder notre liberté dans l'utilisation des logiciels
-n'exige pas de grands sacrifices. Juste de petits sacrifices minuscules,
-comme apprendre à utiliser la ligne de commande si l'on n'a pas encore
-d'interface graphique. Comme faire le travail de cette façon-ci parce qu'on
-n'a pas encore de logiciel libre pour le faire de cette façon-là . Comme
-payer une société pour développer tel logiciel libre pour que nous puissions
-en disposer dans quelques années. Divers petits sacrifices que nous pouvons
-tous faire. Et dans le long terme, nous en tirerons même avantage ! En
-réalité c'est plus un investissement qu'un sacrifice. Il nous faut seulement
-voir assez loin pour réaliser qu'il est bon de travailler à l'amélioration
-de la société, sans compter les centimes et les francs du retour sur
-investissement ni se préoccuper de qui en bénéficie.</p>
-
-<p>Maintenant j'ai à peu près fini.</p>
-
-<p>Je voudrais mentionner qu'il existe une autre approche de l'économie du
-logiciel libre qui a été proposée par Tony Stanco et qu'il appelle
-<cite>Free Developers</cite> (les développeurs libres). Elle implique une
-certaine structure économique qui espère un jour verser un certaine partie
-de ses profits à chacun des auteurs de logiciels libres qui auront rejoint
-cette organisation. Et ils espèrent m'obtenir de grands contrats publics de
-développement logiciel en Inde, parce qu'ils vont utiliser des logiciels
-libres là -bas, ce qui leur fera faire des économies de coût
considérables.</p>
-
-<p>Je vais donc maintenant passer aux questions.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : <i>[inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Pourriez-vous parler plus fort s'il vous
plaît ?
-Je ne peux vraiment pas vous entendre.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Comment une société comme Microsoft
-pourrait-elle inclure un contrat pour du logiciel libre ?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Eh bien en réalité, Microsoft prévoit de
-transformer beaucoup de ses activités en services. Et ce qu'ils nous
-préparent, c'est un sale coup et c'est dangereux. En effet ils veulent
-associer les services aux programmes, dans une sorte de zig-zag, vous
-voyez ? Si bien que pour utiliser tel service, vous devrez utiliser tel
-programme Microsoft, ce qui veut dire que vous aurez besoin d'utiliser ce
-service dédié pour faire tourner le programme Microsoft ; ainsi tout est
-lié. Voilà leur projet.</p>
-
-<p>Ce qu'il y a d'intéressant, c'est que vendre ces services n'engage pas la
-question éthique du logiciel libre ou non libre. Ãa pourrait être très bien
-de proposer cette activité aux entreprises qui vendent leurs services sur le
-net. Mais ce qu'ils essaient d'obtenir avec ce système, c'est un
-verrouillage encore plus fort, un renforcement de leur monopole sur les
-logiciels et les services. Cela a été décrit récemment dans un article, de
-<cite>Business Week</cite>, je crois. Et d'autre ont dit que cela allait
-transformer le net en « Microsoft-Ville ».</p>
-
-<p>C'est pertinent car, vous le savez, au procès antitrust contre Microsoft le
-tribunal a recommandé de couper la société en deux â mais d'une certaine
-manière cela n'a pas de sens, cela ne donnerait rien de bon du tout â une
-partie système d'exploitation et une partie applications.</p>
-
-<p>Mais ayant lu cet article, je vois une autre façon, efficace celle-là , de
-diviser Microsoft. On mettrait d'un côté les services et de l'autre le
-logiciel et on les obligerait à garder leurs distances. La division services
-devrait publier ses interfaces afin que n'importe qui puisse écrire un
-programme client pour ces services. Je suppose qu'on devrait payer pour ces
-services. Rien à dire contre ça, il s'agit d'un problème tout à fait
-différent.</p>
-
-<p>Si Microsoft est divisée en deux de cette façon […] services et
-logiciel, ils ne pourront pas utiliser leurs logiciels pour écraser la
-concurrence avec leurs services et ils ne pourront pas utiliser les services
-pour écraser la concurrence avec les logiciels Microsoft. Ainsi nous
-pourrons faire des logiciels libres, que vous autres utiliserez peut-être
-pour accéder aux services de Microsoft sans que nous y trouvions Ã
redire.</p>
-
-<p>Parce qu'après tout, bien que Microsoft soit la société de logiciel
-privateur qui a sous sa coupe le plus de monde, si les autres n'en ont pas
-autant ce n'est pas faute d'avoir essayé <i>[rires]</i>. Simplement ils
-n'ont pas si bien réussi. Donc le problème n'est pas Microsoft et uniquement
-Microsoft. Microsoft est seulement le plus grand exemple du problème que
-nous voulons résoudre, à savoir que le logiciel privateur éloigne les
-utilisateurs de la liberté de coopérer et de former une société
-éthique. Aussi ne faut-il pas trop se focaliser sur Microsoft. Vous savez,
-bien qu'ils m'aient donné l'occasion d'être ici, ça ne les rend pas plus
-importants. Ils ne sont pas l'alpha et l'oméga.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Plus tôt, vous avez expliqué les différences
-entre le logiciel open source et le logiciel libre. Que pensez-vous de la
-tendance actuelle des distributions GNU/Linux à se limiter à la plateforme
-Intel ? Et du fait que, semble-t-il, de moins en moins de programmeurs
-programment correctement et font des logiciels qui compilent partout ? Et
-font des logiciels qui fonctionnent seulement sur les systèmes Intel ?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Je ne vois pas là d'enjeu éthique, bien qu'en
-fait les sociétés qui fabriquent des ordinateurs réalisent parfois des
-portages de GNU/Linux. HP semble avoir fait cela récemment. Ils n'ont pas
-cherché à porter Windows car cela aurait coûté trop cher, mais adapter
-GNU/Linux était l'affaire de cinq ingénieurs pendant quelques mois, je
-crois. C'était tout à fait faisable.</p>
-
-<p>Maintenant, bien sûr, j'encourage les gens à utiliser
<code>autoconf</code>,
-un logiciel GNU qui vous aide à rendre vos programmes portables. Je les y
-encourage. Ou bien si quelqu'un corrige le bogue qui empêche de compiler sur
-cette version du système et vous envoie le correctif, vous devriez
-l'incorporer. Mais je ne vois pas là d'enjeu éthique.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Deux commentaires. Primo : récemment vous
avez
-parlé au MIT. J'ai lu la transcription. Quelqu'un vous a interpellé sur les
-brevets et vous avez dit : « Les brevets sont un tout autre problème ; je
-n'ai pas de commentaire là -dessus. »</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Exact. En réalité j'ai beaucoup à dire sur
les
-brevets. Ãa prendrait une heure <i>[rires]</i>.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Je voulais dire ceci. Il me semble qu'il y a un
-problème. Il y a une raison pour que les entreprises appellent les brevets
-et le copyright quelque chose comme de la « propriété concrète ». Elles
-veulent utiliser le pouvoir de l'Ãtat pour leur assurer un monopole. Ce
-qu'il y a de commun n'est pas que ces sujets tournent autour des mêmes
-enjeux, mais que la motivation des entreprises à leur égard ne soit pas
-vraiment le service public, mais plutôt l'intérêt privé des sociétés dans
-l'obtention d'un monopole.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Je comprends. Mais bon, il ne reste pas
beaucoup
-de temps, alors tant qu'à faire je voudrais répondre à ça.</p>
-
-<p>Vous avez raison de dire que c'est ce qu'elles veulent. Mais il y a une
-autre raison pour qu'elles veuillent utiliser le terme « propriété
-intellectuelle », c'est qu'elles ne veulent pas que les gens réfléchissent
-convenablement sur les questions du copyright ou sur les questions des
-brevets. Parce que le droit du copyright n'est pas du tout le même que le
-droit des brevets. Leurs effets sur le logiciel sont totalement
différents.</p>
-
-<p>Les brevets logiciels sont des restrictions pour les programmeurs qui leur
-interdisent d'écrire certaines sortes de programmes, tandis que le copyright
-ne fait pas cela. Avec le copyright, du moins si vous les avez écrits
-vous-même, vous pouvez les distribuer. Donc il est terriblement important de
-séparer ces deux questions.</p>
-
-<p>Elles ont un petit quelque chose en commun à un très bas niveau et tout le
-reste est différent. Alors, s'il vous plaît, pour rendre la discussion plus
-claire, discutez du copyright ou discutez des brevets mais ne parlez pas de
-« propriété intellectuelle ». J'ai des opinions sur le copyright, et sur
les
-brevets, et sur le logiciel.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Vous avez mentionné au début les travaux
-fonctionnels, comme les recettes et les programmes d'ordinateurs. C'est
-évidemment un peu différent des autres sortes de travaux créatifs. Ceci pose
-aussi problème dans le cas des DVD.<a id="TransNote10-rev"
-href="#TransNote10"><sup>10</sup></a></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Les problèmes sont en partie similaires, mais
-aussi en partie différents, pour des choses qui ne sont pas de nature
-fonctionnelle. Une partie est commune aux deux, mais pas
-tout. Malheureusement, il faudrait une heure de plus pour en parler. Je n'ai
-pas le temps de rentrer dans les détails, mais je dirais que les Åuvres
-fonctionnelles devraient être libres dans le même sens que les
-logiciels. Vous savez, les cours, les manuels, les dictionnaires, les
-recettes, etc.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Je m'interrogeais sur la musique en ligne. Il y
-a des similarités et des différences à travers toute la création.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Exact. Je dirais que la liberté minimum, celle
-dont nous devons disposer pour toute information publiée, est le droit de la
-redistribuer non commercialement, sous forme de copie intégrale. Pour les
-Åuvres fonctionnelles, nous avons besoin de la liberté d'en redistribuer
-commercialement des versions modifiées, parce que c'est extrêmement utile Ã
-la société. Quant aux Åuvres non fonctionnelles, vous savez, les choses
-destinées à être divertissantes ou esthétiques, ou à refléter les vues
d'une
-personne, peut-être qu'elles ne doivent pas être modifiés. Et cela veut
-peut-être dire que c'est justifié d'avoir un copyright qui couvre toute
-distribution commerciale.</p>
-
-<p>Rappelez-vous que selon la Constitution des Ãtats-Unis, la raison d'être
du
-copyright est de bénéficier au public, de modifier la conduite de certaines
-entités privées pour qu'elles publient plus de livres. Le bénéfice, c'est
-que le public se mette à discuter des différentes questions et Ã
-s'instruire. Ainsi nous avons la littérature, nous avons les écrits
-scientifiques. Le but est d'encourager cela. Le copyright n'a pas été créé
-pour les auteurs ni les éditeurs, mais pour les lecteurs et tous ceux qui
-bénéficient de la transmission d'information qui se produit quand des gens
-écrivent et d'autres lisent. Et cet objectif, je l'approuve !</p>
-
-<p>Mais à l'âge des réseaux informatiques la méthode n'est plus
appropriée,
-parce qu'elle exige des lois draconiennes qui envahissent l'intimité de
-chacun et terrorisent tout le monde. Vous savez, des années de prison pour
-avoir partagé avec son voisin. Ce n'était pas la même chose du temps de la
-presse à imprimer. Le copyright était alors une réglementation industrielle
-qui s'appliquait aux éditeurs. Maintenant, c'est une restriction imposée par
-les éditeurs au public. Ainsi la relation de pouvoir a viré à 180°, bien
que
-ce soit la même loi.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Ainsi on peut avoir la même chose â comme
-lorsqu'on fait de la musique à partir d'une autre musique ?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Exact. C'est intéressant…</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Et unique. De nouvelles Åuvres, c'est encore
-beaucoup de coopération.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Tout à fait. Et je suppose que cela demande
une
-sorte de concept d'« usage raisonnable » <cite>[fair use]</cite>.<a
-id="TransNote11-rev" href="#TransNote11"><sup>11</sup></a> Certainement
-faire un sample de quelques secondes et l'utiliser pour faire une Åuvre
-musicale, ce doit être un usage raisonnable. Même l'idée ordinaire d'usage
-raisonnable renferme cela, si vous y réfléchissez. Je ne sais pas si les
-tribunaux seraient d'accord mais ils le devraient. Ce ne serait pas un vrai
-changement du système tel qu'il existe.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Que pensez-vous de la publication des données
-publiques dans des formats privateurs ?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Oh, c'est à proscrire. L'Ãtat ne doit jamais
-exiger des citoyens qu'ils utilisent un programme non libre pour accéder aux
-services publics ou pour communiquer avec eux, que ce soit en émission ou en
-réception, quel qu'en soit le moyen.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Je suis, comment diriez-vous, un utilisateur de
-GNU/Linux…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Merci <i>[rires]</i>.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : …Â depuis quatre ans. La seule chose qui
-m'ait parue problématique et qui est quelque chose d'essentiel, je crois,
-pour nous tous, c'est de surfer sur le web.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Oui.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Une chose qui est décidément une faiblesse de
-GNU/Linux est la navigation sur le web, parce que le principal outil pour
-cela, Netscape…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : …Â n'est pas un logiciel libre.</p>
-
-<p>Laissez moi répondre à cela. Je veux mettre les choses au point. Donc oui,
-il y a une tendance déplorable chez les utilisateurs de GNU/Linux à utiliser
-Netscape Navigator sur leur système GNU/Linux. Et en fait les distributions
-commerciales viennent avec. Voilà bien une situation ironique : nous avons
-travaillé dur pour faire un système d'exploitation libre, et maintenant, si
-vous allez dans un magasin, vous pouvez trouver des versions de GNU/Linux
-(la plupart d'entre elles appelées Linux) qui ne sont pas libres, du moins
-en partie. Il y a Netscape Navigator et peut-être d'autres logiciels non
-libres. Donc il est très difficile de trouver un système libre, sauf si vous
-savez ce que vous faites. Ou bien naturellement vous pouvez ne pas installer
-Netscape Navigator.</p>
-
-<p>Cela dit, il y a des navigateurs libres depuis de nombreuses années. Il y
en
-a un que j'utilise et qui s'appelle Lynx. Il n'est pas graphique, il est en
-mode texte. Il a l'extraordinaire avantage de ne pas afficher les publicités
-<i>[rires et applaudissements]</i>.</p>
-
-<p>Mais de toute façon il y a un projet libre de navigateur graphique appelé
-Mozilla, qui est pratiquement au point. Et je l'utilise à l'occasion.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Konqueror 2.01 est très bon aussi.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Très bien. Voila donc un autre navigateur
-graphique libre. Donc nous sommes finalement en train de résoudre ce
-problème, je suppose.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Pouvez-vous me parler de la différence
-philosophique ou éthique entre le logiciel libre et l'open source ?
-Pensez-vous que les deux soient irréconciliables ? […]</p>
-
-<p><i>[la fin de la question et le début de la réponse ont sauté au
changement
-de cassette.]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : […] à une liberté et à une éthique,
ou
-bien si on dit seulement : « Eh bien, j'espère que vous, les entreprises,
-déciderez qu'il est plus profitable de nous autoriser à faire tout ça.Â
»</p>
-
-<p>Mais comme je le disais, dans une grande partie du travail concret, les
-opinions de chacun ne comptent pas. Quand une personne offre son aide au
-projet GNU, nous ne lui disons pas : « Vous devez être d'accord avec notre
-politique. » Nous disons que dans un paquet GNU il faut appeler le système
-« GNU/Linux » et le paquet lui-même « logiciel libre ». Ce que vous
dites Ã
-l'extérieur du projet GNU, ça vous regarde.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : IBM a commencé une campagne adressée aux
-services de l'Ãtat pour vendre leurs nouvelles grosses machines en utilisant
-Linux comme argument de vente, en disant « Linux ».</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Oui, bien sûr c'est en réalité le système
-GNU/Linux <i>[rires]</i>.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : C'est vrai. Eh bien le responsable des ventes,
-il n'y connaît rien à GNU.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Je dois le dire à qui ?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Au responsable des ventes.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Oh oui. Le problème c'est qu'ils ont déjÃ
-préparé soigneusement ce qu'ils voulaient mettre en avant comme arguments de
-vente. Et la question de savoir ce qu'est une description précise, juste ou
-correcte n'est pas primordiale pour une société comme celle-là . Dans une
-petite entreprise, oui, il y a un patron. Si le patron est enclin Ã
-réfléchir sur ce genre de choses, il peut prendre une décision de cette
-façon. Mais pas une société géante. C'est dommage, vous savez.</p>
-
-<p>Il y a un autre question plus tangible à propos de ce que fait IBM. Ils
-disent qu'ils mettent un milliard de dollars dans « Linux ». Mais
peut-être
-faut-il aussi mettre « dans » entre guillemets. Parce qu'une partie de cet
-argent sert à payer des gens pour faire des logiciels libres ; c'est
-réellement une contribution à notre communauté. Mais une autre partie sert
Ã
-créer du logiciel privateur ou à porter des logiciels privateurs vers
-GNU/Linux et ce n'est <em>pas</em> une contribution à notre
-communauté. Cependant IBM mélange tout ça. Il pourrait y avoir une part de
-publicité, qui est une contribution même si elle est en partie fausse. Donc
-c'est une situation compliquée. Une partie de ce qu'ils font est une
-contribution, une autre non et une troisième est entre les deux. On ne peut
-pas mélanger tout ça et penser « Ouah ! Un milliard de dollars d'IBM !Â
»
-<i>[rires]</i> C'est simplifier à outrance !</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Pouvez-vous en dire plus sur la pensée qui
-sous-tend la licence GNU GPLÂ ?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Bon, voici le… Je suis désolé, je suis
en
-train de répondre à sa question <i>[rires]</i>.</p>
-
-<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Voulez-vous réserver du temps pour la
conférence
-de presse ? Ou souhaitez-vous continuer ici ?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Qui est ici pour la conférence de presse ? Pas
-beaucoup de journalistes. Oh, trois… OK. Est-ce que cela vous dérange
-si nous… si je continue à répondre aux questions pendant encore dix
-minutes ? Parfait. Donc nous continuons à répondre aux questions de tout le
-monde.</p>
-
-<p>La pensée qui sous-tend la licence GNU GPL ? C'est en partie que je
voulais
-protéger la liberté de la communauté des phénomènes que j'ai décrits Ã
-propos de XÂ Windows et qui se sont produits avec d'autres logiciels
-libres. En fait, quand j'ai pensé à cette question, X Windows n'était pas
-encore sorti mais j'avais vu le problème se poser avec d'autres programmes
-libres, par exemple TeX. Je voulais être sûr que les utilisateurs auraient
-tous la liberté. Je me suis rendu compte que, sinon, je pourrais écrire un
-programme que peut-être beaucoup de gens utiliseraient, mais qu'ils
-n'auraient pas la liberté. Alors à quoi bon ?</p>
-
-<p>Mais l'autre raison, c'est que je voulais donner le sentiment à la
-communauté qu'elle n'était pas un paillasson, le sentiment qu'elle ne serait
-pas la proie du premier parasite venu. Si vous n'utilisez pas le copyleft,
-vous dites en substance : <i>[voix mièvre]</i> « Prenez mon code. Faites ce
-que vous voulez. Je ne dis pas non. » Alors n'importe qui peut arriver en
-disant : <i>[voix très ferme]</i> « Aah ! je veux en faire une version non
-libre. Je le prends. » Puis il va très probablement faire quelques
-améliorations. Ces versions non libres intéresseront les utilisateurs et
-remplaceront les versions libres. Au final, qu'est-ce que vous aurez
-accompli ? Vous aurez simplement fait une donation à un projet de logiciel
-privateur.</p>
-
-<p>Et quand les gens verront ce qui s'est produit, quand des gens verront que
-les autres prennent et ne donnent jamais, ça peut les démoraliser. Ce n'est
-pas pure spéculation, je l'ai constaté. Cela a participé à la disparition
de
-l'ancienne communauté dont je faisait partie dans les années 70. Certaines
-personnes sont devenues non coopératives et nous avons supposé qu'elles en
-tiraient profit. En tout cas elles agissaient comme si elles pensaient
-qu'elles en tiraient profit. Et nous nous sommes rendu compte qu'on pouvait
-coopérer à sens unique : prendre sans rien donner en retour. Nous ne
-pouvions rien y faire, c'était très décourageant. Nous qui ne suivions pas
-la tendance, nous en avons discuté et ne sommes pas arrivés à trouver une
-idée pour arrêter ça.</p>
-
-<p>Donc la GPL est conçue pour éviter cela. Elle dit : « Vous êtes
invité Ã
-vous joindre à la communauté et à utiliser ce code. Vous pouvez l'utiliser
-de toutes les façons possibles, mais si vous publiez une version modifiée,
-vous devez la publier pour notre communauté, comme participation à notre
-communauté, au monde du libre. »</p>
-
-<p>En fait, il reste bien des façons pour les gens de profiter de notre
travail
-sans y contribuer, comme ne pas écrire de logiciels. Bien des gens utilisent
-GNU/Linux et n'écrivent pas de logiciels. Il n'y a aucune obligation à faire
-quelque chose pour nous, mais si vous faites certaines choses vous devez
-contribuer. Ãa signifie que notre communauté n'est pas un paillasson. Et je
-pense que cela donne aux gens un sentiment de force : « Oui, nous ne serons
-pas piétinés par n'importe qui. Nous tiendrons. »</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Oui, ma question portait sur le logiciel libre,
-mais sans copyleft. Puisque tout le monde peut le prendre et en faire du
-logiciel privateur, n'est-il pas également possible de le prendre, de faire
-quelques modifications et de le placer sous GPLÂ ?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Oui, c'est possible.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Ãa placerait toutes les copies futures sous
GPL.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Ã partir de cette branche. Mais voici pourquoi
-nous ne le faisons pas.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Hein ?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Nous ne faisons pas cela
-généralement. Laissez-moi vous expliquer pourquoi.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Oui d'accord.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Nous pourrions si nous le voulions prendre
-XÂ Windows, faire une copie sous GPL et faire des modifications. Mais il y a
-un groupe beaucoup plus important de gens qui travaillent à son amélioration
-et qui ne veulent <em>pas</em> le placer sous GPL. Si nous faisions cela
-nous créerions une branche, et ce n'est pas très sympa vis-à -vis d'eux. Ils
-<em>font partie</em> de notre communauté ; ils contribuent à notre
-communauté.</p>
-
-<p>Deuxièmement, cela se retournerait contre nous, parce qu'ils ont fait
-beaucoup plus de travail sur X que nous n'en ferions. Notre version serait
-inférieure à la leur et les gens ne l'utiliseraient pas, alors à quoi bonÂ
?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Mmm hmm.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Alors quand une personne apporte une
-amélioration à X, je dis à cette personne : coopérez avec l'équipe de
-développement de X Windows. Envoyez-leur votre travail et laissez-les s'en
-servir, parce qu'ils développent un logiciel libre très important. C'est bon
-pour nous de coopérer avec eux.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Sauf que, si on considère X en particulier,
il y
-a deux ans le Consortium X qui était allé très loin dans l'open source non
-libre…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : En fait ce <em>n'était pas</em> vraiment open
-source. Ils ont peut-être dit que ça l'était, je ne peux pas me rappeler
-s'ils l'ont dit ou non. Mais ce n'était pas open source, Il y avait des
-restrictions. On ne pouvait pas distribuer commercialement, je crois. Ou on
-ne pouvait pas distribuer commercialement une version modifiée, ou quelque
-chose comme ça. Il y avait une restriction considérée comme inacceptable Ã
-la fois par la Free Software Foundation et par le mouvement Open Source.</p>
-
-<p>Oui, c'est à cela que mène l'utilisation d'une licence sans copyleft. En
-fait, le consortium X avait une politique très rigide. Ils disaient : « Si
-votre programme est sous copyleft, nous ne le distribuerons pas du
-tout. Nous ne le mettrons pas dans notre distribution. »</p>
-
-<p>Alors un grand nombre de personnes ont été poussées à ne pas utiliser le
-copyleft. Le résultat, c'est que tous leurs logiciels étaient grands
-ouverts. Puis après avoir demandé aux gens d'être trop permissifs, ils ont
-dit : « Maintenant nous pouvons mettre des restrictions. » Ce n'était pas
-très éthique de leur part.</p>
-
-<p>Mais, la situation étant ce qu'elle est, allons-nous gaspiller des
-ressources pour maintenir une version GPL de XÂ ? Ãa n'aurait aucun sens. Il
-y a tant d'autres choses à faire. Laissons-les faire plutôt. Nous pouvons
-coopérer avec les développeurs de X.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Avez-vous un commentaire, GNU est-il une marque
-déposée ? Et est-ce faisable de l'inclure dans une partie de la licence
-publique générale GNU autorisant les marques ?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Nous cherchons effectivement à déposer GNU
comme
-marque, mais cela n'aurait rien à voir avec la GPL ; c'est une longue
-histoire d'expliquer pourquoi.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : Vous pourriez exiger que la marque déposée
soit
-affichée dans les programmes sous GPL.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Non, je ne pense pas. Les licences ne couvrent
-que les programmes individuels, et quand un programme fait partie du projet
-GNU personne ne cherche à le cacher. Mais le nom du système dans son
-ensemble, c'est une autre question. C'est un à -côté, cela ne vaut pas la
-peine d'en discuter plus longtemps.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong> : S'il y avait un bouton qui forçait toutes les
-sociétés à libérer leurs logiciels, l'utiliseriez-vous ?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Je ne l'utiliserais que pour les logiciels
-publiés. Vous savez, je pense que les gens ont le droit d'écrire des
-logiciels privés et de les utiliser, et cela inclut les entreprises. C'est
-une question de vie privée. Il peut y avoir des moments, c'est vrai, où il
-est mal de garder par devers soi quelque chose de très utile Ã
-l'humanité. Mais c'est une autre sorte de préjudice, même si cela concerne
-le même secteur.</p>
-
-<p>Mais oui, je pense que tout logiciel publié doit être libre. Et
-rappelez-vous, quand ce n'est pas un logiciel libre, c'est à cause de
-l'intervention du gouvernement. Le gouvernement intervient pour faire du non
-libre. Il crée des pouvoirs juridiques particuliers qu'il délègue aux
-propriétaires de programmes, de sorte qu'ils puissent se servir de la police
-pour nous empêcher d'utiliser les programmes de certaines façons. Je
-voudrais mettre un terme à cela, c'est certain. </p>
-
-<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong> : Les interventions de Richard génèrent
-invariablement une quantité énorme d'énergie intellectuelle. Je suggère
-qu'une partie soit consacrée à utiliser des logiciels libres, et peut-être
Ã
-en écrire.</p>
-
-<p>Nous allons bientôt nous interrompre. Je voulais dire que Richard a
injecté
-dans la profession, qui est connue dans le public pour son attitude
-apolitique, un niveau de discussion morale et politique sans précédent. Et
-nous lui devons beaucoup pour cela. Je voudrais signaler au public qu'il y a
-maintenant une pause.</p>
-
-<p><i>[applaudissements]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Vous êtes libres de sortir quand vous voulez
-<i>[rires]</i>. Je ne vous retiens pas prisonniers ici, vous savez.</p>
-
-<p><i>[Le public sort…]</i></p>
-
-<p><i>[Conversations diffuses…]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Un dernier mot, notre site web :
www.gnu.org.</p>
-
-<div class="translators-notes">
-
-<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes.-->
-<hr /><b>Notes de traduction</b><ol>
-<li id="TransNote1"><cite>Proprietary software</cite> se traduit souvent par
-« logiciel propriétaire ». « Privateur » est un néologisme inventé
par RMS
-pour exprimer la notion que les logiciels propriétaires privent
-l'utilisateur de ses libertés. <a href="#TransNote1-rev"
-class="nounderline">↑</a></li>
-<li id="TransNote2">Traduction : Bien ! <a
-href="#TransNote2-rev">↑</a></li>
-<li id="TransNote3">Zwei était Eine à l'origine. <a href="#TransNote3-rev"
-class="nounderline">↑</a></li>
-<li id="TransNote4">Prononcer « nou » ; traduction : nouveau. <a
-href="#TransNote4-rev" class="nounderline">↑</a></li>
-<li id="TransNote5">Nouveau système d'exploitation. <a
-href="#TransNote5-rev" class="nounderline">↑</a></li>
-<li id="TransNote6">Le mot français « libre » n'a pas cette ambiguïté
car
-« entrée libre » est à peu près le seul cas où l'on peut lui donner le
sens
-de « gratuit ». On constate malgré tout que le logiciel libre est souvent
-assimilé (par erreur) à du logiciel gratuit. <a href="#TransNote6-rev"
-class="nounderline">↑</a></li>
-<li id="TransNote7">Déclaration d'indépendance <em>américaine</em>. <a
-href="#TransNote7-rev" class="nounderline">↑</a></li>
-<li id="TransNote8">« X Windows » est une abréviation de « système X
-Window ». Cela n'a rien à voir avec un système d'exploitation privateur
bien
-connu. <a href="#TransNote8-rev" class="nounderline">↑</a></li>
-<li id="TransNote9">Anciennement <cite>National Public Radio</cite>Â :
-fédération de radios locales non commerciales, produisant des programmes
-culturels ou d'actualité diffusés sur tout le territoire des Ãtats-Unis. <a
-href="#TransNote9-rev" class="nounderline">↑</a></li>
-<li id="TransNote10">L'enregistrement de ce paragraphe était probablement
-difficile à comprendre, ce qui a donné une transcription à peu près
-intraduisible. Nous en avons fait une interprétation très libre. <a
-href="#TransNote10-rev" class="nounderline">↑</a></li>
-<li id="TransNote11">Un concept juridique propre au copyright américain. <a
-href="#TransNote11-rev" class="nounderline">↑</a></li>
-</ol></div>
-</div>
-
-<!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
-<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.fr.html" -->
-<div id="footer">
-<div class="unprintable">
-
-<p>Veuillez envoyer les requêtes concernant la FSF et GNU à <a
-href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>. Il existe aussi <a
-href="/contact/">d'autres moyens de contacter</a> la FSF. Les liens
-orphelins et autres corrections ou suggestions peuvent être signalés à <a
-href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></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";>
-
- <address@hidden></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>. -->
-Nous faisons le maximum pour proposer des traductions fidèles et de bonne
-qualité, mais nous ne sommes pas parfaits. Merci d'adresser vos commentaires
-sur cette page, ainsi que vos suggestions d'ordre général sur les
-traductions, Ã <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>
-<address@hidden></a>.</p>
-<p>Pour tout renseignement sur la coordination et la soumission des
-traductions de nos pages web, reportez-vous au <a
-href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">guide de traduction</a>.</p>
-</div>
-
-<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
- files generated as part of manuals) 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. -->
-<p>Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman</p>
-
-<p>Cette page peut être utilisée suivant les conditions de la licence <a
-rel="license"
-href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/deed.fr";>Creative
-Commons attribution de paternité, pas de modification, 3.0 Ãtats-Unis
-(CCÂ BY-ND 3.0Â US)</a>.</p>
-
-<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.fr.html" -->
-<div class="translators-credits">
-
-<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.-->
-Traduction : Xavier Dumont.<br />Révision : <a
-href="mailto:trad-gnu@april.org";>trad-gnu@april.org</a></div>
-
-<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
-Dernière mise à jour :
-
-$Date: 2015/02/20 17:28:07 $
-
-<!-- timestamp end -->
-</p>
-</div>
-</div>
-</body>
-</html>
Index: events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html
===================================================================
RCS file: events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html
diff -N events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html
--- events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html 20 Feb 2015 15:30:06 -0000 1.25
+++ /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
@@ -1,2127 +0,0 @@
-<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
-<title>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation
-- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
-<!--#include virtual="/events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist" -->
-<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
-<h2>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation</h2>
-
-<blockquote><p>Transcript of
-Richard M. Stallman's speech,
-“Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation”,
-given at New York University in New York, NY,
-on 29 May 2001</p></blockquote>
-
-<div class="announcement">
-<blockquote><p>A <a href="/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt">plain
-text</a> version of this transcript and
-a <a href="/events/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt">summary</a> of the speech
-are also available.</p></blockquote>
-</div>
-
-<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: I'm Mike Uretsky. I'm over at the Stern
-School of Business. I'm also one of the Co-Directors of the Center
-for Advanced Technology. And, on behalf of all of us in the Computer
-Science Department, I want to welcome you here. I want to say a few
-comments, before I turn it over to Ed, who is going to introduce the
-speaker.</p>
-
-<p>The role of a university is a place to foster debate and to have
-interesting discussions. And the role of a major university is to
-have particularly interesting discussions. And this particular
-presentation, this seminar falls right into that mold. I find the
-discussion of open source particularly interesting. In a sense
-… <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I do free software. Open source is a
-different movement. <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: When I first started in the field in the
-'60's, basically software was free. And we went in cycles. It became
-free, and then software manufacturers, in the need to expand their
-markets, pushed it in other directions. A lot of the developments
-that took place with the entry of the PC moved in exactly the same
-kind of a cycle.</p>
-
-<p>There's a very interesting French philosopher, Pierre Levy, who
-talks about movement to this direction and who talks about the move
-into cyberspace as not only relating to technology but also relating
-to social restructuring, to political restructuring, through a change
-in the kinds of relationships that will improve the well-being of
-mankind. And we're hoping that this debate is a movement in that
-direction, that this debate is something that cuts across a lot of the
-disciplines that normally act as solace within the University. We're
-looking forward to some very interesting discussions. Ed?</p>
-
-<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: I'm Ed Schonberg from the Computer
-Science Department at the Courant Institute. Let me welcome you all
-to this event. Introducers are usually, and particularly, a useless
-aspect of public presentations, but in this case, actually, they serve
-a useful purpose, as Mike easily demonstrated, because an introducer
-for instance, told him, by making inaccurate comments, can allow him
-to straighten out and correct and <i>[Laughter]</i> sharpen
-considerably the parameters of the debate.</p>
-
-<p>So, let me make the briefest possible introduction to somebody who
-doesn't need one. Richard is the perfect example of somebody who, by
-acting locally, started thinking globally from problems concerning the
-unavailability of source code for printer drivers at the AI Lab many
-years ago. He has developed a coherent philosophy that has forced all
-of us to re-examine our ideas of how software is produced, of what
-intellectual property means, and what the software community actually
-represents. Let me welcome Richard Stallman. <i>[Applause]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can someone lend me a
-watch? <i>[Laughter]</i> Thank you. So, I'd like to thank Microsoft
-for providing me the opportunity to <i>[Laughter]</i> be on this
-platform. For the past few weeks, I have felt like an author whose
-book was fortuitously banned somewhere. <i>[Laughter]</i> Except that
-all the articles about it are giving the wrong author's name, because
-Microsoft describes the GNU GPL as an open source license, and most of
-the press coverage followed suit. Most people, of course just
-innocently don't realize that our work has nothing to do with open
-source, that in fact we did most of it before people even coined the
-term open source.</p>
-
-<p>We are in the free software movement, and I'm going to speak about
-what the free software movement is about, what it means, what we have
-done, and, because this is partly sponsored by a school of business,
-I'll say some things more than I usually do about how free software
-relates to business, and some other areas of social life.</p>
-
-<p>Now, some of you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps
-you cook. And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably
-use recipes. And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the
-experience of getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing
-it. And you've probably also had the experience — unless you're
-a total neophyte — of changing a recipe. You know, it says
-certain things, but you don't have to do exactly that. You can leave
-out some ingredients. Add some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms.
-Put in less salt because your doctor said you should cut down on salt
-— whatever. You can even make bigger changes according to your
-skill. And if you've made changes in a recipe, and you cook it for
-your friends, and they like it, one of your friends might say,
-“Hey, could I have the recipe?” And then, what do you do?
-You could write down your modified version of the recipe and make a
-copy for your friend. These are the natural things to do with
-functionally useful recipes of any kind.</p>
-
-<p>Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program. A computer
-program's a lot like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to
-get some result that you want. So it's just as natural to do those
-same things with computer programs — hand a copy to your friend.
-Make changes in it because the job it was written to do isn't exactly
-what you want. It did a great job for somebody else, but your job is
-a different job. And after you've changed it, that's likely to be
-useful for other people. Maybe they have a job to do that's like the
-job you do. So they ask, “Hey, can I have a copy?” Of
-course, if you're a nice person, you're going to give a copy. That's
-the way to be a decent person.</p>
-
-<p>So imagine what it would be like if recipes were packaged inside
-black boxes. You couldn't see what ingredients they're using, let
-alone change them, and imagine if you made a copy for a friend, they
-would call you a pirate and try to put you in prison for years. That
-world would create tremendous outrage from all the people who are used
-to sharing recipes. But that is exactly what the world of proprietary
-software is like. A world in which common decency towards other
-people is prohibited or prevented.</p>
-
-<p>Now, why did I notice this? I noticed this because I had the good
-fortune in the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who
-shared software. Now, this community could trace its ancestry
-essentially back to the beginning of computing. In the 1970's,
-though, it was a bit rare for there to be a community where people
-shared software. And, in fact, this was sort of an extreme case,
-because in the lab where I worked, the entire operating system was
-software developed by the people in our community, and we'd share any
-of it with anybody. Anybody was welcome to come and take a look, and
-take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do. There were no
-copyright notices on these programs. Cooperation was our way of life.
-And we were secure in that way of life. We didn't fight for it. We
-didn't have to fight for it. We just lived that way. And, as far as
-we knew, we would just keep on living that way. So there was free
-software, but there was no free software movement.</p>
-
-<p>But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that
-happened to it. Ultimately it was wiped out. Ultimately, the PDP-10
-computer which we used for all our work was discontinued. And you
-know, our system — the Incompatible Timesharing System —
-was written starting in the '60's, so it was written in assembler
-language. That's what you used to write an operating system in the
-'60's. So, of course, assembler language is for one particular
-computer architecture; if that gets discontinued, all your work turns
-into dust — it's useless. And that's what happened to us. The
-20 years or so of work of our community turned into dust.</p>
-
-<p>But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me,
-helped me see what to do, helped prepare me to see what to do when
-this happened, because at certain point, Xerox gave the Artificial
-Intelligence Lab, where I worked, a laser printer, and this was a
-really handsome gift, because it was the first time anybody outside
-Xerox had a laser printer. It was very fast, printed a page a second,
-very fine in many respects, but it was unreliable, because it was
-really a high-speed office copier that had been modified into a
-printer. And, you know, copiers jam, but there's somebody there to
-fix them. The printer jammed and nobody saw. So it stayed jammed for
-a long time.</p>
-
-<p>Well, we had an idea for how to deal with this problem. Change it
-so that whenever the printer gets a jam, the machine that runs the
-printer can tell our timesharing machine, and tell the users who are
-waiting for printouts, or something like that, you know, tell them, go
-fix the printer. Because if they only knew it was jammed, of course,
-if you're waiting for a printout and you know that the printer is
-jammed, you don't want to sit and wait forever, you're going to go fix
-it.</p>
-
-<p>But at that point, we were completely stymied, because the software
-that ran that printer was not free software. It had come with the
-printer, and it was just a binary. We couldn't have the source code;
-Xerox wouldn't let us have the source code. So, despite our skill as
-programmers — after all, we had written our own timesharing
-system — we were completely helpless to add this feature to the
-printer software.</p>
-
-<p>And we just had to suffer with waiting. It would take an hour or
-two to get your printout because the machine would be jammed most of
-the time. And only once in a while — you'd wait an hour
-figuring “I know it's going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and
-go collect my printout,” and then you'd see that it had been
-jammed the whole time, and in fact, nobody else had fixed it. So
-you'd fix it and you'd go wait another half hour. Then, you'd come
-back, and you'd see it jammed again — before it got to your
-output. It would print three minutes and be jammed thirty minutes.
-Frustration up the whazzoo. But the thing that made it worse was
-knowing that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his own
-selfishness, was blocking us, obstructing us from improving the
-software. So, of course, we felt some resentment.</p>
-
-<p>And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a
-copy of that software. So I was visiting there later, so I went to
-his office and I said, “Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of
-the printer source code?” And he said “No, I promised not
-to give you a copy.” <i>[Laughter]</i> I was stunned. I was so
-— I was angry, and I had no idea how I could do justice to it.
-All I could think of was to turn around on my heel and walk out of his
-room. Maybe I slammed the door. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I thought
-about it later on, because I realized that I was seeing not just an
-isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was important and affected
-a lot of people.</p>
-
-<p>This was — for me — I was lucky, I only got a taste of
-it, but other people had to live in this all the time. So I thought
-about it at length. See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with
-us — his colleagues at MIT. He had betrayed us. But he didn't
-just do it to us. Chances are he did it to you too. <i>[Pointing at
-member of audience.]</i> And I think, mostly likely, he did it to you
-too. <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.] [Laughter]</i> And
-he probably did it to you as well. <i>[Pointing to third member of
-audience.]</i> He probably did it to most of the people here in this
-room — except a few, maybe, who weren't born yet in 1980.
-Because he had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about the
-entire population of the Planet Earth. He had signed a non-disclosure
-agreement.</p>
-
-<p>Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure
-agreement, and it taught me an important lesson — a lesson
-that's important because most programmers never learn it. You see,
-this was my first encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was
-the victim. I, and my whole lab, were the victims. And the lesson it
-taught me was that non-disclosure agreements have victims. They're
-not innocent. They're not harmless. Most programmers first encounter
-a non-disclosure agreement when they're invited to sign one. And
-there's always some temptation — some goody they're going to get
-if they sign. So, they make up excuses. They say, “Well, he's
-never going to get a copy no matter what, so why shouldn't I join the
-conspiracy to deprive him?” They say, “This is the way
-it's always done. Who am I to go against it?” They say,
-“If I don't sign this, someone else will.” Various excuses
-to gag their consciences.</p>
-
-<p>But when somebody invited me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, my
-conscience was already sensitized. It remembered how angry I had
-been, when somebody promised not to help me and my whole lab solve our
-problem. And I couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to
-somebody else who had never done me any harm. You know, if somebody
-asked me to promise not to share some useful information with a hated
-enemy, I would have said yes. You know? If somebody's done something
-bad, he deserves it. But, strangers — they haven't done me any
-harm. How could they deserve that kind of mistreatment? You can't
-let yourself start treating just anybody and everybody badly. Then
-you become a predator on society. So I said, “Thank you very
-much for offering me this nice software package. But I can't accept
-it in good conscience, on the conditions you are demanding, so I will
-do without it. Thank you so much.” And so, I have never
-knowingly signed a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful
-technical information such as software.</p>
-
-<p>Now there are other kinds of information which raise different
-ethical issues. For instance, there's personal information. You
-know, if you wanted to talk with me about what was happening between
-you and your boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody —
-you know, I could keep — I could agree to keep that a secret for
-you, because that's not generally useful technical information. At
-least, it's probably not generally useful. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>There is a small chance — and it's a possibility though
-— that you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex
-technique, <i>[Laughter]</i> and I would then feel a moral
-duty <i>[Laughter]</i> to pass it onto the rest of humanity, so that
-everyone could get the benefit of it. So, I'd have to put a proviso
-in that promise, you know? If it's just details about who wants this,
-and who's angry at whom, and things like that — soap opera
-— that I can keep private for you, but something that humanity
-could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't withhold. You see,
-the purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information
-for humanity to help people live their lives better. If we promise to
-withhold that information — if we keep it secret — then we
-are betraying the mission of our field. And this, I decided I
-shouldn't do.</p>
-
-<p>But, meanwhile my community had collapsed, and that was collapsing,
-and that left me in a bad situation. You see, the whole Incompatible
-Timesharing System was obsolete, because the PDP-10 was obsolete, and
-so there was no way that I could continue working as an operating
-system developer the way that I had been doing it. That depended on
-being part of the community using the community software and improving
-it. That no longer was a possibility, and that gave me a moral
-dilemma. What was I going to do? Because the most obvious
-possibility meant to go against that decision I had made. The most
-obvious possibility was to adapt myself to the change in the world.
-To accept that things were different, and that I'd just have to give
-up those principles and start signing non-disclosure agreements for
-proprietary operating systems, and most likely writing proprietary
-software as well. But I realized that that way I could have fun
-coding, and I could make money — especially if I did it other
-than at MIT — but at the end, I'd have to look back at my career
-and say, “I've spent my life building walls to divide
-people,” and I would have been ashamed of my life.</p>
-
-<p>So I looked for another alternative, and there was an obvious one.
-I could leave the software field and do something else. Now I had no
-other special noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a
-waiter. <i>[Laughter]</i> Not at a fancy restaurant; they wouldn't
-hire me, <i>[Laughter]</i> but I could be a waiter somewhere. And
-many programmers, they say to me, “The people who hire
-programmers demand this, this and this. If I don't do those things,
-I'll starve.” It's literally the word they use. Well, you know,
-as a waiter, you're not going to starve. <i>[Laughter]</i> So,
-really, they're in no danger. But — and this is important, you
-see — because sometimes you can justify doing something that
-hurts other people by saying otherwise something worse is going to
-happen to me. You know, if you were <em>really</em> going to starve,
-you'd be justified in writing proprietary software. <i>[Laughter]</i>
-If somebody's pointing a gun at you, then I would say, it's
-forgivable. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, I had found a way that I could
-survive without doing something unethical, so that excuse was not
-available. So I realized, though, that being a waiter would be no fun
-for me, and it would be wasting my skills as an operating system
-developer. It would avoid misusing my skills. Developing proprietary
-software would be misusing my skills. Encouraging other people to
-live in the world of proprietary software would be misusing my skills.
-So it's better to waste them than misuse them, but it's still not
-really good.</p>
-
-<p>So for those reasons, I decided to look for some other alternative.
-What can an operating system developer do that would actually improve
-the situation, make the world a better place? And I realized that an
-operating system developer was exactly what was needed. The problem,
-the dilemma, existed for me and for everyone else because all of the
-available operating systems for modern computers were proprietary.
-The free operating systems were for old, obsolete computers, right?
-So for the modern computers — if you wanted to get a modern
-computer and use it, you were forced into a proprietary operating
-system. So if an operating system developer wrote another operating
-system, and then said, “Everybody come and share this; you're
-welcome to this” — that would give everybody a way out of
-the dilemma, another alternative. So I realized that there was
-something I could do that would solve the problem. I had just the
-right skills to be able to do it. And it was the most useful thing I
-could possibly imagine that I'd be able to do with my life. And it
-was a problem that no one else was trying to solve. It was just sort
-of sitting there, getting worse, and nobody was there but me. So I
-felt, “I'm elected. I have to work on this. If not me,
-who?” So I decided I would develop a free operating system, or
-die trying … of old age, of course. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>So, of course I had to decide what kind of operating system it
-should be. There are some technical design decisions to be made. I
-decided to make the system compatible with Unix for a number of
-reasons. First of all, I had just seen one operating system that I
-really loved become obsolete because it was written for one particular
-kind of computer. I didn't want that to happen again. We needed to
-have a portable system. Well, Unix was a portable system. So if I
-followed the design of Unix, I had a pretty good chance that I could
-make a system that would also be portable and workable. And
-furthermore, why <i>[Tape unclear]</i> be compatible with it in the
-details. The reason is, users hate incompatible changes. If I had
-just designed the system in my favorite way — which I would have
-loved doing, I'm sure — I would have produced something that was
-incompatible. You know, the details would be different. So, if I
-wrote the system, then the users would have said to me, “Well,
-this is very nice, but it's incompatible. It will be too much work to
-switch. We can't afford that much trouble just to use your system
-instead of Unix, so we'll stay with Unix,” they would have
-said.</p>
-
-<p>Now, if I wanted to actually create a community where there would
-be people in it, people using this free system, and enjoying the
-benefits of liberty and cooperation, I had to make a system people
-would use, a system that they would find easy to switch to, that would
-not have an obstacle making it fail at the very beginning. Now,
-making the system upward compatible with Unix actually made all the
-immediate design decisions, because Unix consists of many pieces, and
-they communicate through interfaces that are more or less documented.
-So if you want to be compatible with Unix, you have to replace each
-piece, one by one, with a compatible piece. So the remaining design
-decisions are inside one piece, and they could be made later by
-whoever decides to write that piece. They didn't have to be made at
-the outset.</p>
-
-<p>So all we had to do to start work was find a name for the system.
-Now, we hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program,
-because thinking of people being amused by the name is half the fun of
-writing the program. <i>[Laughter]</i> And we had a tradition of
-recursive acronyms, to say that the program that you're writing is
-similar to some existing program. You can give it a recursive acronym
-name which says: this one's not the other. So, for instance, there
-were many Tico text editors in the '60's and '70's, and they were
-generally called something-or-other Tico. Then one clever hacker
-called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico — the first recursive
-acronym. In 1975, I developed the first Emacs text editor, and there
-were many imitations of Emacs, and a lot of them were called
-something-or-other Emacs, but one was called Fine, for Fine Is Not
-Emacs, and there was Sine, for Sine Is Not Emacs, and Eine for Ina Is
-Not Emacs, and MINCE for Mince Is Not Complete
-Emacs. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was a stripped down imitation. And
-then, Eine was almost completely rewritten, and the new version was
-called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>So I looked for a recursive acronym for Something is not Unix. And
-I tried all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word.
-<i>[Laughter]</i> Hmm, try another way. I made a contraction. That
-way I could have a three-letter acronym, for Something's not Unix.
-And I tried letters, and I came across the word “GNU”
-— the word “GNU” is the funniest word in the English
-language. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was it. Of course, the reason it's
-funny is that according to the dictionary, it's pronounced
-“new”. You see? And so that's why people use it for a
-lot of wordplay. Let me tell you, this is the name of an animal that
-lives in Africa. And the African pronunciation had a click sound in
-it. <i>[Laughter]</i> Maybe still does. And so, the European
-colonists, when they got there, they didn't bother learning to say
-this click sound. So they just left it out, and they wrote a
-“G” which meant “there's another sound that's
-supposed to be here which we are not
-pronouncing.” <i>[Laughter]</i> So, tonight I'm leaving for
-South Africa, and I have begged them, I hope they're going to find
-somebody who can teach me to pronounce click sounds, <i>[Laughter]</i>
-so that I'll know how to pronounce GNU the correct way, when it's the
-animal.</p>
-
-<p>But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is
-“guh-NEW” — pronounce the hard “G”. If
-you talk about the “new” operating system, you'll get
-people very confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years
-now, so it is not new any more. <i>[Laughter]</i> But it still is,
-and always will be, GNU — no matter how many people call it
-Linux by mistake. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces
-of GNU. They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities
-though. And, at the time, I thought we would write all these pieces,
-and make an entire GNU system, and then we'd say, “Come and get
-it”, and people would start to use it. That's not what
-happened. The first pieces I wrote were just equally good
-replacements, with fewer bugs for some pieces of Unix, but they
-weren't tremendously exciting. Nobody particularly wanted to get them
-and install them. But then, in September 1984, I started writing GNU
-Emacs, which was my second implementation of Emacs, and by early 1985,
-it was working. I could use it for all my editing, which was a big
-relief, because I had no intention of learning to use VI, the Unix
-editor. <i>[Laughter]</i> So, until that time, I did my editing on
-some other machine, and saved the files through the network, so that I
-could test them. But when GNU Emacs was running well enough for me to
-use it, it was also — other people wanted to use it too.</p>
-
-<p>So I had to work out the details of distribution. Of course, I put
-a copy in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people
-who were on the net They could then just pull over a tar file, but a
-lot of programmers then even were not on the net in 1985. They were
-sending me emails saying “How can I get a copy?” I had to
-decide what I would answer them. Well, I could have said, I want to
-spend my time writing more GNU software, not writing tapes, so please
-find a friend who's on the internet and who is willing to download it
-and put it on a tape for you. And I'm sure people would have found
-some friends, sooner or later, you know. They would have got copies.
-But I had no job. In fact, I've never had a job since quitting MIT in
-January 1984. So, I was looking for some way I could make money
-through my work on free software, and therefore I started a free
-software business. I announced, “Send me $150 dollars, and I'll
-mail you a tape of Emacs.” And the orders began dribbling in.
-By the middle of the year they were trickling in.</p>
-
-<p>I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month. And, if necessary, I could
-have lived on just that, because I've always lived cheaply. I live
-like a student, basically. And I like that, because it means that
-money is not telling me what to do. I can do what I think is
-important for me to do. It freed me to do what seemed worth doing.
-So make a real effort to avoid getting sucked into all the expensive
-lifestyle habits of typical Americans. Because if you do that, then
-people with the money will dictate what you do with your life. You
-won't be able to do what's really important to you.</p>
-
-<p>So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, “What do you
-mean it's free software if it costs $150
-dollars?” <i>[Laughter]</i> Well, the reason they asked this was
-that they were confused by the multiple meanings of the English word
-“free”. One meaning refers to price, and another meaning
-refers to freedom. When I speak of free software, I'm referring to
-freedom, not price. So think of free speech, not free
-beer. <i>[Laughter]</i> Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many years
-of my life to making sure programmers got less money. That's not my
-goal. I'm a programmer and I don't mind getting money myself. I
-won't dedicate my whole life to getting it, but I don't mind getting
-it. And I'm not — and therefore, ethics is the same for
-everyone. I'm not against some other programmer getting money either.
-I don't want prices to be low. That's not the issue at all. The
-issue is freedom. Freedom for everyone who's using software, whether
-that person be a programmer or not.</p>
-
-<p>So at this point I should give you the definition of free software.
-I better get to some real details, you see, because just saying
-“I believe in freedom” is vacuous. There's so many
-different freedoms you could believe in, and they conflict with each
-other, so the real political question is: Which are the important
-freedoms, the freedoms that we must make sure everybody has?</p>
-
-<p>And now, I will give my answer to that question for the particular
-area of using software. A program is free software for you, a
-particular user, if you have the following freedoms:</p>
-
-<ul>
-<li>First, Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the program for any
-purpose, any way you like.</li>
-<li>Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
-program to suit your needs.</li>
-<li>Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
-copies of the program.</li>
-<li>And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
-publishing an improved version so others can get the benefit of your
-work.</li>
-</ul>
-
-<p>If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software,
-for you — and that's crucial. That's why I phrase it that way.
-I'll explain why later, when I talk about the GNU General Public
-License, but right now I'm explaining what free software means, which
-is a more basic question.</p>
-
-<p>So, Freedom Zero's pretty obvious. If you're not even allowed to
-run the program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive
-program. But as it happens, most programs will at least give you
-Freedom Zero. And Freedom Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of
-Freedoms One, Two, and Three — that's the way that copyright law
-works. So the freedoms that distinguish free software from typical
-software are Freedoms One, Two, and Three, so I'll say more about them
-and why they are important.</p>
-
-<p>Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
-software to suit your needs. This could mean fixing bugs. It could
-mean adding new features. It could mean porting it to a different
-computer system. It could mean translating all the error messages
-into Navajo. Any change you want to make, you should be free to
-make.</p>
-
-<p>Now, it's obvious that professional programmers can make use of
-this freedom very effectively, but not just them. Anybody of
-reasonable intelligence can learn a little programming. You know,
-there are hard jobs, and there are easy jobs, and most people are not
-going to learn enough to do hard jobs. But lots of people can learn
-enough to do easy jobs, just the way, you know, 50 years ago, lots and
-lots of American men learned to repair cars, which is what enabled the
-U.S. to have a motorized army in World War II and win. So, very
-important, having lots of people tinkering.</p>
-
-<p>And if you are a people person, and you really don't want to learn
-technology at all, that probably means that you have a lot of friends,
-and you're good at getting them to owe you favors. <i>[Laughter]</i>
-Some of them are probably programmers. So you can ask one of your
-programmer friends. “Would you please change this for me? Add
-this feature?” So, lots of people can benefit from it.</p>
-
-<p>Now, if you don't have this freedom, it causes practical, material
-harm to society. It makes you a prisoner of your software. I
-explained what that was like with regard to the laser printer. You
-know, it worked badly for us, and we couldn't fix it, because we were
-prisoners of our software.</p>
-
-<p>But it also affects people's morale. You know if the computer is
-constantly frustrating to use, and people are using it, their lives
-are going to be frustrating, and if they're using it in their jobs,
-their jobs are going to be frustrating; they're going to hate their
-jobs. And you know, people protect themselves from frustration by
-deciding not to care. So you end up with people whose attitude is,
-“Well, I showed up for work today. That's all I have to do. If
-I can't make progress, that's not my problem; that's the boss's
-problem.” And when this happens, it's bad for those people, and
-it's bad for society as a whole. That's Freedom One, the freedom to
-help yourself.</p>
-
-<p>Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
-copies of the program. Now, for beings that can think and learn,
-sharing useful knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship. When
-these beings use computers, this act of friendship takes the form of
-sharing software. Friends share with each other. Friends help each
-other. This is the nature of friendship. And, in fact, this spirit
-of goodwill — the spirit of helping your neighbor, voluntarily
-— is society's most important resource. It makes the difference
-between a livable society and a dog-eat-dog jungle. Its importance
-has been recognized by the world's major religions for thousands of
-years, and they explicitly try to encourage this attitude.</p>
-
-<p>When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach
-us this attitude — the spirit of sharing — by having us do
-it. They figured if we did it, we'd learn. So they said, “If
-you bring candy to school, you can't keep it all for yourself; you
-have to share some with the other kids.” Teaching us, the
-society was set up to teach, this spirit of cooperation. And why do
-you have to do that? Because people are not totally cooperative.
-That's one part of human nature, and there are other parts of human
-nature. There are lots of parts of human nature. So, if you want a
-better society, you've got to work to encourage the spirit of sharing.
-You know, it'll never get to be 100%. That's understandable. People
-have to take care of themselves too. But if we make it somewhat
-bigger, we're all better off.</p>
-
-<p>Nowadays, according to the U.S. Government, teachers are supposed
-to do the exact opposite. “Oh, Johnny, you brought software to
-school. Well, don't share it. Oh no. Sharing is wrong. Sharing
-means you're a pirate.”</p>
-
-<p>What do they mean when they say “pirate”? They're
-saying that helping your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking
-a ship. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>What would Buddha or Jesus say about that? Now, take your favorite
-religious leader. I don't know, maybe Manson would have said
-something different. <i>[Laughter]</i> Who knows what L. Ron Hubbard
-would say? But …</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Of course, he's dead. But they don't
-admit that. What?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: So are the others, also
-dead. <i>[Laughter] [Inaudible]</i> Charles Manson's also
-dead. <i>[Laughter]</i> They're dead, Jesus's dead, Buddha's
-dead…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, that's true. <i>[Laughter]</i> So
-I guess, in that regard, L. Ron Hubbard is no worse than the
-others. <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway — <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: L. Ron always used free software —
-it freed him from Zanu. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Anyway, so, I think this is actually the
-most important reason why software should be free: We can't afford to
-pollute society's most important resource. It's true that it's not a
-physical resource like clean air and clean water. It's a
-psycho-social resource, but it's just as real for all that, and it
-makes a tremendous difference to our lives. You see, the actions we
-take influence the thoughts of other people. When we go around
-telling people, “Don't share with each other”, if they
-listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's not a good one.
-That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor.</p>
-
-<p>Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just
-cause this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes
-waste — practical, material harm. If the program has an owner,
-and the owner arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay
-in order to be able to use it, some people are going to say,
-“Never mind, I'll do without it.” And that's waste,
-deliberately inflicted waste. And the interesting thing about
-software, of course, is that fewer users doesn't mean you have to make
-less stuff. You know, if fewer people buy cars, you can make fewer
-cars. There's a saving there. There are resources to be allocated,
-or not allocated, into making cars. So that you can say that having a
-price on a car is a good thing. It prevents people from diverting
-lots of wasted resources into making cars that aren't really needed.
-But if each additional car used no resources, it wouldn't be doing any
-good saving the making of these cars. Well, for physical objects, of
-course, like cars, it is always going to take resources to make an
-additional one of them, each additional exemplar.</p>
-
-<p>But for software that's not true. Anybody can make another copy.
-And it's almost trivial to do it. It takes no resources, except a
-tiny bit of electricity. So there's nothing we can save, no resource
-we're going to allocate better by putting this financial disincentive
-on the use of the software. You often find people taking economic,
-the consequences of economic reasoning, based on premises that don't
-apply to software, and trying to transplant them from other areas of
-life where the premises may apply, and the conclusions may be valid.
-They just take the conclusions and assume that they're valid for
-software too, when the argument is based on nothing, in the case of
-software. The premises don't work in that case. It is very important
-to examine how you reach the conclusion, and what premises it depends
-on, to see where it might be valid. So, that's Freedom Two, the
-freedom to help your neighbor.</p>
-
-<p>Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
-publishing an improved version of the software. People used to say to
-me, “If the software's free, then nobody will get paid to work
-on it, so why should anybody work on it?” Well, of course, they
-were confusing the two meanings of free, so their reasoning was based
-on a misunderstanding. But, in any case, that was their theory.
-Today, we can compare that theory with empirical fact, and we find
-that hundreds of people are being paid to write free software, and
-over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers. We get lots of people
-working on free software, for various different motives.</p>
-
-<p>When I first released GNU Emacs — the first piece of the GNU
-system that people actually wanted to use — and when it started
-having users, after a while, I got a message saying, “I think I
-saw a bug in the source code, and here's a fix.” And I got
-another message, “Here's code to add a new feature.” And
-another bug fix. And another new feature. And another, and another,
-and another, until they were pouring in on me so fast that just making
-use of all this help I was getting was a big job. Microsoft doesn't
-have this problem. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>Eventually, people noted this phenomenon. You see, in the 1980's a
-lot of us thought that maybe free software wouldn't be as good as the
-non-free software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay
-people. And, of course, people like me, who value freedom and
-community said, “Well, we'll use the free software
-anyway.” It's worth making a little sacrifice in some mere
-technical convenience to have freedom. But what people began to note,
-around 1990 was that our software was actually better. It was more
-powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary alternatives.</p>
-
-<p>In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific
-measurement of reliability of software. Here's what he did. He took
-several sets of comparable programs that did the same jobs — the
-exact same jobs — in different systems. Because there were
-certain basic Unix-like utilities. And the jobs that they did, we
-know, was all, more or less, imitating the same thing, or they were
-following the POSIX spec, so they were all the same in terms of what
-jobs they did, but they were maintained by different people, written
-separately. The code was different. So they said, OK, we'll take
-these programs and run them with random data, and measure how often
-they crash, or hang. So they measured it, and the most reliable set
-of programs was the GNU programs. All the commercial alternatives
-which were proprietary software were less reliable. So he published
-this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he did the
-same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same result.
-The GNU versions were the most reliable. People — you know
-there are cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system,
-because it's so reliable, and reliability is very important to
-them.</p>
-
-<p>Anyway, there's even a group of people who focus on this particular
-benefit as the reason they give, the main reason they give, why users
-should be permitted to do these various things, and to have these
-freedoms. If you've been listening to me, you've noticed, you've seen
-that I, speaking for the free software movement, I talk about issues
-of ethics, and what kind of a society we want to live in, what makes
-for a good society, as well as practical, material benefits. They're
-both important. That's the free software movement.</p>
-
-<p>That other group of people — which is called the open source
-movement — they only cite the practical benefits. They deny
-that this is an issue of principle. They deny that people are
-entitled to the freedom to share with their neighbor and to see what
-the program's doing and change it if they don't like it. They say,
-however, that it's a useful thing to let people do that. So they go
-to companies and say to them, “You know, you might make more
-money if you let people do this.” So, what you can see is that
-to some extent, they lead people in a similar direction, but for
-totally different, for fundamentally different, philosophical
-reasons.</p>
-
-<p>Because on the deepest issue of all, you know, on the ethical
-question, the two movements disagree. You know, in the free software
-movement we say, “You're entitled to these freedoms. People
-shouldn't stop you from doing these things.” In the open source
-movement, they say, “Yes, they can stop you if you want, but
-we'll try to convince them to deign to let you to do these
-things.” Well, they have contributed — they have convinced
-a certain number of businesses to release substantial pieces of
-software as free software in our community. So they, the open source
-movement, has contributed substantially to our community. And so we
-work together on practical projects. But, philosophically, there's a
-tremendous disagreement.</p>
-
-<p>Unfortunately, the open source movement is the one that gets the
-support of business the most, and so most articles about our work
-describe it as open source, and a lot of people just innocently think
-that we're all part of the open source movement. So that's why I'm
-mentioning this distinction. I want you to be aware that the free
-software movement, which brought our community into existence and
-developed the free operating system, is still here — and that we
-still stand for this ethical philosophy. I want you to know about
-this, so that you won't mislead someone else unknowingly.</p>
-
-<p>But also, so that you can think about where you stand.</p>
-
-<p>You know, which movement you support is up to you. You might agree
-with the free software movements and my views. You might agree with
-the open source movement. You might disagree with them both. You
-decide where you stand on these political issues.</p>
-
-<p>But if you agree with the free software movement — if you see
-that there's an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled
-and directed by this decision deserve a say in it — then I hope
-you'll say that you agree with the free software movement, and one way
-you can do that is by using the term free software and just helping
-people know we exist.</p>
-
-<p>So, Freedom Three is very important both practically and
-psycho-socially. If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical
-material harm, because this community development doesn't happen, and
-we don't make powerful, reliable software. But it also causes
-psycho-social harm, which affects the spirit of scientific cooperation
-— the idea that we're working together to advance human
-knowledge. You see, progress in science crucially depends on people
-being able to work together. And nowadays though, you often find each
-little group of scientists acting like it's a war with each other gang
-of scientists and engineers. And if they don't share with each other,
-they're all held back.</p>
-
-<p>So, those are the three freedoms that distinguish free software
-from typical software. Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself,
-making changes to suit your own needs. Freedom Two is the freedom to
-help your neighbor by distributing copies. And Freedom Three is the
-freedom to help build your community by making changes and publishing
-them for other people to use. If you have all of these freedoms, the
-program is free software for you. Now, why do I define it that way in
-terms of a particular user? Is it free software for
-you? <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> Is it free software for
-you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Is it free
-software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i>
-Yes?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you explain a bit about the
-difference between Freedom Two and Three? <i>[inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, they certainly relate, because if
-you don't have freedom to redistribute at all, you certainly don't
-have freedom to distribute a modified version, but they're different
-activities.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Oh.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Freedom Two is, you know, read it, you
-make an exact copy, and hand it to your friends, so now your friend
-can use it. Or maybe you make exact copies and you sell them to a
-bunch of people, and then they can use it.</p>
-
-<p>Freedom Three is where you make improvements — or at least
-you think they're improvements, and some other people may agree with
-you. So that's the difference. Oh, and by the way, one crucial
-point. Freedoms One and Three depend on your having access to the
-source code. Because changing a binary-only program is extremely
-hard. <i>[Laughter]</i> Even trivial changes like using four digits
-for the date, <i>[Laughter]</i> if you don't have source. So, for
-compelling, practical reasons, access to the source code is a
-precondition, a requirement, for free software.</p>
-
-<p>So, why do I define it in terms of whether it's free software for
-<em>you</em>? The reason is that sometimes the same program can be
-free software for some people, and non-free for others. Now, that
-might seem like a paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example
-to show you how it happens. A very big example — maybe the
-biggest ever — of this problem was the X Window System which was
-developed at MIT and released under a license that made it free
-software. If you got the MIT version with the MIT license, you had
-Freedoms One, Two, and Three. It was free software for you. But
-among those who got copies were various computer manufacturers that
-distributed Unix systems, and they made the necessary changes in X to
-run on their systems. You know, probably just a few thousand lines
-out of the hundreds of thousands of lines of X. And, then they
-compiled it, and they put the binaries into their Unix system and
-distributed it under the same non-disclosure agreement as the rest of
-the Unix system. And then, millions of people got these copies. They
-had the X Window System, but they had none of these freedoms. It was
-not free software for <em>them</em>.</p>
-
-<p>So, the paradox was that whether X was free software depended on
-where you made the measurement. If you made the measurement coming
-out of the developers' group, you'd say, “I observe all these
-freedoms. It's free software.” If you made the measurements
-among the users you'd say, “Hmm, most users don't have these
-freedoms. It's not free software.” Well, the people who
-developed X didn't consider this a problem, because their goal was
-just popularity, ego, essentially. They wanted a big professional
-success. They wanted to feel, “Ah, lots of people are using our
-software.” And that was true. Lots of people were using their
-software but didn't have freedom.</p>
-
-<p>Well, in the GNU project, if that same thing had happened to GNU
-software, it would have been a failure, because our goal wasn't just
-to be popular; our goal was to give people liberty, and to encourage
-cooperation, to permit people to cooperate. Remember, never force
-anyone to cooperate with any other person, but make sure that
-everybody's allowed to cooperate, everyone has the freedom to do so,
-if he or she wishes. If millions of people were running non-free
-versions of GNU, that wouldn't be success at all. The whole thing
-would have been perverted into nothing like the goal.</p>
-
-<p>So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening. The method I
-came up with is called “copyleft”. It's called copyleft
-because it's sort of like taking copyright and flipping it
-over. <i>[Laughter]</i> Legally, copyleft works based on copyright.
-We use the existing copyright law, but we use it to achieve a very
-different goal. Here's what we do. We say, “This program is
-copyrighted.” And, of course, by default, that means it's
-prohibited to copy it, or distribute it, or modify it. But then we
-say, “You're authorized to distribute copies of this. You're
-authorized to modify it. You're authorized to distribute modified
-versions and extended versions. Change it any way you
-like.”</p>
-
-<p>But there is a condition. And the condition, of course, is the
-reason why we go to all this trouble, so that we could put the
-condition in. The condition says: Whenever you distribute anything
-that contains any piece of this program, that whole program must be
-distributed under these same terms, no more and no less. So you can
-change the program and distribute a modified version, but when you do,
-the people who get that from you must get the same freedom that you
-got from us. And not just for the parts of it — the excerpts
-that you copied from our program — but also for the other parts
-of that program that they got from you. The whole of that program has
-to be free software for them.</p>
-
-<p>The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become
-inalienable rights — a concept from the Declaration of
-Independence. Rights that we make sure can't be taken away from you.
-And, of course, the specific license that embodies the idea of
-copyleft is the GNU General Public License, a controversial license
-because it actually has the strength to say no to people who would be
-parasites on our community.</p>
-
-<p>There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of
-freedom. And they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done,
-and use it to get a head start in distributing a non-free program and
-tempting people to give up their freedom. And the result would be
-— you know, if we let people do that — that we would be
-developing these free programs, and we'd constantly have to compete
-with improved versions of our own programs. That's no fun.</p>
-
-<p>And, a lot of people also feel — you know, I'm willing to
-volunteer my time to contribute to the community, but why should I
-volunteer my time to contribute to that company's, to improving that
-company's, proprietary program? You know, some people might not even
-think that that's evil, but they want to get paid if they're going to
-do that. I, personally, would rather not do it at all.</p>
-
-<p>But both of these groups of people — both the ones like me
-who say, “I don't want to help that non-free program to get a
-foothold in our community” and the ones that say, “Sure,
-I'd work for them, but then they better pay me” — both of
-us have a good reason to use the GNU General Public License. Because
-that says to that company, “You can't just take my work, and
-distribute it without the freedom.” Whereas, the non-copyleft
-licenses, like the X Windows license, do permit that.</p>
-
-<p>So that is the big division between the two categories of free
-software — license-wise. There are the programs that are
-copylefted so that the license defends the freedom of the software for
-every user. And there are the non-copylefted programs for which
-non-free versions are allowed. Somebody <em>can</em> take those
-programs and strip off the freedom. You may get that program in a
-non-free version.</p>
-
-<p>And that problem exists today. There are still non-free versions
-of X Windows being used on our free operating systems. There is even
-hardware — which is not really supported — except by a
-non-free version of X Windows. And that's a major problem in our
-community. Nonetheless, I wouldn't say that X Windows is a bad thing,
-you know. I'd say that the developers did not do the best possible
-thing that they could have done. But they <em>did</em> release a lot
-of software that we could all use.</p>
-
-<p>You know, there's a big difference between less than perfect, and
-evil. There are many gradations of good and bad. We have to resist
-the temptation to say, if you didn't do the absolute best possible
-thing, then you're no good. You know, the people that developed X
-Windows made a big contribution to our community. But there's
-something better that they could have done. They could have
-copylefted parts of the program and prevented those freedom-denying
-versions from being distributed by others.</p>
-
-<p>Now, the fact that the GNU General Public License defends your
-freedom, uses copyright law to defend your freedom, is, of course, why
-Microsoft is attacking it today. See, Microsoft would really like to
-be able to take all the code that we wrote and put it into proprietary
-programs, have somebody make some improvements, or even just
-incompatible changes is all they need. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>You know, with Microsoft's marketing clout, they don't need to make
-it better to have their version supplant ours. They just have to make
-it different and incompatible. And then, put it on everybody's
-desktop. So they really don't like the GNU GPL. Because the GNU GPL
-won't let them do that. It doesn't allow “embrace and
-extend”. It says, if you want to share our code in your
-programs, you can. But, you've got to share and share alike. The
-changes that you make we have to be allowed to share. So, it's a
-two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation.</p>
-
-<p>Many companies — even big companies like IBM and HP are
-willing to use our software on this basis. IBM and HP contribute
-substantial improvements to GNU software. And they develop other free
-software. But, Microsoft doesn't want to do that, so they give it out
-that businesses just can't deal with the GPL. Well, if businesses
-don't include IBM, and HP and SUN, then maybe they're
-right. <i>[Laughter]</i> More about that later.</p>
-
-<p>I should finish the historical story. You see, we set out in 1984
-not just to write some free software but to do something much more
-coherent: to develop an operating system that was entirely free
-software. So that meant we had to write piece after piece after
-piece. Of course, we were always looking for shortcuts. The job was
-so big that people said we'd never be able to finish. And, I thought
-that there was at least a chance that we'd finish it but, obviously,
-it's worth looking for shortcuts. So we kept looking around. Is there
-any program that somebody else has written that we could manage to
-adapt, to plug into here, and that way we won't have to write it from
-scratch? For instance, the X Window system. It's true it wasn't
-copylefted, but it was free software, so we could use it.</p>
-
-<p>Now, I had wanted to put a window system into GNU from day one. I
-wrote a couple of window systems at MIT before I started GNU. And so,
-even though Unix had no window system in 1984, I decided that GNU
-would have one. But, we never ended up writing a GNU window system,
-because X came along. And I said, Goody! One big job we don't have
-to do. We'll use X. So I basically said, let's take X, and put it
-into the GNU system. And we'll make the other parts of GNU, you know,
-work with X, when appropriate. And we found other pieces of software
-that had been written by other people, like the text formatter TeX,
-some library code from Berkeley. At that time there was Berkeley
-Unix, but it was not free software. This library code, initially, was
-from a different group at Berkeley, that did research on floating
-point. And, so, we kept, we fit in these pieces.</p>
-
-<p>In October 1985, we founded the Free Software Foundation. So
-please note, the GNU project came first. The Free Software Foundation
-came after, about almost two years after the announcement of the
-Project. And the Free Software Foundation is a tax-exempt charity
-that raises funds to promote the freedom to share and change software.
-And in the 1980's, one of the main things we did with our funds was to
-hire people to write parts of GNU. And essential programs, such as
-the shell and the C library were written this way, as well as parts of
-other programs. The <code>tar</code> program, which is absolutely
-essential, although not exciting at all <i>[Laughter]</i> was written
-this way. I believe GNU grep was written this way. And so, we're
-approaching our goal.</p>
-
-<p>By 1991, there was just one major piece missing, and that was the
-kernel. Now, why did I put off the kernel? Probably because it
-doesn't really matter what order you do the things in, at least
-technically it doesn't. You've got to do them all anyway. And partly
-because I'd hoped we'd be able to find a start at a kernel somewhere
-else. And we did. We found Mach, which had been developed at
-Carnegie Mellon. And it wasn't the whole kernel; it was the bottom
-half of the kernel. So we had to write the top half, but I figured,
-you know, things like the file system, the network code, and so on.
-But running on top of Mach they're running essentially as user
-programs, which ought to make them easier to debug. You can debug
-with a real source-level debugger running at the same time. And so, I
-thought that way we'd be able to get these, the higher level parts of
-the kernel, done in a short time. It didn't work out that way. These
-asynchronous, multi-threaded processes, sending messages to each other
-turned out to be very hard to debug. And the Mach-based system that
-we were using to bootstrap with had a terrible debugging environment,
-and it was unreliable, and various problems. It took us years and
-years to get the GNU kernel to work.</p>
-
-<p>But, fortunately, our community did not have to wait for the GNU
-kernel. Because in 1991, Linus Torvalds developed another free kernel
-called Linux. And he used the old-fashioned monolithic design and it
-turns out that he got his working much faster than we got ours
-working. So maybe that's one of the mistakes that I made: that design
-decision. Anyway, at first, we didn't know about Linux, because he
-never contacted us to talk about it. Although he did know about the
-GNU Project. But he announced it to other people and other places on
-the net. And so other people then did the work of combining Linux
-with the rest of the GNU system to make a complete free operating
-system. Essentially, to make the GNU plus Linux combination.</p>
-
-<p>But, they didn't realize that's what they were doing. You see,
-they said, We have a kernel — let's look around and see what
-other pieces we can find to put together with the kernel. So, they
-looked around — and lo and behold, everything they needed was
-already available. What good fortune, they said. <i>[Laughter]</i>
-It's all here. We can find everything we need. Let's just take all
-these different things and put it together, and have a system.</p>
-
-<p>They didn't know that most of what they found was pieces of the GNU
-system. So they didn't realize that they were fitting Linux into the
-gap in the GNU system. They thought they were taking Linux and making
-a system out of Linux. So they called it a Linux system.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can't hear you — what?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, it's just not — you know,
-it's provincial.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: But it's more good fortune then finding
-X and Mach?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. The difference is that the
-people who developed X and Mach didn't have the goal of making a
-complete free operating system. We're the only ones who had that.
-And, it was our tremendous work that made the system exist. We
-actually did a larger part of the system than any other project. No
-coincidence, because those people — they wrote useful parts of
-the system. But they didn't do it because they wanted the system to
-be finished. They had other reasons.</p>
-
-<p>Now the people who developed X — they thought that designing
-across the network window system would be a good project, and it was.
-And it turned out to help us make a good free operating system. But
-that's not what they hoped for. They didn't even think about that.
-It was an accident. An accidental benefit. Now, I'm not saying that
-what they did was bad. They did a large free software project.
-That's a good thing to do. But they didn't have that ultimate vision.
-The GNU Project is where that vision was.</p>
-
-<p>And, so, we were the ones whose — every little piece that
-didn't get done by somebody else, we did it. Because we knew that we
-wouldn't have a complete system without it. And even if it was
-totally boring and unromantic, like <code>tar</code>
-or <code>mv</code>. <i>[Laughter]</i> We did it. Or ld, you know
-there's nothing very exciting in <code>ld</code> — but I wrote
-one. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I did make efforts to have it do a minimal
-amount of disk I/O so that it would be faster and handle bigger
-programs. But, you know, I like to do a good job. I like to improve
-various things about the program while I'm doing it. But the reason
-that I did it wasn't that I had brilliant ideas for a
-better <code>ld</code>. The reason I did it is that we needed one
-that was free. And we couldn't expect anyone else to do it. So, we
-had to do it, or find someone to do it.</p>
-
-<p>So, although at this point thousands of people in projects have
-contributed to this system, there is one project which is the reason
-that this system exists, and that's the GNU Project. It <em>is</em>
-basically the GNU System, with other things added since then.</p>
-
-<p>So, however, the practice of calling the system Linux has been a
-great blow to the GNU Project, because we don't normally get credit
-for what we've done. I think Linux, the kernel, is a very useful
-piece of free software, and I have only good things to say about it.
-But, well, actually, I can find a few bad things to say about
-it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, basically, I have good things to say about
-it. However, the practice of calling the GNU system, Linux, is just a
-mistake. I'd like to ask you please to make the small effort
-necessary to call the system GNU/Linux, and that way to help us get a
-share of the credit.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You need a mascot! Get yourself a
-stuffed animal! <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have one.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You do?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have an animal — a
-gnu. <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway. So, yes, when you draw a penguin,
-draw a gnu next to it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, let's save the
-questions for the end. I have more to go through.</p>
-
-<p>So, why am I so concerned about this? You know, why do I think it
-is worth bothering you and perhaps giving you a, perhaps lowering your
-opinion of me, <i>[Laughter]</i> to raise this issue of credit?
-Because, you know, some people when I do this, some people think that
-it's because I want my ego to be fed, right? Of course, I'm not
-saying — I'm not asking you to call it “Stallmanix,”
-right? <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p>
-
-<p>I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to
-get credit. And there's a very specific reason for that, which is a
-lot more important than anybody getting credit, in and of itself. You
-see, these days, if you look around in our community most of the
-people talking about it and writing about it don't ever mention GNU,
-and they don't ever mention these goals of freedom — these
-political and social ideals, either. Because the place they come from
-is GNU.</p>
-
-<p>The ideas associated with Linux — the philosophy is very
-different. It is basically the apolitical philosophy of Linus
-Torvalds. So, when people think that the whole system is Linux, they
-tend to think: “Oh, it must have been all started by Linux
-Torvalds. His philosophy must be the one that we should look at
-carefully”. And when they hear about the GNU philosophy, they
-say: “Boy, this is so idealistic, this must be awfully
-impractical. I'm a Linux-user, not a
-GNU-user.” <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>What irony! If they only knew! If they knew that the system they
-liked — or, in some cases, love and go wild over — is our
-idealistic, political philosophy made real.</p>
-
-<p>They still wouldn't have to agree with us. But at least they'd see
-a reason to take it seriously, to think about it carefully, to give it
-a chance. They would see how it relates to their lives. You know, if
-they realized, “I'm using the GNU system. Here's the GNU
-philosophy. This philosophy is <em>why</em> this system that I like
-very much exists,” they'd at least consider it with a much more
-open mind. It doesn't mean that everybody will agree. People think
-different things. That's OK. You know, people should make up their
-own minds. But I want this philosophy to get the benefit of the
-credit for the results it has achieved.</p>
-
-<p>If you look around in our community, you'll find that almost
-everywhere, the institutions are calling the system Linux. You know,
-reporters mostly call it Linux. It's not right, but they do. The
-companies mostly say it that package the system. Oh, and most of
-these reporters, when they write articles, they usually don't look at
-it as a political issue, or social issue. They're usually looking at
-it purely as a business question or what companies are going to
-succeed more or less, which is really a fairly minor question for
-society. And, if you look at the companies that package the GNU/Linux
-system for people to use, well, most of them call it Linux. And they
-<em>all</em> add non-free software to it.</p>
-
-<p>See, the GNU GPL says that if you take code, and some code out of a
-GPL-covered program, and add some more code to make a bigger program,
-that whole program has to be released under the GPL. But you could
-put other separate programs on the same disk (of either kind, hard
-disk, or CD), and they can have other licenses. That's considered
-mere aggregation, and, essentially, just distributing two programs to
-somebody at the same time is not something we have any say over. So,
-in fact, it is not true — sometimes, I wish it were true —
-that if a company uses a GPL-covered program in a product that the
-whole product has to be free software. It's not — it doesn't go
-to that range — that scope. It's the whole program. If there
-are two separate programs that communicate with each other at arm's
-length — like by sending messages to each other — then,
-they're legally separate, in general. So, these companies, by adding
-non-free software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically
-and politically, a very bad idea. They're telling the users,
-“It is OK to use non-free software. We're even putting it on
-this as a bonus.”</p>
-
-<p>If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system,
-most of them have a title like “Linux-something or other”.
-So they're calling the system Linux most of the time. And they're
-filled with ads for non-free software that you could run on top of the
-GNU/Linux system. Now those ads have a common message. They say:
-Non-free Software Is Good For You. It's So Good That You Might Even
-<em>Pay</em> To Get It. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>And they call these things “value-added packages”,
-which makes a statement about their values. They're saying: Value
-practical convenience, not freedom. And, I don't agree with those
-values, so I call them “freedom-subtracted
-packages”. <i>[Laughter]</i> Because if you have installed a
-free operating system, then you now are living in the free world. You
-enjoy the benefits of liberty that we worked for so many years to give
-you. Those packages give you an opportunity to buckle on a chain.</p>
-
-<p>And then if you look at the trade shows — about the use of
-the, dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call
-themselves “Linux” shows. And they're filled with booths
-exhibiting non-free software, essentially putting the seal of approval
-on the non-free software. So, almost everywhere you look in our
-community, the institutions are endorsing the non-free software,
-totalling negating the idea of freedom that GNU was developed for.
-And the only place that people are likely to come across the idea of
-freedom is in connection with GNU, and in connection with free
-software, the term, free software. So this is why I ask you: please
-call the system GNU/Linux. Please make people aware where the system
-came from and why.</p>
-
-<p>Of course, just by using that name, you won't be making an
-explanation of the history. You can type four extra characters and
-write GNU/Linux; you can say two extra syllables. But, GNU/Linux is
-fewer syllables than Windows 2000. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, you're not
-telling them a lot, but you're preparing them, so that when they hear
-about GNU, and what it's all about, they'll see how that connects to
-them and their lives. And that, indirectly, makes a tremendous
-difference. So please help us.</p>
-
-<p>You'll note that Microsoft called the GPL an “open source
-license”. They don't want people to be thinking in terms of
-freedom as the issue. You'll find that they invite people to think in
-a narrow way, as consumers, and, of course, not even think very
-rationally as consumers, if they're going to choose Microsoft
-products. But they don't want people to think as citizens or
-statesmen. That's inimical to them. At least it's inimical to their
-current business model.</p>
-
-<p>Now, how does free software…well, I can tell you about how
-free software relates to our society. A secondary topic that might be
-of interest to some of you is how free software relates to business.
-Now, in fact, free software is <em>tremendously</em> useful for
-business. After all, most businesses in the advanced countries use
-software. Only a tiny fraction of them develop software.</p>
-
-<p>And free software is tremendously advantageous for any company that
-uses software, because it means that you're in control. Basically,
-free software means the users are in control of what the program does.
-Either individually, if they care enough to be, or, collectively, when
-they care enough to be. Whoever cares enough can exert some
-influence. If you don't care, you don't buy. Then you use what other
-people prefer. But, if you do care, then you have some say. With
-proprietary software, you have essentially no say.</p>
-
-<p>With free software, you can change what you want to change. And it
-doesn't matter that there are no programmers in your company; that's
-fine. You know, if you wanted to move the walls in your building, you
-don't have to be a carpentry company. You just have to be able to go
-find a carpenter and say, “What will you charge to do this
-job?” And if you want to change around the software you use, you
-don't have to be a programming company. You just have to go to a
-programming company and say, “What will you charge to implement
-these features? And when will you have it done?” And if they
-don't do the job, you can go find somebody else.</p>
-
-<p>There's a free market for support. So, any business that cares
-about support will find a tremendous advantage in free software. With
-proprietary software, support is a monopoly, because one company has
-the source code, or maybe a small number of companies that paid a
-gigantic amount of money have the source code, if it's Microsoft's
-shared source program, but, it's very few. And so, there aren't very
-many possible sources of support for you. And that means, that unless
-you're a real giant, they don't care about you. Your company is not
-important enough for them to care if they lose your business, or what
-happens. Once you're using the program, they figure you're locked in
-to getting the support from them, because to switch to a different
-program is a gigantic job. So, you end up with things like paying for
-the privilege of reporting a bug. <i>[Laughter]</i> And once you've
-paid, they tell you, “Well, OK, we've noted your bug report.
-And in a few months, you can buy an upgrade, and you can see if we've
-fixed it.” <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>Support providers for free software can't get away with that. They
-have to please the customers. Of course, you can get a lot of good
-support gratis. You post your problem on the Internet. You may get
-an answer the next day. But that's not guaranteed, of course. If you
-want to be confident, you better make an arrangement with a company
-and pay them. And this is, of course, one of the ways that free
-software business works.</p>
-
-<p>Another advantage of free software for businesses that use software
-is security and privacy. And this applies to individuals as well, but
-I brought it up in the context of businesses. You see, when a program
-is proprietary, you can't even tell what it really does.</p>
-
-<p>It could have features, deliberately put in that you wouldn't like
-if you knew about them, like it might have a backdoor to let the
-developer get into your machine. It might snoop on what you do and
-send information back. This is not unusual. Some Microsoft software
-did this. But it's not only Microsoft. There are other proprietary
-programs that snoop on the user. And you can't even tell if it does
-this. And, of course, even assuming that the developer's totally
-honest, every programmer makes mistakes. There could be bugs that
-affect your security which are nobody's fault. But the point is: If
-it's not free software, you can't find them. And you can't fix
-them.</p>
-
-<p>Nobody has the time to check the source of every program he runs.
-You're not going to do that. But with free software there's a large
-community, and there are people in that community who are checking
-things. And you get the benefit of their checking, because if there's
-an accidental bug, there surely are, from time to time, in any
-program, they might find it and fix it. And people are much less
-likely to put in a deliberate Trojan horse, or a snooping feature, if
-they think they might get caught. The proprietary software developers
-figure they won't get caught. They'll get away with it undetected.
-But a free software developer has to figure that people will look at
-that and see it's there. So, in our community, we don't feel we can
-get away with ramming a feature down the users' throats that the users
-wouldn't like. So we know that if the users don't like it, they'll
-make a modified version which doesn't have it. And then, they'll all
-start using that version.</p>
-
-<p>In fact, we can all reason enough, we can all figure this out
-enough steps ahead, that we probably won't put in that feature. After
-all, you're writing a free program; you want people to like your
-version; you don't want to put in a thing that you know a lot of
-people are going to hate, and have another modified version catch on
-instead of yours. So you just realize that the user is king in the
-world of free software. In the world of proprietary software, the
-customer is <em>not</em> king. Because you are only a customer. You
-have no say in the software you use.</p>
-
-<p>In this respect, free software is a new mechanism for democracy to
-operate. Professor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions
-as a kind of law. Whoever gets to write the code that just about
-everybody uses for all intents and purposes is writing the laws that
-run people's lives. With free software, these laws get written in a
-democratic way. Not the classical form of democracy — we don't
-have a big election and say, “Everybody vote which way should
-this feature be done.” <i>[Laughter]</i> Instead we say,
-basically, those of you who want to work on implementing the feature
-this way, do it. And if you want to work on implementing the feature
-that way, do it. And, it gets done one way or the other, you know?
-And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done this way.
-So, in this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by
-simply taking steps in the direction that he wants to go.</p>
-
-<p>And you're free to take as many steps, personally, as you want to
-take. A business is free to commission as many steps as they find
-useful to take. And, after you add all these things up, that says
-which direction the software goes.</p>
-
-<p>And it's often very useful to be able to take pieces out of some
-existing program, presumably usually large pieces, of course, and then
-write a certain amount of code of your own, and make a program that
-does exactly what you need, which would have cost you an arm and a leg
-to develop, if you had to write it all from scratch, if you couldn't
-cannibalize large pieces from some existing free software package.</p>
-
-<p>Another thing that results from the fact that the user is king is
-that we tend to be very good about compatibility and standardization.
-Why? Because users like that. Users are likely to reject a program
-that has gratuitous incompatibilities in it. Now, sometimes there's a
-certain group of users which actually have a need for a certain kind
-of incompatibility, and then they'll have it. That's OK. But when
-users want is to follow a standard, we developers have to follow it,
-and we know that. And we do it. By contrast, if you look at
-proprietary software developers, they often find it advantageous to
-deliberately <em>not</em> follow a standard, and not because they
-think that they're giving the user an advantage that way, but rather
-because they're imposing on the user, locking the user in. And you'll
-even find them making changes in their file formats from time to time,
-just to force people to get the newest version.</p>
-
-<p>Archivists are finding a problem now, that files written on
-computers ten years ago often can't be accessed; they were written
-with proprietary software that's essentially lost now. If it were
-written with free software, then it could be brought up-to-date and
-run. And those things would not, those records would not be lost,
-would not be inaccessible. They were even complaining about this on
-NPR recently in citing free software as a solution. And so, in
-effect, by using a non-free program to store your own data, you are
-putting your head in a noose.</p>
-
-<p>So, I've talked about how free software affects most business. But
-how does it affect that particular narrow area which is software
-business? Well, the answer is mostly not at all. And the reason is
-that 90% of the software industry, from what I'm told, is development
-of custom software, software that's not meant to be released at all.
-For custom software, this issue, or the ethical issue of free or
-proprietary, doesn't arise. You see, the issue is, are you users free
-to change, and redistribute, the software? If there's only one user,
-and that user owns the rights, there's no problem. That
-user <em>is</em> free to do all these things. So, in effect, any
-<em>custom</em> program that was developed by one company for use
-in-house is free software, as long as they have the sense to insist on
-getting the source code and all the rights.</p>
-
-<p>And the issue doesn't really arise for software that goes in a
-watch or a microwave oven or an automobile ignition system. Because
-those are places where you don't download software to install. It's
-not a real computer, as far as the user is concerned. And so, it
-doesn't raise these issues enough for them to be ethically important.
-So, for the most part, the software industry will go along, just as
-it's been going. And the interesting thing is that since such a large
-fraction of the jobs are in that part of the industry, even if there
-were no possibilities for free software business, the developers of
-free software could all get day jobs writing custom
-software. <i>[Laughter]</i> There's so many; the ratio is so big.</p>
-
-<p>But, as it happens, there is free software business. There are
-free software companies, and at the press conference that I'm going to
-have, people from a couple of them will join us. And, of course,
-there are also companies which are <em>not</em> free software
-businesses but do develop useful pieces of free software to release,
-and the free software that they produce is substantial.</p>
-
-<p>Now, how do free software businesses work? Well, some of them sell
-copies. You know, you're free to copy it but they can still sell
-thousands of copies a month. And others sell support and various
-kinds of services. I, personally, for the second half of the '80's, I
-sold free software support services. Basically I said, for $200 an
-hour, I'll change whatever you want me to change in GNU software that
-I'd written. And, yes, it was a stiff rate, but if it was a program
-that I was the author of, people would figure that I might get the job
-done in a lot fewer hours. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I made a living that
-way. In fact, I'd made more than I'd ever made before. I also taught
-classes. And I kept doing that until 1990, when I got a big prize and
-I didn't have to do it any more.</p>
-
-<p>But, 1990 was when the first corporation free software business was
-formed, which was Cygnus Support. And their business was to do,
-essentially, the same kind of thing that I'd been doing. I certainly
-could have worked for them, if I had needed to do that. Since I
-didn't need to, I felt it was good for the movement if I remained
-independent of any one company. That way, I could say good and bad
-things about the various free software and non-free software
-companies, without a conflict of interest. I felt that I could serve
-the movement more. But, if I had needed that to make a living, sure,
-I would have worked for them. It's an ethical business to be in. No
-reason I would have felt ashamed to take a job with them. And that
-company was profitable in its first year. It was formed with very
-little capital, just the money its three founders had. And it kept
-growing every year and being profitable every year until they got
-greedy, and looked for outside investors, and then they messed things
-up. But it was several years of success, before they got greedy.</p>
-
-<p>So, this illustrates one of the exciting things about free
-software. Free software demonstrates that you don't need to raise
-capital to develop free software. I mean, it's useful;
-it <em>can</em> help. You know, if you do raise some capital, you can
-hire people and have them write a bunch of software. But you can get
-a lot done with a small number of people. And, in fact, the
-tremendous efficiency of the process of developing free software is
-one of the reasons it's important for the world to switch to free
-software. And it also belies what Microsoft says when they say the
-GNU GPL is bad, because it makes it harder for them to raise capital
-to develop non-free software and take our free software and put our
-code into their programs that they won't share with us. Basically, we
-don't need to have them raising capital that way. We'll get the job
-done anyway. We are getting the job done.</p>
-
-<p>People used to say we could never do a complete free operating
-system. Now we've done that and a tremendous amount more. And I
-would say that we're about an order of magnitude away from developing
-all the general purpose published software needs of the world. And
-this is in a world where more than 90% of the users don't use our free
-software yet. This is in a world where, although in certain areas of
-business, you know, more than half of all the web servers in the world
-are running on GNU/Linux with Apache as the web server.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i> … What did you
-say before, Linux?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I said GNU/Linux.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You did?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, if I'm talking about the kernel, I
-call it Linux. You know, that's it's name. The kernel was written by
-Linus Torvalds, and we should only call it by the name that he chose,
-out of respect for the author.</p>
-
-<p>Anyway, but in general, in business most users are not using it.
-Most home users are not using our system yet. So, when they are, we
-should automatically get 10 times as many volunteers and 10 times as
-many customers for the free software businesses that there will be.
-And so that will take us that order of magnitude. So at this point, I
-am pretty confident that we <em>can</em> do the job.</p>
-
-<p>And, this is important, because Microsoft asks us to feel
-desperate. They say, The only way you can have software to run, the
-only way you can have innovation, is if you give us power. Let us
-dominate you. Let us control what you can do with the software you're
-running, so that we can squeeze a lot of money out of you, and use a
-certain fraction of that to develop software, and take the rest as
-profit.</p>
-
-<p>Well, you shouldn't ever feel that desperate. You shouldn't ever
-feel so desperate that you give up your freedom. That's very
-dangerous.</p>
-
-<p>Another thing that Microsoft, well, not just Microsoft, people who
-don't support free software generally adopt a value system in which
-the only thing that matters is short-term practical benefits: How much
-money am I going to make this year? What job can I get done today?
-Short-term thinking and narrow thinking. Their assumption is that it
-is ridiculous to imagine that anybody ever might make a sacrifice for
-the sake of freedom.</p>
-
-<p>Yesterday, a lot of people were making speeches about Americans who
-made sacrifices for the freedom of their compatriots. Some of them
-made great sacrifices. They even sacrificed their lives for the kinds
-of freedom that everyone in our country has heard about, at least.
-(At least, in some of the cases; I guess we have to ignore the war in
-Vietnam.)</p>
-
-<p><i>[Editor's note: The day before was “Memorial Day” in
-the USA. Memorial Day is a day where war heros are
-commemorated.]</i></p>
-
-<p>But, fortunately, to maintain our freedom in using software,
-doesn't call for big sacrifices. Just tiny, little sacrifices are
-enough, like learning a command-line interface, if we don't have a GUI
-interface program yet. Like doing the job in this way, because we
-don't have a free software package to do it that way, yet. Like,
-paying some money to a company that's going to develop a certain free
-software package, so that you can have it in a few years. Various
-little sacrifices that we can all make. And, in the long run, even we
-will have benefited from it. You know, it is really an investment
-more than a sacrifice. We just have to have enough long-term view to
-realize it's good for us to invest in improving our society, without
-counting the nickels and dimes of who gets how much of the benefit
-from that investment.</p>
-
-<p>So, at this point, I'm essentially done.</p>
-
-<p>I'd like to mention that there's a new approach to free software
-business being proposed by Tony Stanco, which he calls “Free
-Developers”, which involves a certain business structure which
-hopes eventually to pay out a certain share of the profits to every,
-to all the authors of the free software who've joined the
-organization. And they're looking at the prospects of getting me some
-rather large government software development contracts in India now,
-because they're going to be using free software as the basis, having
-tremendous cost savings that way.</p>
-
-<p>And so now I guess that I should ask for questions.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Could you speak up a bit louder please?
-I can't really hear you.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: How could a company like Microsoft
-include a free software contract?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually, Microsoft is planning to
-shift a lot of its activity into services. And what they're planning
-to do is something dirty and dangerous, which is tie the services to
-the programs, one to the next, in a sort of zigzag, you know? So that
-to use this service, you've got to be using this Microsoft program,
-which is going to mean you need to use this service, to this Microsoft
-program, so it's all tied together. That's their plan.</p>
-
-<p>Now, the interesting thing is that selling those services doesn't
-raise the ethical issue of free software or non-free software. It
-might be perfectly fine for them to have the business for those
-businesses selling those services over the net to exist. However,
-what Microsoft is planning to do is to use them to achieve an even
-greater lock, an even greater monopoly, on the software and the
-services, and this was described in an article, I believe in Business
-Week, recently. And, other people said that it is turning the net
-into the Microsoft Company Town.</p>
-
-<p>And this is relevant because, you know, the trial court in the
-Microsoft antitrust trial recommended breaking up the company,
-Microsoft. But in a way, that makes no sense — it wouldn't do
-any good at all — into the operating part and the applications
-part.</p>
-
-<p>But having seen that article, I now see a useful, effective way to
-split up Microsoft into the services part and the software part, to
-require them to deal with each other only at arm's length, that the
-services must publish their interfaces, so that anybody can write a
-client to talk to those services, and, I guess, that they have to pay
-to get the service. Well, that's OK. That's a totally different
-issue.</p>
-
-<p>If Microsoft is split up in this way […] services and
-software, they will not be able to use their software to crush
-competition with Microsoft services. And they won't be able to use
-the services to crush competition with Microsoft software. And we
-will be able to make the free software, and maybe you people will use
-it to talk to Microsoft services, and we won't mind.</p>
-
-<p>Because, after all, although Microsoft is the proprietary software
-company that has subjugated the most people — the others have
-subjugated fewer people, it's not for want of
-trying. <i>[Laughter]</i> They just haven't succeeded in subjugating
-as many people. So, the problem is not Microsoft and only Microsoft.
-Microsoft is just the biggest example of the problem we're trying to
-solve, which is proprietary software taking away users' freedom to
-cooperate and form an ethical society. So we shouldn't focus too much
-on Microsoft, you know, even though they did give me the opportunity
-for this platform. That doesn't make them all-important. They're not
-the be-all and end-all.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Earlier, you were discussing the
-philosophical differences between open source software and free
-software. How do you feel about the current trend of GNU/Linux
-distributions as they head towards supporting only Intel platforms?
-And the fact that it seems that less and less programmers are
-programming correctly, and making software that will compile anywhere?
-And making software that simply works on Intel systems?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I don't see an ethical issue there.
-Although, in fact, companies that make computers sometimes port the
-GNU/Linux system to it. HP apparently did this recently. And, they
-didn't bother paying for a port of Windows, because that would have
-cost too much. But getting GNU/Linux supported was, I think, five
-engineers for a few months. It was easily doable.</p>
-
-<p>Now, of course, I encourage people to use <code>autoconf</code>,
-which is a GNU package that makes it easier to make your programs
-portable. I encourage them to do that. Or when somebody else fixes
-the bug that it didn't compile on that version of the system, and
-sends it to you, you should put it in. But I don't see that as an
-ethical issue.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Two comments. One is: Recently, you
-spoke at MIT. I read the transcript. And someone asked about
-patents, and you said that “patents are a totally different
-issue. I have no comments on that.”</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I actually have a lot to say
-about patents, but it takes an hour. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I wanted to say this: It seems to me
-that there is an issue. I mean, there is a reason that companies call
-both patents and copyrights things like hard property in trying to get
-this concept which is, if they want to use the power of the State to
-create a course of monopoly for themselves. And so, what's common
-about these things is not that they revolve around the same issues,
-but that motivation is not really the public service issues but the
-motivation of companies to get a monopoly for their private
-interests.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I understand. But, well, I want to
-respond because there's not too much time. So I'd like to respond to
-that.</p>
-
-<p>You're right that that's what they want. But there's another
-reason why they want to use the term intellectual property. It's that
-they don't want to encourage people to think carefully about copyright
-issues or patent issues. Because copyright law and patent law are
-totally different, and the effects of software copyrighted and
-software patents are totally different.</p>
-
-<p>Software patents are a restriction on programmers, prohibiting them
-from writing certain kinds of programs, whereas copyright doesn't do
-that. With copyright, at least if you wrote it yourself, you're
-allowed to distribute it. So, it's tremendously important to separate
-these issues.</p>
-
-<p>They have a little bit in common, at a very low level, and
-everything else is different. So, please, to encourage clear
-thinking, discuss copyright or discuss patents. But don't discuss
-intellectual property. I don't have an opinion on intellectual
-property. I have opinions on copyrights and patents and software.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You mentioned at the beginning that a
-functional language, like recipes, are computer programs. There's a
-cross a little bit different than other kinds of language created on.
-This is also causing a problem in the DVD case.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: The issues are partly similar but partly
-different, for things that are not functional in nature. Part of the
-issue transfers but not all of it. Unfortunately, that's another hour
-speech. I don't have time to go into it. But I would say that all
-functional works ought to be free in the same sense as software. You
-know, textbooks, manuals, dictionaries, and recipes, and so on.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I was just wondering on online
-music. There are similarities and differences created all through.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I'd say that the minimum freedom
-that we should have for any kind of published information is the
-freedom to non-commercially redistribute it, verbatim. For functional
-works, we need the freedom to commercially publish a modified version,
-because that's tremendously useful to society. For non-functional
-works, you know, things that are to entertain, or to be aesthetic, or
-to state a certain person's views, you know, perhaps they shouldn't be
-modified. And, perhaps that means that it's OK, to have copyright
-covering all commercial distribution of them.</p>
-
-<p>Please remember that according to the U.S. Constitution, the
-purpose of copyright is to benefit the public. It is to modify the
-behavior of certain private parties, so that they will publish more
-books. And the benefit of this is that society gets to discuss issues
-and learn. And, you know, we have literature. We have scientific
-works. The purpose is encourage that. Copyrights do not exist for
-the sake of authors, let alone for the sake of publishers. They exist
-for the sake of readers and all those who benefit from the
-communication of information that happens when people write and others
-read. And that goal I agree with.</p>
-
-<p>But in the age of the computer networks, the method is no longer
-tenable, because it now requires draconian laws that invade
-everybody's privacy and terrorize everyone. You know, years in prison
-for sharing with your neighbor. It wasn't like that in the age of the
-printing press. Then copyright was an industrial regulation. It
-restricted publishers. Now, it's a restriction imposed by the
-publishers on the public. So, the power relationship is turned around
-180 degrees, even if it's the same law.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: So you can have the same thing —
-but like in making music from other music?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. That is an interesting
-…</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: And unique, new works, you know, it's
-still a lot of cooperation.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: It is. And I think that probably
-requires some kind of fair use concept. Certainly making a few
-seconds of sample and using that in making some musical work,
-obviously that should be fair use. Even the standard idea of fair use
-includes that, if you think about it. Whether courts agree, I'm not
-sure, but they should. That wouldn't be a real change in the system
-as it has existed.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: What do you think about publishing
-public information in proprietary formats?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, it shouldn't be. I mean, the
-government should never require citizens to use a non-free program to
-access, to communicate with the government in any way, in either
-direction.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I have been, what I will now say, a
-GNU/Linux user…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Thank you. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: …for the past four years. The one
-thing that has been problematical for me and is something that is
-essential, I think, to all of us, is browsing the web.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: One thing that has been decidedly a
-weakness in using a GNU/Linux system has been browsing the web,
-because the prevailing tool for that, Netscape…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: …is not free software.</p>
-
-<p>Let me respond to this. I want to get to the point, for the sake
-of getting in more. So, yes. There has been a terrible tendency for
-people to use Netscape Navigator on their GNU/Linux systems. And, in
-fact all the commercially packaged systems come with it. So this is
-an ironic situation: we worked so hard to make a free operating
-system, and now, if you go to the store, and you can find versions of
-GNU/Linux there, most of them are called Linux, and they're not free.
-Oh, well, part of them is. But then, there's Netscape Navigator, and
-maybe other non-free programs as well. So, it's very hard to actually
-find a free system, unless you know what you're doing. Or, of course,
-you can not install Netscape Navigator.</p>
-
-<p>Now, in fact, there have been free web browsers for many years.
-There is a free web browser that I used to use called Lynx. It's a
-free web browser that is non-graphical; it's text-only. This has a
-tremendous advantage, in you don't see the ads. <i>[Laughter]
-[Applause]</i></p>
-
-<p>But anyway, there is a free graphical project called Mozilla, which
-is now getting to the point where you can use it. And I occasionally
-use it.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 has been very good.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, OK. So that's another free
-graphical browser. So, we're finally solving that problem, I
-guess.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk to me about that
-philosophical/ethical division between free software and open source?
-Do you feel that those are irreconcilable? …</p>
-
-<p><i>[Recording switches tapes; end of question and start of answer
-is missing]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: … to a freedom, and ethics. Or
-whether you just say, Well, I hope that you companies will decide it's
-more profitable to let us be allowed to do these things.</p>
-
-<p>But, as I said, in a lot of practical work, it doesn't really
-matter what a person's politics are. When a person offers to help the
-GNU project, we don't say: “You have to agree with our
-politics.” We say that in a GNU package, you've got to call the
-system GNU/Linux, and you've got to call it free software. What you
-say when you're not speaking to the GNU Project, that's up to you.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: The company, IBM, started a campaign for
-government agencies, to sell their big new machines, that they used
-Linux as selling point, and say Linux.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, of course, it's really the
-GNU/Linux systems. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: That's right! Well, tell the top sales
-person. He doesn't know anything for GNU.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I have to tell who?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: The top sales person.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh yes. The problem is that they've
-already carefully decided what they want to say for reasons of their
-advantage. And the issue of what is a more accurate, or fair, or
-correct way to describe it is not the primary issue that matters to a
-company like that. Now, some small companies, yes, there'll be a
-boss. And if the boss is inclined to think about things like that, he
-might make a decision that way. Not a giant corporation though. It's
-a shame, you know.</p>
-
-<p>There's another more important and more substantive issue about
-what IBM is doing. They're saying that they're putting a billion
-dollars into “Linux”. But perhaps, I should also put
-quotes around “into”, as well, because some of that money
-is paying people to develop free software. That really is a
-contribution to our community. But other parts is paying to pay
-people to write proprietary software, or port proprietary software to
-run on top of GNU/Linux, and that is <em>not</em> a contribution to
-our community. But IBM is lumping that altogether into this. Some of
-it might be advertising, which is partly a contribution, even if it's
-partly wrong. So, it's a complicated situation. Some of what they're
-doing is contribution and some is not. And some is sort is somewhat,
-but not exactly. And you can't just lump it altogether and think,
-Wow! Whee! A billion dollars from IBM. <i>[Laughter]</i> That's
-oversimplification.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk a little bit more about the
-thinking that went into the general public license?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, here's the — I'm sorry, I'm
-answering his question now. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Do you want to reserve some time for
-the press conference? Or do you want to continue here?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Who is here for the press conference?
-Not a lot of press. Oh, three — OK. Can you afford if we
-— if I go on answering everybody's questions for another ten
-minutes or so? OK. So, we'll go on answering everybody's
-questions.</p>
-
-<p>So, the thinking that went into the GNU GPL? Part of it was that I
-wanted to protect the freedom of the community against the phenomena
-that I just described with X Windows, which has happened with other
-free programs as well. In fact, when I was thinking about this issue,
-X Windows was not yet released. But I had seen this problem happen in
-other free programs. For instance, TeX. I wanted to make sure that
-the users would all have freedom. Otherwise, I realized that I might
-write a program, and maybe a lot of people would use the program, but
-they wouldn't have freedom. And what's the point of that?</p>
-
-<p>But the other issue I was thinking about was, I wanted to give the
-community a feeling that it was not a doormat, a feeling that it was
-not prey to any parasite who would wander along. If you don't use
-copyleft, you are essentially saying: <i>[speaking meekly]</i>
-“Take my code. Do what you want. I don't say no.” So,
-anybody can come along and say: <i>[speaking very firmly]</i>
-“Ah, I want to make a non-free version of this. I'll just take
-it.” And, then, of course, they probably make some improvements,
-those non-free versions might appeal to users, and replace the free
-versions. And then, what have you accomplished? You've only made a
-donation to some proprietary software project.</p>
-
-<p>And when people see that that's happening, when people see, other
-people take what I do, and they don't ever give back, it can be
-demoralizing. And, this is not just speculation. I had seen that
-happen. That was part of what happened to wipe out the old community
-that I belonged to the '70's. Some people started becoming
-uncooperative. And we assumed that they were profiting thereby. They
-certainly acted as if they thought they were profiting. And we
-realized that they can just take off cooperation and not give back.
-And there was nothing we could do about it. It was very discouraging.
-We, those of us who didn't like the trend, even had a discussion and
-we couldn't come up with any idea for how we could stop it.</p>
-
-<p>So, the GPL is designed to stop that. And it says, Yes, you are
-welcome to join the community and use this code. You can use it to do
-all sorts of jobs. But, if you release a modified version, you've got
-to release that to our community, as part of our community, as part of
-the free world.</p>
-
-<p>So, in fact, there are still many ways that people can get the
-benefit of our work and not contribute, like you don't have to write
-any software. Lots of people use GNU/Linux and don't write any
-software. There's no requirement that you've got to do anything for
-us. But if you do a certain kind of thing, you've got to contribute
-to it. So what that means is that our community is not a doormat.
-And I think that that helped give people the strength to feel, Yes, we
-won't just be trampled underfoot by everybody. We'll stand up to
-this.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Yes, my question was, considering free
-but not copylefted software, since anybody can pick it up and make it
-proprietary, is it not possible also for someone to pick it up and
-make some changes and release the whole thing under the GPL?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, it is possible.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Then, that would make all future copies
-then be GPL'ed.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: From that branch. But here's why we
-don't do that.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Hmm?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Here's why we don't generally do that.
-Let me explain.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: OK, yes.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We could, if we wanted to, take X
-Windows, and make a GPL-covered copy and make changes in that. But
-there's a much larger group of people working on improving X Windows
-and <em>not</em> GPL-ing it. So, if we did that, we would be forking
-from them. And that's not very nice treatment of them. And, they
-<em>are</em> a part of our community, contributing to our
-community.</p>
-
-<p>Second, it would backfire against us, because they're doing a lot
-more work on X than we would be. So, our version would be inferior to
-theirs, and people wouldn't use it, which means, why go to the trouble
-at all?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Mmm hmm.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: So when a person has written some
-improvement to X Windows, what I say that person should do is
-cooperate with the X development team. Send it to them and let them
-use it their way. Because they are developing a very important piece
-of free software. It's good for us to cooperate with them.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Except, considering X, in particular,
-about two years ago, the X Consortium that was far into the non-free
-open source…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually it <em>wasn't</em> open
-sourced. It wasn't open sourced, either. They may have said it was.
-I can't remember if they said that or not. But it wasn't open
-source. It was restricted. You couldn't commercially distribute, I
-think. Or you couldn't commercially distribute a modified version, or
-something like that. There was a restriction that's considered
-unacceptable by both the Free Software movement and the Open Source
-movement.</p>
-
-<p>And yes, that's what using a non-copyleft license leaves you open
-to. In fact, the X Consortium, they had a very rigid policy. They
-say: If your program if copylefted even a little bit, we won't
-distribute it at all. We won't put it in our distribution.</p>
-
-<p>So, a lot of people were pressured in this way into not
-copylefting. And the result was that all of their software was wide
-open, later on. When the same people who had pressured a developer to
-be too all-permissive, then the X people later said, All right, now we
-can put on restrictions, which wasn't very ethical of them.</p>
-
-<p>But, given the situation, would we really want to scrape up the
-resources to maintain an alternate GPL-covered version of X? And it
-wouldn't make any sense to do that. There are so many other things we
-need to do. Let's do them instead. We can cooperate with the X
-developers.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Do you have a comment, is the GNU a
-trademark? And is it practical to include it as part of the GNU
-General Public License allowing trademarks?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We are, actually, applying for trademark
-registration on GNU. But it wouldn't really have anything to do with
-that. It's a long story to explain why.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You could require the trademark be
-displayed with GPL-covered programs.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: No, I don't think so. The licenses
-cover individual programs. And when a given program is part of the
-GNU Project, nobody lies about that. The name of the system as a
-whole is a different issue. And this is an aside. It's not worth
-discussing more.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: If there was a button that you could
-push and force all companies to free their software, would you press
-it?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, I would only use this for
-published software. You know, I think that people have the right to
-write a program privately and use it. And that includes companies.
-This is privacy issue. And it's true, there can be times when it is
-wrong to do that, like if it is tremendously helpful to humanity, and
-you are withholding it from humanity. That is a wrong but that's a
-different kind of wrong. It's a different issue, although it's in the
-same area.</p>
-
-<p>But yes, I think all published software should be free software.
-And remember, when it's not free software, that's because of
-government intervention. The government is intervening to make it
-non-free. The government is creating special legal powers to hand out
-to the owners of the programs, so that they can have the police stop
-us from using the programs in certain ways. So I would certainly like
-to end that. </p>
-
-<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Richard's presentation has invariably
-generated an enormous amount of intellectual energy. I would suggest
-that some of it should be directed to using, and possibly writing,
-free software.</p>
-
-<p>We should close the proceedings shortly. I want to say that
-Richard has injected into a profession which is known in the general
-public for its terminal apolitical nerditude a level of political and
-moral discussion which is, I think, unprecedented in our profession.
-And we owe him very big for this. I'd like to note to people that
-there is a break.</p>
-
-<p><i>[Applause]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: You are free to leave at any time, you
-know. <i>[Laughter]</i> I'm not holding you prisoner here.</p>
-
-<p><i>[Audience adjourns…]</i></p>
-
-<p><i>[overlapping conversations…]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: One final thing. Our website:
-www.gnu.org</p>
-
-</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
-<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
-<div id="footer">
-<div class="unprintable">
-
-<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
-<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></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";><address@hidden></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";>
- <address@hidden></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>. -->
-Please see the <a
-href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
-README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
-of this article.</p>
-</div>
-
-<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
- files generated as part of manuals) 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. -->
-
-<p>Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman</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>
-
-<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
-
-<p class="unprintable">Updated:
-<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2015/02/20 15:30:06 $
-<!-- timestamp end -->
-</p>
-</div>
-</div>
-</body>
-</html>
Index: events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.html
diff -N events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.html
--- events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.html 2 May 2015 04:57:34 -0000
1.32
+++ /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
@@ -1,2289 +0,0 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.en.html" -->
-
-<!--#include virtual="/server/header.pl.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
-
-<!-- This file is automatically generated by GNUnited Nations! -->
-<title>Wolne oprogramowanie: wolnoÅÄ i wspóÅpraca - Projekt GNU -
Fundacja
-wolnego oprogramowania (FSF)</title>
-
-<!--#include virtual="/events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist" -->
-<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pl.html" -->
-<h2>Wolne oprogramowanie: wolnoÅÄ i wspóÅpraca</h2>
-
-<blockquote><p>Transcrypcja przemównienia Richarda M. Stallmana p.t.
„Wolne
-oprogramowanie: wolnoÅÄ i wspóÅpraca” wygÅoszonego na New
-York University w Nowym Jorku, NY, 29. maja 2001 r.</p></blockquote>
-
-<div class="announcement">
-<blockquote><p>Także dostÄpne jako <a
href="/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt">czysty
-tekst</a> [<em>po angielski</em>] oraz <a
-href="/events/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt">streszczenie</a>.</p></blockquote>
-</div>
-
-<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: Nazywam siÄ Mike Uretsky. Jestem pracownikiem
-WydziaÅu DziaÅalnoÅci Handlowej [Stern School of Business]. Jestem także
-jednym z dyrektorów Centrum Zaawansowanych Technologii [Center for
-Advanced Technology]. ChciaÅbym wszystkich przywitaÄ w imieniu
-pracowników WydziaÅu Informatyki [Computer Science Department]. Pozwólcie,
-że powiem jeszcze kilka sÅów zanim przekaÅ¼Ä gÅos Edowi, który
-przedstawi naszego goÅcia.</p>
-
-<p>Uniwersytet powinien byÄ miejscem sprzyjajÄ
cym debatom, w którym
-odbywajÄ
siÄ ciekawe dyskusje. Natomiast na wiodÄ
cym uniwersytecie
-powinny odbywaÄ siÄ dyskusje szczególnie ciekawe. Do tej kategorii
-idealnie pasuje dzisiejsze seminarium. Dla mnie dyskusja poruszajÄ
ca temat
-oprogramowania open source [ang. o otwartych źródÅach] jest szczególnie
-interesujÄ
ca. W pewnym sensie… <i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Ja siÄ zajmujÄ wolnym
-oprogramowaniem. Oprogramowanie open source to osobny ruch. <i>[Åmiech]
-[aplauz]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: Kiedy w latach 60. zaczynaÅem pracÄ
-w tej dziedzinie, oprogramowanie byÅo w zasadzie
-wolne. Ale wszystko siÄ odwróciÅo. StaÅo siÄ wolne, a potem
-producenci oprogramowania, którzy chcieli rozszerzyÄ swoje rynki zbytu,
-popchnÄli je w innych kierunkach. Wiele rzeczy, które pojawiÅy siÄ
wraz
-z architekturÄ
PC, przeszÅo przez podobny cykl.</p>
-
-<p>Jest pewien bardzo interesujÄ
cy francuski filozof, Pierre Levy, który
pisze
-o ruchu w tym kierunku. Pisze także o wkraczaniu
-do cyberprzestrzeni jako czymÅ zwiÄ
zanym nie tylko z technologiÄ
,
-ale również reorganizacjÄ
struktury spoÅecznej i politycznej,
-bÄdÄ
cej wynikiem zmiany typów relacji, które doprowadzÄ
do poprawy
-stanu ludzkoÅci. Mamy nadziejÄ, że ta debata to ruch w tymże
-kierunku, że rozmywa ona granice pomiÄdzy wieloma dziedzinami, które
-zwykle funkcjonujÄ
na Uniwersytecie osobno. Mamy nadziejÄ,
-że dyskusje bÄdÄ
bardzo interesujÄ
ce. Ed?</p>
-
-<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Nazywam siÄ Ed Schonberg i pracujÄ
-na Wydziale Informatyki Instytutu Courant [Courant Institute]. Witam
-wszystkich przybyÅych. Zapowiadacze to zazwyczaj, i w szczególnoÅci,
-niepotrzebny aspekt publicznych wystÄ
pieÅ, jednak w tym przypadku majÄ
-użyteczne zastosowanie, co pokazaÅ Mike czyniÄ
c nieÅcisÅe uwagi.
PozwoliÅ on
-mówcy dodaÄ sprostowanie <i>[Åmiech]</i> i znacznie wyostrzyÄ wstÄpne
-zaÅożenia debaty.</p>
-
-<p>Pozwólcie wiÄc, że w jak najkrótszy sposób przedstawiÄ osobÄ,
która
-przedstawiania nie wymaga. Richard to doskonaÅy przykÅad kogoÅ, kto
-dziaÅajÄ
c lokalnie zaczÄ
Å myÅleÄ globalnie, poczynajÄ
c
od problemów
-zwiÄ
zanych z niedostÄpnoÅciÄ
kodu źródÅowego sterowników drukarki
-w Laboratorium Sztucznej Inteligencji na MIT [AI Lab] wiele lat
-temu. StworzyÅ on spójnÄ
filozofiÄ, która zmusiÅa nas wszystkich
-do ponownego przemyÅlenia kwestii produkcji oprogramowania, znaczenia
-wÅasnoÅci intelektualnej i tego, co reprezentuje sobÄ
Årodowisko
-programistów. Przywitajmy Richarda Stallmana. <i>[aplauz]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Czy ktoÅ mógÅby pożyczyÄ mi zegarek?
-<i>[Åmiech]</i> DziÄkujÄ. No wiÄc, chciaÅbym podziÄkowaÄ firmie
Microsoft
-za stworzenie mi okazji do <i>[Åmiech]</i> przemawiania
-z tego miejsca. Od kilku tygodni czujÄ siÄ jak autor ksiÄ
żki,
-która szczÄÅliwie zostaÅa gdzieÅ zakazana. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Tylko
-że wszystkie artykuÅy na jej temat zawierajÄ
nazwisko
-niewÅaÅciwego autora, bo Microsoft okreÅla GPL jako licencjÄ typu open
-source, a wiÄkszoÅÄ prasy podÄ
ża ich Åladem. WiÄkszoÅÄ ludzi,
-oczywiÅcie bez zÅych intencji, nie zdaje sobie sprawy, że nasze
-dziaÅania nie majÄ
nic wspólnego z ruchem open source, oraz że
-zajmowaliÅmy siÄ tymi sprawami na dÅugo zanim nawet utarÅ siÄ termin
-open source.</p>
-
-<p>JesteÅmy czÄÅciÄ
ruchu wolnego oprogramowania, a ja zamierzam
-opowiedzieÄ, co ten ruch ma na celu, jakie ma znaczenie, co dotychczas
-zrobiliÅmy oraz, ponieważ to wszystko jest po czÄÅci sponsorowane
-przez wydziaÅ handlowy, opowiem trochÄ wiÄcej niż zwykle o stosunku wolnego
-oprogramowania do biznesu i kilku innych obszarów życia
-spoÅecznego.</p>
-
-<p>Dobrze, niektórzy z was mogÄ
nigdy nie napisaÄ Å¼adnego programu,
-ale byÄ może gotujecie. Jako kucharze zapewne korzystacie
-z przepisów, chyba że jesteÅcie naprawdÄ Åwietni. A jeÅli
-korzystacie z przepisów, to pewnie kiedyÅ dostaliÅcie kopiÄ jednego
-z nich od znajomego. ZdarzyÅo siÄ też zapewne, jeÅli tylko nie
-jesteÅcie zupeÅnymi nowicjuszami, że zmieniliÅcie jakiÅ przepis. No
-wiecie, przepis zawiera pewne wskazówki, ale nie musicie siÄ ich
-dokÅadnie trzymaÄ. Możecie opuÅciÄ kilka skÅadników. DodaÄ trochÄ
grzybów,
-bo lubicie grzyby. ZmniejszyÄ iloÅÄ soli, bo lekarz kazaÅ wam
-mniej soliÄ – cokolwiek. JeÅli macie odpowiednie umiejÄtnoÅci,
-możecie nawet wprowadzaÄ wiÄksze zmiany. A kiedy już zmieniliÅcie
-przepis i przygotowaliÅcie danie dla swoich znajomych, a im to
-smakowaÅo, jeden z nich może powiedzieÄ: „Hej, mogÄ dostaÄ
-przepis?”. I co wtedy zrobicie? Możecie zapisaÄ swojÄ
-zmodyfikowanÄ
wersjÄ na kartce i skopiowaÄ jÄ
dla znajomego. To
-naturalne postÄpowanie w przypadku jakiegokolwiek użytecznego
przepisu.</p>
-
-<p>Przepisy sÄ
bardzo podobne do programów komputerowych. Programy
-komputerowe sÄ
bardzo podobne do przepisów: sekwencja kroków, których
-podjÄcie prowadzi do jakiegoÅ pożÄ
danego rezultatu. WiÄc tak
samo
-naturalne jest takie postÄpowanie w przypadku programu
-komputerowego – rozdawanie kopii przyjacioÅom. Wprowadzanie
-do niego zmian, bo cel, dla jakiego zostaÅ stworzony, nie jest
-dokÅadnie tym, co wam jest potrzebne. MógÅ byÄ bardzo pomocny przy
-wykonywaniu czyjegoŠzadania, ale wasze jest inne. A jak już go
-zmienicie, to prawdopodobnie bÄdzie on użyteczny dla innych. Może majÄ
pracÄ
-do wykonania podobnÄ
do waszej. WiÄc spytajÄ
siÄ:
„Hej,
-czy mogÄ dostaÄ kopiÄ?” JeÅli jesteÅcie mili, to oczywiÅcie
im jÄ
-dacie. Tak robiÄ
przyzwoite osoby.</p>
-
-<p>WiÄc wyobraźcie sobie, co by byÅo, gdyby przepisy byÅy pakowane
-do czarnych skrzynek. Nie wiedzielibyÅcie, jakie sÄ
w nich zawarte
-skÅadniki, nie mówiÄ
c już nawet o wprowadzaniu zmian i wyobraźcie
-sobie, że jeÅli wykonalibyÅcie kopiÄ dla przyjaciela, nazwaliby was
-piratami i próbowali wsadziÄ na parÄ lat do wiÄzienia. Taki
-Åwiat wywoÅaÅby wielkie oburzenie u ludzi przyzwyczajonych
-do dzielenia siÄ przepisami. Ale tak wÅaÅnie wyglÄ
da Åwiat
-objÄtego restrykcyjnymi licencjami oprogramowania. W tym Åwiecie
-zwyczajna przyzwoitoÅÄ wobec innych ludzi jest zabroniona
-lub zwalczana.</p>
-
-<p>Dlaczego to zauważyÅem? ZauważyÅem to, ponieważ w latach 70.
miaÅem
-szczÄÅcie należeÄ do spoÅecznoÅci programistów, którzy dzielili
siÄ
-oprogramowaniem. SpoÅecznoÅÄ ta miaÅa korzenie w samych poczÄ
tkach
-informatyki. Jednak w latach 70. byÅo czymÅ odrobinÄ niezwykÅym,
-że istniaÅa spoÅecznoÅÄ, w obrÄbie której ludzie dzielili siÄ
-programami. I byÅ to tak naprawdÄ rodzaj skrajnego przypadku,
-ponieważ w laboratorium, w którym pracowaÅem, caÅy system
-operacyjny skÅadaÅ siÄ z oprogramowania napisanego przez naszÄ
-spoÅecznoÅÄ i dzieliliÅmy siÄ ze wszystkimi każdÄ
jego czÄÅciÄ
.
Każdy
-mógÅ wpaÅÄ i popatrzeÄ, wziÄ
Ä sobie kopiÄ i zrobiÄ
z niÄ
-cokolwiek chciaÅ. Na tych programach nie byÅo informacji o prawach
-autorskich. WspóÅpraca byÅa naszym sposobem na życie. Å»yjÄ
c tak
-czuliÅmy siÄ bezpieczni. Nie walczyliÅmy o to. Nie musieliÅmy o to
-walczyÄ. Po prostu żyliÅmy w ten sposób. I chcieliÅmy
żyÄ tak
-dalej. IstniaÅo wiÄc wolne oprogramowanie, ale nie istniaÅ ruch
-wolnego oprogramowania.</p>
-
-<p>Jednak potem nasza spoÅecznoÅÄ zostaÅa zniszczona przez seriÄ
-nieszczÄÅÄ, które jÄ
dotknÄÅy. W koÅcu przestaÅa istnieÄ.
W koÅcu
-produkcja PDP-10, czyli komputera, którego używaliÅmy do caÅej
-pracy, zostaÅa zawieszona. Wiecie, nasz system – ITS
-[Incompatible Timesharing System, Niezgodny System z PodziaÅem
-Czasu] – zaczÄ
Å byÄ tworzony w latach 60., wiÄc byÅ
-napisany w asemblerze. Tak pisaÅo siÄ systemy operacyjne w latach
-60. Jak wiadomo asembler jest przypisany do konkretnej architektury;
-gdy wychodzi ona z produkcji, caÅa praca idzie
-na marne – staje siÄ bezużyteczna. WÅaÅnie to nam siÄ
-przydarzyÅo. OkoÅo 20 lat pracy naszej spoÅecznoÅci poszÅo
na marne.</p>
-
-<p>Jednak zanim siÄ to staÅo, przydarzyÅo mi siÄ coÅ, co mnie
-przygotowaÅo, pomogÅo mi zrozumieÄ, co trzeba zrobiÄ, pomogÅo mi
przygotowaÄ
-siÄ do zrozumienia co zrobiÄ, gdy to siÄ staÅo, ponieważ pewnego
-razu Xerox podarowaÅ Laboratorium Sztucznej Inteligencji, gdzie pracowaÅem,
-laserowÄ
drukarkÄ i byÅ to naprawdÄ niezÅy prezent, bo po raz
-pierwszy ktokolwiek poza Xeroksem miaÅ dostÄp do laserowej
-drukarki. ByÅa bardzo szybka, wydruk strony zajmowaÅ jej sekundÄ,
-pod wieloma wzglÄdami byÅa bardzo dobra, ale zawodna, bo tak
-naprawdÄ byÅa to szybka kopiarka biurowa, którÄ
zamieniono
-w drukarkÄ. Jak wiecie, kopiarki siÄ zacinajÄ
, ale zawsze znajdzie
-siÄ przy nich ktoÅ, kto je naprawi. Drukarka zacinaÅa siÄ i nikt tego
-nie widziaÅ. WiÄc staÅa zaciÄta przez dÅugi czas.</p>
-
-<p>MieliÅmy pomysÅ jak rozwiÄ
zaÄ ten problem. WprowadziÄ zmiany, żeby
-za każdym razem, kiedy drukarka siÄ zaciÄÅa, komputer, który jÄ
-obsÅugiwaÅ informowaÅ naszÄ
maszynÄ z podziaÅem czasu
i informowaÅ
-użytkowników czekajÄ
cych na wydruk, albo coÅ w tym stylu, no
-wiecie – „Idź napraw drukarkÄ”. Bo gdyby tylko
-wiedzieli, że drukarka siÄ zaciÄÅa, oczywiste jest, że jeÅli
-czekasz na wydruk i wiesz, że drukarka siÄ zaciÄÅa, to nie
-siedzisz i nie czekasz do koÅca Åwiata, tylko idziesz i jÄ
-naprawiasz.</p>
-
-<p>Jednak wtedy nie mogliÅmy zupeÅnie nic zrobiÄ,
-ponieważ oprogramowanie obsÅugujÄ
ce drukarkÄ nie byÅo wolne.
DostaliÅmy
-je razem z drukarkÄ
i byÅ to po prostu plik binarny. Nie dano
-nam kodu źródÅowego – Xerox nie chciaÅ siÄ na to
-zgodziÄ. Tak wiÄc, mimo naszych umiejÄtnoÅci programistycznych –
-jakby nie patrzeÄ napisaliÅmy wÅasny system z podziaÅem
-czasu – nie mogliÅmy w żaden sposób dodaÄ tej funkcji
-do oprogramowania drukarki.</p>
-
-<p>Jedyne, co nam pozostawaÅo, to ÅcierpieÄ czekanie. Wydruk zajmowaÅ
-od jednej do dwóch godzin, ponieważ przez wiÄkszoÅÄ czasu
-drukarka byÅa zaciÄta. I tylko czasami – czekaÅo siÄ
godzinÄ
-myÅlÄ
c: „Na pewno bÄdzie zaciÄta. Poczekam godzinÄ i wtedy
-odbiorÄ wydruk”, a potem okazywaÅo siÄ, że byÅa zaciÄta
-przez caÅy ten czas i że nikt inny jej nie
-naprawiÅ. WiÄc naprawiaÅo siÄ jÄ
i czekaÅo kolejne póÅ
-godziny. Potem siÄ wracaÅo, a ona znów siÄ zaciÄÅa –
zanim
-zaczÄÅa drukowaÄ twój dokument. DrukowaÅa przez trzy minuty, a staÅa
-zaciÄta przez trzydzieÅci. Frustracja siÄgaÅa sufitu. Ale gorsze byÅo
-to, że wiedzieliÅmy, że możemy jÄ
naprawiÄ, jednak ktoÅ
inny,
-z powodu swojego egoizmu, nie pozwalaÅ nam, blokowaÅ możliwoÅÄ
-ulepszenia oprogramowania. WiÄc oczywiÅcie trochÄ Å¼ywiliÅmy
-do nich urazÄ.</p>
-
-<p>I wtedy dowiedziaÅem siÄ, że ktoÅ na uniwersytecie
Carnegie
-Mellon [Carnegie Mellon University] ma kopiÄ tego oprogramowania. ByÅem tam
-jakiÅ czas później, wiÄc poszedÅem do jego biura
i spytaÅem:
-„CzeÅÄ, jestem z MIT. Czy mógÅbym dostaÄ kopiÄ kodu
-źródÅowego oprogramowania drukarki?” a on na to: „Nie,
-obiecaÅem nie dawaÄ ci kopii”. <i>[Åmiech]</i> StaÅem osÅupiaÅy.
ByÅem
-taki – byÅem wÅciekÅy i nie wiedziaÅem jak mogÄ zaradziÄ
-sytuacji. Jedyne co przyszÅo mi do gÅowy, to obróciÄ siÄ
na piÄcie
-i wyjÅÄ z jego biura. ByÄ może trzasnÄ
Åem
-drzwiami. <i>[Åmiech]</i> A potem o tym myÅlaÅem,
ponieważ zdaÅem
-sobie sprawÄ, że nie miaÅem do czynienia z jednym draniem,
-ale ze spoÅecznym zjawiskiem, które miaÅo duże znaczenie
-i dotykaÅo bardzo wielu ludzi.</p>
-
-<p>ByÅo to – dla mnie – miaÅem szczÄÅcie, dostaÅem
tylko
-przedsmak, a inni musieli z tym żyÄ przez caÅy
-czas. WiÄc dÅugo na ten temat myÅlaÅem. a wiÄc on obiecaÅ
-odmówiÄ wspóÅpracy z nami – swoimi kolegami
-z MIT. ZdradziÅ nas. Ale nie tylko nas. Prawdopodobnie zdradziÅ
-też ciebie. <i>[wskazuje palcem któregoÅ ze sÅuchaczy]</i> Wydaje mi siÄ,
-że zapewne zdradziÅ też ciebie. <i>[wskazuje palcem innego sÅuchacza]
-[Åmiech]</i> I ciebie pewno też zdradziÅ. <i>[wskazuje trzeciego
-sÅuchacza]</i> Prawdopodobnie zdradziÅ wiÄkszoÅÄ ludzi w tym
-pomieszczeniu – za wyjÄ
tkiem może kilku, którzy w 1980
-jeszcze siÄ nie urodzili. Bo on obiecaÅ odmówiÄ wspóÅpracy
-w zasadzie z caÅÄ
populacjÄ
planety Ziemia. PodpisaÅ umowÄ o
-poufnoÅci.</p>
-
-<p>To byÅ mój pierwszy, bezpoÅredni kontakt z umowÄ
o poufnoÅci
-i nauczyÅ mnie on pewnej ważnej rzeczy – ważnej,
-bo wiÄkszoÅÄ programistów nigdy siÄ jej nie uczy. ByÅ to mój
pierwszy
-kontakt z umowÄ
o poufnoÅci i ja byÅem ofiarÄ
. Ja i caÅe
moje
-laboratorium byliÅmy ofiarami. a rzecz, której siÄ nauczyÅem, to
-że umowy o poufnoÅci majÄ
swoje ofiary. Nie sÄ
niewinne. Nie sÄ
-nieszkodliwe. WiÄkszoÅÄ programistów po raz pierwszy siÄ z nimi
-styka, gdy majÄ
takÄ
umowÄ podpisaÄ. I zawsze istnieje jakaÅ
-pokusa – jakaÅ nagroda, którÄ
dostanÄ
, jeÅli
-podpiszÄ
. WiÄc wymyÅlajÄ
wymówki. MówiÄ
: „No cóż, on
i tak
-nigdy nie dostanie kopii, choÄby nie wiem co, wiÄc czemu nie miaÅbym
-przyÅÄ
czyÄ siÄ do spisku chcÄ
cego odmówiÄ mu do niej
-dostÄpu?”. MówiÄ
: „Zawsze siÄ to tak robi. Kim ja jestem, żeby
-siÄ temu sprzeciwiaÄ?”. MówiÄ
: „JeÅli ja tego nie podpiszÄ,
ktoÅ
-inny to zrobi”. Przeróżne wymówki, aby uciszyÄ swoje
sumienie.</p>
-
-<p>Lecz kiedy ktoÅ poprosiÅ mnie o podpisanie umowy o poufnoÅci, moje
-sumienie byÅo już wyczulone. PamiÄtaÅo jaki byÅem wÅciekÅy, kiedy ktoÅ
-obiecaÅ, że nie pomoże mi i mojemu laboratorium rozwiÄ
zaÄ
naszego
-problemu. I nie mogÅem obróciÄ siÄ i zrobiÄ dokÅadnie tego
samego
-komuÅ innemu, kto nigdy nie zrobiÅ mi niczego zÅego. Wiecie, gdyby ktoÅ
-poprosiÅ mnie, żebym obiecaÅ, że nie podzielÄ siÄ pewnymi
użytecznymi
-informacjami ze znienawidzonym wrogiem, to zgodziÅbym siÄ. Rozumiecie? JeÅli
-ktoÅ zrobiÅ coÅ zÅego, to na to zasÅuguje. Ale nieznajomi â
nie
-zrobili mi niczego zÅego. W jaki sposób mieliby sobie zasÅużyÄ
-na takie podÅe traktowanie? Nie można sobie pozwoliÄ
-na traktowanie po prostu wszystkich bez wyjÄ
tku źle. Zaczyna
-siÄ wtedy żerowaÄ na spoÅeczeÅstwie. PowiedziaÅem wiÄc:
„DziÄkujÄ
-bardzo za zaoferowanie mi tego wspaniaÅego pakietu
-oprogramowania. Jednak nie mogÄ go przyjÄ
Ä w dobrej wierze
-na warunkach, których siÄ domagacie, wiÄc poradzÄ sobie
-bez niego. DziÄkujÄ bardzo”. I w taki sposób nigdy
Åwiadomie
-nie podpisaÅem umowy o poufnoÅci dotyczÄ
cej powszechnie użytecznych
-informacji technicznych, takich jak oprogramowanie.</p>
-
-<p>IstniejÄ
inne rodzaje informacji, które budzÄ
inne etyczne pytania. SÄ
-na przykÅad informacje osobiste. No wiecie, gdyby jakaÅ dziewczyna
-chciaÅa porozmawiaÄ ze mnÄ
o tym, co dziaÅo siÄ miÄdzy niÄ
a jej
-chÅopakiem i poprosiÅa mnie o utrzymanie tego
-w tajemnicy – to wiecie, mógÅbym to utrzymaÄ –
-mógÅbym zgodziÄ siÄ tego nie ujawniaÄ, ponieważ nie jest to
powszechnie
-użyteczna informacja techniczna. W każdym bÄ
dź razie
-prawdopodobnie nie powszechnie użyteczna. <i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
-
-<p>Istnieje maÅa szansa – ale to tylko
możliwoÅÄ –
-że mogÅaby wyjawiÄ mi jakÄ
Å nowÄ
, wspaniaÅÄ
technikÄ seksualnÄ
-<i>[Åmiech]</i>, a wtedy czuÅbym moralne zobowiÄ
zanie <i>[Åmiech]</i>
-podzieliÄ siÄ niÄ
z resztÄ
ludzkoÅci, tak aby wszyscy mogli
-z niej skorzystaÄ. WiÄc musiaÅbym w tej obietnicy zawrzeÄ
-zastrzeżenie, prawda? JeÅli byÅyby to tylko szczegóÅowe wiadomoÅci, kto
tego
-chce, a kto jest zÅy na kogo, i tak dalej –
-brazylijski serial – to mogÄ to utrzymaÄ w tajemnicy,
-ale wiedzy, na której mogÅaby bardzo skorzystaÄ ludzkoÅÄ nie
mogÄ
-zatrzymaÄ dla siebie. Zadaniem nauki i technologii jest dawanie
-ludzkoÅci użytecznych informacji, dziÄki którym polepsza siÄ Å¼ycie
-ludzi. JeÅli obiecujemy zatrzymaÄ takie informacje dla siebie –
-jeÅli trzymamy je w tajemnicy – to zdradzamy ideaÅy naszej
-dziedziny. A czegoÅ takiego postanowiÅem nie robiÄ.</p>
-
-<p>Tymczasem rozpadÅa siÄ moja spoÅecznoÅÄ, a to byÅo zaÅamujÄ
ce
-i postawiÅo mnie w zÅej sytuacji. CaÅy ITS byÅ przestarzaÅy,
-ponieważ PDP-10 byÅo przestarzaÅe, wiÄc nie byÅo żadnego
sposobu,
-abym mógÅ kontynuowaÄ pracÄ programisty systemowego tak jak
-dotychczas. PolegaÅa ona na byciu czÄÅciÄ
spoÅecznoÅci, korzystaniu
ze
-stworzonego przez niÄ
oprogramowania i ulepszaniu go. Nie byÅo wiÄcej
-takiej możliwoÅci i stanÄ
Åem przed moralnym dylematem. Co miaÅem
robiÄ?
-Bo najbardziej oczywista możliwoÅÄ oznaczaÅa zaprzeczenie podjÄtej
-przeze mnie decyzji. Najbardziej oczywistÄ
możliwoÅciÄ
byÅo dostosowanie
siÄ
-do zmian, jakie zaszÅy w Åwiecie. Zaakceptowanie, że sprawy
-przedstawiaÅy siÄ inaczej i że muszÄ po prostu porzuciÄ swoje
-zasady, i zaczÄ
Ä podpisywaÄ umowy o poufnoÅci dotyczÄ
ce systemów
-operacyjnych objÄtych restrykcyjnymi licencjami,
-oraz najprawdopodobniej pisaÄ oprogramowanie o zamkniÄtych
-źródÅach. ZdaÅem sobie sprawÄ, że w ten sposób mógÅbym miÅo
spÄdzaÄ
-czas programujÄ
c i zarabiaÄ pieniÄ
dze – szczególnie, gdybym
-pracowaÅ poza MIT – ale potem musiaÅbym spojrzeÄ wstecz
-na swojÄ
drogÄ zawodowÄ
i powiedzieÄ: „SpÄdziÅem życie
-budujÄ
c mury dzielÄ
ce ludzi” i wstydziÅbym siÄ swojego
życia.</p>
-
-<p>SzukaÅem wiÄc innej możliwoÅci – istniaÅa jedna
-oczywista. MogÅem odejÅÄ z branży programistycznej i zajÄ
Ä siÄ
-czymÅ innym. Nie miaÅem żadnych innych wartych uwagi umiejÄtnoÅci,
-ale na pewno mogÅem zostaÄ kelnerem. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Nie w drogiej
-restauracji, w takiej by mnie nie zatrudnili <i>[Åmiech]</i>,
-ale gdzieÅ tam mogÅem byÄ kelnerem. Wielu programistów mówi mi:
-„Ludzie zatrudniajÄ
cy programistów wymagajÄ
tego, tego
-i tego. JeÅli nie bÄdÄ tego robiÅ, to bÄdÄ gÅodowaÅ.”
DokÅadnie
-tego sÅowa używajÄ
. No cóż, pracujÄ
c jako kelner nie bÄdziesz
-gÅodowaÅ. <i>[Åmiech]</i> NaprawdÄ nie ma siÄ czego
-obawiaÄ. Jednak – i to jest ważne –
-bo czasami można usprawiedliwiaÄ robienie czegoÅ, co szkodzi innym,
-twierdzÄ
c, że coÅ gorszego spotka nas. GdybyÅcie <em>naprawdÄ</em>
-mieli gÅodowaÄ, to bylibyÅcie usprawiedliwieni piszÄ
c oprogramowanie
objÄte
-restrykcyjnymi licencjami. <i>[Åmiech]</i> JeÅli ktoÅ celowaÅby do was
-z pistoletu, to można by wam to wybaczyÄ. <i>[Åmiech]</i>
-Jednak znalazÅem sposób, aby przeżyÄ nie robiÄ
c czegoÅ
-nieetycznego, wiÄc ta wymówka byÅa na nic. ZdaÅem sobie sprawÄ,
-że bycie kelnerem nie sprawiaÅoby mi przyjemnoÅci i marnowaÅbym
-swoje umiejÄtnoÅci programisty systemowego. Nie powodowaÅoby to
-niewÅaÅciwego wykorzystania moich umiejÄtnoÅci. Pisanie oprogramowania
-objÄtego restrykcyjnymi licencjami byÅoby niewÅaÅciwym ich
-wykorzystaniem. ZachÄcanie innych do życia w Åwiecie takiego
-oprogramowania byÅoby niewÅaÅciwym ich wykorzystaniem. Lepiej jest je
-marnowaÄ niż wykorzystywaÄ niewÅaÅciwie, ale i ta droga nie jest
-naprawdÄ dobra.</p>
-
-<p>Z tych powodów postanowiÅem poszukaÄ innej możliwoÅci. Co może
zrobiÄ
-programista systemowy, aby rzeczywiÅcie poprawiÄ sytuacjÄ, uczyniÄ
-Åwiat lepszym? i zdaÅem sobie sprawÄ, że programista systemowy
byÅ
-wÅaÅnie kimÅ, kto byÅ potrzebny. Ten problem, dylemat miaÅem ja
-i wszyscy pozostali, ponieważ wszystkie dostÄpne systemy
-operacyjne dla nowych komputerów byÅy objÄte restrykcyjnymi
-licencjami. Wolne systemy operacyjne byÅy przeznaczone dla starych,
-przestarzaÅych komputerów, prawda? WiÄc w przypadku nowych
-komputerów – jeÅli chcieliÅcie kupiÄ i korzystaÄ
-z nowego komputera, to byliÅcie zmuszeni używaÄ niewolnego systemu
-operacyjnego. WiÄc jeÅli jakiÅ programista systemowy napisaÅby inny
-system operacyjny, a potem powiedziaÅ: „Niech siÄ wszyscy tym
-dzielÄ
– zachÄcam was do tego”, to pozwoliÅoby
-wszystkim uniknÄ
Ä tego dylematu, daÅoby jeszcze jednÄ
możliwoÅÄ. ZdaÅem
-sobie wiÄc sprawÄ, że byÅo coÅ, co mogÅem zrobiÄ, żeby
rozwiÄ
zaÄ
-mój problem. MiaÅem dokÅadnie te umiejÄtnoÅci, które byÅy do tego
-potrzebne. I byÅa to najbardziej użyteczna rzecz, którÄ
mogÅem
zrobiÄ
-ze swoim życiem, jaka przyszÅa mi do gÅowy. I byÅ to problem,
-którego nikt inny nie próbowaÅ rozwiÄ
zaÄ. On sobie po prostu byÅ,
-stawaÅ siÄ coraz wiÄkszy i nikt oprócz mnie nie zwracaÅ na niego
-uwagi. PomyÅlaÅem wiÄc sobie: „ZostaÅem wybrany. MuszÄ
-nad tym pracowaÄ. JeÅli nie ja, to kto?” Tak
-wiÄc postanowiÅem, że stworzÄ wolny system operacyjny,
-albo umrÄ próbujÄ
c… ze staroÅci, oczywiÅcie.
<i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
-
-<p>MusiaÅem oczywiÅcie zdecydowaÄ, jakiego rodzaju miaÅ to byÄ system.
Trzeba
-podjÄ
Ä pewne decyzje projektowe. Z kilku powodów postanowiÅem,
-że mój system bÄdzie zgodny z Uniksem. Po pierwsze, dopiero
-co patrzyÅem jak system operacyjny, który kochaÅem, stawaÅ siÄ
przestarzaÅy,
-bo zostaÅ stworzony dla jednego rodzaju komputera. Nie chciaÅem,
-aby to siÄ powtórzyÅo. Potrzebny byÅ przenoÅny system. Cóż, Unix
byÅ
-przenoÅnym systemem. WiÄc jeÅli naÅladowaÅbym budowÄ Uniksa, to
miaÅem
-spore szanse, że stworzÄ system, który również bÄdzie przenoÅny
-i możliwy do napisania. Ponadto, dlaczego <i>[zakÅócenia
-na taÅmie]</i> byÄ z nim zgodny w szczegóÅach. Powód jest
-taki, że użytkownicy nie znoszÄ
niezgodnych zmian. JeÅli
po prostu
-zaprojektowaÅbym system w mój ulubiony sposób – co
-sprawiaÅoby mi mnóstwo przyjemnoÅci, jestem tego pewien – to
-stworzyÅbym coÅ niezgodnego. No wiecie, szczegóÅy byÅyby
-inne. WiÄc jeÅli napisaÅbym ten system, użytkownicy powiedzieliby mi:
-„No tak, jest bardzo fajny, ale niezgodny. Przestawienie siÄ
-na niego bÄdzie wymagaÅo zbyt wiele pracy. Nie możemy sobie pozwoliÄ
-na tyle pracy tylko po to, aby korzystaÄ z twojego
-systemu zamiast z Uniksa, wiÄc pozostaniemy przy
-Uniksie” – tak by powiedzieli.</p>
-
-<p>JeÅli chciaÅem stworzyÄ spoÅecznoÅÄ, do której należeliby
ludzie,
-ludzie korzystajÄ
cy z tego wolnego systemu i czerpiÄ
cy korzyÅci
-z wolnoÅci oraz wspóÅpracy, to musiaÅem stworzyÄ system,
którego
-ludzie by używali, system, na który Åatwo byÅoby siÄ przestawiÄ,
który
-nie zawieraÅby przeszkody, z powodu której staÅby siÄ porażkÄ
-na samym poczÄ
tku. Fakt, że system miaÅ byÄ zgodny w górÄ
-z Uniksem automatycznie podjÄ
Å najpilniejsze decyzje projektowe,
-ponieważ Unix skÅada siÄ z wielu kawaÅków, które komunikujÄ
siÄ
-za pomocÄ
w jakimÅ stopniu udokumentowanych interfejsów. JeÅli
-wiÄc chcesz byÄ zgodny z Uniksem, to musisz zastÄ
piÄ każdy
-kawaÅek, jeden po drugim, innym zgodnym kawaÅkiem. PozostaÅe decyzje
-projektowe dotyczÄ
wiÄc tylko poszczególnych kawaÅków i mogÄ
-zostaÄ podjÄte przez dowolnÄ
osobÄ, która zdecyduje siÄ je napisaÄ. Nie
-trzeba ich podejmowaÄ na samym poczÄ
tku.</p>
-
-<p>Tak wiÄc wszystko co pozostaÅo wtedy do zrobienia przed
-rozpoczÄciem pracy to wymyÅlenie nazwy. My hakerzy zawsze staramy siÄ
-wymyÅliÄ dla programu jakÄ
Å ÅmiesznÄ
lub dwuznacznÄ
nazwÄ,
-bo myÅl, że ludziom bÄdzie siÄ podobaÄ nazwa stanowi poÅowÄ
-radoÅci z napisania programu. <i>[Åmiech]</i> MieliÅmy tradycjÄ
-rekursywnych akronimów, które wskazywaÅy, że program, który wÅaÅnie
-piszesz jest podobny do jakiegoÅ już istniejÄ
cego. Możesz nadaÄ mu
-nazwÄ w postaci rekursywnego akronimu, który mówi: ten program nie jest
-tym innym. Na przykÅad w latach 60. i 70. istniaÅo wiele
-edytorów Tico i w zasadzie wszystkie nazywaÅy siÄ jakieÅ-tam Tico. Aż
-jakiÅ bystry haker nazwaÅ swojÄ
wersjÄ Tint, bo „TInt to Nie
-Tico” [<em>Tint Is Not Tico</em>] – byÅ to pierwszy
-rekursywny akronim. W roku 1975 stworzyÅem pierwszy edytor tekstu
-Emacs, powstaÅo wiele jego imitacji i wiÄkszoÅÄ z nich nazywaÅa
-siÄ jakiÅ-tam Emacs, jednak jedna miaÅa nazwÄ Fine,
-ponieważ „FIne to Nie Emacs” [<em>Fine Is Not Emacs</em>],
-byÅ też Sine, bo „SIne to Nie Emacs” [<em>Sine Is Not
-Emacs</em>] oraz Eine, bo „Ina to Nie Emacs” [<em>Ina
-Is Not Emacs</em>], aż wreszcie MINCE, bo „MINCe to niekompletny
-Emacs” [<em>Mince Is Not Complete Emacs</em>]. <i>[Åmiech]</i> ByÅa to
-okrojona imitacja. Potem Eine zostaÅ napisany prawie zupeÅnie od nowa,
-a nowa wersja zostaÅa nazwana Zwei, bo âZWei na poczÄ
tku
-nazywaÅo siÄ EIneâ [<em>Zwei Was Eine Initially</em>]. <i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
-
-<p>SzukaÅem wiÄc rekursywnego akronimu na „CoÅ to nie
-Unix”. WypróbowaÅem wszystkie 26 liter i odkryÅem,
że żadna
-z nich nie jest sÅowem. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Hmm, spróbujmy
-inaczej. StworzyÅem formÄ skróconÄ
. W ten sposób mogÅem wymyÅliÄ
-trzyliterowy akronim na „CoÅ to nie Unix”. PróbowaÅem
-z literami i natrafiÅem na sÅowo
-„GNU” – „GNU” to najzabawniejsze sÅowo
-w jÄzyku angielskim. <i>[Åmiech]</i> To byÅo to. OczywiÅcie, powód
dla
-którego jest to zabawne jest taki, że wedÅug sÅownika czyta siÄ je
tak
-samo jak „new” [<em>ang. nowe</em>]. Rozumiecie?
-Dlatego wÅaÅnie ludzie korzystajÄ
z niego w różnych
żartach
-jÄzykowych. WyjaÅniÄ, że jest to nazwa zwierzÄcia żyjÄ
cego
-w Afryce. AfrykaÅska wymowa zawieraÅa w sobie mlask
-[<em>fon. rodzaj gÅoski</em>]. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Może nadal tak jest. Gdy
-dotarli tam europejscy kolonizatorzy, to nie trudzili siÄ uczeniem tego
-dźwiÄku. Po prostu go omijali i pisali „G”, które
-oznaczaÅo „istnieje pewien dźwiÄk, który powinien tu byÄ
-i którego nie wymawiamy”. <i>[Åmiech]</i> DziÅ wieczorem lecÄ
-do RPA i bÅagaÅem ich, mam nadziejÄ, że znajdÄ
kogoÅ, kto
-nauczy mnie wymawiaÄ mlaski, <i>[Åmiech]</i> żebym wiedziaÅ jak prawidÅowo
-wymawiaÄ GNU, gdy odnosi siÄ do zwierzÄcia.</p>
-
-<p>Jednak gdy chodzi o nazwÄ naszego systemu, prawidÅowa wymowa to
-„g-NU” – wymawiamy „G”. JeÅli mówicie o
-„nowym” [<em>am. ang. /NU/</em>] systemie operacyjnym, to ludzie
-nie bÄdÄ
wiedzieli o co chodzi, bo pracujemy nad nim od 17
-lat, wiÄc nie jest już nowy. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Ale caÅy czas jest
-to, i zawsze bÄdzie, GNU – nieważne ilu ludzi nazwie go
-przez pomyÅkÄ Linuksem. <i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
-
-<p>Tak wiÄc w styczniu 1984 odszedÅem z MIT, żeby zaczÄ
Ä pisaÄ
-kawaÅki GNU. MIT byÅo jednak na tyle miÅe, że mogÅem korzystaÄ
-z ich sprzÄtu. MyÅlaÅem wtedy, że napiszemy wszystkie te kawaÅki
-i stworzymy caÅy system GNU, a potem powiemy: „Chodźcie
-i go sobie weźcie”, a ludzie zacznÄ
go używaÄ. Tak siÄ nie
-staÅo. Pierwsze kawaÅki, które napisaÅem, byÅy tak samo dobre jak uniksowe
-oryginaÅy, które miaÅy zastÄ
piÄ, w niektórych przypadkach
-z mniejszÄ
iloÅciÄ
bÅÄdów, ale nie byÅy zbyt ekscytujÄ
ce.
Nikt
-specjalnie nie chciaÅ ich zdobyÄ i zainstalowaÄ. Ale potem, we
-wrzeÅniu 1984, zaczÄ
Åem pisaÄ GNU Emacs, który byÅ mojÄ
drugÄ
implementacjÄ
-Emacsa, a na poczÄ
tku roku 1985 zaczÄ
Å on dziaÅaÄ. MogÅem go
używaÄ
-do wszystkich zadaÅ wymagajÄ
cych edycji tekstu, co byÅo dużÄ
ulgÄ
,
-bo nie miaÅem zamiaru uczyÄ siÄ VI, Uniksowego
-edytora. <em>[Åmiech]</em> Do tego czasu edycjÄ tekstu wykonywaÅem
-na jakimÅ innym komputerze i zapisywaÅem pliki przez sieÄ,
-aby móc je przetestowaÄ. Lecz potem GNU Emacs dziaÅaÅ
-wystarczajÄ
co dobrze, bym mógÅ go używaÄ, ponadto – inni ludzie
-też chcieli go używaÄ.</p>
-
-<p>WiÄc musiaÅem wymyÅliÄ sposób dystrybucji. UmieÅciÅem
oczywiÅcie kopiÄ
-w katalogu na anonimowym serwerze FTP i byÅo to wystarczajÄ
ce
-dla ludzi korzystajÄ
cych z sieci. Mogli po prostu ÅciÄ
gnÄ
Ä plik
-tar, ale wtedy, w 1985, wielu programistów nie miaÅo nawet dostÄpu
-do sieci. Pisali do mnie emaile z pytaniem: „W jaki
-sposób mogÄ zdobyÄ kopiÄ?”. MusiaÅem zdecydowaÄ, co im odpowiem.
Cóż,
-mogÅem powiedzieÄ, że chcÄ spÄdzaÄ czas na pisaniu wiÄkszej
iloÅci
-oprogramowania GNU, a nie zapisywaniu taÅm, wiÄc znajdźcie
-znajomych, którzy majÄ
dostÄp do sieci i bÄdÄ
chcieli ÅciÄ
gnÄ
Ä
-kopiÄ, oraz nagraÄ jÄ
dla was na taÅmie. Jestem pewien,
-że prÄdzej czy później ludzie znaleźliby sobie takich
-znajomych. Zdobyliby kopie. Ale ja nie miaÅem pracy. Tak naprawdÄ to
-nigdy nie miaÅem pracy od kiedy opuÅciÅem MIT w styczniu
-1984. SzukaÅem wiÄc jakiegoÅ sposobu na zarabianie
-poprzez pisanie wolnego oprogramowania i dlatego zaÅożyÅem firmÄ
-zajmujÄ
cÄ
siÄ wolnym oprogramowaniem. OgÅaszaÅem: „PrzeÅlijcie mi
-150$, a ja wam wyÅlÄ taÅmÄ z Emacsem”. No i zaczÄÅy
-skapywaÄ pierwsze zamówienia. W poÅowie roku skapywaÅo ich już coraz
-wiÄcej.</p>
-
-<p>OtrzymywaÅem od 8 do 10 zamówieÅ na miesiÄ
c. JeÅli
byÅo to
-konieczne, to mogÅem wyżyÄ wyÅÄ
cznie z tego, bo zawsze żyÅem
-oszczÄdnie. Ogólnie rzecz biorÄ
c żyjÄ jak student. I lubiÄ to,
-bo pieniÄ
dze nie mówiÄ
mi, co mam robiÄ. MogÄ robiÄ to, co uważam
-za ważne dla mnie. DaÅo mi to wolnoÅÄ do robienia tego, co
-wydawaÅo siÄ warte zrobienia. WiÄc naprawdÄ postarajcie siÄ uniknÄ
Ä
-wciÄ
gniÄcia we wszystkie drogie nawyki życiowe typowych
-Amerykanów. Bo jeÅli siÄ to stanie, ludzie z pieniÄdzmi bÄdÄ
wam
-mówiÄ, co macie zrobiÄ ze swoim życiem. Nie bÄdziecie mogli robiÄ tego,
co
-dla was naprawdÄ ważne.</p>
-
-<p>WiÄc byÅo OK, ale ludzie pytali mnie: „Co to
za darmowe
-[<em>ang. free oznacza darmowe lub wolne</em>] oprogramowanie, które
-kosztuje 150$?” <i>[Åmiech]</i> Cóż, pytali dlatego,
-że angielskie sÅowo „free” ma wiele znaczeÅ. Jedno
-z nich odnosi siÄ do ceny, a drugie do wolnoÅci. Gdy
-mówiÄ o „free software”, mam na myÅli wolnoÅÄ, a nie
-cenÄ. MyÅlcie o wolnoÅci sÅowa, a nie darmowym piwie. <i>[Åmiech]</i>
-Nie poÅwiÄciÅbym tylu lat mojego życia na staranie siÄ, by
programiÅci
-zarabiali mniej pieniÄdzy. To nie jest mój cel. Jestem programistÄ
-i nie mam nic przeciwko zarabianiu pieniÄdzy. Nie poÅwiÄcÄ na to
-caÅego życia, ale nie mam nic przeciwko zarabianiu. I nie
-jestem – i dlatego, etyka jest dla wszystkich taka sama. Nie
-mam również nic przeciwko, żeby jakiÅ inny programista zarabiaÅ
-pieniÄ
dze. Nie chcÄ, by ceny byÅy niskie. To wcale nie o to chodzi. Chodzi o
-wolnoÅÄ. WolnoÅÄ dla wszystkich użytkowników oprogramowania, czy sÄ
-programistami, czy też nie.</p>
-
-<p>Teraz powinienem podaÄ wam definicjÄ wolnego oprogramowania. Lepiej
przejdÄ
-do konkretów, bo samo mówienie „wierzÄ
w wolnoÅÄ”
-jest puste. Jest tyle wolnoÅci, w które można wierzyÄ i sÄ
one
ze
-sobÄ
sprzeczne, wiÄc prawdziwe polityczne pytanie brzmi: „Jakie
-sÄ
ważne wolnoÅci – wolnoÅci, które powinniÅmy wszystkim
-zapewniÄ?”</p>
-
-<p>Podam wam teraz mojÄ
odpowiedź na to pytanie z punktu widzenia
-korzystania z programów komputerowych. Programy sÄ
dla was, konkretnych
-użytkowników, wolnym oprogramowaniem, jeÅli macie nastÄpujÄ
ce
wolnoÅci:</p>
-
-<ul>
-<li>Po pierwsze, WolnoÅÄ 0, czyli wolnoÅÄ do wykorzystywania
-programu do dowolnego celu i w dowolny sposób.</li>
-<li>WolnoÅÄ 1 to wolnoÅÄ pozwalajÄ
ca na uÅatwianie sobie życia
przez
-wprowadzanie zmian do programu, aby dostosowaÄ go do swoich
-potrzeb.</li>
-<li>WolnoÅÄ 2 to wolnoÅÄ do pomagania swoim bliźnim przez
dystrybucjÄ kopii
-programu.</li>
-<li>Natomiast WolnoÅÄ 3 pozwala na wspieranie rozwoju wÅasnej
-spoÅecznoÅci poprzez publikowanie ulepszonych wersji, tak aby inni
-mogli skorzystaÄ z waszej pracy.</li>
-</ul>
-
-<p>JeÅli macie wszystkie te wolnoÅci, to program jest wolnym oprogramowaniem,
-dla was – i to jest ważne. Dlatego w taki sposób
-uÅożyÅem zdanie. WyjaÅniÄ później dlaczego, gdy bÄdÄ mówiÅ o GPL,
teraz
-wyjaÅniam co to jest wolne oprogramowanie, a to jest bardziej
-podstawowÄ
kwestiÄ
.</p>
-
-<p>WolnoÅÄ 0 jest doÅÄ oczywista. JeÅli nie możecie nawet korzystaÄ
-z programu w dowolny sposób, to jest on cholernie
-restrykcyjny. Jednak w praktyce wiÄkszoÅÄ programów daje wam
-przynajmniej WolnoÅÄ 0. A WolnoÅÄ 0 wynika, w prawniczym sensie,
-z WolnoÅci 1, 2 oraz 3 – w taki sposób dziaÅa
-prawo autorskie. Tak wiÄc wolnoÅci odróżniajÄ
ce wolne programy
-od typowych to WolnoÅci 1, 2 i 3, dlatego powiem o nich
-wiÄcej i wyjaÅniÄ, dlaczego sÄ
ważne.</p>
-
-<p>WolnoÅÄ 1 to wolnoÅÄ pozwalajÄ
ca na uÅatwienie sobie życia przez
-wprowadzanie zmian do programu, aby dostosowaÄ go do swoich
-potrzeb. Może to oznaczaÄ naprawianie bÅÄdów. Może to oznaczaÄ dodawanie
-nowych funkcjonalnoÅci. Może to oznaczaÄ przeniesienie go na innÄ
-platformÄ. Może oznaczaÄ przetÅumaczenie wszystkich komunikatów bÅÄdów
-na jÄzyk Indian Navajo. PowinniÅcie móc wprowadziÄ każdÄ
zmianÄ,
-na którÄ
macie ochotÄ.</p>
-
-<p>Oczywiste jest, że zawodowi programiÅci mogÄ
bardzo efektywnie
-wykorzystywaÄ tÄ wolnoÅÄ, ale nie tylko oni. Każda przeciÄtnie
-inteligentna osoba może nauczyÄ siÄ trochÄ programowaÄ. No wiecie, sÄ
trudne
-zadania i Åatwe zadania, wiÄkszoÅÄ ludzi nie nauczy siÄ wystarczajÄ
co
-dużo, żeby sprostaÄ tym trudnym. Ale mnóstwo ludzi może siÄ nauczyÄ
-wystarczajÄ
co dużo, aby wykonywaÄ proste zadania, tak samo jak 50 lat
-temu tysiÄ
ce Amerykanów nauczyÅo siÄ naprawiaÄ samochody, co pozwoliÅo
USA
-mieÄ w czasie II wojny Åwiatowej zmotoryzowanÄ
armiÄ
-i wygraÄ. WiÄc bardzo ważne jest, aby wiele osób przy tym
-dÅubaÅo.</p>
-
-<p>A jeÅli wolicie towarzystwo ludzi i naprawdÄ nie chcecie niczego
-siÄ nauczyÄ o technologii, to pewno znaczy, że macie mnóstwo
przyjacióÅ
-i jesteÅcie nieźli w doprowadzaniu do sytuacji,
-w których sÄ
oni wam winni przysÅugÄ. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Niektórzy
-z nich to byÄ może programiÅci. Możecie wiÄc poprosiÄ jednego
-z waszych przyjacióŠprogramistów: „Czy mógÅbyÅ to dla mnie
-zmieniÄ? DodaÄ tÄ funkcjÄ?” Tak wiÄc może na tym
skorzystaÄ
-mnóstwo ludzi.</p>
-
-<p>Gdy nie macie tej wolnoÅci, skutkiem jest namacalna, materialna szkoda dla
-spoÅeczeÅstwa. Czyni was to wiÄźniami wÅasnego oprogramowania.
WyjaÅniaÅem
-już jakie to uczucie na przykÅadzie drukarki laserowej. PracowaÅa źle
-i nie mogliÅmy jej naprawiÄ, bo byliÅmy wiÄźniami naszego
-oprogramowania.</p>
-
-<p>Ale dotyczy to także ludzkiego morale. JeÅli korzystanie
-z komputera budzi frustracjÄ, a ludzie z niego korzystajÄ
, to
-ich życie stanie siÄ frustrujÄ
ce, a jeÅli korzystajÄ
z niego
-w pracy, to ich praca stanie siÄ frustrujÄ
ca â zacznÄ
nienawidziÄ
-swojej pracy. Ludzie chroniÄ
siÄ przed frustracjÄ
majÄ
c wszystko
-w nosie. Ich podejÅcie zaczyna siÄ sprowadzaÄ do: „No tak,
-przyszedÅem dziÅ do pracy. To wszystko, co muszÄ zrobiÄ. JeÅli nie
-robiÄ Å¼adnych postÄpów, to nie mój problem; to problem szefa”. Taka
-sytuacja jest zÅa dla tych ludzi i dla caÅoÅci spoÅeczeÅstwa. To
byÅa
-WolnoÅÄ 1, wolnoÅÄ pozwalajÄ
ca na uÅatwianie sobie życia.</p>
-
-<p>WolnoÅÄ 2 to wolnoÅÄ do pomagania swoim bliźnim przez
dystrybucjÄ kopii
-programu. Dla istot zdolnych do myÅlenia i nauki dzielenie siÄ
-użytecznÄ
wiedzÄ
jest fundamentalnym przejawem przyjaźni. Gdy te istoty
-korzystajÄ
z komputerów, ten przejaw przyjaźni przyjmuje formÄ
-dzielenia siÄ oprogramowaniem. Przyjaciele siÄ dzielÄ
. Przyjaciele sobie
-pomagajÄ
. Taka jest natura przyjaźni. Tak naprawdÄ ten duch dobrej
-woli – duch pomagania bliźnim bez przymusu –
-stanowi najważniejsze dobro spoÅeczeÅstwa. Stanowi on o różnicy pomiÄdzy
-spoÅeczeÅstwem, w którym da siÄ Å¼yÄ, a dżunglÄ
,
w której
-wszyscy pożerajÄ
siÄ nawzajem. Jego wagÄ dostrzegajÄ
od tysiÄcy lat
-najwiÄksze religie Åwiata i wprost starajÄ
siÄ popieraÄ takÄ
postawÄ.</p>
-
-<p>Gdy chodziÅem do przedszkola, nasi opiekunowie starali siÄ nas
nauczyÄ
-takiej postawy – ducha dzielenia siÄ – każÄ
c nam siÄ
-dzieliÄ. Doszli do wniosku, że jak bÄdziemy tak robiÄ, to siÄ
tego
-nauczymy. WiÄc mówili nam: „JeÅli przyniesiecie do szkoÅy
-cukierki, nie możecie po prostu zatrzymaÄ wszystkich dla siebie,
-musicie czÄÅciÄ
podzieliÄ siÄ z innymi dzieÄmi”. Uczyli nas,
-spoÅeczeÅstwo zostaÅo powoÅane do uczenia, takiego ducha
-wspóÅpracy. Dlaczego trzeba robiÄ takie rzeczy? Bo ludzie nie sÄ
-w peÅni wspóÅpracujÄ
cy. To jedna czÄÅÄ ludzkiej natury i sÄ
inne
-jej czÄÅci. Jest wiele czÄÅci ludzkiej natury. WiÄc jeÅli chcecie
mieÄ
-lepsze spoÅeczeÅstwo, musicie pracowaÄ na rzecz ducha dzielenia siÄ.
To
-nigdy nie bÄdzie 100%. To zrozumiaÅe. Ludzie muszÄ
zadbaÄ też o samych
-siebie. Ale jeÅli choÄ trochÄ go wzmocnimy, to wszyscy na tym
-skorzystamy.</p>
-
-<p>Obecnie, wedÅug rzÄ
du USA, nauczyciele majÄ
robiÄ coÅ zupeÅnie
-odwrotnego. „O, Johnny, przyniosÅeÅ do szkoÅy program. No cóż,
-nie dziel siÄ nim z nikim. O, nie. Dzielenie siÄ jest zÅe. Dzielenie
-siÄ czyni ciÄ piratem”.</p>
-
-<p>Co majÄ
na myÅli, gdy mówiÄ
âpiratâ? MajÄ
na myÅli,
-że pomaganie bliźnim jest moralnie równoważne z atakowaniem
-statku. <i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
-
-<p>Co by na to powiedzieli Budda lub Jezus? Wybierzcie sobie
-ulubionego przywódcÄ religijnego. Nie wiem, może Manson powiedziaÅby coÅ
-innego. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Kto wie co powiedziaÅby L. Ron Hubbard?
Ale…</p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: <i>[niewyraźne]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: OczywiÅcie, on nie żyje. Ale oni tego nie
-uznajÄ
. SÅucham?</p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Inni tak samo, również nie żyjÄ
. <i>[Åmiech]
-[niewyraźne]</i> Charles Manson też nie żyje. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Nie żyjÄ
,
-Jezus nie żyje, Budda nie żyje…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tak, to prawda. <i>[Åmiech]</i> No to chyba,
-patrzÄ
c na to z tej strony, L. Ron Hubbard nie jest gorszy niż
-pozostali. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Tak czy inaczej –
-<i>[niewyraźne]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: L. Ron zawsze używaÅ wolnego oprogramowania â
-wyzwoliÅo go od Zanu. <i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tak czy inaczej, uważam, że tak
-naprawdÄ to jest najważniejszy powód, dla którego oprogramowanie powinno
byÄ
-wolne: nie możemy sobie pozwoliÄ na zatruwanie najważniejszego dobra
-posiadanego przez spoÅeczeÅstwo. OczywiÅcie nie jest to dobro materialne,
-takie jak czyste powietrze i czysta woda. Jest to dobro
-psychospoÅeczne, ale równie rzeczywiste i ma wielkie znaczenie dla
-życia nas wszystkich. DziaÅania, jakie podejmujemy, majÄ
wpÅyw
na myÅli
-innych ludzi. JeÅli chodzimy i mówimy wszystkim dookoÅa: „Nie
-dzielcie siÄ niczym ze sobÄ
”, to jeÅli nas posÅuchajÄ
, bÄdziemy
mieli
-wpÅyw na spoÅeczeÅstwo, i to niedobry. To byÅa WolnoÅÄ 2,
wolnoÅÄ
-do pomagania swoim bliźnim.</p>
-
-<p>A tak przy okazji, brak tej wolnoÅci nie wywoÅuje tylko wspomnianej
-szkody dla psychospoÅecznych dóbr spoÅeczeÅstwa, ale również
-marnotrawstwo, czyli szkodÄ praktycznÄ
, materialnÄ
. JeÅli program ma
-wÅaÅciciela, a ten ustawi wszystko w taki sposób, żeby każdy
-musiaÅ pÅaciÄ za używanie programu, to niektórzy powiedzÄ
:
-„Nieważne, poradzÄ sobie bez tego”. A to jest
-marnotrawstwo, spowodowane z premedytacjÄ
marnotrawstwo. InteresujÄ
ce
-w przypadku oprogramowania jest oczywiÅcie to, że mniejsza iloÅÄ
-użytkowników nie oznacza koniecznoÅci zmniejszenia produkcji. No wiecie,
-jeÅli mniejsza iloÅÄ ludzi kupuje samochody, to można produkowaÄ ich
-mniej. Oznacza to oszczÄdnoÅci. IstniejÄ
dobra, które można przeznaczyÄ
-na produkcjÄ samochodów lub nie. Można wiÄc powiedzieÄ,
-że to dobrze by samochody miaÅy ceny. Uniemożliwia to ludziom
-wykorzystywanie wielkich iloÅci marnowanych dóbr na produkcjÄ
-samochodów, których nikt tak naprawdÄ nie potrzebuje. Ale jeÅli każdy
-kolejny samochód nie wymagaÅby żadnych dóbr, to powstrzymywanie siÄ przed
-ich produkcjÄ
nie dawaÅoby niczego pożytecznego. OczywiÅcie,
-w przypadku rzeczy materialnych, takich jak samochody, wykonanie
-kolejnego egzemplarza zawsze bÄdzie pochÅaniaÄ dodatkowe dobra.</p>
-
-<p>Jednak w przypadku oprogramowania nie jest to prawdÄ
. Każdy może
-wykonaÄ nowÄ
kopiÄ. A zrobienie tego jest zadaniem niemal
-trywialnym. Nie wymaga to żadnych dóbr prócz odrobiny
-elektrycznoÅci. WiÄc nie ma tu czego oszczÄdzaÄ, nie ma żadnego
dobra,
-które można by wykorzystaÄ lepiej poprzez ustanowienie tego finansowego
-czynnika zniechÄcajÄ
cego do korzystania z programów. Ludzie
czÄsto
-biorÄ
ekonomiczne, wyniki ekonomicznego rozumowania oparte
-na przesÅankach nijak majÄ
cych siÄ do oprogramowania
-i próbujÄ
przenieÅÄ je z innych dziedzin życia, dla których te
-przesÅanki mogÄ
byÄ prawdziwe, a wnioski prawidÅowe. Po prostu
-biorÄ
te wnioski i zakÅadajÄ
, że sÄ
prawdziwe także dla
-oprogramowania, tymczasem caÅe rozumowanie w przypadku oprogramowania
-jest oparte na niczym. PrzesÅanki nie dziaÅajÄ
. To bardzo ważne, by
-zwracaÄ uwagÄ, w jaki sposób dochodzi siÄ do wniosków,
-w oparciu o jakie przesÅanki, aby zrozumieÄ kiedy mogÄ
byÄ one
-prawidÅowe. ByÅa to wiÄc WolnoÅÄ 2, wolnoÅÄ do pomagania swoim
-bliźnim.</p>
-
-<p>WolnoÅÄ 3 pozwala na wspieranie rozwoju wÅasnej spoÅecznoÅci
-poprzez publikowanie ulepszonych wersji programów. Ludzie mówili mi:
-„JeÅli oprogramowanie bÄdzie darmowe [<em>free</em>], to nikt
-za pracÄ nad nim nie bÄdzie dostawaÄ pieniÄdzy,
wiÄc dlaczego
-ktokolwiek miaÅby to robiÄ?”. OczywiÅcie nie rozróżniali oni dwóch
-znaczeÅ sÅowa „free” [<em>ang. darmowy, wolny</em>],
-wiÄc ich rozumowanie byÅo oparte na nieporozumieniu. Ale tak
-czy inaczej, taka byÅa ich teoria. Dzisiaj możemy porównaÄ tÄ teoriÄ
-z empiriÄ
i okazuje siÄ, że setkom ludzi pÅaci siÄ
-za pracÄ nad wolnym oprogramowaniem, a ponad 100.000 robi to
-jako wolontariusze. Mnóstwo ludzi pracuje nad wolnym oprogramowaniem,
-z różnych powodów.</p>
-
-<p>Gdy po raz pierwszy wydaÅem edytor GNU Emacs – pierwszy
-kawaÅek systemu GNU, którego ludzie rzeczywiÅcie chcieli
używaÄ –
-i gdy pojawili siÄ użytkownicy, to po niedÅugim czasie otrzymaÅem
-wiadomoÅÄ: „Wydaje mi siÄ, że znalazÅem bÅÄ
d w kodzie
-źródÅowym, a oto poprawka”. DostaÅem także kolejnÄ
wiadomoÅÄ:
-„Oto kod dodajÄ
cy nowÄ
funkcjÄ”. I kolejna poprawka
-do bÅÄdu. I kolejna nowa funkcja. I kolejna, i kolejna,
-i kolejna, aż zaczÄÅy napÅywaÄ do mnie tak szybko, że samo
-ich wykorzystywanie staÅo siÄ ciÄżkÄ
pracÄ
. Microsoft nie ma tego
-problemu. <i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
-
-<p>W koÅcu ludzie dostrzegli ten fenomen. Wiecie, w latach 80. wielu
-z nas myÅlaÅo, że byÄ może wolne oprogramowanie nie bÄdzie tak
-dobre jak niewolne, bo nie bÄdziemy mieli tak samo dużo pieniÄdzy
-na pÅacenie ludziom. OczywiÅcie, osoby takie jak ja, które ceniÄ
-wolnoÅÄ i wartoÅci spoÅeczne, mówiÅy: „Cóż, i tak
bÄdziemy
-korzystaÄ z wolnego oprogramowania”. Warto jest poÅwiÄciÄ
trochÄ
-niezbyt istotnej technicznej wygody dla wolnoÅci. Ale to, co ludzie
-zaczÄli dostrzegaÄ okoÅo roku 1990, to byÅ fakt, że nasze
-oprogramowanie jest tak naprawdÄ lepsze. ByÅo potÄżniejsze i bardziej
-niezawodne od alternatywnych programów objÄtych restrykcyjnymi
-licencjami.</p>
-
-<p>Na poczÄ
tku lat 90. ktoÅ wymyÅliÅ jak przeprowadzaÄ naukowe
pomiary
-niezawodnoÅci oprogramowania. Oto co zrobiÅ. WziÄ
Å parÄ zbiorów
-porównywalnych programów, które wykonywaÅy te same zadania –
-dokÅadnie te same zadania – w różnych
-systemach. Ponieważ istniaÅy pewne podstawowe uniksowe
-narzÄdzia. A zadania, które wykonywaÅy, no wiecie, to byÅo wszystko,
-mniej wiÄcej, imitowanie tej samej rzeczy, albo byÅy zgodne ze
-standardami POSIX, wiÄc byÅy takie same w zakresie wykonywanych
-zadaÅ, ale byÅy utrzymywane przez innych ludzi i osobno
-napisane. Kod byÅ inny. WiÄc oni powiedzieli, OK, weźmiemy te programy
-i zaÅadujemy do nich losowe dane, i zmierzymy jak czÄsto
bÄdÄ
-siÄ wywalaÄ albo zawieszaÄ. No wiÄc to zmierzyli
-i najbardziej niezawodnym zbiorem programów okazaÅy siÄ programy
-GNU. Wszystkie komercyjne odpowiedniki objÄte restrykcyjnymi licencjami byÅy
-bardziej zawodne. WiÄc on to opublikowaÅ i przedstawiÅ wszystkim
-programistom, i parÄ lat później wykonaÅ ten sam eksperyment
-z najnowszymi wersjami, i wyniki byÅy takie same. Wersje GNU byÅy
-najbardziej niezawodne. Ludzie – wiecie, istniejÄ
kliniki
-onkologiczne oraz stacje pogotowia ratunkowego, które korzystajÄ
-z systemu GNU, bo jest taki niezawodny, a niezawodnoÅÄ jest
-dla nich bardzo ważna.</p>
-
-<p>W każdym bÄ
dź razie, jest nawet grupa ludzi, którzy skupiajÄ
siÄ
-na tej konkretnej korzyÅci podajÄ
c powód, gÅówny powód, dla którego
-użytkownicy powinni móc robiÄ wszystkie te rzeczy i mieÄ te
-wolnoÅci. JeÅli mnie sÅuchaliÅcie, to zauważyliÅcie, widzieliÅcie,
-że ja, mówiÄ
c w imieniu ruchu wolnego oprogramowania, opowiadam o
-kwestiach etycznych i o spoÅeczeÅstwie, w którym chcemy mieszkaÄ,
-o tym, co tworzy dobre spoÅeczeÅstwo, a także o praktycznych,
-materialnych korzyÅciach. Obie te rzeczy sÄ
ważne. Oto ruch wolnego
-oprogramowania.</p>
-
-<p>Ta druga grupa ludzi – nazywajÄ
ca siÄ ruchem open source
-[<em>open source movement, ruch na rzecz oprogramowania o otwartych
-źródÅach</em>] – oni mówiÄ
tylko o praktycznych
-korzyÅciach. ZaprzeczajÄ
, jakoby byÅa to kwestia zasad. ZaprzeczajÄ
,
-że ludziom należy siÄ wolnoÅÄ dzielenia siÄ z bliźnimi
-i sprawdzania, co robiÄ
programy, oraz zmieniania tego, jeÅli im
-siÄ nie podoba. MówiÄ
oni jednak, że zezwalanie na to jest
-użyteczne. WiÄc chodzÄ
po firmach i mówiÄ
: „Wiecie,
-prawdopodobnie możecie zarabiaÄ wiÄcej pieniÄdzy, jeÅli pozwolicie ludziom
-to robiÄ”. WiÄc, jak widzicie, do pewnego stopnia prowadzÄ
oni
-ludzi w tym samym kierunku, ale z zupeÅnie innych,
-w podstawowym stopniu innych, przesÅanek filozoficznych.</p>
-
-<p>Ponieważ w najgÅÄbszej spoÅród wszystkich kwestii, kwestii
etycznej,
-oba ruchy nie zgadzajÄ
siÄ ze sobÄ
. My z ruchu wolnego oprogramowania
-mówimy: „NależÄ
wam siÄ te wolnoÅci. Nikt nie powinien was
-powstrzymywaÄ przed robieniem tych rzeczy”. Ruch open source mówi:
-„Tak, mogÄ
was powstrzymaÄ, jeÅli chcecie, ale postaramy siÄ ich
-przekonaÄ, aby raczyli pozwoliÄ wam robiÄ te rzeczy”. Cóż, oni
-wnieÅli wkÅad – przekonali pewnÄ
iloÅÄ firm
do wypuszczenia
-znaczÄ
cych kawaÅków oprogramowania w postaci wolnych programów,
-na rzecz naszej spoÅecznoÅci. WiÄc oni, czyli ruch open
-source, wnieÅli znaczny wkÅad do naszej spoÅecznoÅci. Tak
-wiÄc pracujemy razem nad projektami praktycznymi. Jednak pod
-wzglÄdem filozoficznym bardzo siÄ nie zgadzamy.</p>
-
-<p>Niestety, to ruch open source dostaje najwiÄksze wsparcie od firm,
-wiÄc wiÄkszoÅÄ artykuÅów dotyczÄ
cych naszej pracy opisuje jÄ
jako
open
-source i mnóstwo ludzi, bez zÅych intencji, myÅli,
że wszyscy
-jesteÅmy czÄÅciÄ
ruchu open source. Dlatego wÅaÅnie mówiÄ o tej
-różnicy. ChcÄ, abyÅcie zdawali sobie sprawÄ, że ruch wolnego
-oprogramowania, który powoÅaÅ naszÄ
spoÅecznoÅÄ do życia
-i stworzyÅ wolny system operacyjny, nadal istnieje –
-i caÅy czas gÅosimy tÄ etycznÄ
filozofiÄ. ChcÄ, żebyÅcie to
wiedzieli,
-aby bezwiednie nie wprowadzaÄ innych w bÅÄ
d.</p>
-
-<p>Ale także dlatego, żebyÅcie mogli pomyÅleÄ o tym, gdzie sami
należycie.</p>
-
-<p>No wiecie, to, który ruch popieracie, to wasza sprawa. Możecie siÄ
zgadzaÄ
-z ruchami wolnego oprogramowania i moimi poglÄ
dami. Możecie siÄ
-zgadzaÄ z ruchem open source. Możecie siÄ z oboma nie zgadzaÄ. To
-wy decydujecie o waszej postawie wobec tych politycznych kwestii.</p>
-
-<p>Ale jeÅli zgadzacie siÄ z ruchem wolnego
-oprogramowania – jeÅli rozumiecie, że chodzi tu o to,
-aby ludzie, których życie jest kontrolowane i kierowane przez tÄ
-decyzjÄ, mieli coÅ w jej sprawie do powiedzenia – to
-mam nadziejÄ, że powiecie, iż zgadzacie siÄ z ruchem wolnego
-oprogramowania, a jednÄ
z rzeczy, które możecie zrobiÄ,
-aby to pokazaÄ, jest używanie terminu wolne oprogramowanie i po
-prostu zwracanie uwagi ludzi na to, że istniejemy.</p>
-
-<p>Tak wiÄc WolnoÅÄ 3 jest bardzo ważna zarówno pod wzglÄdem
-praktycznym, jak i psychospoÅecznym. JeÅli nie macie tej wolnoÅci,
-powoduje to praktyczne, materialne szkody, bo nie nastÄpuje wspomniany
-rozwój spoÅecznoÅci i nie tworzymy potÄżnego, niezawodnego
-oprogramowania. Ale powoduje również szkody psychospoÅeczne, które
majÄ
-wpÅyw na ducha naukowej wspóÅpracy – ideÄ, która mówi,
-że pracujemy razem na rzecz rozwoju ludzkiej wiedzy. Zrozumcie,
-postÄp naukowy zależy gÅównie od tego, że ludzie mogÄ
razem
-pracowaÄ. Tymczasem w dzisiejszych czasach widzi siÄ poszczególne maÅe
-grupy naukowców, które zachowujÄ
siÄ jakby to byÅa wojna ze wszystkimi
-innymi bandami naukowców i inżynierów. A jeÅli oni nie bÄdÄ
siÄ ze
-sobÄ
dzieliÄ, to nie bÄdÄ
czyniÄ postÄpów.</p>
-
-<p>To sÄ
trzy wolnoÅci, które odróżniajÄ
wolne oprogramowanie
od typowych
-programów. WolnoÅÄ 1 to wolnoÅÄ pozwalajÄ
ca na uÅatwianie sobie
życia
-przez wprowadzanie zmian do programu, aby dostosowaÄ go
-do swoich potrzeb. WolnoÅÄ 2 to wolnoÅÄ do pomagania swoim
bliźnim
-przez dystrybucjÄ kopii. Natomiast WolnoÅÄ 3 pozwala na wspieranie
-rozwoju wÅasnej spoÅecznoÅci poprzez wprowadzanie zmian
-i publikowanie ich, tak aby inni mogli z nich
-skorzystaÄ. JeÅli macie wszystkie te wolnoÅci, to ten program jest dla was
-wolnym oprogramowaniem. Dlaczego definiujÄ to w ten sposób,
-z punktu widzenia konkretnego użytkownika? Czy to jest wolne
-oprogramowanie dla ciebie? <i>[wskazuje któregoÅ ze sÅuchaczy]</i>
-Czy to jest wolne oprogramowanie dla ciebie? <i>[wskazuje innego
-sÅuchacza]</i> Tak?</p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Czy możesz krótko wyjaÅniÄ różnicÄ
pomiÄdzy
-WolnoÅciami 2 i 3? <i>[niewyraźne]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Cóż, z pewnoÅciÄ
sÄ
ze sobÄ
powiÄ
zane,
-bo jeÅli w ogóle nie masz wolnoÅci do redystrybucji, to
-z pewnoÅciÄ
nie masz wolnoÅci do dystrybucji zmodyfikowanych
-wersji, ale to osobne rzeczy.</p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Aha.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: WolnoÅÄ 2 to, no wiecie, skupcie siÄ, robicie
-identycznÄ
kopiÄ i rozdajecie jÄ
znajomym, a oni mogÄ
z niej
-korzystaÄ. Albo robicie identyczne kopie i sprzedajecie je paru
-osobom, a wtedy oni mogÄ
z nich korzystaÄ.</p>
-
-<p>W WolnoÅci 3 chodzi o wprowadzanie ulepszeÅ –
-a przynajmniej wy sÄ
dzicie, że sÄ
to ulepszenia, a inni mogÄ
-siÄ z wami zgodziÄ. WiÄc tu leży różnica. A tak przy
okazji,
-jedna ważna uwaga. WolnoÅci 1 i 3 zależÄ
od dostÄpnoÅci kodu
-źródÅowego. Bo modyfikacja programu dostÄpnego tylko w formie
-binarnej jest niezwykle trudna. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Nawet maÅe modyfikacje,
-takie jak korzystanie z czterocyfrowej daty, <i>[Åmiech]</i> jeÅli nie
-macie źródeÅ. Tak wiÄc z istotnych, praktycznych powodów,
dostÄpnoÅÄ
-kodu źródÅowego jest koniecznym warunkiem, wymaganiem wolnego
-oprogramowania.</p>
-
-<p>Dlaczego wiÄc definiuje to pod kÄ
tem tego, czy jest wolnym
-oprogramowaniem <em>dla was</em>? Dlatego, że czasami ten sam program
-może byÄ wolnym oprogramowaniem dla niektórych ludzi, a niewolnym dla
-innych. Może to wyglÄ
daÄ na paradoks, wiÄc pozwólcie mi podaÄ
-przykÅad, który pokaże wam, na czym to polega. Bardzo dużym
-przykÅadem – może najwiÄkszym w historii – tego
-problemu byÅ system okien X opracowany na MIT i wydany
-na licencji, która czyniÅa go wolnym oprogramowaniem. JeÅli mieliÅcie
-wersjÄ MIT wydanÄ
na licencji MIT, to mieliÅcie WolnoÅci 1, 2
-i 3. ByÅo to dla was wolne oprogramowanie. Ale poÅród tych,
którzy
-otrzymali kopie, znajdowali siÄ różni producenci komputerów, którzy
-dostarczali systemy uniksowe i dokonywali oni zmian koniecznych
-do tego, aby X dziaÅaÅ na ich systemach. JakieÅ parÄ
tysiÄcy
-linii spoÅród setek tysiÄcy skÅadajÄ
cych siÄ na X. Potem to
-kompilowali, dokÅadali binaria do swojego systemu Unix
-i rozprowadzali pod takÄ
samÄ
restrykcyjnÄ
licencjÄ
jak resztÄ
-systemu. Potem takie kopie dostaÅo miliony ludzi. Mieli system okien X,
-ale nie mieli żadnej z tych wolnoÅci. <em>Dla nich</em> to nie
-byÅo wolne oprogramowanie.</p>
-
-<p>Tak wiÄc paradoks polegaÅ na tym, że to czy X byÅo
-wolnym oprogramowaniem zależaÅo od punktu widzenia. JeÅli ktoÅ
patrzyÅ
-z punktu widzenia grupy programistów, to powiedziaÅby:
-„RespektujÄ wszystkie te wolnoÅci. To wolne
-oprogramowanie„. JeÅli patrzyÅ z punktu widzenia użytkowników,
-powiedziaÅby: „Hmm, wiÄkszoÅÄ użytkowników nie ma tych wolnoÅci.
To
-nie jest wolne oprogramowanie”. Cóż, programiÅci X nie uważali tego
-za problem, bo ich celem w gruncie rzeczy byÅa popularnoÅÄ,
-zaspokojenie swojego ego. Chcieli osiÄ
gnÄ
Ä duży sukces
-w branży. Chcieli mieÄ poczucie, że: „Taaak, mnóstwo ludzi
-korzysta z naszego oprogramowania”. I byÅa to
-prawda. Mnóstwo ludzi korzystaÅo z ich oprogramowania, ale nie
-miaÅo wolnoÅci.</p>
-
-<p>W przypadku projektu GNU, jeÅli to samo przydarzyÅoby siÄ
-oprogramowaniu GNU, to byÅaby to porażka, bo naszym celem nie byÅo
-wyÅÄ
cznie zdobycie popularnoÅci; naszym celem byÅo przekazanie ludziom
-wolnoÅci i zachÄcanie ich do wspóÅdziaÅania, pozwolenie im
-na wspóÅdziaÅanie. PamiÄtajcie, nigdy nie zmuszajcie nikogo
-do wspóÅpracy z kimÅ innym, ale zadbajcie o to,
-aby wszyscy mogli ze sobÄ
wspólnie dziaÅaÄ, żeby każdy miaÅ
-do tego wolnoÅÄ, jeÅli tylko tego chce. JeÅli miliony ludzi
-korzystaÅoby z niewolnych wersji GNU, to wcale nie byÅby sukces. CaÅy
-projekt zostaÅby przewrotnie przeksztaÅcony w coÅ zupeÅnie odmiennego
-od pierwotnego celu.</p>
-
-<p>WiÄc szukaÅem sposobu, aby temu zapobiec. Metoda, którÄ
-wymyÅliÅem, nazywa siÄ „copyleft”. Nazywa siÄ
-„copyleft”, bo to tak jakby wziÄ
Ä prawo autorskie
-[<em>ang. copyright</em>] i wywróciÄ je na drugÄ
-stronÄ. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Z prawnego punktu widzenia copyleft dziaÅa
-w oparciu o prawo autorskie. Wykorzystujemy istniejÄ
ce prawo autorskie,
-ale do osiÄ
gniÄcia zupeÅnie odmiennego celu. Oto co robimy. Mówimy:
-„Ten program jest objÄty prawem autorskim”. OczywiÅcie domyÅlnie
-oznacza to, że nie wolno go kopiowaÄ, rozpowszechniaÄ,
-ani modyfikowaÄ. Ale potem mówimy: „Wolno wam
-rozpowszechniaÄ jego kopie. Wolno wam go modyfikowaÄ. Wolno wam
-rozpowszechniaÄ wersje zmodyfikowane i poszerzone. ZmieniaÄ go jak
-tylko siÄ wam podoba”.</p>
-
-<p>Jest jednak pewien warunek. I jest on, oczywiÅcie, powodem, dla
-którego to wszystko robimy, aby móc go tam wstawiÄ. Warunek mówi:
-rozpowszechniajÄ
c kiedykolwiek coÅ zawierajÄ
cego jakikolwiek kawaÅek tego
-programu, musicie rozpowszechniaÄ caÅoÅÄ na tych samych zasadach,
-ni mniej, ni wiÄcej. Możecie wiÄc zmieniÄ program
-i rozpowszechniaÄ jego zmodyfikowanÄ
wersjÄ, ale gdy to robicie,
-ludzie otrzymujÄ
cy od was program muszÄ
dostaÄ takÄ
samÄ
wolnoÅÄ,
jakÄ
-wy dostaliÅcie od nas. I nie tylko wobec czÄÅci
-programu – tych, które skopiowaliÅcie od nas –
-ale także wobec reszty, którÄ
od was dostali. CaÅoÅÄ programu
musi
-byÄ dla nich wolnym oprogramowaniem.</p>
-
-<p>WolnoÅci do modyfikowania i rozpowszechniania tego programu
stajÄ
-siÄ niezbywalnymi prawami – co jest koncepcjÄ
z Deklaracji
-NiepodlegÅoÅci. Prawami, wobec których dbamy o to, aby nikt ich wam nie
-odebraÅ. OczywiÅcie, konkretna licencja, która realizuje ideÄ copyleft to
-GNU GPL, kontrowersyjna licencja, ponieważ rzeczywiÅcie posiada siÅÄ,
-aby powiedzieÄ „nie” ludziom, którzy byliby pasożytami
-żerujÄ
cymi na naszej spoÅecznoÅci.</p>
-
-<p>Jest mnóstwo ludzi, którzy nie doceniajÄ
ideaÅów wolnoÅci. ChÄtnie
wziÄliby
-rezultaty naszej pracy i wykorzystali je do uzyskania przewagi
-w rozpowszechnianiu niewolnego oprogramowania oraz zachÄcaniu
-ludzi do wyzbycia siÄ wÅasnej wolnoÅci. A rezultatem
-byÅoby – no wiecie, jeÅli na to ludziom
-pozwolimy – że rozwijalibyÅmy te wolne programy i caÅy
-czas musielibyÅmy konkurowaÄ z ulepszonymi wersjami naszego wÅasnego
-oprogramowania. A to nie jest fajne.</p>
-
-<p>I mnóstwo ludzi również ma poczucie – no wiecie, chcÄ
-bez przymusu poÅwiÄciÄ mój czas, aby wnieÅÄ wkÅad
-do spoÅecznoÅci, ale dlaczego miaÅbym go poÅwiÄcaÄ,
-aby wnieÅÄ wkÅad na rzecz tamtej firmy, na rzecz ulepszania
-jej objÄtego restrykcyjnÄ
licencjÄ
programu? Wiecie, niektórzy mogÄ
nawet
-sÄ
dziÄ, że to nic zÅego, ale chcÄ
, żeby im za to
-zapÅacono. OsobiÅcie wolaÅbym wcale tego nie robiÄ.</p>
-
-<p>Jednak obie te grupy – zarówno tacy jak ja, którzy mówiÄ
:
-„Nie chcÄ pomagaÄ temu objÄtemu restrykcyjnÄ
licencjÄ
programowi
-rozpowszechniÄ siÄ w spoÅeczeÅstwie” oraz ci, którzy
mówiÄ
:
-„Pewnie, mogÄ dla nich pracowaÄ, ale lepiej żeby mi
-zapÅacili” – obie grupy majÄ
dobry powód,
-aby korzystaÄ z GNU GPL. Bo mówi ona firmie: „Nie
-możecie po prostu wziÄ
Ä sobie wyników mojej pracy
-i rozpowszechniaÄ ich bez wolnoÅci”. Tymczasem licencje
-niezawierajÄ
ce copyleft, takie jak licencja systemu X, umożliwiajÄ
to.</p>
-
-<p>WiÄc to jest wielka różnica pomiÄdzy dwoma kategoriami wolnego
-oprogramowania â pod wzglÄdem licencji. SÄ
programy objÄte przez
-copyleft, w przypadku których licencja chroni wolnoÅci oprogramowania
-dla każdego użytkownika. I sÄ
programy nie objÄte przez copyleft,
-w przypadku których dozwolone sÄ
wersje niewolne. KtoŠ<em>może</em>
-wziÄ
Ä te programy i odrzeÄ je z wolnoÅci. Możecie dostaÄ taki
-program w wersji niewolnej.</p>
-
-<p>A ten problem obecnie istnieje. Nadal istniejÄ
niewolne wersje systemu
-X wykorzystywane w naszych wolnych systemach operacyjnych. Jest nawet
-sprzÄt, który nie jest tak naprawdÄ obsÅugiwany za wyjÄ
tkiem
niewolnych
-wersji X. To dla naszej spoÅecznoÅci ogromny problem. Tak czy inaczej
-nie powiedziaÅbym, że system X to coÅ zÅego. PowiedziaÅbym,
-że jego autorzy nie zrobili najlepszej z możliwych
-rzeczy. Ale <em>wydali</em> wiele programów, które wszyscy mogliÅmy
-wykorzystaÄ.</p>
-
-<p>Wiecie, jest duża różnica pomiÄdzy niedoskonaÅoÅciÄ
i zÅem.
Jest wiele
-odcieni dobrego i zÅego. Musimy oprzeÄ siÄ pokusie mówienia,
-że jeÅli nie zrobiÅeÅ absolutnie najlepszej z możliwych rzeczy,
to
-nie zrobiÅeÅ niczego dobrego. No wiecie, autorzy systemu X wnieÅli duży
-wkÅad do naszej spoÅecznoÅci. Ale mogli zrobiÄ coÅ lepszego.
Mogli
-objÄ
Ä czÄÅci programu licencjÄ
typu copyleft i zapobiec
-rozpowszechnianiu przez innych wersji odrzucajÄ
cych wolnoÅÄ.</p>
-
-<p>Fakt, że GNU GPL broni waszej wolnoÅci, używa prawa autorskiego,
żeby
-jej broniÄ, to oczywiÅcie powód, dla którego Microsoft jÄ
obecnie
-atakuje. Bo Microsoft naprawdÄ chciaÅby móc wziÄ
Ä caÅy kod, który
-napisaliÅmy i wsadziÄ go do objÄtych restrykcyjnymi licencjami
-programów, zleciÄ komuÅ wykonanie paru ulepszeÅ, albo nawet
niezgodnych
-zmian – to wszystko, czego potrzebujÄ
. <i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
-
-<p>DziÄki przewadze marketingowej Microsoft nie musi tych programów
ulepszaÄ,
-żeby ich wersje wyparÅy nasze. MuszÄ
tylko sprawiÄ, aby byÅy inne
-i niezgodne. A potem wrzuciÄ to wszystkim na komputery. Tak
-wiÄc oni naprawdÄ nie lubiÄ
GNU GPL. Bo GNU GPL nie pozwala im
-tego zrobiÄ. Nie pozwala na „przyjÄcie i rozszerzenie”
-[<em>ang. „embrace, extend (and extinguish)” –
-taktyka Microsoftu</em>]. Mówi ona, że jeÅli chcecie wykorzystaÄ
-w swoich programach nasz kod, to możecie to zrobiÄ. Ale musicie
-siÄ również dzieliÄ, dzieliÄ w taki sam sposób. Musicie pozwoliÄ
nam
-na dzielenie siÄ zmianami, które wprowadzicie. Jest to
-wiÄc dwukierunkowa wspóÅpraca, czyli prawdziwa wspóÅpraca.</p>
-
-<p>Wiele firm – nawet dużych, takich jak IBM i HP, jest
-skÅonnych korzystaÄ z naszych programów na tych zasadach. IBM
-i HP wnoszÄ
do oprogramowania GNU ważne ulepszenia. I tworzÄ
-inne wolne oprogramowanie. Jednak Microsoft nie chce tego robiÄ,
-wiÄc ogÅasza, że dla firm GPL jest po prostu nie
-do przyjÄcia. No tak, jeÅli do firm nie zaliczaÅyby siÄ IBM, HP
-i Sun, to może mieliby racjÄ. <i>[Åmiech]</i> WiÄcej na ten temat
-później.</p>
-
-<p>Powinienem dokoÅczyÄ opowieÅÄ historycznÄ
. W 1984 zaczynaliÅmy
-dziaÅalnoÅÄ nie tylko po to, aby napisaÄ trochÄ wolnego
-oprogramowania, ale żeby zrobiÄ coÅ dużo bardziej spójnego: stworzyÄ
-skÅadajÄ
cy siÄ wyÅÄ
cznie z wolnego oprogramowania system
-operacyjny. OznaczaÅo to, że musieliÅmy pisaÄ kawaÅek
-za kawaÅkiem. OczywiÅcie zawsze szukaliÅmy dróg na skróty. Praca
-do wykonania byÅa tak wielka, że ludzie twierdzili, iż nigdy nam
-siÄ nie uda jej skoÅczyÄ. Ja uważaÅem, że istnieje co najmniej maÅa
-szansa, że uda nam siÄ doprowadziÄ to do koÅca,
-ale oczywiÅcie warto jest szukaÄ dróg na skróty. WiÄc ciÄ
gle
-rozglÄ
daliÅmy siÄ dookoÅa. Czy jest jakiÅ program, który napisaÅ
ktoÅ
-inny i który dalibyÅmy radÄ dostosowaÄ, wetknÄ
Ä tutaj, aby nie
-trzeba byÅo pisaÄ go od nowa? Na przykÅad system okien X. To
-prawda, że nie byÅ objÄty przez copyleft, ale byÅ wolnym
-oprogramowaniem, wiÄc mogliÅmy go wykorzystaÄ.</p>
-
-<p>Od samego poczÄ
tku chciaÅem wÅÄ
czyÄ do GNU system okien.
NapisaÅem
-kilka takich systemów na MIT zanim zaczÄ
Åem pracowaÄ
-nad GNU. WiÄc pomimo tego, że w 1984 Unix nie miaÅ systemu
-okien, zdecydowaÅem, że GNU bÄdzie go miaÅo. Ale nigdy nie
-napisaliÅmy systemu okien GNU, bo pojawiÅ siÄ X. A ja
-powiedziaÅem: „Super! Jedno wielkie zadanie, którego nie musimy
-wykonywaÄ. Skorzystamy z X”. WiÄc w zasadzie powiedziaÅem:
-„Weźmy X i doÅÄ
czmy go do systemu GNU. A potem
-dopasujemy inne czÄÅci GNU, żeby z nim wspóÅpracowaÅy, gdy bÄdzie
-potrzeba”. ZnaleźliÅmy również inne oprogramowanie napisane przez
-innych ludzi, takie jak program do skÅadu tekstu TeX i trochÄ
-bibliotek z Berkeley. IstniaÅ wtedy Berkeley Unix, ale nie byÅ
-wolnym oprogramowaniem. Kod bibliotek pochodziÅ na poczÄ
tku
-od innej grupy z Berkeley, zajmujÄ
cej siÄ badaniami
-nad obliczeniami zmiennoprzecinkowymi. WiÄc wziÄliÅmy te kawaÅki
-i dopasowaliÅmy do naszego systemu.</p>
-
-<p>W październiku 1985 zaÅożyliÅmy Free Software Foundation.
ZwróÄcie
-proszÄ uwagÄ, że projekt GNU byÅ pierwszy. FSF powstaÅa potem, niemal
-dwa lata po ogÅoszeniu Projektu. A FSF to wyÅÄ
czona
-z obowiÄ
zku pÅacenia podatków organizacja charytatywna, która zbiera
-fundusze na promowanie wolnoÅci dzielenia siÄ oprogramowaniem
-i jego modyfikowania. Natomiast w latach 80. jednÄ
z gÅównych
-rzeczy, na które przeznaczaliÅmy pieniÄ
dze, byÅo zatrudnianie ludzi,
-aby pisali kawaÅki GNU. W ten sposób zostaÅy napisane
-najważniejsze programy, takie jak powÅoka i biblioteka C, podobnie jak
-czÄÅci innych programów. W ten sposób zostaÅ napisany program tar,
-który jest bardzo ważny, chociaż niezbyt fascynujÄ
cy <i>[Åmiech]</i>.
Wydaje
-mi siÄ, że w ten sposób zostaÅ napisany GNU grep. I tak
-zbliżaliÅmy siÄ do naszego celu.</p>
-
-<p>Do roku 1991 brakowaÅo tylko jednej ważnej czÄÅci, a byÅo to
-jÄ
dro. Dlaczego odkÅadaÅem w czasie pisanie jÄ
dra? CzÄÅciowo
dlatego,
-że kolejnoÅÄ pisania poszczególnych rzeczy nie gra roli, przynajmniej
-pod wzglÄdem technicznym. I tak trzeba napisaÄ je
-wszystkie. CzÄÅciowo również dlatego, że miaÅem nadziejÄ, iż
znajdziemy
-rozpoczÄte jÄ
dro gdzieÅ indziej. I tak siÄ staÅo. ZnaleźliÅmy Mach,
-które byÅo rozwijane na uniwersytecie Carnegie Mellon. I nie byÅo
-to caÅe jÄ
dro; byÅa to dolna poÅowa jÄ
dra. MusieliÅmy wiÄc napisaÄ
-górnÄ
poÅowÄ, ale myÅlaÅem, no wiecie, rzeczy takie jak system
plików,
-kod sieciowy, i tak dalej. Jednak dziaÅajÄ
c na Machu
dziaÅajÄ
-one w zasadzie jako programy poziomu użytkownika, co powinno uczyniÄ je
-Åatwiejszymi do debugowania. Można je debugowaÄ dziaÅajÄ
cym
w tym
-samym czasie prawdziwym debuggerem poziomu źródÅowego. MyÅlaÅem wiÄc,
-że w ten sposób uda nam siÄ napisaÄ te wyższe partie jÄ
dra
-w krótkim czasie. Nie udaÅo siÄ. Te asynchroniczne, wielowÄ
tkowe
-procesy, wysyÅajÄ
ce do siebie komunikaty, okazaÅy siÄ byÄ bardzo
trudne
-do debugowania. A system oparty na Machu, którego używaliÅmy
-do ich Åadowania, miaÅ koszmarne narzÄdzia do debugowania
-i byÅ zawodny, do tego byÅo z nim wiele innych
-problemów. Doprowadzenie jÄ
dra GNU do dziaÅania zajÄÅo nam dÅugie
lata.</p>
-
-<p>Na szczÄÅcie jednak nasza spoÅecznoÅÄ nie musiaÅa czekaÄ
-na jÄ
dro GNU. Ponieważ w 1991 Linus Torvalds stworzyŠinne wolne
-jÄ
dro nazwane Linux. WykorzystaÅ on starodawny, monolityczny projekt
-i okazaÅo siÄ, że jego jÄ
dro zaczÄÅo dziaÅaÄ znacznie
szybciej niż
-nasze. WiÄc może to jest jeden z bÅÄdów, które popeÅniÅem:
decyzja
-projektowa. Tak czy inaczej na poczÄ
tku nie wiedzieliÅmy nic o
-Linuksie, bo nigdy siÄ z nami nie skontaktowaÅ, aby o nim
-porozmawiaÄ. Chociaż wiedziaÅ o Projekcie GNU. Jednak ogÅosiÅ
-informacjÄ o nim innym ludziom w innych miejscach sieci. I wtedy
-inni ludzie wykonali robotÄ ÅÄ
czenia Linuksa z resztÄ
systemu GNU
-w celu stworzenia kompletnego wolnego systemu operacyjnego. W swej
-istocie kombinacji GNU i Linuksa.</p>
-
-<p>Jednak nie zdawali sobie sprawy, że wÅaÅnie to robili. Wiecie,
oni
-mówili: „Mamy jÄ
dro – popatrzmy dookoÅa
-i zobaczmy. jakie inne kawaÅki da siÄ znaleÅºÄ i do niego
-doÅÄ
czyÄ”. WiÄc patrzyli dookoÅa – i oto
okazaÅo
-siÄ, że wszystko, czego potrzebowali, jest już dostÄpne. „Co
-za szczÄÅcie”, powiedzieli. <i>[Åmiech]</i> „Wszystko już
-gotowe. Da siÄ znaleÅºÄ wszystko, czego potrzebujemy. Weźmy po prostu
-wszystkie te poszczególne czÄÅci, zÅóżmy do kupy i bÄdziemy
mieli
-system”.</p>
-
-<p>Nie wiedzieli, że wiÄkszoÅÄ rzeczy, które znaleźli byÅo
kawaÅkami
-systemu GNU. Nie zdawali sobie wiÄc sprawy, że dopasowywali
-Linuksa do luki w systemie GNU. MyÅleli, że biorÄ
Linuksa
-i robiÄ
z niego system. WiÄc nazwali go systemem Linux.</p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: <i>[niewyraźne]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Nie sÅyszÄ – co?</p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: <i>[niewyraźne]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Cóż, to po prostu nie – no
wiesz,
-to margines.</p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Ale to wiÄcej szczÄÅcia niż znalezienie X
-i Macha?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Racja. Różnica polega na tym,
-że autorzy X i Macha nie mieli na celu stworzenia kompletnego
-wolnego systemu operacyjnego. Tylko my mieliÅmy taki cel. I to nasza
-ogromna praca sprawiÅa, że system istnieje. W rzeczywistoÅci
-stworzyliÅmy wiÄkszÄ
czÄÅÄ systemu niż jakikolwiek inny
-projekt. Nieprzypadkowo, bo ci ludzie – napisali użyteczne
-czÄÅci systemu. Ale nie zrobili tego, bo chcieli, żeby system
-zostaÅ ukoÅczony. Mieli inne powody.</p>
-
-<p>Autorzy systemu X – wydawaÅo im siÄ, że stworzenie
-sieciowego systemu okien byÅoby niezÅym projektem, i byÅo
-nim. I okazaÅo siÄ, że pomogÅo to nam zrobiÄ dobry wolny system
-operacyjny. Ale oni nie tego chcieli. Nawet o tym nie myÅleli. To byÅ
-przypadek. Przypadkowa korzyÅÄ. OczywiÅcie nie twierdzÄ, że to, co
-zrobili, byÅo zÅe. Przeprowadzili duży projekt zwiÄ
zany z wolnym
-oprogramowaniem. To dobra rzecz. Ale nie posiadali tej ostatecznej
-wizji. Wizja byÅa w projekcie GNU.</p>
-
-<p>WiÄc to my jesteÅmy tymi, którzy – każdy najmniejszy
-kawaÅek, którego nie zrobiÅ nikt inny, zrobiliÅmy my.
Bo wiedzieliÅmy,
-że bez tego nie bÄdziemy mieli kompletnego systemu. Nawet jeÅli byÅo
to
-zupeÅnie nudne i nieromantyczne, jak <code>tar</code>
-lub <code>mv</code>. <i>[Åmiech]</i> ZrobiliÅmy to. Lub ld,
-wiecie, nie ma nic ekscytujÄ
cego w <code>ld</code> –
-ale ja taki napisaÅem. <i>[Åmiech]</i> I wÅożyÅem dużo wysiÅku
-w to, żeby w minimalnym stopniu korzystaŠz operacji we/wy
-na dysku, tak aby byÅ szybszy i radziÅ sobie z wiÄkszymi
-programami. Ale wiecie, lubiÄ dobrze wykonaÄ swojÄ
pracÄ. LubiÄ
-w jej trakcie ulepszaÄ w programie różne rzeczy. Ale nie
-napisaÅem go dlatego, że miaÅem doskonaÅe pomysÅy na lepszy
-<code>ld</code>. NapisaÅem go, bo potrzebowaliÅmy jego wolnej
-wersji. I nie mogliÅmy oczekiwaÄ, że ktoÅ inny to
-zrobi. WiÄc my musieliÅmy to zrobiÄ, albo znaleÅºÄ kogoÅ, żeby
to
-zrobiÅ dla nas.</p>
-
-<p>WiÄc pomimo tego, że do dzisiaj tysiÄ
ce ludzi z różnych
-projektów wniosÅo wkÅad w ten system, to istnieje jeden projekt,
dziÄki
-któremu system istnieje, a jest to Projekt GNU. On w zasadzie
-<em>jest</em> Systemem GNU, z innymi rzeczami dodanymi od tamtej
-pory.</p>
-
-<p>WiÄc zwyczaj nazywania tego systemu Linuksem to dla Projektu GNU duży
-cios, bo zazwyczaj nie docenia siÄ tego, co zrobiliÅmy. Uważam,
-że Linux, czyli jÄ
dro, jest bardzo użytecznym kawaÅkiem wolnego
-oprogramowania i mam do powiedzenia na jego temat same dobre
-rzeczy. Chociaż, tak naprawdÄ mogÄ znaleÅºÄ parÄ zÅych rzeczy
na jego
-temat. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Ale w zasadzie mam do powiedzenia
-na jego temat dobre rzeczy. Jednak zwyczaj nazywania systemu GNU
-„Linuksem” jest po prostu bÅÄdny. ChciaÅbym was prosiÄ o
-odrobinÄ wysiÅku i nazywanie tego systemu GNU/Linuksem, aby pomóc
-nam w ten sposób uzyskaÄ należne uznanie.</p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Potrzebujecie maskotki! ZaÅatwcie sobie wypchane
-zwierzÄ
tko! <i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Już mamy.</p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Macie?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Mamy zwierzÄ
tko – gnu.
<i>[Åmiech]</i>
-Nieważne. WiÄc tak, jeÅli rysujecie pingwina, narysujcie obok
-gnu. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Ale zostawmy pytania na koniec. Mam jeszcze
-trochÄ do powiedzenia.</p>
-
-<p>Dlaczego tak mi na tym zależy? No wiecie, dlaczego uważam,
-że warto jest zawracaÄ wam gÅowÄ i byÄ może dawaÄ wam,
-prawdopodobnie obniżaÄ waszÄ
opiniÄ o mnie, <i>[Åmiech]</i> podnoszÄ
c
-kwestiÄ uznania zasÅug? Ponieważ niektórzy ludzie, gdy to robiÄ,
-niektórzy ludzie myÅlÄ
, że to dlatego, że chcÄ nakarmiÄ swoje
ego,
-tak? OczywiÅcie nie mówiÄ – nie proszÄ, żebyÅcie nazywali go
-„Stallmanix”, prawda? <i>[Åmiech] [aplauz]</i></p>
-
-<p>ProszÄ, żebyÅcie nazywali go GNU, bo chcÄ, żeby uznane zostaÅy
zasÅugi
-Projektu GNU. Mam konkretny powód, który sam w sobie jest dużo
-ważniejszy niż uznanie czyichkolwiek zasÅug. Bo jeÅli obecnie
-przyjrzycie siÄ naszej spoÅecznoÅci, to wiÄkszoÅÄ ludzi, którzy o niej
mówiÄ
-albo piszÄ
, nigdy nie wspominajÄ
GNU, nigdy nawet nie wspominajÄ
celów
-zwiÄ
zanych z wolnoÅciÄ
– tych politycznych
-i spoÅecznych ideaÅów. Bo miejsce, z którego siÄ wywodzÄ
to
-GNU.</p>
-
-<p>IdeaÅy zwiÄ
zane z Linuksem – filozofia jest bardzo
-odmienna. To jest w zasadzie apolityczna filozofia Linusa
-Torvaldsa. WiÄc gdy ludzie sÄ
przekonani, że caÅy system to
Linux,
-zazwyczaj myÅlÄ
: „Aha, wiÄc to wszystko musiaÅo zostaÄ
-zapoczÄ
tkowane przez Linusa Torvaldsa. To jego filozofii powinniÅmy siÄ
-dokÅadniej przyjrzeÄ”. A gdy sÅyszÄ
o filozofii GNU, to myÅlÄ
:
-„Matko, to takie idealistyczne, musi byÄ strasznie
-niepraktyczne. Jestem użytkownikiem Linuksa, a nie
-GNU”. <i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
-
-<p>Co za ironia! Gdyby tylko wiedzieli! Gdyby wiedzieli, że system,
-który lubiÄ
– a czasami nawet kochajÄ
i szalejÄ
-na jego punkcie – to nasza idealistyczna, polityczna
-filozofia w zmaterializowanej postaci.</p>
-
-<p>Nadal nie musieliby siÄ z nami zgadzaÄ. Ale przynajmniej mieliby
-powód, aby traktowaÄ to poważnie, aby dokÅadnie siÄ nad tym
-zastanowiÄ, aby daÄ temu szansÄ. Zobaczyliby jak to siÄ ma do ich
-życia. Wiecie, gdyby zdali sobie sprawÄ, że: „Korzystam z systemu
-GNU. Oto filozofia GNU. DziÄki <em>tej</em> filozofii system, który tak
-lubiÄ, istnieje”, to przynajmniej traktowaliby jÄ
z dużo
wiÄkszÄ
-otwartoÅciÄ
umysÅu. Nie znaczy to, że wszyscy siÄ bÄdÄ
zgadzaÄ.
Ludzie
-myÅlÄ
różne rzeczy. To jest w porzÄ
dku. No wiecie, ludzie powinni
sami
-wyrobiÄ sobie poglÄ
dy. Ale chcÄ, aby ta filozofia skorzystaÅa
-na uznaniu jej zasÅug wobec rezultatów, jakie osiÄ
gnÄÅa.</p>
-
-<p>JeÅli przyjrzycie siÄ naszej spoÅecznoÅci, to zobaczycie,
że prawie
-wszÄdzie instytucje nazywajÄ
ten system Linuksem. No wiecie, dziennikarze
-nazywajÄ
go gÅównie Linuksem. To niewÅaÅciwe, ale tak robiÄ
. MówiÄ
tak
-przeważnie firmy, które go rozpowszechniajÄ
. Aha, i wiÄkszoÅÄ tych
-dziennikarzy, gdy piszÄ
artykuÅy, zazwyczaj nie patrzy na to
-z punktu widzenia polityki lub spoÅeczeÅstwa. Zazwyczaj rozważajÄ
-to jako kwestiÄ czysto biznesowÄ
, chodzi im mniej wiÄcej o to, które firmy
-odniosÄ
sukces, co jest dosyÄ maÅo ważne dla spoÅeczeÅstwa. A gdy
-popatrzycie na firmy, które rozpowszechniajÄ
system GNU/Linux wÅród
-ludzi, to wiÄkszoÅÄ nazywa go Linuksem. I <em>wszyscy</em> dodajÄ
-do niego niewolne oprogramowanie.</p>
-
-<p>GNU GPL mówi, że jeÅli weźmiecie kod i trochÄ kodu
z programu
-objÄtego przez GPL, i dodacie jeszcze trochÄ kodu, aby zrobiÄ
-wiÄkszy program, to caÅy ten program musi zostaÄ wydany
-na GPL. Ale moglibyÅcie doÅożyÄ osobno inne programy na tym
-samym dysku (jakimkolwiek, dysku twardym lub CD) i mogÄ
one mieÄ
-inne licencje. Uważa siÄ to za zwykÅÄ
agregacjÄ i w gruncie
rzeczy
-rozpowszechnianie dwóch programów jednoczeÅnie nie jest czymÅ, wobec czego
-mamy cokolwiek do powiedzenia. WiÄc, w rzeczywistoÅci, to nie jest
-prawda – czasami żaÅujÄ, że tak nie jest –
-że jeÅli jakaÅ firma wykorzysta program objÄty przez GPL w swoim
-produkcie, to caÅy produkt musi byÄ wolnym oprogramowaniem. To nie
-ma – nie idzie aż tak daleko – takiego zasiÄgu. To
-caÅy program. JeÅli sÄ
dwa programy, które komunikujÄ
siÄ ze sobÄ
-na pewnÄ
odlegÅoÅÄ – na przykÅad przez wysyÅanie
-do siebie komunikatów – to ogólnie rzecz biorÄ
c sÄ
-pod wzglÄdem prawnym rozdzielne. WiÄc te firmy, dodajÄ
c
-do systemu niewolne oprogramowanie, dajÄ
użytkownikom, filozoficznie
-i politycznie, bardzo zÅy sygnaÅ. MówiÄ
oni użytkownikom:
-„Używanie niewolnego oprogramowania jest w porzÄ
dku. Nawet je
-tutaj dodajemy jako bonus”.</p>
-
-<p>JeÅli popatrzycie na magazyny o korzystaniu z GNU/Linuksa, to
-wiÄkszoÅÄ z nich ma tytuÅ typu „Linux coÅ-tam
-coÅ-tam”. WiÄc zazwyczaj nazywajÄ
system Linuksem. I sÄ
-wypeÅnione reklamami niewolnego oprogramowania, które można uruchamiaÄ
-w GNU/Linuksie. Te reklamy majÄ
wspólne przesÅanie. MówiÄ
:
-„Niewolne oprogramowanie jest dla was dobre. Jest tak dobre,
-że może nawet za nie <em>zapÅacicie</em>”.
<i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
-
-<p>I nazywajÄ
te rzeczy „pakietami o zwiÄkszonej wartoÅci”
-[<em>ang. value-added packages</em>], co mówi coÅ o ich wartoÅciach
-[<em>ang. values</em>]. MówiÄ
: „CeÅcie [<em>ang. value</em>]
-praktycznÄ
wygodÄ, a nie wolnoÅÄ”. A ja nie zgadzam siÄ
-z tymi wartoÅciami, wiÄc je nazywam „pakietami o
-zmniejszonej wolnoÅci” [<em>ang. freedom-subtracted
-packages</em>]. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Bo jeÅli zainstalujecie sobie wolny
-system operacyjny, to od tego momentu żyjecie w wolnym
-Åwiecie. Korzystacie z wolnoÅci, na którÄ
pracowaliÅmy dla was
-przez wiele lat. Takie pakiety dajÄ
wam okazjÄ do zakucia siÄ
-w ÅaÅcuchy.</p>
-
-<p>A jeÅli popatrzycie na targi branżowe – dotyczÄ
ce
-korzystania, poÅwiÄcone korzystaniu z GNU/Linuksa, wszystkie one
-nazywajÄ
siÄ targami „linuksowymi”. I sÄ
wypeÅnione
-stoiskami promujÄ
cymi niewolne oprogramowanie, co w swej istocie
-przypieczÄtowuje akceptacjÄ niewolnych programów. WiÄc niemalże
-z którejkolwiek strony nie spojrzy siÄ na naszÄ
spoÅecznoÅÄ,
-instytucje podpisujÄ
siÄ pod niewolnym oprogramowaniem, caÅkowicie
-negujÄ
c ideÄ wolnoÅci, dla której zostaÅo stworzone GNU. I jedyny
-moment, w którym ludzie majÄ
szansÄ zetknÄ
Ä siÄ z ideÄ
wolnoÅci,
-to w nawiÄ
zaniu do GNU i do wolnego oprogramowania, terminu
-„wolne oprogramowanie”. Dlatego proszÄ was: nazywajcie ten
-system GNU/Linux. Zwracajcie uwagÄ ludzi na to, skÄ
d wziÄ
Å siÄ ten
-system i dlaczego.</p>
-
-<p>OczywiÅcie, korzystajÄ
c jedynie z nazwy nie bÄdziecie wyjaÅniaÄ
-historii. Możecie wstukiwaÄ dodatkowe cztery znaki i pisaÄ GNU/Linux;
-możecie wymawiaÄ dwie dodatkowe sylaby. Ale GNU/Linux ma mniej sylab
-niż Windows 2000. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Jednak nie mówicie im wiele,
-ale przygotowujecie ich, wiÄc jak usÅyszÄ
o GNU i o co
-w tym wszystkim chodzi, to zobaczÄ
, jakie to ma znaczenie dla nich
-i ich życia. A to ma poÅrednio wielkie
-znaczenie. WiÄc proszÄ, pomóżcie nam.</p>
-
-<p>Zauważcie, że Microsoft nazwaÅ GPL „licencjÄ
open
-source”. Oni nie chcÄ
, aby ludzie myÅleli, że w tej sprawie
-chodzi o wolnoÅÄ. Zobaczcie, że zachÄcajÄ
ludzi, aby myÅleli
-w wÄ
ski sposób, jak konsumenci, oczywiÅcie żeby nawet jako konsumenci
-myÅleli niezbyt racjonalnie, jeÅli majÄ
wybraÄ produkty
-Microsoftu. Ale nie chcÄ
, by ludzie myÅleli jak obywatele
-lub mÄżowie stanu. To im nie sprzyja. A przynajmniej ich obecnemu
-modelowi biznesowemu.</p>
-
-<p>W jaki sposób wolne oprogramowanie… cóż, mogÄ wam
opowiedzieÄ
-jak wolne oprogramowanie ma siÄ do naszego spoÅeczeÅstwa. DrugorzÄdny
-temat, który może niektórych z was zainteresowaÄ, to jak wolne
-oprogramowanie ma siÄ do biznesu. Tak naprawdÄ to wolne oprogramowanie
-jest dla biznesu <em>niezwykle</em> użyteczne. W koÅcu wiÄkszoÅÄ firm
-w rozwiniÄtych krajach korzysta z oprogramowania. Tylko uÅamek
-z nich tworzy oprogramowanie.</p>
-
-<p>Wolne oprogramowanie ma ogromne zalety dla każdej firmy, która korzysta
-z programów, bo oznacza, że to wy kontrolujecie
-sytuacjÄ. Zasadniczo wolne oprogramowanie oznacza, że użytkownicy
-kontrolujÄ
dziaÅanie programu. Indywidualnie, jeÅli im na tym
-wystarczajÄ
co zależy, lub kolektywnie, jeÅli im na tym
-wystarczajÄ
co zależy. Każdy, komu dostatecznie zależy, może wywrzeÄ
jakiÅ
-wpÅyw. Komu wszystko jedno, ten nie wybiera. Wtedy korzysta z tego, co
-preferujÄ
inni. Ale jeÅli wam zależy, to macie coÅ
-do powiedzenia. W przypadku oprogramowania objÄtego restrykcyjnymi
-licencjami w gruncie rzeczy nie macie nic do gadania.</p>
-
-<p>W przypadku wolnego oprogramowania możecie zmieniaÄ cokolwiek
-chcecie. I nie ma znaczenia, że w waszej firmie nie ma żadnych
-programistów; to nic. Wiecie, gdybyÅcie chcieli przesunÄ
Ä parÄ Åcian
-w swoim budynku, to nie musicie byÄ do tego firmÄ
stolarskÄ
-[<em>w USA Åciany sÄ
zazwyczaj drewniano-gipsowe</em>]. Wystarczy,
-że bÄdziecie mogli znaleÅºÄ stolarza i powiedzieÄ: „Ile
-za wykonanie tej roboty?” A jeÅli chcecie zmieniÄ używane
-przez was oprogramowanie, nie musicie byÄ firmÄ
programistycznÄ
. Musicie
-tylko iÅÄ do firmy programistycznej i powiedzieÄ: „Ile
-za implementacjÄ tych funkcji? I kiedy bÄdzie to
-gotowe?”. A jeÅli oni tego nie zrobiÄ
, możecie iÅÄ
i znaleźÄ
-kogoÅ innego.</p>
-
-<p>Oznacza to wolny rynek usÅug wsparcia. Tak wiÄc każda firma, której
-zależy na wsparciu znajdzie w wolnym oprogramowaniu ogromne
-zalety. W przypadku programów objÄtych restrykcyjnymi licencjami
-wsparcie jest objÄte monopolem, bo tylko jedna firma posiada kod
-źródÅowy, a może ma go kilka firm, które zapÅaciÅy za to
-gigantyczne sumy pieniÄdzy, jeÅli braÅy udziaÅ w programie dzielenia
-kodu Microsoftu, ale jest ich tylko kilka. Tak wiÄc nie ma dla was
-wielu możliwych źródeÅ wsparcia. A to oznacza, że jeÅli nie
-jesteÅcie prawdziwym gigantem, to oni siÄ wami nie interesujÄ
. Wasza firma
-nie jest dla nich wystarczajÄ
co ważna, aby zależaÅo im
-na zatrzymaniu was przy sobie lub na tym, co siÄ zdarzy. Jak już
-bÄdziecie używaÄ ich programu, to bÄdÄ
przekonani, że jesteÅcie
-zmuszeni kupowaÄ wsparcie u nich, bo przesiadka na inny
-program to masa pracy. I koÅczy siÄ na tym, że pÅacicie
-za przywilej zgÅaszania usterek. <i>[Åmiech]</i> A jak już
-zapÅacicie, powiedzÄ
wam: „No tak, odnotowaliÅmy wasze zgÅoszenie
-bÅÄdu. Za kilka miesiÄcy możecie sobie kupiÄ upgrade
i zobaczyÄ,
-czy go naprawiliÅmy”. <i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
-
-<p>Firmom sprzedajÄ
cym wsparcie dla wolnego oprogramowania coÅ takiego nie
-ujdzie na sucho. MuszÄ
staraÄ siÄ, aby klienci byli
-zadowoleni. OczywiÅcie dużo dobrego wsparcia możecie dostaÄ
-za darmo. OgÅaszacie swój problem w Internecie. Odpowiedź możecie
-dostaÄ nastÄpnego dnia. Ale nie ma na to oczywiÅcie
-gwarancji. JeÅli chcecie mieÄ pewnoÅÄ, to lepiej podpiszcie umowÄ
-z jakÄ
Å firmÄ
i jej zapÅaÄcie. I to jest, oczywiÅcie,
jeden
-ze sposobów dziaÅania biznesu opartego na wolnym oprogramowaniu.</p>
-
-<p>Kolejna zaleta wolnego oprogramowania dla firm korzystajÄ
cych
-z programów komputerowych to bezpieczeÅstwo i prywatnoÅÄ. To
-odnosi siÄ również do pojedynczych osób, ale mówiÄ o tym
-w kontekÅcie firm. Wiecie, gdy program jest objÄty restrykcyjnÄ
-licencjÄ
, to nawet nie wiadomo, co tak naprawdÄ robi.</p>
-
-<p>Może mieÄ umyÅlnie dodane funkcje, które by siÄ wam nie spodobaÅy,
-jeÅlibyÅcie o nich wiedzieli, np. może mieÄ tylne wejÅcie [ang. backdoor]
-pozwalajÄ
ce autorowi wejÅÄ na waszÄ
maszynÄ. Może szpiegowaÄ, co
-robicie i wysyÅaÄ informacje z powrotem. To nie jest nic
-niezwykÅego. Niektóre programy Microsoftu to robiÅy. Ale to nie dotyczy
-tylko Microsoftu. SÄ
inne objÄte restrykcyjnymi licencjami programy, które
-szpiegujÄ
swoich użytkowników. I nawet nie można tego
-stwierdziÄ. A nawet zakÅadajÄ
c, że autor jest caÅkowicie
uczciwy,
-każdy programista popeÅnia bÅÄdy. MogÄ
pojawiÄ siÄ bÅÄdy majÄ
ce
wpÅyw
-na wasze bezpieczeÅstwo, które nie sÄ
niczyjÄ
winÄ
. Ale chodzi o
-to, że jeÅli nie jest to wolne oprogramowanie, to nie możecie ich
-znaleźÄ. I nie możecie ich naprawiÄ.</p>
-
-<p>Nikt nie ma czasu na sprawdzanie źródeŠkażdego programu, którego
-używa. Nie bÄdziecie tego robiÄ. Ale w przypadku wolnego oprogramowania
-istnieje duża spoÅecznoÅÄ i sÄ
w niej ludzie, którzy wszystko
-sprawdzajÄ
. I korzystacie na ich sprawdzaniu, bo jeÅli jest
-jakiÅ przypadkowy bÅÄ
d â zawsze jakieÅ sÄ
od czasu do czasu
-w każdym programie – to mogÄ
go znaleźÄ
-i naprawiÄ. Poza tym ludzie znacznie mniej chÄtnie dokÅadajÄ
konia
-trojaÅskiego lub funkcjÄ szpiegujÄ
cÄ
, jeÅli obawiajÄ
siÄ,
że ktoÅ
-może ich zÅapaÄ. Autorzy oprogramowania objÄtego restrykcyjnymi licencjami
-uważajÄ
, że nikt ich nie zÅapie. Ujdzie im to
-na sucho. Ale autor wolnego oprogramowania musi zdawaÄ sobie
-sprawÄ, że ludzie bÄdÄ
na to patrzeÄ i to
-zauważÄ
. WiÄc w naszej spoÅecznoÅci nie uważamy, że może nam
ujÅÄ
-na sucho wciskanie ludziom funkcji, która by im siÄ nie
-spodobaÅa. Wiemy, że jeÅli użytkownikom siÄ nie bÄdzie podobaÅa, to
-zrobiÄ
zmodyfikowanÄ
wersjÄ, która nie bÄdzie jej zawieraÄ. A potem
-zacznÄ
wszyscy jej używaÄ.</p>
-
-<p>Tak naprawdÄ to wszyscy jesteÅmy na tyle rozsÄ
dni, potrafimy
siÄgnÄ
Ä
-wyobraźniÄ
na tyle daleko naprzód, że najpewniej nie dodamy tej
-funkcji. Przecież piszecie wolny program; chcecie, żeby ludziom podobaÅa
siÄ
-wasza wersja; nie chcecie wstawiÄ do niej czegoÅ, czego wiele ludzi
-bÄdzie nienawidziÄ i przez co popularna stanie siÄ inna zmodyfikowana
-wersja zamiast waszej. WiÄc dochodzicie do wniosku, że w
-Åwiecie wolnego oprogramowania użytkownik jest królem Åwiata.
W Åwiecie
-oprogramowania objÄtego restrykcyjnymi licencjami użytkownik <em>nie</em>
-jest królem. Bo jesteÅcie tylko klientem. Nie macie nic
-do powiedzenia w kwestii programów, których używacie.</p>
-
-<p>Pod tym wzglÄdem wolne oprogramowanie to nowy mechanizm
-demokratyczny. Profesor Lessig, pracujÄ
cy obecnie w Stanford, zauważyÅ,
-że kod funkcjonuje jak rodzaj prawa. Ktokolwiek napisaŠkod, którego
-prawie wszyscy używajÄ
do wszelkich celów, napisaŠprawa, które
kierujÄ
-ich życiem. W przypadku wolnego oprogramowania prawa te sÄ
pisane
-w sposób demokratyczny. Nie chodzi tu o klasycznÄ
formÄ
-demokracji – nie mamy wielkich wyborów, na których mówimy:
-„ZagÅosujmy wszyscy jak ma byÄ zaimplementowana ta
-funkcja”. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Zamiast tego w zasadzie mówimy,
-że ci z was, którzy chcÄ
pracowaÄ nad zaimplementowaniem tej
-funkcji w ten sposób, mogÄ
to robiÄ. A jeÅli chcecie pracowaÄ
-nad zaimplementowaniem w inny sposób, możecie to
-robiÄ. I wiecie co, w taki czy inny sposób zostaje ona
-zaimplementowana. I jeÅli wielu ludzi chce, żeby byÅo to zrobione
-w jakiÅ sposób, to tak wÅaÅnie zostanie zrobione. I tak, każdy
-bierze udziaÅ w tej spoÅecznej decyzji po prostu podejmujÄ
c kroki
-w kierunku, który mu odpowiada.</p>
-
-<p>OsobiÅcie macie wolnoÅÄ do zrobienia tylu kroków, ile chcecie.
Firmy
-mogÄ
zrobiÄ tyle kroków, ile wyda im siÄ użyteczne. A po dodaniu tego
-wszystkiego wychodzi kierunek, w którym podÄ
żaÄ bÄdzie
oprogramowanie.</p>
-
-<p>CzÄsto bardzo użyteczna jest możliwoÅÄ wyjÄcia kawaÅków
z istniejÄ
cego
-programu, prawdopodobnie zazwyczaj dużych kawaÅków, a później
napisania
-jakiejÅ iloÅci kodu samemu i zrobienia programu, który robi dokÅadnie
-to, co wam jest potrzebne, i którego napisanie od zera wymagaÅoby
-od was harowania jak wóÅ, gdybyÅcie nie mogli skonsumowaÄ dużych
-kawaÅków jakiegoÅ istniejÄ
cego pakietu wolnego oprogramowania.</p>
-
-<p>Kolejna rzecz, która wynika z tego, że użytkownik jest
królem, to
-że zazwyczaj jesteÅmy bardzo dobrzy jeÅli chodzi o zgodnoÅÄ
-i standaryzacjÄ. Dlaczego? Bo użytkownicy to lubiÄ
. Użytkownicy
-prawdopodobnie odrzucÄ
program, który zawiera w sobie nieuzasadnione
-niezgodnoÅci. Czasami pojawia siÄ jakaÅ grupa użytkowników, która
potrzebuje
-wÅaÅnie jakiejÅ konkretnej niezgodnoÅci i wtedy jÄ
dostanÄ
. To jest
-OK. Ale gdy użytkownicy chcÄ
zgodnoÅci ze standardem, to my, autorzy,
-musimy siÄ temu podporzÄ
dkowaÄ i zdajemy sobie z tego
-sprawÄ. I tak robimy. Dla kontrastu, gdy popatrzycie na autorów
-oprogramowania objÄtego restrykcyjnymi licencjami, to czÄsto widzÄ
oni
-korzyÅci w umyÅlnym <em>ignorowaniu</em> standardów i to nie
-dlatego, że sÄ
dzÄ
, że w ten sposób dajÄ
użytkownikowi coÅ
-lepszego, ale raczej dlatego, że w ten sposób coÅ mu narzucajÄ
,
-zamykajÄ
go. ZmieniajÄ
nawet formaty plików, tylko po to,
-aby zmusiÄ ludzi do kupienia najnowszej wersji.</p>
-
-<p>ArchiwiÅci majÄ
teraz problem, bo plików zapisanych
na komputerach
-10 lat temu nie da siÄ otworzyÄ; zostaÅy zapisane przy użyciu objÄtego
-restrykcyjnÄ
licencjÄ
oprogramowania, które od tamtego czasu
-przepadÅo. Gdyby zostaÅy zapisane przy użyciu wolnego oprogramowania, to
-można by je odnowiÄ i uruchomiÄ. A te rzeczy nie zostaÅyby, te
-archiwa nie zostaÅyby stracone, nie byÅyby niedostÄpne. Narzekano nawet
-na to ostatnio w radiu publicznym i wymieniano wolne
-oprogramowanie jako rozwiÄ
zanie problemu. Tak wiÄc w rezultacie,
-korzystajÄ
c z niewolnego programu do przechowywania waszych
-danych, owijacie sobie wokóŠszyi pÄtlÄ.</p>
-
-<p>PowiedziaÅem wiÄc jakie znaczenie wolne oprogramowanie ma dla
-wiÄkszoÅci firm. Ale jakie ma znaczenie dla konkretnego wÄ
skiego
-obszaru, jakim jest przemysŠprogramistyczny? Odpowiedź brzmi: prawie
-żadne. A to dlatego, że 90% tego przemysÅu, z tego co mi
-mówiono, to rozwój oprogramowania na zamówienie, które nigdy nie
bÄdzie
-wydane. W przypadku takiego oprogramowania kwestia, lub etyczna
-kwestia, âobjÄte restrykcyjnÄ
licencjÄ
czy wolneâ nie ma
-znaczenia. Pytanie brzmi: czy wy, użytkownicy, macie wolnoÅÄ
-do zmieniania i ponownego rozpowszechniania tego oprogramowania?
-JeÅli jest tylko jeden użytkownik i to on posiada prawa, to nie ma
-problemu. Ten użytkownik <em>ma</em> wolnoÅÄ do robienia wszystkich
-tych rzeczy. WiÄc w rezultacie każdy program napisany
-na <em>indywidualne zamówienie</em> przez jakÄ
Å firmÄ
-na wewnÄtrzny użytek to wolne oprogramowanie, jeÅli tylko majÄ
-wystarczajÄ
co oleju w gÅowie, żeby domagaÄ siÄ kodu źródÅowego
-i wszystkich praw.</p>
-
-<p>Kwestia ta nie ma tak naprawdÄ znaczenia również w przypadku
-oprogramowania, które dziaÅa w zegarkach, mikrofalówkach
-lub samochodowych systemach zapÅonu. Bo tutaj nie ÅciÄ
gacie
-oprogramowania, żeby je zainstalowaÄ. Z punktu widzenia użytkownika to
-nie jest prawdziwy komputer. WiÄc nie rozbudza to tych kwestii
-w wystarczajÄ
co dużym stopniu, żeby staÅy siÄ etycznie
-ważne. WiÄc ogólnie rzecz biorÄ
c przemysÅ programistyczny sobie
-poradzi, tak jak robiÅ to dotychczas. InteresujÄ
ce jest to, że skoro
-tak wielka czÄÅÄ dostÄpnej pracy należy do tej kategorii, to nawet
-jeÅli nie byÅoby możliwoÅci zakÅadania firm zajmujÄ
cych siÄ wolnym
-oprogramowaniem, to jego autorzy mogliby znaleÅºÄ sobie pracÄ przy pisaniu
-programów na indywidualne zamówienie. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Jest tego tak
-wiele; stosunek jest tak duży.</p>
-
-<p>Ale zÅożyÅo siÄ tak, że istnieje biznes oparty na wolnym
-oprogramowaniu. SÄ
firmy zajmujÄ
ce siÄ wolnym oprogramowaniem, a na
-mojej konferencji prasowej pojawiÄ
siÄ ludzie z kilku
-z nich. OczywiÅcie, istniejÄ
też firmy, które <em>nie</em> sÄ
firmami
-opierajÄ
cymi dziaÅalnoÅÄ na wolnym oprogramowaniu, ale tworzÄ
-i wydajÄ
użyteczne programy tego typu, a produkowane przez nich
-wolne oprogramowanie ma duże znaczenie.</p>
-
-<p>Jak dziaÅajÄ
firmy zajmujÄ
ce siÄ wolnym oprogramowaniem? Cóż,
niektóre
-z nich sprzedajÄ
kopie. Wiecie, każdy może kopiowaÄ to do woli,
-ale im i tak udaje siÄ sprzedawaÄ tysiÄ
ce kopii
-na miesiÄ
c. Inni sprzedajÄ
wsparcie i różne usÅugi. OsobiÅcie
-w drugiej poÅowie lat 80. sprzedawaÅem usÅugi wsparcia. MówiÅem:
-„Za 200$ za godzinÄ zmieniÄ wszystko, co tylko chcecie,
-w oprogramowaniu GNU, które napisaÅem”. Tak, to byÅa sÅona
-stawka, ale jeÅli byÅ to program, którego byÅem autorem, to ludzie
-oceniali, że uda mi siÄ skoÅczyÄ pracÄ w dużo krótszym
-czasie. <i>[Åmiech]</i> I tak zarabiaÅem na życie. Tak naprawdÄ
to
-zarabiaÅem wiÄcej niż kiedykolwiek wczeÅniej. ProwadziÅem także
-zajÄcia. I robiÅem to do roku 1990, kiedy otrzymaÅem dużÄ
nagrodÄ
-i nie musiaÅem tego wiÄcej robiÄ.</p>
-
-<p>Ale w 1990 powstaÅa pierwsza korporacja opierajÄ
ca dziaÅalnoÅÄ
-na wolnym oprogramowaniu, Cygnus Support. A ich dziaÅalnoÅÄ to
-byÅo w gruncie rzeczy to samo, co ja robiÅem. Z caÅÄ
pewnoÅciÄ
-mógÅbym dla nich pracowaÄ, gdyby byÅa taka potrzeba. Ponieważ takiej
-potrzeby nie byÅo, to stwierdziÅem, że dobrze bÄdzie dla ruchu, gdy
-pozostanÄ niezależny od jakiejÅ konkretnej firmy. W ten sposób
-mogÅem mówiÄ dobre i zÅe rzeczy o różnych firmach programistycznych
-zajmujÄ
cych siÄ wolnym i niewolnym oprogramowaniem bez żadnego
-konfliktu interesów. WydawaÅo mi siÄ, że lepiej siÄ przysÅużÄ
-ruchowi. Ale gdybym potrzebowaÅ pracy u nich, żeby siÄ utrzymaÄ,
-to oczywiÅcie bym dla nich pracowaÅ. To etyczny rodzaj pracy. Nie byÅoby
-powodu, żebym musiaÅ siÄ wstydziÄ pracy u nich. Ta firma zaczÄÅa
-przynosiÄ zyski w pierwszym roku dziaÅalnoÅci. ZostaÅa zaÅożona
-z bardzo maÅym kapitaÅem poczÄ
tkowym skÅadajÄ
cym siÄ wyÅÄ
cznie
-z pieniÄdzy jej trzech zaÅożycieli. I rozwijaÅa siÄ każdego
roku
-i przynosiÅa zyski każdego roku, aż stali siÄ pazerni i zaczÄli
-szukaÄ zewnÄtrznych inwestorów, a potem wszystko
-zepsuli. Ale sukces trwaÅ kilka lat, zanim stali siÄ pazerni.</p>
-
-<p>To sÅuży za przykÅad jednej z ekscytujÄ
cych rzeczy dotyczÄ
cych
-wolnego oprogramowania. Wolne oprogramowanie pokazuje, że nie musicie
-zbieraÄ kapitaÅu, żeby tworzyÄ wolne oprogramowanie. To znaczy, to siÄ
-przydaje; to <em>może</em> pomóc. No wiecie, jak zbierzecie kapitaÅ, to
-możecie zatrudniÄ paru ludzi i kazaÄ im napisaÄ trochÄ
-oprogramowania. Ale wiele można zdziaÅaÄ z niewielkÄ
liczbÄ
-osób. Tak naprawdÄ to olbrzymia wydajnoÅÄ procesu tworzenia wolnego
-oprogramowania jest jednym z powodów, dla których ważne jest,
-aby Åwiat przesiadÅ siÄ na wolne oprogramowanie. I zadaje to
-także kÅam temu, co Microsoft twierdzi mówiÄ
c, że GPL jest zÅa,
-bo z jej powodu trudniej jest im zbieraÄ kapitaÅ na rozwój
-niewolnego oprogramowania i braÄ nasze programy, i wstawiaÄ nasz
-kod do swoich programów, którymi siÄ z nami nie podzielÄ
.
Ogólnie
-rzecz biorÄ
c nie potrzeba nam, żeby w ten sposób zbierali
-kapitaÅ. I tak wykonamy potrzebnÄ
pracÄ. Wykonujemy jÄ
.</p>
-
-<p>KiedyÅ ludzie mówili, że nigdy nie uda nam siÄ stworzyÄ
kompletnego
-wolnego systemu operacyjnego. Nie doÅÄ, że stworzyliÅmy system, to
-zrobiliÅmy jeszcze dużo wiÄcej. PowiedziaÅbym, że jesteÅmy o rzÄ
d
-wielkoÅci od stworzenia caÅego potrzebnego Åwiatu oprogramowania
-ogólnego przeznaczenia. I to w Åwiecie, w którym 90%
-użytkowników nie korzysta jeszcze z naszego
-oprogramowania. W Åwiecie, w którym, chociaż w niektórych
-branżach biznesu, no wiecie, wiÄcej niż poÅowa wszystkich serwerów
-sieciowych na Åwiecie dziaÅa pod GNU/Linuksem i używa Apache
-jako serwera sieciowego.</p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: <i>[niewyraźne]</i> … Co powiedziaÅeÅ,
-Linux?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I said GNU/Linux.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Tak?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tak, gdy mówiÄ o jÄ
drze, to nazywam je Linux.
No
-wiesz, taka jest jego nazwa. JÄ
dro zostaÅo napisane przez Linusa Torvaldsa
-i powinniÅmy je nazywaÄ tylko tak, jak on chciaÅ, z szacunku
-do autora.</p>
-
-<p>Tak czy inaczej, ogólnie w biznesie wiÄkszoÅÄ użytkowników
go nie
-używa. WiÄkszoÅÄ domowych użytkowników nie korzysta jeszcze
z naszego
-systemu. WiÄc gdy zacznÄ
to robiÄ, to powinniÅmy automatycznie zyskaÄ
-10 razy wiÄcej ochotników i 10 razy wiÄcej klientów dla firm
-zajmujÄ
cych siÄ wolnym oprogramowaniem, które powstanÄ
. I to nam
-pozwoli na pokonanie tego rzÄdu wielkoÅci. WiÄc obecnie jestem
-caÅkiem pewny, że <em>może</em> nam siÄ udaÄ.</p>
-
-<p>I to jest ważne, bo Microsoft chce, żebyÅmy czuli siÄ
-zdesperowani. MówiÄ
: „Jedyny sposób, żebyÅcie mieli dziaÅajÄ
ce
-oprogramowanie, żebyÅcie mieli innowacje, to przekazanie nam wÅadzy. Dajcie
-nam siÄ zdominowaÄ. Dajcie nam kontrolÄ nad tym, co robicie ze swoim
-oprogramowaniem, żebyÅmy mogli wycisnÄ
Ä z was górÄ pieniÄdzy
-i użyÄ jej niewielkiej czÄÅci do rozwoju programów,
a resztÄ
-zatrzymaÄ jako zysk”.</p>
-
-<p>Cóż, nie powinniÅcie siÄ nigdy czuÄ tak zdesperowani. Nigdy nie
powinniÅcie
-siÄ czuÄ na tyle zdesperowani, aby oddaÄ swojÄ
wolnoÅÄ. To
bardzo
-niebezpieczne.</p>
-
-<p>Kolejna rzecz, którÄ
Microsoft, cóż, nie tylko Microsoft, ludzie,
którzy nie
-popierajÄ
wolnego oprogramowania ogólnie przyjmujÄ
system wartoÅci,
-w którym jedyna liczÄ
ca siÄ rzecz to krótkoterminowe praktyczne
-korzyÅci: Ile pieniÄdzy zarobiÄ w tym roku? Co mogÄ zrobiÄ dzisiaj?
-Krótkoterminowe i wÄ
skie myÅlenie. Ich zaÅożenie jest takie,
-że niedorzecznie jest myÅleÄ, iż ktokolwiek mógÅby poÅwiÄcaÄ
siÄ dla
-wolnoÅci.</p>
-
-<p>Wczoraj wielu ludzi przemawiaÅo na temat Amerykanów, którzy
poÅwiÄcali
-siÄ dla wolnoÅci swoich rodaków. Niektórzy z nich poÅwiÄcali bardzo
-wiele. PoÅwiÄcali nawet swoje życie za takie wolnoÅci, o których
-wszyscy w naszym kraju przynajmniej sÅyszeli. (Przynajmniej
-w niektórych przypadkach; wydaje mi siÄ, że powinniÅmy
zignorowaÄ
-wojnÄ w Wietnamie).</p>
-
-<p><i>[DzieÅ wczeÅniej w USA miaÅ miejsce Memorial Day, dzieÅ,
-w którym oddawana jest czeÅÄ bohaterom wojennym. –
-przyp. red.]</i></p>
-
-<p>Ale na szczÄÅcie utrzymanie naszej wolnoÅci korzystania
-z oprogramowania nie wymaga wielkich poÅwiÄceÅ. Malutkie, niewielkie
-poÅwiÄcenia wystarczÄ
, na przykÅad nauczenie siÄ interfejsu linii
-poleceÅ, jeÅli nie mamy jeszcze interfejsu graficznego. Na przykÅad
-robienie czegoŠw ten sposób, bo nie mamy jeszcze wolnego pakietu
-umożliwiajÄ
cego zrobienie tego inaczej. Na przykÅad przekazanie trochÄ
-pieniÄdzy firmie, która ma zamiar napisaÄ jakiÅ pakiet wolnego
-oprogramowania, żebyÅcie mogli go za kilka lat używaÄ. Różne maÅe
-poÅwiÄcenia, które wszyscy możemy ponieÅÄ. A na dÅuższÄ
metÄ
nawet
-na tym skorzystamy. No wiecie, to tak naprawdÄ bardziej inwestycja niż
-poÅwiÄcenie. Musimy mieÄ tylko wystarczajÄ
co dalekosiÄżnÄ
perspektywÄ,
-aby dostrzec, że dobre jest dla nas inwestowanie w ulepszanie
-spoÅeczeÅstwa, bez rachowania miedziaków, kto i ile na tej
-inwestycji skorzysta.</p>
-
-<p>W zasadzie tutaj skoÅczyÅem.</p>
-
-<p>ChciaÅbym wspomnieÄ, że istnieje nowe podejÅcie do biznesu
-opartego na wolnym oprogramowaniu zaproponowane przez Tony'ego Stanco,
-które nazywa „Free Developers„ [<em>Wolni Autorzy</em>]
-i które opiera siÄ na pewnej strukturze biznesowej majÄ
cej
-w koÅcu wypÅaciÄ czÄÅÄ zysków każdemu, wszystkim autorom wolnego
-programu, którzy doÅÄ
czyli siÄ do organizacji. W tej chwili
-rozważajÄ
możliwoÅci zaÅatwienia mi dosyÄ dużych kontraktów rzÄ
dowych
-na rozwój programów w Indiach, bo bÄdÄ
używaÄ wolnego
-oprogramowania jako podstawy, co zapewni im olbrzymie oszczÄdnoÅci.</p>
-
-<p>WiÄc zdaje siÄ, że teraz powinienem poprosiÄ o pytania.</p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: <i>[niewyraźne]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Czy mógÅbyÅ mówiÄ odrobinÄ gÅoÅniej?
-NaprawdÄ nic nie sÅyszÄ.</p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Jak mogÅaby firma taka jak Microsoft zawrzeÄ
-kontrakt na wolne oprogramowanie?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Cóż, tak naprawdÄ to Microsoft planuje
-przeniesienie dużej czÄÅci swojej dziaÅalnoÅci
-na usÅugi. I planujÄ
coÅ podÅego i niebezpiecznego,
-tzn. przywiÄ
zanie usÅug do programów, jednego do drugiego,
-w rodzaj wÄzÅa, rozumiecie? WiÄc aby korzystaÄ z tej
usÅugi,
-bÄdziecie musieli używaÄ tego programu Microsoftu, co bÄdzie oznaczaÅo,
-że bÄdziecie musieli korzystaÄ z tej usÅugi w przypadku tego
-programu, wiÄc to wszystko jest powiÄ
zane. Taki jest ich plan.</p>
-
-<p>InteresujÄ
ce jest to, że sprzedawanie tych usÅug nie rodzi etycznej
-kwestii „wolne czy niewolne oprogramowanie”. MogÅoby ich
-zupeÅnie zadowalaÄ to, że ich interes polegaÅby na prowadzeniu
-dziaÅalnoÅci dla firm, które utrzymywaÅyby siÄ ze sprzedaży tych usÅug
przez
-sieÄ. Jednak plan Microsoftu to użycie ich do zdobycia jeszcze
-ÅciÅlejszej kontroli, jeszcze wiÄkszego monopolu na oprogramowanie
-i usÅugi, zostaÅo to ostatnio opisane w artykule w zdaje siÄ,
-że „Business Week”. Inni ludzie stwierdzili, że to
-zmiana sieci w miasteczko firmowe Microsoftu.</p>
-
-<p>A to jest ważne, ponieważ wiecie, w sprawie antytrustowej
sÄ
d
-zaleciÅ podziaÅ Microsoftu. Ale w pewnym sensie to nie ma rÄ
k
-ani nóg – nie daÅoby to niczego dobrego –
-dzielenie na czÄÅÄ operacyjnÄ
i czÄÅÄ zajmujÄ
cÄ
siÄ
aplikacjami.</p>
-
-<p>Ale po przeczytaniu tego artykuÅu widzÄ teraz użytecznÄ
, skutecznÄ
-drogÄ podziaÅu Microsoftu na czÄÅÄ usÅugowÄ
i programistycznÄ
,
-przy czym nie mogÅyby byÄ ze sobÄ
powiÄ
zane, musiaÅyby siÄ trzymaÄ
-na dystans, a czÄÅÄ usÅugowa musiaÅaby opublikowaÄ interfejsy,
tak
-żeby każdy mógÅ napisaÄ program kliencki mogÄ
cy siÄ dogadaÄ z tymi
-usÅugami i, jak przypuszczam, żeby trzeba byÅo pÅaciÄ za otrzymanie
-usÅugi. Cóż, to jest OK. To zupeÅnie inna sprawa.</p>
-
-<p>JeÅli Microsoft zostanie podzielony w ten sposób […] usÅugi
-i oprogramowanie, to nie bÄdÄ
mogli używaÄ swojego oprogramowania
-do miażdżenia konkurencji usÅugami Microsoftu. I nie bÄdÄ
mogli
-używaÄ swoich usÅug do miażdżenia konkurencji oprogramowaniem
-Microsoftu. I bÄdziemy mogli tworzyÄ wolne oprogramowanie, a wy
-może bÄdziecie go używaÄ do komunikowania siÄ z usÅugami
-Microsoftu, a nam to nie bÄdzie przeszkadzaÄ.</p>
-
-<p>Bo w gruncie rzeczy, pomimo tego, że Microsoft jest firmÄ
-rozwijajÄ
cÄ
objÄte restrykcyjnymi licencjami oprogramowanie, która
-zniewoliÅa wiÄkszoÅÄ ludzi – inni zniewolili mniejszÄ
liczbÄ
-osób, ale nie dlatego, że nie próbowali. <i>[Åmiech]</i>
-Po prostu nie udaÅo im siÄ zniewoliÄ aż tylu ludzi.
WiÄc problemem
-nie jest tylko i wyÅÄ
cznie Microsoft. Microsoft jest tylko najwiÄkszym
-przejawem problemu, który chcemy rozwiÄ
zaÄ, czyli faktu,
że objÄte
-restrykcyjnymi licencjami oprogramowanie odbiera użytkownikom wolnoÅÄ
-do wspóÅpracy i tworzenia etycznego spoÅeczeÅstwa. WiÄc nie
-powinniÅmy siÄ zanadto skupiaÄ na Microsofcie, no wiecie, nawet jeÅli
-dali mi okazjÄ do przemawiania z tego miejsca. Nie czyni to ich
-najważniejszymi. Oni nie sÄ
poczÄ
tkiem i koÅcem wszystkiego.</p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: WczeÅniej mówiÅeÅ o filozoficznych różnicach
-miÄdzy wolnym oprogramowaniem i oprogramowaniem open source. Co sÄ
dzisz
-o obecnej tendencji, w której dystrybucje GNU/Linuksa skÅaniajÄ
siÄ ku
-wspieraniu wyÅÄ
cznie platform Intela? Oraz o tym, że, jak siÄ zdaje,
-coraz mniej programistów pisze kod prawidÅowo i tworzy oprogramowanie,
-które bÄdzie siÄ wszÄdzie kompilowaÄ? I o robieniu programów, które
-dziaÅajÄ
po prostu na systemach Intela?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Nie widzÄ tutaj etycznego problemu. Chociaż
-w rzeczywistoÅci firmy produkujÄ
ce komputery czasami portujÄ
-na nie GNU/Linuksa. Jak widaÄ HP ostatnio to zrobiÅo. Nie chcieli
-pÅaciÄ za port Windowsa, bo to kosztowaÅoby zbyt
-wiele. Ale doprowadzenie do dziaÅania GNU/Linuksa zajÄÅo, o ile
-siÄ nie mylÄ, piÄciu inżynierom parÄ miesiÄcy. ByÅo to Åatwe
-do zrobienia.</p>
-
-<p>OczywiÅcie zachÄcam ludzi do korzystania
z <code>autoconf</code>a,
-który jest pakietem GNU uÅatwiajÄ
cym tworzenie przenoÅnego
-oprogramowania. ZachÄcam ich do tego. Albo gdy ktoÅ naprawi bÅÄ
d,
-który powodowaÅ, że nie kompilowaÅo siÄ na innej wersji systemu
-i wam go przeÅle, powinniÅcie to doÅÄ
czyÄ. Ale nie widzÄ tutaj
-etycznego problemu.</p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Dwa komentarze. Pierwszy: Ostatnio przemawiaÅeÅ
-na MIT. CzytaÅem zapis. KtoÅ zapytaÅ o patenty i odpowiedziaÅeÅ,
-że „patenty to zupeÅnie inna kwestia. Nie mam na ten temat
-nic do powiedzenia”.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Racja. Tak naprawdÄ to mam bardzo dużo
-do powiedzenia o patentach, ale to zajmuje
-godzinÄ. <i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: ChciaÅem powiedzieÄ, że wedÅug mnie jest
-w tym problem. To znaczy istnieje powód, dla którego firmy nazywajÄ
-zarówno patenty jak i prawa autorskie wÅasnoÅciÄ
trwaÅÄ
w celu
-przeforsowania tej koncepcji, próby użycia siÅy PaÅstwa do stworzenia
-dla siebie monopolu. WiÄc to, co jest wspólne dla tych rzeczy, to nie
-to, że dotyczÄ
podobnych spraw, ale to, że nie chodzi im tak
-naprawdÄ o sÅużbÄ spoÅeczeÅstwu, motywacjÄ
tych firm jest uzyskanie
monopolu
-dla swoich prywatnych interesów.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Rozumiem. Ale, cóż, chcÄ odpowiedzieÄ,
-bo nie ma zbyt wiele czasu. WiÄc chciaÅbym na to
-odpowiedzieÄ.</p>
-
-<p>Masz racjÄ, to jest to, czego oni chcÄ
. Ale jest jeszcze jeden
powód,
-dla którego chcÄ
używaÄ terminu „wÅasnoÅÄ
-intelektualna”. Bo nie chcÄ
zachÄcaÄ ludzi do dokÅadnego
-przemyÅlenia kwestii prawa autorskiego i kwestii
-patentowych. Bo prawo autorskie i prawo patentowe to dwie osobne
-rzeczy, a skutki objÄcia oprogramowania prawem autorskim
-i opatentowania programów sÄ
zupeÅnie inne.</p>
-
-<p>Patenty na oprogramowanie to ograniczanie programistów, zabranianie im
-pisania pewnych rodzajów programów, podczas gdy prawo autorskie tego nie
-robi. Prawo autorskie pozwala, przynajmniej jeÅli sami to napisaliÅcie,
-na dystrybucjÄ. WiÄc jest ogromnie ważne, żeby rozdzielaÄ te
-kwestie.</p>
-
-<p>MajÄ
trochÄ wspólnego na bardzo niskim poziomie, ale caÅa
reszta
-jest inna. WiÄc, proszÄ, aby zachÄcaÄ do jasnego myÅlenia,
-rozważajcie prawo autorskie albo rozważajcie patenty. Ale nie
-rozważajcie wÅasnoÅci intelektualnej. Nie mam opinii o wÅasnoÅci
-intelektualnej. Mam opinie na temat prawa autorskiego, patentów
-i oprogramowania.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: WspomniaÅeÅ na poczÄ
tku, że jÄzyk
-funkcjonalny, jak przepisy kulinarne, to programy komputerowe. Tworzone jest
-coÅ poÅredniego, krzyżówka odrobinÄ inna niż inne rodzaje jÄzyków. To
także
-problem w przypadku DVD.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Te kwestie sÄ
czÄÅciowo podobne,
-ale czÄÅciowo inne w przypadku rzeczy nie bÄdÄ
cych z natury
-funkcjonalnymi. CzÄÅÄ kwestii zostaje, ale nie wszystkie. Niestety to
-kolejne godzinne przemówienie. Nie mam czasu, żeby siÄ w to
-wgÅÄbiaÄ. Ale uważam, że wszystkie funkcjonalne dzieÅa powinny
byÄ
-wolne w takim samym sensie jak oprogramowanie. No wiecie, podrÄczniki,
-instrukcje, sÅowniki, przepisy i tak dalej.</p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: WÅaÅnie siÄ zastanawiaÅem nad muzykÄ
dostÄpnÄ
-w sieci. W caÅej tej sprawie sÄ
podobieÅstwa i różnice.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Racja. MyÅlÄ, że minimum wolnoÅci, jakie
-powinniÅmy mieÄ wobec każdego rodzaju opublikowanych informacji, to
wolnoÅÄ
-do ich niekomercyjnego rozpowszechniania w niezmienionej
-postaci. W przypadku dzieÅ funkcjonalnych potrzebna nam jest wolnoÅÄ
-do komercyjnej dystrybucji zmienionych wersji, bo jest to ogromnie
-użyteczne dla spoÅeczeÅstwa. Dla dzieÅ niefunkcjonalnych, no wiecie, rzeczy
-rozrywkowych lub majÄ
cych wartoÅÄ estetycznÄ
, lub wyrażajÄ
cych
-czyjeÅ poglÄ
dy, no wiecie, byÄ może nie powinny byÄ modyfikowane.
I byÄ
-może znaczy to, że jest w porzÄ
dku, aby caÅÄ
ich
komercyjnÄ
-dystrybucjÄ obejmowaÅo prawo autorskie.</p>
-
-<p>PamiÄtajcie proszÄ, że wedÅug konstytucji USA celem prawa
autorskiego
-jest korzyÅÄ spoÅeczeÅstwa. Jest nim modyfikowanie zachowania pewnych
-prywatnych podmiotów, aby publikowali wiÄcej ksiÄ
żek. KorzyÅciÄ
-z tego pÅynÄ
cÄ
jest to, że spoÅeczeÅstwo ma o czym dyskutowaÄ
-i siÄ uczy. No i wiecie, mamy literaturÄ. Mamy prace
-naukowe. Celem jest zachÄcanie do ich tworzenia. Prawa autorskie nie
-istniejÄ
dla autorów, a już na pewno nie wydawców. IstniejÄ
dla
-czytelników i wszystkich tych, którzy korzystajÄ
na wymianie
-informacji majÄ
cej miejsce, gdy jedni piszÄ
, a drudzy czytajÄ
. A z
-tym celem siÄ zgadzam.</p>
-
-<p>Ale w dobie sieci komputerowych ta metoda nie jest już dÅużej
możliwa
-do utrzymania, bo wymaga obecnie drakoÅskich praw naruszajÄ
cych
-naszÄ
prywatnoÅÄ i nas terroryzujÄ
cych. No wiecie, lata
-w wiÄzieniu za dzielenie siÄ ze swoim bliźnim. W czasach
-prasy drukarskiej tak nie byÅo. Wtedy prawo autorskie byÅo regulacjÄ
-branżowÄ
. OgraniczaÅo wydawców. Teraz jest ograniczeniem naÅożonym przez
-wydawców na spoÅeczeÅstwo. Tak wiÄc relacja wÅadzy zmieniÅa
swój
-biegun o 180 stopni, chociaż to wciÄ
ż to samo prawo.</p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: WiÄc można mieÄ to samo â ale jak
-w robieniu muzyki z innej muzyki?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Racja. To jest ciekawa…</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I unikalne, nowe dzieÅa, no wiesz, to ciÄ
gle
-mnóstwo wspóÅpracy.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tak jest. I wydaje mi siÄ, że wymaga
to
-jakiejŠkoncepcji dozwolonego użytku. Zdecydowanie robienie krótkiego sampla
-i wykorzystywanie go w jakimÅ dziele muzycznym, to oczywiÅcie
-powinien byÄ dozwolony użytek. Nawet standardowa koncepcja dozwolonego
-użytku to zakÅada, jeÅli sobie przypomnicie. Nie jestem pewien,
-czy zgodzÄ
siÄ z tym sÄ
dy, ale powinny. To nie byÅaby
-rzeczywista zmiana w dotychczasowym systemie.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Co sÄ
dzisz o udostÄpnianiu publicznych
informacji
-w zamkniÄtych formatach?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Och, to nie powinno mieÄ miejsca. To znaczy rzÄ
d
-nigdy nie powinien wymagaÄ od obywateli wykorzystywania niewolnego
-programu w celu dostÄpu, komunikacji z rzÄ
dem w jakikolwiek
-sposób, w obu kierunkach.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Jestem użytkownikiem, nazwÄ go tak teraz,
-GNU/Linuksa…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: DziÄkujÄ. <i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: …od czterech lat. Jedna rzecz,
z którÄ
-miaÅem problem i która jest bardzo ważna chyba dla nas wszystkich, to
-przeglÄ
danie Internetu.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tak.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Jedna rzecz, która zdecydowanie byÅa
-niedogodnoÅciÄ
przy używaniu GNU/Linuksa to byÅo przeglÄ
danie Internetu,
-bo gÅówne narzÄdzie, które do tego sÅuży, Netscape…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: …nie jest wolnym oprogramowaniem.</p>
-
-<p>Pozwólcie, że odpowiem. ChcÄ przejÅÄ do rzeczy,
aby byÅ czas
-na wiÄcej pytaÅ. WiÄc, tak. Istnieje wÅród ludzi bardzo niedobra
-tendencja używania Netscape Navigatora na systemach
-GNU/Linux. WÅaÅciwie jest on dodawany do wszystkich komercyjnie
-wydawanych systemów. WiÄc jest to ironiczna sytuacja: pracowaliÅmy tak
-ciÄżko, aby stworzyÄ wolny system operacyjny, a teraz, jak
-pójdziecie do sklepu, to możecie tam znaleÅºÄ wersje
-GNU/Linuksa – wiÄkszoÅÄ nazywa siÄ Linux – i nie
-sÄ
one wolne. No dobra, czÄÅÄ z nich jest. Ale jest w nich
-Netscape Navigator i może inne niewolne programy też. WiÄc tak
-naprawdÄ ciÄżko jest znaleÅºÄ wolny system, chyba że wiecie, co
-robicie. Lub, oczywiÅcie, możecie nie instalowaÄ Netscape Navigatora.</p>
-
-<p>Tak naprawdÄ to od lat istniejÄ
wolne przeglÄ
darki internetowe. Jest
-wolna przeglÄ
darka, której kiedyÅ używaÅem, nazywajÄ
ca siÄ Lynx. To jest
-wolna niegraficzna przeglÄ
darka internetowa, jest tekstowa. To jest wielka
-zaleta, bo nie oglÄ
da siÄ reklam. <i>[Åmiech] [aplauz]</i></p>
-
-<p>Tak czy inaczej istnieje wolny graficzny projekt o nazwie Mozilla,
-który wÅaÅnie dochodzi do stanu używalnoÅci. I czasami go
używam.</p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 jest bardzo dobry.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Aha, OK. WiÄc oto kolejna wolna graficzna
-przeglÄ
darka. WiÄc wydaje siÄ, że w koÅcu dochodzimy
-do rozwiÄ
zania tego problemu.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Czy możesz mi opowiedzieÄ o tych
-filozoficznych/etycznych podziaÅach pomiÄdzy wolnym oprogramowaniem
-a open source? Czy sÄ
dzisz, że sÄ
nie do pogodzenia?
-…</p>
-
-<p><i>[Zmiana kasety w trakcie nagrywania. Brakuje koÅca pytania
-i poczÄ
tku odpowiedzi.]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: … do wolnoÅci
-i etyki. Albo czy po prostu powiecie: „Cóż, mamy
-nadziejÄ, że wasze firmy zdecydujÄ
, że bardziej zyskowne jest
-pozwolenie nam na robienie tych rzeczy”.</p>
-
-<p>Ale jak mówiÅem, w przypadku dużej iloÅci praktycznej pracy,
-polityka pojedynczych osób nie gra tak naprawdÄ roli. Gdy ktoÅ oferuje pomoc
-projektowi GNU, to nie mówimy: „Musisz siÄ zgadzaÄ z naszÄ
-politykÄ
”. Mówimy, że w pakietach GNU musicie nazywaÄ system
-GNU/Linuksem i nazywaÄ je wolnym oprogramowaniem. To, co mówicie, gdy
-nie odnosicie siÄ do projektu GNU, to wasza sprawa.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Firma IBM rozpoczÄÅa kampaniÄ skierowanÄ
-do agencji rzÄ
dowych, promujÄ
cÄ
ich wielkie maszyny, wymieniali to,
-że korzystajÄ
z Linuksa, jako gÅównÄ
zaletÄ i mówili
-„Linux”.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tak, oczywiÅcie naprawdÄ chodzi o systemy
-GNU/Linux. <i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Tak jest! WiÄc powiedz to ich szefowi
-sprzedaży. On nic nie wie o GNU.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Komu mam powiedzieÄ?</p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Szefowi sprzedaży.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: A, tak. Problem polega na tym, że oni
-już dawno starannie podjÄli decyzjÄ, co chcÄ
powiedzieÄ, aby zyskaÄ
-przewagÄ. A kwestia, co jest trafniejszym lub sprawiedliwszym,
-lub prawidÅowym sposobem jego okreÅlania, nie jest jakÄ
Å zasadniczÄ
-sprawÄ
, która obchodziÅaby takÄ
firmÄ. JakieÅ maÅe firmy, tak, tam
może byÄ
-szef. I jeÅli ten szef jest zdeterminowany mieÄ takie rzeczy
-na uwadze, to może podjÄ
Ä takÄ
decyzjÄ. Ale nie gigantyczna
-korporacja. To wstyd, wiecie.</p>
-
-<p>Jest inna ważniejsza i poważniejsza kwestia dotyczÄ
ca postÄpowania
-IBM. TwierdzÄ
oni, że wkÅadajÄ
miliard dolarów
-w „Linuksa”. Ale byÄ może powinienem wziÄ
Ä
-w cudzysÅów także „w”, bo czÄÅÄ tych pieniÄdzy
idzie
-na pÅacenie ludziom za rozwój wolnego oprogramowania. To naprawdÄ
-jest wkÅad na rzecz naszej spoÅecznoÅci. Ale reszta idzie
-na pÅacenie ludziom za rozwój oprogramowania objÄtego
-restrykcyjnymi licencjami albo za portowanie takiego oprogramowania
-na GNU/Linuksa, a to <em>nie</em> jest wkÅad na rzecz naszej
-spoÅecznoÅci. Ale IBM wkÅada to wszystko do jednego worka.
CzÄÅÄ
-z tego wszystkiego to może byÄ reklama, co jest pewnym wkÅadem, nawet
-jeÅli trochÄ nieprawidÅowym. WiÄc jest to skomplikowana sytuacja.
CzÄÅÄ
-z tego, co robiÄ
, nam sÅuży, a reszta nie. A czÄÅÄ jest
-gdzieÅ po Årodku. I nie można tego po prostu wrzuciÄ
-do jednego worka i krzyczeÄ: „Wow! Hurra! Miliard dolarów
-od IBM”. <i>[Åmiech]</i> To zbytnie uproszczenie.</p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Czy możesz coÅ wiÄcej powiedzieÄ
-na temat pobudek, które doprowadziÅy do powstania GPL?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Cóż, oto – przepraszam, odpowiadam
-teraz na jego pytanie. <i>[Åmiech]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Czy chcesz zarezerwowaÄ trochÄ czasu
-na konferencjÄ prasowÄ
? Czy kontynuowaÄ z tym?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Kto tu przyszedÅ na konferencjÄ prasowÄ
?
-Niezbyt wielu dziennikarzy. Aha, trzech – OK. Czy nie bÄdzie
-problemu jeÅli bÄdziemy – jeÅli bÄdÄ przez jeszcze jakieÅ 10
-minut odpowiadaÅ na pytania z sali? OK. WiÄc bÄdÄ dalej
-odpowiadaÅ na pytania z sali.</p>
-
-<p>WiÄc jakie byÅy pobudki powstania GNU GPL? Po czÄÅci chciaÅem
-ochroniÄ wolnoÅÄ spoÅecznoÅci przed zjawiskami, które opisaÅem
-na przykÅadzie systemu X, i które przydarzyÅy siÄ także innym
-wolnym programom. Tak naprawdÄ to gdy myÅlaÅem o tej kwestii, X jeszcze nie
-zostaÅ wydany. Ale widziaÅem jak ten problem powstawaÅ przy innych
-wolnych programach. Na przykÅad TeX. ChciaÅem zadbaÄ o to, by wszyscy
-użytkownicy mieli wolnoÅÄ. ZdaÅem sobie sprawÄ, że w innym wypadku
-mógÅbym napisaÄ jakiÅ program i może używaÅoby go wielu ludzi,
-ale nie mieliby wolnoÅci. A jaki to ma sens?</p>
-
-<p>Ale inna sprawa, o której myÅlaÅem, to daÄ spoÅecznoÅci poczucie,
-że nie jest wycieraczkÄ
, poczucie, że nie jest Åupem dla
-pierwszego pasożyta, który akurat bÄdzie przechodziÅ obok. JeÅli nie
-korzystacie z copyleft, to w gruncie rzeczy mówicie <i>[mówi
-potulnym gÅosem]</i>: „Weźcie mój kod. Zróbcie, co chcecie. Nie
-sprzeciwiam siÄ”. WiÄc każdy może przyjÅÄ i powiedzieÄ
-<i>[mówi pewnym siebie gÅosem]</i>: „Tak, chcÄ zrobiÄ z tego
-niewolnÄ
wersjÄ. Po prostu to sobie wezmÄ”. OczywiÅcie potem,
-zrobiÄ
prawdopodobnie jakieÅ ulepszenia, te niewolne wersje mogÄ
spodobaÄ
-siÄ użytkownikom i wyprzeÄ wersje wolne. I co wtedy osiÄ
gnÄliÅcie?
-PrzekazaliÅcie tylko darowiznÄ jakiemuÅ objÄtemu restrykcyjnÄ
licencjÄ
-projektowi programistycznemu.</p>
-
-<p>A kiedy ludzie widzÄ
, że to siÄ dzieje, gdy ludzie widzÄ
, jak
inni
-biorÄ
to co zrobiÅem i nigdy tego nie oddajÄ
, to może byÄ
-demoralizujÄ
ce. I to nie sÄ
tylko przypuszczenia. WidziaÅem to
-na wÅasne oczy. To jest czÄÅÄ tego, co siÄ staÅo, gdy zniszczona
-zostaÅa stara spoÅecznoÅÄ, do której należaÅem w latach
-70. Niektórzy przestali wspóÅpracowaÄ. I uznaliÅmy, że na tym
-korzystajÄ
. Z pewnoÅciÄ
zachowywali siÄ tak, jakby uważali,
-że korzystajÄ
. I zdaliÅmy sobie sprawÄ, że nie mogÄ
tak
-po prostu czerpaÄ z efektów wspóÅpracy i nic nie
-oddawaÄ. A nic nie mogliÅmy z tym zrobiÄ. To byÅo bardzo
-deprymujÄ
ce. My, ci z nas, którym siÄ ta tendencja nie podobaÅa, nawet
-o tym dyskutowaliÅmy i nie mogliÅmy wymyÅliÄ nic, co mogÅoby
poÅożyÄ
-temu kres.</p>
-
-<p>WiÄc GPL zostaÅa zaprojektowana, by to powstrzymaÄ. Mówi ona,
-że tak, zapraszamy ciÄ do przystÄ
pienia do spoÅecznoÅci
-i korzystania z tego kodu. Możesz go wykorzystywaÄ
-do wszelkich zadaÅ. Jednak jeÅli wypuÅcisz zmodyfikowanÄ
wersjÄ,
-to musisz jÄ
udostÄpniÄ naszej spoÅecznoÅci, bÄdÄ
c czÄÅciÄ
tej
spoÅecznoÅci,
-bÄdÄ
c czÄÅciÄ
wolnego Åwiata.</p>
-
-<p>WiÄc w rzeczywistoÅci i tak jest wiele sposobów, na jakie
-ludzie mogÄ
korzystaÄ z naszej pracy, a sami nie wnosiÄ Å¼adnego
-wkÅadu, na przykÅad nie musicie pisaÄ programów. Mnóstwo ludzi
korzysta
-z GNU/Linuksa i nie pisze żadnego oprogramowania. Nie ma wymogu,
-że coÅ musicie dla nas zrobiÄ. Ale jeÅli robicie pewien konkretny
-rodzaj rzeczy, to musicie wnieÅÄ to jako wkÅad. Oznacza to, że nasza
-spoÅecznoÅÄ to nie wycieraczka. I myÅlÄ, że to daÅo ludziom
siÅÄ
-i poczucie, że wszyscy nie bÄdÄ
po nas tak po prostu
-deptaÄ. Przeciwstawimy siÄ temu.</p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Tak, moje pytanie brzmi, biorÄ
c pod uwagÄ
-wolne, ale nie objÄte przez copyleft oprogramowanie, skoro każdy może
-je wziÄ
Ä i objÄ
Ä restrykcyjnÄ
licencjÄ
, to czy nie jest także
-możliwe, żeby ktoÅ je wziÄ
Å, dodaÅ kilka zmian i wydaÅ caÅÄ
rzecz
-na licencji GPL?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tak, to jest możliwe.</p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: WiÄc to by objÄÅo wszystkie przyszÅe
kopie
-licencjÄ
GPL.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Od tego odgaÅÄzienia kodu. Ale oto
-dlaczego tak nie robimy.</p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Hmm?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oto dlaczego ogólnie tak nie robimy. Pozwólcie,
-że wyjaÅniÄ.</p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: OK, oczywiÅcie.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: MoglibyÅmy, gdybyÅmy chcieli, wziÄ
Ä system X,
-zrobiÄ kopiÄ objÄtÄ
przez GPL i wprowadziÄ do niej
-zmiany. Ale istnieje dużo wiÄksza grupa osób pracujÄ
ca
-nad rozwijaniem X, która <em>nie</em> wydaje go na GPL. WiÄc,
-jeÅli byÅmy to zrobili, to odgaÅÄzialibyÅmy ich kod. A to nie byÅoby
-miÅe traktowanie. A oni <em>sÄ
</em> czÄÅciÄ
naszej spoÅecznoÅci,
wnoszÄ
-do niej wkÅad.</p>
-
-<p>Po drugie obróciÅoby siÄ to przeciwko nam, bo oni wkÅadajÄ
-w X dużo wiÄcej pracy niż my byÅmy wkÅadali. WiÄc nasza wersja
-byÅaby gorsza od ich wersji, ludzie by jej nie używali, wiÄc po co
-w ogóle siÄ trudziÄ?</p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Aha.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: WiÄc jeÅli ktoÅ napisaÅ jakieÅ
ulepszenia
-dla X, to uważam, że powinien wspóÅpracowaÄ z zespoÅem
-rozwijajÄ
cym X. PrzeÅlijcie to im i pozwólcie wykorzystaÄ tak, jak
bÄdÄ
-chcieli. Bo oni rozwijajÄ
bardzo istotny kawaÅek wolnego
-oprogramowania. WspóÅpraca z nimi jest dla nas korzystna.</p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Oprócz – biorÄ
c pod uwagÄ
-konkretnie X, okoÅo dwóch lat temu – X Consortium, które byÅo
-bardzo zaangażowane w niewolne oprogramowanie open source…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Cóż, tak naprawdÄ to <em>nie byÅo</em> open
-source. To nie byÅo także open source. Mogli mówiÄ, że byÅo. Nie
-pamiÄtam, czy tak mówili, czy nie. Ale to nie byÅo open
-source. ByÅo objÄte ograniczeniami. Nie można byÅo tego komercyjnie
-rozpowszechniaÄ, z tego co pamiÄtam. Albo nie można byÅo
-komercyjnie rozpowszechniaÄ zmodyfikowanych wersji, albo coÅ
-takiego. ByÅo jakieÅ ograniczenie nie do zaakceptowania zarówno przez
-ruch wolnego oprogramowania, jak i ruch open source.</p>
-
-<p>I tak, oto na co wystawia was wykorzystywanie licencji niezgodnej
-z copyleft. W rzeczywistoÅci X Consortium miaÅo bardzo sztywnÄ
-politykÄ. Mówili: „JeÅli wasz program ma cokolwiek wspólnego
-z copyleft, to nie bÄdziemy go rozpowszechniaÄ. Nie umieÅcimy go
-w naszej dystrybucji”.</p>
-
-<p>WiÄc w ten sposób wielu ludzi zmuszono do zaniechania
korzystania
-z copyleft. A efektem tego byÅo to, że caÅe ich
-oprogramowanie byÅo później caÅkowicie bezbronne. Kiedy ci sami ludzie,
-którzy wczeÅniej naciskali autorów, żeby na zbyt wiele pozwalali,
potem
-ludzie z X mówili później: „OK, teraz możemy naÅożyÄ
-ograniczenia”, co nie byÅo z ich strony etycznym
postÄpowaniem.</p>
-
-<p>Ale, biorÄ
c pod uwagÄ sytuacjÄ, czy naprawdÄ chcielibyÅmy
-organizowaÄ zasoby na utrzymywanie alternatywnej, objÄtej przez GPL
-wersji X? Robienie tego nie miaÅoby sensu. Jest tyle innych rzeczy, które
-musimy zrobiÄ. Zróbmy je zamiast tego. Z autorami X możemy
-wspóÅpracowaÄ.</p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Czy mógÅbyÅ powiedzieÄ, czy GNU to
znak
-towarowy? Czy nie byÅoby praktycznÄ
rzeczÄ
dodanie do GNU GPL
-pozwolenia na wykorzystywanie tego znaku?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: WÅaÅnie wystÄ
piliÅmy o rejestracjÄ znaku
-towarowego GNU. Ale nie miaÅoby to z tym nic
-wspólnego. WyjaÅnienie tego to dÅuga historia.</p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: MoglibyÅcie żÄ
daÄ, aby ten znak towarowy
byÅ
-widoczny na programach objÄtych przez GPL.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Nie, nie sÄ
dzÄ. Licencje obejmujÄ
poszczególne
-programy. A kiedy dany program jest czÄÅciÄ
projektu GNU, to nikt nie
-kÅamie na ten temat. Nazwa caÅego systemu to inna sprawa. Ale to
-sprawa poboczna. Nie warto na ten temat wiÄcej mówiÄ.</p>
-
-<p><strong>PYTANIE</strong>: JeÅli istniaÅby guzik, którego naciÅniÄcie
-zmusiÅoby wszystkie firmy do uwolnienia swojego oprogramowania,
-nacisnÄ
ÅbyÅ go?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Cóż, wykorzystaÅbym to tylko wobec
opublikowanego
-oprogramowania. No wiecie, uważam, że ludzie majÄ
prawo
-do napisania programu na prywatny użytek i korzystania
-z niego. Dotyczy to także firm. To kwestia prywatnoÅci. To prawda, mogÄ
-byÄ przypadki, w których takie postÄpowanie jest zÅe,
na przykÅad,
-gdy jest on niezwykle przydatny dla ludzkoÅci, a wy go przed ludzkoÅciÄ
-ukrywacie. To jest zÅe, ale w inny sposób. To osobna kwestia, chociaż
-dotykajÄ
ca tego samego obszaru.</p>
-
-<p>Ale tak, sÄ
dzÄ, że caÅe opublikowane oprogramowanie powinno
byÄ
-wolne. I pamiÄtajcie, jeÅli nie jest wolne, to z powodu
-interwencji rzÄ
du. RzÄ
d interweniuje, aby uczyniÄ je niewolnym. RzÄ
d
-tworzy specjalne narzÄdzia prawne dla wÅaÅcicieli programów, aby mogli
-zmusiÄ policjÄ do powstrzymania nas od używania programów
-na pewne sposoby. Z caÅÄ
pewnoÅciÄ
chciaÅbym poÅożyÄ temu
kres. </p>
-
-<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Prezentacja Richarda jak zwykle wyzwoliÅa
-olbrzymiÄ
iloÅÄ intelektualnej energii. SugerujÄ, żeby jej czÄÅÄ
zostaÅa
-wykorzystana na używanie, a może również pisanie, wolnego
-oprogramowania.</p>
-
-<p>PowinniÅmy wkrótce zamknÄ
Ä tÄ sesjÄ. ChcÄ powiedzieÄ,
że Richard
-wstrzyknÄ
Å w profesjÄ, która jest znana ogóÅowi spoÅeczeÅstwa ze
swojej
-caÅkowicie apolitycznej postawy, dawkÄ politycznego i moralnego
-zamieszania, które w naszej profesji nie miaÅo wczeÅniej
-miejsca. I bardzo wiele jesteÅmy mu za to winni. ChciaÅbym
-ogÅosiÄ, że mamy przerwÄ.</p>
-
-<p><i>[aplauz]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Możecie w każdej chwili
-wyjÅÄ. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Nie trzymam was tu pod kluczem.</p>
-
-<p><i>[sÅuchacze siÄ rozchodzÄ
…]</i></p>
-
-<p><i>[nakÅadajÄ
ce siÄ gÅosy…]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Ostatnia sprawa. Nasza witryna internetowa:
-www.gnu.org</p>
-
-<div class="translators-notes">
-
-<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes.-->
- </div>
-</div>
-
-<!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
-<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.pl.html" -->
-<div id="footer">
-<div class="unprintable">
-
-<p>Pytania dotyczÄ
ce GNU i FSF prosimy kierowaÄ na adres <a
-href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>. IstniejÄ
także <a
-href="/contact/contact.html">inne sposoby skontaktowania siÄ</a>
-z FSF. <br /> Informacje o niedziaÅajÄ
cych odnoÅnikach oraz inne
-poprawki (lub propozycje) prosimy wysyÅaÄ na adres <a
-href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></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";>
-
- <address@hidden></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>. -->
-Staramy siÄ, aby tÅumaczenia byÅy wierne i wysokiej jakoÅci,
-ale nie jesteÅmy zwolnieni z niedoskonaÅoÅci. Komentarze odnoÅnie
-tÅumaczenia polskiego oraz zgÅoszenia dotyczÄ
ce chÄci wspóÅpracy
-w tÅumaczeniu prosimy kierowaÄ na adres <a
-href="mailto:address@hidden";>address@hidden</a>. <br />
-Aby zapoznaÄ siÄ z informacjami dotyczÄ
cymi tÅumaczenia
-i koordynowania tÅumaczeÅ artykuÅów, proszÄ odwiedziÄ stronÄ <a
-href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">tÅumaczeÅ</a>.</p>
-</div>
-
-<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
- files generated as part of manuals) 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. -->
-<p>Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman</p>
-
-<p>Ten utwór objÄty jest licencjÄ
Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Bez
-utworów zależnych 3.0 Stany Zjednoczone. Aby zobaczyÄ kopiÄ niniejszej
-licencji przejdź na stronÄ <a rel="license"
-href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/";>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/</a>
-lub napisz do Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San
-Francisco, California 94105, USA.</p>
-
-<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.pl.html" -->
-<div class="translators-credits">
-
-<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.-->
-TÅumaczenie: RadosÅaw MoszczyÅski 2005, Jan Owoc 2011; poprawki: Jan Owoc
-2015.</div>
-
-<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
-Aktualizowane:
-
-$Date: 2015/05/02 04:57:34 $
-
-<!-- timestamp end -->
-</p>
-</div>
-</div>
-</body>
-</html>
Index: events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pt.txt
===================================================================
RCS file: events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pt.txt
diff -N events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pt.txt
--- events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pt.txt 3 Jul 2001 21:49:04 -0000
1.2
+++ /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
@@ -1,1806 +0,0 @@
-Transcrição do discurso de Richar M. Stallman, "Software Livre: Liberdade de
-Cooperação" Universidade de Nova Iorque, em 29 de Maio de 2001.
-
-Original em inglês: http://www.gnu.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt
-
-Traduzido por Edgard Lemos <address@hidden>
-
-Uma outra tradução pode ser encontrada em:
-http://www.msantunes.com.br/palestra.htm
-
-
-URETSKY: Eu sou Mike Uretsky. Sou da "Escola de Negócios Stern". Também sou
-um dos co-diretores do Centro de Tecnologia Avançada. E, em nome de todos nós
-do Departamento de Ciência da Computação, quero dar-lhes as boas-vindas aqui.
-Quero fazer alguns comentários antes de dar a palavra a Ed, que vai lhes
-apresentar o palestrante.
-
-O papel da Universidade é fomentar o debate e levantar discussões
-interessantes. E o papel de uma universidade proeminente é ter discussões
-particularmente interessantes. E esta apresentação em particular, este
-seminário entra bem dentro desse molde. Eu considero a discussão sobre código
-aberto particularmente interessante. De certo modo, [Risos]
-
-STALLMAN: Meu negócio é "software livre". Código aberto é outro movimento.
-[Risos] [Aplausos]
-
-URETSKY: Quando iniciei nesta área nos anos 60, software era basicamente
-livre. Então entramos numa fase. Ele era livre, e então os fabricantes [[ou
-"alguns dos fabricantes"]] de software, precisando expandir seus mercados, o
-levaram para outras direções. Muito do desenvolvimento que aconteceu com a
-entrada do PC foi exatamente nessa fase.
-
-Há um filósofo francês muito interessante -- Pierre Levy -- que fala sobre
-essas mudanças, e que fala sobre o movimento para o ciberespaço não só tendo a
-ver com tecnologia, mas também com restruturação social e política, através da
-mundança dos relacionamentos para a melhoraria do bem-estar da
-humanidade. E esperamos que este debate seja um movimento nessa direção; pois
-este debate atravessa várias disciplinas que são a base da Universidade.
-Estamos desejosos de discussões verdadeiramente interessantes. Ed?
-
-SCHONBERG: Eu sou Ed Schonberg do Departamento de Ciência da Computação do
-Insituto Courant. Sejam todos bem-vindos a este evento. Apresentadores são
-normalmente, e particularmente, um aspecto inútil em apresentações públicas,
-mas, neste caso, realmente, um deles serviu a um propósito útil como
-demonstrado por Mike. Um apresentador por exemplo, ao fazer
-comentários imprecisos, pode permitir que ele endireite, corrija e [Risos]
-esclareça consideravelmente os parâmetros do debate.
-
-Portanto, vou apresentar da maneira mais rápida possível alguém que dispensa
-apresentações. Richard é o exemplo perfeito de alguém que, agindo localmente,
-começou a pensar globalmente a partir de problemas relativos à não
-disponibilidade de código fonte para drivers de impressora no AI-Lab muitos
-anos atrás. Ele desenvolveu uma filosofia coerente que nos forçou a todos a
-reexaminar nossas idéias de como se produz sofwtare, o que significa
-propriedade intelectual e o que realmente representa a comunidade de software.
-Convido, portanto, Richard Stallman. [Aplausos]
-
-
-STALLMAN: Alguém pode me emprestar um relógio? [Risos] Obrigado. Bem, eu
-gostaria de agradecer à Microsoft por me oferecer esta oportunidade de [Risos]
-estar neste púlpito. Nas últimas semanas, eu me senti como um escritor cujo
-livro tivesse sido fortuitamente proibido. [Risos] Exceto que todos os artigos
-sobre ele davam o nome errado do autor, pois a Microsoft descreve GNU GPL como
-uma licença de código aberto, e a maior parte da cobertura da imprensa adotou
-isso. Muitas pessoas, obviamente inocentemente não percebem que nosso trabalho
-não tem nada a ver com código aberto; de fato, fizemos quase tudo antes de
-cunharem o termo "código aberto".
-
-Somos do Movimento do Software Livre, e vou falar sobre o que é o movimento de
-software livre, o que significa, o que temos feito e, como este evento é
-parcialmente patrocinado pela Escola de Negócios, vou falar algumas coisas a
-mais do que normalmente falo sobre como o software se relaciona com os negócios
-e algumas outras áreas da vida social.
-
-Bem, alguns de vocês talvez não escrevam programas, mas talvez cozinhem. E se
-cozinham, a não ser que sejam muito bons, provavelmente seguem receitas. E se
-seguem receitas, provavelmente já tiveram a experiência de obter uma cópia da
-receita de um amigo. E provavelmente já tiveram a experiência -- a não ser que
-sejam totalmente neófitos -- de alterar a receita. A receita diz certas coisas,
-mas você não está obrigado a segui-la exatamente. Você pode excluir alguns
-ingredientes. Adicionar cogumelos, porque você gosta. Pôr menos sal porque seu
-médico disse para reduzir o sal -- etc. Você pode fazer alterações ainda
-maiores de acordo com sua habilidade. E ao modificar uma receita, e cozinhar
-para amigos e eles gostarem, um deles pode dizer "puxa, dá pra passar a
-receita?" Então o que você faz? Você poderia escrever essa versão modificada da
-receita e entregar uma cópia ao seu amigo. Isto é natural de se fazer com
-receitas de qualquer tipo.
-
-Ora, receitas têm muito em comum com programas. Programas têm muito em comum
-com receitas. Uma série de passos de execução para obter algum resultado que
-se queira. Assim, é natural agir da mesma forma com programas. Ceder uma cópia
-a um amigo. Modificá-lo porque a tarefa para a qual foi escrito não é
-exatamente o que você quer. Até fez uma excelente trabalho para outros, mas
-você tem uma tarefa diferente. E, depois de modificá-lo, pode ser que seja útil
-para outras pessoas ainda. Talvez elas tenham uma tarefa a fazer que seja como
-a sua. Assim, elas pedem, posso conseguir uma cópia? E como você é
-um cara legal, você vai dar a cópia. É assim que agem as pessoas decentes.
-
-Agora imagine como seria se as receitas viessem lacradas dentro de caixas
-pretas -- sem poder ver os ingredientes que estivesse usando, muito menos
-modificá-los -- e imagine, se ao copiá-las para um amigo, eles o chamassem
-de pirata e tentassem colocá-lo na cadeia por anos. Um mundo assim traria
-tremenda indignação para todos aqueles acostumados a trocar receitas. Mas é
-exatamente desse jeito que é o mundo do software proprietário. Um mundo no
-qual a decência comum para com outras pessoas é proibida ou impedida.
-
-E porque eu notei isso? Eu notei isso porque tive sorte, nos anos 70, de fazer
-parte de uma comunidade de programadores que compartilhavam software. Essa
-comunidade tinha sua origem essencialmente lá no início da computação. Nos
-anos 70, porém, já estava ficando raro encontrar uma comunidade em que se
-compartilhava software. E, de fato, era um caso extremo, pois no laboratório
-em que trabalhava, o sistema operacional inteiro era software desenvolvido
-pelas pessoas de nossa comunidade, e o compartilhávamos com qualquer
-pessoa. Qualquer um era convidado a vê-lo e levar uma cópia, e fazer com ele o
-que quisesse. Não havia nenhum aviso de direito de cópia nesses programas.
-Cooperação era nosso modo de vida. E nos sentíamos seguros nesse tipo de vida.
-Não lutávamos por ela. Não tínhamos que lutar por ela. Apenas vivíamos assim.
-E, até onde eu soubesse, continuaríamos a ver daquela maneira. Assim, havia
-software livre, mas não havia movimento de software livre.
-
-Mas então, nossa comunidade foi destruída por uma série de calamidades que
-aconteceram. No fim acabou sendo eliminada. No fim, o computador PDP-10
que
-usávamos para todo nosso trabalho foi descontinuado. E como vocês sabem, nosso
-sistema -- O Sistema de Compartilhamento de Tempo Incompatível -- fora
-escrito nos anos 60, portanto fora escrito em assembler. Era assim que se
-escrevia sistemas operacionais nos anos 60. Obviamente, programas em
-assembler são feitos para uma arquitetura de hardware em particular; se for
-descontinuado, todo o trabalho vira pó -- não serve para mais nada. E foi o
-que aconteceu conosco. 20 anos ou tanto de trabalho da nossa comunidade virou
-pó.
-
-Mas antes que isso acontecesse, eu tive uma experiência que me preparou, me
-ajudou a saber o que fazer, ajudou a me preparar para saber o que fazer quando
-isso acontecesse, porque a certa época, a Xerox deu ao laboratório de
-inteligência artificial em que trabalhava, uma impressora a laser, um presente
-muito interessante, pois era a primeira vez que alguém fora da Xerox tinha uma
-impressora a laser. Ela era muito rápida, imprimia uma página por segundo,
-muito boa em muitos aspectos, mas não era confiável, porque ela era na verdade
-uma copiadora de alta velocidade para escritórios modificada para impressora.
-E vocês sabem, as copiadoras engasgam, mas o operador está junto para reparar.
-A impressora engasgava sem ninguém ver. E ficava assim por longo tempo.
-
-Então tivemos uma idéia para lidar com este problema. Modificá-la de modo
-que quando engasgasse, a máquina que controlava a impressora pudesse avisar
-nosso computador central, e avisar aos usuários que estivessem aguardando
-as impressões, ou algo do tipo, por exemplo, de problemas na impressora. Se
-soubessem que ela tinha engasgado, quer dizer, se você está esperando por
-uma impressão, e sabe que a impressora está engasgada, você não vai ficar
-sentado, você vai lá e resolve o problema da impressora.
-
-Mas, aí ficamos completamente de mãos atadas, porque o software que controlava
-a impressora não era livre -- ele tinha vindo com a impressora, e era apenas
-um binário. Não tínhamos como saber o código fonte -- a Xerox não nos deixava
-obter o código fonte. Assim, apesar de toda nossa habilidade como
-programadores -- afinal, tínhamos escrito nosso próprio sistema operacional --
-estávamos totalmente impedidos de adicionar o novo recurso ao software da
-impressora.
-
-Aí só nos restava sofrer com as demoras -- levava uma ou duas horas para
-conseguir uma impressão porque a máquina engasgava a maior parte do tempo. E de
-vez em quando -- a gente esperava uma hora sabendo que a impressora
-iria engasgar mesmo e na hora de pegar a impressão via que a impressora não
-tinha imprimido nada porque ninguém tinha ido lá desengasgá-la. Daí a gente a
-punha em ordem e esperava mais meia hora. Ao voltar via que ela tinha
-engasgado de novo -- antes de imprimir o seu trabalho. Imprimia três minutos e
-engasgava trinta. Frustante à beça... Mas o pior era saber que nós podíamos
-resolver o problema, mas alguém, por seu próprio egoísmo, nos impediu de
-melhorar o software. Ficamos, então, um tanto ressentidos.
-
-Um dia fiquei sabendo que uma pessoa da Universidade Carnegie Mellon tinha uma
-cópia do software. Fiz uma visita lá um tempo depois e fui a seu escritório e
-disse, "Olá, sou do MIT, posso copiar o código fonte da impressora?" Ao que
-ele respondeu "Não, eu prometi não dá-lo a você". [Risos] Fiquei pasmado.
-Fiquei -- fiquei tão nervoso, não tinha nem idéia de como revidar. Pensei em
-virar as costas ali mesmo e sair da sala. Talvez batendo a porta. [Risos] Mais
-tarde pensei sobre isso, pois percebi que não estava diante de um cretino
-isolado, mas de um fenômeno social que era importante e afetava muita gente.
-
-Isto -- para mim -- Tive sorte de apenas sentir o gosto, mas outras pessoas
-tinham viver o tempo todo assim. Vejam, ele tinha prometido a se recusar a
-cooperar conosco -- colegas seus do MIT. Ele tinha-nos traído. Mas não
-só a nós. Acho até que ele traiu vocês. Com certeza, pensei agora, ele traiu
-vocês. [Risos] E provavelmente ele os traiu também. Ele provavelmente traiu
-todos deste auditório -- com exceção de uns poucos que não eram ainda nascidos
-nos anos 80. Pois ele tinha prometido não cooperar com simplesmente toda a
-população do Planeta Terra. Ele tinha assinado um acordo de confidencialidade.
-
-Este foi, então, meu primeiro encontro direto com um acordo de
-confidencialidade e com isso aprendi uma lição importante -- uma lição
-importante que a maioria dos programadores nunca aprende. Vejam, este foi meu
-primeiro encontro com um acordo de confidencialidade e eu fui a vítima. Eu, e
-todo o meu laboratório, fomos as vítimas. E a lição que aprendi foi que
-acordos de confidencialidade fazem vítimas. Eles não são inocentes. Eles não
-são inofensivos. A maioria dos programadores se deparam com um acordo de
-confidencialidade quando são convidados a assiná-lo. E há sempre aliciamento
--- a promessa de receber algo em troca se eles assinarem. Então inventam
-desculpas. Daí dizem, "bem, o cliente nunca vai conseguir os fontes mesmo,
-então porque não me unir ao cartel que o explora?" Ou dizem "sempre foi assim.
-Quem sou eu para ir contra?" Ou também, "se eu não assinar isto, outro vai."
-Várias desculpas para abafar sua consciência.
-
-Mas, quando me convidaram para assinar um acordo de confidencialidade, minha
-consciência já estava alerta. Lembrei-me de quanta raiva tinha sentido quando
-alguém prometeu não dar ajuda a mim nem a meu laboratório inteiro para resolver
-um problema. Eu não podia ceder e fazer exatamente a mesma coisa a outros que
-nunca me tinham feito mal nenhum. Sabe, se alguém me pedisse para prometer não
-dar informações úteis a um inimigo odiado, eu teria dito que não daria.
-Entende? Se alguém me fez mal, talvez mereça. Mas, outros -- eles não tinham
-me feito mal algum. Por que serem mal tratados? Não se pode tratar mal toda e
-qualquer pessoa. Senão você se torna um predador da sociedade. Daí falei,
-muito obrigado por me oferecer seu excelente programa. Mas não posso aceitá-lo
-de consciência limpa, nas condições que você exige, vou ter de passar sem ele.
-Muito obrigado. Assim, jamais assinei conscientemente um contrato de
-confidencialidade para informações técnicas de utilidade geral, como software.
-
-Mas há outras informações que levantam questões éticas diferentes. Por
-exemplo, existem informações pessoais. Se você conversar comigo sobre o que
-aconteceu entre você e seu namorado, e me pedir para não contar a ninguém --
-bem, eu posso guardar -- eu posso guardar esse segredo para você, porque não é
-uma informação técnica de utilidade geral.
-
-Pelo menos, não deveria ser de utilidade geral. [Risos] A não ser é claro --
-e é só uma possibilidade, porém -- que você me revele alguma técnica sexual
-tão fantástica, [Risos] que me faça sentir no dever moral [Risos] de
-repassar isso para o resto da humanidade, para que todos possam se beneficiar.
-Assim, teria de colocar uma condição nessa promessa. Detalhes de
-quem quer isso, quem está com raiva de quem, e outras coisas assim -- uma
-novela -- mantenho segredo para você, mas algumas coisas de que a
-humanidade pudesse se beneficiar tremendamente se soubesse, eu não iria
-segurar. Vejam, o propósito da ciência e da tecnologia é desenvolver
-informações úteis para que a humanidade ajude as pessoas a viverem melhor. Se
-prometemos segurar essa informação -- se mantivermos segredo -- então
-estaremos traindo a missão de nossa área. E assim, decidi que não devia
-assinar.
-
-Mas, enquanto isso, minha comunidade tinha sumido, e isso era o fundo do
-posso, daí fiquei numa situação ruim. Vejam, nosso sistema operacional estava
-obsoleto, porque o PDP-10 estava obsoleto, e assim, não havia meio de
-continuar trabalhando como desenvolvedor de sistema operacional do mesmo modo
-como vinha fazendo. Isso dependia de fazer parte da comunidade que usava
-software comunitário, e melhorá-lo. Isso não era mais uma possibilidade, e
-isso me pôs num dilema moral. O que deveria fazer? Pois a possibilidade mais
-óbvia significava ir contra a decisão que tinha tomado. A possibilidade mais
-óbvia era me adaptar à mudança do mundo. Aceitar que as coisas tinham mudado,
-abandonar meus princípios e passar a assinar acordos de confidencialidade
-para sistemas operacionais proprietários, e ainda muito provavelmente escrever
-software proprietário também. Mas percebi que desse modo eu poderia me
-divertir escrevendo programas, ganhar dinheiro -- especialmente se fizesse
-carreira fora do MIT -- mas, no fim, olharia para trás sobre minha carreira e
-diria "Gastei minha vida construindo muros para dividir as pessoas," e teria
-vergonha de minha vida.
-
-Então procurei outra alternativa, e havia uma que era óbvia. Até podia deixar
-a área de software, e fazer outra coisa. Eu não tinha nenhuma outra
-habilidade especial digna de nota, mas estou certo de que poderia me ter me
-tornado garçon. [Risos] Não em restaurante chique, ele não me contratariam,
-[Risos] mas talvez em outro lugar. E muitos programadores me dizem "as
-pessoas que contratam programadores exigem isso, isso e isso -- se não fizer
-do jeito deles, passo fome." É literalmente como dizem. Bem, garçon não
-passar fome. [Risos] Eles não correm esse risco. Mas -- e isso é
-importante, vejam vocês -- como às vezes se pode justificar o fazer algo que
-prejudica outras pessoas dizendo "se não for desse jeito, algo pior vai
-acontecer comigo". Se você está a ponto de passar fome, então está desculpado
-se escrever software proprietário [Risos]. Se alguém estivesse apontando uma
-arma para você, eu diria que é perdoável. [Risos] Mas, eu achei um modo de
-sobreviver sem fazer nada anti-ético, para que não houvesse desculpa. Percebi
-que ser garçon não me realizaria, e desperdiçaria minhas qualidades como
-desenvolvedor de sistemas operacionais. Teria evitado o mal uso de minhas
-habilidades. Desenvolver software proprietário seria mal uso de minhas
-habilidades. Incentivar outras pessoas a viver num mundo de softawre
-proprietário seria fazer mal uso de minhas habilidades. Então seria melhor
-jogá-las fora que usá-las mal, mas ainda não estava bom.
-
-Assim, por essas razões, decidi procurar outra alternativa. O que um
-desenvolvedor de sistemas operacionais pode fazer para melhorar de fato a
-situação, para fazer do mundo um lugar melhor? Percebi que um desenvolvedor de
-sistemas operacionais era exatamente o que era necessário. O problema, o
-dilema, existia para mim e para todos porque todos os sistemas operacionais
-disponíveis para computadores modernos eram proprietários. Os sistemas
-operacionais livres eram para computadores velhos e obsoletos, certo? Assim
-para computadores modernos -- se você quisesse adquirir um computador moderno
-e usá-lo, seria forçado a usar um sistema operacional proprietário. Se um
-desenvolvedor escrevesse um novo sistema operacional -- e
-depois dissesse, todo mundo vem aqui e copia, vocês estão convidados -- isso
-seria uma saída para o dilema, uma outra alternativa. Assim percebi que
-havia algo que podia fazer para resolver o problema. Eu tinha as habilidades
-certas para fazê-lo. E foi a coisa mais útil que eu podia imaginar que seria
-capaz de fazer na minha vida. Era um problema que ninguém mais estava tentando
-resolver. Todo mundo via a coisa toda ficando pior e ninguém se mexia exceto
-eu. Daí me senti um "escolhido". "Quem tem de resolver sou eu. Se não for, quem
-vai?" Então decidi desenvolver um sistema operacional livre -- ou morrer
-tentando. De velho, naturalmente. [Risos]
-
-Naturalmente, eu tinha de decidir que tipo de sistema operacional deveria ser
--- havia algumas decisões técnicas de projeto a serem feitas. Decidi fazer um
-sistema compatível com UNIX por uma série de razões. Primeiro, eu tinha visto
-um sistema operacional de que eu realmente gostava ficar obsoleto porque ele
-tinha sido escrito para um tipo específico de computador. Eu não queria que
-isso acontecesse de novo. Precisávamos ter um sistema portável. Bem, UNIX era
-um sistema portável. Então se seguisse as linhas de projeto do UNIX, teria uma
-boa chance de fazer um sistema que fosse portável e operável. E além disso ser
-compatível com ele nos detalhes. A razão é que os usuários odeiam mudanças
-incompatíveis. Se tivesse projetado o sistema do jeito que mais gostasse -- o
-que teria adorado fazer, com certeza -- teria produzido algo incompatível.
-Bem, os detalhes seriam diferentes. Assim, se escrevesse o sistema -- os
-usuários teriam-me dito "olha... é bem legal, mas incompatível. Vai dar
-muito trabalho migrar. Não compensa usar seu sistema em vez do UNIX, assim
-ficaremos com o UNIX", eles teriam dito.
-
-Então, se quisesse criar de fato uma comunidade em que houvesse gente --
-pessoas usando este sistema livre, e usufruindo dos benefícios da livre
-cooperação -- eu teria de fazer um sistema que as pessoas usassem, um sistema
-que eles achassem fácil de usar, que não apresentasse obstáculo, levando-o ao
-insucesso logo no início. Ao fazê-lo compatível com UNIX, ficaram definidas
-todas as decisões de projeto imediatas, porque o UNIX é composto de muitas
-peças, e elas se comunicam por interfaces que são de alguma forma documentadas.
-Se quiser ser compatível com UNIX, você precisa substituir cada peça, uma por
-uma, por outra compatível. As decisões de projeto restantes ficam dentro
-de cada peça. E poderiam ser escritas mais tarde por quem decidisse
-escrevê-las; elas não precisavam ser feitas todas desde o início.
-
-Assim, o que precisávamos fazer para começar o trabalho era encontrar um nome
-para o sistema. Nós, hackers, sempre achamos um nome engraçado ou maroto para
-os programas, já que pensar nas pessoas achando graça do nome é metade da
-diversão de se escrever programas. [Risos] E tínhamos uma tradição de usar
-siglas recursivas para dizer que o programa escrito era similar a outro
-existente. Você pode criar uma sigla recursiva que diga -- este programa não
-é o aquele. Assim, por exemplo, havia muitos editores de texto Tico nos anos 60
-e 70, ele eram geralmente chamados de "isto não é o Tico". Um hacker chamou o
-seu de Tint que quer dizer Tint Is Not Tico -- a primeira sigla recursiva. Em
-1975, desenvolvi o primeiro editor de texto Emacs, e houve muitas imitações do
-Emacs, e muitos deles eram chamados de isto não é Emacs, mas um era chamado
-Fine -- Fine Is Not Emacs, e havia o Sine -- Sine Is Not Emacs e IINA, IIna Is
-Not Emacs e MINCE, Mince Is Not Complete Emacs. [Risos] Era uma imitação
-"light". E, então, IINA foi completamente reescrito, e a nova versão se chamou
-ZWII. ZWII Was IINA Initially. [Risos]
-
-Então procurei uma sigla recursiva para "Something Is Not UNIX". Tentei todas
-as 26 letras e descobri que nenhuma delas formava uma palavra. [Risos] Hmm,
-vamos tentar de outro jeito. Fiz uma contração. Assim, podia ter uma sigla com
-três letras, Something's Not UNIX. E aí veio a palavra "GNU" -- a palavra
-"GNU" é a mais engraçada da língua inglesa. [Risos] Foi isso mesmo.
-Naturalmente, a razão de ser engraçada é dada pelo dicionário, sua pronúncia é
-"new". Estão vendo? É por isso que as pessoas a usam para fazer vários
-trocadilhos. Vou contar, este é o nome de um animal que vive na África. A
-pronúncia africana tem um estalo. [Risos] Talvez ainda tenha. Os colonizadores
-europeus, quando chegaram lá, não se incomodaram em aprender a pronunciar este
-estalo. Assim o deixaram de fora, e escreveram o "G" para dizer "existe um som
-aqui que deveria ser pronunciado". [Risos] Hoje à noite eu parto para a África
-do Sul, e já pedi a eles. Espero que me encontrem alguém que possa me ensinar
-a pronunciar esses estalos. [Risos] Assim vou saber como pronunciar GNU
-corretamente, ao me referir ao animal.
-
-Mas, ao se referir ao sistema operacional, a pronúncia correta é G-NU --
-pronuncie um "G" mudo. Se você falar sobre um tal de sistema operacional
-"new", as pessoas vão ficar confusas, já que trabalhamos nele há 17 anos,
-então não é mais novo. [Risos] Mas ainda é, e sempre será GNU -- não importa
-quantas pessoas o chamem erradamente de Linux. [Risos]
-
-Assim, em janeiro de 1984, me demiti do MIT para começar a escrever as peças
-do GNU. Eles foram muito legais em me deixar usar os equipamentos. E, naquela
-época, pensei em escrever todas as peças, fazer um sistema GNU completo, para
-depois dizer "venham e peguem" e aí as pessoas começariam a usá-lo. Mas não
-foi o que aconteceu. As primeiras peças que escrevi eram boas substitutas, com
-poucos bugs para alguns UNIX, mas não eram tremendamente atraentes. Ninguém
-particularmente queria obtê-las nem instalá-las. Daí, em setembro de 1984,
-comecei a escrever o GNU Emacs -- que foi minha segunda implementação do Emacs
--- no início de 1985, já estava funcionando. Podia usá-lo para tudo que
-editasse, o que foi um grande alívio, porque não tinha nenhuma vontade de usar
-o VI, o editor do UNIX. [Risos] Assim, até aquele momento, eu editava em
-outros máquinas, gravava os arquivos pela rede, assim podia testá-los. Mas
-quando o GNU Emacs estava rodando bem para que eu usasse, também estava --
-outras pessoas queriam usá-lo também.
-
-Assim tive de resolver detalhes de distribuição. Naturalmente, pus uma cópia
-em um diretório de FTP anônimo, o que era bom para as pessoas conectadas na
-rede; eles podiam puxar o arquivo tar, mas muitos programadores estavam fora
-da Internet em 1985. Eles me mandavam emails dizendo "Como consigo uma cópia?"
-Eu tinha de decidir o que responder para eles. Eu poderia ter dito, quero
-gastar meu tempo escrevendo mais software GNU, não gravando fitas, assim por
-favor ache um amigo conectado na Internet e que queira baixá-lo e ponha-o em
-uma fita para você. E tenho certeza de que as pessoas teriam encontrado
-amigos, mais cedo ou mais tarde, não é? Eles teriam conseguido as cópias. Mas
-eu estava desempregado. De fato, estava desempregado desde que saíra do MIT em
-janeiro de 1984. Estava procurando um meio de ganhar dinheiro pelo meu
-trabalho no software livre, e assim iniciei um negócio de software livre. Eu
-anunciava "me manda 150 dólares que eu lhe mando uma fita do Emacs". E os
-pedidos começaram a pingar. Lá pelo meio do ano eles já estavam gotejando.
-
-Eu recebia de 8 a 10 pedidos por mês. E, se necessário, poderia ter vivido só
-com aquilo, porque sempre vivi uma vida modesta; eu vivo como um estudante,
-basicamente. E gosto disso, porque isso significa que o dinheiro não dita o
-que devo fazer. Eu posso fazer aquilo que julgo importante para mim. Isso me
-libera para fazer o que parece valer a pena. Por isso, façam um esforço real
-para evitar serem sugados para dentro de todos esses hábitos de vida
-dispendiosos do americano típico. Pois se fizerem isso, as pessoas com
-dinheiro vão ditar o que você deve fazer com sua vida. Você não vai conseguir
-fazer o que é realmente importante para você.
-
-Assim, ia tudo bem, mas as pessoas me perguntavam "Como você diz que seu
-software é livre se custa 150 dólares?" [Risos] Bem, o motivo da pergunta era
-que eles se confundiam com os múltiplos significados da palavra "free" do
-inglês. Um dos significados se refere a preço, e o outro se refere a
-liberdade. Quando falo software livre, estou me referindo a liberdade não a
-a preço. Assim pensem em imprensa livre, não boca livre. [Risos] Ora, não
-teria dedicado tantos anos de minha vida para fazer os programadores ganhar
-menos. Não é meu objetivo. Eu sou programador e não me importo de receber
-dinheiro. Eu só não vou dedicar minha vida a obtê-lo, mas não me importo em
-receber. E não sou contra -- e portanto, a ética é mesma para todos -- não sou
-contra outros programadores receber dinheiro. Não quero que os preços sejam
-baixos. Não é essa absolutamente a questão. A questão é liberdade. Liberdade
-para todos que usam software, quer a pessoa seja um programador ou não.
-
-Pois agora vou dar a definição de software livre. É melhor descer aos
-detalhes, entendem? Pois dizer "eu acredito na liberdade" é vago. Há tantos
-tipos de liberdade em que posso acreditar, e elas são conflitantes entre si,
-de modo que a questão realmente política é "Quais são as liberdades
-importantes, as liberdades que devemos garantir que as pessoas tenham?" E
-agora vou dar minha resposta a essa questão para a área específica do uso de
-software.
-
-Um programa é livre software livre para você, usuário, se você tem as
-seguintes liberdades: primeiro, liberdade zero é a liberdade de rodar um
-programa para qualquer propósito, do jeito que quiser. Liberdade um é a
-liberdade ajudar a si próprio alterando o programa para atender suas
-necessidades. Liberdade dois é a liberdade de ajudar os outros distribuindo
-cópias do programa. E a liberdade três é a liberdade de ajudar a edificar sua
-comunidade publicando versões melhoradas para que outros possam se beneficiar
-de seu trabalho. Se você tem todas essas liberdades, o programa é livre, para
-você -- isso é crucial, é por isso que uso essa forma de falar. Vou explicar
-por que daqui a pouco, ao falar da Licença Pública Geral GNU, mas agora vou
-explicar o que significa software livre, que é uma questão mais básica.
-
-A liberdade zero é muito óbvia. Se a você não é permitido nem rodar o programa
-do jeito que quiser, é um programa pra lá de restritivo. Mas normalmente, a
-maioria dos programas lhe dão pelo menos a liberdade zero. A liberdade zero
-segue, legalmente, como conseqüência da liberdade um, dois e três -- que é
-como funciona a lei de direitos de cópia. Assim as liberdades que distinguem
-software livre do software típico são as liberdades um, dois e três, por isso
-vou falar mais sobre elas porque são mais importantes. A liberdade um é a
-liberdade de resolver seus problemas através de modificações no sofware que
-atendam suas necessidades. Isso pode significar consertar bugs. Pode significar
-acrescentar novos recursos. Pode significar portá-lo para um computador
-diferente. Pode significar traduzir todas as mensagens de erro para
-uma língua indígena. Qualquer mudança que queira fazer, você deve ter
-a liberdade para fazê-lo.
-
-Agora, é obvio que programadores profissionais podem fazer uso dessa liberdade
-com muita eficácia, mas não somente eles. Qualquer um com inteligência
-razoável pode aprender a programar. Vocês sabem, há tarefas difíceis e tarefas
-leves, mas muitas pessoas não vão aprender o bastante para fazer o trabalho
-difícil. Mas muitas pessoas podem aprender o suficiente para fazer tarefas
-leves, do mesmo modo, como há 50 anos atrás, muitos americanos sabiam reparar
-carros, o que permitiu aos EUA ter um exército motorizado na Segunda Guerra e
-vencer. Assim, é muito importante, ter muitas pessoas fuçando. E se você gosta
-de trabalhar com pessoas, não vai querer aprender tecnologia de modo nenhum --
-isso provavelmente significa que você tem muitos amigos, e é bom em fazê-los
-lhe dever favores. [Risos] Alguns deles provavelmente são programadores. Assim
-você pode pedir a um de seus amigos programadores "Você pode por favor alterar
-isso para mim? Acrescentar esse recurso?" Assim, muitas pessoas podem ser
-beneficiar.
-
-Agora, se não houver essa liberdade, isso causa prejuízos práticos e materiais
-para a sociedade. Isso faz de vocês prisioneiros de seu software. Eu expliquei
-que como era no caso da impressora a laser. Ela trabalhava muito mal para nós e
-não podíamos consertá-la porque éramos prisioneiros de nosso software. Mas
-isso também afeta o ânimo das pessoas. Vocês sabem que se usar o computador
-for uma frustração constante, para as pessoas usam, suas vidas se tornam
-frustrantes, e se eles usam em seu trabalho, seu trabalho se torna frustrante
-também; eles vão odiar o trabalho. E vocês sabem, as pessoas se protegem das
-frustrações decidindo não estar nem aí. Daí você acaba com pessoas cuja
-atitude é "Bem, apareci para trabalhar hoje. E é só o que tenho de
-fazer. Não consigo fazer progressos, mas isso não é problema meu, é do
-chefe." E quando isso acontece é ruim para essas pessoas, é ruim para a
-sociedade como um todo. Esta é a liberdade um, a liberdade de resolver seus
-problemas você mesmo.
-
-A liberdade dois é a liberdade de ajudar os outros, ao distribuir cópias do
-programa. Para seres que podem pensar e aprender, compartilhar conhecimento
-útil é um ato fundamental de amizade. Quando esses seres usam computadores,
-este ato de amizade toma forma de compartilhamento. Amigos compartilham uns
-com os outros. E, de fato, este espírito de boa vontade -- o espírito de
-ajudar seu próximo, voluntariamente -- é o recurso mais importante da
-sociedade. Ele faz a diferença entre uma sociedade em que se pode conviver e
um selva em
-que um devora o outro. Sua importância tem sido reconhecida pelas religiões
-mais importantes do mundo por milhares de anos, e elas procuram incentivar
-explicitamente esta atitude.
-
-Quando ia para o jardim-de-infância, os professores tentavam nos ensinar essa
-atitude -- o espírito da partilha -- obrigando-nos a fazê-lo. Achavam que se o
-fizéssemos, aprenderíamos. Eles diziam "Se você trouxer um chocolate para a
-escola, não fique com ele, compartilhe com outras crianças". Ensinando-nos -- a
-sociedade foi formada para ensinar o espírito de cooperação. E porque ensinar
-desse modo? Porque as pessoas não são totalmente cooperativas. Não é parte da
-natureza humana, e há outras partes da natureza humana. Assim, se quiser uma
-sociedade melhor, você deve trabalhar para incentivar o espírito de
-cooperação. Bem, nunca vai chagar a 100%. Mas isso é compreensível. As pessoas
-também se preocupam consigo. Mas,quanto mais conseguirmos, melhor será para
-todos.
-
-Hoje em dia, de acordo com o Governo dos EUA, os professores devem fazer
-exatamente o contrário. Joãozinho, você trouxe software para a escola. Olha,
-não mostre pra ninguém. Não, não. Compartilhar é errado. Compartilhar
-significa que você é pirata. O que eles querem dizer quando falam "pirata"?
-Eles querem dizer que ajudar os outros é o equivalente moral de um ataque a um
-navio. [Risos] O que Buda e Jesus diriam sobre isso? Escolham seu líder
-religioso favorito. Eu não sei -- talvez Manson tivesse dito algo diferente
-[Risos] Quem sabe o que L. Ron Hubbard diria. Mas, ...
-
-PERGUNTA: [Inaudível]
-
-STALLMAN: naturalmente, ele morreu. Mas eles não admitem. O que?
-
-PERGUNTA: Os outros também, estão mortos. [Risos] [Inaudível] Charles
-Manson também morreu. [Risos] Eles todos morreram, Jesus morreu, Buda
-morreu...
-
-STALLMAN: É, é verdade. [Risos] Eu acredito, nesse aspecto, que L. Ron Hubbard
-não é pior que os outros. [Risos] Então -- [Inaudível]
-
-PERGUNTA: L. Ron usava software livre -- ele ficou livre de Zanu.
-
-[Risos]
-
-STALLMAN: Então -- bem esta é de qualquer forma a razão mais importante de por
-que software deve ser livre. Não podemos deixar que seja poluído o recurso
-mais importante da sociedade. Com certeza não é um recurso físico como ar
-puro e água potável. É um recurso psico-social, mas é tão real quanto, e faz
-uma diferença tremenda em nossas vidas. Vejam, as ações que fazemos
-influenciam os pensamentos das outras pessoas. Quando saímos por aí dizendo
-para as pessoas "não compartilhe com os outros" -- se eles nos ouvirem --
-teremos um efeito na sociedade que não será bom. Essa é a liberdade dois. A
-liberdade de ajudar os outros.
-
-E, a propósito, se você não tiver essa liberdade -- não só prejudica os
-recursos psico-sociais da sociedade -- mas também provoca desperdício --
-prejuízos práticos e materiais. Se o programa tem um dono, e o dono arranja um
-estado de coisas em que cada usuário tem de pagar para poder usá-lo, alguns
-vão dizer "Tudo bem, fico sem ele". E isso é perda, perda deliberadamente
-infringida. E o interessante em software, naturalmente, é que menos
-usuários não significa que você tem de produzir menos. Se poucas pessoas
-compram carros, você pode fabricar menos carros. Aí você economiza. Há
-recursos a serem alocados, ou não alocados, ao fabricar carros. Assim você
-pode dizer que pôr preço num carro é bom. Ele impede que as pessoas
-desperdicem recursos para fabricar carros que não serão realmente necessários.
-Mas, se produzir cada carro adicional, não empregar mais recursos,
-restringir a fabricação de carros não fará nenhum bem. Bem, para objetos
-físicos, obviamente, como carros, sempre vai se usar recursos para fabricar
-cada um deles. Cada exemplar adicional.
-
-Mas para software isso não vale. Qualquer um pode fazer mais um cópia. E é
-quase trivial fazê-lo. Isso não gasta recursos, com exceção de muito pouca
-energia elétrica. Assim não há nada para que se possa economizar; nenhum
-recurso que precisemos alocar melhor que justifique colocar um desincentivo
-financeiro no uso do software. Você sempre encontra pessoas pegando -- as
-conseqüências dos princípios econômicos, baseados nas premissas que não se
-aplicam a software e tentando transplantar de outras área da vida em que essas
-premissas podem se aplicar e que as conclusões podem ser válidas. Eles só pegam
-as conclusões e assumem que sejam válidas para software também -- quando o
-argumento é baseado em nada no caso do software. As premissas não funcionam
-nesse caso. É muito importante examinar como você chega a essa conclusão, e
-de que premissas ela depende, para ver onde ela possa ser válida. Assim,
-essas é a liberdade dois, a liberdade de ajudar os outros.
-
-A liberdade três é a liberdade de contribuir para sua comunidade ao publicar
-uma versão melhor do software. As pessoas costumam me dizer, se o
-software for livre, ninguém receberá para trabalhar nele, porque alguém iria
-querer trabalhar com ele? Bem, naturalmente, elas estão confundindo os dois
-significados de livre, assim seu raciocínio é baseado num mal-entendido. Mas,
-de qualquer modo, essa é a teoria delas. Hoje, podemos comparar a teoria
-delas com fatos empíricos, e descobrir que centenas de pessoas são pagas para
-escrever software livre e mais de 100.000 estão trabalhando como voluntários.
-Temos muitas pessoas trabalhando com software livre por vários motivos
-diferentes.
-
-Quando lancei o GNU Emacs -- a primeira peça do sistema GNU que as pessoas
-realmente queriam usar -- e quando comecei a ter usuários, depois de um tempo,
-alguém mandou uma mensagem dizendo "Acho que vi um bug no código fonte, e aqui
-está o conserto". E recebi outra mensagem "Isto é código para adicionar um
-novo recurso". E mais outro reparo de bug. E mais um novo recurso. E mais
-outro, e outro e outro -- até que estavam vindo tão rápido que fazer uso de
-todo esse apoio que estava recebendo se tornou uma grande tarefa. A Microsoft
-não tem esse problema. [Risos]
-
-Por fim, as pessoas notaram este fenômeno. Vejam, nos anos 80, muitos de nós
-pensavam que software livre talvez não viesse a ser tão bom quando
-software proprietário, porque não teríamos muito dinheiro para pagar às
-pessoas. E, naturalmente, pessoas como eu que valorizam a liberdade e a
-comunidade disseram "É, vamos conseguir usar software livre afinal". Vale a
-pena fazer um pouco de sacrifício em algumas meras comodidades técnicas para
-ter liberdade. Mas o que as pessoas começaram a notar, por volta dos anos 90
-era que nosso software era mesmo melhor. Era mais poderoso, e mais confiável
-que as alternativas proprietárias.
-
-No começo dos anos 90, alguém descobriu um meio de fazer uma medida científica
-da confiabilidade do software. Ele fez o seguinte. Ele pegou vários grupos
-de programas comparáveis que faziam as mesmas tarefas -- exatamente as mesmas
-tarefas -- em sistemas diferentes. Pois havia certos utilitários básicos
-à là UNIX. E as tarefas que realizavam, sabemos, eram todas, mais ou
-menos, imitando a mesma coisa, ou seguiam as especificações POSIX, assim elas
-eram todas iguais em termos das tarefas que cumpriam -- mas eram mantidas por
-pessoas diferentes, escritas separadamente. O código era diferente. Assim ele
-dizia, OK, vamos pegar esses programas e rodar com dados aleatórios, e
-medimos quão freqüentemente eles travam ou dão pau. Assim eles mediram e o
-conjunto de programas mais confiável foi os programas GNU. Todas as
-alternativas comerciais proprietários eram menos confiáveis. Então
-publicamos isso e contamos a todos os desenvolvedores, e alguns anos mais
-tarde, ele fez a mesma experiência com versões mais novas e conseguiu o mesmo
-resultado. As versões GNU eram mais confiáveis. Gente -- vocês sabem que há
-clínicas de tratamento de câncer nas operações 911 [NT.: operações de resgate e
-polícia] que usam sistema GNU, porque são muito confiáveis, e confiabilidade é
-muito importante para eles.
-
-De qualquer modo, há ainda um grupo de pessoas que focam nesse benefício
-particular como como justificativa -- como justificativa -- dada para por que
-ao usuário deveria ser permitido fazer todas essas coisas, e ter toda essa
-liberdade. Se vocês estão me acompanhado, notaram que-- vocês viram que eu --
-falando do movimento de software livre -- falo de questões éticas, e em que
-tipo de sociedade queremos viver; o que contribui para uma boa sociedade --
-bem como benefícios materiais práticos. Eles são ambos importantes. Isso é o
-movimento do software livre.
-
-O outro grupo de pessoas -- chamados de movimento de "código aberto" -- eles
-só citam os benefícios práticos. Eles negam que isso seja uma questão de
-princípios. Eles negam que as pessoas têm direito à liberdade de compartilhar
-com os outros, de verem o que o programa faz e alterá-lo se não gostar dele.
-Eles dizem, no entanto, que é útil permitir que as pessoas façam isso. Eles
-vão às empresas e dizem "Olha, você poderia ganhar mais dinheiro se deixasse
-as pessoas fazerem isso". Assim, o que você vê é que até certo ponto, eles
-levam as pessoas a uma direção similar, mas por razões totalmente --
-razões filosóficas fundamentalmente diferentes. Pois na questão mais profunda
-de todas, nas questões éticas, os dois movimentos discordam entre si. No
-movimento de software livre dizemos "Você tem direito a estas liberdades. As
-pessoas não deveriam impedi-lo de fazer estas coisas". No movimento de
-"código aberto" eles dizem "Eles pode podem impedi-lo sim, mas
-tentaremos convencê-los a deixar você fazer essas coisas". Bem, eles
-contribuíram -- eles convenceram um certo número de empresas a lançar software
-substancial como software livre em nossa comunidade. E trabalhamos juntos em
-projetos práticos. Mas, filosoficamente, há um desacordo tremendo.
-
-Infelizmente, o movimento de código aberto é um dos que mais tem suporte das
-empresas, e assim a maioria dos artigos sobre nosso trabalho o descrevem como
-código aberto, e muitas pessoas inocentemente pensam que somos todos parte do
-movimento de código aberto. É por isso que estou mencionando esta distinção.
-Quero que vocês estejam cientes de que o movimento do software livre, que
-trouxe nossa comunidade à existência e desenvolveu sistemas operacionais
-livres, ainda está aqui -- e que ainda pregamos esta filosofia ética. Quero que
-vocês saibam disso, de modo que não confundam as pessoas sem saber.
-
-Mas também, para que vocês possam pensar sobre a posição vão tomar. O que
-prega o movimento que vocês apóiam. Vocês podem concordar com os
-movimentos de software livre e meus pontos de vista. Vocês podem concordar com
-o movimento de código aberto. Você pode discordar de ambos. Vocês decidem em
-que posição ficar quanto a estas questões políticas. Mas se concordarem com o
-movimento de software livre -- se virem que há alguma idéia aqui tal que as
-pessoas cujas vidas são controladas e dirigidas por esta decisão mereçam ser
-ouvidas -- então espero que digam que vocês concordam com o movimento de
-software livre e uma forma como vocês podem fazer isso é usando o termo
-software livre e assim ajudar as pessoas a saberem que existimos.
-
-Assim, a liberdade três é muito importante tanto prática quanto
-psico-socialmente. Se você não tem esta liberdade, isso vai causar danos
-práticos e materiais, porque o desenvolvimento dessa comunidade não vai
-acontecer e não teremos software poderoso e confiável. Mas também provoca
-danos psico-sociais que afetam o espírito da cooperação científica -- a idéia
-de que estamos trabalhando juntos para avançar o conhecimento humano. Como
-vêem, o progresso da ciência depende crucialmente de pessoas que sejam
-capazes de trabalhar em conjunto. E hoje em dia porém, você sempre acha um
-pequeno grupo de cientistas agindo como se estivessem em guerra com outra
-gangue de cientistas e engenheiros. E se não trocarem informações, eles todos
-perderão.
-
-Assim, estas são as três liberdades que distinguem software livre do software
-típico. A liberdade um é a liberdade de resolver seus problemas você mesmo --
-fazendo mudanças para atender suas próprias necessidades. A liberdade dois é a
-liberdade de ajudar os outros distribuindo cópias. E a liberdade três é a
-liberdade de ajudar a construir uma comunidade ao fazer mudanças e publicá-las
-para que as outras pessoas a usem. Se você tem todos estas liberdades, o
-programa é software livre para você. Agora, porque defino dessa forma em termos
-de um usuário particular? O software é livre para você, o software é livre
-para você, o software é livre para você? Sim?
-
-PERGUNTA: Você pode explicar um pouco a diferença entre a liberdade dois e a
-liberdade três? [inaudível]
-
-STALLMAN: Bem, elas certamente se relacionam, pois se você não tem liberdade
-nenhuma para redistribuir, você certamente não tem liberdade para distribuir
-uma versão modificada, mas elas são atividades diferentes.
-
-QUESTION: Ah.
-
-STALLMAN: A liberdade dois é, como vocês sabem, ler -- você faz uma cópia
-exata e passar para seus amigos, para que eles possam usá-lo. Ou talvez você
-faça cópias exatas e as venda para um monte de gente para que possam usar. A
-liberdade três é quando você faz aperfeiçoamentos -- ou pelos menos você acha
-que são aperfeiçoamentos, e algumas outras pessoas podem achar que são também.
-Assim essa é a diferença. Ah, e a propósito, um ponto crucial. As liberdades
-um e três dependem de você ter acesso ao código-fonte. Pois modificar uma
-programa binário é extremamente difícil [Risos] Mesmo mudanças triviais como
-usar quatro dígitos para a data. [Risos]... se você não tem os fontes. Assim,
-por razões imperativas e práticas o acesso ao código-fonte é uma pré-condição,
-um requisito do software livre.
-
-Então, por que eu defini em termos de software livre ou não para *você*? A
-razão é que algumas vezes o mesmo programa pode ser software livre para alguns
-e pode não ser para outros. Ora, isso pode parecer uma situação paradoxal,
-deixe-me dar um exemplo para mostrar como isso acontece. Um grande exemplo
--- talvez o maior problema de todos seja o do sistema de janelas X que foi
-desenvolvido no MIT e lançado sob uma licença que fazia dele software livre.
-Se você conseguisse a versão do MIT com a licença do MIT, você tinha
-liberdades um, dois e três. Era software livre para você. Mas entre os que
-obtiveram cópias, estavam vários fabricantes de computador que distribuíam
-sistemas UNIX e eles fizeram todas as mudanças necessárias no X para rodar em
-seus sistemas. Você sabe, provavelmente alguns milhares de linhas dentro de
-centenas de milhares de linhas do X. E, ao compilarem, eles puseram os
-binários no sistema UNIX deles e distribuíram sob o mesmo acordo de
-confidencialidade do resto do sistema UNIX. E então, milhões de pessoas
-obtiveram essas cópias. Eles tinham o sistema de janelas X, mas não tinham
-essas liberdades. Não era software livre para eles.
-
-Assim, o paradoxo era que o X era software livre dependendo de onde você feito
-a observação. Se observassem num grupo de desenvolvedores, vocês diriam "Eu
-observo todas as três liberdades aqui. O software é livre." Se fizessem
-suas observações entre os usuários vocês diriam "Hmm, muitos usuários não têm
-estas liberdades. Não é software livre". Bem, as pessoas que desenvolviam X não
-consideravam isso um problema, pois seu objetivo era popularidade -- ego,
-essencialmente. Eles queriam um grande sucesso profissional. Eles queriam
-sentir "ah, muitas pessoas estão usando nosso software". E foi assim que
-aconteceu. Muitas pessoas estavam usando o software deles, mas não tinham
-liberdade.
-
-Bem, no projeto GNU, se a mesma coisa tivesse acontecido como o software GNU,
-ele teria sido um fracasso, pois nosso objetivo não era sermos populares;
-nosso objetivo era dar liberdade às pessoas e incentivar a cooperação, permitir
-que as pessoas cooperassem. Lembre-se, nunca force ninguém a cooperar com
-qualquer outra pessoa, mas garanta que a todos seja permitido cooperar; todo
-mundo tem a liberedade de agir assim ou não, se quiser. Se milhões de pessoas
-estivessem rodando versões não livres do GNU, não teria sido um sucesso de
-jeito nenhum; e a coisa toda teria se desviado de seus objetivos.
-
-Então procurei uma maneira de impedir que isso acontecesse. O método que criei
-é chamado de "copyleft" [N.T.: uma possível brincadeira com esse nome em
-português seria "esquerdo de cópia"]. É chamado copyleft porque é como
-copyright [N.T.: direito de cópia] só que virado de cabeça para baixo. [Risos]
-Legalmente, copyleft é baseado no direito de cópia. Usamos a lei existente de
-direito de cópia, mas a usamos para atingir um objetivo muito diferente. Isso
-é que fazemos. Dizemos "Este programa tem direitos de cópia". E, naturalmente,
-por default, significa que é proibido copiá-lo, ou distribuí-lo ou
-modificá-lo. Mas então dizemos, "Você está autorizado a distribuir cópias
-dele. Você está autorizado a modificá-lo. Você está autorizado a distribuir
-versões modificadas e estendidas. Mude do modo que quiser."
-
-Mas há uma condição. E a condição, naturalmente -- é a razão pela qual nos
-demos a todo esse trabalho -- para que pudéssemos colocar essa condição. A
-condição diz -- sempre que distribuir algo que contenha qualquer parte dese
-programa, o programa todo deve ser distribuído sob estes mesmos termos -- não
-mais não menos. Assim, você pode mudar o programa e distribuir a versão
-modificada. Mas se o fizer, as pessoas que o obtiverem de você devem ter a
-mesma liberdade que você recebeu de nós. E não só para partes dele -- as parte
-que você copiou do nosso programa -- mas também para as outras partes daquele
-programa que eles obtiveram de você. O programa como um todo deve ser software
-livre para eles.
-
-As liberdades de modificar e redistribuir este programa se tornam direitos
-inalienáveis -- um conceito de nossa Declaração de Independência. Direitos que
-damos garantia de não ser tirados de você. E, naturalmente, a licença
-específica que incorpora a idéia do copyleft é a Licença Geral Pública GNU
-[GNU General Public License, ou GNU GPL]. Uma licença controversa -- porque
-na realidade tem força para dizer não às pessoas que pudessem virar parasitas
-em nossa comunidade.
-
-Há muitas pessoas que não apreciam os ideais da liberdade. E adorariam tomar o
-trabalho que fizemos e usá-lo para conseguir uma vantagem ao distribuir
-programas proprietários e tentando as pessoas a desistir de sua liberdade. E o
-resultado seria -- vocês sabem, se deixarmos as pessoas fazerem isso --
-estaríamos desenvolvendo esses programas livres, e teríamos de competir
-constantemente com versões modificadas de nossos próprios programas. Isso
-não é bom. E muita gente também pensa -- eu quero dar meu tempo
-voluntariamente para contribuir com a comunidade, mas por que deveria
-contribuir voluntariamente para aquela empresa -- para melhorar o programa
-proprietário daquela empresa? Você sabe, algumas pessoas podem nem mesmo achar
-que isso seja ruim - mas elas querem ser pagas se for para fazer isso. Eu,
-pessoalmente, não o faria, mesmo. Mas, estes dois grupos de pessoas -- ambos
-como eu que diriam -- não quero ajudar aquele programa não livre a fincar o pé
-em nossa comunidade -- e os que dizem, claro, eu trabalharia para eles, mas
-então me pagem -- ambos têm uma boa razão para usar GNU GPL. Porque isso diz à
-empresa -- você não pode tomar assim meu trabalho e distribuí-lo sem a
-liberdade. Ao passo que licenças não copyleft -- com a licença do X Window,
-permitem isso.
-
-Isto, portanto é a grande diferença entre as duas categorias de
-software livre -- do ponto de vista das licenças. Há programas com copyleft
--- de modo que a licença defenda a liberdade do software para todos os
-usuários. E há programas sem copyleft, para os quais se permite versões não
-livres. Você pode obter o programa numa versão não livre. E este problema
-existe até hoje. Ainda há versões não livres do X Windows sendo usadas em
-nossos sistemas operacionais não livres. Há inclusive hardware -- que não é
-suportado -- exceto por uma versão não livre do X Windows. E isso é um grande
-problema em nossa comunidade. Por outro lado, eu não diria que o X Windows é
-algo ruim -- sabe, eu só diria que os desenvolvedores não fizeram o que
-de melhor poderia ter sido feito. Mas eles *de fato* lançaram muito software
-que todos nós poderíamos usar.
-
-Vocês sabem, há uma grande diferença entre menos que perfeito, e ruim. Há
-muitos graus entre bom e ruim. Temos de resistir à tentação de dizer -- se você
-não conseguir fazer o melhor absoluto possível você não é bom. As pessoas que
-desenvolveram o X Windows deram uma grande contribuição a nossa comunidade.
-Mas, há algo melhor que poderiam ter feito. Eles poderiam ter feito copylefts
-de partes do programa e impedido versões que negam a liberdade de serem
-distribuídas por outros. Ora, o fato de que a GNU GPL defende sua liberdade --
-usa a lei de copyright para defender sua liberdade -- é, naturalmente, a razão
-pela qual a Microsoft a está atacando hoje. Vejam, a Microsoft realmente
-adoraria poder pegar todos os códigos que escrevemos e pô-los em programas
-proprietários. Pedir para que alguém fizesse alguns aperfeiçoamentos. Ou talvez
-só algumas mudanças incompatíveis é tudo o que precisassem. [Risos]
-
-Mas, com a influência de marketing da Microsoft, eles não precisam
-aperfeiçoá-lo para ter uma versão que suplante a nossa. Eles só têm de fazê-la
-diferente e incompatível. E então, colocá-la no desktop de todo o mundo. Assim,
-eles não gostam mesmo da GNU GPL. Pois a GNU GPL não os deixa fazê-lo. Não
-permite adotar e estender [N.T.: embrace and extend]. Ela [a GPL] diz [à
-Microsoft], se você quiser usar nosso código em seus programas, você pode. Mas,
-você vai ter de compartilhar e compartilhar da mesma forma. As mudanças que
-fizer teremos permissão de usar. Assim, é uma cooperação de mão dupla, que é a
-cooperação real.
-
-Muitas empresas -- mesmo grandes empresas como IBM e HP querem usar nosso
-software nesta base [GPL].A IBM e a HP contribuem com aperfeiçoamentos
-substanciais ao software GNU. E desenvolvem outros software livres. Mas a
-Microsoft não quer fazer isso, assim eles passam a idéia de que as empresas
-não podem lidar com a GPL. Bem, se [o que chamamos de] empresas não incluir
-IBM, HP e Sun então talvez eles estejam certos. [Risos]
-
-Mais sobre isso adiante. Eu preciso terminar a história. Como vêem, começamos
-em 1984 -- não só para escrever software livre -- mas também para fazer algo
-muito mais coerente: desenvolver um sistema operacional que fosse inteiramente
-software livre. Assim, isso significava que tínhamos que escrever parte por
-parte. E naturalmente, estávamos a procura de meios mais rápidos. O trabalho
-era tão grande que as pessoas diziam que não conseguiríamos terminar nunca. E,
-eu achava que havia pelo menos uma chance de terminá-lo, mas obviamente, valia
-a pena queimar etapas. Assim ficamos procurando -- há algum programa que alguém
-escreveu que poderíamos conseguir adaptar, para acoplar aqui de modo que não
-precisássemos escrever do zero? Por exemplo, o sistema X Window -- é verdade
-que não tinha copyleft, mas era software livre -- assim podíamos usar.
-
-Bem, eu queria colocar um sistema de janelas no GNU desde o primeiro dia. Eu
-escrevi uma série de sistemas de janelas no MIT antes de começar o GNU. E
-apesar do Unix não ter um sistema de janelas em 1984, eu decidi que o
-GNU deveria ter. Mas, acabamos não escrevendo o Sistema de Janelas GNU, porque
-o X apareceu. Daí eu disse, beleza! Um grande trabalho que não temos de fazer.
-Usaremos o X. Então falei, vamos pegar X e colocá-lo no sistema GNU. Então
-faremos as outras partes do GNU, você sabe, trabalhar com o X, quando
-apropriado. E o encontramos outros programas que tinham sido escritos por
-outras pessoas, tal como o formatador de texto TeX. Alguns códigos de
-bibliotecas da Berkeley. E naquela época tinha o Berkeley Unix -- mas não era
-software livre. O código de biblioteca, inicialmente, era de um grupo
-diferente na Berkeley, que fazia pesquisas sobre ponto flutuante. E assim
-continuamos -- encaixamos estas peças.
-
-Em outrubro de 1985, fundamos a Fundação do Software Livre [N.T.: Free Software
-Foundation, ou FSF]. Notem que o projeto GNU veio primeiro. A Fundação do
-Software Livre veio depois. Depois de quase dois anos do anúncio do projeto. E
-a Fundação de Software Livre é uma entidade isenta de impostos, sem fins
-lucrativos, que levanta fundos para promover a liberdade de compartilhar e
-modificar software. E nos anos 80, uma das coisa principais que fizemos com
-nosso fundo foi contratar pessoas para escrever partes do GNU. E, programas
-essenciais, tais como o Shell e as bibliotecas C foram escritos dessa forma,
-bem como outras parte de outros programas. O programa tar, que é absolutamente
-essencial -- apesar de nenhum pouco empolgante [Risos] foi escrito dessa
-forma. Eu acredito que o GNU grep foi escrito dessa forma. E assim, fomos
-chegando perto do objetivo.
-
-Em 1991, havia apenas uma parte importante faltando, e era o kernel. Ora,
-por que tinha deixado o kernel de fora? Provavelmente porque na verdade não
-importa a ordem em que você faz as coisas. Pelo menos, tecnicamente, não.
-Você tem que fazê-las todas até chegar ao fim de qualquer jeito. E,
-parcialmente, porque eu esperava encontrar um kernel já começado em algum
-lugar. E encontramos. Encontramos o Mach, que tinha sido desenvolvido na
-Carnegie Mellon. Não era um kernel completo, era a metade de baixo do kernel.
-Assim, tivemos que escrever a metade de cima, mas tinha de imaginar coisas
-como o sistema de arquivos, o código da rede, etc. Mas o Mach roda
-essencialmente como fazem os programas dos usuários, o que devia fazê-los mais
-fácil de debugar. Você pode debugar com um debugador no nível do código real
-ao mesmo tempo. E assim, pensava eu, desse modo, poderemos ter isto, as partes
-mais altas do kernel, terminadas em pouco tempo. Não funcionou dessa maneira.
-Aqueles processos assíncronos e multifilamentados [multithreaded], enviando
-mensagens uns aos outros, acabaram-se tornando muito difíceis de debugar. E o
-sistema baseado no Mach que usamos para alavancar o desenvolvimento tinha um
-ambiente de debug terrível, não funcionava direito, e vários problemas. Levou
-anos e anos para conseguir que um kernel GNU funcionasse.
-
-Mas, felizmente, nossa comunidade não precisou esperar pelo kernel GNU. Pois
-em 1991, Linus Torvalds desenvolveu um kernel livre chamado Linux. E ele usou
-a antiga tecnologia monolítico e aconteceu que ele conseguiu fazê-lo funcionar
-muito mais rápido que o nosso. Assim talvez esse tenha sido um dos erros que
-cometi: aquela decisão de projeto. De qualquer forma, a princípio, não
-sabíamos sobre Linux, pois ele nunca nos contatou para falar sobre ele. Apesar
-de saber do projeto GNU. Mas ele o anunciou para outras pessoas e para outras
-partes da Internet. E assim, outras pessoas então, fizeram o trabalho de
-combinar Linux com o resto do sistema GNU fazendo um sistema operacional livre
-completo. Essencialmente, fazendo uma combinação GNU mais Linux.
-
-Mas não percebiam que era isso que estavam fazendo. Veja, eles disseram, temos
-um kernel -- vamos dar uma olhada e ver que outras partes podemos juntar ao
-kernel. Assim, procuraram -- e eis que, de repente -- tudo o que precisavam já
-estava disponível. Que sorte, eles disseram. [Risos] Está tudo aí. Podemos
-achar tudo o que precisamos. Vamos pegar todas essas partes diferentes e
-juntá-las e compor um sistema. Eles não sabiam que a maioria das cosias que
-achavam eram partes do sistema GNU. Eles não pensavam que estavam encaixando o
-Linux num espaço vazio do sistema GNU. Eles achavam que estavam construindo um
-sistema em cima do Linux. E daí chamaram o sistema de Linux.
-
-PERGUNTA: [Inaudível]
-
-STALLMAN: Não ouvi -- o quê?
-
-PERGUNTA: [Inaudível]
-
-STALLMAN: Bem, não é só -- você sabe, é provincial.
-
-PERGUNTA: Mas foi sorte maior que achar o X e o Mach?
-
-STALLMAN: Certo. A diferença é que as pessoas que desenvolveram o X e o Mach
-não tinham por objetivo fazer um sistema operacional livre completo. Éramos os
-únicos com essa idéia. E, foi nosso trabalho tremendo que fez o sistema
-existir. Fizemos a maior parte do sistema que qualquer outro projeto. Não é
-coincidência que essas pessoas -- elas escreveram partes úteis do sistema. Mas
-não fizeram isso porque queriam ver o sistema terminado. Elas tinham outras
-razões.
-
-Por exemplo, as pessoas que desenvolveram o X -- achavam que projetar um
-sistema de janelas com suporte a rede seria um bom projeto, e foi. E acabou
-nos ajudando a fazer um sistema operacional bom e livre. Mas isso não era o
-que esperavam. Eles nem pensavam nisso. Foi acidental. Um benefício acidental.
-Agora, eu não estou dizendo que o que eles fizeram foi ruim. Eles fizeram um
-grande projeto livre. Uma coisa boa de se fazer. Mas não tinham uma visão além
-disso. O Projeto GNU é onde estava essa visão.
-
-E assim, éramos os únicos cuja -- cada partezinha não era feita por ninguém,
-nós sim. Porque sabíamos que não teríamos um sistema completo sem isso. E
-até mesmo quando era totalmente entediante e pouco romântico como o tar ou o
-mv. [Risos]. Fazíamos. Ou ld, vocês sabem, não há nada muito empolgande no ld
--- mas eu o escrevi. [Risos] E envidei esforços para que ele usasse uma
-quantidade mínima de I/O [N.T.: tráfego] no disco para que fosse rápido e
-desse conta de programas maiores. Mas, eu gosto fazer um bom trabalho. Eu
-gosto de aperfeiçoar várias coisas nos programas enquanto os escrevo. Mas a
-razão pela qual o fiz, não foi porque eu tinha idéias brilhantes para um ld
-melhor. A razão pela qual o fiz é que precisávamos de um que fosse livre. E
-não podíamos esperar que outros o fizessem. Então, tivemos de fazê-lo, ou
-encontrar alguém que fizesse.
-
-Assim, apesar de nesse ponto, milhares de pessoas em projetos terem
-contribuído para esse sistema [GNU/Linux], havia um projeto que era a razão
-pela qual o sistema existia, e era o Projeto GNU. *É* basicamente o Sistema
-GNU, com outras coisas acrescentadas desde então.
-
-Assim, no entanto, a prática de chamar o sistema de Linux tem sido um grande
-golpe no Projeto GNU, porque nós normalmente não recebemos crédito pelo que
-temos feito. E penso que Linux, o kernel, é uma parte muito útil do software
-livre, e tenho só coisas boas a dizer sobre ele. Mas , bem, na realidade,
-podemos achar algumas coisas ruins para falar dele. [Risos] Mas, basicamente,
-temos duas coisas a dizer sobre ele. No entanto, a prática de chamar o sistema
-GNU de Linux é apenas um engano. Eu pediria que vocês por favor fizessem um
-pequeno esforço necessário para chamá-lo de sistema GNU/Linux, e desse modo,
-ajudar-nos a dividir o crédito.
-
-
-PERGUNTA: Você precisa de um mascote! Arrume um bicho de pelúcia!
-
-[Risos]
-
-STALLMAN: Nós temos.
-
-QUESTION: Ah, têm?
-
-STALLMAN: Temos um bicho -- um gnu. [Risos] Mas então. Bem,
-sim, quando desenhar um pingüim --desenhe um gnu perto dele. [Risos]
-
-Mas, vamos deixar as perguntas para o final. Eu tenho mais para discorrer. Por
-que estou tão preocupado com isso? Sabe, acho que isso incomoda
-vocês, e talvez talvez esteja dando a vocês uma -- talvez inferiorizando sua
-opinião sobre mim [Risos] ao levantar essa questão sobre créditos? Porque,
-vocês sabem, algumas pessoas, quando faço isso, algumas pessoas acham que é
-porque eu quero que meu ego seja alimentado, certo? Naturalmente, eu não estou
-dizendo -- chamando -- eu não estou pedindo que vocês o chamem de "Stallmanix"
--- certo? [Risos e aplausos]
-
-Eu estou pedindo para o que o chamem de GNU, porque quero que o Projeto GNU
-tenha crédito. E há uma razão muito específica para isso, a qual é muito mais
-importante que qualquer pessoa receber crédito. Vejam, nestes dias, se você
-olhar para todos os lados em nossa comunidade, a maior parte das pessoas que
-falam e escrevem sobre isso nem sequer mencionam GNU, e elas nem
-sequer mencionam os objetivos da liberdade -- nem os ideais políticos e
-sociais, tampouco. Pois o lugar de onde eles vêm é do GNU. As idéias associadas
-ao Linux -- a filosofia é muito diferente. É basicamente uma filosofia
-apolítica de Linus Torvalds. Assim, quando as pessoas acham que o sistema todo
-é Linux, elas tendem a pensar: "Ah, tudo deve ter sido iniciado pelo Linus
-Torvalds. Devemos observar sua filosofia cuidadosamente". E quando ouvem sobre
-a filosofia GNU, eles dizem: "Cara, isso é tão idealista, que deve ser
-terrivelmente impraticável. Ah, eu sou usuário de Linux, não de GNU." [Risos]
-
-Que ironia! Ah, se eles soubessem! Se soubessem que o sistema de que gostam --
-ou, em alguns casos, adoram ou pelo qual são loucos -- é nossa filosofia
-política e idealista posta em prática. Eles nem precisam concordar conosco.
-Mas pelo menos eles vêem razão para levá-la a sério -- pensar sobre ela
-cuidadosamente -- e dar a ela uma chance. Eles veriam como ela se relaciona
-com suas vidas. Se percebessem: "Estou usando um sistema GNU. Veja a
-filososfia GNU. Esta filosofia é a razão do porquê este sistema que eu gosto
-existe de verdade." Eles pelo menos pensariam sobre ela com uma mente muito
-mais aberta. Não significa que todo mundo concordaria. As pessoas pensam
-coisas diferentes. Tudo bem. As pessoas devem ter suas próprias idéias. Mas eu
-quero que esta filosofia colha os benefícios do crédito pelos resultados que
-ela conseguir.
-
-Se olharmos a toda a volta em nossa comunidade, veremos que, em quase
-todos os lugares, as instituições estão chamando o sistema de Linux. E sabem,
-os repórteres, a maioria, o chamam de Linux. Não deveriam, mas chamam. A
-maioria das empresas dizem -- tal pacote, tal sistema. Ah, e a maioria dos
-repórteres, quando escrevem artigos, eles normalmente não vêem como uma
-questão política, ou social. Eles normalmente vêem a coisa puramente como uma
-questão de negócios ou quanto de sucesso vão ter empresas, o que é realmente
-uma questão muito menor para a sociedade. E se vocês olharem para as empresas
-que empacotam o sistema GNU/Linux para as pessoas usarem, bem, todas elas o
-chamam de Linux e *todas* acrescentam software não livre a ele.
-
-Veja, a GNU GPL diz que se você pega código, e código de um programa coberto
-pela GPL, e acrescenta mais código para fazer dele um programa maior, aquele
-programa todo deve ser lançado sob a GPL. Mas vocês podem pôr outros
-programas separados no mesmo disco (de qualquer tipo, disco rígido, ou CD), e
-eles podem ter outras licenças. Considera-se isso mera agregação. E,
-essencialmente, apenas distribuir dois programas para alguém ao mesmo tempo é
-algo de que não temos o que dizer. Mas, de fato, gostaríamos. Algumas vezes,
-gostaria de que fosse verdadeiro para uma empresa que use programa coberto
-pela GPL em um produto, que o produto todo fosse software livre. Não é -- não
-chaga a esse ponto . É o programa como um todo. Se houver dois programas
-separados que se comunicam entre si a distância de um braço -- como ao enviar
-mensagens um ao outro -- então eles são legalmente separados, em geral.
-Assim, essas empresas, ao acrescentar um software não livre ao sistema, dão
-aos usuários, filosófica e politicamente, uma idéia muito ruim. Eles estão
-dizendo aos usuários: "É normal usar software proprietário. Estamos até
-colocando eles junto como bônus.
-
-Se você olhar as revistas, sobre o uso do sistema GNU/Linux, a maioria deles
-tem um título assim "Linux isso ou aquilo". Eles estão chamando o
-sistema de Linux a maior parte do tempo. E estão cheios de anúncios de
-software proprietários os quais podem rodar sobre o sistema GNU/Linux. Mas
-estes anúncios têm uma mensagem comum. Eles dizem: "software proprietário é
-bom para você. É tão bom que você pode até *pagar* para obter." [Risos] E
-eles chamam isso de "pacotes de valor agregado", o que diz muito sobre seus
-valores. Eles estão dizendo "Dê valor à conveniência prática, não à
-liberdade". Não concordo com esse valores e os chamo de "pacotes subtraídos de
-liberdade". [Risos] Pois se você instalou um sistema operacional livre, você
-está no mundo livre. Você desfruta dos benefícios da liberdade, a qual
-trabalhamos tantos anos para dar a você. Estes pacotes dâo a você a
-oportunidade de ficar amarrado por uma corrente.
-
-E se você vai a feiras de negócio -- sobre o uso do -- dedicada ao uso do
-sistema GNU/LINUX. Elas todos se chamam "Feiras do Linux". E ficam cheias de
-estandes exibindo software proprietário, essencialmente pondo um selo de
-aprovação em software proprietário. Assim, para quase todo o lugar que você
-olhe em nossa comunidade -- as instituições estão endossando o software
-proprietário -- negando totalmente a idéia para a qual o GNU foi
-desenvolvido. E o único lugar em que as pessoas provavelmente se deparam com a
-idéia de liberdade é em conexão com GNU, e em conexão com software livre: o
-termo "software livre". Assim, é por isso que eu peço a vocês: por favor
-chamem o sistema de "GNU/Linux". Por favor, conscientizem as pessoas de onde o
-sistema veio e por quê.
-
-Naturalmente, só de usar o nome, não estarão explicando a história
-toda. Vocês podem digitar quatro caracteres adicionais e escrever "GNU/Linux";
-vocês podem pronunciar duas sílabas extras. Mas, GNU/Linux tem menos
-sílabas que Windows 2000. [Risos] Mas, vocês não vão estar dizendo muito, mas
-preparando-os, para que quando ouvirem sobre o GNU, e do que se trata, eles
-vejam como isso tem relação com eles, e suas vidas. E isso, indiretamente, faz
-uma tremenda diferença. Assim, por favor ajudem-nos.
-
-Vocês vão notar que a Microsoft chamou a GPL de "licença de código aberto".
-Eles não querem que as pessoas pensem em termos de liberdade como ponto
-central. Vocês vão ver que eles convidam as pessoas a pensar de forma
-estreira, como consumidores. (E, claro, nem mesmo pensar muito racionalmente
-como consumidores, se forem escolher os produtos Microsoft). Mas eles não
-querem que as pessoas pensem como cidadãos ou estadistas. Isso é hostil para
-eles. Pelo menos é hostil para seu modelo de negócio atual.
-
-Agora, como age o software livre? Bem, eu posso falar como o "software livre"
-ser relaciona com nossa sociedade. Um tópico secundário que pode ser de
-interesse para alguns de vocês é como o software livre se relaciona com os
-negócios. Afinal, a maioria das empresas dos países avançados usam software.
-Só uma pequena fração desenvolve software. E software livre é tremendamente
-vantajoso para qualquer empresa que usa software, pois isso significa que você
-está no controle. Basicamente, software livre significa que os usuários estão
-no controle do que o programa faz. Tanto individualmente, se precisarem,
-quanto coletivamente, quando precisarem. Quem precisar pode exercer
-influência. Se você não precisar você pode usar o que os outros preferem. Mas
-se precisar, você tem vez.
-
-No software proprietário, essencialmente, você não tem vez. Com software
-livre, você pode modificar o que quiser modificar. E não importa que não haja
-programadores na sua empresa; tudo bem. Se você quiser mudar as divisórias de
-sua empresa, você não deve ser capaz de achar um carpinteiro e perguntar,
-quanto você vai cobrar pelo trabalho? E, se você quiser mudar algo no software
-que você usa, sua empresa não precisa ser do ramo de software. É só ir a
-uma empresa de software e dizer: "quanto você quer cobrar para implementar
-essas mudanças? E quando quer que sejam feitas?" E se não fizerem o trabalho,
-você pode pode achar outra pessoa que faça.
-
-Há um mercado livre para suporte. Assim, qualquer empresa que dê importância a
-suporte vai encontrar uma vantagem tremenda no software livre. Com software
-proprietário, o suporte é um monopólio. Porque uma só empresa tem o código, ou
-talvez um pequeno número de empresas que pagaram uma quantidade gigantesca de
-dinheiro para obter o código-fonte, se for um programa de fonte
-compartilhado da Microsoft. Mas, é muito novo. E assim, não há muitas fontes
-de suporte para você. E isso significa que a menos que você seja gigante
-mesmo, eles não vão dar bola para você. Sua empresa não é tão importante para
-que se sintam incomodados se a perderem como cliente, ou o que quer que
-aconteça. Uma vez usando o programa, eles imaginam que você está amarrado ao
-suporte deles, pois migrar para um programa diferente é um trabalho
-gigantesco. Assim você acaba em situações com a de ter que pagar pelo
-privilégio de reportar um bug. [Risos] E depois de pago, eles dizem: "Bem, OK,
-vimos seu registro do bug. Compre o upgrade que sai daqui a alguns meses para
-ver se o consertamos". [Risos] Provedores de suporte de software livre não
-podem se dar bem dessa maneira. Eles têm de agradar os clientes. Claro que não
-dá para obter todo tipo de suporte de graça. Você posta mensagem de seu
-problema na Internet. É bem possível que receba a respota no dia seguinte. Mas
-não é garantido, naturalmente. Se você quiser ter mais garantia, é melhor fazer
-um acordo com uma empresa e pagá-los. E isto é, naturalmente, uma das maneiras
-como funcionam os negócios em software livre.
-
-Outra vantagem do software livre para empresas é a segurança e a privacidade.
-(E isto se aplica a indivíduos também. Mas eu mencionei no contexto das
-empresas). Vejam, quando um programa é proprietário, você nem sequer pode
-saber o que ele realmente faz. Ele pode ter funções, colocadas
-deliberadamente, das quais você não gostaria se soubesse. Por exemplo,
-ele poderia ter uma porta dos fundos, para permitir que o desenvolvedor
-entre em sua máquina. Ele poderia xeretar o que você faz, e enviar a
-informação para ele. Isso não é incomum. Alguns programas da Microsoft faziam
-isso. Mas não é somente a Microsoft. Há outros programas proprietários que
-espreitam os usuários. E, você nem consegue saber se eles fazem isso ou não. E,
-claro, mesmo assumindo que o desenvolvedor seja totalmente honesto, todo
-programador comete erros. Poderia haver bugs que afetam sua segurança, e
-que não é culpa de ninguém. Mas, a questão é: se não for software livre, você
-não vai achá-los, e não poderá consertá-los.
-
-Ninguém tem tempo de ver o código de todos os programas que roda. Vocês não
-vão fazer isso. Mas com o software livre há uma grande comunidade , e há
-pessoas na comunidade que verificam essas coisas. E você tem o benefício da
-verificação deles. Pois, se houver um bug acidental (com certeza há, de tempos
-em tempos, em qualquer programa), eles pode achá-lo e consertá-lo. E as
-pessoas estão muito menos propensas a pôr deliberadamente um cavalo-de-tróia,
-ou uma função de espionagem, se imaginam que podem ser pegos. Os
-desenvolvedores de software proprietário acham que não serão pegos. Eles se
-safam sem serem detectados. Mas o desenvolvedor de software livre têm de
-saber que as pessoas vão ver sua presença. Assim, em nossa comunidade, sabemos
-que não podemos nos dar bem se empurrarmos uma função que os usuários não
-querem goela abaixo. Assim, sabemos que se os usuários não gostarem, ele farão
-uma versão modificada que não tem essa função. E só ai começarão a usar essa
-versão.
-
-De fato, podemos todos pensar bastante; podemos todos imaginar muitos passos
-adiante tal que provavelmente não venhamos a criar tal função. Afinal de
-contas, você está escrevendo um programa livre, você quer que as pessoas
-gostem de sua versão. Você não vai colocar uma coisa que você sabe que muita
-gente vai odiar, e ver uma outra versão modificada ser aceita em vez da sua.
-Assim, percebam que o usuário é rei, no mundo do software livre. No mundo do
-software proprietário, o cliente *não* é rei. Porque você é apenas um cliente,
-você não tem vez no software que você usa.
-
-Neste aspecto, software livre é um novo mecanismo para a democracia operar.
-Professor Lessig, agora em Stanford, observou que código de programação
-funciona como um tipo de lei. Quem se põe a escrever código usado por quase
-todos, para todos os fins e intenções, está escrevendo leis que dirigem a vida
-das pessoas. No software livre, estas leis são escritas de modo democrático.
-Não na forma clássica da democracia; não temos uma grande eleição e dizemos:
-"vamos todos votar para sabermos como deve ser esta função". [Risos] Em vez
-disso dizemos, basicamente, aqueles que quiserem trabalhar na implementação
-deste recurso, estão convidados. E, se você quiser trabalhar na implementação
-da função deste modo, trabalhe. E o resultado acaba aparecendo, sabem? E
-assim, se muitas pessoas o querem assim, assim ele será. Assim,
-portanto, todo mundo contribui para uma decisão social simplesmente dando
-passos na direção que queira ir.
-
-E, você está livre, pessoalmente, para dar tantos passos, quantos queira dar.
-A empresa está livre para dar quantos passos achar útil. E, depois de
-adicionar todas essas coisas, isso diz para que direção vai o software.
-
-E também é muito útil pegar partes de algum programa existente,
-presume-se, normalmente partes grandes, lógico. Para depois escrever uma
-quantidade de linhas de código suas próprias. E fazer um programa que faça
-exatamente o que você precisar, o qual teria custado os dois olhos da cara
-para desenvolver se tivesse que escrevê-lo do zero -- Você não poderia
-canibalizar grandes partes de pacotes de software livre existente.
-
-Outra coisa que resulta do fato de que o usuário é rei, é que tendemos a ser
-muito bons em compatibilidade e padronização. Por quê? Porque os usuários
-gostam disso! Usuários têm a tendência de rejeitar programas com
-incompatibilidades gratuitas. Mas, algumas vezes há certos grupos de usuários
-que na realidade têm necessidade de certos tipos de incompatibilidades. E daí
-eles terão; e tudo bem. Mas, quando os usuários querem seguir um padrão, nós
-desenvolvedores temos de segui-lo. E, sabemos disso. E fazemos assim. Em
-contraste, se você olha para os desenvolvedores de software proprietário, eles
-sempre acham vantajoso *não* seguir padrões deliberadamente. E, não porque
-pensam que estão dando uma vantagem ao usuário, mas sim, porque estão se
-impondo sobre os clientes -- prendendo o usuário. E você vai vê-los fazendo
-mudanças em seus formatos de arquivo de tempos em tempos, apenas para forçar
-as pessoas a obter a nova versão.
-
-Arquivistas estão enfrentando um problema agora, pois arquivos escritos em
-computadores há dez anos muitas vezes não podem ser acessados. Eles foram
-escritos com software proprietário, está essencialmente perdido agora. Se
-fosse escrito com software livre, então poderia ser atualizado e executado. E
-essas coisas não -- esses registros não estariam perdidos, não estariam
-inacessíveis. Eles estavam reclamando sobre isso recentemente na NPR [National
-Public Radio], citando o software livre como solução. E assim, com efeito, ao
-usar programas proprietários para armazenar seus próprios dados, você está
-pondo a corda no pescoço.
-
-Bom, falei como o software livre afeta muitas empresas. Mas, como ele afeta
-estritamente a área particular que é o mercado de software? Bem, a resposta é
-não afeta. A razão é que 90% da indústria de software, (me disseram), é
-desenvolvimento de software sob medida. Software que não se destina a ser
-lançado. Para software sob medida, esta questão, ou a questão ética do livre
-ou proprietário, não aparece. Vejam, a questão é: "Vocês usuários estão livres
-para modificar e redistribuir o software?" Se há apenas um usuário, e o
-usuário é dono dos direitos, não há problema. O usuário *é* livre para fazer
-todas essas coisas. Assim, com efeito, qualquer programa *sob medida*
-desenvolvido por uma empresa para uso interno é software livre, contanto que
-insistam em ter o código fonte, e todos os direitos.
-
-E a questão realmente não faz sentido para software que vai em relógios de
-pulso e fornos de microondas, ou no sistema de ignição do automóvel. Porque
-estes não são lugares para onde você baixa software e instala. Não é um
-computador real, até onde o usuário saiba. E assim, estas questões não vêm à
-tona o bastante para que sejam eticamente importantes. Assim, para a maior
-parte, a indústria de software vai continuar do mesmo jeito que vem fazendo.
-E o interessante é que, como uma grande parte dos empregos estão nessa parte da
-indústria, mesmo que não houvesse possibilidades para as empresas de software
-livre, os desenvolvedores de software livre poderiam todos arranjar empregos
-fixos escrevendo software sob medida. [Risos] Há tantos; a proporção é muito
-grande.
-
-Mas, mesmo assim, há mercado de software livre. Há empresas de software livre.
-E, na coletiva de imprensa que vou dar, pessoas de algumas dessas empresas vão
-estar junto conosco. E, naturalmente, há também empresas que *não* são do
-mercado de software livre, mas desenvolvem partes úteis de software livre
-para lançar. E, o software livre que produzem é substancial.
-
-Agora, como funciona o negócio de software livre? Bem, alguns vendem
-cópias. Vocês sabem, você está livre para copiar, mas eles conseguem mesmo
-assim vender milhares de cópias por mês. E, outros vendem suporte e vários
-tipos de serviços. Eu, pessoalmente, na segunda metade dos anos 80, vendia
-serviços de suporte de software livre. Basicamente eu dizia, por US$200 por
-hora, eu mudo qualquer coisa que você queira no software GNU que escrevi. E,
-claro, era uma taxa salgada, mas se era um programa do qual eu era o autor, as
-pessoas imaginavam que pudesse terminar o trabalho em muito menos horas.
-[Risos] E tirei meu sustento dessa maneira. De fato, ganhava mais que nunca.
-Eu também dava aulas. E continuei assim até 1990, quando ganhei um grande
-prêmio, e não tive mais que fazê-lo.
-
-Mas, 1990 foi quando a primeira empresa de software livre foi criada, a Cygnus
-Support. E o negócio deles era fazer, essencialmente, o mesmo tipo de coisas
-que estava fazendo. Eu certamente poderia ter trabalhado para eles, se
-precisasse fazê-lo. Como não precisava, senti que era bom para o Movimento se
-permanecesse independente do qualquer empresa. Assim, poderia dizer
-coisas boas e ruins sobre várias empresas de software livre e não livre, sem
-conflito de interesses. Senti que poderia servir mais ao Movimento. Mas, se
-tivesse precisado disso para ganhar a vida, claro, teria trabalhado para eles.
-É um negócio ético de se fazer parte. Não haveria razão para me envergonhar de
-trabalhar para eles. E, aquela empresa conseguiu ser rentável em seu primeiro
-ano. Foi formada com muito pouco capital, apenas o dinheiro que seus três
-fundadores tinham. E continuou crescendo a cada ano, e sendo rentável a cada
-ano, até que ficaram gananciosos, e buscaram investidores externos, e então
-confundiram tudo. Foram vários anos de sucesso, antes que ficassem gananciosos.
-
-Assim, isso ilustra uma das coisas mais empolgantes sobre software livre.
-Software livre demonstra que você não precisa levantar capital para
-desenvolver software livre. Quer dizer, é útil; ele *pode* ajudar. Vocês
-sabem, se você levantar capital, você pode contratar pessoas e pedir que
-escrevam um punhado de software. Mas você pode produzir muito com um pequeno
-número de pessoas. E, de fato, a eficiência tremenda do processo de
-desenvolvimento de software livre é uma das razões pelas quais é importante
-que o mundo mude para o software livre. Isso desmente o que a Microsoft diz,
-quando dizem: "GNU GPL é ruim, porque fica mais difícil para eles levantar
-capital para desenvolver software não livre", e pegar nosso software livre e
-pôr nosso código em seus programas que não querem compartilhar conosco.
-Basicamente, não precisamos que levantem capital dessa forma. Faremos o
-trabalho de mesmo modo. *Estamos* fazendo o trabalho.
-
-As pessoas diziam que nunca seríamos capazes de fazer um sistema operacional
-livre completo. Agora fizemos isso e tremendamente mais. E eu diria que
-estamos a uma ordem de grandeza do desenvolvimento toda a necessidade
-mundial de software de uso geral publicado. E isso num mundo em que mais de
-90% dos usuários não usam nosso software ainda! Isto é em um mundo em que...
-apesar de certas áreas de negócio, bem, mais de metade de todos os servidores
-da web no mundo rodam GNU/Linux com servidor web Apache.
-
-PERGUNTA: [Inaudível] ... O que você disse antes do Linux?
-
-STALLMAN: Eu disse GNU/Linux.
-
-QUESTION: Disse?
-
-STALLMAN: Sim, estou falando do kernel, eu chamo de Linux. Vocês sabem, este é
-o seu nome. O kernel foi escrito por Linus Torvalds, e devemos chamá-lo pelo
-nome que ele escolheu, por respeito ao autor.
-
-Pois bem, mas em geral nas empresas, a maioria dos usuários não o estão
-usando. A maioria dos usuários domésticos não o estão usando ainda. Assim,
-quando estiverem, deveremos ter 10 vezes mais voluntários, e 10 vezes mais
-clientes para empresas de software livre que haverá. E assim, isso nos dará
-esta ordem de grandeza. Assim, neste ponto, estou muito confiante de que
-*podemos* fazer o trabalho.
-
-E, é importante, porque a Microsoft nos pede para ficarmos desesperados. Eles
-dizem:
-
-"O único modo de você ter software funcionando; o único modo de você receber
-inovação, é se você nos der poder! Deixe-nos dominar você. Deixe que
-controlemos o que você pode fazer com o software que você está rodando, de
-modo que possamos arrancar muito dinheiro de você e usar só uma parte disso
-para desenvolver software e ficar com o resto como lucro."
-
-Bem, você não deve se sentir tão desesperado. Você não deve se sentir tão
-desesperado ao perder sua liberdade [Ironia]. Isso é muito perigoso.
-
-Outra coisa que a Microsoft (bem, não só a Microsoft) -- as pessoas que não
-dão suporte ao software livre geralmente adotam um sistema de valores para o
-qual a única coisa que importa são os benefícios práticos de curto prazo.
-"Quanto dinheiro vou ganhar este ano? Que trabalho posso fazer hoje?"
-Raciocínio estreito e para o curto prazo. Eles assumem que é ridículo
-imaginar que alguém sequer possa fazer um sacrifício pela causa da liberdade.
-
-No passado, muitas pessoas faziam discursos sobre americanos que fizeram
-sacrifícios pela liberdade de seus compatriotas. Alguns deles fizeram grandes
-sacrifícios. Eles até mesmo sacrificaram suas vidas pelas liberdades que todos
-em nosso país já ouviram, pelo menos. (Pelo menos, em alguns casos; acho que
-temos de ignorar a guerra do Vietnã.)
-
-[Nota do editor: o dia anterior foi "Dia da Memória" nos EUA. O Dia da Memória
-é o dia em que os heróis de guerra são lembrados.]
-
-Mas, infelizmente, para manter nossa liberdade de usar software, não peça
-grandes sacrifícios, pois sacrifícios pequenos, bem pequenos já são
-suficientes. Tal como aprender uma interface de linha de comando se ainda não
-tivermos uma interface gráfica para o programa. Tal como fazer o trabalho
-desta forma, porque ainda não temos um pacote de software livre para fazer de
-outra forma. Tal como pagar a uma empresa para desenvolver um pacote de
-software livre, de modo que possamos tê-lo em alguns anos. Vários sacrifícios
-pequenos que todos podemos fazer. E, no longo prazo, até mesmo *nós* vamos nos
-beneficiar. Vocês sabem, é de fato um investimento mais que um sacrifício!
-Temos de ter uma visão de longo prazo o suficiente para perceber que é bom
-para nós investir em melhorar nossa sociedade, sem contar com os tostões e
-vinténs de quem obtém o benefício desse investimento.
-
-Assim, por hora, termino por aqui.
-
-Eu gostaria de mencionar que há uma nova abordagem para o mercado de software
-livre proposto por Tony Stanco, o qual ele chama de "Desenvolvedores Livres".
-E que envolve uma certa estrutura de negócios que espera com o tempo pagar um
-certa parte dos lucros para todos -- para todos os autores de software livre
-que trabalharem para a empresa. E estão trabalhando agora para obter para mim
-alguns contratos de desenvolvimento de software muito grandes no governo da
-Índia. Pois vão usar software livre desse modo -- com tremenda economia de
-custos desse modo.
-
-E assim, agora gostaria de saber se há dúvidas.
-
-PERGUNTA: [Inaudível]
-
-STALLMAN: Você poderia falar uma pouco mais alto por favor? Não consigo mesmo
-ouvir você.
-
-PERGUNTA: Como uma empresa como a Microsoft poderia incluir um contrato de
-software livre?
-
-STALLMAN: Bem, na realidade, a Microsoft está planejando transformar muito de
-sua atividades em serviços. E, o que estão planejando fazer é algo sujo e
-perigoso, que é amarrar serviços a programas, um com outros, em uma espécie de
-círculo vicioso, sabe? De modo que para usar este serviço, você terá de usar o
-programa da Microsoft, que vai implicar na necessidade de usar este serviço,
-para este programa da Microsoft, assim tudo fica amarrado. Este é o plano
-deles.
-
-Agora, o interessante é que vender estes serviços não levanta questões éticas
-sobre software livre e software proprietário! Pode até ser perfeitamente normal
-para eles fazer existir o mercado para aquelas empresas que vendem serviços
-pela Internet. No entanto, o que a Microsoft está planejando fazer é usá-los
-para prender o usuário ainda mais -- um monopólio ainda maior -- em software e
-serviços. E, isto foi descrito em um artigo, creio, na Business Week,
-recentemente. E, outras pessoas disseram que isso vai transformar a Internet
-em uma Vila Industrial Microsoft.
-
-E isso é relevante, porque, sabem, o tribunal do julgamento do monopólio da
-Microsoft recomendou dividir a empresa, a Microsoft. Mas de certa forma,
-isso não faz sentido; não faria bem nenhum: uma parte operacional, outra de
-aplicações.
-
-Mas, ao ver aquele artigo, agora vejo uma maneira útil e eficiente para
-dividir a Microsoft numa parte de serviços outra de software. E exigir que se
-relacionem uma com a outra à distância de um braço. E que a [divisão] de
-serviços tenha de publicar suas interfaces, de modo qualquer um possa escrever
-um cliente que converse com esses serviços. E, imagino, que eles tenham de
-pagar para acessar o serviço; bem, isso tudo bem. É uma questão totalmente
-diferente.
-
-Se a Microsoft for dividida desse modo [...], "serviços e software", eles não
-poderão usar seu software para esmagar a concorrência com serviços Microsoft.
-E não poderão usar [a divisão de] serviços para esmagar a concorrência com
-software Microsoft. E poderemos fazer software livre, e talvez vocês o usarão
-para conversar com os serviços Microsoft, e não nos importaremos!
-
-Porque, afinal de contas, apesar de a Microsoft ser a empresa de software
-proprietário que tem subjugado a maioria das pessoas, os outros subjugaram
-menos pessoas; não é por falta de tentar [Risos], eles só não conseguiram
-subjugar a mesma quantidade de pessoas. Assim, o problema não é a Microsoft, e
-só a Microsoft. Microsoft é só o maior exemplo do problema que estamos
-tentando resolver, que á o software proprietário tirando a liberdade dos
-usuário de cooperar e formar uma sociedade ética. Assim, não devemos nos focar
-muito na Microsoft. Você sabem, mesmo que eles não me dessem a oportunidade
-desta tribuna, isso não faz deles tão importantes. Eles não são a razão nem o
-fim de tudo.
-
-PERGUNTA: Lá atrás, você estava discutindo as diferenças filosóficas entre
-software de código aberto e software livre. O que você acha da
-tendência das distribuições GNU/Linux à medida que partem para o suporte
-somente para plataformas Intel? E o fato de que parece que cada vez menos
-programadores estão programando corretamente e fazendo software que compile em
-qualquer lugar. E fazendo software que só funciona em sistemas Intel.
-
-STALLMAN: Não vejo problemas éticos aí. Apesar, é verdade, de que alguns
-fabricantes de computador algumas vezes portam o sistema GNU/Linux para ele.
-HP aparentemente fez isso recentemente. E, eles não se dignaram a pagar
-pelo porte do Windows, porque lhes teria custado caro. Mas para ter suporte
-para GNU/Linux foi, penso eu, cinco engenheiros por uns poucos meses. Foi
-facilmente executável.
-
-Agora, naturalmente, eu incentivo as pessoas a usar autoconf, que é um pacote
-GNU que facilita tornar seus programas portáveis. Incentivo a usá-lo. Ou
-quando alguém conserta um bug que não compila naquela versão do sistema, e o
-envia a você, você deve colocá-lo. Mas eu não vejo uma questão ética.
-
-PERGUNTA: Dois comentários. Um é: recentemente, você falou no MIT. Eu li a
-transcrição. E alguns perguntaram sobre patentes, e você disse que "patente é
-uma questão totalmente diferente. Não tenho comentários sobre isso."
-
-STALLMAN: Certo. Eu na realidade tenho muito a dizer sobre patentes, mas leva
-uma hora. [Risos]
-
-PERGUNTA: Queria dizer o seguinte: a mim me parece que há uma questão. Quer
-dizer, há uma razão pela qual as empresas reivindicam patentes e direitos de
-cópia -- tem a ver com propriedade, para tentar entender o conceito. E que é
-usar o poder do Estado para criar um monopólio. E assim, o que é comum nessas
-coisas não é que eles passam por cima dessas questões, mas que a motivação não
-é mesmo uma questão de servir ao público, mas a motivação das empresas de
-fazer um monopólio para seus interesses privados.
-
-STALLMAN: Eu entendo. Mas, bem, vou responder, pois não temos muito tempo.
-Assim quero responder a isso.
-
-Você está certo que isso é o que querem. Mas há outra razão por que querem
-usar o termo "propriedade intelectual". É porque eles não querem que as
-pessoas pensem com cuidado sobre as questões do direito de cópia ou patentes.
-Porque as leis de direito de cópia e as leis de patente são totalmente
-diferentes, e os efeitos dos direitos de cópia de software e de patente de
-software são totalmente diferentes.
-
-As patentes de software são uma restrição aos programadores -- proibindo-os de
-escrever certos tipos de programa. Ao passo que o direito de cópia não faz
-isso. Com direito de cópia, pelo menos, se você escreveu tudo, você tem
-permissão de distribui-lo. Assim, é tremendamente importante separar essas
-questões.
-
-Elas têm pouco em comum, numa intensidade muito baixa. E tudo mais é
-diferente. Assim, por favor, para incentivar o esclarecimento, discutam
-direito de cópia ou discutam patentes. Não discutam "propriedade intelectual".
-E não tenho opinião sobre "propriedade intelectual". Tenho opiniões sobre
-direitos de cópia e patentes e software.
-
-PERGUNTA: Você mencionou no começo que uma linguagem funcional, como receitas,
-são programas de computador. Há um ponto um pouco diferente de outros tipos
-de linguagem criadas a partir daí. Isto está causando um problema no caso do
-DVD.
-
-STALLMAN: As questões são em parte similares, em parte diferentes, para coisa
-que não são funcionais por natureza. Parte da questão se aplica, mas não tudo.
-Infelizmente, isso significa mais uma hora de palestra. Eu não tenho tempo
-para discorrer sobre isso. Mas, eu diria que todas as obras funcionais
-deveriam ser livres do mesmo jeito que software. Por exemplo: livros-texto,
-manuais, dicionários, receitas, assim por diante.
-
-PERGUNTA: Eu estava pensando na música pela rede, há similaridades e
-diferenças totais criadas.
-
-STALLMAN: Correto. eu diria que a liberdade mínima que deveríamos ter para
-*qualquer* tipo de informação publicada, é a liberdade de redistribuí-la não
-comercialmente, inalterada. Para obras funcionais, precisamos da liberdade de
-publicar *comercialmente* a versão modificada, porque isso é tremendamente
-útil para a sociedade. Para trabalhos não funcionais, você sabe, coisas para
-entreter, ou estéticas, ou para afirmar os pontos de vista de uma pessoa,
-talvez não devessem ser modificadas. E, talvez isso seja OK, ter direito de
-cópia cobrindo toda a distribuição *comercial* dele.
-
-Por favor, lembrem-se de que de acordo com a Constituição dos EUA, a
-finalidade do direito de cópia é beneficiar o público. É para modificar o
-comportamento de certas instituições privadas, para que publiquem mais livros.
-E o benefício é que a sociedade discuta questões, aprenda e tenhamos
-literatura. Tenhamos trabalhos científicos. E o propósito é incentivar isso.
-Direitos de cópia não existem por causa dos autores, muito menos por causa dos
-editores. Eles existem por causa dos leitores e daqueles que se beneficiam da
-comunicação da informação que acontece quando as pessoas escrevem e as outras
-lêem. E com o objetivo, eu concordo!
-
-Mas, na era das redes de computadores, o *método* não é mais defensável,
-porque agora exige leis draconianas que invadem a privacidade de todos e
-aterrorizam todo mundo. Você sabe, anos de prisão por compartilhar com os
-outros. Não era assim nos tempos da imprensa impressa. Naquela época, o
-direito de cópia era uma regulamentação industrial. Restringia os editores!
-*Agora*, é uma restrição imposta pelo editores ao público. Assim, o
-relacionamento do poder deu uma volta de 180 graus, mesmo sendo a mesma lei.
-
-PERGUNTA: Assim, você pode ter a mesma coisa -- tal como ao fazer uma
-música a partir de outra.
-
-STALLMAN: Correto. Isso é interessante.
-
-PERGUNTA: E trabalhos novos e exclusivos, você sabe, muito ainda é cooperação.
-
-STALLMAN: É. Eu penso que isso provavelmente exige algum tipo de conceito do
uso
-justo. Certamente samplear alguns segundos e usar isso ao fazer uma obra
-musical: obviamente deveria ser uso justo. Mesmo que a idéia padrão do uso
-justo inclua isso, se você pensar sobre isso. Os tribunais vão concordar? Não
-sei ao certo, mas deveriam. Isso *não* seria uma mudança real no sistema do
-modo como existiu.
-
-PERGUNTA: O que você acha de publicar informações *públicas* em formatos
-proprietários?
-
-STALLMAN: Ah, não deveria ser. Quero dizer, o Governo nunca deveria pedir aos
-cidadãos que usassem programas não livres para acessar e se comunicar com o
-Governo desse modo, em todos os sentidos.
-
-PERGUNTA: Tenho sido, o que agora vou dizer, um usuário GNU/Linux...
-
-STALLMAN: Obrigado. [Risos]
-
-PERGUNTA: ... nos últimos quatro anos. E uma coisa que tem sido problemática
-para mim e é algo essencial, eu acho, para todos nós, é navegar na Internet.
-
-STALLMAN: Sim.
-
-QUESTION: Uma das coisa que decididamente tem sido um ponto fraco ao usar o
-sistema GNU/Linux tem sido navergar na Internet, porque a ferramenta principal
-para isso, Netscape...
-
-STALLMAN: ...Não é software livre.
-
-Deixe-me responder isso. Eu quero chegar ao ponto, para falar um pouco mais.
-Portanto, sim. Tem havido uma tendência terrível das pessoas usarem o Netscape
-Navigator em seus sistema GNU/Linux. E, de fato, todos os pacotes comerciais
-vem com ele. Assim é uma situação irônica: trabalhamos tanto para fazer um
-sistema operacional *livre*, e agora, se você vai na loja, você pode encontrar
-as versões lá do GNU/Linux (a maioria delas se chama "Linux"), e não são
-livres. Ah, bem, uma parte deles é. Mas então, há o Netscape Navigator, e
-talvez outros programas proprietários também. Assim é muito difícil realmente
-encontrar um sistema livre, a não ser que você saiba o que está fazendo! Ou,
-obviamente, você pode [simplesmente] não instalar o Netscape Navigator (com
-os sistema comerciais].
-
-Agora, na verdade, tem havido navegadores livres por muitos anos. Há o
-navegador livre que usava chamado "Lynx". É um navegador livre não gráfico; é
-só texto. É uma vantagem tremenda já que você não vê os anúncios. [Risos]
-[Aplausos]
-
-Mas de qualquer forma, há o projeto gráfico livre chamado "Mozilla", que está
-chegando ao pondo em que se pode usá-lo. Eu o uso de vez em quando.
-
-PERGUNTA: O Konqueror 2.01 tem sido muito bom.
-
-STALLMAN: Ah, OK. Então, este é outro nevegador gráfico gratuito. Assim,
-estamos finalmente resolvendo o problema, penso eu.
-
-PERGUNTA: Você pode me falar sobre aquela divisão ética/filosófica entre
-software livre e código aberto? Você acha que elas são irreconciliáveis?...
-
-[troca de fitas de gravação; o fim da pergunta e o começo da resposta não
-foram gravados]
-
-STALLMAN: .... para uma liberdade, e ética. Ou quer você apenas diga: "bem,
-espero que suas empresas decidam o que é mais lucrativo para deixar-nos fazer
-essas coisas"
-
-Mas, como eu disse, em muitos trabalhos práticos, não importa de fato o qual é
-a política da pessoa. Quando alguém se oferece para ajudar o projeto GNU,
-dizemos: "Você tem de concordar com nossa política". Dizemos isso no pacote
-GNU, você tem chamar o sistema, GNU/Linux, e você tem de chamá-lo de software
-livre. O que você diz quando não fala com o projeto GNU; fica a seu critério.
-
-PERGUNTA: A IBM começou uma campanha para agências do governo para vender
-suas novas máquinas de grande porte usando Linux como ponto de venda, e dizem
-"Linux"!
-
-STALLMAN: Sim, naturalmente, é de fato o sistema GNU/Linux. [Risos]
-
-QUESTION: É isso aí! Bem, fale com os vendedores-chefe. Eles não sabem nada do
-GNU.
-
-STALLMAN: Tenho que falar com quem?
-
-QUESTION: Com o líder dos vendedores.
-
-STALLMAN: Ah sim. O problema é que eles já cuidadosamente decidiram o que
-querem dizer por razões que lhes tragam vantagens. E a questão do que como
-mencioná-lo de forma mais precisa, ou justa ou correta não é a questão
-principal que importa a uma empresa como essa. Agora, algumas empresas
-pequenas, sim, têm um dono E se o dono estiver inclinado a pensar desse
-modo, ele pode tomar essa decisão. Não uma empresa gigante, porém. É uma
-vergonha, vocês sabem.
-
-Há um outra questão mais importante e mais substancial sobre o que a IBM está
-fazendo. Eles estão dizendo que estão investindo bilhões de dólares no "Linux".
-Mas talvez, eu devesse dizer "no" entre aspas, também, porque parte do
-dinheiro é para pagar a pessoas para desenvolver software livre. Isso é uma
-contribuição de fato para nossa comunidade. Mas, outra parte é para pagar
-pessoas para escrever software proprietário, ou portar software proprietário
-para rodar no GNU/Linux, e isso *não* é uma contribuição para nossa
-comunidade. Mas, a IBM está juntando tudo [num pacote só]. Uma parte disse
-poderá ser para publicidade, que, é em parte uma contribuição, mesmo que
-parcialmente errado. Assim, é uma situação complicada. Parte do que estão
-fazendo é um contribuição e parte não é. E parte é de certa forma, mas não
-exatamente. E não dá para juntar tudo isso e pensar:"Nossa! Puxa! um bilhão de
-dólares da IBM." [Risos] Isso é simplificar demais.
-
-PERGUNTAS: Você pode falar um pouco mais sobre as idéias presentes na licença
-pública geral?
-
-STALLMAN: Bem, este é o -- desculpe, estou respondendo a pergunta dele agora.
-[Risos]
-
-SCHONBERG: Você quer reservar algum tempo mais para a coletiva de imprensa? Ou
-quer continuar aqui?
-
-STALLMAN: Quem está aqui para a coletiva de imprensa? Não muita gente da
-imprensa. Ah, três -- OK. Dá para segurar se nós -- seu eu continuar
-respondendo as perguntas de todos por mais dez minutos? OK. Bem, vamos
-continuar respondendo as perguntas de todos.
-
-Bem, a idéia presente na GNU GPL? Parte dela é que eu queria proteger a
-liberdade da comunidade contra o fenômeno que eu descrevi sobre o X Windows,
-que aconteceu com outros programas livres também. De fato, quando pensava sobre
-esta questão, o X Windows não tinha sido lançado ainda. Mas tinha visto este
-problema acontecer em outros programas livres. Por exemplo, o TeX. Queria
-garantir que os usuários todos tivessem liberdade. Doutro modo, eu pensava que
-pudesse escrever um programa, e talvez muita gente usasse o programa, mas não
-teriam liberdade. E daí veja que problema?!
-
-Mas, a outra questão em que estava pensando era: eu quero dar à comunidade o
-sentimento de que não somos capacho -- um sentimento de que não éramos presas
-de nenhum parasita que se misturasse com a gente. Se você não usa copyleft,
-você essencialmente está dizendo: [falando baixinho] "Leve meu código. Faça o
-que quiser. E não digo não". Assim, qualquer um pode vir e dizer: [falando bem
-firme] "Ah, eu quero fazer uma versão proprietária disso. Vou pegar isso". E
-então, provavelmente, fazem alguns aperfeiçoamentos. Estas versões
-proprietárias podem ter apelo para os usuários, e substituir as versões
-livres. E daí veja o que você fez! Você fez fez uma doação para um projeto de
-software proprietário!
-
-E quando as pessoas vêem o que está acontecendo -- quando as pessoas vêem:
-"outras pessoas pegam o que faço e nem sequer me devolvem", isso pode ser
-desmoralizante. E, isto não é só especulação. Eu tinha visto isso acontecer.
-Isso foi parte do que aconteceu, fazendo desaparecer a antiga comunidade à
-qual eu pertencia nos anos 70. Algumas pessoas passara a não ser mais
-cooperativas. E achávamos que elas estavam lucrando com isso. Elas certamente
-agiam como se estivessem lucrando. Mas percebemos que elas recebiam
-cooperação, mas não davam contrapartida. E não havia nada que pudéssemos
-fazer. Foi muito desencorajador. Nós, os que não gostávamos dessa tendência,
-até discutimos o assunto e não conseguíamos apresentar uma idéia para
-impedir isso.
-
-Assim, a GPL foi pensada para impedir isso. Ela diz: "Sim, você está convidado
-a se *unir* à comunidade e usar este código. Você pode usá-lo para fazer todo
-o tipo de trabalho. Mas, se você lançar uma versão modificada, você tem de
-lançá-la *para* nossa comunidade, como parte de nossa comunidade -- como parte
-do mundo livre".
-
-Então, de fato, ainda há muitos modos de as pessoas se beneficiarem de nosso
-trabalho e não contribuir. Por exemplo, você não é obrigado a escrever nenhum
-software. Muitas pessoas usam o GNU/Linux, e não escrevem software. Ninguém
-exige que você tenha de fazer algo para nós. Mas se fizer certas coisas, você
-tem de contribuir com ela. Isso significa que nossa comunidade não é capacho.
-E acho que isso ajudou a dar às pessoas a força para sentir: "Sim, não seremos
-simplesmente pisoteados por todo mundo. Seremos capazes de resistir a isso".
-
-PERGUNTA: Sim, minha pergunta era, considerando software livre mas não com
-copyleft. Como todo mundo pode pode pegá-lo e fazê-lo proprietário, não é
-possível pegá-lo, e fazer mundanças e lançar a coisa toda sob GPL?
-
-STALLMAN: Sim, é possível.
-
-PERGUNTA: Então, isso faria todas as cópias daí serem GPL?
-
-STALLMAN: Deste ramo em diante. Mas veja por que não fazemos isso.
-
-PERGUNTA: Hmm?
-
-STALLMAN: Veja por que normalmente não fazemos isso. Deixe-me explicar.
-
-QUESTION: OK, sim.
-
-STALLMAN: Poderíamos, se quiséssemos, pegar o X Windows, e fazer uma versão
-coberta pela GPL, e fazer mudanças nele. Mas, mas há um grupo muito maior de
-pessoas trabalhando na melhoria do X Windows e *não* tornando-o GPL. Assim, se
-fizéssemos isso, estaríamos produzindo um fork [bifurcação na linha de
-desenvolvimento]. E não é um tratamento muito legal. E, eles *são* parte de
-nossa comunidade, contribuindo com nossa comunidade.
-
-Segundo, isso seria um tiro pela culatra, porque eles estão fazendo um
-trabalho muito maior no X que nós faríamos. Assim, nossa versão seria inferior
-à deles, e as pessoas não iriam querer usá-lo, o que significa: por que se dar
-ao trabalho?
-
-PERGUNTA: Mmm hmm.
-
-STALLMAN: Assim, quando um pessoa escreve algum melhoramento do X Windows, o
-o que eu digo que essa pessoa deveria fazer é: cooperar com a Equipe de
-Desenvolvimento do X. Envie a eles e deixe que usem desse modo. Porque eles
-*estão* desenvolvendo um parte muito importante do software livre. É bom para
-nós cooperar com eles!
-
-PERGUNTA: Exceto, considerando o X, em particular, há mais ou menos dois anos,
-O Consórcio X que estava bem mergulhado no código aberto "não livre"...
-
-STALLMAN: Bem, na realidade *não era* código aberto. Não era código aberto,
-mesmo. Eles podem ter dito que era. (Não me lembro se disseram isso ou não.)
-Mas não era código aberto.
-
-Era restrito. Você poderia distribuir comercialmente, eu acho. Ou não poderia
-distribuir comercialmente a versão modificada, ou algo do tipo. Havia uma
-restrição considerada inaceitável tanto pelo Movimento de Software Livre
-quanto pelo Movimento de Código Aberto.
-
-E sim, é aberto para um uso que a licença "não copyleft" permite. De
-fato, o Consórcio X; eles têm uma política muito rígida. Eles dizem: "Se seu
-programa tiver copyleft mesmo que seja um pouquinho, não o distribuiremos de
-jeito nenhum. Não vamos colocá-lo em nossa distribuição." Assim, muita gente
-foi pressionada a não usar copyleft. E o resultado foi que todo o software
-dessa gente estava por aí, mais tarde. Quando as mesmas pessoas que tinham
-pressionado o desenvolvedor a ser permissivo demais, o pessoa do X depois
-disse: "Muito bem. Agora vamos colocar restrições", o que não foi muito ético
-da parte deles.
-
-Mas, dada a situação, não iríamos querer gastar os recursos para manter uma
-versão alternativa do X coberta pela GPL. E não faria sentido nenhum fazer
-isso. Há muitas outras coisa que precisamos fazer. Vamos fazê-las então. E
-podemos cooperar com os desenvolvedores do X.
-
-PERGUNTA: Você tem um comentário: o GNU é uma marca registrada? E é possível
-incluir como parte da Licença Geral Pública [GPL] GNU marcas registradas?
-
-STALLMAN: Estamos, na realidade, registrando a marca GNU. Mas isso não teria
-nada a ver com isso. É uma longa história explicar por quê.
-
-PERGUNTA: Você poderia exigir que a marca registrada fosse apresentada em
-programas cobertos pela GPL.
-
-Não, não acho. As licenças cobrem programas individuais. E, quando um dado
-programa é parte do projeto GNU, ninguém está mentido. O nome do sistema como
-um todo, é uma questão diferente. E isto é um detalhe. Não vale a pena
-discutir adiante.
-
-PERGUNTA: Se houvesse um botão, que você, pressionando, forçasse
-todas as empresas a liberar o software deles você o pressionaria?
-
-STALLMAN: Bem, eu o usaria para software publicado. Você sabe, eu acho que as
-pessoas têm o direito de escrever programas privados, e usá-los. E isso inclui
-as empresas. É uma questão de privacidade. E é verdade, pode haver momentos em
-que seja errado fazer isso, exemplo, se for tremendamente útil para a
-humanidade e você está segurando isso da humanidade, o que é um erro, mas esse
-é um tipo de erro diferente. É um tipo diferente de questão, apesar de ser da
-mesma área.
-
-Mas sim, eu acho que todo o software publicado deveria ser software livre. E
-lembrem-se de que, quando o software não é livre, é por causa da intervenção
-do Governo. O Governo está intervindo para fazê-lo não livre. O Governo está
-criando poderes legais especiais para dar aos donos dos programas, assim eles
-podem mandar a polícia nos impedir de usar os programas de certas maneiras. Eu
-certamente gostaria de dar fim a isso.
-
-SCHONBERG: A apresentação de Richard invariavelmente gerou enorme quantidade
-de energia intelectual. Eu sugeriria que parte dela deva ser dirigida para
-usar e possivelmente escrever software livre.
-
-Temos de encerrar o evento, rapidamente. Eu quero dizer que Richard injetou
-numa profissão, conhecida do público em geral pela "nerditude apolítica"
-terminal, um nível de discussão política e moral, penso eu, sem precedentes em
-nossa profissão. E devemos muito a ele por isso. Gostaria de avisar a todos
-que haverá um intervalo.
-
-[Aplausos]
-
-STALLMAN: Vocês estão livres para sair quando quiserem, tá? [Risos] Não os
-estou mantendo prisioneiros aqui.
-
-[A platéia sai...]
-
-[Conversas paralelas....]
-
-STALLMAN: Só mais uma coisa. Nosso site é : www.gnu.org
\ No newline at end of file
Index: events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.html
===================================================================
RCS file: events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.html
diff -N events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.html
--- events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.html 20 Feb 2015 17:28:08 -0000
1.13
+++ /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
@@ -1,2100 +0,0 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.en.html" -->
-
-<!--#include virtual="/server/header.tr.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
-
-<!-- This file is automatically generated by GNUnited Nations! -->
-<title>Ãzgür Yazılım: Ãzgürlük ve Ä°ÅbirliÄi - GNU Projesi - Ãzgür
Yazılım Vakfı</title>
-
-<!--#include virtual="/events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist" -->
-<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.tr.html" -->
-<h2>Ãzgür Yazılım: Ãzgürlük ve Ä°ÅbirliÄi</h2>
-
-<blockquote><p>Richard M. Stallman'ın âÃzgür Yazılım: Ãzgürlük ve
Ä°ÅbirliÄiâ isimli, New
-York'taki New York Ãniversitesi'nde, 29 Mayıs 2001 tarihinde yaptıÄı
-konuÅmanın metnidir.</p></blockquote>
-
-<div class="announcement">
-<blockquote><p>Bu konuÅmanın <a
href="/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt">düz metin</a>
-sürümü ve <a href="/events/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt">özeti</a> de
vardır.</p></blockquote>
-</div>
-
-<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: Ben Mike Uretsky. Stern Ä°Åletme Fakültesiâni
-bitirdim. Ayrıca Ä°leri Teknoloji Merkeziânin Müdür Yardımcılarından
-biriyim. Ve Bilgisayar Bilimi Departmanında hepimiz adına, sizlere burada
-hoÅ geldiniz demek istiyorum. Size konuÅmacıyı takdim edecek olan Edâe
-mikrofonu vermeden önce bazı açıklamalarda bulunmak istiyorum.</p>
-
-<p>Ãniversitenin rolü, tartıÅmaların yapılması için uygun bir alan
olması ve
-ilginç tartıÅmaların yapılabilmesidir. Ve büyük bir üniversitenin
rolü,
-özellikle ilginç tartıÅmaların yapılabilmesidir. Ve bu özel sunum, bu
-seminer bu kalıba girer. Açık kaynak tartıÅmasını özellikle ilginç
-buluyorum. Bir anlamdaâ¦.<i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Ãzgür yazılım yapıyorum. Açık kaynak
farklı bir
-harekettir. <i>[dinleyiciler güler] [AlkıÅ]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: 1960âlarda ilgili alanda çalıÅmaya ilk
-baÅladıÄımda, temel olarak yazılım özgürdü. Ve çevrimlere girdik.
Ãzgür hale
-geldi ve daha sonra pazarlarını geniÅletme ihtiyacında olan yazılım
-üreticileri, bunu baÅka taraflara doÄru çektiler. PCânin giriÅiyle
-gerçekleÅen birçok hareket, tam olarak da benzer bir çevrim tipinde hareket
-etti.</p>
-
-<p>Pierre Levy adında çok ilginç bir Fransız filozof vardır, bu filozof,
-insanlıÄın refahını geliÅtirecek iliÅki tiplerindeki deÄiÅim ile,
yalnızca
-teknolojiyle ilgili olarak deÄil ayrıca sosyal yeniden yapılanma, politik
-yeniden yapılanma ile iliÅkili olarak bu yöne doÄru olan hareketten ve
siber
-aleme doÄru olan hareketten bahsetmektedir. Ve bu tartıÅmanın söz konusu
-yöndeki bir hareket olmasını ve bu tartıÅmanın, normalde Ãniversitede
bir
-teselli gibi olan çok sayıda disiplinin sınırlarının ötesine giden bir
Åey
-olmasını umuyoruz. Bazı çok ilginç tartıÅmaları dört gözle
bekliyoruz. Ed?</p>
-
-<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Ben Courant Enstitüsüândeki Bilgisayar
Bilimi
-Departmanından Ed Schonberg. Hepinize öncelikle hoŠgeldiniz demek
-istiyorum. GiriÅ konuÅmasını yapanlar genellikle ve özellikle halka
-sunumların yararsız bir kısmını yapanlardır ancak bu durumda, gerçekte
-yararlı bir amaca hizmet etmektedirler, Mikeâın da kolayca gösterdiÄi
gibi,
-giriÅ konuÅmasını yapan kiÅi, örneÄin, hatalı açıklamalar yaparak,
-tartıÅmanın parametrelerini ciddi ölçüde düzeltebilir ve
<i>[dinleyiciler
-güler]</i> keskin hale getirebilir.</p>
-
-<p>Bu nedenle, açıklamaya ihtiyaç duymayan birine anlatır gibi mümkün
olan en
-kısa giriÅi yapayım. Richard, yıllar önce MIT YZ Laboratuarında yazıcı
-sürücüleri için kaynak kodunun elveriÅli olmamasına iliÅkin
problemlerden
-küresel olarak düÅünen ve yerel hareket eden biri için mükemmel bir
-örnektir. Yazılımın nasıl oluÅturulduÄu, hangi fikri mülkiyet
araçlarına
-sahip olduÄu ve yazılım topluluÄunun gerçekte neyi temsil ettiÄi
fikirlerini
-yeniden incelemek için hepimizi zorlamıŠolan baÄlı bir felsefe
-geliÅtirmiÅtir. Richard Stallmanâa hoÅ geldiniz demek
-istiyorum. <i>[AlkıÅ]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Biri bana bir saat ödünç verebilir mi?
-<i>[Dinleyiciler güler]</i> TeÅekkür ederim. Bu vesileyle, bu platformda
-olma imkânı verdikleri için Microsoftâa <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i>
teÅekkür
-ederim. Son birkaç haftadır, kitabı bir yerlerde kazara yasaklanmıŠolan
bir
-yazar gibi hissediyorum.<i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Ancak buna iliÅkin
-yazıların tümünde yanlıŠyazarın adı verilmektedir çünkü Microsoft
GNU
-GPLâyi açık kaynaklı bir lisans olarak tanımlamaktadır ve bunu izleyen
baskı
-kapsamının çoÄunluÄu buna uygundur. Tabi ki, insanların çoÄunluÄu,
-çalıÅmamızın açık kaynakla iÅinin olmadıÄını fark etmemektedir,
çünkü
-insanlar âaçık kaynakâ ifadesini bulmadan önce iÅin çoÄunu
gerçekleÅtirdik.</p>
-
-<p>Ãzgür yazılım hareketindeyiz ve özgür yazılım hareketinin ne
hakkında
-olduÄu, ne anlama geldiÄi, ne yaptıÄımız üzerine konuÅacaÄım ve bu
bir
-iÅletme okulu tarafından desteklendiÄi için, özgür yazılımın
iÅletmeyle
-nasıl bir ilgisi olduÄu hakkında ve sosyal hayatın bazı diÄer alanları
-hakkında bir Åeyler söyleyeceÄim.</p>
-
-<p>Åimdi, bazılarınız hayatında hiç bilgisayar programı yazmamıÅ
olabilir ama
-belki de yemek piÅirdiniz. Ve yemek piÅirdiyseniz, çok mükemmel
deÄilseniz,
-muhtemelen yemek tariflerini kullandınız. Ve yemek tariflerini
-kullandıysanız, bir arkadaÅınızla muhtemelen bir yemek tarifinin
kopyasını
-paylaÅtınız. Ve tam anlamıyla bir acemi deÄilseniz, yemek tarifi
alıÅveriÅi
-yapmıÅsınızdır. Yemek tariflerinde belirli Åeyler söylenmektedir ancak
tam
-olarak aynı Åeyleri yapmanız gerekmez. İçeriklerden bazılarını
-katmayabilirsiniz. Mantarı sevdiÄiniz için biraz mantar
-ekleyebilirsiniz. Doktorunuz tuzu azaltmanız gerektiÄini söylediÄi için
daha
-az tuz koyabilirsiniz. YeteneÄinize göre daha büyük deÄiÅiklikler bile
-yapabilirsiniz. Ve bir yemek tarifinde deÄiÅiklik yaptıysanız ve bu yemek
-tarifine göre arkadaÅlarınıza yemek piÅirdiyseniz ve yemeÄi sevdilerse,
size
-Åunu söyleyebilirler: âTarifini bana da verir misin?â Ve o zaman ne
-yaparsınız? Yemek tarifinin deÄiÅmiÅ halini yazıp arkadaÅınıza bir
kopyasını
-verebilirsiniz. Bunlar, herhangi bir tipteki iÅlevsel olarak yararlı yemek
-tarifleriyle yapabileceÄiniz doÄal Åeylerdir.</p>
-
-<p>Åimdi yemek tarifi, bir bilgisayar programına çok benzemektedir. Bir
-bilgisayar programı yemek tarifine çok benzemektedir: istediÄiniz bir sonuca
-ulaÅmak için gerçekleÅtirilecek bir seri adımdan ibarettir. Bu nedenle,
-yemek tarifleriyle yaptıÄınız Åeyleri bilgisayar programlarıyla da
yapmanız
-çok doÄaldır, örneÄin, arkadaÅınıza bir kopyasını vermek gibi.
Farklı bir
-iÅlevi görmesi için bilgisayar programını deÄiÅtirebilirsiniz de.
BaÅka biri
-için iyi bir iŠgörmüŠolabilir ancak sizinki farklı bir iŠolabilir. Bu
-nedenle programı deÄiÅtirirsiniz. Ve deÄiÅtirdikten sonra, baÅka insanlar
-için yararlı olabilir. Belki de sizin yaptıÄınız iÅe benzer bir iÅ
için
-kullanılacaktır. Bu nedenle, Åu soruyu sorarlar: âBana bilgisayar
-programının bir kopyasını verir misin?â Tabi ki, kibar bir insan
olduÄunuz
-için, bilgisayar programınızın bir kopyasını verirsiniz. Bu, nazik bir
insan
-olmanın yoludur.</p>
-
-<p>Bu nedenle, yemek tariflerinin kara kutular içine yerleÅtirildiÄi durumu
-düÅünün. Hangi içerikleri kullandıÄınızı göremezsiniz ve
deÄiÅtiremezsiniz
-ve arkadaÅınıza bir kopyasını vermeye kalktıÄınızda size korsan
dendiÄini ve
-yıllarca hapiste yattıÄınızı düÅünün. Böyle bir dünya, yemek
tariflerini
-paylaÅmaya alıÅmıŠinsanlar için büyük bir zulümdür. Ancak özel
mülk yazılım
-dünyasında durum aynen böyledir. Bu, diÄer insanlara karÅı genel
inceliÄin
-olmadıÄı ya da engellendiÄi bir dünyadır. </p>
-
-<p>Åimdi bunu neden farkettim? Bunu farkettim çünkü 1970âlerde
yazılımı
-paylaÅan bir programcı birliÄinin parçası olma Åansına ulaÅmıÅtım.
Bu
-topluluÄun temelleri bilgisayarın baÅlangıcına dayanmaktadır. Ancak,
-1970âlerde, insanların yazılımı paylaÅtıÄı bir topluluk zor bulunan
bir
-Åeydi. Ve gerçekte bu uç bir durumdu çünkü çalıÅtıÄım
laboratuarda, tüm
-iÅletim sistemi, topluluÄumuz tarafından geliÅtirilen yazılımdı ve bu
-yazılımın herhangi bir kısmını herhangi bir kimseyle
-paylaÅmaktaydık. Ä°steyen herkes gelebiliyor ve bir kopya alabiliyordu ve ne
-yapmak isterse yapıyordu. Bu programlar üzerinde hiçbir telif hakkı
uyarısı
-yoktu. Ä°ÅbirliÄi bizim yaÅam biçimimizdi. Ve bu yaÅam Åeklinde
-güvendeydik. Bunun için savaÅmıyorduk. Bunun için savaÅmamız
-gerekmiyordu. Sadece bu Åekilde yaÅıyorduk. Ve bildiÄimiz kadarıyla, bu
-Åekilde yaÅamayı sürdürecektik. Bu nedenle özgür yazılım vardı ama
özgür
-yazılım hareketi yoktu. </p>
-
-<p>Ama daha sonra topluluÄumuz çeÅitli felaketlerle yıkıldı. Sonunda
tamamen
-yok oldu. Sonunda tüm çalıÅmalarımız için kullandıÄımız PDP-10
bilgisayarı1
-ortadan kalktı. Sistemimiz olan, Uyumlu Olmayan Zaman PaylaÅımlı Sistem,
-1960âlarda baÅlayarak yazılmıÅtı, bu nedenle assembler dilinde
-yazılmıÅtı. 1960âlarda bir iÅletim sistemi yazmak için assembler
-kullanılmaktaydı. Bu nedenle, tabi ki, assembler dili belirli bir bilgisayar
-mimarisi içindir; bunun devamı gelmezse, tüm çalıÅmanız boÅa gider,
iÅe
-yaramaz. Ve bizim baÅımıza da bu geldi. 20 yıllık çalıÅma boÅa gitti.
</p>
-
-<p>Ancak bu durum meydana gelmeden önce, bu durum meydana geldiÄinde ne
-yapacaÄıma iliÅkin olarak beni hazırlayan ve ne yapacaÄımı görmeme
yardımcı
-olan bir olay oldu çünkü belirli bir noktada, Xerox çalıÅtıÄım yer
olan
-Yapay Zeka Laboratuvarına bir lazer yazıcısı hediye etti ve bu hediye
-gerçekten de güzel bir hediyeydi çünkü Xerox dıÅında birilerinin bir
lazer
-yazıcısına sahip olduÄu ilk durumdu. Bu yazıcı çok hızlıydı,
saniyede bir
-sayfa yazıyordu, birçok anlamda çok iyiydi ancak güvenilir deÄildi
çünkü
-yüksek hızlı bir kopyalayıcının yazıcı olarak deÄiÅtirilmiÅ
biçimiydi. Ve
-bildiÄiniz gibi kopyalayıcılarda sıkıÅma meydana gelmektedir ancak
genelde
-bu sıkıÅmayı çözecek birileri bulunur. Yazıcıda sıkıÅma oldu ve
kimse
-görmedi. Bu nedenle yazıcı uzun süre sorunlu halde kaldı.</p>
-
-<p>Biz de bu sorunu çözmek için bir fikir geliÅtirdik. Sistemi, yazıcı
her ne
-zaman bir sıkıÅma durumu yaÅarsa, yazıcıyı çalıÅtıran makine zaman
-paylaÅımlı makinemize durumu bildirecek ve çıktı bekleyen kullanıcılara
-yazıcıdaki problemi çözmelerini söyleyecek bir Åekilde deÄiÅtirdik.
Tabi ki
-kullanıcılar, bir çıktı bekliyorlarsa ve yazıcıda sıkıÅma olduÄunu
-biliyorlarsa, sonsuza kadar oturup beklemeyecek ve sorunu çözeceklerdi. </p>
-
-<p>Ancak bu noktada tamamen felce uÄradık çünkü söz konusu yazıcıyı
çalıÅtıran
-yazılım özgür yazılım deÄildi. Söz konusu yazılım yazıcı ile
birlikte
-gelmiÅti ve yalnızca bir ikiliydi (binary). Kaynak kodunu alamamıÅtık;
-Xerox, kaynak kodunu bize vermemiÅti. Bu nedenle, programlayıcılar olarak
-yetenekli olmamıza raÄmen, ne de olsa kendi zaman paylaÅımlı sistemimizi
-yazmıÅtık, bu özelliÄi yazıcı yazılımına ekleme konusunda tamamıyla
-çaresizdik. </p>
-
-<p>Ve beklemek zorundaydık. Ãıktımızı almanız bir ya da iki saat
sürüyordu
-çünkü makine çoÄu zaman sıkıÅma yapıyordu. Bir saat bekleyip
âSıkıÅacaÄını
-biliyorum. Bir saat bekleyeceÄim ve çıktımı alacaÄımâ diyorduk ve
daha sonra
-tüm zaman boyunca sıkıÅmıŠolduÄunu ve gerçekte baÅka kimsenin tamir
-etmediÄini gördük. Bu nedenle, biz tamir ettik ve yarım saat daha
-bekledik. Daha sonra, geri döndük ve çıktı haline gelmeden önce yine
-sıkıÅtıÄını gördük. Ãç dakika basma iÅlemi yapıp otuz dakika
-sıkıÅmaktaydı. Bu durum hayal kırıklıÄı yarattı. Ancak daha
kötüsü, tamir
-edebileceÄimizi biliyor olmamızdı ancak kendi bencilliÄi için baÅka
-birileri, yazılımı geliÅtirmemizi önleyerek bizi engellemekteydi. Bu
nedenle
-tabi ki bir miktar küskünlük hissettik.</p>
-
-<p>Ve daha sonra Carneige Mellon Ãniversitesiânden birilerinin söz konusu
-yazılımın bir kopyasını aldıÄını duydum. Ãniversiteyi ziyaret
ediyordum, bu
-nedenle ilgili kimsenin ofisine gittim ve dedim ki: âMerhaba, ben
-MITâdenim. Yazıcı kaynak kodunun bir kopyasını alabilir miyim?â O da
bana
-dedi ki: âHayır, kimseye kopya vermemeye söz verdim.â <i>[Dinleyiciler
-güler]</i> ÅaÅırmıÅtım. Aynı zamanda da kızmıÅtım ve nasıl adil
olacaÄıma
-iliÅkin hiçbir fikrim kalmamıÅtı. Belki de kapıyı çarptım.
<i>[Dinleyiciler
-güler]</i> Ve daha sonra da bu konuyu düÅündüm çünkü yalnızca
soyutlanmıÅ
-bir olay deÄil ayrıca önemli olan ve çok sayıda kimseyi etkileyen sosyal
bir
-fenomen görmekte olduÄumu fark ettim.</p>
-
-<p>Åanslıydım, çünkü bu durumu yalnızca bir kere yaÅadım. DiÄer
insanlar ise
-her zaman bu durumla yaÅamak zorundalar. Bu nedenle bu konuyu kapsamlı
-olarak düÅündüm. MITâdeki çalıÅma arkadaÅları bizimle iÅbirliÄi
yapmaktan
-kaçındı. Bize ihanet etti. Ama bunu yalnızca bize karÅı yapmadı. Bunu
size
-de yaptı <i>[Dinleyicilerden birini gösteriyor]</i>. Ve zannediyorum ki,
-bunu size de yaptı. <i>[BaÅka bir dinleyiciyi
-gösteriyor]</i>. <i>[Dinleyiciler gülüyor]</i> Ve bunu muhtemelen size de
-yaptı <i>[Dinleyiciler arasında üçüncü bir dinleyiciyi gösteriyor]</i>.
Bunu
-bu odadaki insanların çoÄuna yaptı, belki çok azınıza yapmadı, onlar da
-zaten 1980âde henüz doÄmamıŠolanlardır. Ãünkü Dünya gezegeninin
tüm nüfusu
-ile iÅbirliÄi yapmayı reddetmeye söz verdi. Bir gizlilik anlaÅması
-imzaladı. </p>
-
-<p>Åimdi bu benim bir gizlilik anlaÅmasıyla ilk doÄrudan karÅılaÅmamdı
ve bu
-bana önemli bir ders verdi, bu önemli bir dersti çünkü birçok programcı
bunu
-hiçbir zaman öÄrenmedi. Bu, benim bir gizlilik anlaÅmasıyla ilk
-karÅılaÅmamdı ve kurban bendim. Ben ve benim tüm laboratuarım kurbandı.
Ve
-bu bana gizlilik anlaÅmalarının kurbanlarının var olduÄunu gösterdi.
Masum
-deÄildiler. Zararsız deÄildiler. Birçok programcı bir gizlilik anlaÅması
-imzalamaya davet edildiÄinde, ilk olarak bir gizlilik anlaÅmasıyla
-karÅılaÅmaktadır. Ve her zaman istek uyandırıcı bir Åey vardır â bu
-anlaÅmayı imzalarlarsa bundan iyi bir sonuç elde edeceklerini
düÅünürler. Bu
-nedenle özürler oluÅtururlar. Åöyle derler: âNe olursa olsun bir kopya
-alamayacak, bu nedenle onu yoksun bırakmak için niçin bir komploya
-katılayım?â Åöyle derler: âBu, bu iÅin her zaman yapıldıÄı
yoldur. Buna
-karÅı kime gideyim?â Åöyle derler: âBunu ben imzalamazsam baÅka biri
-imzalayacak.â Vicdanlarını rahatlatmak için çeÅitli bahaneler
bulurlar.</p>
-
-<p>Ama birileri beni bir gizlilik anlaÅması imzalamaya çaÄırdıÄında,
vicdanım
-zaten duyarlı hale gelmiÅti. Birisi bana yardım etmemeye söz verdiÄinde ne
-kadar sinirlenmiÅ olduÄumu hatırladım ve laboratuvarım sorunumuzu
çözdü. Ve
-ben ise, bana hiç zarar vermemiÅ birine aynı Åeyi yapamazdım. Birileri
-benden nefret edilen bir düÅmanla bazı yararlı bilgileri paylaÅmamam için
-söz vermemi isteseydi, evet derdim. Birileri kötü bir Åeyler yapmıÅsa,
bunu
-hak etmektedir. Ancak yabancılar â bana hiç zarar vermemiÅlerdir. Bu gibi
-bir hatalı muameleyi nasıl hak edebilirler? Herhangi birine ve herkese kötü
-davranmaya baÅlayamazsınız. O zaman toplumda yırtıcı bir hayvan haline
-gelirsiniz. Bu nedenle dedim ki: âBana bu güzel yazılım paketini
sunduÄunuz
-için çok teÅekkür ederim. Ama talep ettiÄiniz Åartlarda bu paketi kabul
-edemem, bu paket olmaksızın çalıÅacaÄım. Ãok teÅekkür ederim.â Ve
böylece,
-yazılım gibi genel olarak yararlı teknik bilgi için bir gizlilik
anlaÅması
-imzalamadım.</p>
-
-<p>Åimdi farklı etik hususlara iliÅkin baÅka bilgi tipleri vardır.
ÃrneÄin,
-kiÅisel bilgiler vardır. Kendinizle erkek arkadaÅınız arasındaki bir olay
-hakkında konuÅmak isterseniz ve benden bunu kimseye söylemememi isterseniz,
-bunu sizin için sır olarak saklarım çünkü bu gerçekte yararlı bir
teknik
-bilgi deÄildir. En azından, muhtemelen genel olarak yararlı deÄildir
-<i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i>. </p>
-
-<p>Bana harika yeni bir seks tekniÄi anlatma olasılıÄınız da vardır
-[dinleyiciler güler] ve o zaman bunu toplumun geri kalanına aktarmayı görev
-bilirim <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i>, böylece tüm insanlar bundan
-faydalanır. Bu nedenle, söz konusu söze bir Åart koymalıyım. Kim neyi
ister,
-kim kime kızgındır ve bu gibi pembe dizi hususları hakkında sizin için
gizli
-tutabileceÄim ayrıntılarsa; ancak toplumun bildiÄi için çok
faydalandıÄı bir
-husussa, o zaman bu bilgileri saklı tutmamalıyım. Görüyorsunuz, bilimin ve
-teknolojinin hedefi, insanların hayatlarını daha iyi yaÅamaları için
-insanlık için yararlı bilgiler geliÅtirmektir. Söz konusu bilgileri saklı
-tutmaya söz verirsek â gizli tutarsak â o zaman alanımızın misyonuna
ihanet
-ederiz. Ve bunu yapmamaya karar verdim.</p>
-
-<p>Ancak bu arada topluluÄum çöktü ve bu da beni kötü bir duruma
-soktu. Görüyorsunuz, tüm Uyumlu olmayan Zaman PaylaÅımlı Sistem eskidi
çünkü
-PDP-10 eskiydi ve bu nedenle, eskiden yapmıŠolduÄum gibi bir iÅletim
-sistemi geliÅtiricisi olarak çalıÅmaya devam etmemin bir yolu yoktu. Bu,
-topluluÄun yazılımını kullanmama ve geliÅtirmeme, baÅka bir deyiÅle
-topluluÄun bir parçası olmama baÄlıydı. Bu artık bir ihtimal deÄildi
ve bu
-da beni törel bir ikileme soktu. Ne yapacaktım? Ãünkü en açık ihtimal,
-vermiÅ olduÄum karara karÅı gelmek anlamına geliyordu. En açık ihtimal,
-dünyadaki deÄiÅime kendimi uyarlamaktı. Bir Åeylerin farklı olduÄunu
kabul
-etmem ve bu ilkeleri bırakmam ve özel mülk iÅletim sistemleri için
gizlilik
-anlaÅmaları imzalamaya baÅlamam ve muhtemelen özel mülk yazılım yazmam
-gerekiyordu. Ancak kod yazmaktan zevk aldıÄımı ve para kazanabileceÄimi
â
-özellikle MIT dıÅında yazarsam â ama sonunda kariyerimde geriye dönüp
-baktıÄımda, âHayatımı insanlar arasında duvarlar örmek için
harcadımâ
-diyeceÄimi ve hayatımdan utanç duyacaÄımı fark ettim. </p>
-
-<p>Bu nedenle baÅka bir alternatif aradım ve açık bir alternatif vardı.
Yazılım
-alanını bırakıp baÅka bir Åeyler yapabilirdim. BaÅka bir özel kayda
deÄer
-yeteneÄe sahip deÄildim ancak bir garson olabileceÄimden
-emindim. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Ancak Åık bir restoranda
çalıÅamazdım;
-beni iÅe almazlardı <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> ancak baÅka bir yerlerde
-garson olabilirdim. Ve birçok programcı bana Åunu dedi: âProgramcıları
iÅe
-alan insanlar Åunu, Åunu ve Åunu talep etmektedir. Bu iÅleri yapmazsam, o
-zaman açlıktan ölürüm.â Kullandıkları sözcükler böyleydi. Garson
olarak
-açlıktan ölmezsiniz. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Bu nedenle, gerçekte
-tehlikede deÄilsiniz. Ancak â ve bu önemlidir, görüyorsunuz â bazen
diÄer
-insanlara zarar veren bir Åey yaparsınız ve bunu yapmasaydım ben daha çok
-zarar görecektim diyerek kendinizi haklı çıkartırsınız.
<em>Gerçekten</em>
-de açlıktan ölseniz, özel mülk yazılım yazma konusunda
-haklısınızdır. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Birileri size silah tutsa, o
-zaman affedilebilir bir iÅ yaptıÄınızı söyleyebilirim. <i>[dinleyiciler
-güler]</i> Ancak etik olmayan bir Åeyler yapmayarak yaÅantımı
sürdürmenin
-bir yolunu bulmuÅtum, bu nedenle bir bahane yoktu. Ancak garsonluk yapmanın
-benim için eÄlenceli bir iÅ olmayacaÄının farkına vardım, bir iÅletim
-sistemi geliÅtiricisi olarak yeteneklerimi boÅa harcamama neden
-olacaktı. özel mülk yazılım geliÅtirmek ise yeteneklerimi kötüye
kullanmak
-olurdu. DiÄer insanları özel mülk yazılım dünyasında yaÅamak için
-yüreklendirmek yeteneklerimi kötüye kullanmam anlamına gelirdi. Bu nedenle,
-yeteneklerimi kötüye kullanmak yerine harcamak daha iyidir ancak hâlâ yine
-de gerçekten de iyi deÄildir. </p>
-
-<p>Bu nedenlerden ötürü, baÅka bir alternatif aramaya karar verdim. Durumu
-gerçekten de geliÅtirecek olan bir iÅletim sistemi geliÅtiricisi dünyayı
-daha iyi bir yer haline getirmek için ne yapabilir? Ve gerçekten de gerekli
-olanın bir iÅletim sistemi geliÅtiricisi olduÄunu fark ettim. Problem ve
-ikilem benim için ve herkes için mevcuttu çünkü modern bilgisayarlara
-iliÅkin mevcut iÅletim sistemlerinin tümü özel mülkydi. Ãzgür iÅletim
-sistemleri eski, zamanı geçmiÅ bilgisayarlar içindi, deÄil mi? Bu nedenle
-modern bilgisayarlar için â modern bir bilgisayarı alıp kullanmak
-isterseniz, özel mülk bir iÅletim sistemi kullanmaya zorlanmaktaydınız. Bu
-nedenle bir iÅletim sistemi geliÅtiricisi baÅka bir iÅletim sistemi yazar
ve
-daha sonra Åunu derse: âHerkes gelsin ve bunu paylaÅsın; hoÅ geldinizâ
â bu,
-herkese ikilemden bir çıkıŠyolu, baÅka bir alternatif saÄlayacaktır. Bu
-nedenle, problemi çözebilecek bir Åeyler yapabileceÄimi fark ettim. Bunu
-yapmak için doÄru özelliklere sahiptim. Ve bu, hayatımla ilgili
-yapabileceÄimi hayal ettiÄim en yararlı Åeydi. Ve bu, baÅka hiç kimsenin
-çözmeye çalıÅmadıÄı bir problemdi. Bu yalnızca orada oturmak ve
iÅlerin
-kötüye gitmesini seyretmekti ve orada benden baÅka hiç kimse yoktu. Bu
-nedenle Åöyle hissettim: âBen seçildim. Bu konu üzerinde çalıÅmam
lazım. Ben
-deÄilsem kim çalıÅacak ki?â Bu nedenle, özgür bir iÅletim sistemi
-geliÅtirirken ya da geliÅtirmeye çalıÅırken...yaÅlı bir halde tabi ki
ölmeye
-karar verdim. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i></p>
-
-<p>Tabi ki, bunun nasıl bir iÅletim sistemi olması gerektiÄine karar vermem
-gerekiyordu. Bazı teknik tasarım kararlarının verilmesi gerekiyordu.
Belirli
-nedenlerden ötürü, sistemi Unix ile uyumlu bir sistem haline getirmeye karar
-verdim. Ä°lk olarak, gerçekten de sevdiÄim bir iÅletim sisteminin
kullanılmaz
-hale geldiÄini gördüm çünkü bu iÅletim sistemi, belirli bir bilgisayar
tipi
-için yazılmıÅtı. Bu durumun yeniden meydana gelmesini istemedim.
TaÅınabilir
-bir sistemimizin olması gerekiyordu. Unix taÅınabilir bir sistemdi. Bu
-nedenle, Unixâin tasarımını izleseydim, taÅınabilir ve
çalıÅtırılabilir bir
-sistem oluÅturma Åansına sahip olabilirdim. Ve dahası, <i>[kayıt
anlaÅılır
-deÄil]</i> ayrıntıda niçin uyumlu bir sistem olmasın ki? Bunun nedeni,
-kullanıcıların, uyumlu olmayan deÄiÅikliklerden nefret etmesidir. Sistemi
en
-sevdiÄim Åekilde tasarımlamıŠolsaydım ki böyle yapmak isterdim, eminim
ki â
-uyumlu olmayan bir Åeyler üretmiÅ olurdum. Ayrıntılar farklı olurdu. Bu
-nedenle sistemi yazsaydım, o zaman kullanıcılar bana Åunu diyeceklerdi:
âBu
-çok güzel, ancak uyumlu deÄil. GeçiÅ yapmak için çok fazla çalıÅma
-gerekiyor. Unix yerine sizin sisteminizi kullanmamız çok zorlayıcı, bu
-nedenle Unixâle çalıÅmaya devam edeceÄizâ.</p>
-
-<p>İçinde insanların, bu özgür sistemi kullanan ve özgürlüÄün ve
iÅbirliÄinin
-faydalarının tadını çıkaran insanların olduÄu bir topluluk oluÅturmak
-isteseydim, insanların kullanacaÄı, insanların kolay bir Åekilde
-dönebilecekleri ve baÅlangıçta baÅarısız olması için bir engelin
olmadıÄı
-bir sistem yapmak isterdim. Åimdi ise, sistemi Unix ile uyumlu hale
-getirmek, tasarım kararlarının tümünü gerçekleÅtirmiÅtir çünkü
Unix, birçok
-parçadan oluÅmaktadır ve bu parçalar, oldukça iyi bir Åekilde klavuzları
-yazılmıŠolan ara yüzler üzerinden haberleÅmektedir. Bu nedenle, Unix ile
-uyumlu olmak isterseniz, her bir parçayı birer birer uyumlu bir parça ile
-deÄiÅtirmeniz gereklidir. Bu nedenle, kalan tasarım kararları bir
parçanın
-içindedir ve söz konusu parçayı kim yazmaya karar verirse, o kiÅi
tarafından
-gerçekleÅtirilebilir. BaÅlangıçta gerçekleÅtirilmeleri gerekmez. </p>
-
-<p>ÃalıÅmayı baÅlatmak için tüm yapmamız gereken sistem için bir isim
-bulmaktı. Åimdi, biz hackerâlar, bir program için her zaman komik ya da
-haylaz bir isim ararız çünkü programın ismi ile eÄlenen insanları
düÅünmek,
-programı yazmanın eÄlencesinin yarısı kadardır. <i>[dinleyiciler
güler]</i>
-Ve sözcüklerin baÅ harflerinden oluÅan yinelemeli isimleri verme
geleneÄine
-sahiptik, bu, yazmakta olduÄunuz programın, mevcut bir programa benzer bir
-isme sahip olduÄu anlamına gelmektedir. Programınıza, Åunu söyleyen ve
-sözcüklerin baÅ harflerinden oluÅan (akronim) yinelemeli bir isim
-verebilirsiniz: bu, diÄeri deÄil. Böylece örneÄin, 1960âlarda ve
1970âlerde
-çok sayıda Tico metin editörü vardı ve bunlar genellikle birileri ya da
-diÄerleri TECO olarak adlandırılmaktaydı. Daha sonra akıllı bir hacker
bunu
-Tint olarak adlandırdı çünkü Tint, TECO DeÄildi â ilk yinelemeli
-kısaltmaydı. 1975 yılında, ilk Emacs metin editörünü geliÅtirdim ve
Emacsâin
-birçok taklidi vardı ve bunların birçoÄu biri ya da baÅka Emacs olarak
-adlandırıldı ancak biri Fine olarak adlandırıldı, çünkü Fine Emacs
DeÄildi
-ve Sine vardı çünkü Sine Emacs DeÄildi ve Eine, çünkü Eine Emacs
deÄildi ve
-MINCE çünkü Mince Tamamen Emacs DeÄildi. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i>
-DaraltılmıŠbir taklit vardı. Ve Eine daha sonra tamamen yeniden yazıldı
ve
-yeni sürüm Zwei olarak adlandırıldı, BaÅlangıçta Zwei Eine
-İdi. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i></p>
-
-<p>Bu nedenle, Bir Åeyler Unix deÄil (Somethingâs not Unix) için
yinelemeli bir
-akronim aradım. Ve 26 harfin tümünü denedim ve hiçbirinin bir sözcük
-oluÅturmadıÄını fark ettim. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Hım, baÅka bir
-yoldan denemeliydim. Bir küçültmeye karar verdim. Bu Åekilde, Bir Åeyler
-Unix deÄil için üç harfli bir akronimim oldu. Ve harfleri denedim ve
âGNUâ
-sözcüÄüyle karÅılaÅtım â âGNUâ sözcüÄü Ä°ngilizcedeki en
komik
-sözcüktür. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Bu oldu. Tabi ki, komik olmasının
-nedeni, sözlüÄe göre âyeniâ olarak telaffuz edilmesiydi. Ä°nsanların
onu
-kelime oyunu için kullanmasının nedeni de buydu. Ayrıca size söyleyeyim
ki,
-bu, Afrikaâda yaÅayan bir hayvanın adıdır. Ve Afrika telaffuzu, bu isim
-üzerinde bir tıklama sesine sahipti. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Belki de
-hâlâ öyledir. Ve böylece Avrupalı koloniciler, oraya vardıklarında, bu
-tıklama sesini söylemeyi öÄrenmekte sıkıntı çekmediler. Bu nedenle onu
orada
-bıraktılar ve bir âgâ yazdılar, bu da âtelaffuz etmediÄimiz baÅka
bir sesin
-burada olması gerektiÄiâ anlamına gelmekteydi. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]
</i>
-Bu nedenle, bu gece Güney Afrikaâya gidiyorum ve onlardan rica edeceÄim,
-umarım ki, bana tıklama seslerini telaffuz etmeyi öÄretecek birilerini
-bulabilirler <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> böylece GNUâyu, bu bir hayvan adı
-olduÄunda, doÄru Åekilde telaffuz etmeyi öÄreneceÄim.</p>
-
-<p>Ancak bu sistemimizin adı olduÄunda, doÄru telaffuz âguh-NEWâ dir,
sert
-âgâyi telaffuz edin. âYeniâ iÅletim sistemi hakkında
konuÅuyorsanız,
-insanların kafasını karıÅtıracaksınız çünkü halen bu konu hakkında
17 yıldır
-çalıÅıyoruz, yani bu konu artık yeni deÄil. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i>
-Ancak yine de yenidir ve her zaman da öyle olacaktır, GNU â kaç tane insan
-yanlıÅlıkla onu Linux olarak adlandırırsa adlandırsın. <i>[dinleyiciler
-güler]</i></p>
-
-<p>Bu nedenle, 1984 yılının Ocak ayında GNUânun parçalarını yazmak
için
-MITâdeki iÅimden ayrıldım1. Ancak imkânlarını kullanmama izin verecek
kadar
-kibardılar. Bu arada, tüm parçaları yazacaÄımızı ve komple bir GNU
sistemi
-yapabileceÄimizi düÅündüm ve daha sonra Åunu diyecektik: âGelin ve
alınâ ve
-insanlar, GNUâyu kullanmaya baÅlayacaklardı. Ancak durum böyle
-olmadı. YazdıÄım ilk parçalar, Unixâin bazı parçalarının yerine
eÅit
-derecede iyi bir Åekilde geçmekteydiler ve daha az hataya sahiptiler ancak
-ciddi ölçüde heyecan verici deÄildiler. Hiç kimse özellikle onları alıp
-kurmak istemiyordu. Ancak daha sonra 1984 yılının Eylül ayında GNU
Emacsâi
-yazmaya baÅladım, bu, Emacsâin ikinci implementasyonuydu ve 1985âin
-baÅlarında, çalıÅıyordu. Tüm düzenleme iÅlemlerim için GNU Emacsâı
-kullanabiliyordum, bu, büyük bir rahatlamaydı çünkü Unix editörü olan
viâyı
-öÄrenmeye hiç niyetim yoktu. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Bu nedenle, o
-zamana kadar, düzenleme iÅlemlerimi baÅka bir makinede yaptım ve dosyaları
-network üzerinden kaydettim, böylece dosyaları test edebiliyordum. Ancak GNU
-Emacs benim kullanabilmem için yeterince iyi bir Åekilde çalıÅtıÄında,
diÄer
-insanlar da onu kullanmak istemiÅtir.</p>
-
-<p>Bu nedenle, daÄıtımın ayrıntılarını çalıÅmam gerekti. Tabi ki,
yazarı
-bilinmeyen FTP dizinine bir kopya koydum ve nette olan insanlar için bu iyi
-bir durumdu â bir tar dosyasını taÅıyabiliyorlardı ancak 1985 yılında
nette
-çok sayıda programcı yoktu. âBir kopyasını nasıl temin edebilirim?â
diyen
-e-postalar gönderiyorlardı. Onları nasıl yanıtlayacaÄıma karar
-vermeliydim. Åunu diyebilirdim: âZamanımı daha fazla GNU yazılımı
yazarak
-harcamak istiyorum, bant yazarak zaman kaybetmek istemiyorum, bu nedenle
-İnternette olan ve yazılımı indirmek isteyen ve sizin için bir banda
koyacak
-olan bir arkadaÅ bulun,â ve eminim ki, er ya da geç insanlar birtakım
-arkadaÅlar bulacaktı. Kopyaları alacaklardı. Ancak bir taraftan da
-iÅsizdim. Gerçekte, 1984 yılının Ocak ayında MITâden ayrıldıÄımdan
beri
-iÅsizdim. Bu nedenle, özgür yazılım üzerindeki çalıÅmam sayesinde para
-kazanmanın bir yolunu aramaya baÅladım ve böylece bir özgür yazılım
iÅine
-baÅladım. Åu bildiride bulundum: âBana 150 dolar gönderin ve ben de size
-Emacsâın bandını yollayayım.â Ve sipariÅler gelmeye baÅladı.
Yılın ortası
-itibariyle sipariÅler arttı.</p>
-
-<p>Ayda 8 ilâ 10 arasında sipariŠalıyordum. Ve gerekli olursa, bu parayla
-geçinebilirdim çünkü her zaman az parayla yaÅamaya alıÅıktım. Temel
olarak
-bir öÄrenci gibi yaÅıyorum. Ve bunu seviyorum çünkü bu, paranın bana ne
-yapmam gerektiÄini söylemediÄi anlamına gelmektedir. Benim için neyin
önemli
-olduÄunu düÅünüyorsam onu yapabilirim. Bu, yapılmaya deÄer Åeyleri
yapmam
-konusunda beni özgür kıldı. Tipik Amerikalıların pahalı yaÅam
-alıÅkanlıklarına gömülmemi önlemek için gerçek bir çaba gösterdim.
Ãünkü
-pahalı yaÅarsanız (50), o zaman parası olan insanlar hayatınızla ilgili
-olarak ne yapmanız gerektiÄini zorla kabul ettirir. Sizin için gerçekten de
-önemli olan Åeyi yapamazsınız. </p>
-
-<p>Bu iyiydi ancak insanlar bana Åunu sormaktaydı: âBu yazılım 150 dolar
-tutuyorsa, nasıl özgür yazılım olur?â <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Bunu
-sormalarının nedeni, Ä°ngilizcedeki âfree (özgür - ücretsiz)â
sözcüÄünün
-çeÅitli anlamlarıyla kafalarının karıÅmasıydı. Bir anlamı fiyata ve
diÄer
-anlamı özgürlüÄe atıf yapmaktadır. Ãzgür yazılım dediÄimde,
özgürlükten
-bahsediyorum paradan deÄil. Ãzgür konuÅmayı düÅünün, ücretsiz birayı
-deÄil. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Åimdi yani, hayatımın bu kadar çok
yılını
-programcıların daha az para kazanmasını saÄlamaya adamadım. Hedefim bu
-deÄil. Ben bir programcıyım ve para kazanmaya çok önem vermiyorum. Tüm
-ömrümü para kazanmaya adamayacaÄım, para kazanmayı kafama takmıyorum.
Ancak
-â ahlak kuralları herkes için aynı olduÄundan â para kazanan baÅka
-programcılara karÅı deÄilim. Ãcretlerin düÅük olmasını istemiyorum.
Ãnemli
-olan konu bu deÄil. Burada önemli olan konu özgürlük. Kullanan kiÅi
-programcı olsun olmasın, yazılımı kullanan herkes için özgürlük.</p>
-
-<p>Bu noktada size özgür yazılımın tanımını vermeliyim. En iyisi bazı
gerçek
-ayrıntılara gireyim çünkü yalnızca âözgürlüÄe inanıyorumâ demek
-saçmadır. Ä°nanabileceÄiniz birçok farklı özgürlük mevcuttur ve bunlar
-birbiriyle çatıÅmaktadır, bu nedenle, gerçek politik soru Åudur: Ãnemli
-özgürlükler nelerdir, herkesin sahip olduÄundan emin olduÄumuz
özgürlükler
-midir?</p>
-
-<p>Åimdi, yazılımın kullanılmasına iliÅkin belirli alan için söz
konusu soruya
-iliÅkin cevabı vereceÄim. AÅaÄıdaki özgürlüklere sahipseniz, bir
program
-sizin için âözgür yazılımâdır:</p>
-
-<ul>
-<li>Ä°lk olarak, Ãzgürlük Sıfır, programı istediÄiniz amaç için,
istediÄiniz
-Åekilde çalıÅtırabilme özgürlüÄüdür.</li>
-<li>Ãzgürlük Bir, programı ihtiyaçlarınıza uygun olacak Åekilde
deÄiÅtirebilme
-özgürlüÄüdür.</li>
-<li>Ãzgürlük Ä°ki, programın kopyalarını daÄıtarak komÅunuza yardım
edebilme
-özgürlüÄüdür.</li>
-<li>Ve son olarak Ãzgürlük Ãç, geliÅmiÅ sürümü yayınlayarak
topluluÄunuzu
-oluÅturma özgürlüÄüdür, böylece baÅkaları da çalıÅmalarınızdan
-faydalanabilir.</li>
-</ul>
-
-<p>Bu özgürlüklerin tümüne sahipseniz, program sizin için özgür
yazılımdır â ve
-bu önemlidir. Bunu bu Åekilde ifade etmemin nedeni budur. Bunun nedenini
-daha sonra, GNU Genel Kamu Lisansı hakkında konuÅtuÄumda açıklayacaÄım
ama
-Åimdi özgür yazılımın ne olduÄunu açıklayacaÄım, bu, çok daha
temel bir
-sorudur.</p>
-
-<p>Ãzgürlük Sıfır oldukça açıktır. Programı istediÄiniz herhangi
bir Åekilde
-çalıÅtırmanıza izin verilmezse, bu, oldukça kötü kısıtlayıcı bir
-programdır. Ancak gerçekte, birçok program size en azından Ãzgürlük
Sıfırı
-saÄlayacaktır. Ve Ãzgürlük Bir, Ä°ki ve Ãçün bir sonucu olarak yasal
biçimde
-Ãzgürlük Sıfır bu özgürlükleri izler â telif hakkı kanununun
çalıÅma biçimi
-budur. Ãzgür yazılımı tipik yazılımdan ayıran özgürlükler
Ãzgürlük Bir, Ä°ki
-ve Ãçtür, bu nedenle bu özgürlükleri ve niçin önemli olduklarını
-açıklayacaÄım.</p>
-
-<p>Ãzgürlük Bir, programı ihtiyaçlarınıza uygun olacak Åekilde
deÄiÅtirebilme
-özgürlüÄüdür. Bu özgürlük, hataların ayıklanması anlamına
gelebilir. Yeni
-özelliklerin eklenmesi anlamına da gelebilir. Tüm hata mesajlarının
-Navajoâya dönüÅtürülmesi anlamına gelebilir. Herhangi bir deÄiÅiklik
yapmak
-isterseniz, söz konusu deÄiÅikliÄi özgürce yapabilmelisiniz. </p>
-
-<p>Åimdi, profesyonel programcılar bu özgürlüÄü çok etkin bir Åekilde
-kullanabilir ancak profesyonel programcılar yalnızca bu özgürlüÄü
deÄil, tüm
-özgürlükleri etkin bir Åekilde kullanabilir. Akıllı bir kimse biraz
-programlama öÄrenebilir. Zor iÅler vardır ve kolay iÅler vardır ve çoÄu
-insan, zor iÅleri yapmaya yetecek kadar bilgi öÄrenmeyecektir. Ancak birçok
-insan, 50 yıl önce olduÄu gibi, kolay iÅleri yapmaya yetecek kadar bilgi
-öÄrenebilir, çok sayıda Amerikalı erkek, araba tamir etmeyi
öÄrenmiÅtir, bu
-durum da, ABD.ânin 2. Dünya SavaÅında motorize bir orduya sahip
olmasını ve
-savaÅı kazanmasını saÄlamıÅtır. Bu tip insanlara sahip olmak çok
önemlidir. </p>
-
-<p>Sosyal bir insansanız ve aslında teknolojiye hiç merakınız yoksa, bu
durum
-muhtemelen çok sayıda arkadaÅınızın olduÄu ve kendinize iyilik
yaptırmak
-konusunda iyi olduÄunuz anlamına gelmektedir. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Bu
-arkadaÅlardan bazıları muhtemelen programcılardır. Böylece
programlayıcı
-arkadaÅlarınızdan birine sorabilirsiniz. âLütfen bunu benim için
deÄiÅtirir
-misin? Bu özelliÄi ekler misin?â Böylece, çok sayıda insan programdan
-faydalanabilir.</p>
-
-<p>Åimdi, bu özgürlüÄe sahip deÄilseniz, bu, toplum için pratik ve maddi
-kayıplara neden olur. Sizi, programınızın bir kölesi haline getirir. Lazer
-yazıcısına göre bunun nasıl bir Åey olduÄunu açıklamıÅtım. Bu,
bizim için
-kötü bir Åekilde çalıÅmıÅtır ve bu sorunu gideremezdik çünkü
yazılımımızın
-kölesiydik.</p>
-
-<p>Ama ayrıca bu durum, insanların moralini de etkilemektedir. Bilgisayarın
-kullanılması sürekli olarak hayal kırıklıÄına uÄratıcı bir durum
-oluÅturuyorsa ve insanlar onu kullanıyorsa, yaÅamları da hayal
kırıklıÄı
-içinde olacaktır ve bunu iÅlerinde kullanıyorlarsa, iÅleri de onları
hayal
-kırıklıÄına uÄratacaktır ve iÅlerinden nefret edeceklerdir. Ve
biliyorsunuz,
-insanlar bir konu hakkında hayal kırıklıÄına uÄramamak için, o konuya
önem
-vermemeyi tercih eder. Böylece yaklaÅımları Åu Åekilde olan insanlarla
-karÅılaÅırsınız: âBugün iÅimle uÄraÅtım. Tüm yapmam gereken de
-buydu. Ä°lerleme kaydedemezsem, bu benim problemim deÄildir; bu, patronumun
-problemidir.â Ve bu durum meydana geldiÄinde, bu, bu insanlar için
kötüdür
-ve bu, toplumun bütünü için kötüdür. Bu, Ãzgürlük Birdir, kendinize
yardım
-etme özgürlüÄüdür. </p>
-
-<p>Ãzgürlük Ä°ki, programınızın kopyalarını daÄıtarak komÅunuza
yardım etme
-özgürlüÄünüzdür. Åimdi, düÅünebilen ve öÄrenebilen canlılar
için, yararlı
-bilginin paylaÅılması önemli bir arkadaÅlık iÅlevidir. Bu canlılar
-bilgisayarı kullandıkları zaman, bu arkadaÅlık iÅlevi yazılımın
paylaÅılması
-biçimini almaktadır. ArkadaÅlar birbirleriyle birçok Åeyi
-paylaÅmaktadır. ArkadaÅlar birbirine yardım eder. Bu, arkadaÅlıÄın
doÄasında
-vardır. Ve aslında, bu iyi niyet ruhu â komÅunuza yardım etme ruhu,
gönüllü
-olarak â toplumun en önemli kaynaÄıdır. YaÅanabilir bir toplumla vahÅi
bir
-toplum arasındaki farkı oluÅturur. Binlerce yıldır dünyadaki büyük
dinler
-tarafından paylaÅmanın önemi fark edilmiÅtir ve açık bir Åekilde bu
-davranıÅı yüreklendirmeye çalıÅmaktadırlar.</p>
-
-<p>Anaokuluna giderken, öÄretmenlerimiz bize bu yaklaÅımı benimsetmeye
-çalıÅıyordu â paylaÅmamızı saÄlayarak paylaÅmanın ruhunu
benimsememizi
-istiyorlardı. PaylaÅırsak bunu öÄrenebileceÄimizi anlamıÅlardı. Bu
nedenle
-Åöyle söylemekteydiler: âOkula Åeker getirirseniz, hepsini kendiniz
-yememelisiniz; bir kısmını baÅka çocuklarla paylaÅmalısınız.â
Toplum, bu
-iÅbirliÄi ruhunu öÄretmek için kurulmuÅtu. Ve niçin bunu yapmanız
-gereklidir? Ãünkü insanların hepsi iÅbirliÄi yapma taraftarı deÄildir.
Bu,
-insan ruhunun bir parçasıdır ve insan ruhunun baÅka parçaları da
-vardır. Ä°nsan doÄasının çok sayıda parçası vardır. Bu nedenle, daha
iyi bir
-toplum istiyorsanız, paylaÅma ruhunu cesaretlendirmek için çalıÅmanız
-gereklidir. Bu, hiçbir zaman % 100 olamayacaktır. Bu, anlaÅılabilir bir
-durumdur. İnsanların kendilerine de özen göstermeleri gereklidir. Ancak
bunu
-biraz daha büyütebilirsek, hepimiz daha iyi durumda olacaÄız. </p>
-
-<p>Bugünlerde, ABD hükümetine göre, öÄretmenler bunun tam tersini
-yapmaktadır. âJohnny, yazılımı okula getirdin. PaylaÅma. Hayır.
PaylaÅmak
-yanlıÅtır. PaylaÅmak senin bir korsan olduÄun anlamına gelir.â</p>
-
-<p> âKorsanâ dediklerinde ne demek isterler? KomÅunuza yardım etmenin bir
-gemiye saldırmakla ahlaki açıdan eÅ deÄer olduÄunu
-söylerler. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i></p>
-
-<p>Buda ya da Ä°sa bu konuda ne diyor? Åimdi en sevdiÄiniz dini lideri ele
-alın. Bilmiyorum, belki de Manson farklı bir Åeyler söyler.
<i>[dinleyiciler
-güler]</i> L. Ron Hubbardâın ne söyleyeceÄini kim bilir ki? Ama
…</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: <i>[Ä°Åitilememektedir]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tabi ki, o ölmüÅtür. Ama bunu kabul
-etmezler. Nedir?</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>:ÃlmüŠolan baÅkaları da vardır. <i>[dinleyiciler
-güler]</i> <i>[Ä°Åitilememektedir]</i> Charles Manson da
-ölüdür. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Onlar ölüdür, İsa ölüdür, Buda
-ölüdür…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>:Evet, bu doÄru. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Bu
-nedenle tahmin ediyorum ki, bu anlamda, L. Ron Hubbard diÄerlerinden daha
-kötü deÄil. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Her neyse â
<i>[Ä°Åitilemez]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>:L. Ron her zaman özgür yazılım kullandı â bu,
onu
-Zanuâdan kurtardı. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>Her neyse, zannediyorum ki, bu, yazılımın
özgür
-olmasının gerekli olmasının en önemli nedenidir: toplumun en önemli
-kaynaÄını kirletemeyiz. Bunun temiz hava ve temiz su gibi fiziksel bir
-kaynak olmadıÄı doÄrudur. Psikososyal bir kaynaktır ancak tüm bunlar
için
-gerçektir ve hayatlarımızda büyük bir fark yaratmaktadır. YaptıÄımız
-hareketler baÅka insanların düÅüncelerini etkilemektedir. Ä°nsanlara
-âBirbirinizle paylaÅmayınâ dersek ve onlar da bizi dinlerlerse, toplum
-üzerinde bir etkimiz olacaktır ve bu, iyi bir etki deÄildir. Bu, Ãzgürlük
-Ä°kidir, komÅunuza yardım etme özgürlüÄünüzdür.</p>
-
-<p>Bu arada, söz konusu özgürlüÄe sahip deÄilseniz, bu, yalnızca
toplumun
-psikososyal kaynaÄına zarar vermekle kalmaz ayrıca harcama uygulamalı,
maddi
-zarara da neden olur. Programın bir sahibi varsa ve bu sahip, kullanmak için
-ödemesinin gerekli olduÄu gidiÅatı düzenlerse, bazı insanlar Åunu
-diyeceklerdir: âKafana takma, onsuz da yapabilirimâ. Ve bu boÅa
harcamadır,
-kasıtlı olarak boÅa harcamaya neden olmaktadır. Ve tabi ki yazılım
-hakkındaki ilginç Åey, daha az kullanıcının daha az malzeme
oluÅturmanız
-gerektiÄi anlamına gelmemesidir. Daha az sayıda insan araba satın alırsa,
-daha az sayıda araba yapabilirsiniz. Burada bir tasarruf vardır. Araba
-yapımı için tahsis edilecek ya da tahsis edilmeyecek kaynaklar
-vardır. Böylece bir arabanın fiyatının olmasının iyi bir Åey olduÄunu
-söyleyebilirsiniz. Gerçekten de ihtiyaç duyulmayan arabaların yapılması
için
-kaynaklar harcanmamıŠolur. Ancak her bir ilâve araba hiçbir kaynaÄı
-kullanmasaydı, o zaman bu arabaların yapılmasından tasarruf
saÄlanmasının
-bir anlamı olmayacaktı. Arabalar gibi fiziksel nesneler için, ilâve
-nesneler, her bir numuneyi üretmek için kaynaklar kullanılacaktır.</p>
-
-<p>Ancak yazılım için bu durum doÄru deÄildir. Herhangi biri, baÅka bir
kopya
-oluÅturabilir. Ve bunun yapılması hemen hemen önemsizdir. Hiçbir kaynaÄı
-gerektirmez, yalnızca çok azıcık elektrik gerektirir. Bu nedenle
tasarrufunu
-yapabileceÄimiz bir Åey yoktur, yazılımın kullanımı üzerindeki bu
finansal
-engelleyiciyi koyarak daha iyi tahsis edebileceÄimiz bir kaynak
-yoktur. İnsanların yazılıma uygulanmayan dayanak noktalarını esas alarak
-çoÄunlukla ekonomik muhakemenin sonuçlarını deÄerlendirdiÄini ve dayanak
-noktalarının uygulanabildiÄi hayatın baÅka alanlarından nakletmeye
-çalıÅtıklarını fark edersiniz ve sonuçlar geçerli olabilir. Ä°ddia
hiçbir
-Åeyi esas almadıÄında ve yazılım söz konusu olduÄunda, sonuçları
alırlar ve
-yazılım için de geçerli olduÄunu varsayarlar. Dayanak noktaları bu
durumda
-çalıÅmaz. Nerede geçerli olabildiÄinin görülmesi için bu sonuca nasıl
-ulaÅtıÄınızın ve hangi dayanak noktalarına baÄlı olduÄunun
incelenmesi çok
-önemlidir. Bu nedenle, bu Ãzgürlük Ä°kidir, komÅunuza yardım edebilme
-özgürlüÄünüzdür. </p>
-
-<p>Ãzgürlük Ãç, yazılımın geliÅmiÅ bir sürümünü yayınlayarak
kendi
-topluluÄunuzu oluÅturma özgürlüÄünüzdür. Ä°nsanlar bana Åunu
söylemekteydi:
-âYazılım özgür olursa, o zaman yazılım konusunda çalıÅmak için
kimse para
-almayacaktır, o zaman insanlar yazılım konusunda neden çalıÅsınlar?â
Tabi
-ki, özgür kelimesinin anlamını karıÅtırmaktadırlar, bu nedenle
-deÄerlendirmeleri bir yanlıŠanlamayı esas almaktadır. Ancak, her durumda,
-bu, onların teorisidir. Bugün, teoriyi deneysel gerçekle
karÅılaÅtırabiliriz
-ve yüzlerce insana özgür yazılım yazmak için para ödenmekte olduÄu ve
-100,000âden fazla insanın ise gönüllü olarak çalıÅtıÄı gerçeÄini
-görürüz. Birçok farklı nedenle özgür yazılım üzerinde çalıÅan
çok sayıda
-insan vardır.</p>
-
-<p>GNU Emacsâı â insanların gerçekten de kullanmak istediÄi ilk GNU
sistem
-parçasıdır â ilk olarak yayınladıÄım zaman ve kullanıcıları olmaya
baÅladıÄı
-zaman, bir süre sonra, Åu gibi mesajlar aldım: âKaynak kodunda bir hata
-gördüm ve iÅte bu da çözümü.â Ve baÅka bir mesaj daha aldım, âBu,
yeni bir
-özellik ekleme kodu.â Ve baÅka bir hata düzeltmesi daha aldım. Ve baÅka
bir
-yeni özellik daha aldım. Ve daha da baÅka mesajlar geldi, o kadar çok mesaj
-geldi ki, bu kadar çok yardımın kullanılması büyük bir iÅti.
Microsoftâun
-böyle bir problemi yoktur. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i></p>
-
-<p>Sonunda, insanlar bu fenomeni kaydetti. 1980âlerde, birçoÄumuz özgür
-yazılımın özgür olmayan yazılım kadar iyi olmayacaÄını düÅündü
çünkü
-insanlara ödeme yapmak için çok paramız olmayacaktı. Ve tabi ki benim gibi
-özgürlüÄe ve topluma deÄer veren insanlar Åunu dedi: âÃzgür
yazılımı her
-Åekilde kullanacaÄız.â ÃzgürlüÄe sahip olmak için yalnızca
birtakım teknik
-elveriÅlilik konusunda biraz fedakarlık yapmaya deÄer. Ancak insanlar 1990
-yılı civarında yazılımımızın gerçekte daha iyi olduÄunu söylemeye
-baÅladı. Ãzgür yazılım, özel mülk alternatiflerinden daha güçlü ve
-güvenilirdi. </p>
-
-<p>1990âların baÅında, birileri, yazılımın güvenilirliÄinin bilimsel
ölçümüne
-iliÅkin bir yol buldu. Ä°Åte Åimdi bahsedeceklerimi yaptı. Farklı
sistemlerde
-aynı iÅleri â tam olarak aynı iÅleri â yapan çeÅitli
karÅılaÅtırılabilir
-program gruplarını aldı. Ãünkü belirli Unix benzeri temel özellikler
-mevcuttu. Ve yaptıkları iÅler az çok aynı Åeydi â ya da POSIX
-spesifikasyonunu izliyorlardı â böylece yaptıkları iÅler anlamında
tümü
-aynıydı; ancak farklı insanlar tarafından sorunları gideriliyordu ve ayrı
-olarak yazılmıÅlardı. Kod farklıydı. Bu nedenle, Åunu diyorlardı: bu
-programları alacak ve rastgele veriyle çalıÅtıracaÄız ve ne sıklıkta
-çakıldıklarını ölçeceÄiz. Böylece bunu ölçtüler ve en güvenilir
program
-grubu GNU programları oldu. özel mülk yazılım olan tüm ticari
alternatifler
-çok daha az güvenilirdi. Bu nedenle bunu yayınladı ve tüm geliÅtiricilere
-anlattı. Birkaç yıl sonra, aynı deneyi en yeni sürümlerle de yaptı ve
aynı
-sonucu elde etti. GNU sürümleri en güvenilir olanlardı. BildiÄiniz gibi,
GNU
-sistemini kullanan kanser klinikleri ve 911 operasyonları vardır çünkü GNU
-çok güvenilirdir ve güvenilirlik onlar için çok önemlidir. </p>
-
-<p>Her neyse, kullanıcıların bu çeÅitli Åeyleri yapmasına niçin izin
verilmesi
-gerektiÄi ve bu özgürlüklere sahip olması gerektiÄine iliÅkin temel
neden
-olarak bu belirli faydaya odaklanan bir insan grubu bile vardır. Beni
-dinliyorsanız, özgür yazılım hareketi için konuÅursak, nasıl bir
toplumun
-içinde yaÅamak istediÄimiz ve etik, iyi bir toplumun nasıl oluÅturulduÄu
ve
-pratik ve maddi çıkarlar gibi hususlar hakkında konuÅtuÄumu fark
-edersiniz. Bunlar çok önemlidir. Bu, özgür yazılım hareketidir. </p>
-
-<p>Açık kaynak hareketi â olarak adlandırılan bu diÄer insan grubu
yalnızca
-pratik çıkarlardan bahsetmektedir. Bunun bir ilke hususu olduÄunu inkar
-etmektedirler. Ä°nsanların komÅularıyla paylaÅma, programın ne
yaptıÄını
-görme ve sevmedikleri durumda programı deÄiÅtirme özgürlüÄüne sahip
olduÄunu
-inkar ederler. Ancak insanların bu özgürlüklere sahip olmasının iyi bir
Åey
-olduÄunu söylerler. Böylece firmalara giderler ve onlara Åunu derler:
-âÄ°nsanların bunları yapmasına izin verirseniz, daha fazla para
-kazanabilirsiniz.â Bu nedenle, görebileceÄiniz Åey, belirli bir dereceye
-kadar budur, insanları benzer bir yöne sürerler ancak tamamıyla farklı â
-temel olarak farklı felsefi nedenler için bunu yaparlar. </p>
-
-<p>En derin husus olarak, etik soruda, iki hareket birbiriyle uyumsuzdur.
Ãzgür
-yazılım hareketinde Åunu deriz: âBu özgürlükler hakkınızdır.
Ä°nsanlar, bu
-Åeyleri yapmanızı engellememelidir.â Açık kaynak hareketinde, Åunu
derler:
-âEvet, isterlerse sizi durdurabilirler ancak bu Åeyleri yapmanız için size
-izin vermelerine tenezzül etmeleri için onları ikna etmeye
çalıÅacaÄız.â
-Bunu gerçekleÅtirdiler â belirli sayıda iÅyerini önemli yazılım
parçalarını,
-topluluÄumuzda özgür yazılım olarak yayınlamaya ikna ettiler. Açık
kaynak
-hareketi, topluluÄumuza büyük oranda katkıda bulunmuÅtur ve pratik
-projelerde [onlarla] birlikte çalıÅırız. Ancak felsefi olarak, burada,
büyük
-bir anlaÅmazlık mevcuttur.</p>
-
-<p>Maalesef, açık kaynak hareketi, iÅ hayatının en çok desteÄini alan
-harekettir ve çalıÅmamız hakkındaki birçok makale onu açık kaynak
olarak
-tanımlamaktadır ve çok sayıda insan, açık kaynak hareketinin bir
parçası
-olduÄumuzu düÅünmektedir. Bu nedenle, bu, bu ayrımı yapmamın
-nedenidir. TopluluÄumuzu oluÅturan ve özgür iÅletim sistemini geliÅtiren
-özgür yazılım hareketinin hâlâ burada olduÄunu bilmenizi isterim â ve
biz,
-bu etik felsefenin tarafını tutacaÄız. Bunu bilmenizi isterim, bilmeden
-baÅka birilerini yanlıŠyönlendirmenizi istemem.</p>
-
-<p>Ancak ayrıca, nerede durduÄunuzu da bilmenizi isterim.</p>
-
-<p>Hangi hareketi desteklediÄiniz size kalmıÅtır. Ãzgür yazılım
hareketleriyle
-ve benim görüÅlerimle aynı fikirde olabilirsiniz. Açık kaynak hareketiyle
-aynı fikirde olabilirsiniz. Ama her ikisiyle de farklı fikirlerde de
-olabilirsiniz. Bu politik alanlarda nerede duracaÄınıza karar verin.</p>
-
-<p>Ancak özgür yazılım hareketiyle fikir birliÄi içindeyseniz â
yaÅamları bu
-karar tarafından kontrol edilen ve yönlendirilen insanların bu konuda bir
-fikir sahibi olmayı hak ettiklerini görürseniz â o zaman umarım ki,
özgür
-yazılım hareketiyle fikir birliÄi içinde olduÄunuzu söyleyeceksiniz ve
bunu
-yapmanızın bir yolu, âözgür yazılımâ terimini kullanmak ve
insanların bizim
-var olduÄumuzu bilmelerini saÄlamaya yardımcı olmaktır.</p>
-
-<p>Bu nedenle, Ãzgürlük Ãç hem pratik olarak hem de psikososyal olarak
çok
-önemlidir. Bu özgürlüÄe sahip deÄilseniz, bu, pratik maddi zarara neden
-olmaktadır çünkü bu topluluk geliÅimi gerçekleÅmez ve güçlü ve
güvenilir
-yazılım hazırlayamayız. Ayrıca, psikososyal zarara da neden olur, bu da
-bilimsel iÅbirliÄinin ruhunu etkiler â bu, insanlıÄın ortak bilgi
birikimini
-geliÅtirmek için birlikte çalıÅma fikridir. GördüÄünüz gibi,
bilimdeki
-ilerleme insanların birlikte çalıÅabilme gücüne baÄlıdır. Ancak
bugünlerde,
-her bir küçük bilim adamı grubunun her bir bilim adamı ve mühendis
takımıyla
-bir savaÅtaymıŠgibi davrandıÄını görürsünüz. Ancak birbirleriyle
paylaÅımda
-bulunmazlarsa, tümü geride tutulmuŠolur.</p>
-
-<p>Böylece, bunlar, özgür yazılımı tipik yazılımdan ayıran üç
-özgürlüktür. Ãzgürlük Bir, yazılımı kendi ihtiyaçlarınıza göre
-deÄiÅtirebilme özgürlüÄüdür. Ãzgürlük Ä°ki, kopyaları daÄıtarak
komÅunuza
-yardım edebilme özgürlüÄüdür. Ve Ãzgürlük Ãç, deÄiÅiklik yaparak
ve diÄer
-insanların kullanması için yayınlayarak topluluÄunuzun oluÅmasına
yardım
-edebilme özgürlüÄüdür. Tüm bu özgürlüklere sahipseniz, bu program
sizin için
-özgür yazılımdır. Åimdi, bunu niçin belirli bir kullanıcı
açısından bu
-Åekilde tanımlamıyorum? Bu, sizin için özgür yazılım mıdır?
-<i>[Dinleyicilerden birini gösterir.]</i> Bu, sizin için özgür yazılım
-mıdır? <i>[BaÅka bir dinleyiciyi gösterir.]</i> Bu, sizin için özgür
yazılım
-mıdır? <i>[BaÅka bir dinleyiciyi gösterir.]</i> Evet?</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Ãzgürlük Ä°ki ile Ãzgürlük Ãç arasındaki
fark hakkında
-biraz bilgi verir misiniz? <i>[iÅitilemiyor]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>:Kesinlikle aralarında bir iliÅki vardır
çünkü
-daÄıtma özgürlüÄünüz yoksa, kesinlikle deÄiÅtirilmiÅ bir sürümü
daÄıtma
-özgürlüÄünüz de yoktur ancak bunlar farklı iÅlemlerdir.</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>:Oh.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Ãzgürlük Ä°ki, biliyorsunuz, okursunuz, bir
-kopyasını hazırlarsınız ve arkadaÅlarınıza verirsiniz, böylece Åimdi
-arkadaÅınız da kullanabilir. Ya da belki de kopyalar hazırlayabilir ve
-onları bir grup insana satabilirsiniz ve onlar da bu yazılımı
-kullanabilirler.</p>
-
-<p>Ãzgürlük Ãç, geliÅtirme yaptıÄınız â ya da en azından
geliÅtirme yaptıÄınızı
-düÅündüÄünüz ve bazı insanların sizinle farklı fikirde olduÄu
-özgürlüktür. Bu nedenle, fark budur. Bu arada, önemli bir nokta:
Ãzgürlük
-Bir ve Ãç, kaynak koduna eriÅiminize baÄlıdır. Ãünkü âyalnızca
ikiliâ
-[:binary-only] olan bir programın deÄiÅtirilmesi çok zordur
<i>[dinleyiciler
-güler]</i> â tarih için dört basamak kullanmak gibi basit deÄiÅiklikler
bile
-â kaynak koduna sahip deÄilseniz, çok zordur. Bu nedenle, zorlama için,
-uygulamadaki nedenler için, kaynak koduna eriÅim, özgür yazılım için
bir ön
-Åarttır, bir Åarttır. </p>
-
-<p>Böylece, bunu niçin <em>sizin için</em> özgür yazılım olup
olmadıÄı
-cinsinden tanımlıyorum? Bunun nedeni, bazen aynı yazılımın bazı insanlar
-için özgür yazılımken, diÄerleri için özgür olmayan yazılım
-olabilmesidir. Åimdi, bu paradoksal bir durum gibi görünebilir, bu nedenle
-bu durumun nasıl meydana geldiÄini size göstereyim. Ãok büyük bir
örnek, bu
-probleme iliÅkin çok büyük bir örnek â belki de en büyük örnek â X
Window
-Sistemidir, bu sistem MITâde geliÅtirilmiÅtir ve kendisini özgür
yazılım
-haline getiren bir lisans altında yayınlanmıÅtır. MIT lisansıyla beraber
MIT
-sürümünü aldıysanız, Ãzgürlük Bir, Ä°ki ve Ãçe sahipsiniz. Bu,
sizin için
-özgür yazılımdır. Ancak kopyaları alanların arasında, Unix sistemlerini
-daÄıtan çeÅitli bilgisayar üreticileri mevcuttur ve sistemleri üzerinde
-çalıÅtırmak için Xâte gerekli deÄiÅiklikleri yapmıÅlardır.
BildiÄiniz gibi,
-bu, Xâin yüz binlerce satırından yalnızca birkaç bin satırdır. Ve daha
-sonra, onu derlemiÅlerdir ve ikilileri (binary) Unix sistemine koymuÅlardır
-ve Unix sisteminin geri kalanı gibi aynı gizlilik sözleÅmesi altında
-daÄıtmıÅlardır. Ve daha sonra, milyonlarca insan bu kopyaları
almıÅtır. X
-Window Sistemine sahiptiler ancak bu özgürlüklerin hiçbirine sahip
-deÄildiler. Bu, <em>onlar</em> için özgür yazılım deÄildi.</p>
-
-<p>Bu nedenle, buradaki paradoks, ölçümü nerede yaptıÄınıza baÄlı
olarak Xâin
-özgür yazılım olup olmamasıydı. GeliÅtiricilerin grubundan gelen
ölçümü
-yaptıysanız, Åunu diyebilirdiniz: âTüm bu özgürlükleri
gözlemliyorum. Bu,
-özgür yazılımdır.â Ãlçümleri kullanıcılar arasında yaptıysanız,
Åunu
-diyecektiniz: âBirçok kullanıcı bu özgürlüklere sahip deÄil. Bu,
özgür
-yazılım deÄil.â Xâi geliÅtirmiÅ insanlar bunu bir sorun olarak
görmezler
-çünkü hedefleri, esasen yalnızca popülerlik egosudur. Büyük bir
profesyonel
-baÅarı istemektedirler. Åunu hissetmek isterler: âÃok sayıda insan bizim
-yazılımımızı kullanıyor.â Ve bu, doÄrudur. Ãok sayıda insan
yazılımlarını
-kullanıyordu ancak özgürlüÄe sahip deÄildi. </p>
-
-<p>GNU Projesinde, GNU yazılımının baÅına aynı Åey gelseydi, bu bir
sorun
-olurdu çünkü tek hedefimiz popüler olmak deÄil insanlara özgürlük
saÄlamak,
-iÅbirliÄini yüreklendirmek ve insanların iÅbirliÄi yapmalarını
-saÄlamaktır. Unutmayın, hiç kimseyi baÅka herhangi bir insanla iÅbirliÄi
-yapmaya zorlamayın ancak herkesin iÅbirliÄi yaptıÄından emin olun,
isterse
-herkes bu özgürlüÄe sahiptir. Milyonlarca insan GNUânun özgür olmayan
-sürümlerini çalıÅtırıyorsa, bu, bir baÅarı olmayacaktır. Her Åey,
hedefe
-benzemeyen bir yola sapacaktır.</p>
-
-<p>Bu nedenle, bu durumun meydana gelmemesi için bir yol aradım. Sonunda
-bulduÄum metot, âcopyleftâ olarak adlandırılan metottu. Bu metot,
copyleft
-olarak adlandırılıyordu çünkü telif hakkını alıp ters çevirmek
-Åeklindeydi. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Yasal olarak, copyleft, telif
-hakkını esas alarak çalıÅmaktadır. Mevcut telif hakkı kanununu
-kullanmaktayız ancak bunu, çok farklı bir amacı saÄlamak için
-kullanırız. Ä°Åte Åunu yaparız. Deriz ki, âBu program telif hakkına
-tâbidirâ. Ve tabi ki, ön tanımlı olarak, bu, programın
kopyalanmasının,
-daÄıtılmasının ya da deÄiÅtirilmesinin yasak olduÄu anlamına
-gelmektedir. Ancak daha sonra, Åunu deriz: âBunun kopyalarını daÄıtma
-yetkiniz var. Programı deÄiÅtirme yetkiniz var. deÄiÅtirilmiÅ ve
-geniÅletilmiÅ sürümleri daÄıtma hakkınız var. Ä°stediÄiniz gibi
deÄiÅtirin.â</p>
-
-<p>Ancak bir Åart vardır. Ve bu Åart tabi ki, Åartı içine koymamız
için tüm bu
-zorluklara girmemizin nedenidir. Åart Åunu söyler: bu programın herhangi
bir
-parçasını içeren herhangi bir Åeyi daÄıttıÄınızda, tüm program bu
aynı
-ifadelerle daÄıtılmalıdır, daha fazla ya da daha azı olmamalıdır. Bu
-nedenle, programı deÄiÅtirebilir ve deÄiÅtirilmiÅ sürümü
daÄıtabilirsiniz
-ancak bunu yaptıÄınızda, bunu sizden alan insanlar, sizin bizden
aldıÄınız
-özgürlükle aynı özgürlüÄü almalıdır. Ve yalnızca programımızdan
-kopyaladıÄınız kısımlar için deÄil, ayrıca sizden aldıkları söz
konusu
-programın diÄer kısımları için de bu durum geçerlidir. Söz konusu
programın
-tümü, onlar için özgür yazılım olmalıdır.</p>
-
-<p>Bu programın deÄiÅtirilmesi ve yeniden daÄıtılmasına iliÅkin
özgürlükler,
-geri alınamaz haklar haline gelmektedir â bu, BaÄımsızlık Deklarasyonuna
-iliÅkin bir kavramdır. Emin olduÄunuz haklar sizden alınamaz. Copyleft
-fikrini yapılandıran spesifik lisans, GNU Genel Kamu Lisansıdır, bu,
-tartıÅmaya yol açan bir lisanstır çünkü gerçekten de topluluÄumuzda
parazit
-gibi davranan kimselere hayır deme gücüne sahiptir.</p>
-
-<p>ÃzgürlüÄün ideallerini takdir etmeyen çok sayıda insan mevcuttur. Ve
bu
-insanlar, yapmıŠolduÄumuz çalıÅmaları alma ve özgür olmayan bir
programı
-daÄıtma konusunda yeni bir baÅlangıç yapma ve insanların
özgürlüklerini
-bıraktırma konusunda çok çaba sarf etmektedir ve bunu
gerçekleÅtirdiklerinde
-çok mutlu olacaklardır. Sonuç olarak â bu insanların bunu yapmalarına
izin
-verirsek â bu özgür programları geliÅtiriyor olacaÄız ve kendi
-programlarımızın geliÅmiÅ sürümleriyle sürekli olarak rekabet etmek
zorunda
-kalacaÄız. Bu, eÄlenceli bir durum deÄildir. </p>
-
-<p>Ayrıca çok sayıda insan Åu duyguya kapılmaktadır: âZamanımı
gönüllü olarak
-topluluÄa adamak istiyorum ama niçin zamanımı gönüllü olarak söz konusu
-firmanın özel mülk programına adayayım?â Bazı insanlar bunun kötü
olmadıÄını
-bile düÅünebilir ancak bunu yapacaklarda kendilerine para ödenmesini
-isterler. Ben, kiÅisel olarak, bunu hiç yapmazdım bile. </p>
-
-<p>Ancak bu insan grubunun her ikisinin de â benim gibi Åunu diyenler:
-âTopluluÄumuzda saÄlam bir yer edinmek isteyen bu özgür olmayan programa
-yardım etmek istemiyorumâ ya da Åunu diyenler: âOnlar için
çalıÅırım ama o
-zaman bana para ödemeleri gerekirâ, her iki grubun da GNU Genel Kamu
-Lisansını kullanması için iyi bir nedeni vardır. Ãünkü bu o firmaya
Åunu
-der: âBenim çalıÅmamı alıp özgürlüÄü olmayan bir Åekilde
-daÄıtamazsınâ. Bununla birlikte, X Windows lisansı gibi copyleft olmayan
-lisanslar buna izin vermektedir. </p>
-
-<p>Lisans bakımından bu, iki özgür yazılım kategorisi arasındaki büyük
-ayrımdır. Lisansın her kullanıcı için yazılımın özgürlüÄünü
korumasını
-saÄlayacaÄı Åekilde copyleft edilen programlar vardır. Ve özgür olmayan
-sürümlerin izin verildiÄi copyleft edilmeyen programlar mevcuttur. Söz
-konusu programın özgürlüÄünü kaldırabilirsiniz. Ãzgür olmayan
sürümlerde
-edinebilirsiniz. </p>
-
-<p>Ve bu problem günümüzde de mevcuttur. X Windowsâun özgür olmayan
sürümleri
-hâlâ özgür iÅletim sistemlerinde kullanılmaktadır. X Windowsâun
özgür
-olmayan sürümü hariç olmak üzere gerçekten de desteklenmeyen donanımlar
bile
-mevcuttur. Ve bu, topluluÄumuzda büyük bir problemdir. Bununla birlikte, X
-Windowsâun kötü bir Åey olduÄunu söyleyemem. GeliÅtiricilerin
-yapabilecekleri olası en iyi Åeyi yapmadıklarını söyleyebilirim. Ancak
-hepimizin kullanabileceÄi çok sayıda yazılım yayınlamıÅlardır. </p>
-
-<p>Mükemmelden daha azı ile kötü arasında büyük bir fark vardır. İyi
ve kötünün
-birçok derecesi vardır. Mutlak olarak olası en iyi Åeyi yapmadıysan, o
zaman
-iyi deÄilsin gibi ayartıcı ifadelere karÅı koymalıyız. X Windowsâu
-geliÅtiren insanlar topluluÄumuza büyük bir katkıda bulunmuÅtur. Ancak
daha
-iyi yapabilecekleri bir Åeyler vardır. Programın bazı parçalarını
copyleft
-edebilirlerdi ve özgürlüÄü inkâr eden sürümlerin baÅkaları
tarafından
-daÄıtılmasını önleyebilirlerdi. </p>
-
-<p>GNU Genel Kamu Lisansıânın özgürlüÄünüzü koruduÄu ve
özgürlüÄünüzü korumak
-için telif hakkı kanununu kullandıÄı gerçeÄi, tabi ki, bugün
Microsoftâun
-ona saldırmasının nedenidir. Görüyorsunuz, Microsoft, yazdıÄımız
kodların
-tümünü almak ve özel mülk programlarına koymak istemektedir, birilerine
-geliÅtirme yapmak istemektedir, ya da yalnızca uyumsuz deÄiÅikliklere
-ihtiyaç duyarlar. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i></p>
-
-<p>Microsoftâun pazarlama gücüyle, sürümlerinin bizimkilerin yerine
geçmesi
-için daha iyi bir yazılım oluÅturmaları gerekmez. Tek yapmaları gereken
-farklı ve uyumsuz bir yazılım hazırlamaktır. Ve daha sonra bunu herkesin
-masaüstüne koymaktır. Bu nedenle gerçekte GNU GPLâyi sevmezler. Ãünkü
GNU
-GPL onların bunu yapmalarına izin vermez. âKapsama ve geniÅletmeâye izin
-vermez. Programlarınızda kodumuzu paylaÅmak istiyorsanız, bunu
-yapabilirsiniz der. Ancak yalnızca benzerleri paylaÅmanız gerektiÄini
-söyler. YaptıÄınız deÄiÅiklikler, bizim paylaÅmamıza izin verilen
-deÄiÅiklikler olmalıdır. Bu nedenle bu, iki yollu bir iÅbirliÄidir,
gerçek
-bir iÅbirliÄidir. </p>
-
-<p>IBM ve HP gibi büyük firmalar bile â bu temelde bizim yazılımımızı
-kullanmayı istemektedir. IBM ve HP GNU yazılımına büyük katkılarda
-bulunmuÅtur. Ve onlar da, baÅka özgür yazılımlar geliÅtirmiÅtir. Ancak
-Microsoft bunu yapmak istememiÅtir, bu nedenle iÅyerlerinin GPL ile baÅa
-çıkamadıÄını söylemiÅlerdir. Bu iÅyerleri IBM ve HP ve Sunâı
içermiyorsa, o
-zaman haklı olabilirler. [Dinleyiciler güler] Bu konu hakkında daha sonra
-açıklama yapacaÄım. </p>
-
-<p>Tarihsel hikayeyi bitirmeliyim. Görüyorsunuz, 1984 yılında yalnızca
birtakım
-özgür yazılım yazmak için deÄil ayrıca çok daha tutarlı bir Åeyler
yapmak
-için yola çıktık: tamamen özgür yazılım olan bir iÅletim sistemi
geliÅtirmek
-istedik. Bu bizim parça ardına parça ardına parça yazmamız gerektiÄi
-anlamına gelmekteydi. Tabi ki, her zaman kısa yolları arıyorduk. İŠo
kadar
-büyüktü ki, insanlar hiçbir zaman bitiremeyeceÄimizi söylüyordu. Bitirme
-Åansımız olduÄunu düÅündüm ancak açık bir Åekilde, kısa yollara
bakmaya
-deÄerdi. Bu nedenle bakınmaya devam ettik. BenimseyebildiÄimiz, burayla
-irtibatlandırabildiÄimiz ve böylece baÅtan yazmak zorunda olmadıÄımız
baÅka
-birilerinin yazdıÄı herhangi bir program var mıdır? ÃrneÄin, X Window
-sistemi vardır. Copyleft edilmediÄi doÄrudur ancak bu, özgür
yazılımdır, bu
-nedenle onu kullanabiliriz. </p>
-
-<p>Åimdi, ilk günden GNUâya bir pencere sistemi koymak istedim. GNUâya
-baÅlamadan önce MITâde birtakım pencere sistemleri yazdım. Ve Unixâin
1984
-yılında herhangi bir pencere sistemine sahip olmamasına raÄmen, GNUânun
bir
-pencere sistemine sahip olmasına karar verdim. Ancak hiçbir zaman bir GNU
-pencere sistemi yazmayı beceremedik çünkü X birlikte geldi. Ve ben de Åunu
-dedim: âYapmamızın gerekli olmadıÄı büyük bir iÅ. Xâi
kullanacaÄız.â Åunu
-dedim: Xâi alalım ve GNU sistemine koyalım. Ve uygun olduÄunda, GNUânun
-diÄer kısımlarının X ile birlikte çalıÅmasını saÄlayacaÄız. Ve
metin
-biçimlendiricisı TEX gibi ya da Berkeleyâden birtakım kütüphane
kodları gibi
-baÅka insanlar tarafından yazılmıŠolan baÅka yazılım parçalarını
bulduk. O
-zamanlar Berkeley Unix vardı ancak bu, özgür yazılım deÄildi. Bu
kütüphane
-kodu, baÅlangıç olarak, Berkeleyâdeki kayan nokta üzerinde araÅtırma
yapan
-farklı bir gruba aitti. Ve bu nedenle, bu parçalara uyduk. </p>
-
-<p>1985 yılının Ekim ayında, Ãzgür Yazılım Vakfını kurduk. Bu
nedenle, lütfen
-GNU Projesinin ilk proje olduÄunu unutmayın. Ãzgür Yazılım Vakfı, GNU
-Projesinden hemen hemen iki yıl sonra geldi. Ve Ãzgür Yazılım Vakfı
yazılımı
-paylaÅmak ve deÄiÅtirmek için özgürlüÄü saÄlamak üzere fon toplayan
vergiden
-muaf bir hayır kurumudur. Ve 1980âlerde, fonlarımızla yaptıÄımız temel
-Åeylerden biri, GNUânun parçalarının yazılması için birilerini tutmak
-oldu. Ve kabuk [:shell] ve C kütüphanesi gibi önemli programlar, diÄer
-programların parçaları gibi bu Åekilde yazılmıÅtı. Ãok önemli olan
ancak
-heyecan verici olmayan <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> <code>tar</code>
-programı, bu Åekilde yazılmıÅtı. GNUânun bir kısmının da bu
Åekilde yazılmıÅ
-olduÄuna inanmaktayım. Ve böylece hedefimize yaklaÅmaktayız.</p>
-
-<p>1991 yılı itibariyle, eksik olan yalnızca tek bir büyük kısım vardı
ve bu da
-çekirdekti. Åimdi, niçin çekirdeÄi geciktirdim? Bu, muhtemelen iÅleri
hangi
-sırada yaptıÄınızın önemli olmamasından kaynaklanmaktadır, en
azından teknik
-açıdan durum böyledir. Her Åekilde iÅlerin tümünü yapmanız
gereklidir. Ve
-kısmen, baÅka bir yerlerde bir çekirdekte bir baÅlangıç bulabileceÄimizi
-umduÄum içindir. Ve bunu baÅardık. Carnegie Mellonâda geliÅtirilmiÅ
olan
-Machâı bulduk. Ve bu, tüm çekirdek deÄildi; çekirdeÄin alt
yarısıydı. Bu
-nedenle, üst yarıyı; dosya sistemi, network kodu, vb. gibi bir Åeyler
-yazmamız gerekti. Ancak Machâın üstünde çalıÅarak, esas olarak
kullanıcı
-programları olarak çalıÅmaktadırlar, bu nedenle hatalarının
ayıklanması daha
-kolay olmalıdır. Aynı zamanda çalıÅan gerçek bir kaynak seviyesi hata
-ayıklayıcıyla hata ayıklayabilirsiniz. Bu Åekilde, çekirdeÄin daha
yüksek
-seviyedeki parçalarını daha kısa sürede yaptırmamızın daha uygun
olacaÄını
-düÅündüm. Birbirine mesajlar gönderen bu asenkron çoklu kullanımlı
-süreçlerin hatalarının ayıklanmasının çok zor olduÄu ortaya
çıkmıÅtır. Ve
-önyükleme yapmak için kullandıÄımız Mach tabanlı sistem korkunç bir
hata
-ayıklama ortamına sahipti ve güvenilmezdi. GNU çekirdeÄinin
çalıÅtırılması
-bizim yıllarımızı aldı.</p>
-
-<p>Ancak neyse ki, topluluÄumuzun GNU çekirdeÄini beklemesi gerekmiyordu.
Ãünkü
-1991 yılında, Linus Torvalds, Linux olarak adlandırılan baÅka bir özgür
-çekirdeÄi geliÅtirdi. Eski moda tek parça tasarımı kullandı ve
çalıÅmasını,
-bizimkilerin çalıÅmasından çok daha hızlı bir Åekilde aldıÄı ortaya
-çıktı. Bu nedenle belki de, bu, yapmıŠolduÄum hatalardan biridir: bu
-tasarım kararı yapmıŠolduÄun hatalardan biridir. Her neyse, ilk baÅta
Linux
-hakkında bir Åey bilmiyorduk çünkü GNU Projesini bildiÄi halde, bunun
-hakkında konuÅmak için hiçbir zaman bizimle temas kurmadı. Ancak bunu,
-netteki diÄer insanlara ve yerlere bildirdi. Ve bu nedenle diÄer insanlar,
-tam bir iÅletim sistemi elde etmek için Linuxâı GNU sisteminin geri
-kalanıyla birleÅtirdi. Esasen, GNU artı Linux birleÅimini
oluÅturdular.</p>
-
-<p>Ancak ne yaptıklarını görmüyorlardı. Ä°Åte, Åunu dediler: âBir
çekirdeÄimiz
-var â bakınalım ve çekirdekle bir araya getirebileceÄimiz baÅka hangi
-parçaların olduÄunu görelim.â Bu nedenle, etraflarına bakındılar â
ve iÅte,
-ihtiyaç duydukları her Åey mevcuttu. Ne kadar Åanslıyız
-dediler. <i>[Dinleyiciler güler]</i> Tümü burada. Ä°htiyaç duyduÄumuz her
-Åeyi bulabiliriz. Tüm bu farklı Åeyleri alalım ve bir araya getirelim ve
bir
-sistem elde edelim.</p>
-
-<p>Buldukları Åeylerin çoÄunun GNU sisteminin parçaları olduÄunu
-bilmiyorlardı. Bu nedenle, Linuxâı GNU sistemindeki boÅluÄa
doldurduklarının
-farkında deÄildiler. Linuxâı alıp Linuxâtan bir sistem yaptıklarını
-düÅünüyorlardı. Bu nedenle bunu bir Linux sistemi olarak
adlandırdılar.</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: <i>[Ä°Åitilememektedir]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Sizi duyamadım - efendim?</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: <i>[Ä°Åitilememektedir]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Güzel, sadece o deÄil, biliyorsun, dar
-görüÅlülük.</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>:Ancak bu durum, X Window Sistemini ve Machâı
bulmaktan
-daha Åanslı bir durum deÄil midir?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>:DoÄru. Buradaki fark, Xâi ve Machâı
geliÅtiren
-insanlar, tam bir özgür iÅletim sistemi geliÅtirme hedefine sahip
-deÄildiler. Bunu isteyen yalnızca bizdik. Ve, sistemin var olmasını
saÄlayan
-bizim yoÄun çabalarımızdı. Gerçekte baÅka herhangi bir projeden çok
sistemin
-daha büyük bir parçasını oluÅturduk. Tesadüf yoktur, çünkü bu
insanlar â
-sistemin yararlı kısımlarını yazmıÅtır. Ancak bunu, sistemin
tamamlanmasını
-istedikleri için yapmamıÅlardır. BaÅka nedenleri vardı.</p>
-
-<p>Åimdi Xâi geliÅtiren insanlar â iyi bir proje olduÄunu
düÅündükleri network
-üzerinden pencere sistemini tasarımlamıÅlardır ve gerçekten de bu iyi bir
-proje olmuÅtur. Ve bu, bizim iyi bir özgür iÅletim sistemi yapmamızı
-saÄlamıÅtır. Ancak umdukları bu deÄildir. Hatta bunun hakkında
-düÅünmemiÅlerdir bile. Bu, bir kazaydı. Kazara bundan faydalandılar.
Åimdi,
-yaptıklarının kötü bir Åey olduÄunu söylemiyorum. Büyük bir özgür
yazılım
-projesi gerçekleÅtirdiler. Bu, iyi bir Åeydir. Ancak esas vizyona sahip
-deÄildirler. Bu vizyon GNU Projesindedir. </p>
-
-<p>Ve, bu nedenle, biz, her küçük parçayı baÅka birilerine hazırlatmayan
-birileriyiz. Ve <code>tar</code> ya da <code>mv</code> gibi tamamen sıkıcı
-ve romantiklikten uzak olsa bile <i>[Dinleyiciler güler]</i>, bunu
-yaptık. Ya da <code>ld</code> gibi â bildiÄiniz gibi, <code>ld</code>âde
çok
-heyecan verici bir Åeyler yoktur ancak ben bir tane yazdım. <i>[Dinleyiciler
-güler]</i> Ve minimal disk I/Oâsu kaplaması için çaba gösterdim
böylece daha
-hızlı olmuÅtur ve daha büyük programları kontrol edebilmektedir. Ä°yi iÅ
-çıkarmayı severim; bir programı yazarken, program hakkında birçok Åeyi
-geliÅtirmek isterim. Ancak bunu yapmamın nedeni, daha iyi bir Id için parlak
-fikirlerimin olması deÄildi. Bunu yapmamın nedeni, özgür bir programa
-ihtiyaç duymamızdı. Ve baÅka birinin bunu yapmasını bekleyemezdik. Bu
-nedenle, bunu yapmamız ya da baÅka birilerine yaptırmamız gerekliydi.</p>
-
-<p>Bu nedenle, bu noktada binlerce insanın ya da projenin bu sisteme
-katılmasına raÄmen, bu sistemin var olmasının nedeni olan bir proje
-mevcuttur ve bu da GNU Projesidir. Bu <em>sistem</em> temelde GNU
-Sistemidir, o zamandan beri baÅka Åeyler de eklenmiÅtir. </p>
-
-<p>Sistemi Linux olarak adlandırmak GNU Projesi için büyük bir övünç
olmuÅtur
-çünkü normalde yapmıŠolduÄumuz Åeyler için itibar kazanmayız.
ÃekirdeÄin,
-Linuxâın çok yararlı bir özgür yazılım parçası olduÄunu
düÅünüyorum ve onun
-hakkında yalnızca iyi Åeyler söyleyebilirim. Aslında, onun hakkında
-söyleyecek kötü Åeyler de bulabilirim. <i>[Dinleyiciler güler]</i> Ancak
-temelde iyi Åeyler söyleyebilirim. Ancak GNU sisteminin âLinuxâ olarak
-adlandırılması yalnızca bir hatadır. Sistemi GNU/Linux olarak
adlandırmanızı
-rica ederim ve böylece itibardan da faydalanabiliriz.</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>:Bir maskota ihtiyacınız var! Dolgulu bir hayvan
alın!
-<i>[Dinleyiciler güler]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>:Bir tane var.</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>:Var mı?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>:Bizim bir hayvanımız var â bir gnu
-(antilop). <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Böylece, evet, bir penguen
-çizdiÄinizde, yanına bir de gnu çizin. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Ancak
-soruları sona saklayalım. Daha anlatacak çok Åeyim var.</p>
-
-<p>Bu arada, niçin bu konuyla bu kadar ilgiliyim? Bu itibar hususunu ortaya
-koymak için, sizin canınızı niye sıkıyorum ve belki de sizin
gözünüzdeki
-deÄerimi neden düÅürüyorum? <i>[Dinleyiciler güler]</i> Bunu
yaptıÄımda,
-bazı insanlar bunu egomu beslemek için yaptıÄımı düÅünebilir, öyle
deÄil mi?
-Tabi ki, bu programı âStallmanixâ olarak adlandırmanızı istemiyorum,
öyle
-deÄil mi? <i>[Dinleyiciler güler]</i> <i>[AlkıÅ]</i></p>
-
-<p>Sizden bunu GNU olarak adlandırmanızı istiyorum çünkü GNU Projesinin
-itibarının olmasını istiyorum. Ve bunun için çok spesifik bir neden
vardır,
-bu, herhangi birinin itibar kazanmasından çok daha önemlidir.
Görüyorsunuz,
-bugünlerde, topluluÄumuza göz atacak olursanız, onun hakkında konuÅan ve
-yazan kimseler GNUâyu ifade bile etmez ve özgürlüÄün bu amaçlarından
â bu
-politik ve sosyal ideallerden â bahsetmezler. Ãünkü onların [baÅka bir
-deyiÅle, bunların] geldikleri yer GNUâdur. </p>
-
-<p>Linuxâla ilgili fikirler â felsefesi çok farklıdır. Bu, temelde Linus
-Torvaldsâın apolitik felsefesidir. Bu nedenle, insanlar tüm sistemin Linux
-olduÄunu düÅündüklerinde, Åu Åekilde düÅünme eÄilimdedirler: âOh,
bu, Linus
-Torvalds tarafından baÅlatılmıŠolmalıdır. Felsefesini dikkatli bir
Åekilde
-incelemeliyiz.â Ve GNU felsefesini duyduklarında, Åunu derler: âBu çok
-idealistçi bir yaklaÅım, korkunç Åekilde uygulanamaz olması lazım. Ben
bir
-Linux kullanıcısıyım, GNU kullanıcısı deÄil.â [Dinleyiciler
güler]</p>
-
-<p>Ne ironi! Yalnızca bilselerdi! HoÅlandıkları â ya da bazı durumlarda
-sevdikleri ve vahÅice üzerinden geçtikleri â sistemin politik felsefenin
-gerçek kıldıÄı bu Åeyin bizim idealimiz olduÄunu bilselerdi. </p>
-
-<p>Yine de bizimle fikir birliÄi içinde olmazlardı. Ancak en azından bunu
ciddi
-bir Åekilde hesaba katmak, bu konu hakkında düÅünmek ve bir Åans vermek
için
-bir nedenleri olurdu. Bunun, hayatlarıyla nasıl bir iliÅkisinin olduÄunu
-görürlerdi. Åunu fark etselerdi: âGNU sistemini kullanıyorum. Bu da GNU
-felsefesidir. Bu felsefe, hoÅlandıÄım bu sistemin var olma nedenidir,â o
-zaman bunu en azından çok daha açık bir zihinle deÄerlendirirlerdi. Bu,
-herkesin bu konuda fikir birliÄi içinde olacaÄı anlamına gelmez. Ä°nsanlar
-farklı Åeyler düÅünür. Bu uygundur â insanlar kendileri karar
-vermelidirler. Ancak bu felsefenin saÄladıÄı sonuçlar için itibarının
-yararını saÄlamasını isterim.</p>
-
-<p>TopluluÄumuza göz atarsak, hemen hemen her yerde kurumların sistemi Linux
-olarak adlandırdıÄını görürüz. Muhabirler bunu genelde Linux olarak
-adlandırmaktadır. Bu, doÄru deÄildir ancak bunu yaparlar. Sistemi
paketleyen
-firmalar sistemi genelde [Linux] olarak adlandırır. Ve bu muhabirlerin
-birçoÄu, makale yazdıklarında, bunu genelde politik bir husus ya da sosyal
-bir husus olarak görmezler. Buna genelde safça bir iŠsorusu ya da hangi
-firmaların az ya da çok baÅarılı olacaÄı olarak bakarlar, bu, temelde
toplum
-için küçük bir sorudur. Ve insanların kullanımı için GNU/Linux
sistemini
-paketleyen firmalara baktıÄınızda, bu firmaların birçoÄu bu sistemi
Linux
-olarak adlandırmaktadır. Ve tümü de bu sisteme özgür olmayan yazılım
ekler.</p>
-
-<p>GNU GPL, kodu alırsanız ve GPL kapsamlı bir programdan birtakım kodları
-alırsanız ve daha büyük bir program oluÅturmak için bir miktar daha fazla
-kod eklerseniz, söz konusu tüm programın GPL altında yayınlanması
-gerektiÄini söyler. Ancak aynı disk (hard disk ya da CD) üzerine ayrı
-programlar koyabilirsiniz ve bunların baÅka lisansları olabilir. Bu,
-yalnızca toplama olarak deÄerlendirilir ve esasen aynı zamanda iki
programın
-birilerine daÄıtılması, hakkında herhangi bir Åey söyleyebileceÄimiz
bir
-durum deÄildir. Bu nedenle, gerçekte, bu durum doÄru deÄildir â bazen
doÄru
-olmasını ummaktayım â bir firma bir üründe GPL kapsamlı bir programı
-kullanırsa, tüm ürün özgür yazılım olmalıdır. Bu ürün, söz konusu
aralıÄa
-girmez â söz konusu kapsamda deÄildir. Bu ürün, tüm programdır.
Emsallerine
-uygun bir Åekilde birbiriyle iletiÅim kuran â örneÄin, birbirine mesaj
-gönderen â iki ayrı program mevcutsa, o zaman bu iki program genellikle
-yasal olarak ayrıdır. Bu nedenle, bu firmalar, sisteme özgür olmayan
yazılım
-ekleyerek, kullanıcılara, felsefi ve politik açıdan çok kötü bir fikir
-vermektedir. Kullanıcılara Åunu söylemektedirler: âÃzgür olmayan
yazılımın
-kullanılması iyidir. Hatta bunu hediye olarak veriyoruz.â</p>
-
-<p>GNU/Linux sisteminin kullanımı hakkındaki dergilere baktıÄınız zaman,
-çoÄunluÄunun Åu Åekilde bir baÅlıÄa sahip olduÄunu görürsünüz:
-âLinux-bir-Åeyler-ya-da-diÄer-Åeyler.â Böylece sistemi çoÄunlukla
Linux
-olarak adlandırırlar. Ve bu dergiler, GNU/Linux sisteminin üstünde
-çalıÅtırabileceÄiniz özgür olmayan yazılıma iliÅkin reklamlarla
-doludur. Åimdi, bu reklamlar ortak bir mesaja sahiptir. Åöyle demektedirler:
-âÃzgür olmayan yazılım sizin için iyidir. O kadar iyidir ki, bu
yazılıma
-sahip olmak için <em>para</em> bile ödeyebilirsiniz.â [Dinleyiciler
güler]</p>
-
-<p>Ve bu Åeyleri âkatma deÄer paketleriâ olarak adlandırırız, bu,
onların
-deÄerleri hakkında bir ifade saÄlar. Åöyle demektedirler: ÃzgürlüÄü
deÄil,
-pratik elveriÅliliÄi deÄerlendirin. Ve bu deÄerlerle fikir birliÄi içinde
-deÄilim, bu nedenle onları âözgürlüÄü eksilmiÅ paketlerâ olarak
-adlandırıyorum. [Dinleyiciler güler] Ãzgür bir iÅletim sistemi
kurduysanız,
-o zaman Åimdi özgür dünyada yaÅıyorsunuz demektir. Yıllardır size
vermek
-için uÄraÅtıÄımız özgürlüÄün faydalarının tadını çıkarın.
Bu paketler, size
-bir zincir üzerinde eÄilme imkânını vermektedir. </p>
-
-<p>Ve GNU/Linux sisteminin kullanımına adanmıŠticari gösterilere
bakarsanız,
-bu gösteriler, kendilerini âLinuxâ gösterileri olarak
adlandırmaktadır. Ve
-özgür olmayan yazılımı sergileyen satıŠreyonlarıyla doludurlar,
özellikle,
-onay damgasını özgür olmayan yazılımın üzerine vururlar. Bu nedenle,
-toplumumuzda baktıÄımız her yerde, kurumlar özgür olmayan yazılımı
-desteklemektedir, GNUânun kendisi için geliÅtirildiÄi özgürlük fikrini
-tamamen yadsırlar. Ve insanların özgürlük fikriyle karÅı karÅıya
-gelebilecekleri tek yer, GNU ile ve özgür yazılımla iliÅkilidir. Bu
nedenle
-sizden sistemi GNU/Linux olarak adlandırmanızı istememin nedeni
-budur. Lütfen insanları sistemin nereden ve niçin geldiÄi konusunda
-bilgilendirin.</p>
-
-<p>Tabi ki, yalnızca bu ismi kullanarak, tarihsel bir açıklama
-yapmayacaksınız. Dört ekstra karakter girebilir ve GNU/Linuxâı
-yazabilirsiniz; iki ekstra hece söyleyebilirsiniz. Ancak GNU/Linux Windows
-2000âden daha az heceden oluÅmaktadır. [Dinleyiciler güler] Onlara çok
fazla
-Åey anlatmıyorsunuz ancak onları hazırlıyorsunuz, böylece GNU hakkında
bir
-Åeyler öÄrenecekler ve konunun ne olduÄunu duyduklarında, bunun
kendileriyle
-ve yaÅamlarıyla nasıl bir iliÅkisinin olduÄunu göreceklerdir. Ve bu,
-doÄrudan büyük bir fark yaratmaktadır. Bu nedenle, lütfen bize yardım
edin. </p>
-
-<p>Microsoft, GPLâi âaçık kaynaklı bir lisansâ olarak adlandırdı.
İnsanların,
-ana husus olarak özgürlük açısından düÅünüyor olmalarını
-istemediler. İnsanları, Microsoft ürünlerini seçeceklerse, tüketici
olarak
-dar bir Åekilde düÅünmeye ve tabi ki tüketiciler olarak çok rasyonel bir
-Åekilde düÅünmemeye davet ettiklerini bulacaksınız. Ancak insanların
-vatandaÅ ya da devlet adamı gibi düÅünmesini istemezler, Bu, onlar için
-zıttır, düÅmancadır. En azından mevcut iÅ modellerine karÅı
zıttır.</p>
-
-<p>Åimdi, özgür yazılım nasıl…evet, özgür yazılımın
toplumumuzla nasıl
-bir iliÅkisinin olduÄunu anlatabilirim. Bazılarınız için önemli
olabilecek
-ikinci bir baÅlık ise özgür yazılımın iÅle nasıl bir ilgisi
-olduÄudur. Åimdi, gerçekte, özgür yazılım iÅ için <em>büyük</em>
ölçüde
-yararlıdır. Ne de olsa, geliÅmiŠülkelerdeki birçok iÅyerinde yazılım
-kullanılmaktadır. Yalnızca küçük bir kısmı yazılım
geliÅtirmektedir. </p>
-
-<p>Ve özgür yazılım, yazılım kullanan herhangi bir firma için büyük
ölçüde
-avantajlıdır çünkü bu, kontrolün sizde olduÄunu göstermektedir. Temel
-olarak, özgür yazılım, kullanıcıların, programın ne yaptıÄına
iliÅkin
-kontrole sahip oldukları anlamına gelmektedir. Münferit olarak ya da toplu
-olarak, yeterince dikkatli olurlarsa, durum böyledir. Yeterince dikkat
-gösteren herkes, bazı etkileri uygulayabilir. Dikkat etmezseniz, satın
-almazsınız. O zaman baÅka insanların tercih ettiklerini kullanırsınız.
Ancak
-dikkat eder, özen gösterirseniz, o zaman söyleyecek bir Åeyleriniz
-olur. özel mülk yazılım söz konusu olduÄunda, söyleyecek bir Åeyiniz
olmaz. </p>
-
-<p>Ãzgür yazılımla, deÄiÅtirmek istediÄiniz Åeyleri
deÄiÅtirebilirsiniz. Ve
-firmanızda programlayıcıların olup olmaması fark etmez; bu,
-iyidir. Binanızdaki duvarları hareket ettirmek isterseniz, bir marangozluk
-firması olmanız gerekmez. Bir marangoz bulup, âBu iÅi yapmak için ne
kadar
-para istersin?â diye sormanız yeterlidir. Ve kullandıÄınız yazılımı
-deÄiÅtirmek isterseniz, bir programlama firması olmanız gerekmez. Tek
-yapmanız gereken bir programlama firmasına gidip Åunu söylemektir: âBu
-özellikleri implement etmek için ne kadar para istersiniz? Ve ne zamana
-bitirirsiniz?â Ve iÅi yapmazlarsa, gidip baÅka birilerini
bulabilirsiniz.</p>
-
-<p>Destek için özgür bir piyasa mevcuttur. Bu nedenle destekle ilgilenen her
-türlü iÅyeri, özgür yazılımda büyük bir avantaj bulacaktır. özel
mülk
-yazılımla, destek bir tekeldir çünkü bir firma, bu, Microsoftâun
paylaÅılan
-bir kaynak programı ise kaynak koduna sahiptir â ya da belki de yüklü bir
-miktar para ödeyen az sayıda firma kaynak koduna sahiptir â ancak, bu sayı
-çok azdır. Bu nedenle, sizin için çok fazla sayıda olası kaynak mevcut
-deÄildir. Ve bu, gerçekten de büyük bir dev deÄilseniz, sizinle
-ilgilenmedikleri anlamına gelmektedir. Firmanız, sizin iÅinizi
-kaybederlerse, bu duruma önem vermelerini gerektirecek kadar önemli
-deÄildir. Bir kere programı kullandıÄınızda, onlar için desteÄi almakta
-kilitlendiÄinizi anlarlar çünkü farklı bir programa geçmek çok büyük
bir
-iÅtir. Bu nedenle, bir hatanın raporlanması ayrıcalıÄının ödenmesi
gibi
-Åeylerle karÅılaÅırsınız. [Dinleyiciler güler] Ve bir kere ödeme
yaptıktan
-sonra, Åöyle derler: âÄ°yi, tamam, hata raporunuzu kaydettik. Ve birkaç ay
-içinde, bir yükseltme [:upgrade] satın alabilirsiniz ve bu hatayı giderip
-gidermediÄimizi görebilirsiniz.â [Dinleyiciler güler]</p>
-
-<p>Ãzgür yazılıma iliÅkin destek saÄlayıcıları, bundan ucuz
-kurtulamaz. MüÅterileri memnun etmek zorundadırlar. Tabi ki, birçok iyi
-bedava destek alabilirsiniz. Probleminizi İnternetten gönderirsiniz. Ertesi
-gün bir yanıt alabilirsiniz. Ancak bu, tabi ki garantili deÄildir. Güvende
-olmak isterseniz, en iyisi bir firma ile anlaÅma yapın ve onlara ücret
-ödeyin. Ve bu, tabi ki, özgür yazılım iÅinin çalıÅma Åekillerinden
-birisidir. </p>
-
-<p>Yazılım kullanan iÅler için özgür yazılımın baÅka bir avantajı,
güven ve
-gizliliktir. Ve bu, bireyler için de geçerlidir ancak bunu, iÅyerleri
-baÄlamında gündeme getirdim. Ä°Åte, bir program özel mülk olduÄunda,
-gerçekten de ne yaptıÄını bile söyleyemezsiniz.</p>
-
-<p>Bunların hakkında bir Åeyler biliyorsanız, hoÅlanmayacaÄınız bir
Åekilde
-kasıtlı olarak ortaya konan özelliklere sahip olabilir. ÃrneÄin,
-geliÅtiricinin makinenize girmesine izin veren bir arka kapıya sahip
-olabilir. YaptıÄınız iÅlere burnunu sokabilir ve bilgileri geri
-gönderebilir. Bu, yaygın bir durumdur. Birtakım Microsoft yazılımları
bunu
-yapmaktadır. Ancak bunu yapan yalnızca Microsoft deÄildir. Kullanıcının
-iÅine burnunu sokan baÅka özel mülk programlar mevcuttur. Ve bunu
yaptıkları
-zaman fark edemezsiniz bile. Ve tabi ki, geliÅtiricinin tamamen dürüst
-olduÄu varsayıldıÄında bile, her programcı hata yapar. Bunlar,
güvenliÄinizi
-etkileyen ve kimseden kaynaklanmayan hatalar olabilir. Ancak buradaki ana
-nokta Åudur: Bu, özgür yazılım deÄildir, bu hataları bulamazsınız. Ve
bu
-hataları gideremezsiniz.</p>
-
-<p>Hiç kimse, çalıÅtırdıÄı her programın kaynaÄını kontrol etmek
için gereken
-zamana sahip deÄildir. Bunu yapmayacaksınız. Ancak özgür yazılımla,
büyük
-bir topluluk mevcuttur ve bu toplulukta olayları kontrol eden insanlar
-vardır. Ve onların kontrolünden faydalanırsınız çünkü kazara bir hata
varsa,
-ki kesinlikle vardır, zaman zaman, herhangi bir programda, bu hatayı
-bulabilir ve giderebilirler. Ve yakalanacaklarını düÅündükleri zaman,
-insanların, kasıtlı bir Truva atı (kullanılacaÄı bilgisayara bilerek
hasar
-verme amacıyla hazırlanmıŠbilgisayar programı) ya da burnunu sokan bir
-özelliÄi koyma ihtimali çok daha düÅüktür. özel mülk yazılım
-geliÅtiricileri, yakalanmayacaklarını düÅünür. Bu durumun tespit
edilmeden
-geçeceÄini düÅünürler. Ancak özgür bir yazılım geliÅtiricisi
insanların ona
-bakacaÄını ve orada olduÄunu göreceÄini bilir. TopluluÄumuzda,
-kullanıcıların hoÅlanmayacakları bir Åekilde boÄazlarına bastırarak bu
-durumdan kurtulmayı düÅünmeyiz. Biliriz ki, kullanıcılar bundan
hoÅlanmazsa,
-bu özelliÄe sahip olmayan deÄiÅtirilmiÅ bir sürüm hazırlanacaktır. Ve
daha
-sonra tümü de söz konusu sürümü kullanarak çalıÅmaya
baÅlayacaktır.</p>
-
-<p>Gerçekte, muhtemelen bu özelliÄi koymayacaÄımız sonucunu hepimiz
-çıkarabiliriz, yeterince adım önceden bunu anlayabiliriz. Ne de olsa,
özgür
-bir program yazıyorsunuz; insanların sürümünüzdenhoÅlanmasını
istersiniz;
-birçok insanın nefret edeceÄi bir özelliÄi koymazsınız ve kendinizinki
-yerine baÅka bir deÄiÅtirilmiÅ sürümü kullanmazsınız. Böylece,
özgür yazılım
-dünyasında kralın kullanıcı olduÄunu fark edersiniz. özel mülk
yazılım
-dünyasında, kral, müÅteri deÄildir. Ãünkü siz yalnızca bir
-müÅterisinizdir. KullandıÄınız yazılımda söz hakkınız yoktur.</p>
-
-<p>Bu anlamda, özgür yazılım, demokrasinin iÅlemesi için yeni bir
-mekanizmadır. Åimdi Stanfordâda olan Profesör Lessig, bir kanun çeÅidi
-olarak söz konusu kod fonksiyonlarını söylemiÅtir. Tüm amaçlar ve
hedefler
-için herkesin kullandıÄı kod hakkında yazan her kimse, insanların
-hayatlarını belirleyen kanunlar yazmaktadır. Ãzgür yazılım söz konusu
-olduÄunda, bu kanunlar demokratik bir Åekilde yazılır. Ancak bu, klasik
-demokrasi biçimi deÄildir â büyük bir seçim yapıp Åunu demiyoruz:
âHerkes,
-bu iÅin nasıl yapılmasını istiyorsa ona göre oy versin.â [Dinleyiciler
-güler] Bunun yerine, temel olarak Åunu diyoruz: özelliÄin Åu Åekilde
-implement edilmesini isteyenler, o Åekilde yapsın. Ve söz konusu özelliÄi
-söz konusu Åekilde gerçekleÅtirmek için çalıÅmak isterseniz, öyle
-yaparsınız. Ve bir Åekilde ya da diÄer Åekilde yapılır, deÄil mi? Ve
böylece
-çok sayıda insan bu Åekilde isterse, bu Åekilde yapılacaktır. Bu
Åekilde,
-herkes, gitmek istediÄi yönde basitçe adımlar atarak sosyal karara katkıda
-bulunur. </p>
-
-<p>Ve kiÅisel olarak istediÄiniz kadar adım atmakta özgürsünüz. Bir
iÅyeri,
-atmalarının yararlı olduÄu kadar adımı atmakta özgürdür. Ve tüm bu
Åeyleri
-topladıÄınızda, bu, yazılımın hangi yönde gittiÄini söyler.</p>
-
-<p>Ve mevcut birtakım programlardan â genellikle büyük parçalardan â
bazı
-parçaların alınması ve daha sonra kendinize ait belirli miktardaki kodun
-yazılması ve ihtiyacınızı tam olarak karÅılayan bir programın
hazırlanması
-tabi ki çok yararlıdır; mevcut birtakım özgür yazılım paketlerinden
büyük
-parçaları alamazsanız, tamamını yeni baÅtan yazmak size pahalıya mal
-olacaktır.</p>
-
-<p>Kralın kullanıcı olduÄu gerçeÄinden kaynaklanan baÅka bir Åey de,
uyumluluk
-ve standardizasyon konusunda çok iyi olma eÄilimimizdir. Niçin? Ãünkü
-kullanıcılar bundan hoÅlanmaktadır. Kullanıcılar, içinde büyük
-uyumsuzlukların olduÄu bir programı reddedecektir. Åimdi, bazen belirli bir
-uyumsuzluk tipine iliÅkin ihtiyacı olan belirli bir kullanıcı grubu vardır
-ve o zaman ona sahip olacaklardır. Bu tamamdır. Ancak kullanıcılar bir
-standardı izlemek istediklerinde, biz geliÅtiriciler de bunu izlemeliyiz ve
-bunu biliriz. Ve bunu yaparız. Bunun zıttı olarak, özel mülk yazılım
-geliÅtiricilerine bakarsanız, genellikle kasıtlı olarak bir standardı
-izlememeyi avantajlı bulurlar ve bunun nedeni, bu Åekilde kullanıcıya bir
-avantaj saÄladıklarını düÅündükleri için <em>deÄil</em>, ancak daha
çok
-kullanıcı üzerinde bir Åeyler dayattıkları, kullanıcıyı kilitledikleri
-içindir. Ve özel mülk yazılım geliÅtiricilerinin zaman zaman dosya
-biçimlerinde deÄiÅiklikler yaptıklarını görürsünüz, bunun tek nedeni,
-insanların en yeni sürümü satın almalarını saÄlamaktır. </p>
-
-<p>ArÅivciler Åimdi bir problem bulmaktadır, on yıl önce bilgisayarlarda
-yazılan dosyalara genellikle eriÅilememektedir; bunlar, Åimdi kaybolmuÅ
olan
-özel mülk yazılımla yazılan dosyalardır. Bu dosyalar özgür yazılımla
-yazılmıŠolsalardı, güncelleÅtirilebilip çalıÅtırılabilirlerdi. Ve
söz
-konusu kayıtlar kaybolmazdı, eriÅilemeyen duruma gelmezdi. NPR'de bile bu
-konuda Åikayetler vardı ve çözüm olarak özgür yazılım
-önerilmekteydi. Aslında, kendi verilerinizi saklamak için özgür olmayan
-programı kullanarak, kendinizi tuzaÄa düÅürüyorsunuz.</p>
-
-<p>Böylece, özgür yazılımın birçok iÅi nasıl etkilediÄini anlattım.
Ancak,
-yazılım iÅi olan bu özel dar alanı nasıl etkilemektedir? Evet, bu sorunun
-cevabı, çoÄunlukla hemen hemen hiç etkilemediÄidir. Ve bana
anlatılanlardan,
-bunun nedeni, yazılım endüstrisinin % 90âının özel yazılımın
geliÅimine
-ayrılmasıdır, baÅka bir deyiÅle, yayınlanmayan yazılıma
ayrılmasıdır. Ãzel
-yazılım için, bu husus ya da özgür ya da özel mülk olma hususu gündeme
-gelmez. GördüÄünüz gibi, buradaki husus, siz kullanıcıların yazılımı
-deÄiÅtirmek ve yeniden daÄıtmak için özgür olup olmadıÄınızdır.
Yalnızca tek
-bir kullanıcı varsa ve söz konusu kullanıcı haklara sahipse, o zaman
problem
-yoktur. Söz konusu kullanıcı tüm bu Åeyleri yapmakta özgürdür. Bu
nedenle,
-aslında, kaynak kodunu ve tüm hakları alma konusunda ısrar ediyorlarsa,
-firma içinde kullanım için bir firma tarafından geliÅtirilen her türlü
özel
-program özgür yazılımdır.</p>
-
-<p>Bu husus, bir saatteki ya da bir mikrodalga fırındaki ya da bir otomobilin
-ateÅleme sistemindeki yazılım için söz konusu deÄildir çünkü bu
durumlarda,
-kurmak için yazılım indirmezsiniz. Kullanıcı söz konusu olduÄu sürece,
bu,
-gerçek bir bilgisayar deÄildir, bu nedenle, etik açıdan önemli olmaya
-yetecek kadar bu hususları büyütmez. Bu nedenle, en önemli kısım için,
-yazılım endüstrisi, olduÄu gibi gitmeye devam edecektir. Ve ilginç Åey
Åudur
-ki, bu gibi büyük bir iÅ oranı endüstrinin ilgili kısmında olduÄu
için,
-özgür yazılım iÅi için hiçbir olasılık olmasa bile, özgür yazılım
-geliÅtiricileri, özel yazılım yazmak için günlük iÅler
-alabilirler. [Dinleyiciler güler] Bunlardan çok fazla vardır; oran çok
-büyüktür.</p>
-
-<p>Ancak görüldüÄü gibi, özgür yazılım iÅi vardır. Ãzgür
yazılım firmaları
-vardır ve katılacaÄım basın toplantısında, birkaç özgür yazılım
firmasından
-insanlar bize katılacaktır. Ve tabi ki, özgür yazılım iÅi olmayan ancak
-yayınlamak için yararlı özgür yazılım parçaları geliÅtiren firmalar
da
-vardır ve onların geliÅtirdiÄi özgür yazılım önemli ölçüdedir.</p>
-
-<p>Åimdi, Åu soruyu sorarız: özgür yazılım iÅ dünyası nasıl
çalıÅmaktadır?
-Bazıları kopyaları satmaktadır. Kopyalamakta özgürsünüzdür ancak yine
de
-ayda binlerce kopya satabilirler. Ve diÄerleri, destek ve çeÅitli hizmet
-tiplerini satmaktadır. KiÅisel olarak ben, 1980âlerin ikinci yarısı
boyunca,
-özgür yazılım destek hizmetleri sattım. Temel olarak saatte $200 için,
-yazmıŠolduÄum GNU yazılımında deÄiÅtirmemi istediÄiniz her Åeyi
-deÄiÅtiririm dedim. Evet, bu, ciddi bir ücrettir ancak bu, benim
geliÅtirmiÅ
-olduÄum bir programdı ve çok daha kısa bir sürede aynı iÅi
-gerçekleÅtirebileceÄimi insanlar anladı. [Dinleyiciler güler] Ve bu
Åekilde
-ekmeÄimi kazandım. Aslında, daha önce yaptıÄımdan daha fazlasını
-yaptım. Ayrıca dersler de verdim. Ve 1990 yılına kadar bunu yapmayı
-sürdürdüm. 1990 yılında büyük bir ödül kazandım ve bunu yapmayı
bıraktım.</p>
-
-<p>Ancak 1990 yılında, Cygnus Support (Cygnus Destek) adında ilk ortak
özgür
-yazılım iÅi oluÅturuldu. Ve onların iÅi, benim yaptıÄım Åeyle aynı
tip Åeyi
-yapmaktı. Ä°htiyaç duysaydım kesinlikle onlar için çalıÅabilirdim. Ancak
-ihtiyaç duymadım ve herhangi bir firmadan baÄımsız kalsaydım bunun
hareket
-için iyi olacaÄını hissettim. Bu Åekilde, herhangi bir çıkar
çatıÅması
-olmaksızın çeÅitli özgür ve özgür olmayan yazılım firmaları için
iyi ve kötü
-Åeyler söyleyebilirdim. Harekete daha fazla hizmet edebileceÄimi
-hissettim. Ancak yaÅamımı kazanmak için buna ihtiyaç duysaydım, onlar
için
-çalıÅacaktım. Bu, içinde bulunmak adına etik bir iÅtir. Onlarla iÅ
yapmak
-için utanmama hiç gerek yoktu. Ve söz konusu firma ilk yılında
kârdaydı. Ãok
-az ana para ile, üç kurucusunun sahip olduÄu para ile oluÅturulmuÅtu. Ve
her
-geçen yıl daha da büyüdüler ve kârlı oldular, sonunda iyice büyümek
-istediler, açgözlü oldular, dıŠyatırımcılara açıldılar ve daha
sonra her
-Åeyi bozdular. Ancak açgözlü olmadan önce, yıllarını baÅarı içinde
-geçirdiler.</p>
-
-<p>Bu, özgür yazılım hakkındaki heyecan verici Åeylerden birini
-göstermektedir. Ãzgür yazılım, özgür yazılım geliÅtirmek için
anapara
-saÄlamanızın gerekli olmadıÄını göstermektedir. Demek istiyorum ki,
ana para
-yararlıdır; yardımcı olabilir. Bir miktar anapara toplayabilirseniz, insan
-tutabilir ve bu insanlara kod yazdırabilirsiniz. Ancak az sayıda insanla çok
-iÅ baÅarabilirsiniz. Aslında, özgür yazılımı geliÅtiren süreçin
çok etkin
-olması, dünyanın özgür yazılıma geçmesi için önemli nedenlerden
biridir. Ve
-bu, ayrıca Microsoftâun söylediÄini yalanlar, Microsoft, GNU GPLânin
kötü
-olduÄunu söyler çünkü özgür olmayan yazılımı geliÅtirmek için
anapara
-toplamak, özgür yazılımımızı alıp bizimle paylaÅmayacakları
programlara
-kodumuzu koymak onlar için zorlaÅır. Temel olarak, bu Åekilde anaparayı
-yükseltmelerine ihtiyaç duymamaktayız. Her Åekilde iÅi yaptırırız.
Ä°Åi zaten
-yaptırıyoruz.</p>
-
-<p>Ä°nsanlar, bizim hiçbir zaman tamamen özgür bir iÅletim sistemi
-yapamayacaÄımızı söylemekteydiler. Åimdi bunu ve ilâve olarak önemli
bir
-oranı daha gerçekleÅtirdik. Ve söyleyebilirim ki, dünyanın tüm genel
amaçlı
-olarak yayınlanan yazılımını geliÅtirmemize az kaldı. Ve bunu,
-kullanıcılardan % 90âından fazlasının henüz bizim özgür
yazılımımızı
-kullanmadıÄı bir dünyada baÅardık. Bu, dünyadaki tüm Web
sunucularının
-yarısından fazlasının Web sunucusu olarak Apache ile GNU/Linux üzerinde
-çalıÅtıÄı bir dünyada gerçekleÅmiÅtir.</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>:[Duyulamıyor] … Daha önce ne dediniz, Linux
mı?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>:GNU/Linux dedim.</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>:Ãyle mi dediniz?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>:Evet, çekirdek hakkında konuÅuyorsam, onu Linux
-olarak adlandırırım. Biliyorsunuz, bu, onun adıdır. Ãekirdek Linus
Torvalds
-tarafından yazılmıÅtır ve yazara duyulan saygıdan ötürü, bu
çekirdeÄi
-yalnızca onun verdiÄi isimle adlandırabiliriz.</p>
-
-<p>Genel olarak, iÅ dünyasında, birçok kullanıcı GNU/Linuxâı
-kullanmamaktadır. Birçok ev kullanıcısı henüz bizim sistemimizi
-kullanmamaktadır. Ev kullanıcıları da sistemimizi kullanmaya
baÅladıÄında,
-özgür yazılım için 10 kat daha fazla gönüllü ve 10 kat daha fazla
müÅteri
-saÄlayacaÄız. Ve bu bizi büyütecektir. Bu nedenle, bu noktada, bu iÅi
-yapabileceÄimiz konusunda oldukça güvenim var.</p>
-
-<p>Ve bu önemlidir çünkü Microsoft bizim çaresiz hissetmemizi
-istemektedir. Åöyle derler: âÃalıÅtırılacak yazılıma sahip
olmanızın tek
-yolu, yeniliÄe sahip olmanızın tek yolu, gücü bize vermenizle
-saÄlanabilir. Biz baskınız. ÃalıÅtırdıÄınız programla ne
yapabileceÄinizi
-kontrol edelim, böylece sizden çok para alabiliriz ve bu paranın belirli bir
-oranını yazılım geliÅtirmek için kullanıp geri kalanını kâr
yaparız.â</p>
-
-<p>Hiçbir zaman çaresiz hissetmemelisiniz. Ãok çaresiz hissedip
özgürlüÄünüzü
-feda etmemelisiniz. Bu çok tehlikelidir.</p>
-
-<p>Microsoftâun, yalnızca Microsoft olmamakla beraber özgür yazılımı
-desteklemeyen insanların genelde benimsediÄi deÄer sistemi, kısa vadeli
-kârdır: Bu sene ne kadar para kazanacaÄım? Bugün ne kadar iÅ
yaptırabilirim?
-Kısa vadeli düÅünme ve dar düÅünme. Onların varsayımına göre,
birilerinin
-özgürlük adına fedakarlık yapması saçmadır.</p>
-
-<p>Dün yurttaÅlarının özgürlüÄü için fedakarlık yapmıŠolan
Amerikalılar
-hakkında birçok insan konuÅma yapıyordu. Bu insanların bazıları büyük
-fedakarlıklar yapmıÅlardı. Ãlkemizde herkesin duyduÄu özgürlük
çeÅitleri
-için yaÅamlarını bile feda etmiÅlerdi. (En azından bazı durumlarda;
tahmin
-ederim ki, Vietnamâdaki savaÅı burada görmezden gelmeliyiz.)</p>
-
-<p><i>[Editörün notu: Ãnceki gün, Yurt Åehitleri anma günüydü,
kahramanların
-anıldıÄı bir ABD tatil günüydü.]</i></p>
-
-<p>Ancak neyse ki, yazılımın kullanılmasındaki özgürlüÄümüzün
korunması bu gibi
-büyük fedakarlıkları gerektirmemektedir. Grafiksel Kullanıcı Ara yüzü
(GUI)
-programınız henüz yoksa, komut satırı ara yüzünün öÄrenilmesi gibi
yalnızca
-küçük ve az fedakarlıklar yeterlidir. Bunu bu Åekilde yapmak için
özgür bir
-yazılım paketine sahip olmadıÄımız için, bu, iÅin bu Åekilde
yapılması
-gibidir. Birkaç yılda sahip olabileceÄiniz gibi, belirli bir özgür
yazılım
-paketini geliÅtirecek olan bir firmaya bir miktar paranın ödenmesi
-gibidir. Bunlar, hepimizin yapabileceÄi küçük fedakarlıklardır. Ve uzun
-vadede, bundan fayda görürüz. BildiÄiniz gibi, bir fedakarlıktan çok bir
-yatırım gibidir. Toplumumuzun geliÅmesinde bizim için iyi olduÄunu bilmek
-için, yalnızca söz konusu yatırımdan kimin beÅ on senti alacaÄını
saymadan
-yeterli uzun vadeli görüÅe sahip olmamız gereklidir.</p>
-
-<p>Böylece, bu noktada, anlatacaklarım sona erdi.</p>
-
-<p>Tony Stanco tarafından önerilen özgür yazılım iÅine iliÅkin yeni bir
-yaklaÅımın olduÄunu ifade etmek isterim, bu yaklaÅım âÃzgür
GeliÅtiricilerâ
-olarak adlandırılmaktadır ve organizasyona katılan tüm yazılım
-geliÅtiricilere kârdan belirli bir oranın verilmesini uman belirli bir iÅ
-yapısını içermektedir. Ve halen Hindistanâda bazı büyük hükümet
yazılım
-geliÅtirme sözleÅmelerinin gerçekleÅtirilmesini ummaktadırlar çünkü
taban
-olarak özgür yazılımı kullanıyor olacaklardır, bu Åekilde büyük
maliyet
-tasarrufu saÄlamayı planlamaktadırlar.</p>
-
-<p>Ve Åimdi sorularınızı bekliyorum.</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: <i>[Ä°Åitilememektedir]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Biraz yüksek sesle konuÅabilir misiniz lütfen?
-Sizi gerçekten duyamıyorum.</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Microsoft gibi bir firma bir özgür yazılım
-sözleÅmesini nasıl içerebilir?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Microsoft aslında eylemlerinin birçoÄunu
-hizmetlere kaydırmayı planlamaktadır. Ve yapmayı planladıkları Åey
kirli ve
-tehlikeli bir Åeydir, zikzak biçiminde hizmetleri birini diÄerine olacak
-Åekilde baÄlamayı planlamaktadırlar. Böylece bu hizmeti kullanmak için,
bu
-Microsoft programını kullanıyor olmanız gereklidir, bu da, bu hizmeti ve bu
-Microsoft programını kullanmanız gerektiÄi anlamına gelecektir â¦
böylece
-tümü birbiriyle iliÅkilidir. Planları budur. </p>
-
-<p>Åimdi, ilginç olan Åey, bu hizmetlerin satılmasının özgür yazılım
ya da
-özgür olmayan yazılım etik hususunu gündeme getirmemesidir. Onlar için,
net
-üzerinden bu hizmetleri satan bu gibi iÅyerlerinin olması çok iyi
-olabilir. Ancak, Microsoftâun planladıÄı, yazılım ve hizmetler
üzerinde daha
-bile büyük bir tekel, daha bile büyük bir kilit elde etmek için onları
-kullanmaktır ve bu, yakın zamanda bir makalede açıklanmıÅtır. DiÄer
-insanlar, bunun, neti Microsoft Firma Kasabasına dönüÅtürdüÄünü
söylemiÅtir.</p>
-
-<p>Ve bu baÄlantılıdır çünkü Microsoft anti güven mahkemesindeki asliye
-mahkemesi Microsoftâun â anlamsız bir Åekilde, hiçbir iÅe yaramayacak
-biçimde â iÅletim sistemi kısmına ve uygulama kısmına bölünmesini
-önermiÅtir. </p>
-
-<p>Ancak o makaleyi gördükten sonra, Åimdi yalnızca emsallerine uygun bir
-Åekilde birbirleriyle baÅa çıkmalarını gerektirmek için Microsoftâun
-hizmetler kısmına ve yazılım kısmına bölünmesinin yararlı ve etkin bir
-yolunu görmekteyim, hizmetler ara yüzlerini yayınlamalıdır, böylece
-hizmetlerle konuÅabilmek için herkes bir istemci yazabilir ve tahmin
-ediyorum ki, hizmeti almak için ödeme yapmaları gereklidir. Evet, bu
-tamamdır. Bu, tamamen farklı bir konudur. </p>
-
-<p>Microsoft bu Åekilde […] baÅka bir deyiÅle, hizmetler ve
yazılım
-Åeklinde bölünürse, Microsoft hizmetleriyle rekabete girmek için
-yazılımlarını kullanamayacaklardır. Ve Microsoft yazılımıyla rekabete
girmek
-için hizmetleri kullanamayacaklardır. Ve özgür yazılım yapabileceÄiz ve
-belki de siz insanlar bunu Microsoft hizmetleriyle konuÅmak için
-kullanacaksınız, bu bizim için önemli deÄildir.</p>
-
-<p>Ãünkü ne de olsa, Microsoftâun birçok insana boyun eÄdiren özel
mülk yazılım
-firması olmasına raÄmen â diÄerleri daha az insana boyun eÄdirmiÅtir,
bu,
-uÄraÅma isteÄinden kaynaklanmamaktadır; [dinleyiciler güler] o kadar çok
-sayıda insana boyun eÄdirmeyi baÅaramamıÅlardır. Bu nedenle, problem
-yalnızca ve yalnızca Microsoft deÄildir. Microsoft, çözmeye
çalıÅtıÄımız
-problemin yalnızca en büyük örneÄidir, iÅbirliÄi yapmak ve etik bir
toplum
-oluÅturmak için kullanıcıların özgürlüÄünü alan özel mülk
yazılımdır. Bu
-nedenle, bu platform için bana imkân vermiŠolsalar bile, Microsoft üzerine
-çok fazla odaklanmamalıyız. Bu, onları çok önemli yapmaz. Bu, hepsi ve
-hepsinin sonu deÄildir.</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Daha önceden, açık kaynaklı yazılımla özgür
yazılım
-arasındaki felsefi farkları açıklıyordunuz. Yalnızca Intel
platformlarını
-desteklerlerken, GNU/Linux daÄıtımlarının mevcut eÄilimi hakkında nasıl
-hissediyorsunuz? Ve gitgide daha az sayıda programcının doÄru Åekilde
-programlama yaptıÄı ve herhangi bir yerde derleme yapacak olan yazılımı
-hazırladıÄı görülmektedir? Ve basitçe Intel sistemlerinde çalıÅan
yazılımın
-hazırlandıÄı görülmektedir?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Burada etik bir husus görmüyorum. Ancak,
-gerçekte, bilgisayar üreten firmalar, bazen GNU/Linux sistemini bilgisayara
-taÅımaktadır. HP açık bir Åekilde bunu yakın bir zamanda yapmıÅtır.
Ve
-Windowsâun bir portu için ödeme yapma konusunda canlarını
sıkmamıÅlardı,
-çünkü bu, çok fazla maliyete sahip olacaktı. Ancak zannediyorum ki
-GNU/Linuxâın desteklenmesi birkaç ay boyunca beÅ mühendisin
çalıÅmasını
-gerektirecekti. Bu, kolayca yapılabilir bir Åeydi.</p>
-
-<p>Åimdi tabi ki, insanların <code>autoconf</code>âu kullanmasını
öneriyorum,
-autoconf, programlarınızı taÅınabilir hale getirmeyi kolaylaÅtıran bir
GNU
-paketidir. Bunu yapmaları için onları yüreklendiriyorum. Ya da sistemin
söz
-konusu sürümünde derlenmeyen bir hatayı baÅka birileri giderdiÄinde ve
size
-gönderdiÄinde, o zaman bunu göz önünde bulundurmalısınız. Ancak bunu
etik
-bir husus olarak görmüyorum.</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Ä°ki yorum. Birisi: Yakın zamanda, MITâde
-konuÅtunuz. Kopyasını okudum. Ve birileri, patentler hakkında bir Åeyler
-sordu ve siz dediniz ki âpatentler tamamen farklı bir konudur. Bu konuda
-yorumum yok.â</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: DoÄru. Patentler hakkında aslında söyleyecek
çok
-Åeyim var ama bu, bir saati bulur. [Dinleyiciler güler]</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Åunu demek istedim: Bana öyle geliyor ki, burada
-önemli bir husus var. Demek istiyorum ki, bu konsepti almaya çalıÅırken,
-firmaların, kendileri için bir tekel biçimi oluÅturmaya çalıÅırken
Devletin
-gücünü kullanmak isterlerse, patentler ve telif hakkı gibi Åeyleri sert
-özellik olarak adlandırmalarının bir nedeni vardır. Ve böylece, bu
Åeyler
-hakkındaki yaygın olan Åey, aynı hususlar etrafında dolaÅmaları
deÄildir
-ancak söz konusu motivasyon, gerçekten de genel hizmet hususu deÄildir ama
-özel çıkarları için firmaların tekel saÄlama motivasyonudur. </p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Anlıyorum. Ama, iyi, yanıtlamak istiyorum
çünkü
-çok fazla zaman yok. Bu yüzden bunu yanıtlamak istiyorum.</p>
-
-<p>Onların istediÄinin bu olduÄu konusunda haklısınız. Ancak fikri
mülkiyet
-terimini kullanmak istemelerinin baÅka bir nedeni vardır. Bunun nedeni,
-insanların, telif hakkı hususları ya da patent hususları hakkında dikkatli
-bir Åekilde düÅünmesini istememeleridir. Telif hakkı kanunu ve patent
kanunu
-tamamen farklı olduÄu için, yazılım telif haklarının ve yazılım
-patentlerinin etkileri tamamen farklıdır. </p>
-
-<p>Yazılım patentleri, programcıları belirli program tiplerini yazmaktan
-alıkoydukları için, programcılar üzerindeki bir kısıtlamadır ancak
telif
-hakkı bunu yapmaz. Telif hakkı söz konusu olduÄunda, en azından kendi
-kendinize yazıyorsanız, daÄıtmanıza izin verilmektedir. Bu nedenle, bu
-hususların ayrılması çok önemlidir.</p>
-
-<p>Bunların, çok düÅük bir seviyede ortak bir özelliÄi vardır ve
diÄer her Åey
-farklıdır. Bu nedenle, lütfen, açık bir Åekilde düÅünmeyi
cesaretlendirmek
-için, telif hakkını ve patentleri tartıÅın. Ancak fikri mülkiyeti
-tartıÅmayın. fikri mülkiyet hakkında bir fikrim yoktur. Telif hakları,
-patentler ve yazılım hakkında düÅüncelerim vardır. </p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: BaÅlangıçta fonksiyonel bir dilin, yemek tarifleri
-gibi, bilgisayar programları olduÄunu ifade ettiniz. Ancak yemek
-tariflerinden bilgisayar programlarına ve İngilizce dilinden bilgisayar
-programlarına büyük bir geçiÅ vardır â âfonksiyonel dilâin
tanımı çok
-geniÅtir. DVD konusunda bu, neden olan problemi oluÅturmaktadır. </p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Hususlar, doÄadaki fonksiyonel olmayan
Åeylerden
-ötürü kısmen benzer ancak kısmen de farklıdır. Hususun bir kısmı
aktarılır
-ancak tamamı aktarılmaz. Maalesef, bu da bir saatlik bir konuÅma ile
-açıklanabilir. Bu konuya burada girmek için yeterli vaktimiz yok. Ancak
Åunu
-söylemek isterim ki, yazılımla aynı anlamda tüm fonksiyonel çalıÅmalar
özgür
-olmalıdır. Biliyorsunuz, ders kitapları, belgeler, sözlükler ve tarifler
-özgür olmalıdır.</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Yalnızca online müziÄi merak ediyordum. Bir yandan
-öbür yana oluÅturulmuÅ benzerlikler ve farklar mevcuttur.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: DoÄru. Yayınlanan her türlü bilgi için sahip
-olmamız gereken minimum özgürlük bu yayını ticari olmayan bir Åekilde
-yeniden aynen daÄıtma özgürlüÄüdür. Fonksiyonel çalıÅmalar için,
-deÄiÅtirilmiÅ bir sürümü ticari olarak yayınlama özgürlüÄüne
ihtiyaç duyarız
-çünkü bu, toplum için çok yararlıdır. Fonksiyonel olmayan çalıÅmalar
için â
-insanları eÄlendirecek ya da estetik olacak ya da belirli bir insanın
-görüÅlerini ifade edecek olan Åeyler, biliyorsunuz â belki de
-deÄiÅtirilmemelidir. Ve bu belki de onların tüm ticari daÄıtımını
kapsayan
-telif hakkına sahip olunmasının tamam olduÄu anlamına gelmektedir. </p>
-
-<p>Lütfen unutmayın ki, A.B.D. Anayasasına göre, telif hakkının amacı
halkın
-yararlanmasıdır. Telif hakkı, belirli özel tarafların davranıÅını
-deÄiÅtirmek böylece daha fazla kitap yayınlamalarını saÄlamak içindir.
Ve
-bunun yararı, toplumun hususları tartıÅmasının ve öÄrenmesinin
-saÄlanmasıdır. Ve, bildiÄiniz gibi, literatürümüz vardır. Bilimsel
-çalıÅmalarımız vardır. Hedef, bunu cesaretlendirmektir. Telif hakları,
-yazarların iyiliÄi için deÄil, yalnızca yayıncıların iyiliÄi
içindir. Telif
-hakkı, okuyucuların ve insanlar yazdıÄında ve diÄerleri okuduÄunda
-gerçekleÅen bilgi alıÅveriÅinden faydalananların iyiliÄinedir. Ve bu
hedefle
-fikir birliÄi içerisindeyim.</p>
-
-<p>Ancak bilgisayar aÄları çaÄında, yöntem, artık inanılabilen ve
makul bir
-yöntem deÄildir çünkü Åimdi herkesin özel hayatına giren ve herkes
için
-terör estiren katı kanunları gerektirmektedir. KomÅunuzla paylaÅımda
-bulunduÄunuz için yıllarınız hapiste geçer. Matbaa zamanında durum
böyle
-deÄildi. O zamanlar telif hakkı endüstriyel bir düzenlemeydi.
Yayıncıları
-kısıtlamaktaydı. Åimdi yayıncılar tarafından kamu üzerine dayatılan
bir
-kısıtlamadır. Bu nedenle güç iliÅkisi, aynı kanun yürürlükte olsa
bile, 180
-derece döndü.</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Böylece baÅka bir müzikten müzik yapmak gibi bir
Åeye
-sahip olabilir misiniz?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: DoÄru. Bu ilginç …</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Ve benzersiz, yeni çalıÅmalar, iÅte, hâlâ çok
-miktarda iÅbirliÄi var.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: DoÄru. Ve bunun muhtemelen adil kullanım
-kavramını gerektirdiÄini düÅünüyorum. Kesinlikle birkaç saniyelik
numune
-yapmak ve bunu bazı müziksel çalıÅmaların hazırlanmasında kullanmak,
açık
-bir Åekilde bu, adil kullanım olmalıdır. Bu konu hakkında
düÅünürseniz, adil
-kullanıma iliÅkin standart fikir bunu içermektedir. Mahkemeler fikir
birliÄi
-içinde olurlarsa, emin deÄilim, ama olmalılar. Sistemde mevcut olduÄu
-haliyle gerçek bir deÄiÅiklik var olmayacaktır.</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Ãzel mülk biçimlerde genel bilgilerin
yayınlanması
-hakkında ne düÅünüyorsunuz?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Bu olmamalıdır. Hükümet, vatandaÅlardan
herhangi
-bir Åekilde ya da herhangi bir yönde kendisiyle haberleÅmeleri için ya da
-kendisine eriÅmeleri için özgür olmayan bir programın kullanılmasını
hiçbir
-zaman istememelidir. </p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Åimdi söyleyeceÄim Åeyi yani GNU/Linux
kullanıcısı
-olmuÅtum.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: TeÅekkürler. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: …son dört yıldır. Benim için problemli ve
-hepimiz için önemli olan Åeylerden biri de zannediyorum ki Webâe göz
-atmaktır. </p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Evet.</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: GNU/Linux sisteminin kullanılmasındaki zayıf
-noktalardan bir tanesi Webâde tarama yapılmasıdır çünkü bu konudaki
yaygın
-araç Netscapeâtirâ¦</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: …ve özgür yazılım deÄildir.</p>
-
-<p>Bu soruyu yanıtlayayım. Daha fazlasını elde etme adına ana noktaya
-varayım. Evet. Ä°nsanların GNU/Linux sistemlerinde Netscape Navigatörâü
-kullanma eÄilimlerinde büyük bir artıŠvardır. Gerçekte, ticari olarak
-paketlenmiŠtüm sistemlerde Netscape Navigatör otomatik olarak
-vardır. Böylece bu, ironik bir durumdur: özgür bir iÅletim sistemi
-geliÅtirmek için çok çalıÅtık ve Åimdi maÄazaya gittiÄinizde, orada
-GNU/Linuxâın sürümlerini bulabilirsiniz, çoÄu Linux olarak
-adlandırılmaktadır ve özgür deÄildirler. Neyse, bazıları özgürdür
-aslında. Ancak Netscape Navigatör ve belki de baÅka özgür olmayan
programlar
-da var olabilir. Bu nedenle, gerçekte ne yaptıÄınızı bilmiyorsanız,
özgür
-bir sistemin bulunması çok zordur. Ya da tabi ki, Netscape Navigatörü
-kuramazsınız. </p>
-
-<p>Åimdi, gerçekte, yıllardır özgür Web tarayıcıları mevcuttur. Lynx
olarak
-adlandırılan ve eskiden kullandıÄım özgür bir Web tarayıcısı vardır:
-Grafiksel olmayan özgür bir Web tarayıcısıdır; yalnızca metinden
-ibarettir. Bunun büyük bir avantajı vardır, bunda reklamları
-görmezsiniz. [Dinleyiciler güler] [AlkıÅ]</p>
-
-<p>Ama her neyse, Mozilla olarak adlandırılan ve kullanabileceÄiniz noktaya
-ulaÅan özgür bir grafik arayüzlü proje vardır. Ve ben onu arada sırada
-kullanıyorum. </p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 çok iyidir.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Evet, Tamam. Bu, baÅka bir özgür grafiksel
-arayüzlü tarayıcıdır. Böylece, sonunda tahmin ediyorum ki bu problemi
-çözüyoruz.</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Bana özgür yazılımla açık kaynak arasındaki
-felsefi/etik ayrımdan bahsedebilir misiniz? Bunların uzlaÅtırılamaz
olduÄunu
-mu hissediyorsunuz? …</p>
-
-<p>[Kayıtlar arasında kaset deÄiÅtiriliyor; sorunun sonu ve cevabın baÅı
-eksiktir]</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: … bir özgürlüÄe ve etiÄe. Ya da sizin
-henüz söylediÄiniz gibi, umarım ki, siz firmalar, bizim bu Åeyleri
yapmamıza
-izin vermemizin daha kârlı olduÄuna karar verirsiniz. </p>
-
-<p>Ancak, söylediÄim gibi, çok sayıdaki pratik çalıÅmada, bir kimsenin
-politikasının ne olduÄu gerçekten de fark etmemektedir. Bir kimse GNU
-projesine yardımcı olmayı teklif ettiÄinde, Åunu demeyiz: âBizim
-politikalarımızla fikir birliÄi içinde olmanız gereklidir.â Bir GNU
-paketinde, sistemi GNU/Linux olarak adlandırmanızın gerekli olduÄunu ve
-bunları özgür yazılım olarak adlandırmanız gerektiÄini söyleriz. GNU
Projesi
-hakkında konuÅmadıÄınızda ne söylediÄiniz, size kalmıÅtır.</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Yeni büyük makinelerini satmak amacıyla hükümet
-birimleri için IBM firması bir kampanya baÅlatmıÅtır, satıŠnoktası
olarak
-Linuxâı kullanmıÅlar ve Linux olarak adlandırmıÅlardır. </p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Evet. Tabi ki, bunlar gerçekten de GNU/Linux
-sistemleridir. [Dinleyiciler güler]</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Bu doÄrudur. En üstteki satıŠelemanına
söyleyin. GNU
-hakkında bir Åey bilmiyor. </p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Kime söylemeliyim?</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: En üstteki satıŠelemanı.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Ya, evet. Buradaki problem, avantajları için
-söylemek istedikleri Åeylere halihazırda dikkatli bir Åekilde karar vermiÅ
-olmalarıdır. Ve bunu tanımlamanın daha doÄru, daha adil ya da daha kesin
-yolunun ne olduÄu hususu, bu gibi bir firma için önemli olan temel husus
-deÄildir. Evet, Åimdi bazı küçük firmalarda, bir patron olacaktır. Ve
patron
-bu gibi hususlar hakkında düÅünmekteyse, bu Åekilde bir karara
-varabilir. Ancak bu çok büyük bir ortaklık deÄildir. Bu, bir utançtır,
-ayıptır. </p>
-
-<p>IBMâin yaptıÄı Åey hakkında daha önemli ve daha baÄımsız bir
husus
-vardır. âLinuxâa bir milyar dolar yatırdıklarını söylüyorlar. Ancak
belki de
-âLinuxâa ifadesindeki aâyı da çift tırnak içine almalıyım çünkü
bu paranın
-bir kısmı insanların özgür yazılım geliÅtirmesi için harcanmaktadır.
Bu
-gerçekten de topluluÄumuz için büyük bir katkıdır. Ancak diÄer
kısımları,
-insanlara özel mülk yazılım yazmaları ya da özel mülk yazılımı
GNU/Linuxâın
-üstünde çalıÅtırmak üzere taÅımak için ödeme yapmaktadır ve bu,
topluluÄumuz
-için bir katkı deÄildir. Ancak IBM, tümünü bunda toplamaktadır.
Bunların
-bazıları reklam olabilir, bu da kısmen bir katkıdır ancak kısmen de
-yanlıÅtır. Bu nedenle, bu, karmaÅık bir durumdur. Yaptıkları Åeylerden
-bazıları katkıdır ve bazıları deÄildir, ancak bunlar da kesin
deÄildir. Ve
-hepsini bir araya toplayıp âVav! IBMâden bir milyar dolar aldımâ
-diyemezsiniz. [Dinleyiciler güler] Bu, olayların aÅırı derecede
-basitleÅtirilmesidir.</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Genel Kamu Lisansıâna iliÅkin düÅünceler
hakkında
-biraz bilgi verebilir misiniz?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Åimdi, burada — özür dilerim, sorusunu
-Åimdi yanıtlıyorum. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Basın toplantısı için zaman ayırmak istiyor
-musunuz? Yoksa burada mı devam etmek istiyorsunuz?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Basın toplantısı için kimler burada? Ãok
fazla
-basın yok. Oh, üç - Tamam. EÄer herkesin sorusunu yanıtlamak üzere on
dakika
-gibi bir Åey istesek kabul eder misiniz? Tamam. O zaman, herkesin sorusunu
-yanıtlamayla devam edelim.</p>
-
-<p>GNU GPLâye yol açan düÅünceler mi? Bunun bir kısmı, topluluÄun
özgürlüÄünü,
-X Windowsâta tanımladıÄım fenomenlere karÅı korumak istememdi, bu durum
-diÄer programlarda da meydana geldi. Aslında, bu husus hakkında
düÅünürken,
-X Windows henüz yayınlanmamıÅtı. Ancak bu problemin baÅka özgür
programlarda
-meydana geldiÄini görmüÅtüm. ÃrneÄin, TeX gibi. Kullanıcıların
tümünün
-özgürlüÄe sahip olduÄundan emin olmak istedim. Aksi takdirde, bir program
-yazabileceÄimi ve çok sayıda insanın programı kullanacaÄını
düÅündüm, ancak
-o insanların özgürlüÄü olmayacaktı. Ve bunun ana noktası nedir?</p>
-
-<p>Ancak düÅündüÄüm diÄer bir husus, topluluÄa, bunun bir paspas
olmadıÄı
-duygusunu vermekti, bu, ortalıkta dolanan herhangi bir parazite av olmadıÄı
-duygusuydu. Copyleftâi kullanmıyorsanız, esas olarak Åunu diyorsunuzdur:
-[Uysal bir Åekilde konuÅarak] âKodumu al. Ne istersen yap. Hayır demem.â
-Böylece herhangi biri gelip Åunu diyebilir: [kesinkes konuÅarak] âA, bunun
-özgür olmayan bir sürümünü yapmak istiyorum. O zaman bunu alacaÄım.â
Ve daha
-sonra, tabi ki, muhtemelen bazı geliÅtirmeler eklediler, bu özgür olmayan
-sürümler kullanıcılara çekici geldi ve özgür sürümlerin yerini aldı.
Ve o
-zaman, neyi baÅarmıŠoldunuz? Yalnızca bir özel mülk yazılım projesine
-katkıda bulunmuŠoldunuz. </p>
-
-<p>Ve insanlar bu durumun meydana geldiÄini gördüÄünde, benim yaptıÄım
Åeyi
-diÄer insanların aldıÄını gördüklerinde ve insanlar hiçbir zaman geri
-vermediÄinde, bu, moral bozucu bir durum olabilir. Ve bu yalnızca
-spekülasyon deÄildir. Bunun gerçekleÅtiÄini gördüm. Bu, 1970âlerde
üyesi
-olduÄum eski topluluÄu bozmak için meydana gelen Åeyin bir parçasıdır.
Bazı
-insanlar iÅbirliÄinden uzaklaÅmaya baÅladı. Ve biz de bu Åekilde kâr
-yaptıklarını varsaydık. Kesinlikle kâr yaptıklarını düÅünüyor gibi
-davrandılar. Ve biz de, ortaklıÄımızı alabileceÄimizi ve geri
-vermeyebileceÄimizi fark ettik. Ve bu konu hakkında yapabileceÄimiz hiçbir
-Åey yoktu. Ãok umutsuzluk vericiydi. Bizim gibi bu eÄilimden hoÅlanmayan
-insanlar bir tartıÅma bile yaÅadılar ancak bunu nasıl durdurabileceÄimize
-iliÅkin bir fikrimiz yoktu.</p>
-
-<p>GPL bunu durdurmak için tasarımlanmıÅtır. Åöyle der: Evet,
topluluÄa girmek
-ve bu kodu kullanmak konusunda özgürsünüz. Her türlü iÅi yapmak için
bu kodu
-kullanabilirsiniz. Ancak deÄiÅtirilmiÅ bir sürümü yayınlarsanız, bunu,
-topluluÄumuza, topluluÄumuzun bir kısmına, özgür dünyanın bir kısmına
-yayınlamanız gereklidir.</p>
-
-<p>Bu nedenle, gerçekte, insanların bizim çalıÅmalarımızdan
faydalanmasının ve
-herhangi bir yazılım yazmak zorunda olmamanız gibi bir katkısının
-olmamasının hâlâ birçok yolu vardır. Birçok insan GNU/Linuxâı
kullanmakta ve
-hiçbir yazılım yazmamaktadır. Bizim için bir Åeyler yapmanız gibi bir
Åart
-yoktur. Ancak belirli bir Åey yaparsanız, buna katkıda bulunmanız
-gerekir. Bu nedenle, bu, bizim topluluÄumuzun bir paspas olmadıÄı anlamına
-gelmektedir. Ve zannediyorum ki, bu durum insanlara Åunu hissetme gücü
-verdi: Evet, herkes tarafından ayakaltına alınmayacaÄız. Bunun
karÅısında
-ayakta duracaÄız.</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Evet sorum Åuydu, özgür ancak copyleft edilmemiÅ
-yazılım dikkate alındıÄında, herhangi bir kimse bu yazılımı alıp
özel mülk
-hale getirebileceÄi için, birilerinin bu yazılımı alıp üzerinde bazı
-deÄiÅiklikler yapıp sonuçtaki yazılımı GPL altında yayınlaması
mümkün müdür?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Evet, bu mümkündür.</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: O zaman bu, gelecekteki tüm kopyaların
GPLâlenmesine
-neden olacaktır.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: O açıdan öyle. Ancak neden bunu
yapmadıÄımızın
-nedenleri Åunlardır.</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Hım?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Neden genellikle bunu yapmıyoruz, açıklamama
izin
-verin.</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Tamam, evet.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Ä°steseydik, X Windowsâu alıp GPL kapsamlı
bir
-kopya hazırlayıp bunda deÄiÅiklikler yapabilirdik. Ancak X Windowâun,
-GPLâlenmesi yerine geliÅtirilmesi üzerinde çalıÅan çok daha büyük
bir grup
-vardır. Bu nedenle, bunu yaparsak, onlardan bir Åeyler eÅelemiÅ olurduk. Ve
-bu, iyi bir davranıŠdeÄildir. Ve onlar, bizim topluluÄumuzun bir
-parçasıdır, topluluÄumuza katkıda bulunmaktadırlar.</p>
-
-<p>İkinci olarak, bu bize geri tepecektir çünkü X üzerinde bizim
yapacaÄımızdan
-çok daha fazla iŠyapmaktadırlar. Bu nedenle, bizim sürümümüz onların
-sürümünden daha kötü olacaktır ve insanlar, bizim sürümümüzü
-kullanmayacaktır, neden baÅımızı derde sokalım ki?</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Mmm hmm.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Bu nedenle, bir insan X Windowsâa birtakım
-geliÅtirmeler ilâve ettiÄinde, o insanın yapması gereken Åey bence X
-geliÅtirme takımıyla iÅbirliÄi yapmaktır. Bu ilâveleri onlara gönderin
ve
-kendi bildikleri gibi kullanmalarına izin verin. Ãünkü çok önemli bir
özgür
-yazılım parçası geliÅtirmektedirler. Onlarla iÅbirliÄi yapmak bizim
için
-iyidir. </p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: YaklaÅık iki yıl önceki özgür olmayan açık
kaynaÄa
-çok yakın olan X Konsorsiyumu hariç olmak üzere…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Aslında, o açık kaynak <em>deÄildi</em>.
Açık
-kaynak olduÄunu söylemiÅ olabilirler. Ãyle söylemiÅ olup olmadıklarını
-hatırlamıyorum. Ama açık kaynak deÄildi. Kısıtlıydı. Zannediyorum ki
ticari
-olarak daÄıtamıyordunuz. Ya da ticari olarak deÄiÅtirilmiÅ bir
sürümünü ya
-da benzeri bir Åeyleri daÄıtamıyordunuz. Bu, hem Ãzgür Yazılım
hareketi hem
-de Açık Kaynak hareketi tarafından kabul edilemez olan bir kısıtlamaydı.
</p>
-
-<p>Ve evet, bu, copyleft olmayan bir lisansın sizi maruz bıraktıÄı bir
-durumdur. Aslında, X Konsorsiyumunun çok katı bir politikası vardı. Åunu
-demekteydiler: Programınız azıcık bile copyleft edilmiŠolsa,
daÄıtmayız
-bile. DaÄıtımımıza koymayacaÄız.</p>
-
-<p>Böylece, çok sayıda insan bu Åekilde copyleft etmeme konusunda baskıya
-uÄramıÅtır. Ve sonuçta, daha sonra onların tüm yazılımları çok
açıktı. Bir
-geliÅtiriciye her Åeye aÅırı izin verme konusunda baskı yapmıŠolan
-insanlar, daha sonra âTamam, Åimdi kısıtlamalar getirebilirizâ
dediklerinde,
-bu onların çok da etik olmayan hareketler yaptıklarını göstermiÅtir.</p>
-
-<p>Ancak bu durumda, Xâin alternatif bir GPL kapsamlı sürümünü elde
etmek için
-kaynakları gerçekten de zar zor toplamak ister miydik? Ve bunu yapmamızın
-hiçbir anlamı olmayacaktı. Yapmamız gereken baÅka birçok Åey vardır.
Bunun
-yerine onları yapalım. X geliÅtiricileriyle iÅbirliÄi yapabiliriz. </p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: GNUânun ticari bir marka olduÄu konusunda bir
-yorumunuz var mı? Ve ticari markalara izin vererek bunu, GNU Genel Kamu
-Lisansının bir parçası olarak içermek pratik midir?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Aslında, GNU üzerinde ticari marka kaydı
-uygulamaktayız. Ancak, bunun bir önemi yok. Bunun sebebini açıklamak uzun
-sürer.</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Ticari markanın GPL kapsamlı programlarda
-görüntülenmesine gereksinim duyardınız.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Hayır, öyle zannetmiyorum. Lisanslar tekil
-programları kapsamaktadır. Ve belirli bir program GNU Projesinin
parçasıysa,
-hiç kimse bu konu hakkında yalan söylemez. Bir bütün olarak sistemin ismi
-farklı bir husustur. Ve bu, bir yan husustur. Daha fazla tartıÅılmaya
-deÄmez.</p>
-
-<p><strong>SORU</strong>: Bir düÄme olsaydı ve bu düÄmeye
bastıÄınızda, bütün
-firmaları yazılımlarını özgürleÅtirmeye zorlayabilseydiniz, bu
düÄmeye basar
-mıydınız?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Bu düÄmeyi yalnızca yayınlanan yazılımlar
için
-kullanırdım. İnsanların özel olarak bir program yazıp onu özel olarak
-kullanma hakkına sahip olduÄunu düÅünüyorum. Ve bu düÅüncem,
firmaları da
-içermektedir. Bu, gizlilik hususudur. Ve bu doÄrudur, yazılımın halka
-açılmamasının yanlıŠolduÄu zamanlar da olabilir, örneÄin, insanlık
için çok
-yararlı bir yazılım insanlardan gizli tutuluyorsa, bu yanlıŠbir
-durumdur. Bu yanlıÅtır, ancak farklı bir yanlıŠtipidir. Aynı alanda
-olmasına raÄmen, farklı bir husustur. </p>
-
-<p>Ama evet, bence yayınlanan tüm yazılımlar özgür yazılım
olmalıdır. Ve
-unutmayın ki, bu yazılımlar özgür yazılım olmadıÄında, bunun nedeni,
-hükümetin müdahalesidir. Hükümet, yazılımın özgür olmayan yazılım
olması
-için müdahale etmektedir. Hükümet, programların sahiplerine verilmek
üzere
-özel yasal güçler oluÅturmaktadır, böylece belirli Åekillerde
programları
-kullanmamızı polis gücüyle önleyebilir. Bu nedenle kesinlikle bunun bir
sona
-erdirilmesini isterim. </p>
-
-<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Richardâın sunumu, önemli oranda
entelektüel
-enerji oluÅturmuÅtur. Umarım ki, bu enerjinin bir kısmı özgür
yazılımın
-kullanılmasına ve muhtemelen de yazılmasına dönüÅür.</p>
-
-<p>Bu konuyu burada sona erdirmeliyiz. Åunu söylemek isterim ki Richard
politik
-ve ahlaksal seviyede kamuoyunda nihai politik durumundan dolayı bilinen bir
-uzmanlık alanına girmiÅtir ve bu, bizim uzmanlık alanımızda emsali
-görülmemiÅ bir davranıÅtır. Ve bunun için ona çok borçluyuz. Åimdi
bir ara
-olduÄunu belirtmek isterim.</p>
-
-<p><i> [Dinleyiciler alkıÅlar]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Ä°stediÄiniz zaman gitmekte özgürsünüz,
-biliyorsunuz. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Sizi burada köle olarak
-tutmuyorum.</p>
-
-<p><i>[dinleyiciler daÄılır…]</i></p>
-
-<p><i>[çakıÅan konuÅmalar…]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Son bir Åey. AÄ sayfamız: www.gnu.org</p>
-
-<div class="translators-notes">
-
-<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes.-->
- </div>
-</div>
-
-<!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
-<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.tr.html" -->
-<div id="footer">
-<div class="unprintable">
-
-<p>Lütfen FSF ve GNU ile ilgili sorularınızı <a
-href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a> adresine iletin. FSF
ile
-iletiÅim kurmanın <a href="/contact/">baÅka yolları</a> da vardır. Lütfen
-çalıÅmayan baÄlantıları ve baÅka düzeltmeleri veya önerilerinizi <a
-href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a> adresine
-gönderin.</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";>
-
- <address@hidden></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>. -->
-Ãevirilerimizde bulmuÅ olabileceÄiniz hataları, aklınızdaki soru ve
-önerilerinizi lütfen <a
-href="mailto:address@hidden";>bize bildirin</a>.</p><p>Bu
-yazının çeviri düzenlemesi ve sunuÅu ile ilgili bilgi için lütfen <a
-href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Ãeviriler BENÄ°OKU</a>
-sayfasına bakın. Bu sayfanın ve diÄer tüm sayfaların Türkçe çevirileri
-gönüllüler tarafından yapılmaktadır; Türkçe niteliÄi yüksek bir <a
-href="/home.html">www.gnu.org</a> için bize yardımcı olmak istiyorsanız, <a
-href="https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/www-tr";>çalıÅma sayfamızı</a>
-ziyaret edebilir.</p>
-</div>
-
-<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
- files generated as part of manuals) 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. -->
-<p>Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman</p>
-
-<p>Bu sayfa a <a rel="license"
-href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/deed.tr";>Creative
-Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a> ile
-lisanslanmıÅtır.</p>
-
-<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.tr.html" -->
-<div class="translators-credits">
-
-<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.-->
-<p><strong>Ãeviriye katkıda bulunanlar:</strong></p>
-<ul>
-
-<li>
-<a href="http://yzgrafik.ege.edu.tr/~tekrei/";>Tahir Emre Kalaycı</a>
-<a
-href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>,
-2009.
-</li>
-
-<li>
-ÃiÄdem ÃzÅar,
-2009.
-</li>
-
-<li>
-Birkan SarıfakıoÄlu,
-2009.
-</li>
-
-<li>
-Serkan Ãapkan,
-2009.
-</li>
-
-<li>
-Ä°zlem GözükeleÅ,
-2009.
-</li>
-
-</ul></div>
-
-<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
-Son Güncelleme:
-
-$Date: 2015/02/20 17:28:08 $
-
-<!-- timestamp end -->
-</p>
-</div>
-</div>
-</body>
-</html>
Index: events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt
===================================================================
RCS file: events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt
diff -N events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt
--- events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt 11 Jun 2001 02:33:40 -0000 1.16
+++ /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
@@ -1,1893 +0,0 @@
- Transcript of
- Richard M. Stallman's speech,
- "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation"
- New York University in New York, New York
- on 29 May 2001
-
-URETSKY: I'm Mike Uretsky. I'm over at the Stern School of Business. I'm
-also one of the Co-Directors of the Center for Advanced Technology. And,
-on behalf of all of us in the Computer Science Department, I want to
-welcome you here. I want to say a few comments, before I turn it over to
-Ed, who is going to introduce the speaker.
-
-The role of a university is a place to foster debate and to have
-interesting discussions. And the role of a major university is to have
-particularly interesting discussions. And this particular presentation,
-this seminar falls right into that mold. I find the discussion of open
-source particularly interesting. In a sense ... [Laughter]
-
-STALLMAN: I do free software. Open source is a different movement.
-[Laughter] [Applause]
-
-URETSKY: When I first started in the field in the '60's, basically
-software was free. And we went in cycles. It became free, and then
-software manufacturers, in the need to expand their markets, pushed it
-in other directions. A lot of the developments that took place with
-the entry of the PC moved in exactly the same kind of a cycle.
-
-There's a very interesting French philosopher, Pierre Levy, who talks
-about movement to this direction and who talks about the move into
-cyberspace as not only relating to technology but also relating to social
-restructuring, to political restructuring, through a change in the kinds
-of relationships that will improve the well-being of mankind. And we're
-hoping that this debate is a movement in that direction, that this debate
-is something that cuts across a lot of the disciplines that normally act
-as solace within the University. We're looking forward to some very
-interesting discussions. Ed?
-
-SCHONBERG: I'm Ed Schonberg from the Computer Science Department at the
-Courant Institute. Let me welcome you all to this event. Introducers are
-usually, and particularly, a useless aspect of public presentations, but
-in this case, actually, they serve a useful purpose, as Mike easily
-demonstrated, because an introducer for instance, told him, by making
-inaccurate comments, can allow him to straighten out and correct and
-[Laughter] sharpen considerably the parameters of the debate.
-
-So, let me make the briefest possible introduction to somebody who
-doesn't need one. Richard is the perfect example of somebody who, by
-acting locally, started thinking globally from problems concerning the
-unavailability of source code for printer drivers at the AI Lab many
-years ago. He has developed a coherent philosophy that has forced all
-of us to re-examine our ideas of how software is produced, of what
-intellectual property means, and what the software community actually
-represents. Let me welcome Richard Stallman. [Applause]
-
-STALLMAN: Can someone lend me a watch? [Laughter] Thank you. So, I'd
-like to thank Microsoft for providing me the opportunity to [Laughter] be
-on this platform. For the past few weeks, I have felt like an author
-whose book was fortuitously banned somewhere. [Laughter] Except that all
-the articles about it are giving the wrong author's name, because
-Microsoft describes the GNU GPL as an open source license, and most of
-the press coverage followed suit. Most people, of course just
-innocently don't realize that our work has nothing to do with open
-source, that in fact we did most of it before people even coined the
-term open source.
-
-We are in the free software movement, and I'm going to speak about what
-the free software movement is about, what it means, what we have done, and,
-because this is partly sponsored by a school of business, I'll say some
-things more than I usually do about how free software relates to business,
-and some other areas of social life.
-
-Now, some of you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps you
-cook. And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably use
-recipes. And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the experience of
-getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing it. And you've
-probably also had the experience -- unless you're a total neophyte -- of
-changing a recipe. You know, it says certain things, but you don't have
-to do exactly that. You can leave out some ingredients. Add some
-mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms. Put in less salt because your
-doctor said you should cut down on salt -- whatever. You can even make
-bigger changes according to your skill. And if you've made changes in a
-recipe, and you cook it for your friends, and they like it, one of your
-friends might say, "Hey, could I have the recipe?" And then, what do you
-do? You could write down your modified version of the recipe and make a
-copy for your friend. These are the natural things to do with
-functionally useful recipes of any kind.
-
-Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program. A computer program's a lot
-like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to get some result
-that you want. So it's just as natural to do those same things with
-computer programs -- hand a copy to your friend. Make changes in it
-because the job it was written to do isn't exactly what you want. It did
-a great job for somebody else, but your job is a different job. And
-after you've changed it, that's likely to be useful for other people.
-Maybe they have a job to do that's like the job you do. So they ask, "Hey,
-can I have a copy?" Of course, if you're a nice person, you're going to
-give a copy. That's the way to be a decent person.
-
-So imagine what it would be like if recipes were packaged inside black
-boxes. You couldn't see what ingredients they're using, let alone change
-them, and imagine if you made a copy for a friend, they would call you
-a pirate and try to put you in prison for years. That world would create
-tremendous outrage from all the people who are used to sharing recipes.
-But that is exactly what the world of proprietary software is like. A
-world in which common decency towards other people is prohibited or
-prevented.
-
-Now, why did I notice this? I noticed this because I had the good fortune in
-the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who shared software.
-Now, this community could trace its ancestry essentially back to the
-beginning of computing. In the 1970's, though, it was a bit rare for there
-to be a community where people shared software. And, in fact, this was
-sort of an extreme case, because in the lab where I worked, the entire
-operating system was software developed by the people in our community,
-and we'd share any of it with anybody. Anybody was welcome to come and
-take a look, and take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do. There
-were no copyright notices on these programs. Cooperation was our way of
-life. And we were secure in that way of life. We didn't fight for it.
-We didn't have to fight for it. We just lived that way. And, as far as
-we knew, we would just keep on living that way. So there was free
-software, but there was no free software movement.
-
-But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that
-happened to it. Ultimately it was wiped out. Ultimately, the PDP-10
-computer which we used for all our work was discontinued. And you know,
-our system -- the Incompatible Timesharing System -- was written starting
-in the '60's, so it was written in assembler language. That's what you
-used to write an operating system in the '60's. So, of course, assembler
-language is for one particular computer architecture; if that gets
-discontinued, all your work turns into dust -- it's useless. And that's
-what happened to us. The 20 years or so of work of our community turned
-into dust.
-
-But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me, helped me
-see what to do, helped prepare me to see what to do when this happened,
-because at certain point, Xerox gave the Artificial Intelligence Lab,
-where I worked, a laser printer, and this was a really handsome gift,
-because it was the first time anybody outside Xerox had a laser printer.
-It was very fast, printed a page a second, very fine in many respects, but
-it was unreliable, because it was really a high-speed office copier that
-had been modified into a printer. And, you know, copiers jam, but there's
-somebody there to fix them. The printer jammed and nobody saw. So it
-stayed jammed for a long time.
-
-Well, we had an idea for how to deal with this problem. Change it so that
-whenever the printer gets a jam, the machine that runs the printer can tell
-our timesharing machine, and tell the users who are waiting for
-printouts, or something like that, you know, tell them, go fix the
-printer. Because if they only knew it was jammed, of course, if you're
-waiting for a printout and you know that the printer is jammed, you
-don't want to sit and wait forever, you're going to go fix it.
-
-But at that point, we were completely stymied, because the software
-that ran that printer was not free software. It had come with the
-printer, and it was just a binary. We couldn't have the source code;
-Xerox wouldn't let us have the source code. So, despite our skill as
-programmers -- after all, we had written our own timesharing system
--- we were completely helpless to add this feature to the printer
-software.
-
-And we just had to suffer with waiting. It would take an hour or two to
-get your printout because the machine would be jammed most of the time.
-And only once in a while -- you'd wait an hour figuring "I know it's
-going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and go collect my printout," and
-then you'd see that it had been jammed the whole time, and in fact,
-nobody else had fixed it. So you'd fix it and you'd go wait another
-half hour. Then, you'd come back, and you'd see it jammed again -- before
-it got to your output. It would print three minutes and be jammed
-thirty minutes. Frustration up the whazzoo. But the thing that made it
-worse was knowing that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his
-own selfishness, was blocking us, obstructing us from improving the software.
-So, of course, we felt some resentment.
-
-And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a copy
-of that software. So I was visiting there later, so I went to his
-office and I said, "Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of the printer
-source code?" And he said "No, I promised not to give you a
-copy." [Laughter] I was stunned. I was so -- I was angry, and I had no
-idea how I could do justice to it. All I could think of was to turn
-around on my heel and walk out of his room. Maybe I slammed the door.
-[Laughter] And I thought about it later on, because I realized that I was
-seeing not just an isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was
-important and affected a lot of people.
-
-This was -- for me -- I was lucky, I only got a taste of it, but other
-people had to live in this all the time. So I thought about it at length.
-See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with us -- his colleagues at
-MIT. He had betrayed us. But he didn't just do it to us. Chances are he
-did it to you too. [Pointing at member of audience.] And I think, mostly
-likely, he did it to you too. [Pointing at another member of audience.]
-[Laughter] And he probably did it to you as well. [Pointing to third member
-of audience.] He probably did it to most of the people here in this room --
-except a few, maybe, who weren't born yet in 1980. Because he had promised
-to refuse to cooperate with just about the entire population of the Planet
-Earth. He had signed a non-disclosure agreement.
-
-Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure agreement,
-and it taught me an important lesson -- a lesson that's important because
-most programmers never learn it. You see, this was my first encounter
-with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was the victim. I, and my whole
-lab, were the victims. And the lesson it taught me was that
-non-disclosure agreements have victims. They're not innocent. They're
-not harmless. Most programmers first encounter a non-disclosure agreement
-when they're invited to sign one. And there's always some temptation --
-some goody they're going to get if they sign. So, they make up excuses.
-They say, "Well, he's never going to get a copy no matter what, so why
-shouldn't I join the conspiracy to deprive him?" They say, "This is the
-way it's always done. Who am I to go against it?" They say, "If I don't
-sign this, someone else will." Various excuses to gag their consciences.
-
-But when somebody invited me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, my
-conscience was already sensitized. It remembered how angry I had been,
-when somebody promised not to help me and my whole lab solve our problem.
-And I couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to somebody else
-who had never done me any harm. You know, if somebody asked me to promise
-not to share some useful information with a hated enemy, I would have said
-yes. You know? If somebody's done something bad, he deserves it. But,
-strangers -- they haven't done me any harm. How could they deserve that
-kind of mistreatment? You can't let yourself start treating just anybody
-and everybody badly. Then you become a predator on society. So I said,
-"Thank you very much for offering me this nice software package. But I
-can't accept it in good conscience, on the conditions you are demanding,
-so I will do without it. Thank you so much." And so, I have never
-knowingly signed a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful technical
-information such as software.
-
-Now there are other kinds of information which raise different ethical
-issues. For instance, there's personal information. You know, if you
-wanted to talk with me about what was happening between you and your
-boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody -- you know, I could keep
--- I could agree to keep that a secret for you, because that's not
-generally useful technical information. At least, it's probably not
-generally useful. [Laughter]
-
-There is a small chance -- and it's a possibility though -- that you might
-reveal to me some marvelous new sex technique, [Laughter] and I would
-then feel a moral duty [Laughter] to pass it onto the rest of
-humanity, so that everyone could get the benefit of it. So, I'd have
-to put a proviso in that promise, you know? If it's just details
-about who wants this, and who's angry at whom, and things like that --
-soap opera -- that I can keep private for you, but something that
-humanity could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't
-withhold. You see, the purpose of science and technology is to
-develop useful information for humanity to help people live their
-lives better. If we promise to withhold that information -- if we
-keep it secret -- then we are betraying the mission of our field. And
-this, I decided I shouldn't do.
-
-But, meanwhile my community had collapsed, and that was collapsing, and
-that left me in a bad situation. You see, the whole Incompatible
-Timesharing System was obsolete, because the PDP-10 was obsolete, and
-so there was no way that I could continue working as an operating system
-developer the way that I had been doing it. That depended on being part
-of the community using the community software and improving it. That
-no longer was a possibility, and that gave me a moral dilemma. What was I
-going to do? Because the most obvious possibility meant to go against
-that decision I had made. The most obvious possibility was to adapt
-myself to the change in the world. To accept that things were different,
-and that I'd just have to give up those principles and start signing
-non-disclosure agreements for proprietary operating systems, and most
-likely writing proprietary software as well. But I realized that that
-way I could have fun coding, and I could make money -- especially if I did
-it other than at MIT -- but at the end, I'd have to look back at my
-career and say, "I've spent my life building walls to divide people,"
-and I would have been ashamed of my life.
-
-So I looked for another alternative, and there was an obvious one. I
-could leave the software field and do something else. Now I had no other
-special noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a
-waiter. [Laughter] Not at a fancy restaurant; they wouldn't hire
-me, [Laughter] but I could be a waiter somewhere. And many programmers,
-they say to me, "The people who hire programmers demand this, this and
-this. If I don't do those things, I'll starve." It's literally the word
-they use. Well, you know, as a waiter, you're not going to
-starve. [Laughter] So, really, they're in no danger. But -- and this is
-important, you see -- because sometimes you can justify doing something
-that hurts other people by saying otherwise something worse is going to
-happen to me. You know, if you were *really* going to starve, you'd be
-justified in writing proprietary software. [Laughter] If somebody's
-pointing a gun at you, then I would say, it's forgivable. [Laughter] But,
-I had found a way that I could survive without doing something unethical,
-so that excuse was not available. So I realized, though, that being a
-waiter would be no fun for me, and it would be wasting my skills as an
-operating system developer. It would avoid misusing my skills.
-Developing proprietary software would be misusing my skills.
-Encouraging other people to live in the world of proprietary software
-would be misusing my skills. So it's better to waste them than
-misuse them, but it's still not really good.
-
-So for those reasons, I decided to look for some other alternative. What
-can an operating system developer do that would actually improve the
-situation, make the world a better place? And I realized that an
-operating system developer was exactly what was needed. The problem, the
-dilemma, existed for me and for everyone else because all of the
-available operating systems for modern computers were proprietary. The
-free operating systems were for old, obsolete computers, right? So for
-the modern computers -- if you wanted to get a modern computer and use it,
-you were forced into a proprietary operating system. So if an operating
-system developer wrote another operating system, and then said,
-"Everybody come and share this; you're welcome to this" -- that would give
-everybody a way out of the dilemma, another alternative. So I realized
-that there was something I could do that would solve the problem. I had
-just the right skills to be able to do it. And it was the most useful
-thing I could possibly imagine that I'd be able to do with my life.
-And it was a problem that no one else was trying to solve. It was just
-sort of sitting there, getting worse, and nobody was there but me. So I
-felt, "I'm elected. I have to work on this. If not me, who?" So I
-decided I would develop a free operating system, or die trying. . . .of
-old age, of course. [Laughter]
-
-So, of course I had to decide what kind of operating system it should be.
-There are some technical design decisions to be made. I decided to
-make the system compatible with UNIX for a number of reasons.
-First of all, I had just seen one operating system that I really loved
-become obsolete because it was written for one particular kind of
-computer. I didn't want that to happen again. We needed to have a
-portable system. Well, UNIX was a portable system. So if I followed
-the design of UNIX, I had a pretty good chance that I could make a system
-that would also be portable and workable. And furthermore, why [Tape unclear]
be
-compatible with it in the details. The reason is, users hate
-incompatible changes. If I had just designed the system in my favorite
-way -- which I would have loved doing, I'm sure -- I would have produced
-something that was incompatible. You know, the details would be
-different. So, if I wrote the system, then the users would have said to
-me, "Well, this is very nice, but it's incompatible. It will be too
-much work to switch. We can't afford that much trouble just to use
-your system instead of UNIX, so we'll stay with UNIX," they would have
-said.
-
-Now, if I wanted to actually create a community where there would be
-people in it, people using this free system, and enjoying the benefits
-of liberty and cooperation, I had to make a system people would
-use, a system that they would find easy to switch to, that would not
-have an obstacle making it fail at the very beginning. Now, making the
-system upward compatible with UNIX actually made all the immediate
-design decisions, because UNIX consists of many pieces, and they
-communicate through interfaces that are more or less documented. So if
-you want to be compatible with UNIX, you have to replace each piece, one
-by one, with a compatible piece. So the remaining design decisions are
-inside one piece, and they could be made later by whoever decides to
-write that piece. They didn't have to be made at the outset.
-
-So all we had to do to start work was find a name for the system.
-Now, we hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program,
-because thinking of people being amused by the name is half the fun of
-writing the program. [Laughter] And we had a tradition of recursive
-acronyms, to say that the program that you're writing is similar to
-some existing program. You can give it a recursive acronym name which
-says: this one's not the other. So, for instance, there were many Tico
-text editors in the '60's and '70's, and they were generally called
-something-or-other Tico. Then one clever hacker called his Tint,
-for Tint Is Not Tico -- the first recursive acronym. In 1975, I developed
-the first Emacs text editor, and there were many imitations of Emacs,
-and a lot of them were called something-or-other Emacs, but one was
-called Fine, for Fine Is Not Emacs, and there was Sine, for Sine Is
-Not Emacs, and Eine for Ina Is Not Emacs, and MINCE for Mince Is Not
-Complete Emacs. [Laughter] That was a stripped down imitation. And
-then, Eine was almost completely rewritten, and the new version was called
-Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially. [Laughter]
-
-So I looked for a recursive acronym for Something is not UNIX. And I
-tried all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word.
-[Laughter] Hmm, try another way. I made a contraction. That way I
-could have a three-letter acronym, for Something's not UNIX. And I
-tried letters, and I came across the word "GNU" -- the word "GNU" is
-the funniest word in the English language. [Laughter] That was it. Of
-course, the reason it's funny is that according to the dictionary,
-it's pronounced "new". You see? And so that's why people use it for
-a lot of wordplay. Let me tell you, this is the name of an animal
-that lives in Africa. And the African pronunciation had a click sound
-in it. [Laughter] Maybe still does. And so, the European colonists,
-when they got there, they didn't bother learning to say this click
-sound. So they just left it out, and they wrote a "G" which meant
-"there's another sound that's supposed to be here which we are not
-pronouncing." [Laughter] So, tonight I'm leaving for South Africa,
-and I have begged them, I hope they're going to find somebody who can
-teach me to pronounce click sounds, [Laughter] so that I'll know how to
-pronounce GNU the correct way, when it's the animal.
-
-But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is
-"guh-NEW" -- pronounce the hard "G". If you talk about the "new"
-operating system, you'll get people very confused, because
-we've been working on it for 17 years now, so it is not new any
-more. [Laughter] But it still is, and always will be, GNU -- no matter
-how many people call it Linux by mistake. [Laughter]
-
-So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces of
-GNU. They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities
-though. And, at the time, I thought we would write all these pieces,
-and make an entire GNU system, and then we'd say, "Come and get it", and
-people would start to use it. That's not what happened. The first
-pieces I wrote were just equally good replacements, with fewer bugs
-for some pieces of UNIX, but they weren't tremendously exciting.
-Nobody particularly wanted to get them and install them. But then,
-in September 1984, I started writing GNU Emacs, which was my second
-implementation of Emacs, and by early 1985, it was working. I could
-use it for all my editing, which was a big relief, because I had no
-intention of learning to use VI, the UNIX editor. [Laughter] So, until
-that time, I did my editing on some other machine, and saved the
-files through the network, so that I could test them. But when GNU
-Emacs was running well enough for me to use it, it was also -- other
-people wanted to use it too.
-
-So I had to work out the details of distribution. Of course, I put a copy
-in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people who were on
-the net They could then just pull over a tar file, but a lot of
-programmers then even were not on the net in 1985. They were sending me
-emails saying "How can I get a copy?" I had to decide what I would
-answer them. Well, I could have said, I want to spend my time writing
-more GNU software, not writing tapes, so please find a friend who's on
-the internet and who is willing to download it and put it on a tape for
-you. And I'm sure people would have found some friends, sooner or later,
-you know. They would have got copies. But I had no job. In fact, I've
-never had a job since quitting MIT in January 1984. So, I was looking
-for some way I could make money through my work on free software,
-and therefore I started a free software business. I announced, "Send me
-$150 dollars, and I'll mail you a tape of Emacs." And the orders began
-dribbling in. By the middle of the year they were trickling in.
-
-I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month. And, if necessary, I could have
-lived on just that, because I've always lived cheaply. I live like a
-student, basically. And I like that, because it means that money is not
-telling me what to do. I can do what I think is important for me to do.
-It freed me to do what seemed worth doing. So make a real effort to
-avoid getting sucked into all the expensive lifestyle habits of typical
-Americans. Because if you do that, then people with the money will
-dictate what you do with your life. You won't be able to do what's really
-important to you.
-
-So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, "What do you mean it's
-free software if it costs $150 dollars?" [Laughter] Well, the reason
-they asked this was that they were confused by the multiple
-meanings of the English word "free". One meaning refers to price,
-and another meaning refers to freedom. When I speak of free software,
-I'm referring to freedom, not price. So think of free speech, not
-free beer. [Laughter] Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many years of
-my life to making sure programmers got less money. That's not my
-goal. I'm a programmer and I don't mind getting money myself. I
-won't dedicate my whole life to getting it, but I don't mind
-getting it. And I'm not -- and therefore, ethics is the same for
-everyone. I'm not against some other programmer getting money either.
-I don't want prices to be low. That's not the issue at all. The
-issue is freedom. Freedom for everyone who's using software, whether
-that person be a programmer or not.
-
-So at this point I should give you the definition of free software. I
-better get to some real details, you see, because just saying "I
-believe in freedom" is vacuous. There's so many different freedoms
-you could believe in, and they conflict with each other, so the real
-political question is: Which are the important freedoms, the freedoms
-that we must make sure everybody has?
-
-And now, I will give my answer to that question for the particular
-area of using software. A program is free software for you, a particular
-user, if you have the following freedoms:
-
- First, Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the
-program for any purpose, any way you like.
-
- Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the program
-to suit your needs.
-
- Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing copies
of the
-program.
-
- And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your
-community by publishing an improved version so others can get the
-benefit of your work.
-
-If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software, for you --
-and that's crucial. That's why I phrase it that way. I'll explain why later,
-when I talk about the GNU General Public License, but right now I'm explaining
-what free software means, which is a more basic question.
-
-So, Freedom Zero's pretty obvious. If you're not even allowed to run
-the program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive program.
-But as it happens, most programs will at least give you Freedom Zero.
-And Freedom Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of Freedoms One,
-Two, and Three -- that's the way that copyright law works. So the
-freedoms that distinguish free software from typical software are
-Freedoms One, Two, and Three, so I'll say more about them and why they
-are important.
-
-Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the software to
-suit your needs. This could mean fixing bugs. It could mean adding new
-features. It could mean porting it to a different computer system. It
-could mean translating all the error messages into Navajo. Any change
-you want to make, you should be free to make.
-
-Now, it's obvious that professional programmers can make use of this
-freedom very effectively, but not just them. Anybody of reasonable
-intelligence can learn a little programming. You know, there are hard
-jobs, and there are easy jobs, and most people are not going to learn
-enough to do hard jobs. But lots of people can learn enough to do easy
-jobs, just the way, you know, 50 years ago, lots and lots of American
-men learned to repair cars, which is what enabled the U.S. to have a
-motorized army in World War II and win. So, very important, having lots
-of people tinkering.
-
-And if you are a people person, and you really don't want to learn technology
-at all, that probably means that you have a lot of friends, and you're good
-at getting them to owe you favors. [Laughter] Some of them are probably
-programmers. So you can ask one of your programmer friends. "Would you
-please change this for me? Add this feature?" So, lots of people can benefit
from it.
-
-Now, if you don't have this freedom, it causes practical, material harm to
-society. It makes you a prisoner of your software. I explained what that
-was like with regard to the laser printer. You know, it worked badly for
-us, and we couldn't fix it, because we were prisoners of our software.
-
-
-But it also affects people's morale. You know if the computer is constantly
-frustrating to use, and people are using it, their lives are going to
-be frustrating, and if they're using it in their jobs, their jobs are
-going to be frustrating; they're going to hate their jobs. And you
-know, people protect themselves from frustration by deciding not to care.
-So you end up with people whose attitude is, "Well, I showed up for work
-today. That's all I have to do. If I can't make progress, that's not my
-problem; that's the boss's problem." And when this happens, it's bad for
-those people, and it's bad for society as a whole. That's Freedom One,
-the freedom to help yourself.
-
-Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing copies
-of the program. Now, for beings that can think and learn, sharing
-useful knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship. When these beings
-use computers, this act of friendship takes the form of sharing software.
-Friends share with each other. Friends help each other. This is the
-nature of friendship. And, in fact, this spirit of goodwill -- the
-spirit of helping your neighbor, voluntarily -- is society's most important
-resource. It makes the difference between a livable society and a
-dog-eat-dog jungle. Its importance has been recognized by the world's
-major religions for thousands of years, and they explicitly try to
-encourage this attitude.
-
-When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach us
-this attitude -- the spirit of sharing -- by having us do it. They figured
-if we did it, we'd learn. So they said, "If you bring candy to school, you
-can't keep it all for yourself; you have to share some with the other
-kids." Teaching us, the society was set up to teach, this spirit of
-cooperation. And why do you have to do that? Because people are not
-totally cooperative. That's one part of human nature, and there are
-other parts of human nature. There are lots of parts of human nature.
-So, if you want a better society, you've got to work to encourage the
-spirit of sharing. You know, it'll never get to be 100%. That's
-understandable. People have to take care of themselves too. But if we
-make it somewhat bigger, we're all better off.
-
-Nowadays, according to the U.S. Government, teachers are supposed to do
-the exact opposite. "Oh, Johnny, you brought software to school. Well,
-don't share it. Oh no. Sharing is wrong. Sharing means you're a pirate."
-
-What do they mean when they say "pirate"? They're saying that helping
-your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship. [Laughter]
-
-What would Buddha or Jesus say about that? Now, take your favorite religious
-leader. I don't know, maybe Manson would have said something different.
-[Laughter] Who knows what L. Ron Hubbard would say? But ...
-
-QUESTION: [Inaudible]
-
-STALLMAN: Of course, he's dead. But they don't admit that. What?
-
-QUESTION: So are the others, also dead. [Laughter] [Inaudible] Charles
-Manson's also dead. [Laughter] They're dead, Jesus's dead, Buddha's
-dead...
-
-STALLMAN: Yes, that's true. [Laughter] So I guess, in that regard, L. Ron
-Hubbard is no worse than the others. [Laughter] Anyway -- [Inaudible]
-
-QUESTION: L. Ron always used free software -- it freed him from Zanu.
[Laughter]
-
-STALLMAN: Anyway, so, I think this is actually the most important reason
-why software should be free: We can't afford to pollute society's most
-important resource. It's true that it's not a physical resource like
-clean air and clean water. It's a psycho-social resource, but it's just
-as real for all that, and it makes a tremendous difference to our lives.
-You see, the actions we take influence the thoughts of other people. When
-we go around telling people, "Don't share with each other", if they
-listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's not a good one.
-That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor.
-
-Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just
-cause this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes
-waste -- practical, material harm. If the program has an owner, and the
-owner arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay in order to
-be able to use it, some people are going to say, "Never mind, I'll do
-without it." And that's waste, deliberately inflicted waste. And the
-interesting thing about software, of course, is that fewer users doesn't
-mean you have to make less stuff. You know, if fewer people buy cars, you
-can make fewer cars. There's a saving there. There are resources to be
-allocated, or not allocated, into making cars. So that you can say that
-having a price on a car is a good thing. It prevents people from
-diverting lots of wasted resources into making cars that aren't really
-needed. But if each additional car used no resources, it wouldn't be
-doing any good saving the making of these cars. Well, for physical
-objects, of course, like cars, it is always going to take resources to
-make an additional one of them, each additional exemplar.
-
-But for software that's not true. Anybody can make another copy. And
-it's almost trivial to do it. It takes no resources, except a tiny bit of
-electricity. So there's nothing we can save, no resource we're going to
-allocate better by putting this financial disincentive on the use of the
-software. You often find people taking economic, the consequences of
-economic reasoning, based on premises that don't apply to software, and
-trying to transplant them from other areas of life where the
-premises may apply, and the conclusions may be valid. They just take the
-conclusions and assume that they're valid for software too, when the
-argument is based on nothing, in the case of software. The premises don't
-work in that case. It is very important to examine how you reach the
-conclusion, and what premises it depends on, to see where it might be
-valid. So, thats Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor.
-
-Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by publishing an
-improved version of the software. People used to say to me, "If the
-software's free, then nobody will get paid to work on it, so why should
-anybody work on it?" Well, of course, they were confusing the two meanings
-of free, so their reasoning was based on a misunderstanding. But, in any
-case, that was their theory. Today, we can compare that theory with
-empirical fact, and we find that hundreds of people are being paid to
-write free software, and over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers. We
-get lots of people working on free software, for various different
-motives.
-
-When I first released GNU Emacs -- the first piece of the GNU system that
-people actually wanted to use -- and when it started having users, after
-a while, I got a message saying, "I think I saw a bug in the source code,
-and here's a fix." And I got another message, "Here's code to add a new
-feature." And another bug fix. And another new feature. And another, and
-another, and another, until they were pouring in on me so fast that just
-making use of all this help I was getting was a big job. Microsoft
-doesn't have this problem. [Laughter]
-
-Eventually, people noted this phenomenon. You see, in the 1980's a lot of
-us thought that maybe free software wouldn't be as good as the nonfree
-software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay people. And, of
-course, people like me, who value freedom and community said, "Well, we'll
-use the free software anyway." It's worth making a little sacrifice in
-some mere technical convenience to have freedom. But what people began
-to note, around 1990 was that our software was actually better. It was
-more powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary alternatives.
-
-In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific measurement of
-reliability of software. Here's what he did. He took several sets of
-comparable programs that did the same jobs -- the exact same jobs -- in
-different systems. Because there were certain basic UNIX-like utilities.
-And the jobs that they did, we know, was all, more or less, imitating the
-same thing, or they were following the POSIX spec, so they were all the
-same in terms of what jobs they did, but they were maintained by
-different people, written separately. The code was different. So they
-said, OK, we'll take these programs and run them with random data, and
-measure how often they crash, or hang. So they measured it, and the
-most reliable set of programs was the GNU programs. All the commercial
-alternatives which were proprietary software were less reliable. So he
-published this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he
-did the same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same
-result. The GNU versions were the most reliable. People -- you know
-there are cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system,
-because it's so reliable, and reliability is very important to them.
-
-Anyway, there's even a group of people who focus on this particular
-benefit as the reason they give, the main reason they give, why users
-should be permitted to do these various things, and to have these
-freedoms. If you've been listening to me, you've noticed, you've seen
-that I, speaking for the free software movement, I talk about issues
-of ethics, and what kind of a society we want to live in, what makes for
-a good society, as well as practical, material benefits. They're both
-important. That's the free software movement.
-
-That other group of people -- which is called the open source movement
--- they only cite the practical benefits. They deny that this is an
-issue of principle. They deny that people are entitled to the freedom to
-share with their neighbor and to see what the program's doing and change
-it if they don't like it. They say, however, that it's a useful thing to
-let people do that. So they go to companies and say to them, "You know,
-you might make more money if you let people do this." So, what you can see
-is that to some extent, they lead people in a similar direction, but for
-totally different, for fundamentally different, philosophical reasons.
-
-Because on the deepest issue of all, you know, on the ethical
-question, the two movements disagree. You know, in the free software
-movement we say, "You're entitled to these freedoms. People shouldn't
-stop you from doing these things." In the open source movement, they
-say, "Yes, they can stop you if you want, but we'll try to convince them to
-deign to let you to do these things." Well, they have contributed -- they
-have convinced a certain number of businesses to release substantial
-pieces of software as free software in our community. So they, the
-open source movement, has contributed substantially to our community. And
-so we work together on practical projects. But, philosophically, there's
-a tremendous disagreement.
-
-Unfortunately, the open source movement is the one that gets the support
-of business the most, and so most articles about our work describe it as
-open source, and a lot of people just innocently think that we're all
-part of the open source movement. So that's why I'm mentioning this
-distinction. I want you to be aware that the free software movement,
-which brought our community into existence and developed the free
-operating system, is still here -- and that we still stand for this
-ethical philosophy. I want you to know about this, so that you won't
-mislead someone else unknowingly.
-
-But also, so that you can think about where you stand.
-
-You know, which movement you support is up to you. You might agree with the
free
-software movements and my views. You might agree with the open source
-movement. You might disagree with them both. You decide where you stand
-on these political issues.
-
-But if you agree with the free software movement -- if you see that there's
-an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled and directed by this
-decision deserve a say in it -- then I hope you'll say that you agree with
-the free software movement, and one way you can do that is by using the term
free
-software and just helping people know we exist.
-
-So, Freedom Three is very important both practically and
-psycho-socially. If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical
-material harm, because this community development doesn't happen, and we
-don't make powerful, reliable software. But it also causes psycho-social
-harm, which affects the spirit of scientific cooperation -- the idea that
-we're working together to advance human knowledge. You see, progress in
-science crucially depends on people being able to work together. And
-nowadays though, you often find each little group of scientists acting
-like it's a war with each other gang of scientists and engineers. And if
-they don't share with each other, they're all held back.
-
-So, those are the three freedoms that distinguish free software from
-typical software. Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself, making
-changes to suit your own needs. Freedom Two is the freedom to help your
-neighbor by distributing copies. And Freedom Three is the freedom to help
-build your community by making changes and publishing them for other
-people to use. If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free
-software for you. Now, why do I define it that way in terms of a
-particular user? Is it free software for you? [Pointing at member of
-audience.] Is it free software for you? [Pointing at another member
-of audience.] Is it free software for you? [Pointing at another member
-of audience.] Yes?
-
-QUESTION: Can you explain a bit about the difference between Freedom Two
-and Three? [inaudible]
-
-STALLMAN: Well, they certainly relate, because if you don't have freedom
-to redistribute at all, you certainly don't have freedom to
-distribute a modified version, but they're different activities.
-
-QUESTION: Oh.
-
-STALLMAN: Freedom Two is, you know, read it, you make an exact copy, and
-hand it to your friends, so now your friend can use it. Or maybe you make
-exact copies and you sell them to a bunch of people, and then they can use
-it.
-
-Freedom Three is where you make improvements -- or at least you think
-they're improvements, and some other people may agree with you. So
-that's the difference. Oh, and by the way, one crucial point. Freedoms
-One and Three depend on your having access to the source code. Because
-changing a binary-only program is extremely hard. [Laughter] Even trivial
-changes like using four digits for the date, [Laughter] if you don't
-have source. So, for compelling, practical reasons, access to the
-source code is a precondition, a requirement, for free software.
-
-So, why do I define it in terms of whether it's free software for
-*you*? The reason is that sometimes the same program can be free
-software for some people, and nonfree for others. Now, that might
-seem like a paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example to
-show you how it happens. A very big example -- maybe the biggest ever --
-of this problem was the X Window System which was developed at MIT and
-released under a license that made it free software. If you got the
-MIT version with the MIT license, you had Freedoms One, Two, and
-Three. It was free software for you. But among those who got copies
-were various computer manufacturers that distributed UNIX systems, and
-they made the necessary changes in X to run on their systems. You
-know, probably just a few thousand lines out of the hundreds of
-thousands of lines of X. And, then they compiled it, and they put the
-binaries into their UNIX system and distributed it under the same
-non-disclosure agreement as the rest of the UNIX system. And then,
-millions of people got these copies. They had the X Window System,
-but they had none of these freedoms. It was not free software for
-*them*.
-
-So, the paradox was that whether X was free software depended on where
-you made the measurement. If you made the measurement coming out of the
-developers' group, you'd say, "I observe all these freedoms. It's free
-software." If you made the measurements among the users you'd say, "Hmm,
-most users don't have these freedoms. It's not free software." Well,
-the people who developed X didn't consider this a problem, because their
-goal was just popularity, ego, essentially. They wanted a big
-professional success. They wanted to feel, "Ah, lots of people are using
-our software." And that was true. Lots of people were using their
-software but didn't have freedom.
-
-Well, in the GNU project, if that same thing had happened to GNU software,
-it would have been a failure, because our goal wasn't just to be popular;
-our goal was to give people liberty, and to encourage cooperation, to
-permit people to cooperate. Remember, never force anyone to cooperate
-with any other person, but make sure that everybody's allowed to
-cooperate, everyone has the freedom to do so, if he or she wishes. If
-millions of people were running nonfree versions of GNU, that wouldn't be
-success at all. The whole thing would have been perverted into nothing
-like the goal.
-
-So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening. The method I came
-up with is called "copyleft". It's called copyleft because it's
-sort of like taking copyright and flipping it over. [Laughter] Legally,
-copyleft works based on copyright. We use the existing copyright law,
-but we use it to achieve a very different goal. Here's what we do. We
-say, "This program is copyrighted." And, of course, by default, that means
-it's prohibited to copy it, or distribute it, or modify it. But then we
-say, "You're authorized to distribute copies of this. You're authorized to
-modify it. You're authorized to distribute modified versions and
-extended versions. Change it any way you like."
-
-But there is a condition. And the condition, of course, is the reason
-why we go to all this trouble, so that we could put the condition in.
-The condition says: Whenever you distribute anything that contains any
-piece of this program, that whole program must be distributed under these
-same terms, no more and no less. So you can change the program and
-distribute a modified version, but when you do, the people who get that
-from you must get the same freedom that you got from us. And not just for
-the parts of it -- the excerpts that you copied from our program -- but
-also for the other parts of that program that they got from you. The
-whole of that program has to be free software for them.
-
-The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become inalienable
-rights--a concept from the Declaration of Independence. Rights that we
-make sure can't be taken away from you. And, of course, the specific
-license that embodies the idea of copyleft is the GNU General Public
-License, a controversial license because it actually has the strength
-to say no to people who would be parasites on our community.
-
-There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of freedom. And
-they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done, and use it to get a
-head start in distributing a nonfree program and tempting people to give
-up their freedom. And the result would be -- you know, if we let people
-do that -- that we would be developing these free programs, and we'd
-constantly have to compete with improved versions of our own programs.
-That's no fun.
-
-And, a lot of people also feel -- you know, I'm willing to
-volunteer my time to contribute to the community, but why should I
-volunteer my time to contribute to that company's, to improving that
-company's, proprietary program? You know, some people might not even think
-that that's evil, but they want to get paid if they're going to do that.
-I, personally, would rather not do it at all.
-
-But both of these groups of people -- both the ones like me who say, "I don't
-want to help that nonfree program to get a foothold in our community" and the
-ones that say, "Sure, I'd work for them, but then they better pay me" -- both
of us
-have a good reason to use the GNU General Public License. Because that
-says to that company, "You can't just take my work, and distribute it
-without the freedom." Whereas, the non-copyleft licenses, like the
-X Windows license, do permit that.
-
-So that is the big division between the two categories of free software --
-license-wise. There are the programs that are copylefted so that the
-license defends the freedom of the software for every user. And there are
-the non-copylefted programs for which nonfree versions are allowed.
-Somebody *can* take those programs and strip off the freedom. You may get
-that program in a non-free version.
-
-And that problem exists today. There are still nonfree versions of X Windows
-being used on our free operating systems. There is even hardware --
-which is not really supported -- except by a nonfree version of X Windows.
-And that's a major problem in our community. Nonetheless, I wouldn't say that
-X Windows is a bad thing, you know. I'd say that the developers did not do the
-best possible thing that they could have done. But they *did* release a lot
-of software that we could all use.
-
-You know, there's a big difference between less than perfect, and evil.
-There are many gradations of good and bad. We have to resist the
-temptation to say, if you didn't do the absolute best possible thing,
-then you're no good. You know, the people that developed X Windows made a
-big contribution to our community. But there's something better that
-they could have done. They could have copylefted parts of the program
-and prevented those freedom-denying versions from being distributed by
-others.
-
-Now, the fact that the GNU General Public License defends your
-freedom, uses copyright law to defend your freedom, is, of course,
-why Microsoft is attacking it today. See, Microsoft would really like to
-be able to take all the code that we wrote and put it into proprietary
-programs, have somebody make some improvements, or even just incompatible
-changes is all they need. [Laughter]
-
-You know, with Microsoft's marketing clout, they don't need to make it
-better to have their version supplant ours. They just have to make it
-different and incompatible. And then, put it on everybody's desktop. So
-they really don't like the GNU GPL. Because the GNU GPL won't let them do
-that. It doesn't allow "embrace and extend". It says, if you want to share
-our code in your programs, you can. But, you've got to share and share
-alike. The changes that you make we have to be allowed to share. So,
-it's a two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation.
-
-Many companies -- even big companies like IBM and HP are willing to use
-our software on this basis. IBM and HP contribute substantial
-improvements to GNU software. And they develop other free software. But,
-Microsoft doesn't want to do that, so they give it out that businesses
-just can't deal with the GPL. Well, if businesses don't include IBM, and
-HP and SUN, then maybe they're right. [Laughter] More about that later.
-
-I should finish the historical story. You see, we set out in 1984 not just
-to write some free software but to do something much more coherent: to develop
-an operating system that was entirely free software. So that meant we had to
-write piece after piece after piece. Of course, we were always looking for
-shortcuts. The job was so big that people said we'd never be able to finish.
-And, I thought that there was at least a chance that we'd finish it but,
obviously,
-it's worth looking for shortcuts. So we kept looking around. Is there any
-program that somebody else has written that we could manage to adapt, to
-plug into here, and that way we won't have to write it from scratch? For
-instance, the X Window system. It's true it wasn't copylefted, but it
-was free software, so we could use it.
-
-Now, I had wanted to put a window system into GNU from day one. I wrote a
-couple of window systems at MIT before I started GNU. And so, even though
-Unix had no window system in 1984, I decided that GNU would have one.
-But, we never ended up writing a GNU window system, because X came along.
-And I said, Goody! One big job we don't have to do. We'll use X. So I
-basically said, let's take X, and put it into the GNU system. And we'll
-make the other parts of GNU, you know, work with X, when appropriate. And
-we found other pieces of software that had been written by other people,
-like the text formatter TeX, some library code from Berkeley. At that
-time there was Berkeley Unix, but it was not free software. This
-library code, initially, was from a different group at Berkeley, that did
-research on floating point. And, so, we kept, we fit in these pieces.
-
-In October 1985, we founded the Free Software Foundation. So please note,
-the GNU project came first. The Free Software Foundation came after, about
-almost two years after the announcement of the Project. And the
-Free Software Foundation is a tax-exempt charity that raises funds to
-promote the freedom to share and change software. And in the 1980's, one
-of the main things we did with our funds was to hire people to write parts
-of GNU. And essential programs, such as the shell and the C library were
-written this way, as well as parts of other programs. The tar program,
-which is absolutely essential, although not exciting at all [Laughter]
-was written this way. I believe GNU grep was written this way. And so,
-we're approaching our goal.
-
-By 1991, there was just one major piece missing, and that was the kernel.
-Now, why did I put off the kernel? Probably because it doesn't really
-matter what order you do the things in, at least technically it doesn't.
-You've got to do them all anyway. And partly because I'd hoped we'd be
-able to find a start at a kernel somewhere else. And we did. We found
-Mach, which had been developed at Carnegie Mellon. And it wasn't the
-whole kernel; it was the bottom half of the kernel. So we had to write
-the top half, but I figured, you know, things like the file system, the
-network code, and so on. But running on top of Mach they're running
-essentially as user programs, which ought to make them easier to debug.
-You can debug with a real source-level debugger running at the same time.
-And so, I thought that way we'd be able to get these, the higher level
-parts of the kernel, done in a short time. It didn't work out that way.
-These asynchronous, multi-threaded processes, sending messages to each
-other turned out to be very hard to debug. And the Mach-based system
-that we were using to bootstrap with had a terrible debugging
-environment, and it was unreliable, and various problems. It took us
-years and years to get the GNU kernel to work.
-
-But, fortunately, our community did not have to wait for the GNU kernel.
-Because in 1991, Linus Torvalds developed another free kernel called
-Linux. And he used the old-fashioned monolithic design and it turns out
-that he got his working much faster than we got ours working. So maybe
-that's one of the mistakes that I made: that design decision. Anyway, at
-first, we didn't know about Linux, because he never contacted us to talk
-about it. Although he did know about the GNU Project. But he announced
-it to other people and other places on the net. And so other people
-then did the work of combining Linux with the rest of the GNU system to
-make a complete free operating system. Essentially, to make the GNU plus
-Linux combination.
-
-But, they didn't realize that's what they were doing. You see, they said,
-We have a kernel -- let's look around and see what other pieces we can
-find to put together with the kernel. So, they looked around -- and lo
-and behold, everything they needed was already available. What good
-fortune, they said. [Laughter] It's all here. We can find everything we
-need. Let's just take all these different things and put it together, and
-have a system.
-
-They didn't know that most of what they found was pieces
-of the GNU system. So they didn't realize that they were fitting Linux
-into the gap in the GNU system. They thought they were taking Linux and
-making a system out of Linux. So they called it a Linux system.
-
-QUESTION: [Inaudible]
-
-STALLMAN: Can't hear you -- what?
-
-QUESTION: [Inaudible]
-
-STALLMAN: Well, it's just not -- you know, it's provincial.
-
-QUESTION: But it's more good fortune then finding X and Mach?
-
-STALLMAN: Right. The difference is that the people who developed X and
-Mach didn't have the goal of making a complete free operating system.
-We're the only ones who had that. And, it was our tremendous work that
-made the system exist. We actually did a larger part of the system than
-any other project. No coincidence, because those people -- they wrote
-useful parts of the system. But they didn't do it because they wanted the
-system to be finished. They had other reasons.
-
-Now the people who developed X -- they thought that designing across the
-network window system would be a good project, and it was. And it turned
-out to help us make a good free operating system. But that's not what
-they hoped for. They didn't even think about that. It was an accident.
-An accidental benefit. Now, I'm not saying that what they did was bad.
-They did a large free software project. That's a good thing to do. But
-they didn't have that ultimate vision. The GNU Project is where that
-vision was.
-
-And, so, we were the ones whose -- every little piece that didn't get done by
-somebody else, we did it. Because we knew that we wouldn't have a
-complete system without it. And even if it was totally boring and
-unromantic, like tar or mv. [Laughter] We did it. Or ld, you know there's
-nothing very exciting in ld -- but I wrote one. [Laughter] And I did make
-efforts to have it do a minimal amount of disk I/O so that it would be
-faster and handle bigger programs. But, you know, I like to do a good
-job. I like to improve various things about the program while I'm doing
-it. But the reason that I did it wasn't that I had brilliant ideas for a
-better ld. The reason I did it is that we needed one that was free. And
-we couldn't expect anyone else to do it. So, we had to do it, or find
-someone to do it.
-
-So, although at this point thousands of people in projects have
-contributed to this system, there is one project which is the reason that
-this system exists, and that's the GNU Project. It *is* basically the GNU
-System, with other things added since then.
-
-So, however, the practice of calling the system Linux has been a great
-blow to the GNU Project, because we don't normally get credit for what
-we've done. I think Linux, the kernel, is a very useful piece of free
-software, and I have only good things to say about it. But, well,
-actually, I can find a few bad things to say about it. [Laughter] But,
-basically, I have good things to say about it. However, the practice of
-calling the GNU system, Linux, is just a mistake. I'd like to ask you
-please to make the small effort necessary to call the system GNU/Linux,
-and that way to help us get a share of the credit.
-
-QUESTION: You need a mascot! Get yourself a stuffed animal! [Laughter]
-
-STALLMAN: We have one.
-
-QUESTION: You do?
-
-STALLMAN: We have an animal -- a gnu. [Laughter] Anyway. So, yes, when
-you draw a penguin, draw a gnu next to it. [Laughter] But, let's save
-the questions for the end. I have more to go through.
-
-So, why am I so concerned about this? You know, why do I think it is
-worth bothering you and perhaps giving you a, perhaps lowering your
-opinion of me, [Laughter] to raise this issue of credit? Because, you
-know, some people when I do this, some people think that it's because I
-want my ego to be fed, right? Of course, I'm not saying -- I'm
-not asking you to call it "Stallmanix," right? [Laughter] [Applause]
-
-I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to get
-credit. And there's a very specific reason for that, which is a lot more
-important than anybody getting credit, in and of itself. You see, these
-days, if you look around in our community most of the people talking
-about it and writing about it don't ever mention GNU, and they don't ever
-mention these goals of freedom -- these political and social ideals,
-either. Because the place they come from is GNU.
-
-The ideas associated with Linux -- the philosophy is very different.
-It is basically the apolitical philosophy of Linus Torvalds. So, when
-people think that the whole system is Linux, they tend to think: "Oh, it
-must have been all started by Linux Torvalds. His philosophy must be the
-one that we should look at carefully". And when they hear about the GNU
-philosophy, they say: "Boy, this is so idealistic, this must be awfully
-impractical. I'm a Linux-user, not a GNU-user." [Laughter]
-
-What irony! If they only knew! If they knew that the system they liked
--- or, in some cases, love and go wild over -- is our idealistic,
-political philosophy made real.
-
-They still wouldn't have to agree with us. But at least they'd see a reason
-to take it seriously, to think about it carefully, to give it a chance.
-They would see how it relates to their lives. You know, if they realized,
-"I'm using the GNU system. Here's the GNU philosophy. This philosophy is
-*why8 this system that I like very much exists," they'd at least consider it
-with a much more open mind. It doesn't mean that everybody will agree.
People
-think different things. That's OK. You know, people should make up their own
-minds. But I want this philosophy to get the benefit of the credit for the
-results it has achieved.
-
-If you look around in our community, you'll find that almost everywhere,
-the institutions are calling the system Linux. You know, reporters mostly
-call it Linux. It's not right, but they do. The companies mostly say it
-that package the system. Oh, and most of these reporters, when they write
-articles, they usually don't look at it as a political issue, or social
-issue. They're usually looking at it purely as a business question or
-what companies are going to succeed more or less, which is really a fairly
-minor question for society. And, if you look at the companies that
-package the GNU/Linux system for people to use, well, most of them call
-it Linux. And they *all* add nonfree software to it.
-
-See, the GNU GPL says that if you take code, and some code out of a
-GPL-covered program, and add some more code to make a bigger program, that
-whole program has to be released under the GPL. But you could put other
-separate programs on the same disk (of either kind, hard disk, or CD), and
-they can have other licenses. That's considered mere aggregation, and,
-essentially, just distributing two programs to somebody at the same time
-is not something we have any say over. So, in fact, it is not true --
-sometimes, I wish it were true -- that if a company uses a GPL-covered
-program in a product that the whole product has to be free software.
-It's not -- it doesn't go to that range -- that scope. It's the whole
-program. If there are two separate programs that communicate with each
-other at arm's length -- like by sending messages to each other -- then,
-they're legally separate, in general. So, these companies, by adding
-nonfree software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically and
-politically, a very bad idea. They're telling the users, "It is OK to use
-nonfree software. We're even putting it on this as a bonus."
-
-If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system, most
-of them have a title like "Linux-something or other". So they're calling
-the system Linux most of the time. And they're filled with ads for
-nonfree software that you could run on top of the GNU/Linux system. Now
-those ads have a common message. They say: Nonfree Software Is Good
-For You. It's So Good That You Might Even *Pay* To Get It." [Laughter]
-
-And they call these things "value-added packages", which makes a statement
-about their values. They're saying: Value practical convenience, not
-freedom. And, I don't agree with those values, so I call them
-"freedom-subtracted packages". [Laughter] Because if you have installed a
-free operating system, then you now are living in the free world. You
-enjoy the benefits of liberty that we worked for so many years to give
-you. Those packages give you an opportunity to buckle on a chain.
-
-And then if you look at the trade shows -- about the use of the,
-dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call themselves
-"Linux" shows. And they're filled with booths exhibiting nonfree
-software, essentially putting the seal of approval on the nonfree
-software. So, almost everywhere you look in our community, the
-institutions are endorsing the nonfree software, totalling negating
-the idea of freedom that GNU was developed for. And the only place that
-people are likely to come across the idea of freedom is in connection with
-GNU, and in connection with free software, the term, free software. So
-this is why I ask you: please call the system GNU/Linux. Please make
-people aware where the system came from and why.
-
-Of course, just by using that name, you won't be making an explanation of
-the history. You can type four extra characters and write GNU/Linux;
-you can say two extra syllables. But, GNU/Linux is fewer syllables than
-Windows 2000. [Laughter] But, you're not telling them a lot, but you're
-preparing them, so that when they hear about GNU, and what it's all about,
-they'll see how that connects to them and their lives. And that,
-indirectly, makes a tremendous difference. So please help us.
-
-You'll note that Microsoft called the GPL an "open source license". They
-don't want people to be thinking in terms of freedom as the issue. You'll
-find that they invite people to think in a narrow way, as consumers, and,
-of course, not even think very rationally as consumers, if they're
-going to choose Microsoft products. But they don't want people to think
-as citizens or statesmen. That's inimical to them. At least it's
-inimical to their current business model.
-
-Now, how does free software...well, I can tell you about how free
-software relates to our society. A secondary topic that might be of
-interest to some of you is how free software relates to business. Now, in
-fact, free software is *tremendously* useful for business. After all,
-most businesses in the advanced countries use software. Only a tiny
-fraction of them develop software.
-
-And free software is tremendously advantageous for any company that uses
-software, because it means that you're in control. Basically, free software
-means the users are in control of what the program does. Either individually,
-if they care enough to be, or, collectively, when they care enough to be.
Whoever
-cares enough can exert some influence. If you don't care, you don't buy.
-Then you use what other people prefer. But, if you do care, then you have
-some say. With proprietary software, you have essentially no say.
-
-With free software, you can change what you want to change. And it doesn't
matter
-that there are no programmers in your company; that's fine. You know, if
-you wanted to move the walls in your building, you don't have to be a
-carpentry company. You just have to be able to go find a carpenter and
-say, "What will you charge to do this job?" And if you want to change
-around the software you use, you don't have to be a programming company.
-You just have to go to a programming company and say, "What will you
-charge to implement these features? And when will you have it done?" And
-if they don't do the job, you can go find somebody else.
-
-There's a free market for support. So, any business that cares about
-support will find a tremendous advantage in free software. With
-proprietary software, support is a monopoly, because one company has the
-source code, or maybe a small number of companies that paid a gigantic
-amount of money have the source code, if it's Microsoft's shared source
-program, but, it's very few. And so, there aren't very many possible
-sources of support for you. And that means, that unless you're a real
-giant, they don't care about you. Your company is not important enough
-for them to care if they lose your business, or what happens. Once you're
-using the program, they figure you're locked in to getting the support
-from them, because to switch to a different program is a gigantic job.
-So, you end up with things like paying for the privilege of reporting a
-bug. [Laughter] And once you've paid, they tell you, "Well, OK, we've
-noted your bug report. And in a few months, you can buy an upgrade, and
-you can see if we've fixed it." [Laughter]
-
-Support providers for free software can't get away with that. They have
-to please the customers. Of course, you can get a lot of good support
-gratis. You post your problem on the Internet. You may get an answer the
-next day. But that's not guaranteed, of course. If you want to be
-confident, you better make an arrangement with a company and pay them.
-And this is, of course, one of the ways that free software business works.
-
-Another advantage of free software for businesses that use software is
-security and privacy. And this applies to individuals as well, but I
-brought it up in the context of businesses. You see, when a program is
-proprietary, you can't even tell what it really does.
-
-It could have features, deliberately put in that you wouldn't like if you
-knew about them, like it might have a backdoor to let the developer get into
your
-machine. It might snoop on what you do and send information back. This
-is not unusual. Some Microsoft software did this. But it's not only
-Microsoft. There are other proprietary programs that snoop on the user.
-And you can't even tell if it does this. And, of course, even assuming
-that the developer's totally honest, every programmer makes mistakes.
-There could be bugs that affect your security which are nobody's fault.
-But the point is: If it's not free software, you can't find them. And you
-can't fix them.
-
-Nobody has the time to check the source of every program he runs. You're
-not going to do that. But with free software there's a large community,
-and there are people in that community who are checking things. And you
-get the benefit of their checking, because if there's an accidental bug,
-there surely are, from time to time, in any program, they might find it
-and fix it. And people are much less likely to put in a deliberate Trojan
-horse, or a snooping feature, if they think they might get caught. The
-proprietary software developers figure they won't get caught. They'll get
-away with it undetected. But a free software developer has to figure
-that people will look at that and see it's there. So, in our community,
-we don't feel we can get away with ramming a feature down the users'
-throats that the users wouldn't like. So we know that if the users don't
-like it, they'll make a modified version which doesn't have it. And then,
-they'll all start using that version.
-
-In fact, we can all reason enough, we can all figure this out enough steps
-ahead, that we probably won't put in that feature. After all, you're
-writing a free program; you want people to like your version; you don't
-want to put in a thing that you know a lot of people are going to hate,
-and have another modified version catch on instead of yours. So you
-just realize that the user is king in the world of free software. In the
-world of proprietary software, the customer is *not* king. Because you
-are only a customer. You have no say in the software you use.
-
-In this respect, free software is a new mechanism for democracy to
-operate. Professor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions as
-a kind of law. Whoever gets to write the code that just about everybody
-uses for all intents and purposes is writing the laws that run people's
-lives. With free software, these laws get written in a democratic way.
-Not the classical form of democracy -- we don't have a big election and say,
-"Everybody vote which way should this feature be done." [Laughter]
-Instead we say, basically, those of you who want to work on implementing
-the feature this way, do it. And if you want to work on implementing the
-feature that way, do it. And, it gets done one way or the other, you
-know? And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done this
-way. So, in this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by
-simply taking steps in the direction that he wants to go.
-
-And you're free to take as many steps, personally, as you want to take.
-A business is free to commission as many steps as they find useful to
-take. And, after you add all these things up, that says which direction
-the software goes.
-
-And it's often very useful to be able to take pieces out of some existing
-program, presumably usually large pieces, of course, and then write a
-certain amount of code of your own, and make a program that does exactly
-what you need, which would have cost you an arm and a leg to develop, if
-you had to write it all from scratch, if you couldn't cannibalize large
-pieces from some existing free software package.
-
-Another thing that results from the fact that the user is king is that we
-tend to be very good about compatibility and standardization. Why?
-Because users like that. Users are likely to reject a program that has
-gratuitous incompatibilities in it. Now, sometimes there's a certain
-group of users which actually have a need for a certain kind of
-incompatibility, and then they'll have it. That's OK. But when users
-want is to follow a standard, we developers have to follow it, and we
-know that. And we do it. By contrast, if you look at proprietary
-software developers, they often find it advantageous to deliberately *not*
-follow a standard, and not because they think that they're giving the
-user an advantage that way, but rather because they're imposing on the
-user, locking the user in. And you'll even find them making changes in
-their file formats from time to time, just to force people to get the
-newest version.
-
-Archivists are finding a problem now, that files written on computers ten
-years ago often can't be accessed; they were written with proprietary
-software that's essentially lost now. If it were written with free
-software, then it could be brought up-to-date and run. And those things
-would not, those records would not be lost, would not be inaccessible.
-They were even complaining about this on NPR recently in citing free
-software as a solution. And so, in effect, by using a nonfree program to
-store your own data, you are putting your head in a noose.
-
-So, I've talked about how free software affects most business. But how
-does it affect that particular narrow area which is software business?
-Well, the answer is mostly not at all. And the reason is that 90% of the
-software industry, from what I'm told, is development of custom
-software, software that's not meant to be released at all. For custom
-software, this issue, or the ethical issue of free or proprietary, doesn't
-arise. You see, the issue is, are you users free to change, and
-redistribute, the software? If there's only one user, and that user owns
-the rights, there's no problem. That user *is* free to do all these
-things. So, in effect, any *custom* program that was developed by one
-company for use in-house is free software, as long as they have the sense
-to insist on getting the source code and all the rights.
-
-And the issue doesn't really arise for software that goes in a watch or a
-microwave oven or an automobile ignition system. Because those are
-places where you don't download software to install. It's not a real
-computer, as far as the user is concerned. And so, it doesn't raise these
-issues enough for them to be ethically important. So, for the most part,
-the software industry will go along, just as it's been going. And the
-interesting thing is that since such a large fraction of the jobs are in
-that part of the industry, even if there were no possibilities for free
-software business, the developers of free software could all get day jobs
-writing custom software. [Laughter] There's so many; the ratio is so
-big.
-
-But, as it happens, there is free software business. There are free
-software companies, and at the press conference that I'm going to have,
-people from a couple of them will join us. And, of course, there are also
-companies which are *not* free software businesses but do develop useful
-pieces of free software to release, and the free software that they
-produce is substantial.
-
-Now, how do free software businesses work? Well, some of them sell
-copies. You know, you're free to copy it but they can still sell
-thousands of copies a month. And others sell support and various kinds
-of services. I, personally, for the second half of the '80's, I sold free
-software support services. Basically I said, for $200 an hour, I'll
-change whatever you want me to change in GNU software that I'd written.
-And, yes, it was a stiff rate, but if it was a program that I was the
-author of, people would figure that I might get the job done in a lot
-fewer hours. [Laughter] And I made a living that way. In fact, I'd made
-more than I'd ever made before. I also taught classes. And I kept doing
-that until 1990, when I got a big prize and I didn't have to do it any
-more.
-
-But, 1990 was when the first corporation free software business was
-formed, which was Cygnus Support. And their business was to do,
-essentially, the same kind of thing that I'd been doing. I certainly
-could have worked for them, if I had needed to do that. Since I didn't
-need to, I felt it was good for the movement if I remained independent of
-any one company. That way, I could say good and bad things about the
-various free software and nonfree software companies, without a conflict
-of interest. I felt that I could serve the movement more. But, if I had
-needed that to make a living, sure, I would have worked for them. It's an
-ethical business to be in. No reason I would have felt ashamed to take a
-job with them. And that company was profitable in its first year. It
-was formed with very little capital, just the money its three founders
-had. And it kept growing every year and being profitable every year
-until they got greedy, and looked for outside investors, and then they
-messed things up. But it was several years of success, before they got
-greedy.
-
-So, this illustrates one of the exciting things about free software. Free
-software demonstrates that you don't need to raise capital to develop free
-software. I mean, it's useful; it *can* help. You know, if you do raise
-some capital, you can hire people and have them write a bunch of software.
-But you can get a lot done with a small number of people. And, in fact,
-the tremendous efficiency of the process of developing free software is
-one of the reasons it's important for the world to switch to free
-software. And it also belies what Microsoft says when they say the GNU
-GPL is bad, because it makes it harder for them to raise capital to
-develop nonfree software and take our free software and put our code
-into their programs that they won't share with us. Basically, we don't
-need to have them raising capital that way. We'll get the job done
-anyway. We are getting the job done.
-
-People used to say we could never do a complete free operating system.
-Now we've done that and a tremendous amount more. And I would say that
-we're about an order of magnitude away from developing all the general
-purpose published software needs of the world. And this is in a world
-where more than 90% of the users don't use our free software yet. This is
-in a world where, although in certain areas of business, you know, more
-than half of all the web servers in the world are running on GNU/Linux
-with Apache as the web server.
-
-QUESTION: [Inaudible] ... What did you say before, Linux?
-
-STALLMAN: I said GNU/Linux.
-
-QUESTION: You did?
-
-STALLMAN: Yes, if I'm talking about the kernel, I call it Linux. You
-know, that's it's name. The kernel was written by Linus Torvalds, and we
-should only call it by the name that he chose, out of respect for the
-author.
-
-Anyway, but in general, in business most users are not using it. Most
-home users are not using our system yet. So, when they are, we should
-automatically get 10 times as many volunteers and 10 times as many
-customers for the free software businesses that there will be. And so
-that will take us that order of magnitude. So at this point, I am pretty
-confident that we *can* do the job.
-
-And, this is important, because Microsoft asks us to feel desperate. They
-say, The only way you can have software to run, the only way you can have
-innovation, is if you give us power. Let us dominate you. Let us
-control what you can do with the software you're running, so that we
-can squeeze a lot of money out of you, and use a certain fraction of
-that to develop software, and take the rest as profit.
-
-Well, you shouldn't ever feel that desperate. You shouldn't ever feel so
-desperate that you give up your freedom. That's very dangerous.
-
-Another thing that Microsoft, well, not just Microsoft, people who
-don't support free software generally adopt a value system in which the
-only thing that matters is short-term practical benefits: How much money
-am I going to make this year? What job can I get done today? Short-term
-thinking and narrow thinking. Their assumption is that it is ridiculous
-to imagine that anybody ever might make a sacrifice for the sake of
-freedom.
-
-Yesterday, a lot of people were making speeches about Americans who made
-sacrifices for the freedom of their compatriots. Some of them made great
-sacrifices. They even sacrificed their lives for the kinds of freedom
-that everyone in our country has heard about, at least. (At least, in
-some of the cases; I guess we have to ignore the war in Vietnam.)
-
-[Editor's note: The day before was "Memorial Day" in the USA. Memorial
- Day is a day where war heros are commemorated.]
-
-But, fortunately, to maintain our freedom in using software, doesn't call
-for big sacrifices. Just tiny, little sacrifices are enough, like
-learning a command-line interface, if we don't have a GUI interface
-program yet. Like doing the job in this way, because we don't have a free
-software package to do it that way, yet. Like, paying some money to a
-company that's going to develop a certain free software package, so that
-you can have it in a few years. Various little sacrifices that we can all
-make. And, in the long run, even we will have benefitted from it. You
-know, it is really an investment more than a sacrifice. We just have to
-have enough long-term view to realize it's good for us to invest in
-improving our society, without counting the nickels and dimes of who gets
-how much of the benefit from that investment.
-
-So, at this point, I'm essentially done.
-
-I'd like to mention that there's a new approach to free software business
-being proposed by Tony Stanco, which he calls "Free Developers", which
-involves a certain business structure which hopes eventually to pay out a
-certain share of the profits to every, to all the authors of the free
-software who've joined the organization. And they're looking at the
-prospects of getting me some rather large government software development
-contracts in India now, because they're going to be using free software
-as the basis, having tremendous cost savings that way.
-
-And so now I guess that I should ask for questions.
-
-QUESTION: [Inaudible]
-
-STALLMAN: Could you speak up a bit louder please? I can't really hear
-you.
-
-QUESTION: How could a company like Microsoft include a free software
-contract?
-
-STALLMAN: Well, actually, Microsoft is planning to shift a lot of its
-activity into services. And what they're planning to do is something
-dirty and dangerous, which is tie the services to the programs, one to the
-next, in a sort of zigzag, you know? So that to use this service, you've
-got to be using this Microsoft program, which is going to mean you need to
-use this service, to this Microsoft program, so it's all tied together.
-That's their plan.
-
-Now, the interesting thing is that selling those services doesn't raise
-the ethical issue of free software or nonfree software. It might be
-perfectly fine for them to have the business for those businesses selling
-those services over the net to exist. However, what Microsoft is planning
-to do is to use them to achieve an even greater lock, an even greater
-monopoly, on the software and the services, and this was described in
-an article, I believe in Business Week, recently. And, other people
-said that it is turning the net into the Microsoft Company Town.
-
-And this is relevant because, you know, the trial court in the Microsoft
-antitrust trial recommended breaking up the company, Microsoft. But in a
-way, that makes no sense -- it wouldn't do any good at all -- into the
-operating part and the applications part.
-
-But having seen that article, I now see a useful, effective way to split
-up Microsoft into the services part and the software part, to require
-them to deal with each other only at arm's length, that the services
-must publish their interfaces, so that anybody can write a
-client to talk to those services, and, I guess, that they have to pay to
-get the service. Well, that's OK. That's a totally different issue.
-
-If Microsoft is split up in this way [...] services and software, they
-will not be able to use their software to crush competition with Microsoft
-services. And they won't be able to use the services to crush
-competition with Microsoft software. And we will be able to make the free
-software, and maybe you people will use it to talk to Microsoft services,
-and we won't mind.
-
-Because, after all, although Microsoft is the proprietary software company
-that has subjugated the most people -- the others have subjugated fewer
-people, it's not for want of trying. [Laughter] They just haven't
-succeeded in subjugating as many people. So, the problem is not
-Microsoft and only Microsoft. Microsoft is just the biggest example of
-the problem we're trying to solve, which is proprietary software taking
-away users' freedom to cooperate and form an ethical society. So we
-shouldn't focus too much on Microsoft, you know, even though they did
-give me the opportunity for this platform. That doesn't make them
-all-important. They're not the be-all and end-all.
-
-QUESTION: Earlier, you were discussing the philosophical differences
-between open source software and free software. How do you feel about the
-current trend of GNU/Linux distributions as they head towards supporting
-only Intel platforms? And the fact that it seems that less and less
-programmers are programming correctly, and making software that will
-compile anywhere? And making software that simply works on Intel systems?
-
-STALLMAN: I don't see an ethical issue there. Although, in fact,
-companies that make computers sometimes port the GNU/Linux system to it.
-HP apparently did this recently. And, they didn't bother paying for a
-port of Windows, because that would have cost too much. But getting
-GNU/Linux supported was, I think, five engineers for a few months. It was
-easily doable.
-
-Now, of course, I encourage people to use autoconf, which is a GNU package
-that makes it easier to make your programs portable. I encourage them to
-do that. Or when somebody else fixes the bug that it didn't compile on
-that version of the system, and sends it to you, you should put it in.
-But I don't see that as an ethical issue.
-
-QUESTION: Two comments. One is: Recently, you spoke at MIT. I read the
-transcript. And someone asked about patents, and you said that "patents
-are a totally different issue. I have no comments on that."
-
-STALLMAN: Right. I actually have a lot to say about patents, but it takes
-an hour. [Laughter]
-
-QUESTION: I wanted to say this: It seems to me that there is an issue. I
-mean, there is a reason that companies call both patents and copyrights
-things like hard property in trying to get this concept which is, if
-they want to use the power of the State to create a course of monopoly for
-themselves. And so, what's common about these things is not that they
-revolve around the same issues, but that motivation is not really the
-public service issues but the motivation of companies to get a monopoly
-for their private interests.
-
-STALLMAN: I understand. But, well, I want to respond because there's not
-too much time. So I'd like to respond to that.
-
-You're right that that's what they want. But there's another reason why
-they want to use the term intellectual property. It's that they don't
-want to encourage people to think carefully about copyright issues or
-patent issues. Because copyright law and patent law are totally
-different, and the effects of software copyrighted and software patents are
-totally different.
-
-Software patents are a restriction on programmers, prohibiting them from
-writing certain kinds of programs, whereas copyright doesn't do that.
-With copyright, at least if you wrote it yourself, you're allowed to
-distribute it. So, it's tremendously important to separate these issues.
-
-They have a little bit in common, at a very low level, and everything
-else is different. So, please, to encourage clear thinking, discuss
-copyright or discuss patents. But don't discuss intellectual property.
-I don't have an opinion on intellectual property. I have opinions on
-copyrights and patents and software.
-
-QUESTION: You mentioned at the beginning that a functional language, like
-recipes, are computer programs. There's a cross a little bit different
-than other kinds of language created on. This is also causing a problem
-in the DVD case.
-
-STALLMAN: The issues are partly similar but partly different, for things
-that are not functional in nature. Part of the issue transfers but not
-all of it. Unfortunately, that's another hour speech. I don't have time
-to go into it. But I would say that all functional works ought to be
-free in the same sense as software. You know, textbooks, manuals,
-dictionaries, and recipes, and so on.
-
-QUESTION: I was just wondering on online music. There are similarities
-and differences created all through.
-
-STALLMAN: Right. I'd say that the minimum freedom that we should have for
-any kind of published information is the freedom to non-commercially
-redistribute it, verbatim. For functional works, we need the freedom to
-commercially publish a modified version, because that's tremendously
-useful to society. For non-functional works, you know, things that are to
-entertain, or to be aesthetic, or to state a certain person's views, you
-know, perhaps they shouldn't be modified. And, perhaps that means that
-it's OK, to have copyright covering all commercial distribution of them.
-
-Please remember that according to the U.S. Constitution, the purpose of
-copyright is to benefit the public. It is to modify the behavior of
-certain private parties, so that they will publish more books. And the
-benefit of this is that society gets to discuss issues and learn. And, you
-know, we have literature. We have scientific works. The purpose is
-encourage that. Copyrights do not exist for the sake of authors, let
-alone for the sake of publishers. They exist for the sake of readers and
-all those who benefit from the communication of information that happens
-when people write and others read. And that goal I agree with.
-
-But in the age of the computer networks, the method is no longer
-tenable, because it now requires draconian laws that invade everybody's
-privacy and terrorize everyone. You know, years in prison for sharing
-with your neighbor. It wasn't like that in the age of the printing press.
-Then copyright was an industrial regulation. It restricted publishers.
-Now, it's a restriction imposed by the publishers on the public. So,
-the power relationship is turned around 180 degrees, even if it's the
-same law.
-
-QUESTION: So you can have the same thing - but like in making music from
-other music?
-
-STALLMAN: Right. That is an interesting. . .
-
-QUESTION: And unique, new works, you know, it's still a lot of
-cooperation.
-
-STALLMAN: It is. And I think that probably requires some kind of fair use
-concept. Certainly making a few seconds of sample and using that in
-making some musical work, obviously that should be fair use. Even the
-standard idea of fair use includes that, if you think about it. Whether
-courts agree, I'm not sure, but they should. That wouldn't be a real
-change in the system as it has existed.
-
-QUESTION: What do you think about publishing public information in
-proprietary formats?
-
-STALLMAN: Oh, it shouldn't be. I mean, the government should never
-require citizens to use a nonfree program to access, to communicate with
-the government in any way, in either direction.
-
-QUESTION: I have been, what I will now say, a GNU/Linux user ...
-
-STALLMAN: Thank you. [Laughter]
-
-QUESTION: ...for the past four years. The one thing that has been
-problematical for me and is something that is essential, I think, to all
-of us, is browsing the web.
-
-STALLMAN: Yes.
-
-QUESTION: One thing that has been decidedly a weakness in using a
-GNU/Linux system has been browsing the web, because the prevailing tool
-for that, Netscape...
-
-STALLMAN: ...is not free software.
-
-Let me respond to this. I want to get to the point, for the sake of
-getting in more. So, yes. There has been a terrible tendency for people
-to use Netscape Navigator on their GNU/Linux systems. And, in fact all
-the commercially packaged systems come with it. So this is an ironic
-situation: we worked so hard to make a free operating system, and now,
-if you go to the store, and you can find versions of GNU/Linux there, most
-of them are called Linux, and they're not free. Oh, well, part of them
-is. But then, there's Netscape Navigator, and maybe other nonfree
-programs as well. So, it's very hard to actually find a free system,
-unless you know what you're doing. Or, of course, you can not
-install Netscape Navigator.
-
-Now, in fact, there have been free web browsers for many years. There is
-a free web browser that I used to use called Lynx. It's a free
-web browser that is nongraphical; it's text-only. This has a tremendous
-advantage, in you don't see the ads. [Laughter] [Applause]
-
-But anyway, there is a free graphical project called Mozilla, which is
-now getting to the point where you can use it. And I occasionally use it.
-
-QUESTION: Konqueror 2.01 has been very good.
-
-STALLMAN: Oh, OK. So that's another free graphical browser. So, we're
-finally solving that problem, I guess.
-
-QUESTION: Can you talk to me about that philosophical/ethical division
-between free software and open source? Do you feel that those are
-irreconcilable? ...
-
-[Recording switches tapes; end of question and start of answer is missing]
-
-STALLMAN: ... to a freedom, and ethics. Or whether you just say, Well,
-I hope that you companies will decide it's more profitable to let us be
-allowed to do these things.
-
-But, as I said, in a lot of practical work, it doesn't really matter what
-a person's politics are. When a person offers to help the GNU project, we
-don't say: "You have to agree with our politics." We say that in a GNU
-package, you've got to call the system GNU/Linux, and you've got to call
-it free software. What you say when you're not speaking to the GNU
-Project, that's up to you.
-
-QUESTION: The company, IBM, started a campaign for government agencies, to
-sell their big new machines, that they used Linux as selling point, and say
-Linux.
-
-STALLMAN: Yes, of course, it's really the GNU/Linux systems. [Laughter]
-
-QUESTION: That's right! Well, tell the top sales person. He doesn't know
-anything for GNU.
-
-STALLMAN: I have to tell who?
-
-QUESTION: The top sales person.
-
-STALLMAN: Oh yes. The problem is that they've already carefully decided
-what they want to say for reasons of their advantage. And the issue of
-what is a more accurate, or fair, or correct way to describe it is not the
-primary issue that matters to a company like that. Now, some small
-companies, yes, there'll be a boss. And if the boss is inclined to think
-about things like that, he might make a decision that way. Not a giant
-corporation though. It's a shame, you know.
-
-There's another more important and more substantive issue about what IBM
-is doing. They're saying that they're putting a billion dollars into
-"Linux". But perhaps, I should also put quotes around "into", as well,
-because some of that money is paying people to develop free software.
-That really is a contribution to our community. But other parts is
-paying to pay people to write proprietary software, or port proprietary
-software to run on top of GNU/Linux, and that is *not* a contribution to
-our community. But IBM is lumping that altogether into this. Some of it
-might be advertising, which is partly a contribution, even if it's partly
-wrong. So, it's a complicated situation. Some of what they're doing is
-contribution and some is not. And some is sort is somewhat, but not
-exactly. And you can't just lump it altogether and think, Wow! Whee! A
-billion dollars from IBM. [Laughter] That's oversimplification.
-
-QUESTION: Can you talk a little bit more about the thinking that went into
-the general public license?
-
-STALLMAN: Well, here's the -- I'm sorry, I'm answering his question now.
[Laughter]
-
-SCHONBERG: Do you want to reserve some time for the press conference?
-Or do you want to continue here?
-
-STALLMAN: Who is here for the press conference? Not a lot of press. Oh,
-three -- OK. Can you afford if we -- if I go on answering everybody's
-questions for another ten minutes or so? OK. So, we'll go on answering
-everybody's questions.
-
-So, the thinking that went into the GNU GPL? Part of it was that I wanted
-to protect the freedom of the community against the phenomena that I just
-described with X Windows, which has happened with other free programs as
-well. In fact, when I was thinking about this issue, X Windows was not
-yet released. But I had seen this problem happen in other free programs.
-For instance, TeX. I wanted to make sure that the users would all have
-freedom. Otherwise, I realized that I might write a program, and maybe a
-lot of people would use the program, but they wouldn't have freedom. And
-what's the point of that?
-
-But the other issue I was thinking about was, I wanted to give the
-community a feeling that it was not a doormat, a feeling that it was not
-prey to any parasite who would wander along. If you don't use copyleft,
-you are essentially saying: [speaking meekly] "Take my code. Do what you
-want. I don't say no." So, anybody can come along and say: [speaking
-very firmly] "Ah, I want to make a nonfree version of this. I'll just
-take it." And, then, of course, they probably make some improvements,
-those nonfree versions might appeal to users, and replace the free
-versions. And then, what have you accomplished? You've only made a
-donation to some proprietary software project.
-
-And when people see that that's happening, when people see, other people
-take what I do, and they don't ever give back, it can be demoralizing.
-And, this is not just speculation. I had seen that happen. That was part
-of what happened to wipe out the old community that I belonged to the
-'70's. Some people started becoming uncooperative. And we assumed that
-they were profiting thereby. They certainly acted as if they thought they
-were profiting. And we realized that they can just take off cooperation
-and not give back. And there was nothing we could do about it. It was
-very discouraging. We, those of us who didn't like the trend, even had a
-discussion and we couldn't come up with any idea for how we could stop it.
-
-So, the GPL is designed to stop that. And it says, Yes, you are welcome
-to join the community and use this code. You can use it to do all sorts
-of jobs. But, if you release a modified version, you've got to release
-that to our community, as part of our community, as part of the free
-world.
-
-So, in fact, there are still many ways that people can get the benefit of
-our work and not contribute, like you don't have to write any software.
-Lots of people use GNU/Linux and don't write any software. There's no
-requirement that you've got to do anything for us. But if you do a
-certain kind of thing, you've got to contribute to it. So what that means
-is that our community is not a doormat. And I think that that helped give
-people the strength to feel, Yes, we won't just be trampled underfoot by
-everybody. We'll stand up to this.
-
-QUESTION: Yes, my question was, considering free but not copylefted
-software, since anybody can pick it up and make it proprietary, is it not
-possible also for someone to pick it up and make some changes and release
-the whole thing under the GPL?
-
-STALLMAN: Yes, it is possible.
-
-QUESTION: Then, that would make all future copies then be GPL'ed.
-
-STALLMAN: From that branch. But here's why we don't do that.
-
-QUESTION: Hmm?
-
-STALLMAN: Here's why we don't generally do that. Let me explain.
-
-QUESTION: OK, yes.
-
-STALLMAN: We could, if we wanted to, take X Windows, and make a
-GPL-covered copy and make changes in that. But there's a much larger
-group of people working on improving X Windows and *not* GPL-ing it. So,
-if we did that, we would be forking from them. And that's not very nice
-treatment of them. And, they *are* a part of our community, contributing
-to our community.
-
-Second, it would backfire against us, because they're doing a lot more
-work on X than we would be. So, our version would be inferior to theirs,
-and people wouldn't use it, which means, why go to the trouble at all?
-
-QUESTION: Mmm hmm.
-
-STALLMAN: So when a person has written some improvement to X Windows,
-what I say that person should do is cooperate with the X development
-team. Send it to them and let them use it their way. Because they are
-developing a very important piece of free software. It's good for us to
-cooperate with them.
-
-QUESTION: Except, considering X, in particular, about two years ago, the X
-Consortium that was far into the nonfree open source...
-
-STALLMAN: Well, actually it *wasn't* open sourced. It wasn't open
-sourced, either. They may have said it was. I can't remember if they
-said that or not. But it wasn't open source. It was restricted. You couldn't
-commercially distribute, I think. Or you couldn't commercially distribute
-a modified version, or something like that. There was a restriction that's
-considered unacceptable by both the Free Software movement and the Open
-Source movement.
-
-And yes, that's what using a non-copyleft license leaves you open to. In
-fact, the X Consortium, they had a very rigid policy. They say: If your
-program if copylefted even a little bit, we won't distribute it at all.
-We won't put it in our distribution.
-
-So, a lot of people were pressured in this way into not copylefting. And
-the result was that all of their software was wide open, later on. When
-the same people who had pressured a developer to be too all-permissive,
-then the X people later said, All right, now we can put on restrictions,
-which wasn't very ethical of them.
-
-But, given the situation, would we really want to scrape up the resources
-to maintain an alternate GPL-covered version of X? And it wouldn't make
-any sense to do that. There are so many other things we need to do. Let's
-do them instead. We can cooperate with the X developers.
-
-QUESTION: Do you have a comment, is the GNU a trademark? And is it
-practical to include it as part of the GNU General Public License allowing
-trademarks?
-
-STALLMAN: We are, actually, applying for trademark registration on GNU.
-But it wouldn't really have anything to do with that. It's a long
-story to explain why.
-
-QUESTION: You could require the trademark be displayed with GPL-covered
-programs.
-
-No, I don't think so. The licenses cover individual programs. And when
-a given program is part of the GNU Project, nobody lies about that. The
-name of the system as a whole is a different issue. And this is an
-aside. It's not worth discussing more.
-
-QUESTION: If there was a button that you could push and force all
-companies to free their software, would you press it?
-
-STALLMAN: Well, I would only use this for published software. You know, I
-think that people have the right to write a program privately and use it.
-And that includes companies. This is privacy issue. And it's true, there
-can be times when it is wrong to do that, like if it is tremendously
-helpful to humanity, and you are withholding it from humanity. That is a
-wrong but that's a different kind of wrong. It's a different issue,
-although it's in the same area.
-
-But yes, I think all published software should be free software. And
-remember, when it's not free software, that's because of government
-intervention. The government is intervening to make it nonfree. The
-government is creating special legal powers to hand out to the owners of
-the programs, so that they can have the police stop us from using the
-programs in certain ways. So I would certainly like to end that.
-
-SCHONBERG: Richard's presentation has invariably generated an enormous
-amount of intellectual energy. I would suggest that some of it should be
-directed to using, and possibly writing, free software.
-
-We should close the proceedings shortly. I want to say that Richard has
-injected into a profession which is known in the general public for its
-terminal apolitical nerditude a level of political and moral
-discussion which is, I think, unprecedented in our profession. And we owe
-him very big for this. I'd like to note to people that there is a break.
-
-[Applause]
-
-STALLMAN: You are free to leave at any time, you know. [Laughter] I'm not
-holding you prisoner here.
-
-[Audience adjourns...]
-
-[overlapping conversations....]
-
-STALLMAN: One final thing. Our website: www.gnu.org
Index: events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-diff.html
diff -N events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-diff.html
--- events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-diff.html 9 Feb 2015 19:27:47
-0000 1.1
+++ /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
@@ -1,2141 +0,0 @@
-<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
- "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
-<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
-<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
-<head>
-<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
-<title>/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html-diff</title>
-<style type="text/css">
-span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
-span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
-</style></head>
-<body><pre>
-<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
-<title>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation
-- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
-<!--#include virtual="/events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist" -->
-<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
-<h2>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation</h2>
-
-<p style="text-align: center;">
-Transcript of<br />
-Richard M. Stallman's speech,<br />
-<em>“Free Software: Freedom and
Cooperation”</em><br />
-New York University in New York, New York<br />
-on 29 May 2001</p>
-
-<div class="announcement">
-<blockquote><p>A <a
href="/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt">plain
-text</a> version of this transcript and
-a <a href="/events/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt">summary</a> of the
speech
-are also available.</p></blockquote>
-</div>
-
-<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: I'm Mike Uretsky. I'm over at
the Stern
-School of Business. I'm also one of the Co-Directors of the Center
-for Advanced Technology. And, on behalf of all of us in the Computer
-Science Department, I want to welcome you here. I want to say a few
-comments, before I turn it over to Ed, who is going to introduce the
-speaker.</p>
-
-<p>The role of a university is a place to foster debate and to have
-interesting discussions. And the role of a major university is to
-have particularly interesting discussions. And this particular
-presentation, this seminar falls right into that mold. I find the
-discussion of open source particularly interesting. In a sense
-… <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I do free software. Open
source is a
-different movement. <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: When I first started in the
field in the
-'60's, basically software was free. And we went in cycles. It became
-free, and then software manufacturers, in the need to expand their
-markets, pushed it in other directions. A lot of the developments
-that took place with the entry of the PC moved in exactly the same
-kind of a cycle.</p>
-
-<p>There's a very interesting French philosopher, Pierre Levy, who
-talks about movement to this direction and who talks about the move
-into cyberspace as not only relating to technology but also relating
-to social restructuring, to political restructuring, through a change
-in the kinds of relationships that will improve the well-being of
-mankind. And we're hoping that this debate is a movement in that
-direction, that this debate is something that cuts across a lot of the
-disciplines that normally act as solace within the University. We're
-looking forward to some very interesting discussions. Ed?</p>
-
-<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: I'm Ed Schonberg from the
Computer
-Science Department at the Courant Institute. Let me welcome you all
-to this event. Introducers are usually, and particularly, a useless
-aspect of public presentations, but in this case, actually, they serve
-a useful purpose, as Mike easily demonstrated, because an introducer
-for instance, told him, by making inaccurate comments, can allow him
-to straighten out and correct and <i>[Laughter]</i> sharpen
-considerably the parameters of the debate.</p>
-
-<p>So, let me make the briefest possible introduction to somebody who
-doesn't need one. Richard is the perfect example of somebody who, by
-acting locally, started thinking globally from problems concerning the
-unavailability of source code for printer drivers at the AI Lab many
-years ago. He has developed a coherent philosophy that has forced all
-of us to re-examine our ideas of how software is produced, of what
-intellectual property means, and what the software community actually
-represents. Let me welcome Richard Stallman.
<i>[Applause]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can someone lend me a
-watch? <i>[Laughter]</i> Thank you. So, I'd like to thank
Microsoft
-for providing me the opportunity to <i>[Laughter]</i> be on this
-platform. For the past few weeks, I have felt like an author whose
-book was fortuitously banned somewhere. <i>[Laughter]</i> Except
that
-all the articles about it are giving the wrong author's name, because
-Microsoft describes the GNU GPL as an open source license, and most of
-the press coverage followed suit. Most people, of course just
-innocently don't realize that our work has nothing to do with open
-source, that in fact we did most of it before people even coined the
-term open source.</p>
-
-<p>We are in the free software movement, and I'm going to speak about
-what the free software movement is about, what it means, what we have
-done, and, because this is partly sponsored by a school of business,
-I'll say some things more than I usually do about how free software
-relates to business, and some other areas of social life.</p>
-
-<p>Now, some of you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps
-you cook. And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably
-use recipes. And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the
-experience of getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing
-it. And you've probably also had the experience — unless you're
-a total neophyte — of changing a recipe. You know, it says
-certain things, but you don't have to do exactly that. You can leave
-out some ingredients. Add some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms.
-Put in less salt because your doctor said you should cut down on salt
-— whatever. You can even make bigger changes according to your
-skill. And if you've made changes in a recipe, and you cook it for
-your friends, and they like it, one of your friends might say,
-“Hey, could I have the recipe?” And then, what do you do?
-You could write down your modified version of the recipe and make a
-copy for your friend. These are the natural things to do with
-functionally useful recipes of any kind.</p>
-
-<p>Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program. A computer
-program's a lot like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to
-get some result that you want. So it's just as natural to do those
-same things with computer programs — hand a copy to your friend.
-Make changes in it because the job it was written to do isn't exactly
-what you want. It did a great job for somebody else, but your job is
-a different job. And after you've changed it, that's likely to be
-useful for other people. Maybe they have a job to do that's like the
-job you do. So they ask, “Hey, can I have a copy?” Of
-course, if you're a nice person, you're going to give a copy. That's
-the way to be a decent person.</p>
-
-<p>So imagine what it would be like if recipes were packaged inside
-black boxes. You couldn't see what ingredients they're using, let
-alone change them, and imagine if you made a copy for a friend, they
-would call you a pirate and try to put you in prison for years. That
-world would create tremendous outrage from all the people who are used
-to sharing recipes. But that is exactly what the world of proprietary
-software is like. A world in which common decency towards other
-people is prohibited or prevented.</p>
-
-<p>Now, why did I notice this? I noticed this because I had the good
-fortune in the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who
-shared software. Now, this community could trace its ancestry
-essentially back to the beginning of computing. In the 1970's,
-though, it was a bit rare for there to be a community where people
-shared software. And, in fact, this was sort of an extreme case,
-because in the lab where I worked, the entire operating system was
-software developed by the people in our community, and we'd share any
-of it with anybody. Anybody was welcome to come and take a look, and
-take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do. There were no
-copyright notices on these programs. Cooperation was our way of life.
-And we were secure in that way of life. We didn't fight for it. We
-didn't have to fight for it. We just lived that way. And, as far as
-we knew, we would just keep on living that way. So there was free
-software, but there was no free software movement.</p>
-
-<p>But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that
-happened to it. Ultimately it was wiped out. Ultimately, the PDP-10
-computer which we used for all our work was discontinued. And you
-know, our system — the Incompatible Timesharing System —
-was written starting in the '60's, so it was written in assembler
-language. That's what you used to write an operating system in the
-'60's. So, of course, assembler language is for one particular
-computer architecture; if that gets discontinued, all your work turns
-into dust — it's useless. And that's what happened to us. The
-20 years or so of work of our community turned into dust.</p>
-
-<p>But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me,
-helped me see what to do, helped prepare me to see what to do when
-this happened, because at certain point, Xerox gave the Artificial
-Intelligence Lab, where I worked, a laser printer, and this was a
-really handsome gift, because it was the first time anybody outside
-Xerox had a laser printer. It was very fast, printed a page a second,
-very fine in many respects, but it was unreliable, because it was
-really a high-speed office copier that had been modified into a
-printer. And, you know, copiers jam, but there's somebody there to
-fix them. The printer jammed and nobody saw. So it stayed jammed for
-a long time.</p>
-
-<p>Well, we had an idea for how to deal with this problem. Change it
-so that whenever the printer gets a jam, the machine that runs the
-printer can tell our timesharing machine, and tell the users who are
-waiting for printouts, or something like that, you know, tell them, go
-fix the printer. Because if they only knew it was jammed, of course,
-if you're waiting for a printout and you know that the printer is
-jammed, you don't want to sit and wait forever, you're going to go fix
-it.</p>
-
-<p>But at that point, we were completely stymied, because the software
-that ran that printer was not free software. It had come with the
-printer, and it was just a binary. We couldn't have the source code;
-Xerox wouldn't let us have the source code. So, despite our skill as
-programmers — after all, we had written our own timesharing
-system — we were completely helpless to add this feature to the
-printer software.</p>
-
-<p>And we just had to suffer with waiting. It would take an hour or
-two to get your printout because the machine would be jammed most of
-the time. And only once in a while — you'd wait an hour
-figuring “I know it's going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and
-go collect my printout,” and then you'd see that it had been
-jammed the whole time, and in fact, nobody else had fixed it. So
-you'd fix it and you'd go wait another half hour. Then, you'd come
-back, and you'd see it jammed again — before it got to your
-output. It would print three minutes and be jammed thirty minutes.
-Frustration up the whazzoo. But the thing that made it worse was
-knowing that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his own
-selfishness, was blocking us, obstructing us from improving the
-software. So, of course, we felt some resentment.</p>
-
-<p>And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a
-copy of that software. So I was visiting there later, so I went to
-his office and I said, “Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of
-the printer source code?” And he said “No, I promised not
-to give you a copy.” <i>[Laughter]</i> I was stunned. I was
so
-— I was angry, and I had no idea how I could do justice to it.
-All I could think of was to turn around on my heel and walk out of his
-room. Maybe I slammed the door. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I thought
-about it later on, because I realized that I was seeing not just an
-isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was important and affected
-a lot of people.</p>
-
-<p>This was — for me — I was lucky, I only got a taste of
-it, but other people had to live in this all the time. So I thought
-about it at length. See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with
-us — his colleagues at MIT. He had betrayed us. But he didn't
-just do it to us. Chances are he did it to you too. <i>[Pointing at
-member of audience.]</i> And I think, mostly likely, he did it to you
-too. <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.] [Laughter]</i>
And
-he probably did it to you as well. <i>[Pointing to third member of
-audience.]</i> He probably did it to most of the people here in this
-room — except a few, maybe, who weren't born yet in 1980.
-Because he had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about the
-entire population of the Planet Earth. He had signed a non-disclosure
-agreement.</p>
-
-<p>Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure
-agreement, and it taught me an important lesson — a lesson
-that's important because most programmers never learn it. You see,
-this was my first encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was
-the victim. I, and my whole lab, were the victims. And the lesson it
-taught me was that non-disclosure agreements have victims. They're
-not innocent. They're not harmless. Most programmers first encounter
-a non-disclosure agreement when they're invited to sign one. And
-there's always some temptation — some goody they're going to get
-if they sign. So, they make up excuses. They say, “Well, he's
-never going to get a copy no matter what, so why shouldn't I join the
-conspiracy to deprive him?” They say, “This is the way
-it's always done. Who am I to go against it?” They say,
-“If I don't sign this, someone else will.” Various excuses
-to gag their consciences.</p>
-
-<p>But when somebody invited me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, my
-conscience was already sensitized. It remembered how angry I had
-been, when somebody promised not to help me and my whole lab solve our
-problem. And I couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to
-somebody else who had never done me any harm. You know, if somebody
-asked me to promise not to share some useful information with a hated
-enemy, I would have said yes. You know? If somebody's done something
-bad, he deserves it. But, strangers — they haven't done me any
-harm. How could they deserve that kind of mistreatment? You can't
-let yourself start treating just anybody and everybody badly. Then
-you become a predator on society. So I said, “Thank you very
-much for offering me this nice software package. But I can't accept
-it in good conscience, on the conditions you are demanding, so I will
-do without it. Thank you so much.” And so, I have never
-knowingly signed a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful
-technical information such as software.</p>
-
-<p>Now there are other kinds of information which raise different
-ethical issues. For instance, there's personal information. You
-know, if you wanted to talk with me about what was happening between
-you and your boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody —
-you know, I could keep — I could agree to keep that a secret for
-you, because that's not generally useful technical information. At
-least, it's probably not generally useful.
<i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>There is a small chance — and it's a possibility though
-— that you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex
-technique, <i>[Laughter]</i> and I would then feel a moral
-duty <i>[Laughter]</i> to pass it onto the rest of humanity, so
that
-everyone could get the benefit of it. So, I'd have to put a proviso
-in that promise, you know? If it's just details about who wants this,
-and who's angry at whom, and things like that — soap opera
-— that I can keep private for you, but something that humanity
-could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't withhold. You see,
-the purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information
-for humanity to help people live their lives better. If we promise to
-withhold that information — if we keep it secret — then we
-are betraying the mission of our field. And this, I decided I
-shouldn't do.</p>
-
-<p>But, meanwhile my community had collapsed, and that was collapsing,
-and that left me in a bad situation. You see, the whole Incompatible
-Timesharing System was obsolete, because the PDP-10 was obsolete, and
-so there was no way that I could continue working as an operating
-system developer the way that I had been doing it. That depended on
-being part of the community using the community software and improving
-it. That no longer was a possibility, and that gave me a moral
-dilemma. What was I going to do? Because the most obvious
-possibility meant to go against that decision I had made. The most
-obvious possibility was to adapt myself to the change in the world.
-To accept that things were different, and that I'd just have to give
-up those principles and start signing non-disclosure agreements for
-proprietary operating systems, and most likely writing proprietary
-software as well. But I realized that that way I could have fun
-coding, and I could make money — especially if I did it other
-than at MIT — but at the end, I'd have to look back at my career
-and say, “I've spent my life building walls to divide
-people,” and I would have been ashamed of my life.</p>
-
-<p>So I looked for another alternative, and there was an obvious one.
-I could leave the software field and do something else. Now I had no
-other special noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a
-waiter. <i>[Laughter]</i> Not at a fancy restaurant; they wouldn't
-hire me, <i>[Laughter]</i> but I could be a waiter somewhere. And
-many programmers, they say to me, “The people who hire
-programmers demand this, this and this. If I don't do those things,
-I'll starve.” It's literally the word they use. Well, you know,
-as a waiter, you're not going to starve. <i>[Laughter]</i> So,
-really, they're in no danger. But — and this is important, you
-see — because sometimes you can justify doing something that
-hurts other people by saying otherwise something worse is going to
-happen to me. You know, if you were <em>really</em> going to
starve,
-you'd be justified in writing proprietary software.
<i>[Laughter]</i>
-If somebody's pointing a gun at you, then I would say, it's
-forgivable. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, I had found a way that I could
-survive without doing something unethical, so that excuse was not
-available. So I realized, though, that being a waiter would be no fun
-for me, and it would be wasting my skills as an operating system
-developer. It would avoid misusing my skills. Developing proprietary
-software would be misusing my skills. Encouraging other people to
-live in the world of proprietary software would be misusing my skills.
-So it's better to waste them than misuse them, but it's still not
-really good.</p>
-
-<p>So for those reasons, I decided to look for some other alternative.
-What can an operating system developer do that would actually improve
-the situation, make the world a better place? And I realized that an
-operating system developer was exactly what was needed. The problem,
-the dilemma, existed for me and for everyone else because all of the
-available operating systems for modern computers were proprietary.
-The free operating systems were for old, obsolete computers, right?
-So for the modern computers — if you wanted to get a modern
-computer and use it, you were forced into a proprietary operating
-system. So if an operating system developer wrote another operating
-system, and then said, “Everybody come and share this; you're
-welcome to this” — that would give everybody a way out of
-the dilemma, another alternative. So I realized that there was
-something I could do that would solve the problem. I had just the
-right skills to be able to do it. And it was the most useful thing I
-could possibly imagine that I'd be able to do with my life. And it
-was a problem that no one else was trying to solve. It was just sort
-of sitting there, getting worse, and nobody was there but me. So I
-felt, “I'm elected. I have to work on this. If not me,
-who?” So I decided I would develop a free operating system, or
-die trying … of old age, of course.
<i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>So, of course I had to decide what kind of operating system it
-should be. There are some technical design decisions to be made. I
-decided to make the system compatible with Unix for a number of
-reasons. First of all, I had just seen one operating system that I
-really loved become obsolete because it was written for one particular
-kind of computer. I didn't want that to happen again. We needed to
-have a portable system. Well, Unix was a portable system. So if I
-followed the design of Unix, I had a pretty good chance that I could
-make a system that would also be portable and workable. And
-furthermore, why <i>[Tape unclear]</i> be compatible with it in the
-details. The reason is, users hate incompatible changes. If I had
-just designed the system in my favorite way — which I would have
-loved doing, I'm sure — I would have produced something that was
-incompatible. You know, the details would be different. So, if I
-wrote the system, then the users would have said to me, “Well,
-this is very nice, but it's incompatible. It will be too much work to
-switch. We can't afford that much trouble just to use your system
-instead of Unix, so we'll stay with Unix,” they would have
-said.</p>
-
-<p>Now, if I wanted to actually create a community where there would
-be people in it, people using this free system, and enjoying the
-benefits of liberty and cooperation, I had to make a system people
-would use, a system that they would find easy to switch to, that would
-not have an obstacle making it fail at the very beginning. Now,
-making the system upward compatible with Unix actually made all the
-immediate design decisions, because Unix consists of many pieces, and
-they communicate through interfaces that are more or less documented.
-So if you want to be compatible with Unix, you have to replace each
-piece, one by one, with a compatible piece. So the remaining design
-decisions are inside one piece, and they could be made later by
-whoever decides to write that piece. They didn't have to be made at
-the outset.</p>
-
-<p>So all we had to do to start work was find a name for the system.
-Now, we hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program,
-because thinking of people being amused by the name is half the fun of
-writing the program. <i>[Laughter]</i> And we had a tradition of
-recursive acronyms, to say that the program that you're writing is
-similar to some existing program. You can give it a recursive acronym
-name which says: this one's not the other. So, for instance, there
-were many Tico text editors in the '60's and '70's, and they were
-generally called something-or-other Tico. Then one clever hacker
-called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico — the first recursive
-acronym. In 1975, I developed the first Emacs text editor, and there
-were many imitations of Emacs, and a lot of them were called
-something-or-other Emacs, but one was called Fine, for Fine Is Not
-Emacs, and there was Sine, for Sine Is Not Emacs, and Eine for Ina Is
-Not Emacs, and MINCE for Mince Is Not Complete
-Emacs. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was a stripped down imitation. And
-then, Eine was almost completely rewritten, and the new version was
-called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially.
<i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>So I looked for a recursive acronym for Something is not Unix. And
-I tried all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word.
-<i>[Laughter]</i> Hmm, try another way. I made a contraction.
That
-way I could have a three-letter acronym, for Something's not Unix.
-And I tried letters, and I came across the word “GNU”
-— the word “GNU” is the funniest word in the English
-language. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was it. Of course, the reason
it's
-funny is that according to the dictionary, it's pronounced
-“new”. You see? And so that's why people use it for a
-lot of wordplay. Let me tell you, this is the name of an animal that
-lives in Africa. And the African pronunciation had a click sound in
-it. <i>[Laughter]</i> Maybe still does. And so, the European
-colonists, when they got there, they didn't bother learning to say
-this click sound. So they just left it out, and they wrote a
-“G” which meant “there's another sound that's
-supposed to be here which we are not
-pronouncing.” <i>[Laughter]</i> So, tonight I'm leaving for
-South Africa, and I have begged them, I hope they're going to find
-somebody who can teach me to pronounce click sounds,
<i>[Laughter]</i>
-so that I'll know how to pronounce GNU the correct way, when it's the
-animal.</p>
-
-<p>But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is
-“guh-NEW” — pronounce the hard “G”. If
-you talk about the “new” operating system, you'll get
-people very confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years
-now, so it is not new any more. <i>[Laughter]</i> But it still is,
-and always will be, GNU — no matter how many people call it
-Linux by mistake. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces
-of GNU. They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities
-though. And, at the time, I thought we would write all these pieces,
-and make an entire GNU system, and then we'd say, “Come and get
-it”, and people would start to use it. That's not what
-happened. The first pieces I wrote were just equally good
-replacements, with fewer bugs for some pieces of Unix, but they
-weren't tremendously exciting. Nobody particularly wanted to get them
-and install them. But then, in September 1984, I started writing GNU
-Emacs, which was my second implementation of Emacs, and by early 1985,
-it was working. I could use it for all my editing, which was a big
-relief, because I had no intention of learning to use VI, the Unix
-editor. <i>[Laughter]</i> So, until that time, I did my editing on
-some other machine, and saved the files through the network, so that I
-could test them. But when GNU Emacs was running well enough for me to
-use it, it was also — other people wanted to use it too.</p>
-
-<p>So I had to work out the details of distribution. Of course, I put
-a copy in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people
-who were on the net They could then just pull over a tar file, but a
-lot of programmers then even were not on the net in 1985. They were
-sending me emails saying “How can I get a copy?” I had to
-decide what I would answer them. Well, I could have said, I want to
-spend my time writing more GNU software, not writing tapes, so please
-find a friend who's on the internet and who is willing to download it
-and put it on a tape for you. And I'm sure people would have found
-some friends, sooner or later, you know. They would have got copies.
-But I had no job. In fact, I've never had a job since quitting MIT in
-January 1984. So, I was looking for some way I could make money
-through my work on free software, and therefore I started a free
-software business. I announced, “Send me $150 dollars, and I'll
-mail you a tape of Emacs.” And the orders began dribbling in.
-By the middle of the year they were trickling in.</p>
-
-<p>I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month. And, if necessary, I could
-have lived on just that, because I've always lived cheaply. I live
-like a student, basically. And I like that, because it means that
-money is not telling me what to do. I can do what I think is
-important for me to do. It freed me to do what seemed worth doing.
-So make a real effort to avoid getting sucked into all the expensive
-lifestyle habits of typical Americans. Because if you do that, then
-people with the money will dictate what you do with your life. You
-won't be able to do what's really important to you.</p>
-
-<p>So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, “What do you
-mean it's free software if it costs $150
-dollars?” <i>[Laughter]</i> Well, the reason they asked this
was
-that they were confused by the multiple meanings of the English word
-“free”. One meaning refers to price, and another meaning
-refers to freedom. When I speak of free software, I'm referring to
-freedom, not price. So think of free speech, not free
-beer. <i>[Laughter]</i> Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many
years
-of my life to making sure programmers got less money. That's not my
-goal. I'm a programmer and I don't mind getting money myself. I
-won't dedicate my whole life to getting it, but I don't mind getting
-it. And I'm not — and therefore, ethics is the same for
-everyone. I'm not against some other programmer getting money either.
-I don't want prices to be low. That's not the issue at all. The
-issue is freedom. Freedom for everyone who's using software, whether
-that person be a programmer or not.</p>
-
-<p>So at this point I should give you the definition of free software.
-I better get to some real details, you see, because just saying
-“I believe in freedom” is vacuous. There's so many
-different freedoms you could believe in, and they conflict with each
-other, so the real political question is: Which are the important
-freedoms, the freedoms that we must make sure everybody has?</p>
-
-<p>And now, I will give my answer to that question for the particular
-area of using software. A program is free software for you, a
-particular user, if you have the following freedoms:</p>
-
-<ul>
-<li>First, Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the program for any
-purpose, any way you like.</li>
-<li>Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
-program to suit your needs.</li>
-<li>Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
-copies of the program.</li>
-<li>And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
-publishing an improved version so others can get the benefit of your
-work.</li>
-</ul>
-
-<p>If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software,
-for you — and that's crucial. That's why I phrase it that way.
-I'll explain why later, when I talk about the GNU General Public
-License, but right now I'm explaining what free software means, which
-is a more basic question.</p>
-
-<p>So, Freedom Zero's pretty obvious. If you're not even allowed to
-run the program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive
-program. But as it happens, most programs will at least give you
-Freedom Zero. And Freedom Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of
-Freedoms One, Two, and Three — that's the way that copyright law
-works. So the freedoms that distinguish free software from typical
-software are Freedoms One, Two, and Three, so I'll say more about them
-and why they are important.</p>
-
-<p>Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
-software to suit your needs. This could mean fixing bugs. It could
-mean adding new features. It could mean porting it to a different
-computer system. It could mean translating all the error messages
-into Navajo. Any change you want to make, you should be free to
-make.</p>
-
-<p>Now, it's obvious that professional programmers can make use of
-this freedom very effectively, but not just them. Anybody of
-reasonable intelligence can learn a little programming. You know,
-there are hard jobs, and there are easy jobs, and most people are not
-going to learn enough to do hard jobs. But lots of people can learn
-enough to do easy jobs, just the way, you know, 50 years ago, lots and
-lots of American men learned to repair cars, which is what enabled the
-U.S. to have a motorized army in World War II and win. So, very
-important, having lots of people tinkering.</p>
-
-<p>And if you are a people person, and you really don't want to learn
-technology at all, that probably means that you have a lot of friends,
-and you're good at getting them to owe you favors.
<i>[Laughter]</i>
-Some of them are probably programmers. So you can ask one of your
-programmer friends. “Would you please change this for me? Add
-this feature?” So, lots of people can benefit from it.</p>
-
-<p>Now, if you don't have this freedom, it causes practical, material
-harm to society. It makes you a prisoner of your software. I
-explained what that was like with regard to the laser printer. You
-know, it worked badly for us, and we couldn't fix it, because we were
-prisoners of our software.</p>
-
-<p>But it also affects people's morale. You know if the computer is
-constantly frustrating to use, and people are using it, their lives
-are going to be frustrating, and if they're using it in their jobs,
-their jobs are going to be frustrating; they're going to hate their
-jobs. And you know, people protect themselves from frustration by
-deciding not to care. So you end up with people whose attitude is,
-“Well, I showed up for work today. That's all I have to do. If
-I can't make progress, that's not my problem; that's the boss's
-problem.” And when this happens, it's bad for those people, and
-it's bad for society as a whole. That's Freedom One, the freedom to
-help yourself.</p>
-
-<p>Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
-copies of the program. Now, for beings that can think and learn,
-sharing useful knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship. When
-these beings use computers, this act of friendship takes the form of
-sharing software. Friends share with each other. Friends help each
-other. This is the nature of friendship. And, in fact, this spirit
-of goodwill — the spirit of helping your neighbor, voluntarily
-— is society's most important resource. It makes the difference
-between a livable society and a dog-eat-dog jungle. Its importance
-has been recognized by the world's major religions for thousands of
-years, and they explicitly try to encourage this attitude.</p>
-
-<p>When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach
-us this attitude — the spirit of sharing — by having us do
-it. They figured if we did it, we'd learn. So they said, “If
-you bring candy to school, you can't keep it all for yourself; you
-have to share some with the other kids.” Teaching us, the
-society was set up to teach, this spirit of cooperation. And why do
-you have to do that? Because people are not totally cooperative.
-That's one part of human nature, and there are other parts of human
-nature. There are lots of parts of human nature. So, if you want a
-better society, you've got to work to encourage the spirit of sharing.
-You know, it'll never get to be 100%. That's understandable. People
-have to take care of themselves too. But if we make it somewhat
-bigger, we're all better off.</p>
-
-<p>Nowadays, according to the U.S. Government, teachers are supposed
-to do the exact opposite. “Oh, Johnny, you brought software to
-school. Well, don't share it. Oh no. Sharing is wrong. Sharing
-means you're a pirate.”</p>
-
-<p>What do they mean when they say “pirate”? They're
-saying that helping your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking
-a ship. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>What would Buddha or Jesus say about that? Now, take your favorite
-religious leader. I don't know, maybe Manson would have said
-something different. <i>[Laughter]</i> Who knows what L. Ron
Hubbard
-would say? But …</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>:
<i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Of course, he's dead. But
they don't
-admit that. What?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: So are the others, also
-dead. <i>[Laughter] [Inaudible]</i> Charles Manson's also
-dead. <i>[Laughter]</i> They're dead, Jesus's dead, Buddha's
-dead…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, that's true.
<i>[Laughter]</i> So
-I guess, in that regard, L. Ron Hubbard is no worse than the
-others. <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway —
<i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: L. Ron always used free
software —
-it freed him from Zanu. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Anyway, so, I think this is
actually the
-most important reason why software should be free: We can't afford to
-pollute society's most important resource. It's true that it's not a
-physical resource like clean air and clean water. It's a
-psycho-social resource, but it's just as real for all that, and it
-makes a tremendous difference to our lives. You see, the actions we
-take influence the thoughts of other people. When we go around
-telling people, “Don't share with each other”, if they
-listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's not a good one.
-That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor.</p>
-
-<p>Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just
-cause this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes
-waste — practical, material harm. If the program has an owner,
-and the owner arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay
-in order to be able to use it, some people are going to say,
-“Never mind, I'll do without it.” And that's waste,
-deliberately inflicted waste. And the interesting thing about
-software, of course, is that fewer users doesn't mean you have to make
-less stuff. You know, if fewer people buy cars, you can make fewer
-cars. There's a saving there. There are resources to be allocated,
-or not allocated, into making cars. So that you can say that having a
-price on a car is a good thing. It prevents people from diverting
-lots of wasted resources into making cars that aren't really needed.
-But if each additional car used no resources, it wouldn't be doing any
-good saving the making of these cars. Well, for physical objects, of
-course, like cars, it is always going to take resources to make an
-additional one of them, each additional exemplar.</p>
-
-<p>But for software that's not true. Anybody can make another copy.
-And it's almost trivial to do it. It takes no resources, except a
-tiny bit of electricity. So there's nothing we can save, no resource
-we're going to allocate better by putting this financial disincentive
-on the use of the software. You often find people taking economic,
-the consequences of economic reasoning, based on premises that don't
-apply to software, and trying to transplant them from other areas of
-life where the premises may apply, and the conclusions may be valid.
-They just take the conclusions and assume that they're valid for
-software too, when the argument is based on nothing, in the case of
-software. The premises don't work in that case. It is very important
-to examine how you reach the conclusion, and what premises it depends
-on, to see where it might be valid. So, that's Freedom Two, the
-freedom to help your neighbor.</p>
-
-<p>Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
-publishing an improved version of the software. People used to say to
-me, “If the software's free, then nobody will get paid to work
-on it, so why should anybody work on it?” Well, of course, they
-were confusing the two meanings of free, so their reasoning was based
-on a misunderstanding. But, in any case, that was their theory.
-Today, we can compare that theory with empirical fact, and we find
-that hundreds of people are being paid to write free software, and
-over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers. We get lots of people
-working on free software, for various different motives.</p>
-
-<p>When I first released GNU Emacs — the first piece of the GNU
-system that people actually wanted to use — and when it started
-having users, after a while, I got a message saying, “I think I
-saw a bug in the source code, and here's a fix.” And I got
-another message, “Here's code to add a new feature.” And
-another bug fix. And another new feature. And another, and another,
-and another, until they were pouring in on me so fast that just making
-use of all this help I was getting was a big job. Microsoft doesn't
-have this problem. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>Eventually, people noted this phenomenon. You see, in the 1980's a
-lot of us thought that maybe free software wouldn't be as good as the
-non-free software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay
-people. And, of course, people like me, who value freedom and
-community said, “Well, we'll use the free software
-anyway.” It's worth making a little sacrifice in some mere
-technical convenience to have freedom. But what people began to note,
-around 1990 was that our software was actually better. It was more
-powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary alternatives.</p>
-
-<p>In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific
-measurement of reliability of software. Here's what he did. He took
-several sets of comparable programs that did the same jobs — the
-exact same jobs — in different systems. Because there were
-certain basic Unix-like utilities. And the jobs that they did, we
-know, was all, more or less, imitating the same thing, or they were
-following the POSIX spec, so they were all the same in terms of what
-jobs they did, but they were maintained by different people, written
-separately. The code was different. So they said, OK, we'll take
-these programs and run them with random data, and measure how often
-they crash, or hang. So they measured it, and the most reliable set
-of programs was the GNU programs. All the commercial alternatives
-which were proprietary software were less reliable. So he published
-this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he did the
-same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same result.
-The GNU versions were the most reliable. People — you know
-there are cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system,
-because it's so reliable, and reliability is very important to
-them.</p>
-
-<p>Anyway, there's even a group of people who focus on this particular
-benefit as the reason they give, the main reason they give, why users
-should be permitted to do these various things, and to have these
-freedoms. If you've been listening to me, you've noticed, you've seen
-that I, speaking for the free software movement, I talk about issues
-of ethics, and what kind of a society we want to live in, what makes
-for a good society, as well as practical, material benefits. They're
-both important. That's the free software movement.</p>
-
-<p>That other group of people — which is called the open source
-movement — they only cite the practical benefits. They deny
-that this is an issue of principle. They deny that people are
-entitled to the freedom to share with their neighbor and to see what
-the program's doing and change it if they don't like it. They say,
-however, that it's a useful thing to let people do that. So they go
-to companies and say to them, “You know, you might make more
-money if you let people do this.” So, what you can see is that
-to some extent, they lead people in a similar direction, but for
-totally different, for fundamentally different, philosophical
-reasons.</p>
-
-<p>Because on the deepest issue of all, you know, on the ethical
-question, the two movements disagree. You know, in the free software
-movement we say, “You're entitled to these freedoms. People
-shouldn't stop you from doing these things.” In the open source
-movement, they say, “Yes, they can stop you if you want, but
-we'll try to convince them to deign to let you to do these
-things.” Well, they have contributed — they have convinced
-a certain number of businesses to release substantial pieces of
-software as free software in our community. So they, the open source
-movement, has contributed substantially to our community. And so we
-work together on practical projects. But, philosophically, there's a
-tremendous disagreement.</p>
-
-<p>Unfortunately, the open source movement is the one that gets the
-support of business the most, and so most articles about our work
-describe it as open source, and a lot of people just innocently think
-that we're all part of the open source movement. So that's why I'm
-mentioning this distinction. I want you to be aware that the free
-software movement, which brought our community into existence and
-developed the free operating system, is still here — and that we
-still stand for this ethical philosophy. I want you to know about
-this, so that you won't mislead someone else unknowingly.</p>
-
-<p>But also, so that you can think about where you stand.</p>
-
-<p>You know, which movement you support is up to you. You might agree
-with the free software movements and my views. You might agree with
-the open source movement. You might disagree with them both. You
-decide where you stand on these political issues.</p>
-
-<p>But if you agree with the free software movement — if you see
-that there's an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled
-and directed by this decision deserve a say in it — then I hope
-you'll say that you agree with the free software movement, and one way
-you can do that is by using the term free software and just helping
-people know we exist.</p>
-
-<p>So, Freedom Three is very important both practically and
-psycho-socially. If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical
-material harm, because this community development doesn't happen, and
-we don't make powerful, reliable software. But it also causes
-psycho-social harm, which affects the spirit of scientific cooperation
-— the idea that we're working together to advance human
-knowledge. You see, progress in science crucially depends on people
-being able to work together. And nowadays though, you often find each
-little group of scientists acting like it's a war with each other gang
-of scientists and engineers. And if they don't share with each other,
-they're all held back.</p>
-
-<p>So, those are the three freedoms that distinguish free software
-from typical software. Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself,
-making changes to suit your own needs. Freedom Two is the freedom to
-help your neighbor by distributing copies. And Freedom Three is the
-freedom to help build your community by making changes and publishing
-them for other people to use. If you have all of these freedoms, the
-program is free software for you. Now, why do I define it that way in
-terms of a particular user? Is it free software for
-you? <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> Is it free software
for
-you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Is it free
-software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i>
-Yes?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you explain a bit about the
-difference between Freedom Two and Three?
<i>[inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, they certainly relate,
because if
-you don't have freedom to redistribute at all, you certainly don't
-have freedom to distribute a modified version, but they're different
-activities.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Oh.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Freedom Two is, you know, read
it, you
-make an exact copy, and hand it to your friends, so now your friend
-can use it. Or maybe you make exact copies and you sell them to a
-bunch of people, and then they can use it.</p>
-
-<p>Freedom Three is where you make improvements — or at least
-you think they're improvements, and some other people may agree with
-you. So that's the difference. Oh, and by the way, one crucial
-point. Freedoms One and Three depend on your having access to the
-source code. Because changing a binary-only program is extremely
-hard. <i>[Laughter]</i> Even trivial changes like using four
digits
-for the date, <i>[Laughter]</i> if you don't have source. So, for
-compelling, practical reasons, access to the source code is a
-precondition, a requirement, for free software.</p>
-
-<p>So, why do I define it in terms of whether it's free software for
-<em>you</em>? The reason is that sometimes the same program can be
-free software for some people, and non-free for others. Now, that
-might seem like a paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example
-to show you how it happens. A very big example — maybe the
-biggest ever — of this problem was the X Window System which was
-developed at MIT and released under a license that made it free
-software. If you got the MIT version with the MIT license, you had
-Freedoms One, Two, and Three. It was free software for you. But
-among those who got copies were various computer manufacturers that
-distributed Unix systems, and they made the necessary changes in X to
-run on their systems. You know, probably just a few thousand lines
-out of the hundreds of thousands of lines of X. And, then they
-compiled it, and they put the binaries into their Unix system and
-distributed it under the same non-disclosure agreement as the rest of
-the Unix system. And then, millions of people got these copies. They
-had the X Window System, but they had none of these freedoms. It was
-not free software for <em>them</em>.</p>
-
-<p>So, the paradox was that whether X was free software depended on
-where you made the measurement. If you made the measurement coming
-out of the developers' group, you'd say, “I observe all these
-freedoms. It's free software.” If you made the measurements
-among the users you'd say, “Hmm, most users don't have these
-freedoms. It's not free software.” Well, the people who
-developed X didn't consider this a problem, because their goal was
-just popularity, ego, essentially. They wanted a big professional
-success. They wanted to feel, “Ah, lots of people are using our
-software.” And that was true. Lots of people were using their
-software but didn't have freedom.</p>
-
-<p>Well, in the GNU project, if that same thing had happened to GNU
-software, it would have been a failure, because our goal wasn't just
-to be popular; our goal was to give people liberty, and to encourage
-cooperation, to permit people to cooperate. Remember, never force
-anyone to cooperate with any other person, but make sure that
-everybody's allowed to cooperate, everyone has the freedom to do so,
-if he or she wishes. If millions of people were running non-free
-versions of GNU, that wouldn't be success at all. The whole thing
-would have been perverted into nothing like the goal.</p>
-
-<p>So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening. The method I
-came up with is called “copyleft”. It's called copyleft
-because it's sort of like taking copyright and flipping it
-over. <i>[Laughter]</i> Legally, copyleft works based on
copyright.
-We use the existing copyright law, but we use it to achieve a very
-different goal. Here's what we do. We say, “This program is
-copyrighted.” And, of course, by default, that means it's
-prohibited to copy it, or distribute it, or modify it. But then we
-say, “You're authorized to distribute copies of this. You're
-authorized to modify it. You're authorized to distribute modified
-versions and extended versions. Change it any way you
-like.”</p>
-
-<p>But there is a condition. And the condition, of course, is the
-reason why we go to all this trouble, so that we could put the
-condition in. The condition says: Whenever you distribute anything
-that contains any piece of this program, that whole program must be
-distributed under these same terms, no more and no less. So you can
-change the program and distribute a modified version, but when you do,
-the people who get that from you must get the same freedom that you
-got from us. And not just for the parts of it — the excerpts
-that you copied from our program — but also for the other parts
-of that program that they got from you. The whole of that program has
-to be free software for them.</p>
-
-<p>The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become
-inalienable rights — a concept from the Declaration of
-Independence. Rights that we make sure can't be taken away from you.
-And, of course, the specific license that embodies the idea of
-copyleft is the GNU General Public License, a controversial license
-because it actually has the strength to say no to people who would be
-parasites on our community.</p>
-
-<p>There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of
-freedom. And they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done,
-and use it to get a head start in distributing a non-free program and
-tempting people to give up their freedom. And the result would be
-— you know, if we let people do that — that we would be
-developing these free programs, and we'd constantly have to compete
-with improved versions of our own programs. That's no fun.</p>
-
-<p>And, a lot of people also feel — you know, I'm willing to
-volunteer my time to contribute to the community, but why should I
-volunteer my time to contribute to that company's, to improving that
-company's, proprietary program? You know, some people might not even
-think that that's evil, but they want to get paid if they're going to
-do that. I, personally, would rather not do it at all.</p>
-
-<p>But both of these groups of people — both the ones like me
-who say, “I don't want to help that non-free program to get a
-foothold in our community” and the ones that say, “Sure,
-I'd work for them, but then they better pay me” — both of
-us have a good reason to use the GNU General Public License. Because
-that says to that company, “You can't just take my work, and
-distribute it without the freedom.” Whereas, the non-copyleft
-licenses, like the X Windows license, do permit that.</p>
-
-<p>So that is the big division between the two categories of free
-software — license-wise. There are the programs that are
-copylefted so that the license defends the freedom of the software for
-every user. And there are the non-copylefted programs for which
-non-free versions are allowed. Somebody <em>can</em> take those
-programs and strip off the freedom. You may get that program in a
-non-free version.</p>
-
-<p>And that problem exists today. There are still non-free versions
-of X Windows being used on our free operating systems. There is even
-hardware — which is not really supported — except by a
-non-free version of X Windows. And that's a major problem in our
-community. Nonetheless, I wouldn't say that X Windows is a bad thing,
-you know. I'd say that the developers did not do the best possible
-thing that they could have done. But they <em>did</em> release a
lot
-of software that we could all use.</p>
-
-<p>You know, there's a big difference between less than perfect, and
-evil. There are many gradations of good and bad. We have to resist
-the temptation to say, if you didn't do the absolute best possible
-thing, then you're no good. You know, the people that developed X
-Windows made a big contribution to our community. But there's
-something better that they could have done. They could have
-copylefted parts of the program and prevented those freedom-denying
-versions from being distributed by others.</p>
-
-<p>Now, the fact that the GNU General Public License defends your
-freedom, uses copyright law to defend your freedom, is, of course, why
-Microsoft is attacking it today. See, Microsoft would really like to
-be able to take all the code that we wrote and put it into proprietary
-programs, have somebody make some improvements, or even just
-incompatible changes is all they need. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>You know, with Microsoft's marketing clout, they don't need to make
-it better to have their version supplant ours. They just have to make
-it different and incompatible. And then, put it on everybody's
-desktop. So they really don't like the GNU GPL. Because the GNU GPL
-won't let them do that. It doesn't allow “embrace and
-extend”. It says, if you want to share our code in your
-programs, you can. But, you've got to share and share alike. The
-changes that you make we have to be allowed to share. So, it's a
-two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation.</p>
-
-<p>Many companies — even big companies like IBM and HP are
-willing to use our software on this basis. IBM and HP contribute
-substantial improvements to GNU software. And they develop other free
-software. But, Microsoft doesn't want to do that, so they give it out
-that businesses just can't deal with the GPL. Well, if businesses
-don't include IBM, and HP and SUN, then maybe they're
-right. <i>[Laughter]</i> More about that later.</p>
-
-<p>I should finish the historical story. You see, we set out in 1984
-not just to write some free software but to do something much more
-coherent: to develop an operating system that was entirely free
-software. So that meant we had to write piece after piece after
-piece. Of course, we were always looking for shortcuts. The job was
-so big that people said we'd never be able to finish. And, I thought
-that there was at least a chance that we'd finish it but, obviously,
-it's worth looking for shortcuts. So we kept looking around. Is there
-any program that somebody else has written that we could manage to
-adapt, to plug into here, and that way we won't have to write it from
-scratch? For instance, the X Window system. It's true it wasn't
-copylefted, but it was free software, so we could use it.</p>
-
-<p>Now, I had wanted to put a window system into GNU from day one. I
-wrote a couple of window systems at MIT before I started GNU. And so,
-even though Unix had no window system in 1984, I decided that GNU
-would have one. But, we never ended up writing a GNU window system,
-because X came along. And I said, Goody! One big job we don't have
-to do. We'll use X. So I basically said, let's take X, and put it
-into the GNU system. And we'll make the other parts of GNU, you know,
-work with X, when appropriate. And we found other pieces of software
-that had been written by other people, like the text formatter TeX,
-some library code from Berkeley. At that time there was Berkeley
-Unix, but it was not free software. This library code, initially, was
-from a different group at Berkeley, that did research on floating
-point. And, so, we kept, we fit in these pieces.</p>
-
-<p>In October 1985, we founded the Free Software Foundation. So
-please note, the GNU project came first. The Free Software Foundation
-came after, about almost two years after the announcement of the
-Project. And the Free Software Foundation is a tax-exempt charity
-that raises funds to promote the freedom to share and change software.
-And in the 1980's, one of the main things we did with our funds was to
-hire people to write parts of GNU. And essential programs, such as
-the shell and the C library were written this way, as well as parts of
-other programs. The <code>tar</code> program, which is absolutely
-essential, although not exciting at all <i>[Laughter]</i> was
written
-this way. I believe GNU grep was written this way. And so, we're
-approaching our goal.</p>
-
-<p>By 1991, there was just one major piece missing, and that was the
-kernel. Now, why did I put off the kernel? Probably because it
-doesn't really matter what order you do the things in, at least
-technically it doesn't. You've got to do them all anyway. And partly
-because I'd hoped we'd be able to find a start at a kernel somewhere
-else. And we did. We found Mach, which had been developed at
-Carnegie Mellon. And it wasn't the whole kernel; it was the bottom
-half of the kernel. So we had to write the top half, but I figured,
-you know, things like the file system, the network code, and so on.
-But running on top of Mach they're running essentially as user
-programs, which ought to make them easier to debug. You can debug
-with a real source-level debugger running at the same time. And so, I
-thought that way we'd be able to get these, the higher level parts of
-the kernel, done in a short time. It didn't work out that way. These
-asynchronous, multi-threaded processes, sending messages to each other
-turned out to be very hard to debug. And the Mach-based system that
-we were using to bootstrap with had a terrible debugging environment,
-and it was unreliable, and various problems. It took us years and
-years to get the GNU kernel to work.</p>
-
-<p>But, fortunately, our community did not have to wait for the GNU
-kernel. Because in 1991, Linus Torvalds developed another free kernel
-called Linux. And he used the old-fashioned monolithic design and it
-turns out that he got his working much faster than we got ours
-working. So maybe that's one of the mistakes that I made: that design
-decision. Anyway, at first, we didn't know about Linux, because he
-never contacted us to talk about it. Although he did know about the
-GNU Project. But he announced it to other people and other places on
-the net. And so other people then did the work of combining Linux
-with the rest of the GNU system to make a complete free operating
-system. Essentially, to make the GNU plus Linux combination.</p>
-
-<p>But, they didn't realize that's what they were doing. You see,
-they said, We have a kernel — let's look around and see what
-other pieces we can find to put together with the kernel. So, they
-looked around — and lo and behold, everything they needed was
-already available. What good fortune, they said.
<i>[Laughter]</i>
-It's all here. We can find everything we need. Let's just take all
-these different things and put it together, and have a system.</p>
-
-<p>They didn't know that most of what they found was pieces of the GNU
-system. So they didn't realize that they were fitting Linux into the
-gap in the GNU system. They thought they were taking Linux and making
-a system out of Linux. So they called it a Linux system.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>:
<i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can't hear you —
what?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>:
<i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, it's just not —
you know,
-it's provincial.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: But it's more good fortune
then finding
-X and Mach?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. The difference is that
the
-people who developed X and Mach didn't have the goal of making a
-complete free operating system. We're the only ones who had that.
-And, it was our tremendous work that made the system exist. We
-actually did a larger part of the system than any other project. No
-coincidence, because those people — they wrote useful parts of
-the system. But they didn't do it because they wanted the system to
-be finished. They had other reasons.</p>
-
-<p>Now the people who developed X — they thought that designing
-across the network window system would be a good project, and it was.
-And it turned out to help us make a good free operating system. But
-that's not what they hoped for. They didn't even think about that.
-It was an accident. An accidental benefit. Now, I'm not saying that
-what they did was bad. They did a large free software project.
-That's a good thing to do. But they didn't have that ultimate vision.
-The GNU Project is where that vision was.</p>
-
-<p>And, so, we were the ones whose — every little piece that
-didn't get done by somebody else, we did it. Because we knew that we
-wouldn't have a complete system without it. And even if it was
-totally boring and unromantic, like <code>tar</code>
-or <code>mv</code>. <i>[Laughter]</i> We did it. Or
ld, you know
-there's nothing very exciting in <code>ld</code> — but I
wrote
-one. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I did make efforts to have it do a
minimal
-amount of disk I/O so that it would be faster and handle bigger
-programs. But, you know, I like to do a good job. I like to improve
-various things about the program while I'm doing it. But the reason
-that I did it wasn't that I had brilliant ideas for a
-better <code>ld</code>. The reason I did it is that we needed one
-that was free. And we couldn't expect anyone else to do it. So, we
-had to do it, or find someone to do it.</p>
-
-<p>So, although at this point thousands of people in projects have
-contributed to this system, there is one project which is the reason
-that this system exists, and that's the GNU Project. It
<em>is</em>
-basically the GNU System, with other things added since then.</p>
-
-<p>So, however, the practice of calling the system Linux has been a
-great blow to the GNU Project, because we don't normally get credit
-for what we've done. I think Linux, the kernel, is a very useful
-piece of free software, and I have only good things to say about it.
-But, well, actually, I can find a few bad things to say about
-it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, basically, I have good things to say
about
-it. However, the practice of calling the GNU system, Linux, is just a
-mistake. I'd like to ask you please to make the small effort
-necessary to call the system GNU/Linux, and that way to help us get a
-share of the credit.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You need a mascot! Get
yourself a
-stuffed animal! <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have one.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You do?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have an animal — a
-gnu. <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway. So, yes, when you draw a penguin,
-draw a gnu next to it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, let's save the
-questions for the end. I have more to go through.</p>
-
-<p>So, why am I so concerned about this? You know, why do I think it
-is worth bothering you and perhaps giving you a, perhaps lowering your
-opinion of me, <i>[Laughter]</i> to raise this issue of credit?
-Because, you know, some people when I do this, some people think that
-it's because I want my ego to be fed, right? Of course, I'm not
-saying — I'm not asking you to call it “Stallmanix,”
-right? <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p>
-
-<p>I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to
-get credit. And there's a very specific reason for that, which is a
-lot more important than anybody getting credit, in and of itself. You
-see, these days, if you look around in our community most of the
-people talking about it and writing about it don't ever mention GNU,
-and they don't ever mention these goals of freedom — these
-political and social ideals, either. Because the place they come from
-is GNU.</p>
-
-<p>The ideas associated with Linux — the philosophy is very
-different. It is basically the apolitical philosophy of Linus
-Torvalds. So, when people think that the whole system is Linux, they
-tend to think: “Oh, it must have been all started by Linux
-Torvalds. His philosophy must be the one that we should look at
-carefully”. And when they hear about the GNU philosophy, they
-say: “Boy, this is so idealistic, this must be awfully
-impractical. I'm a Linux-user, not a
-GNU-user.” <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>What irony! If they only knew! If they knew that the system they
-liked — or, in some cases, love and go wild over — is our
-idealistic, political philosophy made real.</p>
-
-<p>They still wouldn't have to agree with us. But at least they'd see
-a reason to take it seriously, to think about it carefully, to give it
-a chance. They would see how it relates to their lives. You know, if
-they realized, “I'm using the GNU system. Here's the GNU
-philosophy. This philosophy is <em>why</em> this system that I
like
-very much exists,” they'd at least consider it with a much more
-open mind. It doesn't mean that everybody will agree. People think
-different things. That's OK. You know, people should make up their
-own minds. But I want this philosophy to get the benefit of the
-credit for the results it has achieved.</p>
-
-<p>If you look around in our community, you'll find that almost
-everywhere, the institutions are calling the system Linux. You know,
-reporters mostly call it Linux. It's not right, but they do. The
-companies mostly say it that package the system. Oh, and most of
-these reporters, when they write articles, they usually don't look at
-it as a political issue, or social issue. They're usually looking at
-it purely as a business question or what companies are going to
-succeed more or less, which is really a fairly minor question for
-society. And, if you look at the companies that package the GNU/Linux
-system for people to use, well, most of them call it Linux. And they
-<em>all</em> add non-free software to it.</p>
-
-<p>See, the GNU GPL says that if you take code, and some code out of a
-GPL-covered program, and add some more code to make a bigger program,
-that whole program has to be released under the GPL. But you could
-put other separate programs on the same disk (of either kind, hard
-disk, or CD), and they can have other licenses. That's considered
-mere aggregation, and, essentially, just distributing two programs to
-somebody at the same time is not something we have any say over. So,
-in fact, it is not true — sometimes, I wish it were true —
-that if a company uses a GPL-covered program in a product that the
-whole product has to be free software. It's not — it doesn't go
-to that range — that scope. It's the whole program. If there
-are two separate programs that communicate with each other at arm's
-length — like by sending messages to each other — then,
-they're legally separate, in general. So, these companies, by adding
-non-free software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically
-and politically, a very bad idea. They're telling the users,
-“It is OK to use non-free software. We're even putting it on
-this as a bonus.”</p>
-
-<p>If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system,
-most of them have a title like “Linux-something or other”.
-So they're calling the system Linux most of the time. And they're
-filled with ads for non-free software that you could run on top of the
-GNU/Linux system. Now those ads have a common message. They say:
-Non-free Software Is Good For You. It's So Good That You Might Even
-<em>Pay</em> To Get It. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>And they call these things “value-added packages”,
-which makes a statement about their values. They're saying: Value
-practical convenience, not freedom. And, I don't agree with those
-values, so I call them “freedom-subtracted
-packages”. <i>[Laughter]</i> Because if you have installed a
-free operating system, then you now are living in the free world. You
-enjoy the benefits of liberty that we worked for so many years to give
-you. Those packages give you an opportunity to buckle on a chain.</p>
-
-<p>And then if you look at the trade shows — about the use of
-the, dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call
-themselves “Linux” shows. And they're filled with booths
-exhibiting non-free software, essentially putting the seal of approval
-on the non-free software. So, almost everywhere you look in our
-community, the institutions are endorsing the non-free software,
-totalling negating the idea of freedom that GNU was developed for.
-And the only place that people are likely to come across the idea of
-freedom is in connection with GNU, and in connection with free
-software, the term, free software. So this is why I ask you: please
-call the system GNU/Linux. Please make people aware where the system
-came from and why.</p>
-
-<p>Of course, just by using that name, you won't be making an
-explanation of the history. You can type four extra characters and
-write GNU/Linux; you can say two extra syllables. But, GNU/Linux is
-fewer syllables than Windows 2000. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, you're
not
-telling them a lot, but you're preparing them, so that when they hear
-about GNU, and what it's all about, they'll see how that connects to
-them and their lives. And that, indirectly, makes a tremendous
-difference. So please help us.</p>
-
-<p>You'll note that Microsoft called the GPL an “open source
-license”. They don't want people to be thinking in terms of
-freedom as the issue. You'll find that they invite people to think in
-a narrow way, as consumers, and, of course, not even think very
-rationally as consumers, if they're going to choose Microsoft
-products. But they don't want people to think as citizens or
-statesmen. That's inimical to them. At least it's inimical to their
-current business model.</p>
-
-<p>Now, how does free software…well, I can tell you about how
-free software relates to our society. A secondary topic that might be
-of interest to some of you is how free software relates to business.
-Now, in fact, free software is <em>tremendously</em> useful for
-business. After all, most businesses in the advanced countries use
-software. Only a tiny fraction of them develop software.</p>
-
-<p>And free software is tremendously advantageous for any company that
-uses software, because it means that you're in control. Basically,
-free software means the users are in control of what the program does.
-Either individually, if they care enough to be, or, collectively, when
-they care enough to be. Whoever cares enough can exert some
-influence. If you don't care, you don't buy. Then you use what other
-people prefer. But, if you do care, then you have some say. With
-proprietary software, you have essentially no say.</p>
-
-<p>With free software, you can change what you want to change. And it
-doesn't matter that there are no programmers in your company; that's
-fine. You know, if you wanted to move the walls in your building, you
-don't have to be a carpentry company. You just have to be able to go
-find a carpenter and say, “What will you charge to do this
-job?” And if you want to change around the software you use, you
-don't have to be a programming company. You just have to go to a
-programming company and say, “What will you charge to implement
-these features? And when will you have it done?” And if they
-don't do the job, you can go find somebody else.</p>
-
-<p>There's a free market for support. So, any business that cares
-about support will find a tremendous advantage in free software. With
-proprietary software, support is a monopoly, because one company has
-the source code, or maybe a small number of companies that paid a
-gigantic amount of money have the source code, if it's Microsoft's
-shared source program, but, it's very few. And so, there aren't very
-many possible sources of support for you. And that means, that unless
-you're a real giant, they don't care about you. Your company is not
-important enough for them to care if they lose your business, or what
-happens. Once you're using the program, they figure you're locked in
-to getting the support from them, because to switch to a different
-program is a gigantic job. So, you end up with things like paying for
-the privilege of reporting a bug. <i>[Laughter]</i> And once
you've
-paid, they tell you, “Well, OK, we've noted your bug report.
-And in a few months, you can buy an upgrade, and you can see if we've
-fixed it.” <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>Support providers for free software can't get away with that. They
-have to please the customers. Of course, you can get a lot of good
-support gratis. You post your problem on the Internet. You may get
-an answer the next day. But that's not guaranteed, of course. If you
-want to be confident, you better make an arrangement with a company
-and pay them. And this is, of course, one of the ways that free
-software business works.</p>
-
-<p>Another advantage of free software for businesses that use software
-is security and privacy. And this applies to individuals as well, but
-I brought it up in the context of businesses. You see, when a program
-is proprietary, you can't even tell what it really does.</p>
-
-<p>It could have features, deliberately put in that you wouldn't like
-if you knew about them, like it might have a backdoor to let the
-developer get into your machine. It might snoop on what you do and
-send information back. This is not unusual. Some Microsoft software
-did this. But it's not only Microsoft. There are other proprietary
-programs that snoop on the user. And you can't even tell if it does
-this. And, of course, even assuming that the developer's totally
-honest, every programmer makes mistakes. There could be bugs that
-affect your security which are nobody's fault. But the point is: If
-it's not free software, you can't find them. And you can't fix
-them.</p>
-
-<p>Nobody has the time to check the source of every program he runs.
-You're not going to do that. But with free software there's a large
-community, and there are people in that community who are checking
-things. And you get the benefit of their checking, because if there's
-an accidental bug, there surely are, from time to time, in any
-program, they might find it and fix it. And people are much less
-likely to put in a deliberate Trojan horse, or a snooping feature, if
-they think they might get caught. The proprietary software developers
-figure they won't get caught. They'll get away with it undetected.
-But a free software developer has to figure that people will look at
-that and see it's there. So, in our community, we don't feel we can
-get away with ramming a feature down the users' throats that the users
-wouldn't like. So we know that if the users don't like it, they'll
-make a modified version which doesn't have it. And then, they'll all
-start using that version.</p>
-
-<p>In fact, we can all reason enough, we can all figure this out
-enough steps ahead, that we probably won't put in that feature. After
-all, you're writing a free program; you want people to like your
-version; you don't want to put in a thing that you know a lot of
-people are going to hate, and have another modified version catch on
-instead of yours. So you just realize that the user is king in the
-world of free software. In the world of proprietary software, the
-customer is <em>not</em> king. Because you are only a customer.
You
-have no say in the software you use.</p>
-
-<p>In this respect, free software is a new mechanism for democracy to
-operate. Professor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions
-as a kind of law. Whoever gets to write the code that just about
-everybody uses for all intents and purposes is writing the laws that
-run people's lives. With free software, these laws get written in a
-democratic way. Not the classical form of democracy — we don't
-have a big election and say, “Everybody vote which way should
-this feature be done.” <i>[Laughter]</i> Instead we say,
-basically, those of you who want to work on implementing the feature
-this way, do it. And if you want to work on implementing the feature
-that way, do it. And, it gets done one way or the other, you know?
-And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done this way.
-So, in this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by
-simply taking steps in the direction that he wants to go.</p>
-
-<p>And you're free to take as many steps, personally, as you want to
-take. A business is free to commission as many steps as they find
-useful to take. And, after you add all these things up, that says
-which direction the software goes.</p>
-
-<p>And it's often very useful to be able to take pieces out of some
-existing program, presumably usually large pieces, of course, and then
-write a certain amount of code of your own, and make a program that
-does exactly what you need, which would have cost you an arm and a leg
-to develop, if you had to write it all from scratch, if you couldn't
-cannibalize large pieces from some existing free software package.</p>
-
-<p>Another thing that results from the fact that the user is king is
-that we tend to be very good about compatibility and standardization.
-Why? Because users like that. Users are likely to reject a program
-that has gratuitous incompatibilities in it. Now, sometimes there's a
-certain group of users which actually have a need for a certain kind
-of incompatibility, and then they'll have it. That's OK. But when
-users want is to follow a standard, we developers have to follow it,
-and we know that. And we do it. By contrast, if you look at
-proprietary software developers, they often find it advantageous to
-deliberately <em>not</em> follow a standard, and not because they
-think that they're giving the user an advantage that way, but rather
-because they're imposing on the user, locking the user in. And you'll
-even find them making changes in their file formats from time to time,
-just to force people to get the newest version.</p>
-
-<p>Archivists are finding a problem now, that files written on
-computers ten years ago often can't be accessed; they were written
-with proprietary software that's essentially lost now. If it were
-written with free software, then it could be brought up-to-date and
-run. And those things would not, those records would not be lost,
-would not be inaccessible. They were even complaining about this on
-NPR recently in citing free software as a solution. And so, in
-effect, by using a non-free program to store your own data, you are
-putting your head in a noose.</p>
-
-<p>So, I've talked about how free software affects most business. But
-how does it affect that particular narrow area which is software
-business? Well, the answer is mostly not at all. And the reason is
-that 90% of the software industry, from what I'm told, is development
-of custom software, software that's not meant to be released at all.
-For custom software, this issue, or the ethical issue of free or
-proprietary, doesn't arise. You see, the issue is, are you users free
-to change, and redistribute, the software? If there's only one user,
-and that user owns the rights, there's no problem. That
-user <em>is</em> free to do all these things. So, in effect, any
-<em>custom</em> program that was developed by one company for use
-in-house is free software, as long as they have the sense to insist on
-getting the source code and all the rights.</p>
-
-<p>And the issue doesn't really arise for software that goes in a
-watch or a microwave oven or an automobile ignition system. Because
-those are places where you don't download software to install. It's
-not a real computer, as far as the user is concerned. And so, it
-doesn't raise these issues enough for them to be ethically important.
-So, for the most part, the software industry will go along, just as
-it's been going. And the interesting thing is that since such a large
-fraction of the jobs are in that part of the industry, even if there
-were no possibilities for free software business, the developers of
-free software could all get day jobs writing custom
-software. <i>[Laughter]</i> There's so many; the ratio is so
big.</p>
-
-<p>But, as it happens, there is free software business. There are
-free software companies, and at the press conference that I'm going to
-have, people from a couple of them will join us. And, of course,
-there are also companies which are <em>not</em> free software
-businesses but do develop useful pieces of free software to release,
-and the free software that they produce is substantial.</p>
-
-<p>Now, how do free software businesses work? Well, some of them sell
-copies. You know, you're free to copy it but they can still sell
-thousands of copies a month. And others sell support and various
-kinds of services. I, personally, for the second half of the '80's, I
-sold free software support services. Basically I said, for $200 an
-hour, I'll change whatever you want me to change in GNU software that
-I'd written. And, yes, it was a stiff rate, but if it was a program
-that I was the author of, people would figure that I might get the job
-done in a lot fewer hours. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I made a living
that
-way. In fact, I'd made more than I'd ever made before. I also taught
-classes. And I kept doing that until 1990, when I got a big prize and
-I didn't have to do it any more.</p>
-
-<p>But, 1990 was when the first corporation free software business was
-formed, which was Cygnus Support. And their business was to do,
-essentially, the same kind of thing that I'd been doing. I certainly
-could have worked for them, if I had needed to do that. Since I
-didn't need to, I felt it was good for the movement if I remained
-independent of any one company. That way, I could say good and bad
-things about the various free software and non-free software
-companies, without a conflict of interest. I felt that I could serve
-the movement more. But, if I had needed that to make a living, sure,
-I would have worked for them. It's an ethical business to be in. No
-reason I would have felt ashamed to take a job with them. And that
-company was profitable in its first year. It was formed with very
-little capital, just the money its three founders had. And it kept
-growing every year and being profitable every year until they got
-greedy, and looked for outside investors, and then they messed things
-up. But it was several years of success, before they got greedy.</p>
-
-<p>So, this illustrates one of the exciting things about free
-software. Free software demonstrates that you don't need to raise
-capital to develop free software. I mean, it's useful;
-it <em>can</em> help. You know, if you do raise some capital, you
can
-hire people and have them write a bunch of software. But you can get
-a lot done with a small number of people. And, in fact, the
-tremendous efficiency of the process of developing free software is
-one of the reasons it's important for the world to switch to free
-software. And it also belies what Microsoft says when they say the
-GNU GPL is bad, because it makes it harder for them to raise capital
-to develop non-free software and take our free software and put our
-code into their programs that they won't share with us. Basically, we
-don't need to have them raising capital that way. We'll get the job
-done anyway. We are getting the job done.</p>
-
-<p>People used to say we could never do a complete free operating
-system. Now we've done that and a tremendous amount more. And I
-would say that we're about an order of magnitude away from developing
-all the general purpose published software needs of the world. And
-this is in a world where more than 90% of the users don't use our free
-software yet. This is in a world where, although in certain areas of
-business, you know, more than half of all the web servers in the world
-are running on GNU/Linux with Apache as the web server.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i>
… What did you
-say before, Linux?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I said GNU/Linux.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You did?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, if I'm talking about the
kernel, I
-call it Linux. You know, that's it's name. The kernel was written by
-Linus Torvalds, and we should only call it by the name that he chose,
-out of respect for the author.</p>
-
-<p>Anyway, but in general, in business most users are not using it.
-Most home users are not using our system yet. So, when they are, we
-should automatically get 10 times as many volunteers and 10 times as
-many customers for the free software businesses that there will be.
-And so that will take us that order of magnitude. So at this point, I
-am pretty confident that we <em>can</em> do the job.</p>
-
-<p>And, this is important, because Microsoft asks us to feel
-desperate. They say, The only way you can have software to run, the
-only way you can have innovation, is if you give us power. Let us
-dominate you. Let us control what you can do with the software you're
-running, so that we can squeeze a lot of money out of you, and use a
-certain fraction of that to develop software, and take the rest as
-profit.</p>
-
-<p>Well, you shouldn't ever feel that desperate. You shouldn't ever
-feel so desperate that you give up your freedom. That's very
-dangerous.</p>
-
-<p>Another thing that Microsoft, well, not just Microsoft, people who
-don't support free software generally adopt a value system in which
-the only thing that matters is short-term practical benefits: How much
-money am I going to make this year? What job can I get done today?
-Short-term thinking and narrow thinking. Their assumption is that it
-is ridiculous to imagine that anybody ever might make a sacrifice for
-the sake of freedom.</p>
-
-<p>Yesterday, a lot of people were making speeches about Americans who
-made sacrifices for the freedom of their compatriots. Some of them
-made great sacrifices. They even sacrificed their lives for the kinds
-of freedom that everyone in our country has heard about, at least.
-(At least, in some of the cases; I guess we have to ignore the war in
-Vietnam.)</p>
-
-<p><i>[Editor's note: The day before was “Memorial
Day” in
-the USA. Memorial Day is a day where war heros are
-commemorated.]</i></p>
-
-<p>But, fortunately, to maintain our freedom in using software,
-doesn't call for big sacrifices. Just tiny, little sacrifices are
-enough, like learning a command-line interface, if we don't have a GUI
-interface program yet. Like doing the job in this way, because we
-don't have a free software package to do it that way, yet. Like,
-paying some money to a company that's going to develop a certain free
-software package, so that you can have it in a few years. Various
-little sacrifices that we can all make. And, in the long run, even we
-will have benefited from it. You know, it is really an investment
-more than a sacrifice. We just have to have enough long-term view to
-realize it's good for us to invest in improving our society, without
-counting the nickels and dimes of who gets how much of the benefit
-from that investment.</p>
-
-<p>So, at this point, I'm essentially done.</p>
-
-<p>I'd like to mention that there's a new approach to free software
-business being proposed by Tony Stanco, which he calls “Free
-Developers”, which involves a certain business structure which
-hopes eventually to pay out a certain share of the profits to every,
-to all the authors of the free software who've joined the
-organization. And they're looking at the prospects of getting me some
-rather large government software development contracts in India now,
-because they're going to be using free software as the basis, having
-tremendous cost savings that way.</p>
-
-<p>And so now I guess that I should ask for questions.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>:
<i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Could you speak up a bit
louder please?
-I can't really hear you.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: How could a company like
Microsoft
-include a free software contract?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually, Microsoft is
planning to
-shift a lot of its activity into services. And what they're planning
-to do is something dirty and dangerous, which is tie the services to
-the programs, one to the next, in a sort of zigzag, you know? So that
-to use this service, you've got to be using this Microsoft program,
-which is going to mean you need to use this service, to this Microsoft
-program, so it's all tied together. That's their plan.</p>
-
-<p>Now, the interesting thing is that selling those services doesn't
-raise the ethical issue of free software or non-free software. It
-might be perfectly fine for them to have the business for those
-businesses selling those services over the net to exist. However,
-what Microsoft is planning to do is to use them to achieve an even
-greater lock, an even greater monopoly, on the software and the
-services, and this was described in an article, I believe in Business
-Week, recently. And, other people said that it is turning the net
-into the Microsoft Company Town.</p>
-
-<p>And this is relevant because, you know, the trial court in the
-Microsoft antitrust trial recommended breaking up the company,
-Microsoft. But in a way, that makes no sense — it wouldn't do
-any good at all — into the operating part and the applications
-part.</p>
-
-<p>But having seen that article, I now see a useful, effective way to
-split up Microsoft into the services part and the software part, to
-require them to deal with each other only at arm's length, that the
-services must publish their interfaces, so that anybody can write a
-client to talk to those services, and, I guess, that they have to pay
-to get the service. Well, that's OK. That's a totally different
-issue.</p>
-
-<p>If Microsoft is split up in this way […] services and
-software, they will not be able to use their software to crush
-competition with Microsoft services. And they won't be able to use
-the services to crush competition with Microsoft software. And we
-will be able to make the free software, and maybe you people will use
-it to talk to Microsoft services, and we won't mind.</p>
-
-<p>Because, after all, although Microsoft is the proprietary software
-company that has subjugated the most people — the others have
-subjugated fewer people, it's not for want of
-trying. <i>[Laughter]</i> They just haven't succeeded in
subjugating
-as many people. So, the problem is not Microsoft and only Microsoft.
-Microsoft is just the biggest example of the problem we're trying to
-solve, which is proprietary software taking away users' freedom to
-cooperate and form an ethical society. So we shouldn't focus too much
-on Microsoft, you know, even though they did give me the opportunity
-for this platform. That doesn't make them all-important. They're not
-the be-all and end-all.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Earlier, you were discussing
the
-philosophical differences between open source software and free
-software. How do you feel about the current trend of GNU/Linux
-distributions as they head towards supporting only Intel platforms?
-And the fact that it seems that less and less programmers are
-programming correctly, and making software that will compile anywhere?
-And making software that simply works on Intel systems?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I don't see an ethical issue
there.
-Although, in fact, companies that make computers sometimes port the
-GNU/Linux system to it. HP apparently did this recently. And, they
-didn't bother paying for a port of Windows, because that would have
-cost too much. But getting GNU/Linux supported was, I think, five
-engineers for a few months. It was easily doable.</p>
-
-<p>Now, of course, I encourage people to use
<code>autoconf</code>,
-which is a GNU package that makes it easier to make your programs
-portable. I encourage them to do that. Or when somebody else fixes
-the bug that it didn't compile on that version of the system, and
-sends it to you, you should put it in. But I don't see that as an
-ethical issue.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Two comments. One is:
Recently, you
-spoke at MIT. I read the transcript. And someone asked about
-patents, and you said that “patents are a totally different
-issue. I have no comments on that.”</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I actually have a lot
to say
-about patents, but it takes an hour. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I wanted to say this: It seems
to me
-that there is an issue. I mean, there is a reason that companies call
-both patents and copyrights things like hard property in trying to get
-this concept which is, if they want to use the power of the State to
-create a course of monopoly for themselves. And so, what's common
-about these things is not that they revolve around the same issues,
-but that motivation is not really the public service issues but the
-motivation of companies to get a monopoly for their private
-interests.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I understand. But, well, I
want to
-respond because there's not too much time. So I'd like to respond to
-that.</p>
-
-<p>You're right that that's what they want. But there's another
-reason why they want to use the term intellectual property. It's that
-they don't want to encourage people to think carefully about copyright
-issues or patent issues. Because copyright law and patent law are
-totally different, and the effects of software copyrighted and
-software patents are totally different.</p>
-
-<p>Software patents are a restriction on programmers, prohibiting them
-from writing certain kinds of programs, whereas copyright doesn't do
-that. With copyright, at least if you wrote it yourself, you're
-allowed to distribute it. So, it's tremendously important to separate
-these issues.</p>
-
-<p>They have a little bit in common, at a very low level, and
-everything else is different. So, please, to encourage clear
-thinking, discuss copyright or discuss patents. But don't discuss
-intellectual property. I don't have an opinion on intellectual
-property. I have opinions on copyrights and patents and software.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You mentioned at the beginning
that a
-functional language, like recipes, are computer programs. There's a
-cross a little bit different than other kinds of language created on.
-This is also causing a problem in the DVD case.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: The issues are partly similar
but partly
-different, for things that are not functional in nature. Part of the
-issue transfers but not all of it. Unfortunately, that's another hour
-speech. I don't have time to go into it. But I would say that all
-functional works ought to be free in the same sense as software. You
-know, textbooks, manuals, dictionaries, and recipes, and so on.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I was just wondering on online
-music. There are similarities and differences created all through.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I'd say that the
minimum freedom
-that we should have for any kind of published information is the
-freedom to non-commercially redistribute it, verbatim. For functional
-works, we need the freedom to commercially publish a modified version,
-because that's tremendously useful to society. For non-functional
-works, you know, things that are to entertain, or to be aesthetic, or
-to state a certain person's views, you know, perhaps they shouldn't be
-modified. And, perhaps that means that it's OK, to have copyright
-covering all commercial distribution of them.</p>
-
-<p>Please remember that according to the U.S. Constitution, the
-purpose of copyright is to benefit the public. It is to modify the
-behavior of certain private parties, so that they will publish more
-books. And the benefit of this is that society gets to discuss issues
-and learn. And, you know, we have literature. We have scientific
-works. The purpose is encourage that. Copyrights do not exist for
-the sake of authors, let alone for the sake of publishers. They exist
-for the sake of readers and all those who benefit from the
-communication of information that happens when people write and others
-read. And that goal I agree with.</p>
-
-<p>But in the age of the computer networks, the method is no longer
-tenable, because it now requires draconian laws that invade
-everybody's privacy and terrorize everyone. You know, years in prison
-for sharing with your neighbor. It wasn't like that in the age of the
-printing press. Then copyright was an industrial regulation. It
-restricted publishers. Now, it's a restriction imposed by the
-publishers on the public. So, the power relationship is turned around
-180 degrees, even if it's the same law.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: So you can have the same thing
—
-but like in making music from other music?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. That is an interesting
-…</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: And unique, new works, you
know, it's
-still a lot of cooperation.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: It is. And I think that
probably
-requires some kind of fair use concept. Certainly making a few
-seconds of sample and using that in making some musical work,
-obviously that should be fair use. Even the standard idea of fair use
-includes that, if you think about it. Whether courts agree, I'm not
-sure, but they should. That wouldn't be a real change in the system
-as it has existed.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: What do you think about
publishing
-public information in proprietary formats?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, it shouldn't be. I mean,
the
-government should never require citizens to use a non-free program to
-access, to communicate with the government in any way, in either
-direction.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I have been, what I will now
say, a
-GNU/Linux user…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Thank you.
<i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: …for the past four
years. The one
-thing that has been problematical for me and is something that is
-essential, I think, to all of us, is browsing the web.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: One thing that has been
decidedly a
-weakness in using a GNU/Linux system has been browsing the web,
-because the prevailing tool for that, Netscape…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: …is not free
software.</p>
-
-<p>Let me respond to this. I want to get to the point, for the sake
-of getting in more. So, yes. There has been a terrible tendency for
-people to use Netscape Navigator on their GNU/Linux systems. And, in
-fact all the commercially packaged systems come with it. So this is
-an ironic situation: we worked so hard to make a free operating
-system, and now, if you go to the store, and you can find versions of
-GNU/Linux there, most of them are called Linux, and they're not free.
-Oh, well, part of them is. But then, there's Netscape Navigator, and
-maybe other non-free programs as well. So, it's very hard to actually
-find a free system, unless you know what you're doing. Or, of course,
-you can not install Netscape Navigator.</p>
-
-<p>Now, in fact, there have been free web browsers for many years.
-There is a free web browser that I used to use called Lynx. It's a
-free web browser that is non-graphical; it's text-only. This has a
-tremendous advantage, in you don't see the ads. <i>[Laughter]
-[Applause]</i></p>
-
-<p>But anyway, there is a free graphical project called Mozilla, which
-is now getting to the point where you can use it. And I occasionally
-use it.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 has been very
good.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, OK. So that's another free
-graphical browser. So, we're finally solving that problem, I
-guess.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk to me about that
-philosophical/ethical division between free software and open source?
-Do you feel that those are irreconcilable? …</p>
-
-<p><i>[Recording switches tapes; end of question and start of
answer
-is missing]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: … to a freedom, and
ethics. Or
-whether you just say, Well, I hope that you companies will decide it's
-more profitable to let us be allowed to do these things.</p>
-
-<p>But, as I said, in a lot of practical work, it doesn't really
-matter what a person's politics are. When a person offers to help the
-GNU project, we don't say: “You have to agree with our
-politics.” We say that in a GNU package, you've got to call the
-system GNU/Linux, and you've got to call it free software. What you
-say when you're not speaking to the GNU Project, that's up to you.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: The company, IBM, started a
campaign for
-government agencies, to sell their big new machines, that they used
-Linux as selling point, and say Linux.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, of course, it's really the
-GNU/Linux systems. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: That's right! Well, tell the
top sales
-person. He doesn't know anything for GNU.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I have to tell who?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: The top sales person.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh yes. The problem is that
they've
-already carefully decided what they want to say for reasons of their
-advantage. And the issue of what is a more accurate, or fair, or
-correct way to describe it is not the primary issue that matters to a
-company like that. Now, some small companies, yes, there'll be a
-boss. And if the boss is inclined to think about things like that, he
-might make a decision that way. Not a giant corporation though. It's
-a shame, you know.</p>
-
-<p>There's another more important and more substantive issue about
-what IBM is doing. They're saying that they're putting a billion
-dollars into “Linux”. But perhaps, I should also put
-quotes around “into”, as well, because some of that money
-is paying people to develop free software. That really is a
-contribution to our community. But other parts is paying to pay
-people to write proprietary software, or port proprietary software to
-run on top of GNU/Linux, and that is <em>not</em> a contribution to
-our community. But IBM is lumping that altogether into this. Some of
-it might be advertising, which is partly a contribution, even if it's
-partly wrong. So, it's a complicated situation. Some of what they're
-doing is contribution and some is not. And some is sort is somewhat,
-but not exactly. And you can't just lump it altogether and think,
-Wow! Whee! A billion dollars from IBM. <i>[Laughter]</i> That's
-oversimplification.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk a little bit more
about the
-thinking that went into the general public license?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, here's the — I'm
sorry, I'm
-answering his question now. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Do you want to reserve some
time for
-the press conference? Or do you want to continue here?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Who is here for the press
conference?
-Not a lot of press. Oh, three — OK. Can you afford if we
-— if I go on answering everybody's questions for another ten
-minutes or so? OK. So, we'll go on answering everybody's
-questions.</p>
-
-<p>So, the thinking that went into the GNU GPL? Part of it was that I
-wanted to protect the freedom of the community against the phenomena
-that I just described with X Windows, which has happened with other
-free programs as well. In fact, when I was thinking about this issue,
-X Windows was not yet released. But I had seen this problem happen in
-other free programs. For instance, TeX. I wanted to make sure that
-the users would all have freedom. Otherwise, I realized that I might
-write a program, and maybe a lot of people would use the program, but
-they wouldn't have freedom. And what's the point of that?</p>
-
-<p>But the other issue I was thinking about was, I wanted to give the
-community a feeling that it was not a doormat, a feeling that it was
-not prey to any parasite who would wander along. If you don't use
-copyleft, you are essentially saying: <i>[speaking meekly]</i>
-“Take my code. Do what you want. I don't say no.” So,
-anybody can come along and say: <i>[speaking very firmly]</i>
-“Ah, I want to make a non-free version of this. I'll just take
-it.” And, then, of course, they probably make some improvements,
-those non-free versions might appeal to users, and replace the free
-versions. And then, what have you accomplished? You've only made a
-donation to some proprietary software project.</p>
-
-<p>And when people see that that's happening, when people see, other
-people take what I do, and they don't ever give back, it can be
-demoralizing. And, this is not just speculation. I had seen that
-happen. That was part of what happened to wipe out the old community
-that I belonged to the '70's. Some people started becoming
-uncooperative. And we assumed that they were profiting thereby. They
-certainly acted as if they thought they were profiting. And we
-realized that they can just take off cooperation and not give back.
-And there was nothing we could do about it. It was very discouraging.
-We, those of us who didn't like the trend, even had a discussion and
-we couldn't come up with any idea for how we could stop it.</p>
-
-<p>So, the GPL is designed to stop that. And it says, Yes, you are
-welcome to join the community and use this code. You can use it to do
-all sorts of jobs. But, if you release a modified version, you've got
-to release that to our community, as part of our community, as part of
-the free world.</p>
-
-<p>So, in fact, there are still many ways that people can get the
-benefit of our work and not contribute, like you don't have to write
-any software. Lots of people use GNU/Linux and don't write any
-software. There's no requirement that you've got to do anything for
-us. But if you do a certain kind of thing, you've got to contribute
-to it. So what that means is that our community is not a doormat.
-And I think that that helped give people the strength to feel, Yes, we
-won't just be trampled underfoot by everybody. We'll stand up to
-this.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Yes, my question was,
considering free
-but not copylefted software, since anybody can pick it up and make it
-proprietary, is it not possible also for someone to pick it up and
-make some changes and release the whole thing under the GPL?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, it is possible.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Then, that would make all
future copies
-then be GPL'ed.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: From that branch. But here's
why we
-don't do that.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Hmm?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Here's why we don't generally
do that.
-Let me explain.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: OK, yes.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We could, if we wanted to,
take X
-Windows, and make a GPL-covered copy and make changes in that. But
-there's a much larger group of people working on improving X Windows
-and <em>not</em> GPL-ing it. So, if we did that, we would be
forking
-from them. And that's not very nice treatment of them. And, they
-<em>are</em> a part of our community, contributing to our
-community.</p>
-
-<p>Second, it would backfire against us, because they're doing a lot
-more work on X than we would be. So, our version would be inferior to
-theirs, and people wouldn't use it, which means, why go to the trouble
-at all?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Mmm hmm.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: So when a person has written
some
-improvement to X Windows, what I say that person should do is
-cooperate with the X development team. Send it to them and let them
-use it their way. Because they are developing a very important piece
-of free software. It's good for us to cooperate with them.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Except, considering X, in
particular,
-about two years ago, the X Consortium that was far into the non-free
-open source…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually it
<em>wasn't</em> open
-sourced. It wasn't open sourced, either. They may have said it was.
-I can't remember if they said that or not. But it wasn't open
-source. It was restricted. You couldn't commercially distribute, I
-think. Or you couldn't commercially distribute a modified version, or
-something like that. There was a restriction that's considered
-unacceptable by both the Free Software movement and the Open Source
-movement.</p>
-
-<p>And yes, that's what using a non-copyleft license leaves you open
-to. In fact, the X Consortium, they had a very rigid policy. They
-say: If your program if copylefted even a little bit, we won't
-distribute it at all. We won't put it in our distribution.</p>
-
-<p>So, a lot of people were pressured in this way into not
-copylefting. And the result was that all of their software was wide
-open, later on. When the same people who had pressured a developer to
-be too all-permissive, then the X people later said, All right, now we
-can put on restrictions, which wasn't very ethical of them.</p>
-
-<p>But, given the situation, would we really want to scrape up the
-resources to maintain an alternate GPL-covered version of X? And it
-wouldn't make any sense to do that. There are so many other things we
-need to do. Let's do them instead. We can cooperate with the X
-developers.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Do you have a comment, is the
GNU a
-trademark? And is it practical to include it as part of the GNU
-General Public License allowing trademarks?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We are, actually, applying for
trademark
-registration on GNU. But it wouldn't really have anything to do with
-that. It's a long story to explain why.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You could require the
trademark be
-displayed with GPL-covered programs.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: No, I don't think so. The
licenses
-cover individual programs. And when a given program is part of the
-GNU Project, nobody lies about that. The name of the system as a
-whole is a different issue. And this is an aside. It's not worth
-discussing more.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: If there was a button that you
could
-push and force all companies to free their software, would you press
-it?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, I would only use this for
-published software. You know, I think that people have the right to
-write a program privately and use it. And that includes companies.
-This is privacy issue. And it's true, there can be times when it is
-wrong to do that, like if it is tremendously helpful to humanity, and
-you are withholding it from humanity. That is a wrong but that's a
-different kind of wrong. It's a different issue, although it's in the
-same area.</p>
-
-<p>But yes, I think all published software should be free software.
-And remember, when it's not free software, that's because of
-government intervention. The government is intervening to make it
-non-free. The government is creating special legal powers to hand out
-to the owners of the programs, so that they can have the police stop
-us from using the programs in certain ways. So I would certainly like
-to end that. </p>
-
-<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Richard's presentation has
invariably
-generated an enormous amount of intellectual energy. I would suggest
-that some of it should be directed to using, and possibly writing,
-free software.</p>
-
-<p>We should close the proceedings shortly. I want to say that
-Richard has injected into a profession which is known in the general
-public for its terminal apolitical nerditude a level of political and
-moral discussion which is, I think, unprecedented in our profession.
-And we owe him very big for this. I'd like to note to people that
-there is a break.</p>
-
-<p><i>[Applause]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: You are free to leave at any
time, you
-know. <i>[Laughter]</i> I'm not holding you prisoner
here.</p>
-
-<p><i>[Audience adjourns…]</i></p>
-
-<p><i>[overlapping conversations…]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: One final thing. Our website:
-www.gnu.org</p>
-
-</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
-<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
-<div id="footer">
-<div class="unprintable">
-
-<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
-<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></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"><address@hidden></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">
- <address@hidden></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>. -->
-Please see the <a
-href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
-README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
-of this article.</p>
-</div>
-
-<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
- files generated as part of manuals) 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. -->
-
-<p>Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014 Richard M. Stallman</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>
-
-<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
-
-<p class="unprintable">Updated:
-<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2015/02/09 19:27:47 $
-<!-- timestamp end -->
-</p>
-</div>
-</div>
-</body>
-</html>
-</pre></body></html>
Index: events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-en.html
diff -N events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-en.html
--- events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-en.html 20 Feb 2015 17:28:08
-0000 1.44
+++ /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
@@ -1,2127 +0,0 @@
-<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
-<title>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation
-- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
-<!--#include virtual="/events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist" -->
-<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
-<h2>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation</h2>
-
-<blockquote><p>Transcript of
-Richard M. Stallman's speech,
-“Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation”,
-given at New York University in New York, NY,
-on 29 May 2001</p></blockquote>
-
-<div class="announcement">
-<blockquote><p>A <a href="/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt">plain
-text</a> version of this transcript and
-a <a href="/events/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt">summary</a> of the speech
-are also available.</p></blockquote>
-</div>
-
-<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: I'm Mike Uretsky. I'm over at the Stern
-School of Business. I'm also one of the Co-Directors of the Center
-for Advanced Technology. And, on behalf of all of us in the Computer
-Science Department, I want to welcome you here. I want to say a few
-comments, before I turn it over to Ed, who is going to introduce the
-speaker.</p>
-
-<p>The role of a university is a place to foster debate and to have
-interesting discussions. And the role of a major university is to
-have particularly interesting discussions. And this particular
-presentation, this seminar falls right into that mold. I find the
-discussion of open source particularly interesting. In a sense
-… <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I do free software. Open source is a
-different movement. <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: When I first started in the field in the
-'60's, basically software was free. And we went in cycles. It became
-free, and then software manufacturers, in the need to expand their
-markets, pushed it in other directions. A lot of the developments
-that took place with the entry of the PC moved in exactly the same
-kind of a cycle.</p>
-
-<p>There's a very interesting French philosopher, Pierre Levy, who
-talks about movement to this direction and who talks about the move
-into cyberspace as not only relating to technology but also relating
-to social restructuring, to political restructuring, through a change
-in the kinds of relationships that will improve the well-being of
-mankind. And we're hoping that this debate is a movement in that
-direction, that this debate is something that cuts across a lot of the
-disciplines that normally act as solace within the University. We're
-looking forward to some very interesting discussions. Ed?</p>
-
-<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: I'm Ed Schonberg from the Computer
-Science Department at the Courant Institute. Let me welcome you all
-to this event. Introducers are usually, and particularly, a useless
-aspect of public presentations, but in this case, actually, they serve
-a useful purpose, as Mike easily demonstrated, because an introducer
-for instance, told him, by making inaccurate comments, can allow him
-to straighten out and correct and <i>[Laughter]</i> sharpen
-considerably the parameters of the debate.</p>
-
-<p>So, let me make the briefest possible introduction to somebody who
-doesn't need one. Richard is the perfect example of somebody who, by
-acting locally, started thinking globally from problems concerning the
-unavailability of source code for printer drivers at the AI Lab many
-years ago. He has developed a coherent philosophy that has forced all
-of us to re-examine our ideas of how software is produced, of what
-intellectual property means, and what the software community actually
-represents. Let me welcome Richard Stallman. <i>[Applause]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can someone lend me a
-watch? <i>[Laughter]</i> Thank you. So, I'd like to thank Microsoft
-for providing me the opportunity to <i>[Laughter]</i> be on this
-platform. For the past few weeks, I have felt like an author whose
-book was fortuitously banned somewhere. <i>[Laughter]</i> Except that
-all the articles about it are giving the wrong author's name, because
-Microsoft describes the GNU GPL as an open source license, and most of
-the press coverage followed suit. Most people, of course just
-innocently don't realize that our work has nothing to do with open
-source, that in fact we did most of it before people even coined the
-term open source.</p>
-
-<p>We are in the free software movement, and I'm going to speak about
-what the free software movement is about, what it means, what we have
-done, and, because this is partly sponsored by a school of business,
-I'll say some things more than I usually do about how free software
-relates to business, and some other areas of social life.</p>
-
-<p>Now, some of you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps
-you cook. And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably
-use recipes. And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the
-experience of getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing
-it. And you've probably also had the experience — unless you're
-a total neophyte — of changing a recipe. You know, it says
-certain things, but you don't have to do exactly that. You can leave
-out some ingredients. Add some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms.
-Put in less salt because your doctor said you should cut down on salt
-— whatever. You can even make bigger changes according to your
-skill. And if you've made changes in a recipe, and you cook it for
-your friends, and they like it, one of your friends might say,
-“Hey, could I have the recipe?” And then, what do you do?
-You could write down your modified version of the recipe and make a
-copy for your friend. These are the natural things to do with
-functionally useful recipes of any kind.</p>
-
-<p>Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program. A computer
-program's a lot like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to
-get some result that you want. So it's just as natural to do those
-same things with computer programs — hand a copy to your friend.
-Make changes in it because the job it was written to do isn't exactly
-what you want. It did a great job for somebody else, but your job is
-a different job. And after you've changed it, that's likely to be
-useful for other people. Maybe they have a job to do that's like the
-job you do. So they ask, “Hey, can I have a copy?” Of
-course, if you're a nice person, you're going to give a copy. That's
-the way to be a decent person.</p>
-
-<p>So imagine what it would be like if recipes were packaged inside
-black boxes. You couldn't see what ingredients they're using, let
-alone change them, and imagine if you made a copy for a friend, they
-would call you a pirate and try to put you in prison for years. That
-world would create tremendous outrage from all the people who are used
-to sharing recipes. But that is exactly what the world of proprietary
-software is like. A world in which common decency towards other
-people is prohibited or prevented.</p>
-
-<p>Now, why did I notice this? I noticed this because I had the good
-fortune in the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who
-shared software. Now, this community could trace its ancestry
-essentially back to the beginning of computing. In the 1970's,
-though, it was a bit rare for there to be a community where people
-shared software. And, in fact, this was sort of an extreme case,
-because in the lab where I worked, the entire operating system was
-software developed by the people in our community, and we'd share any
-of it with anybody. Anybody was welcome to come and take a look, and
-take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do. There were no
-copyright notices on these programs. Cooperation was our way of life.
-And we were secure in that way of life. We didn't fight for it. We
-didn't have to fight for it. We just lived that way. And, as far as
-we knew, we would just keep on living that way. So there was free
-software, but there was no free software movement.</p>
-
-<p>But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that
-happened to it. Ultimately it was wiped out. Ultimately, the PDP-10
-computer which we used for all our work was discontinued. And you
-know, our system — the Incompatible Timesharing System —
-was written starting in the '60's, so it was written in assembler
-language. That's what you used to write an operating system in the
-'60's. So, of course, assembler language is for one particular
-computer architecture; if that gets discontinued, all your work turns
-into dust — it's useless. And that's what happened to us. The
-20 years or so of work of our community turned into dust.</p>
-
-<p>But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me,
-helped me see what to do, helped prepare me to see what to do when
-this happened, because at certain point, Xerox gave the Artificial
-Intelligence Lab, where I worked, a laser printer, and this was a
-really handsome gift, because it was the first time anybody outside
-Xerox had a laser printer. It was very fast, printed a page a second,
-very fine in many respects, but it was unreliable, because it was
-really a high-speed office copier that had been modified into a
-printer. And, you know, copiers jam, but there's somebody there to
-fix them. The printer jammed and nobody saw. So it stayed jammed for
-a long time.</p>
-
-<p>Well, we had an idea for how to deal with this problem. Change it
-so that whenever the printer gets a jam, the machine that runs the
-printer can tell our timesharing machine, and tell the users who are
-waiting for printouts, or something like that, you know, tell them, go
-fix the printer. Because if they only knew it was jammed, of course,
-if you're waiting for a printout and you know that the printer is
-jammed, you don't want to sit and wait forever, you're going to go fix
-it.</p>
-
-<p>But at that point, we were completely stymied, because the software
-that ran that printer was not free software. It had come with the
-printer, and it was just a binary. We couldn't have the source code;
-Xerox wouldn't let us have the source code. So, despite our skill as
-programmers — after all, we had written our own timesharing
-system — we were completely helpless to add this feature to the
-printer software.</p>
-
-<p>And we just had to suffer with waiting. It would take an hour or
-two to get your printout because the machine would be jammed most of
-the time. And only once in a while — you'd wait an hour
-figuring “I know it's going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and
-go collect my printout,” and then you'd see that it had been
-jammed the whole time, and in fact, nobody else had fixed it. So
-you'd fix it and you'd go wait another half hour. Then, you'd come
-back, and you'd see it jammed again — before it got to your
-output. It would print three minutes and be jammed thirty minutes.
-Frustration up the whazzoo. But the thing that made it worse was
-knowing that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his own
-selfishness, was blocking us, obstructing us from improving the
-software. So, of course, we felt some resentment.</p>
-
-<p>And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a
-copy of that software. So I was visiting there later, so I went to
-his office and I said, “Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of
-the printer source code?” And he said “No, I promised not
-to give you a copy.” <i>[Laughter]</i> I was stunned. I was so
-— I was angry, and I had no idea how I could do justice to it.
-All I could think of was to turn around on my heel and walk out of his
-room. Maybe I slammed the door. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I thought
-about it later on, because I realized that I was seeing not just an
-isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was important and affected
-a lot of people.</p>
-
-<p>This was — for me — I was lucky, I only got a taste of
-it, but other people had to live in this all the time. So I thought
-about it at length. See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with
-us — his colleagues at MIT. He had betrayed us. But he didn't
-just do it to us. Chances are he did it to you too. <i>[Pointing at
-member of audience.]</i> And I think, mostly likely, he did it to you
-too. <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.] [Laughter]</i> And
-he probably did it to you as well. <i>[Pointing to third member of
-audience.]</i> He probably did it to most of the people here in this
-room — except a few, maybe, who weren't born yet in 1980.
-Because he had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about the
-entire population of the Planet Earth. He had signed a non-disclosure
-agreement.</p>
-
-<p>Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure
-agreement, and it taught me an important lesson — a lesson
-that's important because most programmers never learn it. You see,
-this was my first encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was
-the victim. I, and my whole lab, were the victims. And the lesson it
-taught me was that non-disclosure agreements have victims. They're
-not innocent. They're not harmless. Most programmers first encounter
-a non-disclosure agreement when they're invited to sign one. And
-there's always some temptation — some goody they're going to get
-if they sign. So, they make up excuses. They say, “Well, he's
-never going to get a copy no matter what, so why shouldn't I join the
-conspiracy to deprive him?” They say, “This is the way
-it's always done. Who am I to go against it?” They say,
-“If I don't sign this, someone else will.” Various excuses
-to gag their consciences.</p>
-
-<p>But when somebody invited me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, my
-conscience was already sensitized. It remembered how angry I had
-been, when somebody promised not to help me and my whole lab solve our
-problem. And I couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to
-somebody else who had never done me any harm. You know, if somebody
-asked me to promise not to share some useful information with a hated
-enemy, I would have said yes. You know? If somebody's done something
-bad, he deserves it. But, strangers — they haven't done me any
-harm. How could they deserve that kind of mistreatment? You can't
-let yourself start treating just anybody and everybody badly. Then
-you become a predator on society. So I said, “Thank you very
-much for offering me this nice software package. But I can't accept
-it in good conscience, on the conditions you are demanding, so I will
-do without it. Thank you so much.” And so, I have never
-knowingly signed a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful
-technical information such as software.</p>
-
-<p>Now there are other kinds of information which raise different
-ethical issues. For instance, there's personal information. You
-know, if you wanted to talk with me about what was happening between
-you and your boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody —
-you know, I could keep — I could agree to keep that a secret for
-you, because that's not generally useful technical information. At
-least, it's probably not generally useful. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>There is a small chance — and it's a possibility though
-— that you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex
-technique, <i>[Laughter]</i> and I would then feel a moral
-duty <i>[Laughter]</i> to pass it onto the rest of humanity, so that
-everyone could get the benefit of it. So, I'd have to put a proviso
-in that promise, you know? If it's just details about who wants this,
-and who's angry at whom, and things like that — soap opera
-— that I can keep private for you, but something that humanity
-could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't withhold. You see,
-the purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information
-for humanity to help people live their lives better. If we promise to
-withhold that information — if we keep it secret — then we
-are betraying the mission of our field. And this, I decided I
-shouldn't do.</p>
-
-<p>But, meanwhile my community had collapsed, and that was collapsing,
-and that left me in a bad situation. You see, the whole Incompatible
-Timesharing System was obsolete, because the PDP-10 was obsolete, and
-so there was no way that I could continue working as an operating
-system developer the way that I had been doing it. That depended on
-being part of the community using the community software and improving
-it. That no longer was a possibility, and that gave me a moral
-dilemma. What was I going to do? Because the most obvious
-possibility meant to go against that decision I had made. The most
-obvious possibility was to adapt myself to the change in the world.
-To accept that things were different, and that I'd just have to give
-up those principles and start signing non-disclosure agreements for
-proprietary operating systems, and most likely writing proprietary
-software as well. But I realized that that way I could have fun
-coding, and I could make money — especially if I did it other
-than at MIT — but at the end, I'd have to look back at my career
-and say, “I've spent my life building walls to divide
-people,” and I would have been ashamed of my life.</p>
-
-<p>So I looked for another alternative, and there was an obvious one.
-I could leave the software field and do something else. Now I had no
-other special noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a
-waiter. <i>[Laughter]</i> Not at a fancy restaurant; they wouldn't
-hire me, <i>[Laughter]</i> but I could be a waiter somewhere. And
-many programmers, they say to me, “The people who hire
-programmers demand this, this and this. If I don't do those things,
-I'll starve.” It's literally the word they use. Well, you know,
-as a waiter, you're not going to starve. <i>[Laughter]</i> So,
-really, they're in no danger. But — and this is important, you
-see — because sometimes you can justify doing something that
-hurts other people by saying otherwise something worse is going to
-happen to me. You know, if you were <em>really</em> going to starve,
-you'd be justified in writing proprietary software. <i>[Laughter]</i>
-If somebody's pointing a gun at you, then I would say, it's
-forgivable. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, I had found a way that I could
-survive without doing something unethical, so that excuse was not
-available. So I realized, though, that being a waiter would be no fun
-for me, and it would be wasting my skills as an operating system
-developer. It would avoid misusing my skills. Developing proprietary
-software would be misusing my skills. Encouraging other people to
-live in the world of proprietary software would be misusing my skills.
-So it's better to waste them than misuse them, but it's still not
-really good.</p>
-
-<p>So for those reasons, I decided to look for some other alternative.
-What can an operating system developer do that would actually improve
-the situation, make the world a better place? And I realized that an
-operating system developer was exactly what was needed. The problem,
-the dilemma, existed for me and for everyone else because all of the
-available operating systems for modern computers were proprietary.
-The free operating systems were for old, obsolete computers, right?
-So for the modern computers — if you wanted to get a modern
-computer and use it, you were forced into a proprietary operating
-system. So if an operating system developer wrote another operating
-system, and then said, “Everybody come and share this; you're
-welcome to this” — that would give everybody a way out of
-the dilemma, another alternative. So I realized that there was
-something I could do that would solve the problem. I had just the
-right skills to be able to do it. And it was the most useful thing I
-could possibly imagine that I'd be able to do with my life. And it
-was a problem that no one else was trying to solve. It was just sort
-of sitting there, getting worse, and nobody was there but me. So I
-felt, “I'm elected. I have to work on this. If not me,
-who?” So I decided I would develop a free operating system, or
-die trying … of old age, of course. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>So, of course I had to decide what kind of operating system it
-should be. There are some technical design decisions to be made. I
-decided to make the system compatible with Unix for a number of
-reasons. First of all, I had just seen one operating system that I
-really loved become obsolete because it was written for one particular
-kind of computer. I didn't want that to happen again. We needed to
-have a portable system. Well, Unix was a portable system. So if I
-followed the design of Unix, I had a pretty good chance that I could
-make a system that would also be portable and workable. And
-furthermore, why <i>[Tape unclear]</i> be compatible with it in the
-details. The reason is, users hate incompatible changes. If I had
-just designed the system in my favorite way — which I would have
-loved doing, I'm sure — I would have produced something that was
-incompatible. You know, the details would be different. So, if I
-wrote the system, then the users would have said to me, “Well,
-this is very nice, but it's incompatible. It will be too much work to
-switch. We can't afford that much trouble just to use your system
-instead of Unix, so we'll stay with Unix,” they would have
-said.</p>
-
-<p>Now, if I wanted to actually create a community where there would
-be people in it, people using this free system, and enjoying the
-benefits of liberty and cooperation, I had to make a system people
-would use, a system that they would find easy to switch to, that would
-not have an obstacle making it fail at the very beginning. Now,
-making the system upward compatible with Unix actually made all the
-immediate design decisions, because Unix consists of many pieces, and
-they communicate through interfaces that are more or less documented.
-So if you want to be compatible with Unix, you have to replace each
-piece, one by one, with a compatible piece. So the remaining design
-decisions are inside one piece, and they could be made later by
-whoever decides to write that piece. They didn't have to be made at
-the outset.</p>
-
-<p>So all we had to do to start work was find a name for the system.
-Now, we hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program,
-because thinking of people being amused by the name is half the fun of
-writing the program. <i>[Laughter]</i> And we had a tradition of
-recursive acronyms, to say that the program that you're writing is
-similar to some existing program. You can give it a recursive acronym
-name which says: this one's not the other. So, for instance, there
-were many Tico text editors in the '60's and '70's, and they were
-generally called something-or-other Tico. Then one clever hacker
-called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico — the first recursive
-acronym. In 1975, I developed the first Emacs text editor, and there
-were many imitations of Emacs, and a lot of them were called
-something-or-other Emacs, but one was called Fine, for Fine Is Not
-Emacs, and there was Sine, for Sine Is Not Emacs, and Eine for Ina Is
-Not Emacs, and MINCE for Mince Is Not Complete
-Emacs. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was a stripped down imitation. And
-then, Eine was almost completely rewritten, and the new version was
-called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>So I looked for a recursive acronym for Something is not Unix. And
-I tried all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word.
-<i>[Laughter]</i> Hmm, try another way. I made a contraction. That
-way I could have a three-letter acronym, for Something's not Unix.
-And I tried letters, and I came across the word “GNU”
-— the word “GNU” is the funniest word in the English
-language. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was it. Of course, the reason it's
-funny is that according to the dictionary, it's pronounced
-“new”. You see? And so that's why people use it for a
-lot of wordplay. Let me tell you, this is the name of an animal that
-lives in Africa. And the African pronunciation had a click sound in
-it. <i>[Laughter]</i> Maybe still does. And so, the European
-colonists, when they got there, they didn't bother learning to say
-this click sound. So they just left it out, and they wrote a
-“G” which meant “there's another sound that's
-supposed to be here which we are not
-pronouncing.” <i>[Laughter]</i> So, tonight I'm leaving for
-South Africa, and I have begged them, I hope they're going to find
-somebody who can teach me to pronounce click sounds, <i>[Laughter]</i>
-so that I'll know how to pronounce GNU the correct way, when it's the
-animal.</p>
-
-<p>But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is
-“guh-NEW” — pronounce the hard “G”. If
-you talk about the “new” operating system, you'll get
-people very confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years
-now, so it is not new any more. <i>[Laughter]</i> But it still is,
-and always will be, GNU — no matter how many people call it
-Linux by mistake. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces
-of GNU. They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities
-though. And, at the time, I thought we would write all these pieces,
-and make an entire GNU system, and then we'd say, “Come and get
-it”, and people would start to use it. That's not what
-happened. The first pieces I wrote were just equally good
-replacements, with fewer bugs for some pieces of Unix, but they
-weren't tremendously exciting. Nobody particularly wanted to get them
-and install them. But then, in September 1984, I started writing GNU
-Emacs, which was my second implementation of Emacs, and by early 1985,
-it was working. I could use it for all my editing, which was a big
-relief, because I had no intention of learning to use VI, the Unix
-editor. <i>[Laughter]</i> So, until that time, I did my editing on
-some other machine, and saved the files through the network, so that I
-could test them. But when GNU Emacs was running well enough for me to
-use it, it was also — other people wanted to use it too.</p>
-
-<p>So I had to work out the details of distribution. Of course, I put
-a copy in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people
-who were on the net They could then just pull over a tar file, but a
-lot of programmers then even were not on the net in 1985. They were
-sending me emails saying “How can I get a copy?” I had to
-decide what I would answer them. Well, I could have said, I want to
-spend my time writing more GNU software, not writing tapes, so please
-find a friend who's on the internet and who is willing to download it
-and put it on a tape for you. And I'm sure people would have found
-some friends, sooner or later, you know. They would have got copies.
-But I had no job. In fact, I've never had a job since quitting MIT in
-January 1984. So, I was looking for some way I could make money
-through my work on free software, and therefore I started a free
-software business. I announced, “Send me $150 dollars, and I'll
-mail you a tape of Emacs.” And the orders began dribbling in.
-By the middle of the year they were trickling in.</p>
-
-<p>I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month. And, if necessary, I could
-have lived on just that, because I've always lived cheaply. I live
-like a student, basically. And I like that, because it means that
-money is not telling me what to do. I can do what I think is
-important for me to do. It freed me to do what seemed worth doing.
-So make a real effort to avoid getting sucked into all the expensive
-lifestyle habits of typical Americans. Because if you do that, then
-people with the money will dictate what you do with your life. You
-won't be able to do what's really important to you.</p>
-
-<p>So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, “What do you
-mean it's free software if it costs $150
-dollars?” <i>[Laughter]</i> Well, the reason they asked this was
-that they were confused by the multiple meanings of the English word
-“free”. One meaning refers to price, and another meaning
-refers to freedom. When I speak of free software, I'm referring to
-freedom, not price. So think of free speech, not free
-beer. <i>[Laughter]</i> Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many years
-of my life to making sure programmers got less money. That's not my
-goal. I'm a programmer and I don't mind getting money myself. I
-won't dedicate my whole life to getting it, but I don't mind getting
-it. And I'm not — and therefore, ethics is the same for
-everyone. I'm not against some other programmer getting money either.
-I don't want prices to be low. That's not the issue at all. The
-issue is freedom. Freedom for everyone who's using software, whether
-that person be a programmer or not.</p>
-
-<p>So at this point I should give you the definition of free software.
-I better get to some real details, you see, because just saying
-“I believe in freedom” is vacuous. There's so many
-different freedoms you could believe in, and they conflict with each
-other, so the real political question is: Which are the important
-freedoms, the freedoms that we must make sure everybody has?</p>
-
-<p>And now, I will give my answer to that question for the particular
-area of using software. A program is free software for you, a
-particular user, if you have the following freedoms:</p>
-
-<ul>
-<li>First, Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the program for any
-purpose, any way you like.</li>
-<li>Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
-program to suit your needs.</li>
-<li>Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
-copies of the program.</li>
-<li>And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
-publishing an improved version so others can get the benefit of your
-work.</li>
-</ul>
-
-<p>If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software,
-for you — and that's crucial. That's why I phrase it that way.
-I'll explain why later, when I talk about the GNU General Public
-License, but right now I'm explaining what free software means, which
-is a more basic question.</p>
-
-<p>So, Freedom Zero's pretty obvious. If you're not even allowed to
-run the program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive
-program. But as it happens, most programs will at least give you
-Freedom Zero. And Freedom Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of
-Freedoms One, Two, and Three — that's the way that copyright law
-works. So the freedoms that distinguish free software from typical
-software are Freedoms One, Two, and Three, so I'll say more about them
-and why they are important.</p>
-
-<p>Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
-software to suit your needs. This could mean fixing bugs. It could
-mean adding new features. It could mean porting it to a different
-computer system. It could mean translating all the error messages
-into Navajo. Any change you want to make, you should be free to
-make.</p>
-
-<p>Now, it's obvious that professional programmers can make use of
-this freedom very effectively, but not just them. Anybody of
-reasonable intelligence can learn a little programming. You know,
-there are hard jobs, and there are easy jobs, and most people are not
-going to learn enough to do hard jobs. But lots of people can learn
-enough to do easy jobs, just the way, you know, 50 years ago, lots and
-lots of American men learned to repair cars, which is what enabled the
-U.S. to have a motorized army in World War II and win. So, very
-important, having lots of people tinkering.</p>
-
-<p>And if you are a people person, and you really don't want to learn
-technology at all, that probably means that you have a lot of friends,
-and you're good at getting them to owe you favors. <i>[Laughter]</i>
-Some of them are probably programmers. So you can ask one of your
-programmer friends. “Would you please change this for me? Add
-this feature?” So, lots of people can benefit from it.</p>
-
-<p>Now, if you don't have this freedom, it causes practical, material
-harm to society. It makes you a prisoner of your software. I
-explained what that was like with regard to the laser printer. You
-know, it worked badly for us, and we couldn't fix it, because we were
-prisoners of our software.</p>
-
-<p>But it also affects people's morale. You know if the computer is
-constantly frustrating to use, and people are using it, their lives
-are going to be frustrating, and if they're using it in their jobs,
-their jobs are going to be frustrating; they're going to hate their
-jobs. And you know, people protect themselves from frustration by
-deciding not to care. So you end up with people whose attitude is,
-“Well, I showed up for work today. That's all I have to do. If
-I can't make progress, that's not my problem; that's the boss's
-problem.” And when this happens, it's bad for those people, and
-it's bad for society as a whole. That's Freedom One, the freedom to
-help yourself.</p>
-
-<p>Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
-copies of the program. Now, for beings that can think and learn,
-sharing useful knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship. When
-these beings use computers, this act of friendship takes the form of
-sharing software. Friends share with each other. Friends help each
-other. This is the nature of friendship. And, in fact, this spirit
-of goodwill — the spirit of helping your neighbor, voluntarily
-— is society's most important resource. It makes the difference
-between a livable society and a dog-eat-dog jungle. Its importance
-has been recognized by the world's major religions for thousands of
-years, and they explicitly try to encourage this attitude.</p>
-
-<p>When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach
-us this attitude — the spirit of sharing — by having us do
-it. They figured if we did it, we'd learn. So they said, “If
-you bring candy to school, you can't keep it all for yourself; you
-have to share some with the other kids.” Teaching us, the
-society was set up to teach, this spirit of cooperation. And why do
-you have to do that? Because people are not totally cooperative.
-That's one part of human nature, and there are other parts of human
-nature. There are lots of parts of human nature. So, if you want a
-better society, you've got to work to encourage the spirit of sharing.
-You know, it'll never get to be 100%. That's understandable. People
-have to take care of themselves too. But if we make it somewhat
-bigger, we're all better off.</p>
-
-<p>Nowadays, according to the U.S. Government, teachers are supposed
-to do the exact opposite. “Oh, Johnny, you brought software to
-school. Well, don't share it. Oh no. Sharing is wrong. Sharing
-means you're a pirate.”</p>
-
-<p>What do they mean when they say “pirate”? They're
-saying that helping your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking
-a ship. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>What would Buddha or Jesus say about that? Now, take your favorite
-religious leader. I don't know, maybe Manson would have said
-something different. <i>[Laughter]</i> Who knows what L. Ron Hubbard
-would say? But …</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Of course, he's dead. But they don't
-admit that. What?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: So are the others, also
-dead. <i>[Laughter] [Inaudible]</i> Charles Manson's also
-dead. <i>[Laughter]</i> They're dead, Jesus's dead, Buddha's
-dead…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, that's true. <i>[Laughter]</i> So
-I guess, in that regard, L. Ron Hubbard is no worse than the
-others. <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway — <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: L. Ron always used free software —
-it freed him from Zanu. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Anyway, so, I think this is actually the
-most important reason why software should be free: We can't afford to
-pollute society's most important resource. It's true that it's not a
-physical resource like clean air and clean water. It's a
-psycho-social resource, but it's just as real for all that, and it
-makes a tremendous difference to our lives. You see, the actions we
-take influence the thoughts of other people. When we go around
-telling people, “Don't share with each other”, if they
-listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's not a good one.
-That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor.</p>
-
-<p>Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just
-cause this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes
-waste — practical, material harm. If the program has an owner,
-and the owner arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay
-in order to be able to use it, some people are going to say,
-“Never mind, I'll do without it.” And that's waste,
-deliberately inflicted waste. And the interesting thing about
-software, of course, is that fewer users doesn't mean you have to make
-less stuff. You know, if fewer people buy cars, you can make fewer
-cars. There's a saving there. There are resources to be allocated,
-or not allocated, into making cars. So that you can say that having a
-price on a car is a good thing. It prevents people from diverting
-lots of wasted resources into making cars that aren't really needed.
-But if each additional car used no resources, it wouldn't be doing any
-good saving the making of these cars. Well, for physical objects, of
-course, like cars, it is always going to take resources to make an
-additional one of them, each additional exemplar.</p>
-
-<p>But for software that's not true. Anybody can make another copy.
-And it's almost trivial to do it. It takes no resources, except a
-tiny bit of electricity. So there's nothing we can save, no resource
-we're going to allocate better by putting this financial disincentive
-on the use of the software. You often find people taking economic,
-the consequences of economic reasoning, based on premises that don't
-apply to software, and trying to transplant them from other areas of
-life where the premises may apply, and the conclusions may be valid.
-They just take the conclusions and assume that they're valid for
-software too, when the argument is based on nothing, in the case of
-software. The premises don't work in that case. It is very important
-to examine how you reach the conclusion, and what premises it depends
-on, to see where it might be valid. So, that's Freedom Two, the
-freedom to help your neighbor.</p>
-
-<p>Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
-publishing an improved version of the software. People used to say to
-me, “If the software's free, then nobody will get paid to work
-on it, so why should anybody work on it?” Well, of course, they
-were confusing the two meanings of free, so their reasoning was based
-on a misunderstanding. But, in any case, that was their theory.
-Today, we can compare that theory with empirical fact, and we find
-that hundreds of people are being paid to write free software, and
-over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers. We get lots of people
-working on free software, for various different motives.</p>
-
-<p>When I first released GNU Emacs — the first piece of the GNU
-system that people actually wanted to use — and when it started
-having users, after a while, I got a message saying, “I think I
-saw a bug in the source code, and here's a fix.” And I got
-another message, “Here's code to add a new feature.” And
-another bug fix. And another new feature. And another, and another,
-and another, until they were pouring in on me so fast that just making
-use of all this help I was getting was a big job. Microsoft doesn't
-have this problem. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>Eventually, people noted this phenomenon. You see, in the 1980's a
-lot of us thought that maybe free software wouldn't be as good as the
-non-free software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay
-people. And, of course, people like me, who value freedom and
-community said, “Well, we'll use the free software
-anyway.” It's worth making a little sacrifice in some mere
-technical convenience to have freedom. But what people began to note,
-around 1990 was that our software was actually better. It was more
-powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary alternatives.</p>
-
-<p>In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific
-measurement of reliability of software. Here's what he did. He took
-several sets of comparable programs that did the same jobs — the
-exact same jobs — in different systems. Because there were
-certain basic Unix-like utilities. And the jobs that they did, we
-know, was all, more or less, imitating the same thing, or they were
-following the POSIX spec, so they were all the same in terms of what
-jobs they did, but they were maintained by different people, written
-separately. The code was different. So they said, OK, we'll take
-these programs and run them with random data, and measure how often
-they crash, or hang. So they measured it, and the most reliable set
-of programs was the GNU programs. All the commercial alternatives
-which were proprietary software were less reliable. So he published
-this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he did the
-same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same result.
-The GNU versions were the most reliable. People — you know
-there are cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system,
-because it's so reliable, and reliability is very important to
-them.</p>
-
-<p>Anyway, there's even a group of people who focus on this particular
-benefit as the reason they give, the main reason they give, why users
-should be permitted to do these various things, and to have these
-freedoms. If you've been listening to me, you've noticed, you've seen
-that I, speaking for the free software movement, I talk about issues
-of ethics, and what kind of a society we want to live in, what makes
-for a good society, as well as practical, material benefits. They're
-both important. That's the free software movement.</p>
-
-<p>That other group of people — which is called the open source
-movement — they only cite the practical benefits. They deny
-that this is an issue of principle. They deny that people are
-entitled to the freedom to share with their neighbor and to see what
-the program's doing and change it if they don't like it. They say,
-however, that it's a useful thing to let people do that. So they go
-to companies and say to them, “You know, you might make more
-money if you let people do this.” So, what you can see is that
-to some extent, they lead people in a similar direction, but for
-totally different, for fundamentally different, philosophical
-reasons.</p>
-
-<p>Because on the deepest issue of all, you know, on the ethical
-question, the two movements disagree. You know, in the free software
-movement we say, “You're entitled to these freedoms. People
-shouldn't stop you from doing these things.” In the open source
-movement, they say, “Yes, they can stop you if you want, but
-we'll try to convince them to deign to let you to do these
-things.” Well, they have contributed — they have convinced
-a certain number of businesses to release substantial pieces of
-software as free software in our community. So they, the open source
-movement, has contributed substantially to our community. And so we
-work together on practical projects. But, philosophically, there's a
-tremendous disagreement.</p>
-
-<p>Unfortunately, the open source movement is the one that gets the
-support of business the most, and so most articles about our work
-describe it as open source, and a lot of people just innocently think
-that we're all part of the open source movement. So that's why I'm
-mentioning this distinction. I want you to be aware that the free
-software movement, which brought our community into existence and
-developed the free operating system, is still here — and that we
-still stand for this ethical philosophy. I want you to know about
-this, so that you won't mislead someone else unknowingly.</p>
-
-<p>But also, so that you can think about where you stand.</p>
-
-<p>You know, which movement you support is up to you. You might agree
-with the free software movements and my views. You might agree with
-the open source movement. You might disagree with them both. You
-decide where you stand on these political issues.</p>
-
-<p>But if you agree with the free software movement — if you see
-that there's an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled
-and directed by this decision deserve a say in it — then I hope
-you'll say that you agree with the free software movement, and one way
-you can do that is by using the term free software and just helping
-people know we exist.</p>
-
-<p>So, Freedom Three is very important both practically and
-psycho-socially. If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical
-material harm, because this community development doesn't happen, and
-we don't make powerful, reliable software. But it also causes
-psycho-social harm, which affects the spirit of scientific cooperation
-— the idea that we're working together to advance human
-knowledge. You see, progress in science crucially depends on people
-being able to work together. And nowadays though, you often find each
-little group of scientists acting like it's a war with each other gang
-of scientists and engineers. And if they don't share with each other,
-they're all held back.</p>
-
-<p>So, those are the three freedoms that distinguish free software
-from typical software. Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself,
-making changes to suit your own needs. Freedom Two is the freedom to
-help your neighbor by distributing copies. And Freedom Three is the
-freedom to help build your community by making changes and publishing
-them for other people to use. If you have all of these freedoms, the
-program is free software for you. Now, why do I define it that way in
-terms of a particular user? Is it free software for
-you? <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> Is it free software for
-you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Is it free
-software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i>
-Yes?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you explain a bit about the
-difference between Freedom Two and Three? <i>[inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, they certainly relate, because if
-you don't have freedom to redistribute at all, you certainly don't
-have freedom to distribute a modified version, but they're different
-activities.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Oh.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Freedom Two is, you know, read it, you
-make an exact copy, and hand it to your friends, so now your friend
-can use it. Or maybe you make exact copies and you sell them to a
-bunch of people, and then they can use it.</p>
-
-<p>Freedom Three is where you make improvements — or at least
-you think they're improvements, and some other people may agree with
-you. So that's the difference. Oh, and by the way, one crucial
-point. Freedoms One and Three depend on your having access to the
-source code. Because changing a binary-only program is extremely
-hard. <i>[Laughter]</i> Even trivial changes like using four digits
-for the date, <i>[Laughter]</i> if you don't have source. So, for
-compelling, practical reasons, access to the source code is a
-precondition, a requirement, for free software.</p>
-
-<p>So, why do I define it in terms of whether it's free software for
-<em>you</em>? The reason is that sometimes the same program can be
-free software for some people, and non-free for others. Now, that
-might seem like a paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example
-to show you how it happens. A very big example — maybe the
-biggest ever — of this problem was the X Window System which was
-developed at MIT and released under a license that made it free
-software. If you got the MIT version with the MIT license, you had
-Freedoms One, Two, and Three. It was free software for you. But
-among those who got copies were various computer manufacturers that
-distributed Unix systems, and they made the necessary changes in X to
-run on their systems. You know, probably just a few thousand lines
-out of the hundreds of thousands of lines of X. And, then they
-compiled it, and they put the binaries into their Unix system and
-distributed it under the same non-disclosure agreement as the rest of
-the Unix system. And then, millions of people got these copies. They
-had the X Window System, but they had none of these freedoms. It was
-not free software for <em>them</em>.</p>
-
-<p>So, the paradox was that whether X was free software depended on
-where you made the measurement. If you made the measurement coming
-out of the developers' group, you'd say, “I observe all these
-freedoms. It's free software.” If you made the measurements
-among the users you'd say, “Hmm, most users don't have these
-freedoms. It's not free software.” Well, the people who
-developed X didn't consider this a problem, because their goal was
-just popularity, ego, essentially. They wanted a big professional
-success. They wanted to feel, “Ah, lots of people are using our
-software.” And that was true. Lots of people were using their
-software but didn't have freedom.</p>
-
-<p>Well, in the GNU project, if that same thing had happened to GNU
-software, it would have been a failure, because our goal wasn't just
-to be popular; our goal was to give people liberty, and to encourage
-cooperation, to permit people to cooperate. Remember, never force
-anyone to cooperate with any other person, but make sure that
-everybody's allowed to cooperate, everyone has the freedom to do so,
-if he or she wishes. If millions of people were running non-free
-versions of GNU, that wouldn't be success at all. The whole thing
-would have been perverted into nothing like the goal.</p>
-
-<p>So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening. The method I
-came up with is called “copyleft”. It's called copyleft
-because it's sort of like taking copyright and flipping it
-over. <i>[Laughter]</i> Legally, copyleft works based on copyright.
-We use the existing copyright law, but we use it to achieve a very
-different goal. Here's what we do. We say, “This program is
-copyrighted.” And, of course, by default, that means it's
-prohibited to copy it, or distribute it, or modify it. But then we
-say, “You're authorized to distribute copies of this. You're
-authorized to modify it. You're authorized to distribute modified
-versions and extended versions. Change it any way you
-like.”</p>
-
-<p>But there is a condition. And the condition, of course, is the
-reason why we go to all this trouble, so that we could put the
-condition in. The condition says: Whenever you distribute anything
-that contains any piece of this program, that whole program must be
-distributed under these same terms, no more and no less. So you can
-change the program and distribute a modified version, but when you do,
-the people who get that from you must get the same freedom that you
-got from us. And not just for the parts of it — the excerpts
-that you copied from our program — but also for the other parts
-of that program that they got from you. The whole of that program has
-to be free software for them.</p>
-
-<p>The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become
-inalienable rights — a concept from the Declaration of
-Independence. Rights that we make sure can't be taken away from you.
-And, of course, the specific license that embodies the idea of
-copyleft is the GNU General Public License, a controversial license
-because it actually has the strength to say no to people who would be
-parasites on our community.</p>
-
-<p>There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of
-freedom. And they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done,
-and use it to get a head start in distributing a non-free program and
-tempting people to give up their freedom. And the result would be
-— you know, if we let people do that — that we would be
-developing these free programs, and we'd constantly have to compete
-with improved versions of our own programs. That's no fun.</p>
-
-<p>And, a lot of people also feel — you know, I'm willing to
-volunteer my time to contribute to the community, but why should I
-volunteer my time to contribute to that company's, to improving that
-company's, proprietary program? You know, some people might not even
-think that that's evil, but they want to get paid if they're going to
-do that. I, personally, would rather not do it at all.</p>
-
-<p>But both of these groups of people — both the ones like me
-who say, “I don't want to help that non-free program to get a
-foothold in our community” and the ones that say, “Sure,
-I'd work for them, but then they better pay me” — both of
-us have a good reason to use the GNU General Public License. Because
-that says to that company, “You can't just take my work, and
-distribute it without the freedom.” Whereas, the non-copyleft
-licenses, like the X Windows license, do permit that.</p>
-
-<p>So that is the big division between the two categories of free
-software — license-wise. There are the programs that are
-copylefted so that the license defends the freedom of the software for
-every user. And there are the non-copylefted programs for which
-non-free versions are allowed. Somebody <em>can</em> take those
-programs and strip off the freedom. You may get that program in a
-non-free version.</p>
-
-<p>And that problem exists today. There are still non-free versions
-of X Windows being used on our free operating systems. There is even
-hardware — which is not really supported — except by a
-non-free version of X Windows. And that's a major problem in our
-community. Nonetheless, I wouldn't say that X Windows is a bad thing,
-you know. I'd say that the developers did not do the best possible
-thing that they could have done. But they <em>did</em> release a lot
-of software that we could all use.</p>
-
-<p>You know, there's a big difference between less than perfect, and
-evil. There are many gradations of good and bad. We have to resist
-the temptation to say, if you didn't do the absolute best possible
-thing, then you're no good. You know, the people that developed X
-Windows made a big contribution to our community. But there's
-something better that they could have done. They could have
-copylefted parts of the program and prevented those freedom-denying
-versions from being distributed by others.</p>
-
-<p>Now, the fact that the GNU General Public License defends your
-freedom, uses copyright law to defend your freedom, is, of course, why
-Microsoft is attacking it today. See, Microsoft would really like to
-be able to take all the code that we wrote and put it into proprietary
-programs, have somebody make some improvements, or even just
-incompatible changes is all they need. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>You know, with Microsoft's marketing clout, they don't need to make
-it better to have their version supplant ours. They just have to make
-it different and incompatible. And then, put it on everybody's
-desktop. So they really don't like the GNU GPL. Because the GNU GPL
-won't let them do that. It doesn't allow “embrace and
-extend”. It says, if you want to share our code in your
-programs, you can. But, you've got to share and share alike. The
-changes that you make we have to be allowed to share. So, it's a
-two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation.</p>
-
-<p>Many companies — even big companies like IBM and HP are
-willing to use our software on this basis. IBM and HP contribute
-substantial improvements to GNU software. And they develop other free
-software. But, Microsoft doesn't want to do that, so they give it out
-that businesses just can't deal with the GPL. Well, if businesses
-don't include IBM, and HP and SUN, then maybe they're
-right. <i>[Laughter]</i> More about that later.</p>
-
-<p>I should finish the historical story. You see, we set out in 1984
-not just to write some free software but to do something much more
-coherent: to develop an operating system that was entirely free
-software. So that meant we had to write piece after piece after
-piece. Of course, we were always looking for shortcuts. The job was
-so big that people said we'd never be able to finish. And, I thought
-that there was at least a chance that we'd finish it but, obviously,
-it's worth looking for shortcuts. So we kept looking around. Is there
-any program that somebody else has written that we could manage to
-adapt, to plug into here, and that way we won't have to write it from
-scratch? For instance, the X Window system. It's true it wasn't
-copylefted, but it was free software, so we could use it.</p>
-
-<p>Now, I had wanted to put a window system into GNU from day one. I
-wrote a couple of window systems at MIT before I started GNU. And so,
-even though Unix had no window system in 1984, I decided that GNU
-would have one. But, we never ended up writing a GNU window system,
-because X came along. And I said, Goody! One big job we don't have
-to do. We'll use X. So I basically said, let's take X, and put it
-into the GNU system. And we'll make the other parts of GNU, you know,
-work with X, when appropriate. And we found other pieces of software
-that had been written by other people, like the text formatter TeX,
-some library code from Berkeley. At that time there was Berkeley
-Unix, but it was not free software. This library code, initially, was
-from a different group at Berkeley, that did research on floating
-point. And, so, we kept, we fit in these pieces.</p>
-
-<p>In October 1985, we founded the Free Software Foundation. So
-please note, the GNU project came first. The Free Software Foundation
-came after, about almost two years after the announcement of the
-Project. And the Free Software Foundation is a tax-exempt charity
-that raises funds to promote the freedom to share and change software.
-And in the 1980's, one of the main things we did with our funds was to
-hire people to write parts of GNU. And essential programs, such as
-the shell and the C library were written this way, as well as parts of
-other programs. The <code>tar</code> program, which is absolutely
-essential, although not exciting at all <i>[Laughter]</i> was written
-this way. I believe GNU grep was written this way. And so, we're
-approaching our goal.</p>
-
-<p>By 1991, there was just one major piece missing, and that was the
-kernel. Now, why did I put off the kernel? Probably because it
-doesn't really matter what order you do the things in, at least
-technically it doesn't. You've got to do them all anyway. And partly
-because I'd hoped we'd be able to find a start at a kernel somewhere
-else. And we did. We found Mach, which had been developed at
-Carnegie Mellon. And it wasn't the whole kernel; it was the bottom
-half of the kernel. So we had to write the top half, but I figured,
-you know, things like the file system, the network code, and so on.
-But running on top of Mach they're running essentially as user
-programs, which ought to make them easier to debug. You can debug
-with a real source-level debugger running at the same time. And so, I
-thought that way we'd be able to get these, the higher level parts of
-the kernel, done in a short time. It didn't work out that way. These
-asynchronous, multi-threaded processes, sending messages to each other
-turned out to be very hard to debug. And the Mach-based system that
-we were using to bootstrap with had a terrible debugging environment,
-and it was unreliable, and various problems. It took us years and
-years to get the GNU kernel to work.</p>
-
-<p>But, fortunately, our community did not have to wait for the GNU
-kernel. Because in 1991, Linus Torvalds developed another free kernel
-called Linux. And he used the old-fashioned monolithic design and it
-turns out that he got his working much faster than we got ours
-working. So maybe that's one of the mistakes that I made: that design
-decision. Anyway, at first, we didn't know about Linux, because he
-never contacted us to talk about it. Although he did know about the
-GNU Project. But he announced it to other people and other places on
-the net. And so other people then did the work of combining Linux
-with the rest of the GNU system to make a complete free operating
-system. Essentially, to make the GNU plus Linux combination.</p>
-
-<p>But, they didn't realize that's what they were doing. You see,
-they said, We have a kernel — let's look around and see what
-other pieces we can find to put together with the kernel. So, they
-looked around — and lo and behold, everything they needed was
-already available. What good fortune, they said. <i>[Laughter]</i>
-It's all here. We can find everything we need. Let's just take all
-these different things and put it together, and have a system.</p>
-
-<p>They didn't know that most of what they found was pieces of the GNU
-system. So they didn't realize that they were fitting Linux into the
-gap in the GNU system. They thought they were taking Linux and making
-a system out of Linux. So they called it a Linux system.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can't hear you — what?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, it's just not — you know,
-it's provincial.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: But it's more good fortune then finding
-X and Mach?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. The difference is that the
-people who developed X and Mach didn't have the goal of making a
-complete free operating system. We're the only ones who had that.
-And, it was our tremendous work that made the system exist. We
-actually did a larger part of the system than any other project. No
-coincidence, because those people — they wrote useful parts of
-the system. But they didn't do it because they wanted the system to
-be finished. They had other reasons.</p>
-
-<p>Now the people who developed X — they thought that designing
-across the network window system would be a good project, and it was.
-And it turned out to help us make a good free operating system. But
-that's not what they hoped for. They didn't even think about that.
-It was an accident. An accidental benefit. Now, I'm not saying that
-what they did was bad. They did a large free software project.
-That's a good thing to do. But they didn't have that ultimate vision.
-The GNU Project is where that vision was.</p>
-
-<p>And, so, we were the ones whose — every little piece that
-didn't get done by somebody else, we did it. Because we knew that we
-wouldn't have a complete system without it. And even if it was
-totally boring and unromantic, like <code>tar</code>
-or <code>mv</code>. <i>[Laughter]</i> We did it. Or ld, you know
-there's nothing very exciting in <code>ld</code> — but I wrote
-one. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I did make efforts to have it do a minimal
-amount of disk I/O so that it would be faster and handle bigger
-programs. But, you know, I like to do a good job. I like to improve
-various things about the program while I'm doing it. But the reason
-that I did it wasn't that I had brilliant ideas for a
-better <code>ld</code>. The reason I did it is that we needed one
-that was free. And we couldn't expect anyone else to do it. So, we
-had to do it, or find someone to do it.</p>
-
-<p>So, although at this point thousands of people in projects have
-contributed to this system, there is one project which is the reason
-that this system exists, and that's the GNU Project. It <em>is</em>
-basically the GNU System, with other things added since then.</p>
-
-<p>So, however, the practice of calling the system Linux has been a
-great blow to the GNU Project, because we don't normally get credit
-for what we've done. I think Linux, the kernel, is a very useful
-piece of free software, and I have only good things to say about it.
-But, well, actually, I can find a few bad things to say about
-it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, basically, I have good things to say about
-it. However, the practice of calling the GNU system, Linux, is just a
-mistake. I'd like to ask you please to make the small effort
-necessary to call the system GNU/Linux, and that way to help us get a
-share of the credit.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You need a mascot! Get yourself a
-stuffed animal! <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have one.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You do?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have an animal — a
-gnu. <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway. So, yes, when you draw a penguin,
-draw a gnu next to it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, let's save the
-questions for the end. I have more to go through.</p>
-
-<p>So, why am I so concerned about this? You know, why do I think it
-is worth bothering you and perhaps giving you a, perhaps lowering your
-opinion of me, <i>[Laughter]</i> to raise this issue of credit?
-Because, you know, some people when I do this, some people think that
-it's because I want my ego to be fed, right? Of course, I'm not
-saying — I'm not asking you to call it “Stallmanix,”
-right? <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p>
-
-<p>I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to
-get credit. And there's a very specific reason for that, which is a
-lot more important than anybody getting credit, in and of itself. You
-see, these days, if you look around in our community most of the
-people talking about it and writing about it don't ever mention GNU,
-and they don't ever mention these goals of freedom — these
-political and social ideals, either. Because the place they come from
-is GNU.</p>
-
-<p>The ideas associated with Linux — the philosophy is very
-different. It is basically the apolitical philosophy of Linus
-Torvalds. So, when people think that the whole system is Linux, they
-tend to think: “Oh, it must have been all started by Linux
-Torvalds. His philosophy must be the one that we should look at
-carefully”. And when they hear about the GNU philosophy, they
-say: “Boy, this is so idealistic, this must be awfully
-impractical. I'm a Linux-user, not a
-GNU-user.” <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>What irony! If they only knew! If they knew that the system they
-liked — or, in some cases, love and go wild over — is our
-idealistic, political philosophy made real.</p>
-
-<p>They still wouldn't have to agree with us. But at least they'd see
-a reason to take it seriously, to think about it carefully, to give it
-a chance. They would see how it relates to their lives. You know, if
-they realized, “I'm using the GNU system. Here's the GNU
-philosophy. This philosophy is <em>why</em> this system that I like
-very much exists,” they'd at least consider it with a much more
-open mind. It doesn't mean that everybody will agree. People think
-different things. That's OK. You know, people should make up their
-own minds. But I want this philosophy to get the benefit of the
-credit for the results it has achieved.</p>
-
-<p>If you look around in our community, you'll find that almost
-everywhere, the institutions are calling the system Linux. You know,
-reporters mostly call it Linux. It's not right, but they do. The
-companies mostly say it that package the system. Oh, and most of
-these reporters, when they write articles, they usually don't look at
-it as a political issue, or social issue. They're usually looking at
-it purely as a business question or what companies are going to
-succeed more or less, which is really a fairly minor question for
-society. And, if you look at the companies that package the GNU/Linux
-system for people to use, well, most of them call it Linux. And they
-<em>all</em> add non-free software to it.</p>
-
-<p>See, the GNU GPL says that if you take code, and some code out of a
-GPL-covered program, and add some more code to make a bigger program,
-that whole program has to be released under the GPL. But you could
-put other separate programs on the same disk (of either kind, hard
-disk, or CD), and they can have other licenses. That's considered
-mere aggregation, and, essentially, just distributing two programs to
-somebody at the same time is not something we have any say over. So,
-in fact, it is not true — sometimes, I wish it were true —
-that if a company uses a GPL-covered program in a product that the
-whole product has to be free software. It's not — it doesn't go
-to that range — that scope. It's the whole program. If there
-are two separate programs that communicate with each other at arm's
-length — like by sending messages to each other — then,
-they're legally separate, in general. So, these companies, by adding
-non-free software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically
-and politically, a very bad idea. They're telling the users,
-“It is OK to use non-free software. We're even putting it on
-this as a bonus.”</p>
-
-<p>If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system,
-most of them have a title like “Linux-something or other”.
-So they're calling the system Linux most of the time. And they're
-filled with ads for non-free software that you could run on top of the
-GNU/Linux system. Now those ads have a common message. They say:
-Non-free Software Is Good For You. It's So Good That You Might Even
-<em>Pay</em> To Get It. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>And they call these things “value-added packages”,
-which makes a statement about their values. They're saying: Value
-practical convenience, not freedom. And, I don't agree with those
-values, so I call them “freedom-subtracted
-packages”. <i>[Laughter]</i> Because if you have installed a
-free operating system, then you now are living in the free world. You
-enjoy the benefits of liberty that we worked for so many years to give
-you. Those packages give you an opportunity to buckle on a chain.</p>
-
-<p>And then if you look at the trade shows — about the use of
-the, dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call
-themselves “Linux” shows. And they're filled with booths
-exhibiting non-free software, essentially putting the seal of approval
-on the non-free software. So, almost everywhere you look in our
-community, the institutions are endorsing the non-free software,
-totalling negating the idea of freedom that GNU was developed for.
-And the only place that people are likely to come across the idea of
-freedom is in connection with GNU, and in connection with free
-software, the term, free software. So this is why I ask you: please
-call the system GNU/Linux. Please make people aware where the system
-came from and why.</p>
-
-<p>Of course, just by using that name, you won't be making an
-explanation of the history. You can type four extra characters and
-write GNU/Linux; you can say two extra syllables. But, GNU/Linux is
-fewer syllables than Windows 2000. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, you're not
-telling them a lot, but you're preparing them, so that when they hear
-about GNU, and what it's all about, they'll see how that connects to
-them and their lives. And that, indirectly, makes a tremendous
-difference. So please help us.</p>
-
-<p>You'll note that Microsoft called the GPL an “open source
-license”. They don't want people to be thinking in terms of
-freedom as the issue. You'll find that they invite people to think in
-a narrow way, as consumers, and, of course, not even think very
-rationally as consumers, if they're going to choose Microsoft
-products. But they don't want people to think as citizens or
-statesmen. That's inimical to them. At least it's inimical to their
-current business model.</p>
-
-<p>Now, how does free software…well, I can tell you about how
-free software relates to our society. A secondary topic that might be
-of interest to some of you is how free software relates to business.
-Now, in fact, free software is <em>tremendously</em> useful for
-business. After all, most businesses in the advanced countries use
-software. Only a tiny fraction of them develop software.</p>
-
-<p>And free software is tremendously advantageous for any company that
-uses software, because it means that you're in control. Basically,
-free software means the users are in control of what the program does.
-Either individually, if they care enough to be, or, collectively, when
-they care enough to be. Whoever cares enough can exert some
-influence. If you don't care, you don't buy. Then you use what other
-people prefer. But, if you do care, then you have some say. With
-proprietary software, you have essentially no say.</p>
-
-<p>With free software, you can change what you want to change. And it
-doesn't matter that there are no programmers in your company; that's
-fine. You know, if you wanted to move the walls in your building, you
-don't have to be a carpentry company. You just have to be able to go
-find a carpenter and say, “What will you charge to do this
-job?” And if you want to change around the software you use, you
-don't have to be a programming company. You just have to go to a
-programming company and say, “What will you charge to implement
-these features? And when will you have it done?” And if they
-don't do the job, you can go find somebody else.</p>
-
-<p>There's a free market for support. So, any business that cares
-about support will find a tremendous advantage in free software. With
-proprietary software, support is a monopoly, because one company has
-the source code, or maybe a small number of companies that paid a
-gigantic amount of money have the source code, if it's Microsoft's
-shared source program, but, it's very few. And so, there aren't very
-many possible sources of support for you. And that means, that unless
-you're a real giant, they don't care about you. Your company is not
-important enough for them to care if they lose your business, or what
-happens. Once you're using the program, they figure you're locked in
-to getting the support from them, because to switch to a different
-program is a gigantic job. So, you end up with things like paying for
-the privilege of reporting a bug. <i>[Laughter]</i> And once you've
-paid, they tell you, “Well, OK, we've noted your bug report.
-And in a few months, you can buy an upgrade, and you can see if we've
-fixed it.” <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>Support providers for free software can't get away with that. They
-have to please the customers. Of course, you can get a lot of good
-support gratis. You post your problem on the Internet. You may get
-an answer the next day. But that's not guaranteed, of course. If you
-want to be confident, you better make an arrangement with a company
-and pay them. And this is, of course, one of the ways that free
-software business works.</p>
-
-<p>Another advantage of free software for businesses that use software
-is security and privacy. And this applies to individuals as well, but
-I brought it up in the context of businesses. You see, when a program
-is proprietary, you can't even tell what it really does.</p>
-
-<p>It could have features, deliberately put in that you wouldn't like
-if you knew about them, like it might have a backdoor to let the
-developer get into your machine. It might snoop on what you do and
-send information back. This is not unusual. Some Microsoft software
-did this. But it's not only Microsoft. There are other proprietary
-programs that snoop on the user. And you can't even tell if it does
-this. And, of course, even assuming that the developer's totally
-honest, every programmer makes mistakes. There could be bugs that
-affect your security which are nobody's fault. But the point is: If
-it's not free software, you can't find them. And you can't fix
-them.</p>
-
-<p>Nobody has the time to check the source of every program he runs.
-You're not going to do that. But with free software there's a large
-community, and there are people in that community who are checking
-things. And you get the benefit of their checking, because if there's
-an accidental bug, there surely are, from time to time, in any
-program, they might find it and fix it. And people are much less
-likely to put in a deliberate Trojan horse, or a snooping feature, if
-they think they might get caught. The proprietary software developers
-figure they won't get caught. They'll get away with it undetected.
-But a free software developer has to figure that people will look at
-that and see it's there. So, in our community, we don't feel we can
-get away with ramming a feature down the users' throats that the users
-wouldn't like. So we know that if the users don't like it, they'll
-make a modified version which doesn't have it. And then, they'll all
-start using that version.</p>
-
-<p>In fact, we can all reason enough, we can all figure this out
-enough steps ahead, that we probably won't put in that feature. After
-all, you're writing a free program; you want people to like your
-version; you don't want to put in a thing that you know a lot of
-people are going to hate, and have another modified version catch on
-instead of yours. So you just realize that the user is king in the
-world of free software. In the world of proprietary software, the
-customer is <em>not</em> king. Because you are only a customer. You
-have no say in the software you use.</p>
-
-<p>In this respect, free software is a new mechanism for democracy to
-operate. Professor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions
-as a kind of law. Whoever gets to write the code that just about
-everybody uses for all intents and purposes is writing the laws that
-run people's lives. With free software, these laws get written in a
-democratic way. Not the classical form of democracy — we don't
-have a big election and say, “Everybody vote which way should
-this feature be done.” <i>[Laughter]</i> Instead we say,
-basically, those of you who want to work on implementing the feature
-this way, do it. And if you want to work on implementing the feature
-that way, do it. And, it gets done one way or the other, you know?
-And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done this way.
-So, in this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by
-simply taking steps in the direction that he wants to go.</p>
-
-<p>And you're free to take as many steps, personally, as you want to
-take. A business is free to commission as many steps as they find
-useful to take. And, after you add all these things up, that says
-which direction the software goes.</p>
-
-<p>And it's often very useful to be able to take pieces out of some
-existing program, presumably usually large pieces, of course, and then
-write a certain amount of code of your own, and make a program that
-does exactly what you need, which would have cost you an arm and a leg
-to develop, if you had to write it all from scratch, if you couldn't
-cannibalize large pieces from some existing free software package.</p>
-
-<p>Another thing that results from the fact that the user is king is
-that we tend to be very good about compatibility and standardization.
-Why? Because users like that. Users are likely to reject a program
-that has gratuitous incompatibilities in it. Now, sometimes there's a
-certain group of users which actually have a need for a certain kind
-of incompatibility, and then they'll have it. That's OK. But when
-users want is to follow a standard, we developers have to follow it,
-and we know that. And we do it. By contrast, if you look at
-proprietary software developers, they often find it advantageous to
-deliberately <em>not</em> follow a standard, and not because they
-think that they're giving the user an advantage that way, but rather
-because they're imposing on the user, locking the user in. And you'll
-even find them making changes in their file formats from time to time,
-just to force people to get the newest version.</p>
-
-<p>Archivists are finding a problem now, that files written on
-computers ten years ago often can't be accessed; they were written
-with proprietary software that's essentially lost now. If it were
-written with free software, then it could be brought up-to-date and
-run. And those things would not, those records would not be lost,
-would not be inaccessible. They were even complaining about this on
-NPR recently in citing free software as a solution. And so, in
-effect, by using a non-free program to store your own data, you are
-putting your head in a noose.</p>
-
-<p>So, I've talked about how free software affects most business. But
-how does it affect that particular narrow area which is software
-business? Well, the answer is mostly not at all. And the reason is
-that 90% of the software industry, from what I'm told, is development
-of custom software, software that's not meant to be released at all.
-For custom software, this issue, or the ethical issue of free or
-proprietary, doesn't arise. You see, the issue is, are you users free
-to change, and redistribute, the software? If there's only one user,
-and that user owns the rights, there's no problem. That
-user <em>is</em> free to do all these things. So, in effect, any
-<em>custom</em> program that was developed by one company for use
-in-house is free software, as long as they have the sense to insist on
-getting the source code and all the rights.</p>
-
-<p>And the issue doesn't really arise for software that goes in a
-watch or a microwave oven or an automobile ignition system. Because
-those are places where you don't download software to install. It's
-not a real computer, as far as the user is concerned. And so, it
-doesn't raise these issues enough for them to be ethically important.
-So, for the most part, the software industry will go along, just as
-it's been going. And the interesting thing is that since such a large
-fraction of the jobs are in that part of the industry, even if there
-were no possibilities for free software business, the developers of
-free software could all get day jobs writing custom
-software. <i>[Laughter]</i> There's so many; the ratio is so big.</p>
-
-<p>But, as it happens, there is free software business. There are
-free software companies, and at the press conference that I'm going to
-have, people from a couple of them will join us. And, of course,
-there are also companies which are <em>not</em> free software
-businesses but do develop useful pieces of free software to release,
-and the free software that they produce is substantial.</p>
-
-<p>Now, how do free software businesses work? Well, some of them sell
-copies. You know, you're free to copy it but they can still sell
-thousands of copies a month. And others sell support and various
-kinds of services. I, personally, for the second half of the '80's, I
-sold free software support services. Basically I said, for $200 an
-hour, I'll change whatever you want me to change in GNU software that
-I'd written. And, yes, it was a stiff rate, but if it was a program
-that I was the author of, people would figure that I might get the job
-done in a lot fewer hours. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I made a living that
-way. In fact, I'd made more than I'd ever made before. I also taught
-classes. And I kept doing that until 1990, when I got a big prize and
-I didn't have to do it any more.</p>
-
-<p>But, 1990 was when the first corporation free software business was
-formed, which was Cygnus Support. And their business was to do,
-essentially, the same kind of thing that I'd been doing. I certainly
-could have worked for them, if I had needed to do that. Since I
-didn't need to, I felt it was good for the movement if I remained
-independent of any one company. That way, I could say good and bad
-things about the various free software and non-free software
-companies, without a conflict of interest. I felt that I could serve
-the movement more. But, if I had needed that to make a living, sure,
-I would have worked for them. It's an ethical business to be in. No
-reason I would have felt ashamed to take a job with them. And that
-company was profitable in its first year. It was formed with very
-little capital, just the money its three founders had. And it kept
-growing every year and being profitable every year until they got
-greedy, and looked for outside investors, and then they messed things
-up. But it was several years of success, before they got greedy.</p>
-
-<p>So, this illustrates one of the exciting things about free
-software. Free software demonstrates that you don't need to raise
-capital to develop free software. I mean, it's useful;
-it <em>can</em> help. You know, if you do raise some capital, you can
-hire people and have them write a bunch of software. But you can get
-a lot done with a small number of people. And, in fact, the
-tremendous efficiency of the process of developing free software is
-one of the reasons it's important for the world to switch to free
-software. And it also belies what Microsoft says when they say the
-GNU GPL is bad, because it makes it harder for them to raise capital
-to develop non-free software and take our free software and put our
-code into their programs that they won't share with us. Basically, we
-don't need to have them raising capital that way. We'll get the job
-done anyway. We are getting the job done.</p>
-
-<p>People used to say we could never do a complete free operating
-system. Now we've done that and a tremendous amount more. And I
-would say that we're about an order of magnitude away from developing
-all the general purpose published software needs of the world. And
-this is in a world where more than 90% of the users don't use our free
-software yet. This is in a world where, although in certain areas of
-business, you know, more than half of all the web servers in the world
-are running on GNU/Linux with Apache as the web server.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i> … What did you
-say before, Linux?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I said GNU/Linux.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You did?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, if I'm talking about the kernel, I
-call it Linux. You know, that's it's name. The kernel was written by
-Linus Torvalds, and we should only call it by the name that he chose,
-out of respect for the author.</p>
-
-<p>Anyway, but in general, in business most users are not using it.
-Most home users are not using our system yet. So, when they are, we
-should automatically get 10 times as many volunteers and 10 times as
-many customers for the free software businesses that there will be.
-And so that will take us that order of magnitude. So at this point, I
-am pretty confident that we <em>can</em> do the job.</p>
-
-<p>And, this is important, because Microsoft asks us to feel
-desperate. They say, The only way you can have software to run, the
-only way you can have innovation, is if you give us power. Let us
-dominate you. Let us control what you can do with the software you're
-running, so that we can squeeze a lot of money out of you, and use a
-certain fraction of that to develop software, and take the rest as
-profit.</p>
-
-<p>Well, you shouldn't ever feel that desperate. You shouldn't ever
-feel so desperate that you give up your freedom. That's very
-dangerous.</p>
-
-<p>Another thing that Microsoft, well, not just Microsoft, people who
-don't support free software generally adopt a value system in which
-the only thing that matters is short-term practical benefits: How much
-money am I going to make this year? What job can I get done today?
-Short-term thinking and narrow thinking. Their assumption is that it
-is ridiculous to imagine that anybody ever might make a sacrifice for
-the sake of freedom.</p>
-
-<p>Yesterday, a lot of people were making speeches about Americans who
-made sacrifices for the freedom of their compatriots. Some of them
-made great sacrifices. They even sacrificed their lives for the kinds
-of freedom that everyone in our country has heard about, at least.
-(At least, in some of the cases; I guess we have to ignore the war in
-Vietnam.)</p>
-
-<p><i>[Editor's note: The day before was “Memorial Day” in
-the USA. Memorial Day is a day where war heros are
-commemorated.]</i></p>
-
-<p>But, fortunately, to maintain our freedom in using software,
-doesn't call for big sacrifices. Just tiny, little sacrifices are
-enough, like learning a command-line interface, if we don't have a GUI
-interface program yet. Like doing the job in this way, because we
-don't have a free software package to do it that way, yet. Like,
-paying some money to a company that's going to develop a certain free
-software package, so that you can have it in a few years. Various
-little sacrifices that we can all make. And, in the long run, even we
-will have benefited from it. You know, it is really an investment
-more than a sacrifice. We just have to have enough long-term view to
-realize it's good for us to invest in improving our society, without
-counting the nickels and dimes of who gets how much of the benefit
-from that investment.</p>
-
-<p>So, at this point, I'm essentially done.</p>
-
-<p>I'd like to mention that there's a new approach to free software
-business being proposed by Tony Stanco, which he calls “Free
-Developers”, which involves a certain business structure which
-hopes eventually to pay out a certain share of the profits to every,
-to all the authors of the free software who've joined the
-organization. And they're looking at the prospects of getting me some
-rather large government software development contracts in India now,
-because they're going to be using free software as the basis, having
-tremendous cost savings that way.</p>
-
-<p>And so now I guess that I should ask for questions.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Could you speak up a bit louder please?
-I can't really hear you.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: How could a company like Microsoft
-include a free software contract?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually, Microsoft is planning to
-shift a lot of its activity into services. And what they're planning
-to do is something dirty and dangerous, which is tie the services to
-the programs, one to the next, in a sort of zigzag, you know? So that
-to use this service, you've got to be using this Microsoft program,
-which is going to mean you need to use this service, to this Microsoft
-program, so it's all tied together. That's their plan.</p>
-
-<p>Now, the interesting thing is that selling those services doesn't
-raise the ethical issue of free software or non-free software. It
-might be perfectly fine for them to have the business for those
-businesses selling those services over the net to exist. However,
-what Microsoft is planning to do is to use them to achieve an even
-greater lock, an even greater monopoly, on the software and the
-services, and this was described in an article, I believe in Business
-Week, recently. And, other people said that it is turning the net
-into the Microsoft Company Town.</p>
-
-<p>And this is relevant because, you know, the trial court in the
-Microsoft antitrust trial recommended breaking up the company,
-Microsoft. But in a way, that makes no sense — it wouldn't do
-any good at all — into the operating part and the applications
-part.</p>
-
-<p>But having seen that article, I now see a useful, effective way to
-split up Microsoft into the services part and the software part, to
-require them to deal with each other only at arm's length, that the
-services must publish their interfaces, so that anybody can write a
-client to talk to those services, and, I guess, that they have to pay
-to get the service. Well, that's OK. That's a totally different
-issue.</p>
-
-<p>If Microsoft is split up in this way […] services and
-software, they will not be able to use their software to crush
-competition with Microsoft services. And they won't be able to use
-the services to crush competition with Microsoft software. And we
-will be able to make the free software, and maybe you people will use
-it to talk to Microsoft services, and we won't mind.</p>
-
-<p>Because, after all, although Microsoft is the proprietary software
-company that has subjugated the most people — the others have
-subjugated fewer people, it's not for want of
-trying. <i>[Laughter]</i> They just haven't succeeded in subjugating
-as many people. So, the problem is not Microsoft and only Microsoft.
-Microsoft is just the biggest example of the problem we're trying to
-solve, which is proprietary software taking away users' freedom to
-cooperate and form an ethical society. So we shouldn't focus too much
-on Microsoft, you know, even though they did give me the opportunity
-for this platform. That doesn't make them all-important. They're not
-the be-all and end-all.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Earlier, you were discussing the
-philosophical differences between open source software and free
-software. How do you feel about the current trend of GNU/Linux
-distributions as they head towards supporting only Intel platforms?
-And the fact that it seems that less and less programmers are
-programming correctly, and making software that will compile anywhere?
-And making software that simply works on Intel systems?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I don't see an ethical issue there.
-Although, in fact, companies that make computers sometimes port the
-GNU/Linux system to it. HP apparently did this recently. And, they
-didn't bother paying for a port of Windows, because that would have
-cost too much. But getting GNU/Linux supported was, I think, five
-engineers for a few months. It was easily doable.</p>
-
-<p>Now, of course, I encourage people to use <code>autoconf</code>,
-which is a GNU package that makes it easier to make your programs
-portable. I encourage them to do that. Or when somebody else fixes
-the bug that it didn't compile on that version of the system, and
-sends it to you, you should put it in. But I don't see that as an
-ethical issue.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Two comments. One is: Recently, you
-spoke at MIT. I read the transcript. And someone asked about
-patents, and you said that “patents are a totally different
-issue. I have no comments on that.”</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I actually have a lot to say
-about patents, but it takes an hour. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I wanted to say this: It seems to me
-that there is an issue. I mean, there is a reason that companies call
-both patents and copyrights things like hard property in trying to get
-this concept which is, if they want to use the power of the State to
-create a course of monopoly for themselves. And so, what's common
-about these things is not that they revolve around the same issues,
-but that motivation is not really the public service issues but the
-motivation of companies to get a monopoly for their private
-interests.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I understand. But, well, I want to
-respond because there's not too much time. So I'd like to respond to
-that.</p>
-
-<p>You're right that that's what they want. But there's another
-reason why they want to use the term intellectual property. It's that
-they don't want to encourage people to think carefully about copyright
-issues or patent issues. Because copyright law and patent law are
-totally different, and the effects of software copyrighted and
-software patents are totally different.</p>
-
-<p>Software patents are a restriction on programmers, prohibiting them
-from writing certain kinds of programs, whereas copyright doesn't do
-that. With copyright, at least if you wrote it yourself, you're
-allowed to distribute it. So, it's tremendously important to separate
-these issues.</p>
-
-<p>They have a little bit in common, at a very low level, and
-everything else is different. So, please, to encourage clear
-thinking, discuss copyright or discuss patents. But don't discuss
-intellectual property. I don't have an opinion on intellectual
-property. I have opinions on copyrights and patents and software.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You mentioned at the beginning that a
-functional language, like recipes, are computer programs. There's a
-cross a little bit different than other kinds of language created on.
-This is also causing a problem in the DVD case.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: The issues are partly similar but partly
-different, for things that are not functional in nature. Part of the
-issue transfers but not all of it. Unfortunately, that's another hour
-speech. I don't have time to go into it. But I would say that all
-functional works ought to be free in the same sense as software. You
-know, textbooks, manuals, dictionaries, and recipes, and so on.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I was just wondering on online
-music. There are similarities and differences created all through.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I'd say that the minimum freedom
-that we should have for any kind of published information is the
-freedom to non-commercially redistribute it, verbatim. For functional
-works, we need the freedom to commercially publish a modified version,
-because that's tremendously useful to society. For non-functional
-works, you know, things that are to entertain, or to be aesthetic, or
-to state a certain person's views, you know, perhaps they shouldn't be
-modified. And, perhaps that means that it's OK, to have copyright
-covering all commercial distribution of them.</p>
-
-<p>Please remember that according to the U.S. Constitution, the
-purpose of copyright is to benefit the public. It is to modify the
-behavior of certain private parties, so that they will publish more
-books. And the benefit of this is that society gets to discuss issues
-and learn. And, you know, we have literature. We have scientific
-works. The purpose is encourage that. Copyrights do not exist for
-the sake of authors, let alone for the sake of publishers. They exist
-for the sake of readers and all those who benefit from the
-communication of information that happens when people write and others
-read. And that goal I agree with.</p>
-
-<p>But in the age of the computer networks, the method is no longer
-tenable, because it now requires draconian laws that invade
-everybody's privacy and terrorize everyone. You know, years in prison
-for sharing with your neighbor. It wasn't like that in the age of the
-printing press. Then copyright was an industrial regulation. It
-restricted publishers. Now, it's a restriction imposed by the
-publishers on the public. So, the power relationship is turned around
-180 degrees, even if it's the same law.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: So you can have the same thing —
-but like in making music from other music?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. That is an interesting
-…</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: And unique, new works, you know, it's
-still a lot of cooperation.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: It is. And I think that probably
-requires some kind of fair use concept. Certainly making a few
-seconds of sample and using that in making some musical work,
-obviously that should be fair use. Even the standard idea of fair use
-includes that, if you think about it. Whether courts agree, I'm not
-sure, but they should. That wouldn't be a real change in the system
-as it has existed.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: What do you think about publishing
-public information in proprietary formats?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, it shouldn't be. I mean, the
-government should never require citizens to use a non-free program to
-access, to communicate with the government in any way, in either
-direction.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I have been, what I will now say, a
-GNU/Linux user…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Thank you. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: …for the past four years. The one
-thing that has been problematical for me and is something that is
-essential, I think, to all of us, is browsing the web.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: One thing that has been decidedly a
-weakness in using a GNU/Linux system has been browsing the web,
-because the prevailing tool for that, Netscape…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: …is not free software.</p>
-
-<p>Let me respond to this. I want to get to the point, for the sake
-of getting in more. So, yes. There has been a terrible tendency for
-people to use Netscape Navigator on their GNU/Linux systems. And, in
-fact all the commercially packaged systems come with it. So this is
-an ironic situation: we worked so hard to make a free operating
-system, and now, if you go to the store, and you can find versions of
-GNU/Linux there, most of them are called Linux, and they're not free.
-Oh, well, part of them is. But then, there's Netscape Navigator, and
-maybe other non-free programs as well. So, it's very hard to actually
-find a free system, unless you know what you're doing. Or, of course,
-you can not install Netscape Navigator.</p>
-
-<p>Now, in fact, there have been free web browsers for many years.
-There is a free web browser that I used to use called Lynx. It's a
-free web browser that is non-graphical; it's text-only. This has a
-tremendous advantage, in you don't see the ads. <i>[Laughter]
-[Applause]</i></p>
-
-<p>But anyway, there is a free graphical project called Mozilla, which
-is now getting to the point where you can use it. And I occasionally
-use it.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 has been very good.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, OK. So that's another free
-graphical browser. So, we're finally solving that problem, I
-guess.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk to me about that
-philosophical/ethical division between free software and open source?
-Do you feel that those are irreconcilable? …</p>
-
-<p><i>[Recording switches tapes; end of question and start of answer
-is missing]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: … to a freedom, and ethics. Or
-whether you just say, Well, I hope that you companies will decide it's
-more profitable to let us be allowed to do these things.</p>
-
-<p>But, as I said, in a lot of practical work, it doesn't really
-matter what a person's politics are. When a person offers to help the
-GNU project, we don't say: “You have to agree with our
-politics.” We say that in a GNU package, you've got to call the
-system GNU/Linux, and you've got to call it free software. What you
-say when you're not speaking to the GNU Project, that's up to you.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: The company, IBM, started a campaign for
-government agencies, to sell their big new machines, that they used
-Linux as selling point, and say Linux.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, of course, it's really the
-GNU/Linux systems. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: That's right! Well, tell the top sales
-person. He doesn't know anything for GNU.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I have to tell who?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: The top sales person.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh yes. The problem is that they've
-already carefully decided what they want to say for reasons of their
-advantage. And the issue of what is a more accurate, or fair, or
-correct way to describe it is not the primary issue that matters to a
-company like that. Now, some small companies, yes, there'll be a
-boss. And if the boss is inclined to think about things like that, he
-might make a decision that way. Not a giant corporation though. It's
-a shame, you know.</p>
-
-<p>There's another more important and more substantive issue about
-what IBM is doing. They're saying that they're putting a billion
-dollars into “Linux”. But perhaps, I should also put
-quotes around “into”, as well, because some of that money
-is paying people to develop free software. That really is a
-contribution to our community. But other parts is paying to pay
-people to write proprietary software, or port proprietary software to
-run on top of GNU/Linux, and that is <em>not</em> a contribution to
-our community. But IBM is lumping that altogether into this. Some of
-it might be advertising, which is partly a contribution, even if it's
-partly wrong. So, it's a complicated situation. Some of what they're
-doing is contribution and some is not. And some is sort is somewhat,
-but not exactly. And you can't just lump it altogether and think,
-Wow! Whee! A billion dollars from IBM. <i>[Laughter]</i> That's
-oversimplification.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk a little bit more about the
-thinking that went into the general public license?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, here's the — I'm sorry, I'm
-answering his question now. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Do you want to reserve some time for
-the press conference? Or do you want to continue here?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Who is here for the press conference?
-Not a lot of press. Oh, three — OK. Can you afford if we
-— if I go on answering everybody's questions for another ten
-minutes or so? OK. So, we'll go on answering everybody's
-questions.</p>
-
-<p>So, the thinking that went into the GNU GPL? Part of it was that I
-wanted to protect the freedom of the community against the phenomena
-that I just described with X Windows, which has happened with other
-free programs as well. In fact, when I was thinking about this issue,
-X Windows was not yet released. But I had seen this problem happen in
-other free programs. For instance, TeX. I wanted to make sure that
-the users would all have freedom. Otherwise, I realized that I might
-write a program, and maybe a lot of people would use the program, but
-they wouldn't have freedom. And what's the point of that?</p>
-
-<p>But the other issue I was thinking about was, I wanted to give the
-community a feeling that it was not a doormat, a feeling that it was
-not prey to any parasite who would wander along. If you don't use
-copyleft, you are essentially saying: <i>[speaking meekly]</i>
-“Take my code. Do what you want. I don't say no.” So,
-anybody can come along and say: <i>[speaking very firmly]</i>
-“Ah, I want to make a non-free version of this. I'll just take
-it.” And, then, of course, they probably make some improvements,
-those non-free versions might appeal to users, and replace the free
-versions. And then, what have you accomplished? You've only made a
-donation to some proprietary software project.</p>
-
-<p>And when people see that that's happening, when people see, other
-people take what I do, and they don't ever give back, it can be
-demoralizing. And, this is not just speculation. I had seen that
-happen. That was part of what happened to wipe out the old community
-that I belonged to the '70's. Some people started becoming
-uncooperative. And we assumed that they were profiting thereby. They
-certainly acted as if they thought they were profiting. And we
-realized that they can just take off cooperation and not give back.
-And there was nothing we could do about it. It was very discouraging.
-We, those of us who didn't like the trend, even had a discussion and
-we couldn't come up with any idea for how we could stop it.</p>
-
-<p>So, the GPL is designed to stop that. And it says, Yes, you are
-welcome to join the community and use this code. You can use it to do
-all sorts of jobs. But, if you release a modified version, you've got
-to release that to our community, as part of our community, as part of
-the free world.</p>
-
-<p>So, in fact, there are still many ways that people can get the
-benefit of our work and not contribute, like you don't have to write
-any software. Lots of people use GNU/Linux and don't write any
-software. There's no requirement that you've got to do anything for
-us. But if you do a certain kind of thing, you've got to contribute
-to it. So what that means is that our community is not a doormat.
-And I think that that helped give people the strength to feel, Yes, we
-won't just be trampled underfoot by everybody. We'll stand up to
-this.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Yes, my question was, considering free
-but not copylefted software, since anybody can pick it up and make it
-proprietary, is it not possible also for someone to pick it up and
-make some changes and release the whole thing under the GPL?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, it is possible.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Then, that would make all future copies
-then be GPL'ed.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: From that branch. But here's why we
-don't do that.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Hmm?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Here's why we don't generally do that.
-Let me explain.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: OK, yes.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We could, if we wanted to, take X
-Windows, and make a GPL-covered copy and make changes in that. But
-there's a much larger group of people working on improving X Windows
-and <em>not</em> GPL-ing it. So, if we did that, we would be forking
-from them. And that's not very nice treatment of them. And, they
-<em>are</em> a part of our community, contributing to our
-community.</p>
-
-<p>Second, it would backfire against us, because they're doing a lot
-more work on X than we would be. So, our version would be inferior to
-theirs, and people wouldn't use it, which means, why go to the trouble
-at all?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Mmm hmm.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: So when a person has written some
-improvement to X Windows, what I say that person should do is
-cooperate with the X development team. Send it to them and let them
-use it their way. Because they are developing a very important piece
-of free software. It's good for us to cooperate with them.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Except, considering X, in particular,
-about two years ago, the X Consortium that was far into the non-free
-open source…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually it <em>wasn't</em> open
-sourced. It wasn't open sourced, either. They may have said it was.
-I can't remember if they said that or not. But it wasn't open
-source. It was restricted. You couldn't commercially distribute, I
-think. Or you couldn't commercially distribute a modified version, or
-something like that. There was a restriction that's considered
-unacceptable by both the Free Software movement and the Open Source
-movement.</p>
-
-<p>And yes, that's what using a non-copyleft license leaves you open
-to. In fact, the X Consortium, they had a very rigid policy. They
-say: If your program if copylefted even a little bit, we won't
-distribute it at all. We won't put it in our distribution.</p>
-
-<p>So, a lot of people were pressured in this way into not
-copylefting. And the result was that all of their software was wide
-open, later on. When the same people who had pressured a developer to
-be too all-permissive, then the X people later said, All right, now we
-can put on restrictions, which wasn't very ethical of them.</p>
-
-<p>But, given the situation, would we really want to scrape up the
-resources to maintain an alternate GPL-covered version of X? And it
-wouldn't make any sense to do that. There are so many other things we
-need to do. Let's do them instead. We can cooperate with the X
-developers.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Do you have a comment, is the GNU a
-trademark? And is it practical to include it as part of the GNU
-General Public License allowing trademarks?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We are, actually, applying for trademark
-registration on GNU. But it wouldn't really have anything to do with
-that. It's a long story to explain why.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You could require the trademark be
-displayed with GPL-covered programs.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: No, I don't think so. The licenses
-cover individual programs. And when a given program is part of the
-GNU Project, nobody lies about that. The name of the system as a
-whole is a different issue. And this is an aside. It's not worth
-discussing more.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: If there was a button that you could
-push and force all companies to free their software, would you press
-it?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, I would only use this for
-published software. You know, I think that people have the right to
-write a program privately and use it. And that includes companies.
-This is privacy issue. And it's true, there can be times when it is
-wrong to do that, like if it is tremendously helpful to humanity, and
-you are withholding it from humanity. That is a wrong but that's a
-different kind of wrong. It's a different issue, although it's in the
-same area.</p>
-
-<p>But yes, I think all published software should be free software.
-And remember, when it's not free software, that's because of
-government intervention. The government is intervening to make it
-non-free. The government is creating special legal powers to hand out
-to the owners of the programs, so that they can have the police stop
-us from using the programs in certain ways. So I would certainly like
-to end that. </p>
-
-<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Richard's presentation has invariably
-generated an enormous amount of intellectual energy. I would suggest
-that some of it should be directed to using, and possibly writing,
-free software.</p>
-
-<p>We should close the proceedings shortly. I want to say that
-Richard has injected into a profession which is known in the general
-public for its terminal apolitical nerditude a level of political and
-moral discussion which is, I think, unprecedented in our profession.
-And we owe him very big for this. I'd like to note to people that
-there is a break.</p>
-
-<p><i>[Applause]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: You are free to leave at any time, you
-know. <i>[Laughter]</i> I'm not holding you prisoner here.</p>
-
-<p><i>[Audience adjourns…]</i></p>
-
-<p><i>[overlapping conversations…]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: One final thing. Our website:
-www.gnu.org</p>
-
-</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
-<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
-<div id="footer">
-<div class="unprintable">
-
-<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
-<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></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";><address@hidden></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";>
- <address@hidden></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>. -->
-Please see the <a
-href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
-README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
-of this article.</p>
-</div>
-
-<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
- files generated as part of manuals) 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. -->
-
-<p>Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman</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>
-
-<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
-
-<p class="unprintable">Updated:
-<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2015/02/20 17:28:08 $
-<!-- timestamp end -->
-</p>
-</div>
-</div>
-</body>
-</html>
Index: events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.po
===================================================================
RCS file: events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.po
diff -N events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.po
--- events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.po 20 Feb 2015 17:10:03 -0000
1.47
+++ /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
@@ -1,4469 +0,0 @@
-# French translation of http://www.gnu.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html
-# Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
-# This file is distributed under the same license as the original article.
-# Xavier Dumont, 2005.
-# Thérèse Godefroy <godef.th AT free.fr>, 2012.
-#
-msgid ""
-msgstr ""
-"Project-Id-Version: rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html\n"
-"POT-Creation-Date: 2015-02-20 15:55+0000\n"
-"PO-Revision-Date: 2015-02-20 18:09+0100\n"
-"Last-Translator: Thérèse Godefroy <godef.th AT free.fr>\n"
-"Language-Team: French <address@hidden>\n"
-"Language: fr\n"
-"MIME-Version: 1.0\n"
-"Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n"
-"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n"
-"Plural-Forms: \n"
-"X-Generator: Gtranslator 2.91.5\n"
-
-#. type: Content of: <title>
-msgid ""
-"Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation - GNU Project - Free Software "
-"Foundation"
-msgstr ""
-"Logiciel libre : liberté et coopération - Projet GNU - Free Software "
-"Foundation"
-
-#. type: Content of: <h2>
-msgid "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation"
-msgstr "Logiciel libre : liberté et coopération"
-
-#. type: Content of: <blockquote><p>
-msgid ""
-"Transcript of Richard M. Stallman's speech, “Free Software: Freedom "
-"and Cooperation”, given at New York University in New York, NY, on 29 "
-"May 2001"
-msgstr ""
-"Transcription du discours de Richard M. Stallman, « Logiciel libre :
liberté "
-"et coopération », donné à <cite>New York University</cite> (campus de
New "
-"York, NY) le 29 mai 2001."
-
-#. type: Content of: <div><blockquote><p>
-msgid ""
-"A <a href=\"/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt\">plain text</a> version of "
-"this transcript and a <a href=\"/events/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt\">summary</"
-"a> of the speech are also available."
-msgstr ""
-"Une version <a href=\"/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt\">texte</a> de "
-"cette transcription et un <a href=\"/events/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt"
-"\">résumé</a> du discours sont aussi disponibles en anglais."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>URETSKY</strong>: I'm Mike Uretsky. I'm over at the Stern School of "
-"Business. I'm also one of the Co-Directors of the Center for Advanced "
-"Technology. And, on behalf of all of us in the Computer Science Department, "
-"I want to welcome you here. I want to say a few comments, before I turn it "
-"over to Ed, who is going to introduce the speaker."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>URETSKY</strong> : Je suis Mike Uretsky. Je travaille à la "
-"<cite>Stern Business School</cite> (Ãcole de commerce Stern). Je suis aussi "
-"l'un des codirecteurs du <cite>Center for Advanced Technology</cite> (Centre "
-"pour la technologie de pointe). Et au nom de tout le département "
-"d'informatique, je veux vous souhaiter la bienvenue. Je voudrais faire "
-"quelques commentaires avant de passer la parole à Ed qui présentera "
-"l'orateur."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"The role of a university is a place to foster debate and to have interesting "
-"discussions. And the role of a major university is to have particularly "
-"interesting discussions. And this particular presentation, this seminar "
-"falls right into that mold. I find the discussion of open source "
-"particularly interesting. In a sense … <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Le rôle d'une université est d'être un lieu de débats et de permettre des
"
-"discussions intéressantes. Et le rôle d'une grande université est d'offrir
"
-"des discussions particulièrement intéressantes. Cet exposé particulier, ce
"
-"séminaire, répond parfaitement à cet impératif. Je trouve la discussion
sur "
-"l'open source particulièrement intéressante. D'une certaine
manière… "
-"<i>[rires]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I do free software. Open source is a different "
-"movement. <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Je fais du logiciel libre. L'open source, c'est "
-"un autre mouvement <i>[rires et applaudissements]</i>."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>URETSKY</strong>: When I first started in the field in the '60's, "
-"basically software was free. And we went in cycles. It became free, and "
-"then software manufacturers, in the need to expand their markets, pushed it "
-"in other directions. A lot of the developments that took place with the "
-"entry of the PC moved in exactly the same kind of a cycle."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>URETSKY</strong> : Quand j'ai commencer à travailler dans ce
domaine "
-"dans les années 60, en principe les logiciels étaient libres. Puis nous "
-"sommes entrés dans un cycle. Au début ils étaient libres, puis les "
-"fabricants de logiciels, pour étendre leur marché, les ont poussés dans "
-"d'autres directions. Une grande partie du développement qui a eu lieu à "
-"l'arrivée du PC a suivi exactement le même cycle."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"There's a very interesting French philosopher, Pierre Levy, who talks about "
-"movement to this direction and who talks about the move into cyberspace as "
-"not only relating to technology but also relating to social restructuring, "
-"to political restructuring, through a change in the kinds of relationships "
-"that will improve the well-being of mankind. And we're hoping that this "
-"debate is a movement in that direction, that this debate is something that "
-"cuts across a lot of the disciplines that normally act as solace within the "
-"University. We're looking forward to some very interesting discussions. Ed?"
-msgstr ""
-"Il y a un philosophe français très intéressant, Pierre Lévy, qui parle
d'un "
-"mouvement dans cette direction et parle de l'entrée dans le cyberespace, non
"
-"seulement en relation avec la technologie, mais aussi avec la "
-"restructuration sociale et politique, Ã travers un changement des types de "
-"relations qui va améliorer le bien-être de l'humanité. Et nous espérons
que "
-"ce débat est un pas dans cette direction, que ce débat traverse de "
-"nombreuses disciplines qui travaillent généralement en solo Ã
l'université. "
-"Nous espérons donc de très intéressantes discussions. Ed ?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: I'm Ed Schonberg from the Computer Science "
-"Department at the Courant Institute. Let me welcome you all to this event. "
-"Introducers are usually, and particularly, a useless aspect of public "
-"presentations, but in this case, actually, they serve a useful purpose, as "
-"Mike easily demonstrated, because an introducer for instance, told him, by "
-"making inaccurate comments, can allow him to straighten out and correct and "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i> sharpen considerably the parameters of the debate."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong> : Je suis Ed Schonberg du département "
-"d'informatique de l'Institut Courant. Permettez-moi de vous souhaiter la "
-"bienvenue pour cet événement. Les présentateurs sont, en général et en "
-"particulier, un aspect inutile des présentations publiques, mais dans ce "
-"cas, ils servent un but utile comme le propos de Mike vient facilement de le "
-"prouver. Parce qu'un présentateur, par exemple par des commentaires "
-"inappropriés, peut permettre à l'orateur de corriger <i>[rires]</i> et "
-"préciser considérablement les paramètres du débat."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, let me make the briefest possible introduction to somebody who doesn't "
-"need one. Richard is the perfect example of somebody who, by acting "
-"locally, started thinking globally from problems concerning the "
-"unavailability of source code for printer drivers at the AI Lab many years "
-"ago. He has developed a coherent philosophy that has forced all of us to re-"
-"examine our ideas of how software is produced, of what intellectual property "
-"means, and what the software community actually represents. Let me welcome "
-"Richard Stallman. <i>[Applause]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Aussi permettez-moi de faire la présentation la plus brève possible de "
-"quelqu'un qui n'en a pas besoin. Richard est le parfait exemple de quelqu'un "
-"qui, agissant localement, commença à penser globalement en partant des "
-"problèmes d'inaccessibilité du code source des pilotes d'imprimantes au "
-"Laboratoire d'intelligence artificielle il y a bien des années. Il a "
-"développé une philosophie cohérente qui nous a tous forcés à réexaminer
nos "
-"idées sur la façon dont le logiciel est produit, sur ce que signifie la "
-"propriété intellectuelle et sur ce que représente la communauté du
logiciel. "
-"Bienvenue à Richard Stallman <i>[applaudissements]</i>."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can someone lend me a watch? <i>[Laughter]</i> "
-"Thank you. So, I'd like to thank Microsoft for providing me the opportunity "
-"to <i>[Laughter]</i> be on this platform. For the past few weeks, I have "
-"felt like an author whose book was fortuitously banned somewhere. <i>"
-"[Laughter]</i> Except that all the articles about it are giving the wrong "
-"author's name, because Microsoft describes the GNU GPL as an open source "
-"license, and most of the press coverage followed suit. Most people, of "
-"course just innocently don't realize that our work has nothing to do with "
-"open source, that in fact we did most of it before people even coined the "
-"term open source."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Quelqu'un peut-il me prêter une montre ? <i>"
-"[rires]</i> Merci. Bien, je voudrais remercier Microsoft de me donner "
-"l'occasion aujourd'hui <i>[rires]</i> d'être ici. Ces dernières semaines,
je "
-"me sentais comme un auteur dont le livre a été fortuitement interdit
quelque "
-"part <i>[rires]</i>. Sauf que tous les articles le concernant mentionnent un "
-"nom d'auteur erroné, parce que Microsoft décrit la GNU GPL comme une
licence "
-"open source et que la majorité de la couverture de presse a suivi. La "
-"plupart des gens, en toute innocence bien sûr, ne se rendent pas compte que "
-"notre travail n'a rien à voir avec l'open source et qu'en réalité nous en "
-"avons fait la plus grande part avant même que le terme « open source »
ne "
-"soit inventé."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"We are in the free software movement, and I'm going to speak about what the "
-"free software movement is about, what it means, what we have done, and, "
-"because this is partly sponsored by a school of business, I'll say some "
-"things more than I usually do about how free software relates to business, "
-"and some other areas of social life."
-msgstr ""
-"Nous faisons partie du mouvement du logiciel libre et je vais vous parler de "
-"ce qu'est ce mouvement, de ce qu'il signifie, de ce que nous avons fait, et "
-"puisque nous sommes réunis par une école de commerce, je vous en dirai un "
-"peu plus qu'Ã l'habitude sur les relations du logiciel libre avec
l'économie "
-"et avec d'autres champs de la vie en société."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, some of you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps you "
-"cook. And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably use "
-"recipes. And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the experience of "
-"getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing it. And you've "
-"probably also had the experience — unless you're a total neophyte "
-"— of changing a recipe. You know, it says certain things, but you "
-"don't have to do exactly that. You can leave out some ingredients. Add "
-"some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms. Put in less salt because your "
-"doctor said you should cut down on salt — whatever. You can even make "
-"bigger changes according to your skill. And if you've made changes in a "
-"recipe, and you cook it for your friends, and they like it, one of your "
-"friends might say, “Hey, could I have the recipe?” And then, "
-"what do you do? You could write down your modified version of the recipe and "
-"make a copy for your friend. These are the natural things to do with "
-"functionally useful recipes of any kind."
-msgstr ""
-"Certains d'entre vous n'écriront peut-être jamais de logiciels mais vous "
-"cuisinez peut-être. Et si vous cuisinez, à moins que vous ne soyez un grand
"
-"chef, vous utilisez probablement des recettes. Si vous utilisez des "
-"recettes, il vous est probablement déjà arrivé de demander la copie d'une "
-"recette à un ami, qui l'a partagée avec vous. Et il vous est probablement "
-"arrivé â à moins d'être un complet néophyte â de changer cette
recette. Vous "
-"savez, il y a des choses que l'on n'est pas obligé de faire exactement : "
-"vous pouvez laisser tomber certains ingrédients, ajouter des champignons "
-"parce que vous aimez les champignons, mettre un peu moins de sel parce que "
-"votre médecin vous a recommandé de manger moins salé, que sais-je ? Vous "
-"pouvez même faire des changements plus importants selon vos talents. Si vous
"
-"avez fait des changements dans une recette et que vos amis l'ont appréciée,
"
-"l'un d'entre eux vous a peut-être dit : « Dis donc, je pourrais avoir la "
-"recette ? » Et alors, qu'est-ce que vous faites ? Vous mettez par écrit "
-"votre version modifiée et faites une copie pour votre ami. C'est une chose "
-"qu'on fait naturellement avec des recettes de toute sorte."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program. A computer program's a lot "
-"like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to get some result that "
-"you want. So it's just as natural to do those same things with computer "
-"programs — hand a copy to your friend. Make changes in it because the "
-"job it was written to do isn't exactly what you want. It did a great job "
-"for somebody else, but your job is a different job. And after you've "
-"changed it, that's likely to be useful for other people. Maybe they have a "
-"job to do that's like the job you do. So they ask, “Hey, can I have a "
-"copy?” Of course, if you're a nice person, you're going to give a "
-"copy. That's the way to be a decent person."
-msgstr ""
-"En fait, une recette ressemble beaucoup à un programme informatique. Un "
-"programme informatique est comme une recette : une série d'étapes à mener
"
-"pour obtenir le résultat que vous attendez. Alors il est tout naturel de "
-"faire la même chose avec un programme : donner une copie à un ami ;
apporter "
-"des modifications parce que le travail pour lequel il a été écrit n'est
pas "
-"tout à fait ce que vous voulez. Il a bien fonctionné pour quelqu'un d'autre
"
-"mais votre travail est différent. Et une fois que vous avez changé le "
-"programme, il est probable qu'il pourra servir à d'autres. Peut-être qu'ils
"
-"ont à faire un travail comme le vôtre, alors ils vous en demanderont une "
-"copie, et si vous êtes gentil, vous allez la leur donner. C'est comme ça "
-"qu'on doit se comporter."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So imagine what it would be like if recipes were packaged inside black "
-"boxes. You couldn't see what ingredients they're using, let alone change "
-"them, and imagine if you made a copy for a friend, they would call you a "
-"pirate and try to put you in prison for years. That world would create "
-"tremendous outrage from all the people who are used to sharing recipes. But "
-"that is exactly what the world of proprietary software is like. A world in "
-"which common decency towards other people is prohibited or prevented."
-msgstr ""
-"Alors imaginez que les recettes soient enfermées dans des boîtes noires. "
-"Vous ne pourriez pas savoir les ingrédients qu'elles utilisent, encore moins
"
-"les changer. Et imaginez, si vous faisiez une copie pour un ami, qu'on vous "
-"traite de pirate et qu'on essaie de vous mettre en prison pour des années. "
-"Ce serait un énorme tollé de la part de tous ceux qui sont habitués à "
-"partager des recettes de cuisine. Mais c'est exactement ce qui se passe dans "
-"le monde du logiciel privateur<a id=\"TransNote1-rev\" href="
-"\"#TransNote1\"><sup>1</sup></a> â un monde dans lequel on empêche et on "
-"interdit un comportement correct envers les autres personnes."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, why did I notice this? I noticed this because I had the good fortune in "
-"the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who shared software. "
-"Now, this community could trace its ancestry essentially back to the "
-"beginning of computing. In the 1970's, though, it was a bit rare for there "
-"to be a community where people shared software. And, in fact, this was sort "
-"of an extreme case, because in the lab where I worked, the entire operating "
-"system was software developed by the people in our community, and we'd share "
-"any of it with anybody. Anybody was welcome to come and take a look, and "
-"take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do. There were no copyright "
-"notices on these programs. Cooperation was our way of life. And we were "
-"secure in that way of life. We didn't fight for it. We didn't have to "
-"fight for it. We just lived that way. And, as far as we knew, we would "
-"just keep on living that way. So there was free software, but there was no "
-"free software movement."
-msgstr ""
-"Maintenant, pourquoi ai-je remarqué cela ? Je l'ai remarqué parce que j'ai
"
-"eu la bonne fortune dans les années 70 de faire partie d'une communauté "
-"d'informaticiens qui partageaient les logiciels. On pourrait faire remonter "
-"ses racines aux origines de l'informatique, mais dans les années 70 c'était
"
-"plutôt rare de trouver une communauté où les gens partageaient du
logiciel. "
-"En fait c'était en quelque sorte un cas extrême parce que, dans le "
-"laboratoire où je travaillais, l'ensemble du système d'exploitation avait "
-"été développé par les gens de cette communauté et nous le partagions
avec "
-"n'importe qui. Tout un chacun était invité à venir y jeter un Åil et Ã
en "
-"emporter une copie pour faire ce qu'il voulait avec. Il n'y avait pas d'avis "
-"de copyright sur ces programmes. Et rien ne semblait menacer ce mode de vie. "
-"Ce n'était pas le résultat d'une lutte, c'est comme ça que nous vivions. "
-"Nous pensions que cela continuerait. Il y avait du logiciel libre mais pas "
-"de mouvement du logiciel libre."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that happened "
-"to it. Ultimately it was wiped out. Ultimately, the PDP-10 computer which "
-"we used for all our work was discontinued. And you know, our system — "
-"the Incompatible Timesharing System — was written starting in the "
-"'60's, so it was written in assembler language. That's what you used to "
-"write an operating system in the '60's. So, of course, assembler language "
-"is for one particular computer architecture; if that gets discontinued, all "
-"your work turns into dust — it's useless. And that's what happened to "
-"us. The 20 years or so of work of our community turned into dust."
-msgstr ""
-"Mais ensuite notre communauté a été détruite par une série de
calamités. à "
-"la fin elle fut balayée. L'ordinateur PDP-10 que nous utilisions pour tout "
-"notre travail fut abandonné. Notre système d'exploitation, le « système
à "
-"temps partagé incompatible » <cite>[Incompatible Timesharing
System]</cite>, "
-"écrit à partir des années 60, était en langage assembleur. C'est ce qu'on
"
-"utilisait pour écrire les systèmes d'exploitation dans les années 60. "
-"Naturellement, le langage assembleur est spécifique à un type particulier "
-"d'architecture d'ordinateur ; si elle devient obsolète, tout le travail "
-"tombe en poussière. Et c'est ce qui nous est arrivé. Les presque 20 ans de "
-"travail de notre communauté sont tombés en poussière."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me, helped me "
-"see what to do, helped prepare me to see what to do when this happened, "
-"because at certain point, Xerox gave the Artificial Intelligence Lab, where "
-"I worked, a laser printer, and this was a really handsome gift, because it "
-"was the first time anybody outside Xerox had a laser printer. It was very "
-"fast, printed a page a second, very fine in many respects, but it was "
-"unreliable, because it was really a high-speed office copier that had been "
-"modified into a printer. And, you know, copiers jam, but there's somebody "
-"there to fix them. The printer jammed and nobody saw. So it stayed jammed "
-"for a long time."
-msgstr ""
-"Pourtant, avant que cela n'arrive, une expérience m'a préparé et m'a aidé
à "
-"voir ce qu'il fallait faire. Un jour, Xerox a donné au Laboratoire "
-"d'intelligence artificielle, où je travaillais, une imprimante laser ; "
-"c'était un beau cadeau car c'était la première fois qu'en dehors de Xerox "
-"quelqu'un possédait une imprimante laser. Elle était très rapide, une page
à "
-"la seconde, excellente à bien des égards, mais elle n'était pas fiable
parce "
-"qu'en fait c'était un copieur rapide de bureau qui avait été modifié pour
"
-"devenir une imprimante. Vous savez, les copieurs font du bourrage de papier "
-"mais il y a sur place quelqu'un pour les débloquer. L'imprimante bourrait "
-"mais personne ne le remarquait aussi restait-t-elle hors service pendant "
-"longtemps."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Well, we had an idea for how to deal with this problem. Change it so that "
-"whenever the printer gets a jam, the machine that runs the printer can tell "
-"our timesharing machine, and tell the users who are waiting for printouts, "
-"or something like that, you know, tell them, go fix the printer. Because if "
-"they only knew it was jammed, of course, if you're waiting for a printout "
-"and you know that the printer is jammed, you don't want to sit and wait "
-"forever, you're going to go fix it."
-msgstr ""
-"Nous avions bien une idée pour résoudre ce problème : faire en sorte qu'Ã
"
-"chaque bourrage elle avertisse notre machine en temps partagé et les "
-"utilisateurs qui attendaient une sortie d'imprimante. Car bien sûr, si vous "
-"attendez une sortie d'imprimante et que vous savez qu'elle est en panne, "
-"vous n'allez pas rester assis pour l'éternité, vous irez la débloquer."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But at that point, we were completely stymied, because the software that ran "
-"that printer was not free software. It had come with the printer, and it "
-"was just a binary. We couldn't have the source code; Xerox wouldn't let us "
-"have the source code. So, despite our skill as programmers — after "
-"all, we had written our own timesharing system — we were completely "
-"helpless to add this feature to the printer software."
-msgstr ""
-"Mais à ce stade, nous étions dans une impasse totale du fait que le pilote "
-"de l'imprimante n'était pas un logiciel libre. Il était livré avec mais "
-"c'était un programme binaire. Nous n'avions pas le code source. Xerox ne "
-"nous avait pas autorisés à l'avoir. Si bien que malgré nos talents "
-"d'informaticiens (nous avions écrit notre propre système d'exploitation en "
-"temps partagé) nous étions complètement démunis pour ajouter cette
fonction "
-"au pilote d'imprimante."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And we just had to suffer with waiting. It would take an hour or two to get "
-"your printout because the machine would be jammed most of the time. And "
-"only once in a while — you'd wait an hour figuring “I know it's "
-"going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and go collect my printout,” and "
-"then you'd see that it had been jammed the whole time, and in fact, nobody "
-"else had fixed it. So you'd fix it and you'd go wait another half hour. "
-"Then, you'd come back, and you'd see it jammed again — before it got "
-"to your output. It would print three minutes and be jammed thirty minutes. "
-"Frustration up the whazzoo. But the thing that made it worse was knowing "
-"that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his own selfishness, was "
-"blocking us, obstructing us from improving the software. So, of course, we "
-"felt some resentment."
-msgstr ""
-"Nous pouvions seulement prendre notre mal en patience ; cela vous prenait "
-"une ou deux heures pour avoir votre impression car la machine était bloquée
"
-"la plupart du temps. De temps à autre vous attendiez une heure en vous "
-"disant : « Je sais que ça va planter, je vais attendre une heure et aller
"
-"chercher mon texte. » Et alors vous vous aperceviez que la machine était "
-"restée bloquée pendant tout ce temps-là et que personne d'autre ne l'avait
"
-"remise en état. Alors vous faisiez le nécessaire et attendiez une
demi-heure "
-"de plus. Ensuite vous reveniez et vous voyiez qu'elle s'était bloquée de "
-"nouveau â avant même de commencer votre impression. Elle imprimait trois "
-"minutes et se bloquait pendant 30 minutes. Frustration jusque là  ! Le pire "
-"était de savoir que nous aurions pu la réparer mais que quelqu'un, par pur "
-"égoÃsme, nous mettait des bâtons dans les roues en nous empêchant "
-"d'améliorer son programme. D'où notre ressentiment, évidemment…"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a copy of "
-"that software. So I was visiting there later, so I went to his office and I "
-"said, “Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of the printer source "
-"code?” And he said “No, I promised not to give you a copy."
-"” <i>[Laughter]</i> I was stunned. I was so — I was angry, and "
-"I had no idea how I could do justice to it. All I could think of was to "
-"turn around on my heel and walk out of his room. Maybe I slammed the door. "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i> And I thought about it later on, because I realized that I "
-"was seeing not just an isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was "
-"important and affected a lot of people."
-msgstr ""
-"Et alors j'ai entendu dire que quelqu'un avait une copie de ce programme à "
-"l'université Carnegie-Mellon. En visite là -bas un peu plus tard, je me
rends "
-"à son bureau et je dis : « Salut, je suis du MIT, pourrais-je avoir une "
-"copie du code source de l'imprimante ? » Et il répond : « Non, j'ai
promis "
-"de ne pas vous donner de copie » <i>[rires]</i>. J'étais soufflé.
J'étais "
-"si… J'étais tellement en colère ! Je ne savais pas quoi faire pour "
-"réparer cette injustice. Tout ce qui m'est venu à l'esprit, c'est de
tourner "
-"les talons et sortir de son bureau. Peut-être que j'ai claqué la "
-"porte… <i>[rires]</i> Et j'y ai repensé plus tard parce que j'ai "
-"réalisé que je n'étais pas simplement en face d'un fait isolé mais d'un "
-"phénomène de société qui était important et affectait beaucoup de gens."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"This was — for me — I was lucky, I only got a taste of it, but "
-"other people had to live in this all the time. So I thought about it at "
-"length. See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with us — his "
-"colleagues at MIT. He had betrayed us. But he didn't just do it to us. "
-"Chances are he did it to you too. <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> "
-"And I think, mostly likely, he did it to you too. <i>[Pointing at another "
-"member of audience.] [Laughter]</i> And he probably did it to you as well. "
-"<i>[Pointing to third member of audience.]</i> He probably did it to most of "
-"the people here in this room — except a few, maybe, who weren't born "
-"yet in 1980. Because he had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about "
-"the entire population of the Planet Earth. He had signed a non-disclosure "
-"agreement."
-msgstr ""
-"Pour moi par chance, ce n'était qu'un échantillon, mais d'autres gens "
-"étaient obligés de vivre avec ça tout le temps. Et j'y ai repensé plus "
-"longuement. Vous voyez, il avait promis de refuser de coopérer avec nous, "
-"ses collègues du MIT. Il nous avait trahis. Mais il ne l'avait pas fait qu'Ã
"
-"nous. Il y a des chances qu'il vous l'ait fait à vous aussi <i>[pointant du "
-"doigt un auditeur]</i>. Et je pense, probablement à vous aussi <i>[pointant "
-"du doigt un autre auditeur â rires]</i> et à vous aussi <i>[pointant du "
-"doigt un troisième auditeur]</i>. Et certainement à une bonne partie de
ceux "
-"qui sont dans cette salle, à l'exception de quelques-uns, peut-être, qui "
-"n'étaient pas encore nés en 1980. Il avait promis de ne pas coopérer avec "
-"l'ensemble de la population de la planète Terre, ou presque. Il avait signé
"
-"un accord de non-divulgation."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, "
-"and it taught me an important lesson — a lesson that's important "
-"because most programmers never learn it. You see, this was my first "
-"encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was the victim. I, and my "
-"whole lab, were the victims. And the lesson it taught me was that non-"
-"disclosure agreements have victims. They're not innocent. They're not "
-"harmless. Most programmers first encounter a non-disclosure agreement when "
-"they're invited to sign one. And there's always some temptation — "
-"some goody they're going to get if they sign. So, they make up excuses. "
-"They say, “Well, he's never going to get a copy no matter what, so why "
-"shouldn't I join the conspiracy to deprive him?” They say, “This "
-"is the way it's always done. Who am I to go against it?” They say, "
-"“If I don't sign this, someone else will.” Various excuses to "
-"gag their consciences."
-msgstr ""
-"C'était ma première confrontation avec un accord de non-divulgation et cela
"
-"m'a appris une importante leçon, une leçon qui est importante parce que la "
-"plupart des programmeurs ne l'apprennent jamais. Vous voyez, c'était ma "
-"première rencontre avec un accord de non-divulgation et j'en étais victime.
"
-"Moi et tout mon laboratoire, nous en étions victimes. Et la leçon que j'ai "
-"apprise c'est que les accords de non-divulgation font des victimes. Ils ne "
-"sont pas innocents, ils ne sont pas inoffensifs. La plupart des programmeurs "
-"rencontrent un accord de non-divulgation lorsqu'ils sont invités à en
signer "
-"un et il y a toujours une sorte de tentation, un bonus qu'ils auront s'ils "
-"signent. Alors ils s'inventent des excuses. Ils disent : « De toute
façon, "
-"il n'aura pas de copie, alors pourquoi ne rejoindrais-je pas la conspiration "
-"pour l'en priver ? » Ils disent : « Ãa se fait toujours comme ça, qui
suis-"
-"je pour m'y opposer ? » Ils disent : « Si je ne signe pas, quelqu'un
d'autre "
-"le fera. » Diverses excuses pour tromper leur conscience."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But when somebody invited me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, my "
-"conscience was already sensitized. It remembered how angry I had been, when "
-"somebody promised not to help me and my whole lab solve our problem. And I "
-"couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to somebody else who had "
-"never done me any harm. You know, if somebody asked me to promise not to "
-"share some useful information with a hated enemy, I would have said yes. "
-"You know? If somebody's done something bad, he deserves it. But, strangers "
-"— they haven't done me any harm. How could they deserve that kind of "
-"mistreatment? You can't let yourself start treating just anybody and "
-"everybody badly. Then you become a predator on society. So I said, “"
-"Thank you very much for offering me this nice software package. But I can't "
-"accept it in good conscience, on the conditions you are demanding, so I will "
-"do without it. Thank you so much.” And so, I have never knowingly "
-"signed a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful technical information "
-"such as software."
-msgstr ""
-"Mais quand on m'a invité à signer un accord de non-divulgation, ma "
-"conscience était déjà en éveil. Elle se rappelait comme j'étais en
colère "
-"lorsque quelqu'un avait promis de ne pas m'aider, moi et mon labo, Ã "
-"résoudre notre problème. Je ne pouvais pas retourner ma veste et faire la "
-"même chose à quelqu'un qui ne m'avait fait aucun mal. Vous savez, si "
-"quelqu'un me demandait de promettre de ne pas partager une information utile "
-"avec un ennemi détesté je le ferais. Si quelqu'un a fait quelque chose de "
-"mal il le mérite. Mais des étrangers… Ils ne m'ont fait aucun mal. "
-"Comment pourraient-ils mériter un mauvais traitement de ce genre ? On ne "
-"peut pas se permettre de mal se comporter avec tout un chacun, sinon on "
-"devient un prédateur de la société. Alors j'ai dit : « Merci de
m'offrir ce "
-"beau logiciel, mais je ne peux l'accepter en bonne conscience aux conditions "
-"que vous exigez, donc je vais m'en passer. Merci beaucoup. » Ainsi, je n'ai
"
-"jamais consciemment signé d'accord de non-divulgation pour de l'information "
-"technique utile comme un programme."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now there are other kinds of information which raise different ethical "
-"issues. For instance, there's personal information. You know, if you "
-"wanted to talk with me about what was happening between you and your "
-"boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody — you know, I could "
-"keep — I could agree to keep that a secret for you, because that's not "
-"generally useful technical information. At least, it's probably not "
-"generally useful. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Cela dit, il y a des informations d'autre nature qui posent d'autres "
-"problèmes éthiques. Par exemple, il y a les informations personnelles. Vous
"
-"savez, si vous voulez me parler de ce qui se passe entre vous et votre petit "
-"ami et que vous me demandez de n'en parler à personne, je peux accepter de "
-"garder le secret pour vous, parce que ce n'est pas une information technique "
-"d'utilité générale. En fait, ce n'est probablement pas d'utilité
générale <i>"
-"[rires]</i>."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"There is a small chance — and it's a possibility though — that "
-"you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex technique, <i>[Laughter]</i> "
-"and I would then feel a moral duty <i>[Laughter]</i> to pass it onto the "
-"rest of humanity, so that everyone could get the benefit of it. So, I'd "
-"have to put a proviso in that promise, you know? If it's just details about "
-"who wants this, and who's angry at whom, and things like that — soap "
-"opera — that I can keep private for you, but something that humanity "
-"could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't withhold. You see, the "
-"purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information for "
-"humanity to help people live their lives better. If we promise to withhold "
-"that information — if we keep it secret — then we are betraying "
-"the mission of our field. And this, I decided I shouldn't do."
-msgstr ""
-"Il y a une petite chance, c'est possible, que vous puissiez me révéler une "
-"merveilleuse nouvelle technique sexuelle <i>[rires]</i> et je me sentirais "
-"moralement obligé <i>[rires]</i> de la révéler au reste de l'humanité
pour "
-"que chacun puisse en profiter. Donc je devrais mettre une condition à ma "
-"promesse. Si ce sont juste des détails sur qui veut ceci et qui est en "
-"colère contre untel, des choses comme ça, du feuilleton télé, cela je
peux "
-"le garder confidentiel… Mais une connaissance dont l'humanité "
-"tirerait un énorme bénéfice, je ne dois pas la garder pour moi. Vous
voyez, "
-"le but de la science et de la technologie est de produire de l'information "
-"utile pour l'humanité qui aidera les gens à vivre une vie meilleure. Si
nous "
-"promettons de cacher cette information, si nous la gardons secrète, nous "
-"trahissons la mission de notre discipline. Et ceci, j'ai décidé de ne pas
le "
-"faire."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, meanwhile my community had collapsed, and that was collapsing, and that "
-"left me in a bad situation. You see, the whole Incompatible Timesharing "
-"System was obsolete, because the PDP-10 was obsolete, and so there was no "
-"way that I could continue working as an operating system developer the way "
-"that I had been doing it. That depended on being part of the community "
-"using the community software and improving it. That no longer was a "
-"possibility, and that gave me a moral dilemma. What was I going to do? "
-"Because the most obvious possibility meant to go against that decision I had "
-"made. The most obvious possibility was to adapt myself to the change in the "
-"world. To accept that things were different, and that I'd just have to give "
-"up those principles and start signing non-disclosure agreements for "
-"proprietary operating systems, and most likely writing proprietary software "
-"as well. But I realized that that way I could have fun coding, and I could "
-"make money — especially if I did it other than at MIT — but at "
-"the end, I'd have to look back at my career and say, “I've spent my "
-"life building walls to divide people,” and I would have been ashamed "
-"of my life."
-msgstr ""
-"Mais en attendant, ma communauté s'était effondrée et c'était terrible ;
"
-"cela me mettait en mauvaise posture. Vous voyez, le système à temps
partagé "
-"incompatible était obsolète parce que le PDP-10 était obsolète. Donc je
ne "
-"pouvais plus travailler en tant que développeur de systèmes d'exploitation "
-"comme je l'avais fait. C'était conditionné à mon appartenance à la "
-"communauté qui utilisait ce logiciel pour l'améliorer. Cela n'était plus "
-"possible et cela m'amena à un dilemme moral. Qu'allais-je faire ? Parce que
"
-"la possibilité la plus évidente impliquait de faire le contraire de ce que "
-"j'avais décidé. La possibilité la plus évidente était de m'adapter au "
-"changement du monde ; accepter le fait que les choses étaient différentes,
"
-"que je n'avais qu'à abandonner ces principes et commencer à signer des "
-"accords de non-divulgation pour des systèmes d'exploitation privateurs, et "
-"probablement écrire des logiciels privateurs à mon tour. Mais j'ai
réalisé "
-"que, même si de cette façon j'avais un moyen de m'amuser à coder et de "
-"gagner de l'argent en même temps, surtout si je faisais ça ailleurs qu'au "
-"MIT, à la fin j'aurais dû me retourner sur ma carrière et dire : « J'ai
"
-"passé ma vie à construire des murs pour diviser les gens. » Et j'aurais
eu "
-"honte de ma vie."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So I looked for another alternative, and there was an obvious one. I could "
-"leave the software field and do something else. Now I had no other special "
-"noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a waiter. <i>[Laughter]"
-"</i> Not at a fancy restaurant; they wouldn't hire me, <i>[Laughter]</i> but "
-"I could be a waiter somewhere. And many programmers, they say to me, “"
-"The people who hire programmers demand this, this and this. If I don't do "
-"those things, I'll starve.” It's literally the word they use. Well, "
-"you know, as a waiter, you're not going to starve. <i>[Laughter]</i> So, "
-"really, they're in no danger. But — and this is important, you see "
-"— because sometimes you can justify doing something that hurts other "
-"people by saying otherwise something worse is going to happen to me. You "
-"know, if you were <em>really</em> going to starve, you'd be justified in "
-"writing proprietary software. <i>[Laughter]</i> If somebody's pointing a "
-"gun at you, then I would say, it's forgivable. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, I had "
-"found a way that I could survive without doing something unethical, so that "
-"excuse was not available. So I realized, though, that being a waiter would "
-"be no fun for me, and it would be wasting my skills as an operating system "
-"developer. It would avoid misusing my skills. Developing proprietary "
-"software would be misusing my skills. Encouraging other people to live in "
-"the world of proprietary software would be misusing my skills. So it's "
-"better to waste them than misuse them, but it's still not really good."
-msgstr ""
-"Alors j'ai cherché une alternative, et il y en avait une évidente : je "
-"pouvais quitter l'informatique et faire autre chose. Je n'avais aucun autre "
-"talent remarquable mais je suis sûr que j'aurais pu être serveur
<i>[rires]</"
-"i>. Pas dans un restaurant chic, ils n'auraient pas voulu de moi <i>[rires]</"
-"i>, mais j'aurais pu être serveur quelque part. De nombreux programmeurs me "
-"disent : « Les employeurs exigent ceci, cela, si je ne le fais pas je "
-"mourrai de faim. » C'est le mot exact qu'ils utilisent. Bon, comme serveur "
-"je ne risquais pas de mourir de faim <i>[rires]</i>. En réalité, les "
-"programmeurs ne courent aucun danger. Et c'est important voyez-vous, car "
-"vous pouvez quelquefois vous justifier de faire quelque chose qui blesse "
-"autrui en disant « sinon quelque chose de pire va m'arriver ». Si vous
êtes "
-"<em>vraiment</em> sur le point de crever de faim, vous pouvez vous justifier "
-"d'écrire du logiciel privateur <i>[rires]</i> ; et si quelqu'un vous menace
"
-"d'une arme je dirais même que c'est pardonnable <i>[rires]</i>. Mais j'avais
"
-"trouvé une façon de survivre sans enfreindre mon éthique, aussi cette
excuse "
-"était-elle irrecevable. Cependant, je réalisais qu'être serveur ne serait "
-"pas drôle pour moi et que ce serait gâcher mes talents de programmeur. Je "
-"devais éviter de mal utiliser mes talents. Ãcrire des logiciels privateurs "
-"aurait été mal utiliser mes talents. Encourager les autres à vivre dans un
"
-"monde de logiciels privateurs aurait signifié mal utiliser mes talents. "
-"Aussi valait-il mieux les gâcher que les utiliser à mauvais escient, mais
ce "
-"n'était toujours pas la bonne solution."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So for those reasons, I decided to look for some other alternative. What "
-"can an operating system developer do that would actually improve the "
-"situation, make the world a better place? And I realized that an operating "
-"system developer was exactly what was needed. The problem, the dilemma, "
-"existed for me and for everyone else because all of the available operating "
-"systems for modern computers were proprietary. The free operating systems "
-"were for old, obsolete computers, right? So for the modern computers — "
-"if you wanted to get a modern computer and use it, you were forced into a "
-"proprietary operating system. So if an operating system developer wrote "
-"another operating system, and then said, “Everybody come and share "
-"this; you're welcome to this” — that would give everybody a way "
-"out of the dilemma, another alternative. So I realized that there was "
-"something I could do that would solve the problem. I had just the right "
-"skills to be able to do it. And it was the most useful thing I could "
-"possibly imagine that I'd be able to do with my life. And it was a problem "
-"that no one else was trying to solve. It was just sort of sitting there, "
-"getting worse, and nobody was there but me. So I felt, “I'm elected. "
-"I have to work on this. If not me, who?” So I decided I would develop "
-"a free operating system, or die trying … of old age, of course. <i>"
-"[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"C'est pourquoi j'ai cherché une autre possibilité. Que pouvait faire un "
-"développeur de systèmes d'exploitation pour améliorer la situation, pour "
-"rendre le monde meilleur ? J'ai réalisé qu'un développeur de systèmes "
-"d'exploitation, c'était exactement ce qu'il fallait. Comme tous les autres, "
-"j'étais placé devant un problème, un dilemme, parce que tous les systèmes
"
-"d'exploitation disponibles pour les ordinateurs modernes étaient privateurs.
"
-"Les systèmes d'exploitation libres étaient pour de vieux ordinateurs "
-"obsolètes, n'est-ce pas ? Si vous vouliez un ordinateur moderne, vous
étiez "
-"obligé d'adopter un système d'exploitation privateur. Cependant, si un "
-"développeur écrivait un autre système d'exploitation et disait « Venez
tous "
-"partager ceci, vous êtes les bienvenus », cela permettrait à chacun de "
-"sortir du dilemme, cela offrirait une alternative. Je me suis alors rendu "
-"compte que je pouvais faire quelque chose qui résoudrait le problème. "
-"J'avais les talents requis, c'était la chose la plus utile que je puisse "
-"faire de ma vie et c'était un problème que personne d'autre n'essayait de "
-"résoudre. J'étais assis là , de plus en plus mal dans ma peau, et j'étais "
-"seul. Alors un sentiment m'a envahi : « Je suis élu. C'est là -dessus que
je "
-"dois travailler. Si ce n'est pas moi, qui d'autre ? » J'ai donc décidé
de "
-"développer un système d'exploitation libre ou de mourir… de "
-"vieillesse, bien sûr <i>[rires]</i>."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, of course I had to decide what kind of operating system it should be. "
-"There are some technical design decisions to be made. I decided to make the "
-"system compatible with Unix for a number of reasons. First of all, I had "
-"just seen one operating system that I really loved become obsolete because "
-"it was written for one particular kind of computer. I didn't want that to "
-"happen again. We needed to have a portable system. Well, Unix was a "
-"portable system. So if I followed the design of Unix, I had a pretty good "
-"chance that I could make a system that would also be portable and workable. "
-"And furthermore, why <i>[Tape unclear]</i> be compatible with it in the "
-"details. The reason is, users hate incompatible changes. If I had just "
-"designed the system in my favorite way — which I would have loved "
-"doing, I'm sure — I would have produced something that was "
-"incompatible. You know, the details would be different. So, if I wrote the "
-"system, then the users would have said to me, “Well, this is very "
-"nice, but it's incompatible. It will be too much work to switch. We can't "
-"afford that much trouble just to use your system instead of Unix, so we'll "
-"stay with Unix,” they would have said."
-msgstr ""
-"Il fallait évidemment décider quelle sorte de système d'exploitation ce "
-"serait, faire quelques choix techniques. J'ai décidé de rendre le système "
-"compatible avec Unix pour plusieurs raisons. La principale, c'est que je "
-"venais de voir un système que j'adorais devenir obsolète parce qu'il était
"
-"écrit pour un type particulier d'ordinateur et je ne voulais pas que cela se
"
-"reproduise. Nous avions besoin d'un système portable. Si je suivais le "
-"schéma d'Unix, j'avais toute chance de faire un système portable et "
-"utilisable. Mieux, [les deux systèmes devaient être] compatibles dans les "
-"moindres détails. Les utilisateurs détestent en effet les changements "
-"incompatibles. Si j'avais conçu le système de la façon que je préfère
â ce "
-"que j'aurais adoré, j'en suis sûr â j'aurais produit quelque chose "
-"d'incompatible. Les détails auraient été différents. Donc, si j'avais
conçu "
-"le système ainsi les gens m'auraient dit : « Bon, c'est très joli mais
c'est "
-"incompatible. Ãa nous demandera trop de travail de changer. Nous ne pouvons "
-"nous permettre tant d'efforts pour utiliser votre système à la place
d'Unix, "
-"alors nous garderons Unix. » Voilà ce qu'ils auraient dit."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, if I wanted to actually create a community where there would be people "
-"in it, people using this free system, and enjoying the benefits of liberty "
-"and cooperation, I had to make a system people would use, a system that they "
-"would find easy to switch to, that would not have an obstacle making it fail "
-"at the very beginning. Now, making the system upward compatible with Unix "
-"actually made all the immediate design decisions, because Unix consists of "
-"many pieces, and they communicate through interfaces that are more or less "
-"documented. So if you want to be compatible with Unix, you have to replace "
-"each piece, one by one, with a compatible piece. So the remaining design "
-"decisions are inside one piece, and they could be made later by whoever "
-"decides to write that piece. They didn't have to be made at the outset."
-msgstr ""
-"Si je voulais créer une communauté où il y aurait des gens, des gens "
-"utilisant ce nouveau système et bénéficiant de la liberté et de la "
-"coopération, je devais faire un système que les gens utiliseraient, qu'ils "
-"trouveraient facile à adopter, qui ne serait pas en échec dès le départ. "
-"Rendre ce système rétrocompatible avec Unix revenait en fait à prendre les
"
-"premières décisions concernant la conception du projet, parce qu'Unix "
-"consiste en de nombreux morceaux et qu'ils communiquent à travers des "
-"interfaces plus ou moins documentées. Alors si vous voulez être compatible "
-"avec Unix, il vous faut remplacer chaque morceau, l'un après l'autre, par un
"
-"morceau compatible. Les décisions concernant la suite sont contenues dans "
-"chacun des morceaux. Elles peuvent donc être prises plus tard par quiconque "
-"décidera de l'écrire. Elles n'ont pas à être prises dès le départ."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So all we had to do to start work was find a name for the system. Now, we "
-"hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program, because "
-"thinking of people being amused by the name is half the fun of writing the "
-"program. <i>[Laughter]</i> And we had a tradition of recursive acronyms, to "
-"say that the program that you're writing is similar to some existing "
-"program. You can give it a recursive acronym name which says: this one's not "
-"the other. So, for instance, there were many Tico text editors in the '60's "
-"and '70's, and they were generally called something-or-other Tico. Then one "
-"clever hacker called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico — the first "
-"recursive acronym. In 1975, I developed the first Emacs text editor, and "
-"there were many imitations of Emacs, and a lot of them were called something-"
-"or-other Emacs, but one was called Fine, for Fine Is Not Emacs, and there "
-"was Sine, for Sine Is Not Emacs, and Eine for Ina Is Not Emacs, and MINCE "
-"for Mince Is Not Complete Emacs. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was a stripped down "
-"imitation. And then, Eine was almost completely rewritten, and the new "
-"version was called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Tout ce que nous avions à faire pour commencer le travail était de trouver "
-"un nom pour le système. Nous, les hackers, cherchons toujours des noms "
-"drôles ou méchants pour un programme, parce que penser aux gens qui "
-"s'amusent du nom, c'est la moitié du plaisir de l'écriture <i>[rires].</i> "
-"Nous avions aussi une tradition d'acronymes récursifs consistant à dire que
"
-"le programme créé est similaire à un programme existant. On peut lui
donner "
-"un nom récursif disant que celui-ci n'est pas celui-là . Par exemple, il y "
-"avait beaucoup d'éditeurs de texte <acronym title=\"Text Editor and
COrrector"
-"\">TECO</acronym> dans les années 60 et 70 et ils étaient généralement "
-"appelés « quelque-chose-TECO ». à cette époque, un hacker malin appela
le "
-"sien TINT, pour <cite>Tint Is Not Teco</cite>, le premier acronyme récursif.
"
-"En 1975, j'ai développé le premier éditeur de texte Emacs et il y eut de "
-"nombreuses imitations. Beaucoup s'appelaient quelque-chose-Emacs, mais l'une "
-"d'elles était nommée FINE<a id=\"TransNote2-rev\" href="
-"\"#TransNote2\"><sup>2</sup></a> pour <cite>Fine is not Emacs</cite>. Puis "
-"il y eut SINE pour <cite>Sine is not Emacs</cite>, et EINE pour <cite>Eine "
-"Is Not Emacs</cite>, et il eut MINCE pour <cite>Mince Is Not Complete Emacs</"
-"cite> <i>[rires]</i>, c'était une imitation incomplète. Ensuite EINE fut "
-"complètement réécrit et la nouvelle version s'appela ZWEI pour <cite>Zwei "
-"Was Eine Initially</cite><a id=\"TransNote3-rev\" href="
-"\"#TransNote3\"><sup>3</sup></a> <i>[rires]</i>."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So I looked for a recursive acronym for Something is not Unix. And I tried "
-"all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word. <i>[Laughter]</"
-"i> Hmm, try another way. I made a contraction. That way I could have a "
-"three-letter acronym, for Something's not Unix. And I tried letters, and I "
-"came across the word “GNU” — the word “GNU” is "
-"the funniest word in the English language. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was it. "
-"Of course, the reason it's funny is that according to the dictionary, it's "
-"pronounced “new”. You see? And so that's why people use it for "
-"a lot of wordplay. Let me tell you, this is the name of an animal that "
-"lives in Africa. And the African pronunciation had a click sound in it. <i>"
-"[Laughter]</i> Maybe still does. And so, the European colonists, when they "
-"got there, they didn't bother learning to say this click sound. So they "
-"just left it out, and they wrote a “G” which meant “"
-"there's another sound that's supposed to be here which we are not "
-"pronouncing.” <i>[Laughter]</i> So, tonight I'm leaving for South "
-"Africa, and I have begged them, I hope they're going to find somebody who "
-"can teach me to pronounce click sounds, <i>[Laughter]</i> so that I'll know "
-"how to pronounce GNU the correct way, when it's the animal."
-msgstr ""
-"J'ai donc cherché un acronyme récursif pour <cite>Something is not Unix</"
-"cite> (quelque chose n'est pas Unix). J'ai essayé les 26 lettres mais aucune
"
-"ne donnait un mot <i>[rires]</i>. Hum, essayons autre chose. J'ai fait une "
-"contraction. De cette façon, je pouvais avoir un acronyme de trois lettres "
-"pour <cite>Something's Not Unix</cite>. J'ai essayé des lettres et suis "
-"arrivé au mot <cite>GNU</cite> (gnou). C'est le plus drôle de la langue "
-"anglaise <i>[rires]</i>. C'était ça ! Bien sûr, la raison de cette
drôlerie "
-"vient du fait que, selon le dictionnaire, il doit se prononcer <cite>new</"
-"cite>.<a id=\"TransNote4-rev\" href=\"#TransNote4\"><sup>4</sup></a> Vous "
-"voyez ? C'est pourquoi les gens l'utilisent pour de nombreux jeux de mots. "
-"Laissez-moi vous dire que c'est le nom d'un animal d'Afrique. Et la "
-"prononciation africaine a un clic à l'intérieur <i>[rires]</i>. Les "
-"colonisateurs européens, quand ils arrivèrent là -bas, n'ont pas pris la "
-"peine d'apprendre à prononcer le clic. Alors ils l'ont laissé de côté et
ont "
-"mis un <em>g</em> qui signifiait : « Il y a un autre son qui est censé
être "
-"là mais que nous ne prononçons pas. » <i>[rires]</i> Ce soir, je pars
pour "
-"l'Afrique du Sud et je leur ai demandé de me trouver quelqu'un qui puisse "
-"m'apprendre à prononcer les clics <i>[rires]</i>. Ainsi je saurai prononcer "
-"correctement <cite>GNU</cite> quand il s'agit de l'animal."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is “"
-"guh-NEW” — pronounce the hard “G”. If you talk "
-"about the “new” operating system, you'll get people very "
-"confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years now, so it is not "
-"new any more. <i>[Laughter]</i> But it still is, and always will be, GNU "
-"— no matter how many people call it Linux by mistake. <i>[Laughter]</"
-"i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Mais en ce qui concerne le nom de notre système la prononciation correcte "
-"est Gueu-nou, prononcez le <em>g</em> dur. Si vous parlez du <cite>new "
-"operating system</cite><a id=\"TransNote5-rev\" href=\"#TransNote5\"><sup>5</"
-"sup></a>, vous embrouillez l'esprit des gens, parce que cela fait 17Â ans que
"
-"nous travaillons dessus et qu'il n'est plus du tout <cite>new</cite>Â ! Mais "
-"il est toujours et sera toujours GNUÂ ; peu importe le nombre de gens qui "
-"l'appellent Linux par erreur <i>[rires]</i>."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces of GNU. "
-"They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities though. And, at "
-"the time, I thought we would write all these pieces, and make an entire GNU "
-"system, and then we'd say, “Come and get it”, and people would "
-"start to use it. That's not what happened. The first pieces I wrote were "
-"just equally good replacements, with fewer bugs for some pieces of Unix, but "
-"they weren't tremendously exciting. Nobody particularly wanted to get them "
-"and install them. But then, in September 1984, I started writing GNU Emacs, "
-"which was my second implementation of Emacs, and by early 1985, it was "
-"working. I could use it for all my editing, which was a big relief, because "
-"I had no intention of learning to use VI, the Unix editor. <i>[Laughter]</i> "
-"So, until that time, I did my editing on some other machine, and saved the "
-"files through the network, so that I could test them. But when GNU Emacs "
-"was running well enough for me to use it, it was also — other people "
-"wanted to use it too."
-msgstr ""
-"Ainsi en janvier 84, je quitte mon job au MIT pour commencer à écrire des "
-"morceaux de GNU. Tout de même, ils ont été assez sympa pour me laisser "
-"utiliser leurs installations. à cette époque, je croyais que j'écrirais
tous "
-"les morceaux du système GNU complet, que je dirais « Venez vous servir !Â
» "
-"et que les gens commenceraient à l'utiliser. Ce n'est pas comme ça que ça "
-"s'est passé. Les premiers morceaux que j'ai écrits étaient tout aussi bons
"
-"que les originaux, avec moins de bogues, mais ils n'étaient pas terriblement
"
-"excitants. Personne ne souhaitait particulièrement se les procurer pour les "
-"installer. Mais en septembre 84, j'ai commencé à écrire GNU Emacs, qui
était "
-"ma seconde implémentation d'Emacs, et début 85 il fonctionnait. Je pouvais
"
-"l'utiliser pour mon travail d'édition, ce qui était un soulagement car je "
-"n'avais aucune intention d'utiliser VI, l'éditeur d'Unix <i>[rires]</i>. "
-"Avant cela, je faisais ce travail sur une autre machine et je sauvegardais "
-"les fichiers sur le réseau pour pouvoir les tester. Mais quand GNU Emacs a "
-"fonctionné assez bien pour que je puisse l'utiliser, d'autres personnes ont "
-"voulu l'utiliser également."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So I had to work out the details of distribution. Of course, I put a copy "
-"in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people who were on the "
-"net They could then just pull over a tar file, but a lot of programmers then "
-"even were not on the net in 1985. They were sending me emails saying “"
-"How can I get a copy?” I had to decide what I would answer them. "
-"Well, I could have said, I want to spend my time writing more GNU software, "
-"not writing tapes, so please find a friend who's on the internet and who is "
-"willing to download it and put it on a tape for you. And I'm sure people "
-"would have found some friends, sooner or later, you know. They would have "
-"got copies. But I had no job. In fact, I've never had a job since quitting "
-"MIT in January 1984. So, I was looking for some way I could make money "
-"through my work on free software, and therefore I started a free software "
-"business. I announced, “Send me $150 dollars, and I'll mail you a "
-"tape of Emacs.” And the orders began dribbling in. By the middle of "
-"the year they were trickling in."
-msgstr ""
-"J'ai dû travailler les détails de la distribution. Naturellement, j'ai mis "
-"une copie sur le FTP anonyme et c'était bien pour les gens qui étaient sur "
-"le net (ils pouvaient télécharger un fichier tar) mais beaucoup de "
-"programmeurs n'étaient pas sur le net en 85. Ils m'envoyaient des "
-"courriels : « Puis-je en avoir une copie ? » Je devais décider quoi
leur "
-"répondre. J'aurais pu dire : « Je veux passer mon temps à écrire
d'autres "
-"logiciels GNU plutôt qu'à enregistrer des bandes ; trouvez-vous un ami
avec "
-"un accès au net qui vous le téléchargera et vous l'enregistrera sur
bande. » "
-"Et je suis sûr que les gens auraient trouvé ces amis tôt ou tard, vous "
-"savez. Ils auraient eu des copies. Mais, je n'avais pas de travail. En fait, "
-"je n'ai eu aucune profession depuis mon départ du MIT en 84. Je cherchais "
-"une façon de gagner de l'argent par mon travail sur le logiciel libre et "
-"donc j'ai fondé une entreprise de logiciel libre. J'ai annoncé : «Â
Envoyez-"
-"moi 150 dollars et je vous posterai une bande d'Emacs. » Les commandes ont
"
-"commencé à tomber et vers le milieu de l'année il en pleuvait
régulièrement."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month. And, if necessary, I could have lived "
-"on just that, because I've always lived cheaply. I live like a student, "
-"basically. And I like that, because it means that money is not telling me "
-"what to do. I can do what I think is important for me to do. It freed me "
-"to do what seemed worth doing. So make a real effort to avoid getting "
-"sucked into all the expensive lifestyle habits of typical Americans. "
-"Because if you do that, then people with the money will dictate what you do "
-"with your life. You won't be able to do what's really important to you."
-msgstr ""
-"Je recevais 8 Ã 10 commandes par mois. J'aurais pu au besoin en vivre, parce
"
-"que j'ai toujours vécu simplement. En gros, je vis comme un étudiant. Et "
-"j'aime ça car cela signifie que l'argent ne me dicte pas ce que je dois "
-"faire ; je peux faire ce qui me paraît important. Cela m'a libéré pour
faire "
-"ce qui semble en valoir la peine. Alors faites un effort pour éviter d'être
"
-"englués dans les habitudes dispendieuses de l'<cite>American way of life</"
-"cite>, parce qu'autrement ceux qui possèdent l'argent vous dicteront quoi "
-"faire de votre vie et vous ne pourrez pas faire ce qui est réellement "
-"important pour vous."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, “What do you mean it's "
-"free software if it costs $150 dollars?” <i>[Laughter]</i> Well, the "
-"reason they asked this was that they were confused by the multiple meanings "
-"of the English word “free”. One meaning refers to price, and "
-"another meaning refers to freedom. When I speak of free software, I'm "
-"referring to freedom, not price. So think of free speech, not free beer. "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i> Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many years of my life to "
-"making sure programmers got less money. That's not my goal. I'm a "
-"programmer and I don't mind getting money myself. I won't dedicate my whole "
-"life to getting it, but I don't mind getting it. And I'm not — and "
-"therefore, ethics is the same for everyone. I'm not against some other "
-"programmer getting money either. I don't want prices to be low. That's not "
-"the issue at all. The issue is freedom. Freedom for everyone who's using "
-"software, whether that person be a programmer or not."
-msgstr ""
-"Tout allait bien, mais les gens me disaient : « Qu'entendez vous par "
-"<cite>free software</cite> si cela coûte 150 dollars ? » <i>[rires]</i>
La "
-"raison de cette question était la confusion induite par l'ambiguïté du mot
"
-"anglais <cite>free</cite>. Une des significations se réfère au prix et une "
-"autre se réfère à la liberté. Quand je parle de logiciel libre, je me
réfère "
-"à la liberté et non au prix. Pensez à « libre expression » <cite>[free
"
-"speech]</cite>, pas à « bière gratuite » <cite>[free beer]</cite><a id="
-"\"TransNote6-rev\" href=\"#TransNote6\"><sup>6</sup></a> <i>[rires]</i>. En "
-"tout cas je n'aurais pas passé autant d'années de ma vie pour faire gagner "
-"moins d'argent aux programmeurs. Ce n'est pas mon but. Je suis moi-même "
-"programmeur et je ne m'offusque pas de gagner de l'argent. Je ne passerais "
-"pas ma vie à en gagner mais je ne refuse pas d'en gagner. Et je ne suis pas
â"
-" l'éthique est la même pour tous â je ne suis pas contre le fait qu'un
autre "
-"programmeur en gagne. Je ne veux pas faire baisser les prix, ce n'est pas du "
-"tout le problème. L'enjeu, c'est la liberté, la liberté de chaque personne
"
-"qui utilise un logiciel, qu'elle sache programmer ou non."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So at this point I should give you the definition of free software. I "
-"better get to some real details, you see, because just saying “I "
-"believe in freedom” is vacuous. There's so many different freedoms "
-"you could believe in, and they conflict with each other, so the real "
-"political question is: Which are the important freedoms, the freedoms that "
-"we must make sure everybody has?"
-msgstr ""
-"à ce stade je dois vous donner une définition de ce qu'est le logiciel "
-"libre. Je préfère aller au concret car dire simplement « Je crois en la "
-"liberté » est vide de sens. Il y a tant de libertés différentes en "
-"lesquelles croire, et qui sont en conflit l'une avec l'autre, que la vraie "
-"question politique est : « Quelles sont les libertés importantes, celles "
-"dont on doit s'assurer que tout le monde les possède ? »"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And now, I will give my answer to that question for the particular area of "
-"using software. A program is free software for you, a particular user, if "
-"you have the following freedoms:"
-msgstr ""
-"Maintenant je vais vous donner ma réponse dans ce domaine particulier qu'est
"
-"l'usage du logiciel. Un programme est libre pour vous, utilisateur "
-"particulier, si vous bénéficiez des libertés suivantes :"
-
-#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
-msgid ""
-"First, Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the program for any purpose, any "
-"way you like."
-msgstr ""
-"d'abord, la liberté 0 : la liberté d'utiliser un logiciel pour n'importe "
-"quel usage, à votre convenance ;"
-
-#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
-msgid ""
-"Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the program to suit "
-"your needs."
-msgstr ""
-"la liberté 1 : la liberté de vous aider vous-même en modifiant le
programme "
-"pour répondre à vos besoins ;"
-
-#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
-msgid ""
-"Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing copies of "
-"the program."
-msgstr ""
-"la liberté 2 : celle d'aider votre prochain en distribuant des copies du "
-"programme ;"
-
-#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
-msgid ""
-"And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by publishing "
-"an improved version so others can get the benefit of your work."
-msgstr ""
-"et la liberté 3 : celle d'aider à bâtir votre communauté en publiant
une "
-"version améliorée pour que les autres puissent bénéficier de votre
travail."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software, for you "
-"— and that's crucial. That's why I phrase it that way. I'll explain "
-"why later, when I talk about the GNU General Public License, but right now "
-"I'm explaining what free software means, which is a more basic question."
-msgstr ""
-"Si vous avez toutes ces libertés, le programme est un logiciel libre…
"
-"<em>pour vous</em>, et c'est crucial, c'est pourquoi je le formule de cette "
-"façon. J'expliquerai pourquoi plus tard quand je parlerai de la licence "
-"publique générale GNU, mais pour le moment j'en suis à une question plus "
-"basique, la définition du logiciel libre."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, Freedom Zero's pretty obvious. If you're not even allowed to run the "
-"program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive program. But as it "
-"happens, most programs will at least give you Freedom Zero. And Freedom "
-"Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of Freedoms One, Two, and Three "
-"— that's the way that copyright law works. So the freedoms that "
-"distinguish free software from typical software are Freedoms One, Two, and "
-"Three, so I'll say more about them and why they are important."
-msgstr ""
-"La liberté 0 est assez évidente. Si vous n'êtes même pas autorisé Ã
faire "
-"fonctionner le programme comme vous le souhaitez, c'est un programme "
-"sacrément restrictif ! La plupart des programmes vous donnent la libertéÂ
0 "
-"et la liberté 0 découle, juridiquement, des libertés 1, 2 et 3 ; c'est
de "
-"cette façon que fonctionne le droit du copyright. Ainsi les libertés qui "
-"distinguent le logiciel libre du logiciel ordinaire sont les libertés 1, 2 "
-"et 3 ; je vais donc en parler plus en détail et je dirai en quoi elles
sont "
-"importantes."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the software to suit "
-"your needs. This could mean fixing bugs. It could mean adding new "
-"features. It could mean porting it to a different computer system. It "
-"could mean translating all the error messages into Navajo. Any change you "
-"want to make, you should be free to make."
-msgstr ""
-"La liberté 1 est celle de modifier le logiciel pour l'adapter à vos
besoins. "
-"Cela peut signifier corriger des bogues. Cela peut signifier ajouter de "
-"nouvelles fonctionnalités. Cela peut signifier porter le logiciel sur un "
-"autre système informatique. Cela peut signifier traduire tous les messages "
-"d'erreur en navajo. Vous devez pouvoir apporter toutes les modifications que "
-"vous voulez, librement."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, it's obvious that professional programmers can make use of this freedom "
-"very effectively, but not just them. Anybody of reasonable intelligence can "
-"learn a little programming. You know, there are hard jobs, and there are "
-"easy jobs, and most people are not going to learn enough to do hard jobs. "
-"But lots of people can learn enough to do easy jobs, just the way, you know, "
-"50 years ago, lots and lots of American men learned to repair cars, which is "
-"what enabled the U.S. to have a motorized army in World War II and win. So, "
-"very important, having lots of people tinkering."
-msgstr ""
-"Il est évident que les programmeurs professionnels peuvent utiliser cette "
-"liberté de façon très effective, mais ils ne sont pas les seuls. N'importe
"
-"quelle personne d'intelligence normale peut apprendre un peu de "
-"programmation. Vous savez, il y a des travaux difficiles et des travaux "
-"faciles. Tout le monde n'apprend pas suffisamment pour faire les travaux "
-"difficiles, mais beaucoup peuvent apprendre assez pour faire des travaux "
-"faciles, de la même façon qu'il y a 50 ans, beaucoup, vraiment beaucoup "
-"d'Américains apprenaient à réparer une voiture, ce qui a permis aux
Ãtats-"
-"Unis d'avoir une armée motorisée pendant la seconde guerre mondiale et de "
-"gagner. Alors, chose très importante, avoir beaucoup de bricoleurs."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And if you are a people person, and you really don't want to learn "
-"technology at all, that probably means that you have a lot of friends, and "
-"you're good at getting them to owe you favors. <i>[Laughter]</i> Some of "
-"them are probably programmers. So you can ask one of your programmer "
-"friends. “Would you please change this for me? Add this feature?"
-"” So, lots of people can benefit from it."
-msgstr ""
-"Et si vous refusez d'apprendre la technologie, cela veut dire que vous avez "
-"probablement beaucoup d'amis et que vous êtes doué dans l'art de les
obliger "
-"Ã vous rendre service <i>[rires]</i>. Certains d'entre eux sont probablement
"
-"informaticiens. Alors vous pouvez demander à l'un de vos amis "
-"informaticiens : « Pourrais-tu changer ceci pour moi ? Ajouter cette "
-"fonction ? » Beaucoup de gens peuvent donc bénéficier de la liberté 1."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, if you don't have this freedom, it causes practical, material harm to "
-"society. It makes you a prisoner of your software. I explained what that "
-"was like with regard to the laser printer. You know, it worked badly for "
-"us, and we couldn't fix it, because we were prisoners of our software."
-msgstr ""
-"Si vous n'avez pas cette liberté, cela cause un préjudice pratique,
matériel "
-"à la société ; cela fait de vous un prisonnier de votre logiciel. J'ai "
-"expliqué comment c'était dans le cas de l'imprimante laser. Vous savez,
elle "
-"marchait mal et nous ne pouvions la réparer parce que nous étions "
-"prisonniers de notre logiciel."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But it also affects people's morale. You know if the computer is constantly "
-"frustrating to use, and people are using it, their lives are going to be "
-"frustrating, and if they're using it in their jobs, their jobs are going to "
-"be frustrating; they're going to hate their jobs. And you know, people "
-"protect themselves from frustration by deciding not to care. So you end up "
-"with people whose attitude is, “Well, I showed up for work today. "
-"That's all I have to do. If I can't make progress, that's not my problem; "
-"that's the boss's problem.” And when this happens, it's bad for those "
-"people, and it's bad for society as a whole. That's Freedom One, the "
-"freedom to help yourself."
-msgstr ""
-"Mais cela affecte aussi le moral des gens. Si l'ordinateur est constamment "
-"frustrant et qu'ils l'utilisent, leur vies vont devenir frustrantes. Et "
-"s'ils l'utilisent dans leur métier, leur métier va devenir frustrant ; ils
"
-"vont détester leur métier. Vous savez, les gens se protègent de la "
-"frustration en décidant de s'en moquer. Ils en arrivent à dire : « Bon,
j'ai "
-"fait acte de présence au boulot, c'est tout ce que j'ai à faire. Si je ne "
-"peux pas progresser ce n'est pas mon affaire, c'est l'affaire du patron. » "
-"Et quand ça arrive, c'est mauvais pour eux et c'est mauvais pour la
société "
-"toute entière. C'est la liberté 1, la liberté de s'aider soi-même."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing copies of "
-"the program. Now, for beings that can think and learn, sharing useful "
-"knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship. When these beings use "
-"computers, this act of friendship takes the form of sharing software. "
-"Friends share with each other. Friends help each other. This is the nature "
-"of friendship. And, in fact, this spirit of goodwill — the spirit of "
-"helping your neighbor, voluntarily — is society's most important "
-"resource. It makes the difference between a livable society and a dog-eat-"
-"dog jungle. Its importance has been recognized by the world's major "
-"religions for thousands of years, and they explicitly try to encourage this "
-"attitude."
-msgstr ""
-"La liberté 2 est celle d'aider votre prochain en distribuant des copies du "
-"programme. Pour des êtres qui pensent et qui s'instruisent, partager un "
-"savoir utile est un acte fondamental d'amitié. Quand ces êtres utilisent
des "
-"ordinateurs, cet acte d'amitié prend la forme d'un partage de logiciel. Les "
-"amis partagent entre eux, les amis s'aident mutuellement. C'est la nature de "
-"l'amitié. Et de fait, l'esprit d'entraide â la disposition à vouloir
aider "
-"son prochain volontairement â est la ressource la plus importante de la "
-"société. Elle fait la différence entre une société vivable et une jungle
où "
-"chacun s'entredévore. Cette importance a été reconnue par les grandes "
-"religions du monde depuis des milliers d'années et elles essaient "
-"explicitement d'encourager cette attitude."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach us this "
-"attitude — the spirit of sharing — by having us do it. They "
-"figured if we did it, we'd learn. So they said, “If you bring candy "
-"to school, you can't keep it all for yourself; you have to share some with "
-"the other kids.” Teaching us, the society was set up to teach, this "
-"spirit of cooperation. And why do you have to do that? Because people are "
-"not totally cooperative. That's one part of human nature, and there are "
-"other parts of human nature. There are lots of parts of human nature. So, "
-"if you want a better society, you've got to work to encourage the spirit of "
-"sharing. You know, it'll never get to be 100%. That's understandable. "
-"People have to take care of themselves too. But if we make it somewhat "
-"bigger, we're all better off."
-msgstr ""
-"Quand j'allais à la maternelle, les institutrices essayaient de nous "
-"apprendre cette attitude, l'esprit de partage, en nous la faisant pratiquer. "
-"Elles pensaient qu'on apprend en faisant. Alors elles disaient : « Si tu "
-"apportes des bonbons à l'école, tu ne peux pas tout garder pour toi, tu
dois "
-"les partager avec les autres enfants. » En nous éduquant, la société a
fait "
-"en sorte de nous apprendre cet esprit de coopération. Et pourquoi faut-il "
-"faire cela ? Parce que les gens ne sont pas totalement coopératifs. C'est
un "
-"aspect de la nature humaine mais il y en a d'autres. Il y en a beaucoup. "
-"Alors, si vous voulez une société meilleure, vous devez travailler à "
-"encourager l'esprit de partage. Vous savez, ce ne sera jamais à 100%. Ãa se
"
-"comprend, les gens doivent aussi prendre soin d'eux-mêmes. Mais si nous le "
-"rendons plus fort, nous nous en porterons tous mieux."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Nowadays, according to the U.S. Government, teachers are supposed to do the "
-"exact opposite. “Oh, Johnny, you brought software to school. Well, "
-"don't share it. Oh no. Sharing is wrong. Sharing means you're a pirate."
-"”"
-msgstr ""
-"De nos jours, selon le gouvernement des Ãtats-Unis, les enseignants sont "
-"censés faire exactement le contraire. « Oh Johnny, tu as apporté un "
-"programme à l'école ! Eh bien, ne le partage pas. Oh non ! Le partage
c'est "
-"mal ; le partage, ça veut dire que tu es un pirate. »"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"What do they mean when they say “pirate”? They're saying that "
-"helping your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship. <i>"
-"[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Qu'entendent-ils par le mot « pirate » ? Qu'aider son voisin est "
-"l'équivalent moral d'une attaque de bateau <i>[rires]</i>."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"What would Buddha or Jesus say about that? Now, take your favorite religious "
-"leader. I don't know, maybe Manson would have said something different. <i>"
-"[Laughter]</i> Who knows what L. Ron Hubbard would say? But …"
-msgstr ""
-"Que diraient Jésus et Bouddha à ce sujet ? Prenez vos chefs religieux "
-"favoris. Je ne sais pas, peut-être Manson aurait dit quelque chose de "
-"différent <i>[rires]</i>. Qui sait ce que L. Ron Hubbard aurait dit, "
-"mais…"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i>"
-msgstr "<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : <i>[inaudible]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Of course, he's dead. But they don't admit "
-"that. What?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Bien sûr, il est mort. Mais il ne l'admettent "
-"pas. Quoi ?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: So are the others, also dead. <i>[Laughter] "
-"[Inaudible]</i> Charles Manson's also dead. <i>[Laughter]</i> They're dead, "
-"Jesus's dead, Buddha's dead…"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Les autres aussi sont morts.. <i>[rires]</i>. "
-"Charles Manson aussi est mort <i>[rires]</i>. Ils sont morts, Jésus est "
-"mort, Bouddha est mort…"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, that's true. <i>[Laughter]</i> So I guess, "
-"in that regard, L. Ron Hubbard is no worse than the others. <i>[Laughter]</"
-"i> Anyway — <i>[Inaudible]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Oui, c'est vrai <i>[rires]</i>. De ce point de "
-"vue Ron Hubbard n'est pas pire que les autres <i>[rires]</i>. De toute "
-"façon… <i>[inaudible]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: L. Ron always used free software — it freed "
-"him from Zanu. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : L. Ron utilisait du logiciel libre ; ça l'a "
-"libéré de Zanu <i>[rires]</i>."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Anyway, so, I think this is actually the most "
-"important reason why software should be free: We can't afford to pollute "
-"society's most important resource. It's true that it's not a physical "
-"resource like clean air and clean water. It's a psycho-social resource, but "
-"it's just as real for all that, and it makes a tremendous difference to our "
-"lives. You see, the actions we take influence the thoughts of other "
-"people. When we go around telling people, “Don't share with each "
-"other”, if they listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's "
-"not a good one. That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Bon, quoi qu'il en soit, je pense que c'est "
-"vraiment la raison la plus importante pour laquelle les logiciels doivent "
-"être libres. Nous ne pouvons nous permettre de polluer la ressource la plus "
-"importante de la société. C'est vrai que ce n'est pas une ressource
physique "
-"comme l'air propre et l'eau propre. C'est une ressource psychosociale, mais "
-"c'est tout aussi réel et cela fait une formidable différence pour nos vies.
"
-"Les actions que nous menons influencent les pensées des autres. Quand nous "
-"clamons alentour « Ne partagez pas avec les autres ! », s'ils nous
entendent "
-"nous avons eu un effet sur la société, et pas un bon effet. C'est la "
-"liberté 2, celle d'aider son voisin."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just cause "
-"this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes waste — "
-"practical, material harm. If the program has an owner, and the owner "
-"arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay in order to be able "
-"to use it, some people are going to say, “Never mind, I'll do without "
-"it.” And that's waste, deliberately inflicted waste. And the "
-"interesting thing about software, of course, is that fewer users doesn't "
-"mean you have to make less stuff. You know, if fewer people buy cars, you "
-"can make fewer cars. There's a saving there. There are resources to be "
-"allocated, or not allocated, into making cars. So that you can say that "
-"having a price on a car is a good thing. It prevents people from diverting "
-"lots of wasted resources into making cars that aren't really needed. But if "
-"each additional car used no resources, it wouldn't be doing any good saving "
-"the making of these cars. Well, for physical objects, of course, like cars, "
-"it is always going to take resources to make an additional one of them, each "
-"additional exemplar."
-msgstr ""
-"Oh, j'oubliais, si vous n'avez pas cette liberté, cela ne cause pas "
-"seulement un préjudice à cette ressource psychosociale, c'est du gâchis
â un "
-"préjudice pratique, matériel. Si le programme a un propriétaire et que le "
-"propriétaire s'arrange pour que chaque utilisateur doive payer pour s'en "
-"servir, certaines personnes diront : « Pas d'importance, je m'en
passerai. » "
-"Et c'est du gâchis, du gâchis délibéré. Ce qui est intéressant avec les
"
-"logiciels c'est que ce n'est pas parce que vous avez moins d'utilisateurs "
-"que vous devez en produire moins. Si moins de gens achètent des voitures, "
-"vous fabriquerez moins de voitures. Là il y a une économie. Il y a des "
-"ressources à allouer ou non à la fabrication des voitures. Aussi vous
pouvez "
-"dire qu'avoir un prix pour une voiture est une bonne chose. Cela évite que "
-"les gens ne gaspillent leurs ressources dans l'achat de voitures dont ils "
-"n'ont pas vraiment besoin. Mais si fabriquer une voiture supplémentaire "
-"n'utilisait aucune ressource, on n'aurait aucun intérêt à économiser sur
la "
-"fabrication des voitures. Ainsi, pour les objets physiques, comme les "
-"voitures, il faudra toujours des ressources pour en faire un de plus âÂ
pour "
-"chaque exemplaire supplémentaire."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But for software that's not true. Anybody can make another copy. And it's "
-"almost trivial to do it. It takes no resources, except a tiny bit of "
-"electricity. So there's nothing we can save, no resource we're going to "
-"allocate better by putting this financial disincentive on the use of the "
-"software. You often find people taking economic, the consequences of "
-"economic reasoning, based on premises that don't apply to software, and "
-"trying to transplant them from other areas of life where the premises may "
-"apply, and the conclusions may be valid. They just take the conclusions and "
-"assume that they're valid for software too, when the argument is based on "
-"nothing, in the case of software. The premises don't work in that case. It "
-"is very important to examine how you reach the conclusion, and what premises "
-"it depends on, to see where it might be valid. So, that's Freedom Two, the "
-"freedom to help your neighbor."
-msgstr ""
-"Mais pour les logiciels ce n'est pas vrai. N'importe qui peut en faire une "
-"copie, et c'est presque banal de le faire. Cela ne consomme aucune ressource "
-"sauf un tout petit peu d'électricité. Il n'y a rien à économiser ;
aucune "
-"ressource ne serait mieux utilisée si nous appliquions cette désincitation "
-"financière à l'usage du logiciel. Vous trouvez souvent des gens qui
prennent "
-"les conséquences d'un raisonnement économique valable pour les autres "
-"activités et prétendent les transposer au logiciel â où les prémisses
de ce "
-"raisonnement ne s'appliquent pas â tout en supposant que les résultats "
-"resteront valables, bien que l'argument n'ait aucune base dans le domaine du "
-"logiciel. Les prémisses ne marchent pas dans ce cas-là . C'est très
important "
-"de voir comment on arrive à une conclusion et de quelles prémisses elle "
-"dépend pour voir si elle est valide. Donc, liberté 2, la liberté d'aider
son "
-"voisin."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by publishing an "
-"improved version of the software. People used to say to me, “If the "
-"software's free, then nobody will get paid to work on it, so why should "
-"anybody work on it?” Well, of course, they were confusing the two "
-"meanings of free, so their reasoning was based on a misunderstanding. But, "
-"in any case, that was their theory. Today, we can compare that theory with "
-"empirical fact, and we find that hundreds of people are being paid to write "
-"free software, and over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers. We get lots of "
-"people working on free software, for various different motives."
-msgstr ""
-"La liberté 3 est celle d'aider à bâtir votre communauté en publiant une "
-"version améliorée du logiciel. Au début les gens me disaient souvent :
« Si "
-"le logiciel est gratuit, personne ne sera payé, alors pourquoi "
-"travailler ? » Naturellement, ils confondaient les deux significations de "
-"<cite>free</cite>, donc leur raisonnement était basé sur un malentendu. "
-"Aujourd'hui nous pouvons comparer cette théorie avec les faits empiriques et
"
-"constater que des centaines de gens sont payés pour faire du logiciel libre "
-"et que plus de 100 000 le font bénévolement. Il y a plein de gens qui font
"
-"des logiciels libres pour différentes raisons."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"When I first released GNU Emacs — the first piece of the GNU system "
-"that people actually wanted to use — and when it started having users, "
-"after a while, I got a message saying, “I think I saw a bug in the "
-"source code, and here's a fix.” And I got another message, “"
-"Here's code to add a new feature.” And another bug fix. And another "
-"new feature. And another, and another, and another, until they were pouring "
-"in on me so fast that just making use of all this help I was getting was a "
-"big job. Microsoft doesn't have this problem. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Quand j'ai publié le premier GNU Emacs â le premier morceau de GNU que
les "
-"gens ont réellement voulu utiliser â et qu'il a commencé à avoir des "
-"utilisateurs, après un certain temps j'ai eu un message disant : « Je
pense "
-"que j'ai vu un bogue dans le code source et voici une solution. » Et j'ai
eu "
-"un autre message : « Voici du code pour ajouter une nouvelle fonction. »
Et "
-"une nouvelle correction, et une nouvelle fonction. Et une autre, et une "
-"autre, jusqu'à ce qu'elles se déversent sur moi si vite qu'utiliser toute "
-"cette aide devenait un gros travail. Microsoft n'a pas ce problème
<i>[rires]"
-"</i>."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Eventually, people noted this phenomenon. You see, in the 1980's a lot of "
-"us thought that maybe free software wouldn't be as good as the non-free "
-"software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay people. And, of "
-"course, people like me, who value freedom and community said, “Well, "
-"we'll use the free software anyway.” It's worth making a little "
-"sacrifice in some mere technical convenience to have freedom. But what "
-"people began to note, around 1990 was that our software was actually "
-"better. It was more powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary "
-"alternatives."
-msgstr ""
-"En fin de compte, des gens ont remarqué ce phénomène. Vous voyez, dans les
"
-"années 80, beaucoup parmi nous pensaient que le logiciel libre ne serait "
-"peut-être pas aussi bon que le non libre parce que nous n'aurions pas assez "
-"d'argent pour payer des gens. Et bien sûr, les gens qui comme moi accordent "
-"de la valeur à la communauté et à la liberté ont dit : « Nous
utiliserons "
-"des logiciels libres tout de même. » Cela vaut le coup de faire un petit "
-"sacrifice au niveau de la simple commodité technique pour avoir la liberté.
"
-"Mais ce que les gens ont constaté vers 1990, c'est que nos logiciels
étaient "
-"en fait meilleurs, qu'ils étaient plus puissants et plus fiables que les "
-"alternatives privatrices."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific measurement of "
-"reliability of software. Here's what he did. He took several sets of "
-"comparable programs that did the same jobs — the exact same jobs "
-"— in different systems. Because there were certain basic Unix-like "
-"utilities. And the jobs that they did, we know, was all, more or less, "
-"imitating the same thing, or they were following the POSIX spec, so they "
-"were all the same in terms of what jobs they did, but they were maintained "
-"by different people, written separately. The code was different. So they "
-"said, OK, we'll take these programs and run them with random data, and "
-"measure how often they crash, or hang. So they measured it, and the most "
-"reliable set of programs was the GNU programs. All the commercial "
-"alternatives which were proprietary software were less reliable. So he "
-"published this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he did "
-"the same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same result. "
-"The GNU versions were the most reliable. People — you know there are "
-"cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system, because it's so "
-"reliable, and reliability is very important to them."
-msgstr ""
-"Au début des années 90 quelqu'un a trouvé un moyen de mesurer "
-"scientifiquement la fiabilité d'un logiciel. Voilà ce qu'il a fait. Il a "
-"pris plusieurs logiciels qui faisaient les mêmes tâches, exactement les "
-"mêmes tâches, sur différents systèmes. Parce qu'il y a certains
utilitaires "
-"de base sur tous les systèmes Unix. Et les tâches qu'ils effectuent, nous
le "
-"savons, se ressemblent beaucoup, ou bien elles suivent les spécifications "
-"POSIX. Les logiciels étaient donc tous les mêmes en termes de tâche "
-"effectuée, mais ils étaient écrits et maintenus par des gens différents,
et "
-"développés séparément ; leur code était différent. Le chercheur a
décidé "
-"d'introduire des données aléatoires dans ces programmes et de mesurer quand
"
-"ils plantaient ou se bloquaient. Il a fait les mesures, et les programmes "
-"les plus fiables étaient les programmes GNU. Toutes les alternatives "
-"privatrices étaient moins fiables. Alors il a publié ça et l'a dit à tous
"
-"les développeurs, et quelques années plus tard il a fait la même
expérience "
-"avec les dernières versions et a obtenu le même résultat : les versions
GNU "
-"étaient les plus fiables. Vous savez, il y a des cliniques pour le cancer et
"
-"des services d'urgence <cite>[911]</cite> qui utilisent le système GNU parce
"
-"qu'il est très fiable et que la fiabilité est très importante pour eux."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Anyway, there's even a group of people who focus on this particular benefit "
-"as the reason they give, the main reason they give, why users should be "
-"permitted to do these various things, and to have these freedoms. If you've "
-"been listening to me, you've noticed, you've seen that I, speaking for the "
-"free software movement, I talk about issues of ethics, and what kind of a "
-"society we want to live in, what makes for a good society, as well as "
-"practical, material benefits. They're both important. That's the free "
-"software movement."
-msgstr ""
-"Quoi qu'il en soit, il y a même un groupe de gens qui se concentrent sur cet
"
-"avantage particulier et en font la raison la plus importante pour que les "
-"utilisateurs puissent faire ces diverses choses et avoir ces libertés. Si "
-"vous m'avez écouté, vous aurez noté, vous aurez vu que lorsque je parle du
"
-"mouvement du logiciel libre, je parle d'enjeux éthiques et du type de "
-"société où nous voulons vivre, de ce qui fait une bonne société, autant
que "
-"des avantages matériels. Les deux sont importants. C'est cela le mouvement "
-"du logiciel libre."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"That other group of people — which is called the open source movement "
-"— they only cite the practical benefits. They deny that this is an "
-"issue of principle. They deny that people are entitled to the freedom to "
-"share with their neighbor and to see what the program's doing and change it "
-"if they don't like it. They say, however, that it's a useful thing to let "
-"people do that. So they go to companies and say to them, “You know, "
-"you might make more money if you let people do this.” So, what you can "
-"see is that to some extent, they lead people in a similar direction, but for "
-"totally different, for fundamentally different, philosophical reasons."
-msgstr ""
-"Cet autre groupe de gens, qui est appelé mouvement open source, ne parle que
"
-"d'avantages pratiques. Ils refusent d'en faire une question de principe. Ils "
-"ne considèrent pas comme un droit que les gens aient la liberté de partager
"
-"avec leur prochain, de voir ce que le programme fait et de le modifier s'il "
-"ne leur plaît pas. Ils disent cependant que c'est utile que les gens aient "
-"ces droits. Alors ils vont voir des entreprises et leur disent : « Vous "
-"savez, vous pourriez gagner plus d'argent si vous laissiez les gens faire "
-"tout ça. » Ainsi vous voyez que, jusqu'à un certain point, ils mènent
les "
-"gens dans la même direction, mais pour des raisons philosophiques "
-"complètement, fondamentalement différentes."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Because on the deepest issue of all, you know, on the ethical question, the "
-"two movements disagree. You know, in the free software movement we say, "
-"“You're entitled to these freedoms. People shouldn't stop you from "
-"doing these things.” In the open source movement, they say, “"
-"Yes, they can stop you if you want, but we'll try to convince them to deign "
-"to let you to do these things.” Well, they have contributed — "
-"they have convinced a certain number of businesses to release substantial "
-"pieces of software as free software in our community. So they, the open "
-"source movement, has contributed substantially to our community. And so we "
-"work together on practical projects. But, philosophically, there's a "
-"tremendous disagreement."
-msgstr ""
-"Parce que sur l'enjeu de fond, l'enjeu éthique, les deux mouvements ne sont "
-"pas d'accord. Dans le mouvement du logiciel libre on dit : « Vous avez
droit "
-"à ces libertés ; personne ne doit vous empêcher de faire ces choses. »
Dans "
-"le mouvement open source on dit : « Oui, on peut vous les interdire mais "
-"nous allons essayer de les convaincre de daigner vous les laisser faire. » "
-"D'accord, ils ont apporté leur contribution, ils ont convaincu un certain "
-"nombre d'entreprises d'apporter des logiciels importants à la communauté du
"
-"libre. Le mouvement open source a donc contribué à notre communauté de "
-"manière considérable. Nous travaillons ensemble sur des projets pratiques, "
-"mais philosophiquement il y a un désaccord énorme."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Unfortunately, the open source movement is the one that gets the support of "
-"business the most, and so most articles about our work describe it as open "
-"source, and a lot of people just innocently think that we're all part of the "
-"open source movement. So that's why I'm mentioning this distinction. I "
-"want you to be aware that the free software movement, which brought our "
-"community into existence and developed the free operating system, is still "
-"here — and that we still stand for this ethical philosophy. I want "
-"you to know about this, so that you won't mislead someone else unknowingly."
-msgstr ""
-"Malheureusement, c'est le mouvement open source qui reçoit le plus d'aide de
"
-"l'industrie. Beaucoup d'articles sur notre travail le décrivent comme open "
-"source et beaucoup de gens pensent innocemment que nous faisons tous partie "
-"du mouvement open source. C'est pour cela que je mentionne cette "
-"distinction, je veux que vous soyez conscients que le mouvement du logiciel "
-"libre, qui a amené notre communauté à l'existence et développé le
système "
-"d'exploitation libre, est toujours là , et que nous défendons toujours cette
"
-"philosophie éthique. Je tiens à ce que vous le sachiez pour éviter que
vous "
-"ne désinformiez quelqu'un d'autre sans vous en apercevoir."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "But also, so that you can think about where you stand."
-msgstr "Mais c'est aussi pour que vous puissiez vous situer."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"You know, which movement you support is up to you. You might agree with the "
-"free software movements and my views. You might agree with the open source "
-"movement. You might disagree with them both. You decide where you stand on "
-"these political issues."
-msgstr ""
-"Vous savez, c'est à vous de voir quel mouvement vous soutenez. Vous serez "
-"peut-être d'accord avec le mouvement du logiciel libre et avec mes vues. "
-"Vous serez peut-être d'accord avec le mouvement open source. Vous serez
peut-"
-"être en désaccord avec les deux. C'est à vous de décider quelle est votre
"
-"position sur ces enjeux politiques."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But if you agree with the free software movement — if you see that "
-"there's an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled and "
-"directed by this decision deserve a say in it — then I hope you'll say "
-"that you agree with the free software movement, and one way you can do that "
-"is by using the term free software and just helping people know we exist."
-msgstr ""
-"Mais si vous êtes d'accord avec le mouvement du logiciel libre â si vous "
-"voyez qu'il y a là un enjeu, que les gens dont les vies sont contrôlées et
"
-"dirigées par cette décision ont aussi leur mot à dire â alors j'espère
que "
-"vous exprimerez votre accord avec le mouvement du logiciel libre. Une façon "
-"de le faire est d'utiliser le terme « logiciel libre », ne serait-ce que "
-"pour aider les gens à savoir qu'il existe."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, Freedom Three is very important both practically and psycho-socially. "
-"If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical material harm, because "
-"this community development doesn't happen, and we don't make powerful, "
-"reliable software. But it also causes psycho-social harm, which affects the "
-"spirit of scientific cooperation — the idea that we're working "
-"together to advance human knowledge. You see, progress in science crucially "
-"depends on people being able to work together. And nowadays though, you "
-"often find each little group of scientists acting like it's a war with each "
-"other gang of scientists and engineers. And if they don't share with each "
-"other, they're all held back."
-msgstr ""
-"La liberté 3 est donc très importante pratiquement et sur le plan "
-"psychosocial. Si vous n'avez pas cette liberté, cela cause un préjudice "
-"pratique et matériel parce que la communauté ne se développe pas et que
nous "
-"ne pouvons pas faire de logiciels puissants et fiables. Mais cela cause "
-"aussi un préjudice psychosocial qui affecte l'esprit de coopération "
-"scientifique â l'idée que nous travaillons ensemble à l'avancement du
savoir "
-"humain. Vous savez, le progrès scientifique dépend de façon cruciale de la
"
-"capacité des gens à travailler ensemble. Et pourtant, même de nos jours, "
-"vous voyez souvent chaque petit groupe de scientifiques agir comme s'il "
-"était en guerre avec chacun des autres gangs de scientifiques et "
-"d'ingénieurs. Et s'ils ne partagent pas les uns avec les autres, c'est un "
-"frein pour tous."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, those are the three freedoms that distinguish free software from typical "
-"software. Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself, making changes to "
-"suit your own needs. Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by "
-"distributing copies. And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your "
-"community by making changes and publishing them for other people to use. If "
-"you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software for you. Now, "
-"why do I define it that way in terms of a particular user? Is it free "
-"software for you? <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> Is it free "
-"software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Is it "
-"free software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Yes?"
-msgstr ""
-"Nous venons de voir les trois libertés qui distinguent le logiciel libre du "
-"logiciel ordinaire. La Liberté 1 est celle de s'aider soi même, d'apporter
"
-"des changements en fonction de ses besoins propres. La liberté 2 est celle "
-"d'aider son prochain en distribuant des copies. Et la liberté 3 est la "
-"liberté d'aider à construire sa communauté en apportant des modifications
et "
-"en les publiant à l'usage des autres. Si vous avez toutes ces libertés, ce "
-"logiciel est libre pour vous. Maintenant pourquoi est-ce que je définis cela
"
-"en terme d'utilisateur particulier ? Est ce que c'est du logiciel libre pour
"
-"vous (<i>en désignant un membre du public</i>) ? Est-ce que c'est du "
-"logiciel libre pour vous (<i>en désignant un autre membre du public</i>) ?
"
-"Est-ce que c'est du logiciel libre pour vous (<i>en désignant encore un "
-"autre membre du public</i>) ? Oui ?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you explain a bit about the difference "
-"between Freedom Two and Three? <i>[inaudible]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Pouvez-vous expliquer un peu la différence
entre "
-"les libertés 2 et 3 ?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, they certainly relate, because if you don't "
-"have freedom to redistribute at all, you certainly don't have freedom to "
-"distribute a modified version, but they're different activities."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Eh bien, elles sont certainement liées. Parce "
-"que si vous n'avez pas la liberté de redistribuer vous avez encore moins la "
-"liberté de distribuer une version modifiée. Mais ce sont des activités "
-"différentes."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Oh."
-msgstr "<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Oh."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Freedom Two is, you know, read it, you make an "
-"exact copy, and hand it to your friends, so now your friend can use it. Or "
-"maybe you make exact copies and you sell them to a bunch of people, and then "
-"they can use it."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : La liberté 2 c'est, vous le savez, lisez-le,
que "
-"vous pouvez faire une copie exacte et la donner à vos amis de sorte que vos "
-"amis puissent l'utiliser. Ou bien vous faites des copies exactes et vous les "
-"vendez à tout un tas de gens pour qu'ils puissent les utiliser."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Freedom Three is where you make improvements — or at least you think "
-"they're improvements, and some other people may agree with you. So that's "
-"the difference. Oh, and by the way, one crucial point. Freedoms One and "
-"Three depend on your having access to the source code. Because changing a "
-"binary-only program is extremely hard. <i>[Laughter]</i> Even trivial "
-"changes like using four digits for the date, <i>[Laughter]</i> if you don't "
-"have source. So, for compelling, practical reasons, access to the source "
-"code is a precondition, a requirement, for free software."
-msgstr ""
-"La liberté 3, c'est quand vous apportez des améliorations ou du moins
quand "
-"vous pensez que c'est des améliorations et que d'autres personnes sont "
-"d'accord avec vous. Voilà , c'est cela la différence. Oh, j'oubliais un
point "
-"essentiel. Les libertés 1 et 3 dépendent de l'accès au code source. Parce
"
-"que modifier un programme binaire c'est extrêmement difficile <i>[rires]</i>
"
-"â même des changements très insignifiants comme d'utiliser quatre
chiffres "
-"pour la date <i>[rires]</i>, si vous n'avez pas le source. Aussi pour des "
-"raisons pratiques l'accès au code source est une condition préalable, un "
-"prérequis du logiciel libre."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, why do I define it in terms of whether it's free software for <em>you</"
-"em>? The reason is that sometimes the same program can be free software for "
-"some people, and non-free for others. Now, that might seem like a "
-"paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example to show you how it "
-"happens. A very big example — maybe the biggest ever — of this "
-"problem was the X Window System which was developed at MIT and released "
-"under a license that made it free software. If you got the MIT version with "
-"the MIT license, you had Freedoms One, Two, and Three. It was free software "
-"for you. But among those who got copies were various computer manufacturers "
-"that distributed Unix systems, and they made the necessary changes in X to "
-"run on their systems. You know, probably just a few thousand lines out of "
-"the hundreds of thousands of lines of X. And, then they compiled it, and "
-"they put the binaries into their Unix system and distributed it under the "
-"same non-disclosure agreement as the rest of the Unix system. And then, "
-"millions of people got these copies. They had the X Window System, but they "
-"had none of these freedoms. It was not free software for <em>them</em>."
-msgstr ""
-"Pourquoi définir le logiciel libre comme logiciel libre <em>pour vous</em>Â
? "
-"La raison en est que le même programme peut être libre pour certaines "
-"personnes et non libres pour d'autres. Cela pourrait sembler paradoxal, mais "
-"laissez-moi vous donnez un exemple de cette situation. Un très grand "
-"exemple, peut-être le plus grand exemple de ce problème, est le système "
-"X Window qui a été développé au MIT et publié sous une licence qui en a
fait "
-"un logiciel libre. Si vous aviez la version MIT avec la licence MIT, vous "
-"aviez les libertés 1, 2 et 3. C'était du logiciel libre pour vous. Mais "
-"parmi ceux qui avaient des copies, il y avait divers fabricants "
-"d'ordinateurs qui distribuaient des systèmes Unix. Ils ont fait les "
-"changements nécessaires pour que X fonctionne sur leurs systèmes ; vous "
-"savez, probablement quelques centaines de lignes sur les centaines de "
-"milliers de lignes de X. Ensuite ils l'ont compilé, ils ont placé les "
-"binaires dans leur système Unix et ils ont distribué le tout avec la même "
-"clause de non-divulgation. Alors des milliers de gens ont eu ces copies. Ils "
-"avaient le système X Window mais aucune de ces libertés. Ce n'était pas
du "
-"logiciel libre <em>pour eux</em>."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, the paradox was that whether X was free software depended on where you "
-"made the measurement. If you made the measurement coming out of the "
-"developers' group, you'd say, “I observe all these freedoms. It's "
-"free software.” If you made the measurements among the users you'd "
-"say, “Hmm, most users don't have these freedoms. It's not free "
-"software.” Well, the people who developed X didn't consider this a "
-"problem, because their goal was just popularity, ego, essentially. They "
-"wanted a big professional success. They wanted to feel, “Ah, lots of "
-"people are using our software.” And that was true. Lots of people "
-"were using their software but didn't have freedom."
-msgstr ""
-"Il y avait donc un paradoxe : qu'X soit libre ou non dépendait de l'endroit
"
-"où l'on faisait la mesure. Si vous faisiez la mesure à la sortie du groupe "
-"de développeurs, vous disiez : « J'ai observé toutes ces libertés,
c'est du "
-"logiciel libre. » Si vous faisiez la mesure parmi les utilisateurs, vous "
-"disiez : « Hum, la plupart des utilisateurs n'ont pas ces libertés, ce
n'est "
-"pas du logiciel libre. » Les gens qui développaient X n'y voyaient aucun "
-"problème car leur principal souci était essentiellement la popularité, "
-"l'ego. Ils voulaient un grand succès professionnel. Ils voulaient pouvoir se
"
-"dire : « Aah, un tas de gens utilisent nos logiciels ! » Et c'était
vrai, un "
-"tas de gens utilisaient leurs logiciels, mais ils n'avaient pas la liberté."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Well, in the GNU project, if that same thing had happened to GNU software, "
-"it would have been a failure, because our goal wasn't just to be popular; "
-"our goal was to give people liberty, and to encourage cooperation, to permit "
-"people to cooperate. Remember, never force anyone to cooperate with any "
-"other person, but make sure that everybody's allowed to cooperate, everyone "
-"has the freedom to do so, if he or she wishes. If millions of people were "
-"running non-free versions of GNU, that wouldn't be success at all. The whole "
-"thing would have been perverted into nothing like the goal."
-msgstr ""
-"Au projet GNU en revanche, ce serait un échec si la même chose arrivait Ã
un "
-"logiciel GNU, car notre but n'est pas simplement d'être populaires. Notre "
-"but est de donner aux gens la liberté, d'encourager la coopération et de "
-"permettre aux gens de coopérer. Souvenez-vous, ne forcez jamais personne à "
-"coopérer mais faites en sorte que chacun(e) ait la permission de coopérer, "
-"que chacun(e) ait la liberté de le faire si il ou elle le souhaite. Si des "
-"millions de personnes utilisaient des versions non libres de GNU, ce ne "
-"serait pas du tout un succès, l'ensemble aurait été perverti et détourné
de "
-"son but."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening. The method I came up "
-"with is called “copyleft”. It's called copyleft because it's "
-"sort of like taking copyright and flipping it over. <i>[Laughter]</i> "
-"Legally, copyleft works based on copyright. We use the existing copyright "
-"law, but we use it to achieve a very different goal. Here's what we do. We "
-"say, “This program is copyrighted.” And, of course, by default, "
-"that means it's prohibited to copy it, or distribute it, or modify it. But "
-"then we say, “You're authorized to distribute copies of this. You're "
-"authorized to modify it. You're authorized to distribute modified versions "
-"and extended versions. Change it any way you like.”"
-msgstr ""
-"J'ai donc cherché un moyen d'empêcher que cela n'arrive. La méthode que
j'ai "
-"trouvée est appelée « copyleft ». Ãa s'appelle copyleft car c'est un
peu "
-"comme prendre un copyright et le retourner <i>[rires]</i>. Juridiquement le "
-"copyleft fonctionne sur la base du copyright. Nous utilisons le droit du "
-"copyright tel qu'il existe, mais nous l'utilisons pour atteindre un but très
"
-"différent. Voici ce que nous faisons. Nous disons : « Ce programme est
sous "
-"copyright. » Et bien sûr, par défaut, cela signifie qu'il est interdit de
le "
-"copier, de le distribuer et de le modifier. Mais alors nous disons : «Â
Vous "
-"êtes autorisé à en distribuer des copies. Vous êtes autorisé à le
modifier. "
-"Vous êtes autorisé à en distribuer des copies modifiées et étendues.
Changez-"
-"le comme vous le souhaitez. »"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But there is a condition. And the condition, of course, is the reason why "
-"we go to all this trouble, so that we could put the condition in. The "
-"condition says: Whenever you distribute anything that contains any piece of "
-"this program, that whole program must be distributed under these same terms, "
-"no more and no less. So you can change the program and distribute a "
-"modified version, but when you do, the people who get that from you must get "
-"the same freedom that you got from us. And not just for the parts of it "
-"— the excerpts that you copied from our program — but also for "
-"the other parts of that program that they got from you. The whole of that "
-"program has to be free software for them."
-msgstr ""
-"Mais il y a une condition. Cette condition est évidemment la raison pour "
-"laquelle nous nous sommes donnés tout ce mal â pour pouvoir l'introduire.
"
-"Cette condition dit : « Chaque fois que vous distribuez quelque chose qui "
-"contient un morceau de ce programme, vous devez distribuer le tout aux mêmes
"
-"conditions, ni plus, ni moins. Vous pouvez donc modifier le programme et le "
-"distribuer, mais les gens qui l'auront reçu de vous bénéficieront de toute
"
-"la liberté que vous avez reçue de nous. Pas seulement pour certaines
parties "
-"de ce programme â les extraits que vous avez pris â mais aussi pour
tous les "
-"autres morceaux du programme qu'ils ont reçu de vous. L'intégralité de ce "
-"programme doit être libre pour eux. »"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become inalienable "
-"rights — a concept from the Declaration of Independence. Rights that "
-"we make sure can't be taken away from you. And, of course, the specific "
-"license that embodies the idea of copyleft is the GNU General Public "
-"License, a controversial license because it actually has the strength to say "
-"no to people who would be parasites on our community."
-msgstr ""
-"Les libertés de redistribuer et de modifier le programme deviennent des "
-"droits inaliénables â un concept hérité de la Déclaration
d'indépendance<a "
-"id=\"TransNote7-rev\" href=\"#TransNote7\"><sup>7</sup></a>Â ; des droits "
-"dont nous nous assurons qu'ils ne peuvent vous être retirés. Et bien sûr
la "
-"licence spécifique qui incarne l'idée du copyleft est la « licence
publique "
-"générale GNU » (GNU <acronym title=\"General Public License\">GPL</"
-"acronym>), une licence controversée car elle a la force de dire non à ceux "
-"qui voudraient parasiter notre communauté."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of freedom. And "
-"they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done, and use it to get a "
-"head start in distributing a non-free program and tempting people to give up "
-"their freedom. And the result would be — you know, if we let people "
-"do that — that we would be developing these free programs, and we'd "
-"constantly have to compete with improved versions of our own programs. "
-"That's no fun."
-msgstr ""
-"Il y a beaucoup de gens qui n'apprécient pas nos idéaux de liberté. Ils "
-"seraient très contents de prendre le travail que nous avons fait, d'en faire
"
-"une base pour la distribution de logiciel non libre et d'inciter les gens à "
-"abandonner leur liberté. Le résultat, si nous les laissions faire, serait "
-"que nous ne développerions des programmes libres que pour être constamment "
-"concurrencés par des versions améliorées de nos propres programmes. Ãa ne
"
-"serait pas drôle."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And, a lot of people also feel — you know, I'm willing to volunteer my "
-"time to contribute to the community, but why should I volunteer my time to "
-"contribute to that company's, to improving that company's, proprietary "
-"program? You know, some people might not even think that that's evil, but "
-"they want to get paid if they're going to do that. I, personally, would "
-"rather not do it at all."
-msgstr ""
-"Et beaucoup de gens penseraient : « Je suis volontaire pour donner de mon "
-"temps afin de contribuer à ma communauté, mais pourquoi contribuer à un "
-"programme privateur de telle ou telle société ? » Vous savez, certaines "
-"personnes ne trouvent pas ça forcément mal, mais elles veulent être "
-"rétribuées si elles le font. Moi, je préférerais ne pas le faire du tout."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But both of these groups of people — both the ones like me who say, "
-"“I don't want to help that non-free program to get a foothold in our "
-"community” and the ones that say, “Sure, I'd work for them, but "
-"then they better pay me” — both of us have a good reason to use "
-"the GNU General Public License. Because that says to that company, “"
-"You can't just take my work, and distribute it without the freedom.” "
-"Whereas, the non-copyleft licenses, like the X Windows license, do permit "
-"that."
-msgstr ""
-"Mais les deux groupes de gens â ceux qui comme moi disent « Je ne veux
pas "
-"aider un programme non libre à prendre pied dans notre communauté » et
ceux "
-"qui pensent « Je veux bien améliorer un programme non libre, mais ils ont "
-"intérêt à me payer » â ont une bonne raison d'utiliser la licence
GPL. Parce "
-"que cela dit à ces sociétés « Vous ne pouvez pas juste prendre mon
travail "
-"et le redistribuer sans la liberté », ce que permettent les licences sans "
-"copyleft comme la licence de XÂ Windows.<a id=\"TransNote8-rev\" href="
-"\"#TransNote8\"><sup>8</sup></a>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So that is the big division between the two categories of free software "
-"— license-wise. There are the programs that are copylefted so that "
-"the license defends the freedom of the software for every user. And there "
-"are the non-copylefted programs for which non-free versions are allowed. "
-"Somebody <em>can</em> take those programs and strip off the freedom. You "
-"may get that program in a non-free version."
-msgstr ""
-"C'est ça la grande distinction entre les deux catégories de logiciel libreÂ
; "
-"elle porte sur la licence. Il y a les programmes placés sous copyleft afin "
-"que la licence défende la liberté du logiciel pour chaque utilisateur, et
il "
-"y a les programmes sans copyleft, pour lesquels des versions non libres sont "
-"permises. Quelqu'un <em>a la possibilité</em> de prendre ces programmes et "
-"d'en ôter la liberté ; on peut donc les obtenir dans une version non
libre."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And that problem exists today. There are still non-free versions of X "
-"Windows being used on our free operating systems. There is even hardware "
-"— which is not really supported — except by a non-free version "
-"of X Windows. And that's a major problem in our community. Nonetheless, I "
-"wouldn't say that X Windows is a bad thing, you know. I'd say that the "
-"developers did not do the best possible thing that they could have done. "
-"But they <em>did</em> release a lot of software that we could all use."
-msgstr ""
-"Et ce problème persiste. Il existe encore des versions non libres de "
-"X Windows qui sont utilisées sur nos systèmes d'exploitation libres. Il y
a "
-"même des matériels qui ne sont gérés que par des versions non libres et "
-"c'est un problème majeur dans notre communauté. Cependant, je ne dirais pas
"
-"que X Windows soit une mauvaise chose ; je dirais que les développeurs
n'ont "
-"pas fait du mieux qu'il pouvaient, mais ils ont <em>effectivement</em> "
-"publié une grande quantité de logiciel que nous pouvons tous utiliser."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"You know, there's a big difference between less than perfect, and evil. "
-"There are many gradations of good and bad. We have to resist the temptation "
-"to say, if you didn't do the absolute best possible thing, then you're no "
-"good. You know, the people that developed X Windows made a big contribution "
-"to our community. But there's something better that they could have done. "
-"They could have copylefted parts of the program and prevented those freedom-"
-"denying versions from being distributed by others."
-msgstr ""
-"Il y a une grande différence entre imparfait et mauvais, vous savez. Il y a "
-"de nombreux degrés entre le bien et le mal. Nous devons résister à la "
-"tentation de dire : « Si vous n'avez pas fait absolument du mieux
possible, "
-"vous ne valez rien. » Les gens qui ont développé X Windows ont fait une "
-"grande contribution à notre communauté, mais ils auraient pu mieux faire. "
-"Ils auraient pu mettre des morceaux du programme sous copyleft et cela "
-"aurait empêché ces versions non libres d'être distribuées par d'autres."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, the fact that the GNU General Public License defends your freedom, uses "
-"copyright law to defend your freedom, is, of course, why Microsoft is "
-"attacking it today. See, Microsoft would really like to be able to take all "
-"the code that we wrote and put it into proprietary programs, have somebody "
-"make some improvements, or even just incompatible changes is all they need. "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Cela dit, le fait que la GPL défende votre liberté â utilise le droit du
"
-"copyright pour défendre cette liberté â est la raison pour laquelle "
-"Microsoft l'attaque aujourd'hui. Voyez, Microsoft voudrait vraiment prendre "
-"tout ce code que nous avons écrit et le mettre dans des programmes "
-"privateurs. Faire ajouter quelques améliorations ou simplement des "
-"changements incompatibles par quelqu'un, cela suffirait. <i>[rires]</i>."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"You know, with Microsoft's marketing clout, they don't need to make it "
-"better to have their version supplant ours. They just have to make it "
-"different and incompatible. And then, put it on everybody's desktop. So "
-"they really don't like the GNU GPL. Because the GNU GPL won't let them do "
-"that. It doesn't allow “embrace and extend”. It says, if you "
-"want to share our code in your programs, you can. But, you've got to share "
-"and share alike. The changes that you make we have to be allowed to share. "
-"So, it's a two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation."
-msgstr ""
-"Vous savez, avec leur puissance marketing, les gens de chez Microsoft n'ont "
-"pas vraiment besoin de faire une version meilleure pour nous supplanter. Ils "
-"ont juste besoin de la rendre différente et incompatible, et ensuite de la "
-"mettre sur le bureau de tout le monde. Donc ils n'aiment pas du tout la GPL, "
-"parce que la GNU GPL ne leur permet pas de le faire. Elle n'autorise pas la "
-"stratégie de la pieuvre <cite>[embrace and extend]</cite>. Elle dit : «Â
Si "
-"vous voulez vous servir de notre code dans vos programmes, vous pouvez, mais "
-"vous devrez aussi partager, et partager à l'identique. Les changements que "
-"vous avez faits devront pouvoir être partagés. » C'est une coopération
dans "
-"les deux sens, une vraie coopération."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Many companies — even big companies like IBM and HP are willing to use "
-"our software on this basis. IBM and HP contribute substantial improvements "
-"to GNU software. And they develop other free software. But, Microsoft "
-"doesn't want to do that, so they give it out that businesses just can't deal "
-"with the GPL. Well, if businesses don't include IBM, and HP and SUN, then "
-"maybe they're right. <i>[Laughter]</i> More about that later."
-msgstr ""
-"Beaucoup d'entreprises, même de grosses sociétés comme IBM et HP, sont "
-"d'accord pour utiliser nos logiciels dans cet esprit. IBM et HP contribuent "
-"à de substantielles améliorations des logiciels GNU et développent
d'autres "
-"logiciels libres. Mais Microsoft ne veut pas de ça. Ils prétendent que le "
-"business est incompatible avec la GPL. Eh bien, si le business n'inclut pas "
-"IBM, et HP, et SUN, peut-être qu'ils ont raison <i>[rires]</i>. J'en dirai "
-"plus ultérieurement sur le sujet."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"I should finish the historical story. You see, we set out in 1984 not just "
-"to write some free software but to do something much more coherent: to "
-"develop an operating system that was entirely free software. So that meant "
-"we had to write piece after piece after piece. Of course, we were always "
-"looking for shortcuts. The job was so big that people said we'd never be "
-"able to finish. And, I thought that there was at least a chance that we'd "
-"finish it but, obviously, it's worth looking for shortcuts. So we kept "
-"looking around. Is there any program that somebody else has written that we "
-"could manage to adapt, to plug into here, and that way we won't have to "
-"write it from scratch? For instance, the X Window system. It's true it "
-"wasn't copylefted, but it was free software, so we could use it."
-msgstr ""
-"Je dois d'abord terminer l'exposé historique. En 1984 nous avons entrepris, "
-"non seulement d'écrire du logiciel libre, mais de faire quelque chose de "
-"plus cohérent : développer un système d'exploitation libre qui ne
comprenne "
-"que des logiciels libres. Cela signifiait que nous devions l'écrire morceau "
-"par morceau. Bien sûr, nous cherchions en permanence des raccourcis.
C'était "
-"un tel travail que les gens disaient que nous ne pourrions pas y arriver. Je "
-"pensais qu'il y avait tout de même une chance mais que ça valait la peine "
-"d'essayer des raccourcis. Alors nous avons continué à chercher. Y a-t-il un
"
-"programme déjà écrit que nous pouvons adapter et intégrer, de sorte qu'il
"
-"n'ait pas à être réécrit en entier ? Par exemple le système X Window.
C'est "
-"vrai qu'il n'était pas sous copyleft, mais il était libre et donc nous "
-"pouvions l'utiliser."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, I had wanted to put a window system into GNU from day one. I wrote a "
-"couple of window systems at MIT before I started GNU. And so, even though "
-"Unix had no window system in 1984, I decided that GNU would have one. But, "
-"we never ended up writing a GNU window system, because X came along. And I "
-"said, Goody! One big job we don't have to do. We'll use X. So I basically "
-"said, let's take X, and put it into the GNU system. And we'll make the "
-"other parts of GNU, you know, work with X, when appropriate. And we found "
-"other pieces of software that had been written by other people, like the "
-"text formatter TeX, some library code from Berkeley. At that time there was "
-"Berkeley Unix, but it was not free software. This library code, initially, "
-"was from a different group at Berkeley, that did research on floating "
-"point. And, so, we kept, we fit in these pieces."
-msgstr ""
-"En fait j'ai toujours voulu inclure un système de fenêtrage. J'en avais "
-"écrit deux quand j'étais au MIT, avant de commencer GNU. C'est pourquoi, "
-"bien qu'en 1984 Unix n'ait pas été doté d'un système de fenêtrage, j'ai "
-"décidé que GNU en aurait un. Mais nous n'avons jamais eu l'occasion de "
-"l'écrire car X Window est arrivé et j'ai dit : « Super ! Un gros
travail que "
-"nous n'aurons pas à faire. Utilisons X et nous ferons marcher les autres "
-"morceaux de GNU avec X le moment venu. » Nous avons aussi trouvé d'autres "
-"logiciels qui avaient été écrits par d'autres personnes, comme le
formateur "
-"de texte TeX et une bibliothèque provenant de Berkeley. En ce temps-là il y
"
-"avait l'Unix de Berkeley, mais ce n'était pas un logiciel libre. Cette "
-"bibliothèque venait d'un autre groupe de Berkeley, qui faisait des "
-"recherches sur la virgule flottante. Nous avons donc agencé ces morceaux."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"In October 1985, we founded the Free Software Foundation. So please note, "
-"the GNU project came first. The Free Software Foundation came after, about "
-"almost two years after the announcement of the Project. And the Free "
-"Software Foundation is a tax-exempt charity that raises funds to promote the "
-"freedom to share and change software. And in the 1980's, one of the main "
-"things we did with our funds was to hire people to write parts of GNU. And "
-"essential programs, such as the shell and the C library were written this "
-"way, as well as parts of other programs. The <code>tar</code> program, "
-"which is absolutely essential, although not exciting at all <i>[Laughter]</"
-"i> was written this way. I believe GNU grep was written this way. And so, "
-"we're approaching our goal."
-msgstr ""
-"En octobre 85, nous avons fondé la <cite>Free Software Foundation</cite> "
-"(Fondation pour le logiciel libre). Veuillez donc noter que le projet GNU "
-"est venu avant. La FSF est venue après, presque deux ans après l'annonce du
"
-"projet. La FSF est une fondation à but non lucratif qui lève des fonds pour
"
-"promouvoir la liberté de partager et modifier les logiciels. Dans les "
-"années 80, une des choses principales que nous avons faites avec nos fonds "
-"fut de recruter des gens pour écrire des morceaux de GNU. Des programmes "
-"essentiels comme le shell et la bibliothèque C ont été écrits comme cela,
"
-"ainsi que des parties d'autres programmes. Le programme <code>tar</code>, "
-"qui est absolument essentiel bien que pas du tout passionnant, fut écrit "
-"comme ça <i>[rires]</i>. Je crois que GNU grep a été écrit comme ça "
-"également. Si bien que nous approchions du but."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"By 1991, there was just one major piece missing, and that was the kernel. "
-"Now, why did I put off the kernel? Probably because it doesn't really matter "
-"what order you do the things in, at least technically it doesn't. You've "
-"got to do them all anyway. And partly because I'd hoped we'd be able to "
-"find a start at a kernel somewhere else. And we did. We found Mach, which "
-"had been developed at Carnegie Mellon. And it wasn't the whole kernel; it "
-"was the bottom half of the kernel. So we had to write the top half, but I "
-"figured, you know, things like the file system, the network code, and so "
-"on. But running on top of Mach they're running essentially as user "
-"programs, which ought to make them easier to debug. You can debug with a "
-"real source-level debugger running at the same time. And so, I thought that "
-"way we'd be able to get these, the higher level parts of the kernel, done in "
-"a short time. It didn't work out that way. These asynchronous, multi-"
-"threaded processes, sending messages to each other turned out to be very "
-"hard to debug. And the Mach-based system that we were using to bootstrap "
-"with had a terrible debugging environment, and it was unreliable, and "
-"various problems. It took us years and years to get the GNU kernel to work."
-msgstr ""
-"Vers 1991, il ne manquait plus qu'un morceau essentiel, le noyau. Pourquoi "
-"ai-je tardé à m'occuper du noyau ? Probablement parce que l'ordre dans "
-"lequel vous mettez les choses n'a pas d'importance, du moins techniquement. "
-"Il faut tout faire de toute façon. Et aussi parce que nous pensions trouver "
-"un début de noyau ailleurs. C'est ce qui s'est passé. Nous avons trouvé
Mach "
-"qui avait été développé à Carnegie-Mellon. Ce n'était pas le noyau
complet "
-"mais sa moitié inférieure, son socle. Il nous fallait écrire la partie "
-"supérieure, des choses comme le système de fichiers, le code réseau, etc. "
-"Fonctionnant au-dessus de Mach comme programmes utilisateur, ils étaient en "
-"principe plus faciles à déboguer. On pouvait utiliser un vrai débogueur de
"
-"code source qui s'exécutait en même temps. Je pensais qu'ainsi nous serions
"
-"capables de faire cette partie supérieure en peu de temps. Mais cela n'a pas
"
-"marché comme prévu. Ces processus asynchrones et
<cite>multi-threads</cite>, "
-"s'envoyant des messages les uns aux autres, se sont révélés très
difficiles "
-"à déboguer et le système basé sur Mach, sur lequel nous démarrions, "
-"possédait un environnement de débogage calamiteux. Il n'était pas fiable
et "
-"avait divers problèmes. Cela nous a pris des années et des années pour
faire "
-"fonctionner le noyau GNU."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, fortunately, our community did not have to wait for the GNU kernel. "
-"Because in 1991, Linus Torvalds developed another free kernel called Linux. "
-"And he used the old-fashioned monolithic design and it turns out that he got "
-"his working much faster than we got ours working. So maybe that's one of "
-"the mistakes that I made: that design decision. Anyway, at first, we didn't "
-"know about Linux, because he never contacted us to talk about it. Although "
-"he did know about the GNU Project. But he announced it to other people and "
-"other places on the net. And so other people then did the work of combining "
-"Linux with the rest of the GNU system to make a complete free operating "
-"system. Essentially, to make the GNU plus Linux combination."
-msgstr ""
-"Mais heureusement notre communauté n'a pas eu à attendre le noyau GNU,
parce "
-"qu'en 1991 Linus Torvalds développa un autre noyau libre appelé Linux. Il "
-"utilisait le vieux schéma du noyau monolithique et il se trouve qu'il "
-"réussit à le faire marcher beaucoup plus vite que nous le nôtre. C'est "
-"probablement une erreur que j'ai faite, le choix de cette architecture. De "
-"toute façon, au début on ne savait rien de Linux car il ne nous a jamais "
-"contacté pour en parler bien qu'il ait été au courant du projet GNU. Mais
il "
-"l'a annoncé à d'autres gens et à d'autres endroits sur le net. Alors "
-"d'autres gens ont fait le travail de combiner Linux avec le reste du système
"
-"GNU pour en faire un système d'exploitation libre complet ; essentiellement
"
-"pour faire la combinaison GNU plus Linux."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, they didn't realize that's what they were doing. You see, they said, "
-"We have a kernel — let's look around and see what other pieces we can "
-"find to put together with the kernel. So, they looked around — and lo "
-"and behold, everything they needed was already available. What good "
-"fortune, they said. <i>[Laughter]</i> It's all here. We can find "
-"everything we need. Let's just take all these different things and put it "
-"together, and have a system."
-msgstr ""
-"Toutefois ils l'ont fait sans s'en rendre compte. « Vous voyez, »
disaient-"
-"ils, « nous avons un noyau. Allons à la recherche de morceaux qui puissent
"
-"s'assembler avec lui. » Alors ils ont regardé partout, et surprise…
"
-"tout ce dont ils avaient besoin était disponible ! « Quelle bonne
fortune, » "
-"dirent-ils, <i>[rires]</i> « tout est là . Il y a tout ce dont nous avons "
-"besoin. Prenons simplement tous ces morceaux et mettons-les ensemble, ainsi "
-"nous aurons un système complet. »"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"They didn't know that most of what they found was pieces of the GNU system. "
-"So they didn't realize that they were fitting Linux into the gap in the GNU "
-"system. They thought they were taking Linux and making a system out of "
-"Linux. So they called it a Linux system."
-msgstr ""
-"Ils ne savaient pas que la plus grande partie de ce qu'ils trouvaient, "
-"c'était des morceaux du système GNU. Ils n'ont pas compris qu'ils
plaçaient "
-"Linux dans le dernier trou du système GNU. Ils pensaient qu'ils prenaient "
-"Linux et qu'ils en faisaient un système. Alors ils l'ont appelé «Â
système "
-"Linux »."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can't hear you — what?"
-msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Vous entends pas… Quoi ?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, it's just not — you know, it's "
-"provincial."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Bien je crois que ce n'est pas vraiment… "
-"C'est provincial, vous savez."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: But it's more good fortune then finding X and "
-"Mach?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Mais c'est plus une bonne fortune que de trouver
"
-"X et Mach ?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. The difference is that the people who "
-"developed X and Mach didn't have the goal of making a complete free "
-"operating system. We're the only ones who had that. And, it was our "
-"tremendous work that made the system exist. We actually did a larger part "
-"of the system than any other project. No coincidence, because those people "
-"— they wrote useful parts of the system. But they didn't do it "
-"because they wanted the system to be finished. They had other reasons."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Exact. La différence, c'est que les gens qui
ont "
-"développé X et Mach n'avaient pas pour but de faire un système "
-"d'exploitation libre complet. Nous étions les seuls à avoir ce but et c'est
"
-"notre travail acharné qui a fait que le système existe. Nous avons en "
-"réalité fait plus de travail que n'importe quel autre projet. Ce n'est pas "
-"une coïncidence car ces gens… ils ont écrit des parties utiles du "
-"système, mais ne l'ont pas fait parce qu'ils voulaient finir le système.
Ils "
-"avaient d'autres raisons."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now the people who developed X — they thought that designing across "
-"the network window system would be a good project, and it was. And it "
-"turned out to help us make a good free operating system. But that's not "
-"what they hoped for. They didn't even think about that. It was an "
-"accident. An accidental benefit. Now, I'm not saying that what they did "
-"was bad. They did a large free software project. That's a good thing to "
-"do. But they didn't have that ultimate vision. The GNU Project is where "
-"that vision was."
-msgstr ""
-"Les gens qui ont développé X pensaient que de mettre au point un système
de "
-"fenêtrage sur le réseau serait une bonne chose, et ça l'était. Et il se "
-"trouve que cela nous a aidé à faire un bon système d'exploitation libre. "
-"Mais ils n'y pensaient même pas ; c'était un accident, un bonus fortuit.
Je "
-"ne dis pas que ce qu'ils ont fait était mauvais, ils ont fait un grand "
-"projet libre. C'est une bonne chose, mais ils n'avaient pas la vision "
-"ultime. C'est le projet GNU qui avait cette vision."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And, so, we were the ones whose — every little piece that didn't get "
-"done by somebody else, we did it. Because we knew that we wouldn't have a "
-"complete system without it. And even if it was totally boring and "
-"unromantic, like <code>tar</code> or <code>mv</code>. <i>[Laughter]</i> We "
-"did it. Or ld, you know there's nothing very exciting in <code>ld</code> "
-"— but I wrote one. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I did make efforts to have "
-"it do a minimal amount of disk I/O so that it would be faster and handle "
-"bigger programs. But, you know, I like to do a good job. I like to improve "
-"various things about the program while I'm doing it. But the reason that I "
-"did it wasn't that I had brilliant ideas for a better <code>ld</code>. The "
-"reason I did it is that we needed one that was free. And we couldn't expect "
-"anyone else to do it. So, we had to do it, or find someone to do it."
-msgstr ""
-"Et donc, nous sommes ceux… tous les morceaux qui n'ont pas été faits
"
-"par d'autres, nous les avons faits. Sinon nous n'aurions pas eu un système "
-"complet. Même quand ils étaient parfaitement fastidieux et pas du tout "
-"romantiques comme <code>tar</code> ou <code>mv</code> <i>[rires]</i>, nous "
-"les avons fait. Ou <code>ld</code> ; vous savez, il n'y a rien de très "
-"passionnant dans <code>ld</code>, mais j'en ai fait un <i>[rires]</i>, et je "
-"me suis donné du mal pour qu'il utilise un minimum d'entrées-sorties sur "
-"disque afin qu'il soit plus rapide et qu'il gère de plus gros programmes. "
-"Vous voyez, j'aime bien faire du bon boulot, j'aime bien améliorer "
-"différentes choses du programme pendant que je le réalise. Mais la raison "
-"pour laquelle je l'ai fait n'est pas que j'avais des idées brillantes pour "
-"un meilleur <code>ld</code>. La raison était que j'avais besoin d'un "
-"<code>ld</code> qui soit libre. Et nous ne pouvions attendre de personne "
-"d'autre qu'il le fasse. Il nous fallait donc le faire ou trouver quelqu'un "
-"pour le faire."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, although at this point thousands of people in projects have contributed "
-"to this system, there is one project which is the reason that this system "
-"exists, and that's the GNU Project. It <em>is</em> basically the GNU "
-"System, with other things added since then."
-msgstr ""
-"Aussi, bien qu'à ce stade des milliers de gens impliqués dans différents "
-"projets aient contribué à ce système, il doit son existence à un seul "
-"projet, qui est le projet GNU. <em>C'est</em> fondamentalement le système "
-"GNU, avec d'autres choses ajoutées par la suite."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, however, the practice of calling the system Linux has been a great blow "
-"to the GNU Project, because we don't normally get credit for what we've "
-"done. I think Linux, the kernel, is a very useful piece of free software, "
-"and I have only good things to say about it. But, well, actually, I can "
-"find a few bad things to say about it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, basically, I "
-"have good things to say about it. However, the practice of calling the GNU "
-"system, Linux, is just a mistake. I'd like to ask you please to make the "
-"small effort necessary to call the system GNU/Linux, and that way to help us "
-"get a share of the credit."
-msgstr ""
-"Quoi qu'il en soit, le fait d'appeler ce système Linux a fait du mal au "
-"projet GNU car d'habitude nous ne sommes pas reconnus pour le travail que "
-"nous avons fait. Je pense que Linux, le noyau, est un logiciel libre très "
-"utile et je n'ai que de bonnes choses à en dire. Bon, en fait, je pourrais "
-"trouver un peu de mal à en dire <i>[rires]</i>, mais pour l'essentiel j'en "
-"dis du bien. Toutefois, appeler le système GNU « Linux » est juste une "
-"erreur. Je vous demanderai de faire le petit effort nécessaire pour appeler "
-"ce système « GNU/Linux », et de cette façon nous aider à en partager
le "
-"crédit."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You need a mascot! Get yourself a stuffed animal! "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Vous avez besoin d'une mascotte ! Trouvez-vous "
-"un animal en peluche ! <i>[rires]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have one."
-msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Nous en avons un."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You do?"
-msgstr "<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Ah bon ?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have an animal — a gnu. <i>[Laughter]</"
-"i> Anyway. So, yes, when you draw a penguin, draw a gnu next to it. <i>"
-"[Laughter]</i> But, let's save the questions for the end. I have more to go "
-"through."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Nous avons un animal : un gnou <i>[rires]</i>. "
-"Alors, oui, lorsque vous dessinez un manchot, dessinez un gnou à côté <i>"
-"[rires]</i>. Mais gardons les questions pour la fin. Je dois encore avancer."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, why am I so concerned about this? You know, why do I think it is worth "
-"bothering you and perhaps giving you a, perhaps lowering your opinion of me, "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i> to raise this issue of credit? Because, you know, some "
-"people when I do this, some people think that it's because I want my ego to "
-"be fed, right? Of course, I'm not saying — I'm not asking you to call "
-"it “Stallmanix,” right? <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Pourquoi est-ce que je me préoccupe tant de cela ? Pourquoi est-ce que je "
-"pense que cela vaut la peine de vous ennuyer et peut-être de vous donner une
"
-"piètre opinion de moi-même <i>[rires]</i> pour poser le problème de la "
-"reconnaissance ? Parce que certaines personnes, quand je parle de ça, "
-"certaines personnes pensent que je le fais pour nourrir mon ego. Bien sûr, "
-"je ne vous demande pas de l'appeler « Stallmanix », n'est ce pas ?
<i>[rires "
-"et applaudissements]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to get "
-"credit. And there's a very specific reason for that, which is a lot more "
-"important than anybody getting credit, in and of itself. You see, these "
-"days, if you look around in our community most of the people talking about "
-"it and writing about it don't ever mention GNU, and they don't ever mention "
-"these goals of freedom — these political and social ideals, either. "
-"Because the place they come from is GNU."
-msgstr ""
-"Je vous demande de l'appeler GNU parce que je veux que le projet GNU en ait "
-"le crédit. Il y a une raison très particulière, beaucoup plus importante
que "
-"le simple fait d'être reconnu. Vous voyez, de nos jours â regardez autour
de "
-"vous dans notre communauté â la plupart des gens qui en parlent ou
écrivent "
-"à son sujet ne mentionnent même pas GNU, ni ses objectifs de liberté, ni "
-"d'ailleurs ses idéaux politiques et sociétaux. Parce que c'est de GNU que "
-"tout cela provient."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"The ideas associated with Linux — the philosophy is very different. "
-"It is basically the apolitical philosophy of Linus Torvalds. So, when "
-"people think that the whole system is Linux, they tend to think: “Oh, "
-"it must have been all started by Linux Torvalds. His philosophy must be the "
-"one that we should look at carefully”. And when they hear about the "
-"GNU philosophy, they say: “Boy, this is so idealistic, this must be "
-"awfully impractical. I'm a Linux-user, not a GNU-user.” <i>[Laughter]"
-"</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Les idées associées à Linux… leur philosophie est très
différente. "
-"C'est fondamentalement la philosophie apolitique de Linus Torvalds. Ainsi "
-"quand les gens pensent que l'ensemble du système est Linux, ils tendent à "
-"penser : « Oh, c'est Linus Torvalds qui a dû mettre tout ça en route.
C'est "
-"sa philosophie que nous devons examiner attentivement. » Et quand ils "
-"entendent parler de la philosophie GNU ils disent : « Mon Dieu, que c'est "
-"idéaliste ! Cela semble bien peu réaliste. Je suis un utilisateur de
Linux, "
-"pas de GNU. » <i>[rires]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"What irony! If they only knew! If they knew that the system they liked "
-"— or, in some cases, love and go wild over — is our idealistic, "
-"political philosophy made real."
-msgstr ""
-"Quelle ironie ! Si seulement ils savaient ! S'ils savaient que le système "
-"qu'ils apprécient et dans certains cas aiment à la folie, c'est notre "
-"philosophie politique idéaliste devenue réalité."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"They still wouldn't have to agree with us. But at least they'd see a reason "
-"to take it seriously, to think about it carefully, to give it a chance. "
-"They would see how it relates to their lives. You know, if they realized, "
-"“I'm using the GNU system. Here's the GNU philosophy. This philosophy "
-"is <em>why</em> this system that I like very much exists,” they'd at "
-"least consider it with a much more open mind. It doesn't mean that "
-"everybody will agree. People think different things. That's OK. You know, "
-"people should make up their own minds. But I want this philosophy to get "
-"the benefit of the credit for the results it has achieved."
-msgstr ""
-"Ce n'est pas qu'ils devraient être d'accord avec nous, mais au moins ils "
-"verraient une raison de la prendre un peu au sérieux, de l'examiner "
-"attentivement, de lui donner une chance. Ils verraient comme c'est lié à "
-"leur vie. Vous savez, s'ils se disaient « J'utilise le système GNU, voici
la "
-"philosophie GNU, c'est <em>grâce à cette philosophie</em> que le système
que "
-"j'apprécie existe », ils la considéreraient avec un esprit beaucoup plus "
-"ouvert. Ãa ne veut pas dire que tout le monde serait d'accord. Chacun a ses "
-"idées. C'est bien, Les gens doivent se faire leur propre opinion. Mais je "
-"veux que cette philosophie soit créditée des résultats qu'elle a obtenus."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"If you look around in our community, you'll find that almost everywhere, the "
-"institutions are calling the system Linux. You know, reporters mostly call "
-"it Linux. It's not right, but they do. The companies mostly say it that "
-"package the system. Oh, and most of these reporters, when they write "
-"articles, they usually don't look at it as a political issue, or social "
-"issue. They're usually looking at it purely as a business question or what "
-"companies are going to succeed more or less, which is really a fairly minor "
-"question for society. And, if you look at the companies that package the "
-"GNU/Linux system for people to use, well, most of them call it Linux. And "
-"they <em>all</em> add non-free software to it."
-msgstr ""
-"Si vous regardez autour de vous dans notre communauté, vous verrez que "
-"presque partout les institutions appellent notre système Linux. Les "
-"journalistes l'appellent le plus souvent Linux. Ce n'est pas juste mais ils "
-"le font. Les entreprises qui mettent le système sous forme de paquets "
-"installables le font la plupart du temps. La plupart de ces journalistes, "
-"quand ils écrivent des articles, ne l'envisagent pas comme un sujet "
-"politique ni un sujet de société. Ils l'envisagent habituellement du point "
-"de vue économique ou s'intéressent au succès plus ou moins grand des "
-"entreprises, ce qui est une question mineure pour la société. Et si vous "
-"regardez les entreprises qui empaquettent le système GNU/Linux pour les "
-"utilisateurs, la plupart d'entre elles l'appellent Linux et elles y ajoutent "
-"<em>toutes</em> des logiciels non libres."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"See, the GNU GPL says that if you take code, and some code out of a GPL-"
-"covered program, and add some more code to make a bigger program, that whole "
-"program has to be released under the GPL. But you could put other separate "
-"programs on the same disk (of either kind, hard disk, or CD), and they can "
-"have other licenses. That's considered mere aggregation, and, essentially, "
-"just distributing two programs to somebody at the same time is not something "
-"we have any say over. So, in fact, it is not true — sometimes, I wish "
-"it were true — that if a company uses a GPL-covered program in a "
-"product that the whole product has to be free software. It's not — it "
-"doesn't go to that range — that scope. It's the whole program. If "
-"there are two separate programs that communicate with each other at arm's "
-"length — like by sending messages to each other — then, they're "
-"legally separate, in general. So, these companies, by adding non-free "
-"software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically and "
-"politically, a very bad idea. They're telling the users, “It is OK to "
-"use non-free software. We're even putting it on this as a bonus.”"
-msgstr ""
-"Voyez, la GNU GPL stipule que si vous prenez du code d'un programme sous GPL "
-"et que vous lui ajoutez du code pour en faire un programme plus grand, "
-"l'ensemble de ce programme devra être publié sous GPL. Mais vous pourriez "
-"mettre d'autres programmes séparés sur le même disque (soit disque dur,
soit "
-"CD) et ils pourraient être sous d'autres licences ; c'est considéré comme
"
-"une simple agrégation. Pour l'essentiel, nous n'avons rien à redire au
fait "
-"de simplement distribuer deux programmes à quelqu'un en même temps. Donc,
en "
-"fait ce n'est pas vrai â j'aimerais quelquefois que ça soit vrai â que
si "
-"une entreprise utilise un programme sous GPL dans un produit, l'ensemble du "
-"produit doive être du logiciel libre. Ãa ne va pas jusque là . Il s'agit de
"
-"l'ensemble du <em>programme</em>. S'il y a deux programmes séparés qui "
-"communiquent l'un avec l'autre à bout de bras, par exemple en s'envoyant des
"
-"messages, ils sont en général juridiquement séparés. Ainsi ces
entreprises, "
-"en ajoutant des logiciels non libres au système, donnent aux utilisateurs "
-"une très mauvaise idée, philosophiquement et politiquement. Elles disent
aux "
-"utilisateurs : « C'est bien d'utiliser des logiciels non libres. Nous les "
-"ajoutons même en prime. »"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system, most of "
-"them have a title like “Linux-something or other”. So they're "
-"calling the system Linux most of the time. And they're filled with ads for "
-"non-free software that you could run on top of the GNU/Linux system. Now "
-"those ads have a common message. They say: Non-free Software Is Good For "
-"You. It's So Good That You Might Even <em>Pay</em> To Get It. <i>[Laughter]"
-"</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Si vous regardez les magazines sur l'utilisation du système GNU/Linux, la "
-"plupart ont un titre comme « Linux ceci » ou « Linux cela ». Ainsi la
"
-"plupart du temps, ils appellent le système « Linux ». Et ils sont
remplis de "
-"publicités pour des programmes non libres que vous pouvez faire fonctionner "
-"sur le système GNU/Linux. Ces publicités ont un message commun : « Le "
-"logiciel non libre est bon pour vous, tellement bon que vous pourriez même "
-"<em>payer</em> pour l'avoir. » <i>[rires]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And they call these things “value-added packages”, which makes a "
-"statement about their values. They're saying: Value practical convenience, "
-"not freedom. And, I don't agree with those values, so I call them “"
-"freedom-subtracted packages”. <i>[Laughter]</i> Because if you have "
-"installed a free operating system, then you now are living in the free "
-"world. You enjoy the benefits of liberty that we worked for so many years "
-"to give you. Those packages give you an opportunity to buckle on a chain."
-msgstr ""
-"Ils donnent à ces choses le nom de « paquets à valeur ajoutée », ce
qui en "
-"dit long sur leurs valeurs. Ils disent : « Accordez de la valeur au côté
"
-"pratique, pas à la liberté. » Je n'adhère pas à ces valeurs, aussi je
les "
-"appelle « paquets à liberté soustraite » <i>[rires]</i>. Parce que si
vous "
-"avez installé un système d'exploitation libre, vous vivez maintenant dans
le "
-"monde du libre. Vous bénéficiez de la liberté que nous avons travaillé "
-"pendant tant d'années à vous donner. Ces paquets vous donnent l'occasion de
"
-"vous attacher à une chaîne."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And then if you look at the trade shows — about the use of the, "
-"dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call themselves "
-"“Linux” shows. And they're filled with booths exhibiting non-"
-"free software, essentially putting the seal of approval on the non-free "
-"software. So, almost everywhere you look in our community, the institutions "
-"are endorsing the non-free software, totalling negating the idea of freedom "
-"that GNU was developed for. And the only place that people are likely to "
-"come across the idea of freedom is in connection with GNU, and in connection "
-"with free software, the term, free software. So this is why I ask you: "
-"please call the system GNU/Linux. Please make people aware where the system "
-"came from and why."
-msgstr ""
-"Si vous regardez les expositions commerciales autour du système GNU/Linux, "
-"elles s'appellent toutes « Linux »-expo. Et elles sont remplies de stands
"
-"exposant des logiciels non libres, donnant le sceau de l'approbation à du "
-"logiciel non libre. Ainsi, où que vous regardiez dans notre communauté, à "
-"peu de choses près, les institutions renforcent le logiciel non libre, niant
"
-"totalement l'idée de liberté pour laquelle GNU a été développé. La
seule "
-"occasion qu'ont les gens de rencontrer l'idée de liberté est la référence
à "
-"GNU et l'utilisation du terme « logiciel libre ». C'est pourquoi je vous "
-"demande d'appeler le système « GNU/Linux ». S'il vous plaît, faites
prendre "
-"conscience aux gens de l'origine et de la raison d'être du système."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Of course, just by using that name, you won't be making an explanation of "
-"the history. You can type four extra characters and write GNU/Linux; you "
-"can say two extra syllables. But, GNU/Linux is fewer syllables than Windows "
-"2000. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, you're not telling them a lot, but you're "
-"preparing them, so that when they hear about GNU, and what it's all about, "
-"they'll see how that connects to them and their lives. And that, "
-"indirectly, makes a tremendous difference. So please help us."
-msgstr ""
-"Bien sûr, en utilisant simplement ce nom vous ne donnerez pas une "
-"explication historique. Vous pouvez taper quatre lettres supplémentaires et "
-"écrire « GNU/Linux ». Vous pouvez dire deux syllabes de plus. GNU/Linux,
"
-"c'est moins de syllabes que Windows 2000 <i>[rires]</i>. Vous n'en dites pas
"
-"vraiment beaucoup mais vous les préparez pour le jour où ils entendront "
-"parler de GNU et de ce qu'il représente. Ils verront alors comment ça se "
-"rattache à leur vie. Et cela, indirectement, fait une différence énorme. "
-"Alors s'il vous plaît, aidez-nous."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"You'll note that Microsoft called the GPL an “open source "
-"license”. They don't want people to be thinking in terms of freedom "
-"as the issue. You'll find that they invite people to think in a narrow way, "
-"as consumers, and, of course, not even think very rationally as consumers, "
-"if they're going to choose Microsoft products. But they don't want people "
-"to think as citizens or statesmen. That's inimical to them. At least it's "
-"inimical to their current business model."
-msgstr ""
-"Vous noterez que Microsoft qualifie la GPL de « licence open source ».
Ils "
-"ne veulent pas que les gens pensent en termes de liberté. Ils incitent les "
-"gens à penser étroitement, en tant que consommateurs (et en plus pas très "
-"rationnels, comme consommateurs, s'ils choisissent les produits Microsoft). "
-"Mais ils ne veulent pas que les gens pensent en tant que citoyens ou hommes "
-"d'Ãtat. Ãa leur est défavorable, du moins c'est défavorable à leur
modèle "
-"économique actuel."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, how does free software…well, I can tell you about how free "
-"software relates to our society. A secondary topic that might be of "
-"interest to some of you is how free software relates to business. Now, in "
-"fact, free software is <em>tremendously</em> useful for business. After "
-"all, most businesses in the advanced countries use software. Only a tiny "
-"fraction of them develop software."
-msgstr ""
-"Je peux vous expliquer comment le logiciel libre est lié à notre société.
Un "
-"sujet secondaire, qui pourrait intéresser certains d'entre vous, c'est son "
-"rapport à l'économie. En réalité, le logiciel libre est
<em>extrêmement</em> "
-"utile à l'économie. Après tout, la plupart des entreprises utilisent du "
-"logiciel dans les pays avancés mais seule une minuscule fraction en "
-"développe."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And free software is tremendously advantageous for any company that uses "
-"software, because it means that you're in control. Basically, free software "
-"means the users are in control of what the program does. Either "
-"individually, if they care enough to be, or, collectively, when they care "
-"enough to be. Whoever cares enough can exert some influence. If you don't "
-"care, you don't buy. Then you use what other people prefer. But, if you do "
-"care, then you have some say. With proprietary software, you have "
-"essentially no say."
-msgstr ""
-"Le logiciel libre offre un avantage considérable à toute entreprise qui "
-"utilise des logiciels car cela veut dire que c'est elle qui en a le "
-"contrôle. En gros, un logiciel est libre si l'utilisateur a le contrôle de "
-"ce que fait le programme, soit individuellement soit collectivement, Ã "
-"condition de s'y intéresser suffisamment. N'importe quelle personne qui s'y "
-"intéresse peut exercer quelque influence. Si cela ne vous intéresse pas, "
-"vous n'achetez pas, alors vous utilisez ce que d'autres préfèrent. Mais si "
-"vous vous y intéressez, alors vous avez votre mot à dire. Avec les
logiciels "
-"privateurs, pour l'essentiel, vous n'avez rien à dire. "
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"With free software, you can change what you want to change. And it doesn't "
-"matter that there are no programmers in your company; that's fine. You "
-"know, if you wanted to move the walls in your building, you don't have to be "
-"a carpentry company. You just have to be able to go find a carpenter and "
-"say, “What will you charge to do this job?” And if you want to "
-"change around the software you use, you don't have to be a programming "
-"company. You just have to go to a programming company and say, “What "
-"will you charge to implement these features? And when will you have it done?"
-"” And if they don't do the job, you can go find somebody else."
-msgstr ""
-"Avec le logiciel libre vous pouvez modifier ce que vous voulez. Et peu "
-"importe qu'il n'y ait pas de programmeur dans votre entreprise, ça marche "
-"quand même. Vous savez, si vous voulez bouger les cloisons de votre "
-"appartement, vous n'avez pas besoin d'être une entreprise de maçonnerie, "
-"vous n'avez qu'à trouver un maçon et lui demander « Combien prenez-vous
pour "
-"faire ce travail ? » Et si vous voulez changer les logiciels que vous "
-"utilisez vous n'avez pas besoin d'être une entreprise d'informatique, il "
-"vous suffit d'aller dans une entreprise d'informatique et de leur dire : "
-"« Combien demandez-vous pour mettre en Åuvre ces fonctionnalités ? Et
pour "
-"quand pouvez-vous le faire ? » Et si la réponse ne vous convient pas,
vous "
-"allez voir quelqu'un d'autre."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"There's a free market for support. So, any business that cares about "
-"support will find a tremendous advantage in free software. With proprietary "
-"software, support is a monopoly, because one company has the source code, or "
-"maybe a small number of companies that paid a gigantic amount of money have "
-"the source code, if it's Microsoft's shared source program, but, it's very "
-"few. And so, there aren't very many possible sources of support for you. "
-"And that means, that unless you're a real giant, they don't care about you. "
-"Your company is not important enough for them to care if they lose your "
-"business, or what happens. Once you're using the program, they figure "
-"you're locked in to getting the support from them, because to switch to a "
-"different program is a gigantic job. So, you end up with things like paying "
-"for the privilege of reporting a bug. <i>[Laughter]</i> And once you've "
-"paid, they tell you, “Well, OK, we've noted your bug report. And in a "
-"few months, you can buy an upgrade, and you can see if we've fixed it."
-"” <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Il y a un marché libre pour le service. Alors une entreprise qui
s'intéresse "
-"au service trouvera un avantage énorme dans le logiciel libre. Dans le "
-"logiciel privateur, le service est un monopole. Parce qu'une seule société "
-"possède le code source, ou peut-être quelques sociétés qui ont payé des "
-"sommes faramineuses, si c'est un <cite>shared source</cite> de Microsoft. "
-"Mais elles sont très peu nombreuses. Par conséquent vous n'avez pas mille "
-"prestataires de service à votre disposition. Cela veut dire, sauf si vous "
-"êtes un géant, qu'ils n'en ont rien à faire de vous. Votre entreprise
n'est "
-"pas assez importante pour qu'ils tiennent à vous avoir comme client. Une "
-"fois que vous utilisez le programme, vous êtes obligé de passer par eux
pour "
-"l'assistance, parce que migrer vers un autre logiciel est un travail énorme.
"
-"Alors vous finissez par payer pour avoir le privilège de signaler un bogue "
-"<i>[rires]</i>. Et une fois que vous avez payé ils vous disent : « OK,
nous "
-"avons noté le bogue. Dans quelques mois vous pourrez acheter une mise Ã
jour "
-"et vous verrez si nous l'avons réparé. » <i>[rires]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Support providers for free software can't get away with that. They have to "
-"please the customers. Of course, you can get a lot of good support gratis. "
-"You post your problem on the Internet. You may get an answer the next day. "
-"But that's not guaranteed, of course. If you want to be confident, you "
-"better make an arrangement with a company and pay them. And this is, of "
-"course, one of the ways that free software business works."
-msgstr ""
-"Les sociétés de service dans le logiciel libre ne peuvent pas s'en tirer "
-"comme ça. Elles doivent satisfaire les consommateurs. Bien sûr vous pouvez "
-"avoir beaucoup d'assistance gratis. Vous posez votre problème sur Internet "
-"et vous pouvez recevoir une réponse le lendemain. Mais ça n'est bien sûr
pas "
-"garanti. Si vous voulez être sûr, vous avez intérêt à conclure un accord
"
-"avec une société et à la payer. Et c'est naturellement l'une des façons
dont "
-"l'économie du logiciel libre fonctionne."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Another advantage of free software for businesses that use software is "
-"security and privacy. And this applies to individuals as well, but I "
-"brought it up in the context of businesses. You see, when a program is "
-"proprietary, you can't even tell what it really does."
-msgstr ""
-"Un des autres avantages du logiciel libre pour les entreprises, c'est la "
-"sécurité et la protection de la vie privée (cela s'applique aussi aux "
-"particuliers, mais je me suis placé dans le contexte des entreprises). Quand
"
-"un programme est privateur, vous voyez, on ne peut pas dire ce qu'il fait "
-"vraiment."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"It could have features, deliberately put in that you wouldn't like if you "
-"knew about them, like it might have a backdoor to let the developer get into "
-"your machine. It might snoop on what you do and send information back. "
-"This is not unusual. Some Microsoft software did this. But it's not only "
-"Microsoft. There are other proprietary programs that snoop on the user. "
-"And you can't even tell if it does this. And, of course, even assuming that "
-"the developer's totally honest, every programmer makes mistakes. There "
-"could be bugs that affect your security which are nobody's fault. But the "
-"point is: If it's not free software, you can't find them. And you can't fix "
-"them."
-msgstr ""
-"Il pourrait avoir des fonctionnalités, implantées délibérément, que vous
"
-"n'aimeriez pas si vous étiez au courant de leur existence. Par exemple il "
-"pourrait avoir une « porte dérobée » <cite>[backdoor]</cite> pour
laisser le "
-"développeur rentrer dans votre machine. Elle pourrait vous espionner et lui "
-"renvoyer des informations. Ce n'est pas inhabituel. Certains programmes de "
-"Microsoft le faisaient, mais pas seulement ceux de Microsoft. Il y a "
-"d'autres programmes privateurs qui espionnent l'utilisateur et vous ne "
-"pouvez même pas le savoir. Et, bien sûr, à supposer même que le
développeur "
-"soit parfaitement honnête, tout programmeur peut commettre des erreurs. Il "
-"pourrait y avoir des bogues qui affectent votre sécurité, ce qui n'est la "
-"faute de personne. Mais le point important est que si ce n'est pas du "
-"logiciel libre, vous ne pouvez pas trouver les erreurs ni les réparer."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Nobody has the time to check the source of every program he runs. You're "
-"not going to do that. But with free software there's a large community, and "
-"there are people in that community who are checking things. And you get the "
-"benefit of their checking, because if there's an accidental bug, there "
-"surely are, from time to time, in any program, they might find it and fix "
-"it. And people are much less likely to put in a deliberate Trojan horse, or "
-"a snooping feature, if they think they might get caught. The proprietary "
-"software developers figure they won't get caught. They'll get away with it "
-"undetected. But a free software developer has to figure that people will "
-"look at that and see it's there. So, in our community, we don't feel we can "
-"get away with ramming a feature down the users' throats that the users "
-"wouldn't like. So we know that if the users don't like it, they'll make a "
-"modified version which doesn't have it. And then, they'll all start using "
-"that version."
-msgstr ""
-"Personne n'a le temps de vérifier le code source de chaque programme qu'il "
-"utilise. Ce n'est pas vous qui allez le faire. Mais, avec les logiciels "
-"libres il y a une grande communauté. Dans cette communauté il y a des gens "
-"qui vérifient et vous bénéficiez de leurs vérifications, parce que s'il y
a "
-"un bogue accidentel (et il y en a de temps en temps dans n'importe quel "
-"programme), ils pourront le trouver et le corriger. Il est donc peu probable "
-"que quelqu'un place délibérément un cheval de Troie ou une fonction "
-"d'espionnage dans le programme s'il pense qu'il peut être découvert. Les "
-"développeurs de logiciel privateur pensent qu'ils ne seront pas pris, que "
-"cela passera sans être détecté. Mais un développeur du libre devra se
dire "
-"que les gens rechercheront ce genre de chose et le trouveront. De même, dans
"
-"notre communauté nous ne pouvons pas faire avaler aux utilisateurs une "
-"fonction qu'ils n'aimeraient pas, car nous savons que s'ils ne l'aiment pas "
-"ils feront une version modifiée sans cette fonction, puis ils se mettront "
-"tous à utiliser la version modifiée."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"In fact, we can all reason enough, we can all figure this out enough steps "
-"ahead, that we probably won't put in that feature. After all, you're "
-"writing a free program; you want people to like your version; you don't want "
-"to put in a thing that you know a lot of people are going to hate, and have "
-"another modified version catch on instead of yours. So you just realize "
-"that the user is king in the world of free software. In the world of "
-"proprietary software, the customer is <em>not</em> king. Because you are "
-"only a customer. You have no say in the software you use."
-msgstr ""
-"En fait nous sommes tous capables de réfléchir et de nous projeter "
-"suffisamment pour ne pas introduire cette fonction. Après tout, si vous "
-"écrivez un programme libre, vous voulez que les gens apprécient votre "
-"version. Vous ne voulez pas y mettre quelque chose que les gens vont "
-"détester et voir une version modifiée prendre le dessus. Vous comprenez que
"
-"l'utilisateur est roi, dans le monde du libre. Dans le monde privateur par "
-"contre, l'utilisateur <em>n'est pas</em> roi. Il n'est qu'un consommateur, "
-"il n'a pas son mot à dire sur le logiciel qu'il utilise."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"In this respect, free software is a new mechanism for democracy to operate. "
-"Professor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions as a kind of "
-"law. Whoever gets to write the code that just about everybody uses for all "
-"intents and purposes is writing the laws that run people's lives. With free "
-"software, these laws get written in a democratic way. Not the classical "
-"form of democracy — we don't have a big election and say, “"
-"Everybody vote which way should this feature be done.” <i>[Laughter]</"
-"i> Instead we say, basically, those of you who want to work on implementing "
-"the feature this way, do it. And if you want to work on implementing the "
-"feature that way, do it. And, it gets done one way or the other, you know? "
-"And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done this way. So, "
-"in this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by simply taking "
-"steps in the direction that he wants to go."
-msgstr ""
-"De ce point de vue, le logiciel libre est un nouveau mécanisme
démocratique. "
-"Le professeur Lessig, qui est maintenant à Stanford, a remarqué que le code
"
-"fonctionne comme une sorte de loi. Celui qui écrit un code dont presque tout
"
-"le monde se sert à toutes fins utiles écrit les lois qui régissent la vie "
-"des gens. Avec le logiciel libre, ces lois sont écrites d'une façon "
-"démocratique. Pas comme la démocratie traditionnelle â il n'y a pas de
grand "
-"référendum où l'on demande : « Comment voulez-vous implémenter cette "
-"nouvelle fonctionnalité ? » <i>[rires]</i> à la place nous disons : «Â
Que "
-"ceux qui veulent travailler à mettre en Åuvre telle fonctionnalité, de
telle "
-"façon, le fassent ; et si vous voulez le faire autrement, allez-y. » Et
cela "
-"se fait d'une manière ou d'une autre. Si beaucoup de gens veulent le faire "
-"de cette façon, c'est comme cela que ça se fait. Ainsi, tout le monde "
-"contribue à la décision de la société simplement en avançant dans la "
-"direction où l'on veut aller."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And you're free to take as many steps, personally, as you want to take. A "
-"business is free to commission as many steps as they find useful to take. "
-"And, after you add all these things up, that says which direction the "
-"software goes."
-msgstr ""
-"Et vous êtes, personnellement, libre d'aller aussi loin que vous voulez. Une
"
-"entreprise est libre d'avancer dans une direction autant qu'elle le veut. "
-"Après, vous additionnez toutes ces choses et cela donne la direction où va "
-"le logiciel."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And it's often very useful to be able to take pieces out of some existing "
-"program, presumably usually large pieces, of course, and then write a "
-"certain amount of code of your own, and make a program that does exactly "
-"what you need, which would have cost you an arm and a leg to develop, if you "
-"had to write it all from scratch, if you couldn't cannibalize large pieces "
-"from some existing free software package."
-msgstr ""
-"C'est souvent très utile de pouvoir prendre des morceaux d'un programme "
-"existant, de gros morceaux la plupart du temps, et ensuite d'écrire une "
-"certaine quantité de code de votre cru pour créer un programme qui fasse "
-"exactement ce dont vous avez besoin, et qui vous aurait coûté les yeux de
la "
-"tête à développer vous-même de zéro si vous n'aviez pu cannibaliser de
gros "
-"morceaux d'un programme libre existant."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Another thing that results from the fact that the user is king is that we "
-"tend to be very good about compatibility and standardization. Why? Because "
-"users like that. Users are likely to reject a program that has gratuitous "
-"incompatibilities in it. Now, sometimes there's a certain group of users "
-"which actually have a need for a certain kind of incompatibility, and then "
-"they'll have it. That's OK. But when users want is to follow a standard, we "
-"developers have to follow it, and we know that. And we do it. By contrast, "
-"if you look at proprietary software developers, they often find it "
-"advantageous to deliberately <em>not</em> follow a standard, and not because "
-"they think that they're giving the user an advantage that way, but rather "
-"because they're imposing on the user, locking the user in. And you'll even "
-"find them making changes in their file formats from time to time, just to "
-"force people to get the newest version."
-msgstr ""
-"Un autre résultat de la puissance de l'utilisateur, c'est que nous tendons Ã
"
-"être bons en matière de normalisation et de compatibilité. Pourquoi ?
Parce "
-"que les utilisateurs aiment ça ! Les utilisateurs rejetteront "
-"vraisemblablement un programme qui est délibérément incompatible avec les "
-"autres. Cela dit, certains groupes d'utilisateurs ont besoin d'une certaine "
-"incompatibilité, et ils l'obtiennent ; c'est très bien. Mais quand le "
-"souhait des utilisateurs est de respecter une norme, nous les développeurs "
-"devons la respecter. Nous le savons et nous le faisons. Par contre, si vous "
-"regardez les développeurs de logiciel privateur, ils trouvent souvent "
-"avantage à <em>ne pas</em> respecter de norme, délibérément â pas
parce "
-"qu'ils pensent que cela bénéficiera à l'utilisateur, mais plutôt pour "
-"s'imposer à lui, pour l'enfermer. Vous en trouverez même qui modifient
leurs "
-"formats de fichiers de temps à autre, juste pour obliger les utilisateurs Ã
"
-"se procurer la dernière version."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Archivists are finding a problem now, that files written on computers ten "
-"years ago often can't be accessed; they were written with proprietary "
-"software that's essentially lost now. If it were written with free "
-"software, then it could be brought up-to-date and run. And those things "
-"would not, those records would not be lost, would not be inaccessible. They "
-"were even complaining about this on NPR recently in citing free software as "
-"a solution. And so, in effect, by using a non-free program to store your "
-"own data, you are putting your head in a noose."
-msgstr ""
-"Les archivistes ont un problème actuellement parce que des fichiers écrits "
-"sur ordinateur il y a des années ne sont plus accessibles. Ils ont été "
-"écrits avec des programmes privateurs qui sont maintenant perdus, ou tout "
-"comme. S'ils avaient été écrits avec des logiciels libres, ces programmes "
-"pourraient être mis à jour et fonctionner. Et ces choses, ces archives, ne "
-"seraient plus inaccessibles. Il y a eu des gens pour s'en plaindre sur NPR<a "
-"id=\"TransNote9-rev\" href=\"#TransNote9\"><sup>9</sup></a> récemment et "
-"pour citer le logiciel libre comme solution. Donc en réalité, en utilisant "
-"un logiciel privateur pour stocker vos données, vous mettez la tête dans un
"
-"nÅud coulant."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, I've talked about how free software affects most business. But how does "
-"it affect that particular narrow area which is software business? Well, the "
-"answer is mostly not at all. And the reason is that 90% of the software "
-"industry, from what I'm told, is development of custom software, software "
-"that's not meant to be released at all. For custom software, this issue, or "
-"the ethical issue of free or proprietary, doesn't arise. You see, the issue "
-"is, are you users free to change, and redistribute, the software? If there's "
-"only one user, and that user owns the rights, there's no problem. That user "
-"<em>is</em> free to do all these things. So, in effect, any <em>custom</em> "
-"program that was developed by one company for use in-house is free software, "
-"as long as they have the sense to insist on getting the source code and all "
-"the rights."
-msgstr ""
-"J'ai donc parlé de la façon dont le logiciel libre affecte la majeure
partie "
-"de l'économie. Mais comment affecte-t-il le domaine plus particulier de "
-"l'industrie du logiciel ? Eh bien, la réponse est : pratiquement pas. Et
la "
-"raison, c'est que 90% de l'industrie du logiciel (d'après ce que j'entends "
-"dire) développe du logiciel sur mesure, du logiciel qui n'est pas destiné Ã
"
-"la diffusion. Pour le logiciel sur mesure, la question éthique, libre ou "
-"privateur, ne se pose pas. Vous voyez, la question est de savoir si, en tant "
-"qu'utilisateur, vous pouvez modifier et redistribuer le logiciel. S'il n'y a "
-"qu'un utilisateur et qu'il a ces droits, il n'y a pas de problème. Cet "
-"utilisateur <em>est libre</em> de faire tout ça. Par conséquent un
programme "
-"<em>sur mesure</em> qui a été développé par une entreprise pour usage "
-"interne est un logiciel libre, du moins s'ils ont assez de bon sens pour "
-"réclamer le code source avec tous les droits."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And the issue doesn't really arise for software that goes in a watch or a "
-"microwave oven or an automobile ignition system. Because those are places "
-"where you don't download software to install. It's not a real computer, as "
-"far as the user is concerned. And so, it doesn't raise these issues enough "
-"for them to be ethically important. So, for the most part, the software "
-"industry will go along, just as it's been going. And the interesting thing "
-"is that since such a large fraction of the jobs are in that part of the "
-"industry, even if there were no possibilities for free software business, "
-"the developers of free software could all get day jobs writing custom "
-"software. <i>[Laughter]</i> There's so many; the ratio is so big."
-msgstr ""
-"Cet enjeu n'existe pas pour un logiciel embarqué dans une montre ou un four "
-"à microonde, ou dans le système d'allumage d'une voiture, parce que ce ne "
-"sont pas des endroits où l'on télécharge des logiciels pour les installer.
"
-"Du point de vue de l'utilisateur, ce ne sont pas de vrais ordinateurs. Les "
-"questions éthiques ne les concernent pas suffisamment pour qu'ils soient un "
-"enjeu important. Donc, pour l'essentiel, l'industrie du logiciel continuera "
-"comme auparavant. Ce qui est intéressant c'est que, la plupart des emplois "
-"étant dans cette fraction de l'industrie, même s'il n'était pas possible "
-"d'avoir une économie du libre les développeurs de logiciel libre pourraient
"
-"quand même trouver un emploi dans le sur mesure <i>[rires]</i>. Il y en a "
-"tellement, une si grande proportion !"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, as it happens, there is free software business. There are free "
-"software companies, and at the press conference that I'm going to have, "
-"people from a couple of them will join us. And, of course, there are also "
-"companies which are <em>not</em> free software businesses but do develop "
-"useful pieces of free software to release, and the free software that they "
-"produce is substantial."
-msgstr ""
-"Mais il se trouve qu'il existe une industrie du logiciel libre. Il y a des "
-"entreprises de logiciel libre. à la conférence de presse que je vais faire,
"
-"des représentants de quelques unes d'entre elles vont se joindre à nous. Et
"
-"naturellement, il y a des sociétés qui <em>ne sont pas</em> des entreprises
"
-"de logiciel libre mais qui néanmoins développent et publient des logiciels "
-"libres très utiles en quantité considérable."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, how do free software businesses work? Well, some of them sell copies. "
-"You know, you're free to copy it but they can still sell thousands of copies "
-"a month. And others sell support and various kinds of services. I, "
-"personally, for the second half of the '80's, I sold free software support "
-"services. Basically I said, for $200 an hour, I'll change whatever you want "
-"me to change in GNU software that I'd written. And, yes, it was a stiff "
-"rate, but if it was a program that I was the author of, people would figure "
-"that I might get the job done in a lot fewer hours. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I "
-"made a living that way. In fact, I'd made more than I'd ever made before. "
-"I also taught classes. And I kept doing that until 1990, when I got a big "
-"prize and I didn't have to do it any more."
-msgstr ""
-"Comment travaille l'industrie du libre ? Eh bien, certains vendent des "
-"copies. On est libre de copier un programme mais ils arrivent quand même à "
-"vendre des centaines d'exemplaires par mois. Et d'autres vendent de "
-"l'assistance et des services variés. Personnellement dans les années 80, "
-"j'ai vendu de l'assistance sur les logiciels libres. En gros, pour 200Â $ de "
-"l'heure je changeais ce que vous vouliez dans les programmes GNU que j'avais "
-"écrits. Oui, c'était un tarif élevé, mais c'était pour des programmes
que "
-"j'avais écrits et les gens pensaient que j'y passerais moins de temps <i>"
-"[rires]</i>. Et j'ai gagné ma vie avec ça. En fait, j'ai gagné plus que "
-"jamais auparavant. J'ai aussi enseigné. J'ai continué jusqu'en 1990 où
j'ai "
-"obtenu une récompense importante ; alors je n'ai plus eu à le faire."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, 1990 was when the first corporation free software business was formed, "
-"which was Cygnus Support. And their business was to do, essentially, the "
-"same kind of thing that I'd been doing. I certainly could have worked for "
-"them, if I had needed to do that. Since I didn't need to, I felt it was "
-"good for the movement if I remained independent of any one company. That "
-"way, I could say good and bad things about the various free software and non-"
-"free software companies, without a conflict of interest. I felt that I "
-"could serve the movement more. But, if I had needed that to make a living, "
-"sure, I would have worked for them. It's an ethical business to be in. No "
-"reason I would have felt ashamed to take a job with them. And that company "
-"was profitable in its first year. It was formed with very little capital, "
-"just the money its three founders had. And it kept growing every year and "
-"being profitable every year until they got greedy, and looked for outside "
-"investors, and then they messed things up. But it was several years of "
-"success, before they got greedy."
-msgstr ""
-"C'est en 1990 que la première entreprise de logiciel libre a été formée, "
-"<cite>Cygnus Support</cite>. Leur travail était essentiellement le même que
"
-"le mien. J'aurais certainement pu travailler pour eux si j'en avais eu "
-"besoin. Comme ce n'était pas le cas, j'ai pensé qu'il était bon pour le "
-"mouvement que je reste indépendant. De cette façon je pouvais dire du bien "
-"et du mal des différentes entreprises de logiciel, libre ou non, sans "
-"conflit d'intérêt. Je pensais que cela servirait mieux le mouvement. Mais
si "
-"j'avais dû en vivre j'aurais travaillé pour eux. C'est un travail éthique,
"
-"il n'y aurait eu aucune raison d'en avoir honte. Et cette société a été "
-"rentable dès la première année. Elle a été fondée avec très peu de
capital, "
-"juste l'argent de ses trois fondateurs. Elle a grossi chaque année et est "
-"restée rentable jusqu'à ce qu'ils soient trop cupides et cherchent des "
-"investisseurs extérieurs ; alors ils se sont plantés. Mais elle a eu "
-"plusieurs années de succès avant qu'ils ne soient trop gourmands."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, this illustrates one of the exciting things about free software. Free "
-"software demonstrates that you don't need to raise capital to develop free "
-"software. I mean, it's useful; it <em>can</em> help. You know, if you do "
-"raise some capital, you can hire people and have them write a bunch of "
-"software. But you can get a lot done with a small number of people. And, "
-"in fact, the tremendous efficiency of the process of developing free "
-"software is one of the reasons it's important for the world to switch to "
-"free software. And it also belies what Microsoft says when they say the GNU "
-"GPL is bad, because it makes it harder for them to raise capital to develop "
-"non-free software and take our free software and put our code into their "
-"programs that they won't share with us. Basically, we don't need to have "
-"them raising capital that way. We'll get the job done anyway. We are "
-"getting the job done."
-msgstr ""
-"Cela illustre une des choses intéressantes sur le logiciel libre : on n'a "
-"pas besoin de lever du capital pour le développer. J'admets que c'est utile,
"
-"que cela <em>peut</em> aider ; si vous levez du capital, vous pouvez "
-"recruter des gens et leur faire écrire un tas de logiciel. Mais vous pouvez "
-"faire beaucoup avec peu de gens. Et en fait, la formidable efficacité du "
-"processus de développement du logiciel libre est une des raisons pour "
-"lesquelles il est important que le monde passe au libre. De plus, cela "
-"démentit ce que dit Microsoft quand ils prétendent que la GNU GPL est "
-"mauvaise parce qu'elle leur rend difficile l'appel au capital pour "
-"développer du logiciel non libre â prendre notre logiciel libre puis
mettre "
-"notre code dans leurs programmes qu'ils ne partageront pas avec nous. En "
-"réalité nous n'avons pas besoin qu'ils lèvent du capital de cette
manière. "
-"Nous ferons le travail de toute façon. Nous sommes en train de le faire."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"People used to say we could never do a complete free operating system. Now "
-"we've done that and a tremendous amount more. And I would say that we're "
-"about an order of magnitude away from developing all the general purpose "
-"published software needs of the world. And this is in a world where more "
-"than 90% of the users don't use our free software yet. This is in a world "
-"where, although in certain areas of business, you know, more than half of "
-"all the web servers in the world are running on GNU/Linux with Apache as the "
-"web server."
-msgstr ""
-"Les gens disaient que nous ne pourrions jamais faire un système "
-"d'exploitation libre complet. Maintenant nous l'avons fait, et beaucoup plus "
-"encore. Je dirais que nous sommes à peu près à un ordre de grandeur de "
-"couvrir l'ensemble des besoins de la planète en développement de logiciels "
-"publiés d'usage courant, et ceci dans un monde où 90% des utilisateurs ne
se "
-"servent pas encore de nos logiciels libres ; ceci dans un monde où âÂ
bien "
-"que ce soit dans certains secteurs de l'économie â plus de la moitié des
"
-"serveurs web tournent sous GNU/Linux avec Apache."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i> … What did you say "
-"before, Linux?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : <i>[inaudible]</i> Qu'avez vous dit avant LinuxÂ
?"
-"…"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I said GNU/Linux."
-msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : J'ai dit GNU/Linux."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You did?"
-msgstr "<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Ah bon ?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, if I'm talking about the kernel, I call it "
-"Linux. You know, that's it's name. The kernel was written by Linus "
-"Torvalds, and we should only call it by the name that he chose, out of "
-"respect for the author."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Oui, si je parle du noyau je dis Linux. Comme "
-"vous savez, c'est son nom. Le noyau a été écrit par Linus Torvalds et nous
"
-"devons l'appeler du nom qu'il a choisi, par respect pour l'auteur."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Anyway, but in general, in business most users are not using it. Most home "
-"users are not using our system yet. So, when they are, we should "
-"automatically get 10 times as many volunteers and 10 times as many customers "
-"for the free software businesses that there will be. And so that will take "
-"us that order of magnitude. So at this point, I am pretty confident that we "
-"<em>can</em> do the job."
-msgstr ""
-"Mais la plupart des utilisateurs professionnels ne s'en servent
généralement "
-"pas et la plupart des particuliers n'utilisent pas encore notre système. "
-"Lorsqu'ils l'utiliseront, nous devrions avoir automatiquement dix fois plus "
-"de bénévoles et dix fois plus de clients pour l'industrie du logiciel libre
"
-"qui existera alors. Ainsi nous obtiendrons cette croissance d'un ordre de "
-"grandeur. Au point où nous en sommes, je suis très confiant dans le fait
que "
-"nous <em>pouvons</em> y arriver."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And, this is important, because Microsoft asks us to feel desperate. They "
-"say, The only way you can have software to run, the only way you can have "
-"innovation, is if you give us power. Let us dominate you. Let us control "
-"what you can do with the software you're running, so that we can squeeze a "
-"lot of money out of you, and use a certain fraction of that to develop "
-"software, and take the rest as profit."
-msgstr ""
-"C'est très important, parce que Microsoft nous demande de céder au "
-"désespoir. Ils disent : « La seule façon d'avoir des logiciels à faire "
-"fonctionner, la seule façon d'avoir des innovations, c'est de nous donner le
"
-"pouvoir. Laissez-nous vous dominer. Laissez-nous contrôler ce que vous "
-"pouvez faire avec les programmes que vous utilisez de façon à pouvoir vous "
-"soutirer beaucoup d'argent, utiliser une certaine fraction de cet argent "
-"pour développer et garder le reste comme profit. »"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Well, you shouldn't ever feel that desperate. You shouldn't ever feel so "
-"desperate that you give up your freedom. That's very dangerous."
-msgstr ""
-"Eh bien nous ne devons pas être aussi désespérés. Il ne faut pas être "
-"désespéré au point d'abandonner sa liberté. C'est très dangereux."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Another thing that Microsoft, well, not just Microsoft, people who don't "
-"support free software generally adopt a value system in which the only thing "
-"that matters is short-term practical benefits: How much money am I going to "
-"make this year? What job can I get done today? Short-term thinking and "
-"narrow thinking. Their assumption is that it is ridiculous to imagine that "
-"anybody ever might make a sacrifice for the sake of freedom."
-msgstr ""
-"Un autre problème, c'est que Microsoft… en fait pas seulement "
-"Microsoft, les gens qui n'encouragent pas le logiciel libre adoptent en "
-"général un système de valeurs où seuls comptent les bénéfices à court "
-"terme : « Combien d'argent gagnerons-nous cette année ? Quel travail
puis-je "
-"faire aujourd'hui ? » Pensée à court terme et pensée étroite. Ils
estiment "
-"ridicule d'imaginer que quiconque puisse jamais faire un sacrifice pour la "
-"liberté."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Yesterday, a lot of people were making speeches about Americans who made "
-"sacrifices for the freedom of their compatriots. Some of them made great "
-"sacrifices. They even sacrificed their lives for the kinds of freedom that "
-"everyone in our country has heard about, at least. (At least, in some of "
-"the cases; I guess we have to ignore the war in Vietnam.)"
-msgstr ""
-"Pas plus tard qu'hier, beaucoup de gens faisaient des discours sur les "
-"Américains qui ont fait des sacrifices pour la liberté de leurs "
-"compatriotes, de grands sacrifices pour certains. Ils ont été jusqu'à "
-"sacrifier leur vie pour ces liberté dont tout le monde dans notre pays a au "
-"moins entendu parler (du moins dans certains cas ; je suppose qu'il faut "
-"oublier la guerre du Vietnam)."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<i>[Editor's note: The day before was “Memorial Day” in the "
-"USA. Memorial Day is a day where war heros are commemorated.]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"<i>[Note de l'éditeur : la veille, c'était le Memorial Day aux
Ãtats-Unis, "
-"le jour où l'on commémore les héros des guerres.]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, fortunately, to maintain our freedom in using software, doesn't call "
-"for big sacrifices. Just tiny, little sacrifices are enough, like learning a "
-"command-line interface, if we don't have a GUI interface program yet. Like "
-"doing the job in this way, because we don't have a free software package to "
-"do it that way, yet. Like, paying some money to a company that's going to "
-"develop a certain free software package, so that you can have it in a few "
-"years. Various little sacrifices that we can all make. And, in the long "
-"run, even we will have benefited from it. You know, it is really an "
-"investment more than a sacrifice. We just have to have enough long-term "
-"view to realize it's good for us to invest in improving our society, without "
-"counting the nickels and dimes of who gets how much of the benefit from that "
-"investment."
-msgstr ""
-"Mais heureusement, garder notre liberté dans l'utilisation des logiciels "
-"n'exige pas de grands sacrifices. Juste de petits sacrifices minuscules, "
-"comme apprendre à utiliser la ligne de commande si l'on n'a pas encore "
-"d'interface graphique. Comme faire le travail de cette façon-ci parce qu'on "
-"n'a pas encore de logiciel libre pour le faire de cette façon-là . Comme "
-"payer une société pour développer tel logiciel libre pour que nous
puissions "
-"en disposer dans quelques années. Divers petits sacrifices que nous pouvons "
-"tous faire. Et dans le long terme, nous en tirerons même avantage ! En "
-"réalité c'est plus un investissement qu'un sacrifice. Il nous faut
seulement "
-"voir assez loin pour réaliser qu'il est bon de travailler à l'amélioration
"
-"de la société, sans compter les centimes et les francs du retour sur "
-"investissement ni se préoccuper de qui en bénéficie."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "So, at this point, I'm essentially done."
-msgstr "Maintenant j'ai à peu près fini."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"I'd like to mention that there's a new approach to free software business "
-"being proposed by Tony Stanco, which he calls “Free Developers”, "
-"which involves a certain business structure which hopes eventually to pay "
-"out a certain share of the profits to every, to all the authors of the free "
-"software who've joined the organization. And they're looking at the "
-"prospects of getting me some rather large government software development "
-"contracts in India now, because they're going to be using free software as "
-"the basis, having tremendous cost savings that way."
-msgstr ""
-"Je voudrais mentionner qu'il existe une autre approche de l'économie du "
-"logiciel libre qui a été proposée par Tony Stanco et qu'il appelle "
-"<cite>Free Developers</cite> (les développeurs libres). Elle implique une "
-"certaine structure économique qui espère un jour verser un certaine partie "
-"de ses profits à chacun des auteurs de logiciels libres qui auront rejoint "
-"cette organisation. Et ils espèrent m'obtenir de grands contrats publics de "
-"développement logiciel en Inde, parce qu'ils vont utiliser des logiciels "
-"libres là -bas, ce qui leur fera faire des économies de coût
considérables."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "And so now I guess that I should ask for questions."
-msgstr "Je vais donc maintenant passer aux questions."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Could you speak up a bit louder please? I can't "
-"really hear you."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Pourriez-vous parler plus fort s'il vous plaîtÂ
? "
-"Je ne peux vraiment pas vous entendre."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: How could a company like Microsoft include a free "
-"software contract?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Comment une société comme Microsoft pourrait-"
-"elle inclure un contrat pour du logiciel libre ?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually, Microsoft is planning to shift a "
-"lot of its activity into services. And what they're planning to do is "
-"something dirty and dangerous, which is tie the services to the programs, "
-"one to the next, in a sort of zigzag, you know? So that to use this service, "
-"you've got to be using this Microsoft program, which is going to mean you "
-"need to use this service, to this Microsoft program, so it's all tied "
-"together. That's their plan."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Eh bien en réalité, Microsoft prévoit de "
-"transformer beaucoup de ses activités en services. Et ce qu'ils nous "
-"préparent, c'est un sale coup et c'est dangereux. En effet ils veulent "
-"associer les services aux programmes, dans une sorte de zig-zag, vous "
-"voyez ? Si bien que pour utiliser tel service, vous devrez utiliser tel "
-"programme Microsoft, ce qui veut dire que vous aurez besoin d'utiliser ce "
-"service dédié pour faire tourner le programme Microsoft ; ainsi tout est "
-"lié. Voilà leur projet."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, the interesting thing is that selling those services doesn't raise the "
-"ethical issue of free software or non-free software. It might be perfectly "
-"fine for them to have the business for those businesses selling those "
-"services over the net to exist. However, what Microsoft is planning to do "
-"is to use them to achieve an even greater lock, an even greater monopoly, on "
-"the software and the services, and this was described in an article, I "
-"believe in Business Week, recently. And, other people said that it is "
-"turning the net into the Microsoft Company Town."
-msgstr ""
-"Ce qu'il y a d'intéressant, c'est que vendre ces services n'engage pas la "
-"question éthique du logiciel libre ou non libre. Ãa pourrait être très
bien "
-"de proposer cette activité aux entreprises qui vendent leurs services sur le
"
-"net. Mais ce qu'ils essaient d'obtenir avec ce système, c'est un "
-"verrouillage encore plus fort, un renforcement de leur monopole sur les "
-"logiciels et les services. Cela a été décrit récemment dans un article,
de "
-"<cite>Business Week</cite>, je crois. Et d'autre ont dit que cela allait "
-"transformer le net en « Microsoft-Ville »."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And this is relevant because, you know, the trial court in the Microsoft "
-"antitrust trial recommended breaking up the company, Microsoft. But in a "
-"way, that makes no sense — it wouldn't do any good at all — into "
-"the operating part and the applications part."
-msgstr ""
-"C'est pertinent car, vous le savez, au procès antitrust contre Microsoft le "
-"tribunal a recommandé de couper la société en deux â mais d'une
certaine "
-"manière cela n'a pas de sens, cela ne donnerait rien de bon du tout â une
"
-"partie système d'exploitation et une partie applications."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But having seen that article, I now see a useful, effective way to split up "
-"Microsoft into the services part and the software part, to require them to "
-"deal with each other only at arm's length, that the services must publish "
-"their interfaces, so that anybody can write a client to talk to those "
-"services, and, I guess, that they have to pay to get the service. Well, "
-"that's OK. That's a totally different issue."
-msgstr ""
-"Mais ayant lu cet article, je vois une autre façon, efficace celle-là , de "
-"diviser Microsoft. On mettrait d'un côté les services et de l'autre le "
-"logiciel et on les obligerait à garder leurs distances. La division services
"
-"devrait publier ses interfaces afin que n'importe qui puisse écrire un "
-"programme client pour ces services. Je suppose qu'on devrait payer pour ces "
-"services. Rien à dire contre ça, il s'agit d'un problème tout à fait "
-"différent."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"If Microsoft is split up in this way […] services and software, they "
-"will not be able to use their software to crush competition with Microsoft "
-"services. And they won't be able to use the services to crush competition "
-"with Microsoft software. And we will be able to make the free software, and "
-"maybe you people will use it to talk to Microsoft services, and we won't "
-"mind."
-msgstr ""
-"Si Microsoft est divisée en deux de cette façon […] services et "
-"logiciel, ils ne pourront pas utiliser leurs logiciels pour écraser la "
-"concurrence avec leurs services et ils ne pourront pas utiliser les services "
-"pour écraser la concurrence avec les logiciels Microsoft. Ainsi nous "
-"pourrons faire des logiciels libres, que vous autres utiliserez peut-être "
-"pour accéder aux services de Microsoft sans que nous y trouvions à redire."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Because, after all, although Microsoft is the proprietary software company "
-"that has subjugated the most people — the others have subjugated fewer "
-"people, it's not for want of trying. <i>[Laughter]</i> They just haven't "
-"succeeded in subjugating as many people. So, the problem is not Microsoft "
-"and only Microsoft. Microsoft is just the biggest example of the problem "
-"we're trying to solve, which is proprietary software taking away users' "
-"freedom to cooperate and form an ethical society. So we shouldn't focus too "
-"much on Microsoft, you know, even though they did give me the opportunity "
-"for this platform. That doesn't make them all-important. They're not the be-"
-"all and end-all."
-msgstr ""
-"Parce qu'après tout, bien que Microsoft soit la société de logiciel "
-"privateur qui a sous sa coupe le plus de monde, si les autres n'en ont pas "
-"autant ce n'est pas faute d'avoir essayé <i>[rires]</i>. Simplement ils "
-"n'ont pas si bien réussi. Donc le problème n'est pas Microsoft et
uniquement "
-"Microsoft. Microsoft est seulement le plus grand exemple du problème que "
-"nous voulons résoudre, à savoir que le logiciel privateur éloigne les "
-"utilisateurs de la liberté de coopérer et de former une société éthique.
"
-"Aussi ne faut-il pas trop se focaliser sur Microsoft. Vous savez, bien "
-"qu'ils m'aient donné l'occasion d'être ici, ça ne les rend pas plus "
-"importants. Ils ne sont pas l'alpha et l'oméga."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Earlier, you were discussing the philosophical "
-"differences between open source software and free software. How do you feel "
-"about the current trend of GNU/Linux distributions as they head towards "
-"supporting only Intel platforms? And the fact that it seems that less and "
-"less programmers are programming correctly, and making software that will "
-"compile anywhere? And making software that simply works on Intel systems?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Plus tôt, vous avez expliqué les différences "
-"entre le logiciel open source et le logiciel libre. Que pensez-vous de la "
-"tendance actuelle des distributions GNU/Linux à se limiter à la plateforme "
-"Intel ? Et du fait que, semble-t-il, de moins en moins de programmeurs "
-"programment correctement et font des logiciels qui compilent partout ? Et "
-"font des logiciels qui fonctionnent seulement sur les systèmes Intel ?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I don't see an ethical issue there. Although, in "
-"fact, companies that make computers sometimes port the GNU/Linux system to "
-"it. HP apparently did this recently. And, they didn't bother paying for a "
-"port of Windows, because that would have cost too much. But getting GNU/"
-"Linux supported was, I think, five engineers for a few months. It was "
-"easily doable."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Je ne vois pas là d'enjeu éthique, bien qu'en "
-"fait les sociétés qui fabriquent des ordinateurs réalisent parfois des "
-"portages de GNU/Linux. HP semble avoir fait cela récemment. Ils n'ont pas "
-"cherché à porter Windows car cela aurait coûté trop cher, mais adapter
GNU/"
-"Linux était l'affaire de cinq ingénieurs pendant quelques mois, je crois. "
-"C'était tout à fait faisable."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, of course, I encourage people to use <code>autoconf</code>, which is a "
-"GNU package that makes it easier to make your programs portable. I "
-"encourage them to do that. Or when somebody else fixes the bug that it "
-"didn't compile on that version of the system, and sends it to you, you "
-"should put it in. But I don't see that as an ethical issue."
-msgstr ""
-"Maintenant, bien sûr, j'encourage les gens à utiliser
<code>autoconf</code>, "
-"un logiciel GNU qui vous aide à rendre vos programmes portables. Je les y "
-"encourage. Ou bien si quelqu'un corrige le bogue qui empêche de compiler sur
"
-"cette version du système et vous envoie le correctif, vous devriez "
-"l'incorporer. Mais je ne vois pas là d'enjeu éthique."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Two comments. One is: Recently, you spoke at "
-"MIT. I read the transcript. And someone asked about patents, and you said "
-"that “patents are a totally different issue. I have no comments on "
-"that.”"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Deux commentaires. Primo : récemment vous avez
"
-"parlé au MIT. J'ai lu la transcription. Quelqu'un vous a interpellé sur les
"
-"brevets et vous avez dit : « Les brevets sont un tout autre problème ;
je "
-"n'ai pas de commentaire là -dessus. »"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I actually have a lot to say about "
-"patents, but it takes an hour. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Exact. En réalité j'ai beaucoup à dire sur
les "
-"brevets. Ãa prendrait une heure <i>[rires]</i>."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: I wanted to say this: It seems to me that there "
-"is an issue. I mean, there is a reason that companies call both patents and "
-"copyrights things like hard property in trying to get this concept which is, "
-"if they want to use the power of the State to create a course of monopoly "
-"for themselves. And so, what's common about these things is not that they "
-"revolve around the same issues, but that motivation is not really the public "
-"service issues but the motivation of companies to get a monopoly for their "
-"private interests."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Je voulais dire ceci. Il me semble qu'il y a un "
-"problème. Il y a une raison pour que les entreprises appellent les brevets "
-"et le copyright quelque chose comme de la « propriété concrète ».
Elles "
-"veulent utiliser le pouvoir de l'Ãtat pour leur assurer un monopole. Ce "
-"qu'il y a de commun n'est pas que ces sujets tournent autour des mêmes "
-"enjeux, mais que la motivation des entreprises à leur égard ne soit pas "
-"vraiment le service public, mais plutôt l'intérêt privé des sociétés
dans "
-"l'obtention d'un monopole."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I understand. But, well, I want to respond "
-"because there's not too much time. So I'd like to respond to that."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Je comprends. Mais bon, il ne reste pas beaucoup
"
-"de temps, alors tant qu'à faire je voudrais répondre à ça."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"You're right that that's what they want. But there's another reason why "
-"they want to use the term intellectual property. It's that they don't want "
-"to encourage people to think carefully about copyright issues or patent "
-"issues. Because copyright law and patent law are totally different, and the "
-"effects of software copyrighted and software patents are totally different."
-msgstr ""
-"Vous avez raison de dire que c'est ce qu'elles veulent. Mais il y a une "
-"autre raison pour qu'elles veuillent utiliser le terme « propriété "
-"intellectuelle », c'est qu'elles ne veulent pas que les gens
réfléchissent "
-"convenablement sur les questions du copyright ou sur les questions des "
-"brevets. Parce que le droit du copyright n'est pas du tout le même que le "
-"droit des brevets. Leurs effets sur le logiciel sont totalement différents."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Software patents are a restriction on programmers, prohibiting them from "
-"writing certain kinds of programs, whereas copyright doesn't do that. With "
-"copyright, at least if you wrote it yourself, you're allowed to distribute "
-"it. So, it's tremendously important to separate these issues."
-msgstr ""
-"Les brevets logiciels sont des restrictions pour les programmeurs qui leur "
-"interdisent d'écrire certaines sortes de programmes, tandis que le copyright
"
-"ne fait pas cela. Avec le copyright, du moins si vous les avez écrits vous-"
-"même, vous pouvez les distribuer. Donc il est terriblement important de "
-"séparer ces deux questions."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"They have a little bit in common, at a very low level, and everything else "
-"is different. So, please, to encourage clear thinking, discuss copyright or "
-"discuss patents. But don't discuss intellectual property. I don't have an "
-"opinion on intellectual property. I have opinions on copyrights and patents "
-"and software."
-msgstr ""
-"Elles ont un petit quelque chose en commun à un très bas niveau et tout le "
-"reste est différent. Alors, s'il vous plaît, pour rendre la discussion plus
"
-"claire, discutez du copyright ou discutez des brevets mais ne parlez pas de "
-"« propriété intellectuelle ». J'ai des opinions sur le copyright, et
sur les "
-"brevets, et sur le logiciel."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You mentioned at the beginning that a functional "
-"language, like recipes, are computer programs. There's a cross a little bit "
-"different than other kinds of language created on. This is also causing a "
-"problem in the DVD case."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Vous avez mentionné au début les travaux "
-"fonctionnels, comme les recettes et les programmes d'ordinateurs. C'est "
-"évidemment un peu différent des autres sortes de travaux créatifs. Ceci
pose "
-"aussi problème dans le cas des DVD.<a id=\"TransNote10-rev\" href="
-"\"#TransNote10\"><sup>10</sup></a>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: The issues are partly similar but partly "
-"different, for things that are not functional in nature. Part of the issue "
-"transfers but not all of it. Unfortunately, that's another hour speech. I "
-"don't have time to go into it. But I would say that all functional works "
-"ought to be free in the same sense as software. You know, textbooks, "
-"manuals, dictionaries, and recipes, and so on."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Les problèmes sont en partie similaires, mais "
-"aussi en partie différents, pour des choses qui ne sont pas de nature "
-"fonctionnelle. Une partie est commune aux deux, mais pas tout. "
-"Malheureusement, il faudrait une heure de plus pour en parler. Je n'ai pas "
-"le temps de rentrer dans les détails, mais je dirais que les Åuvres "
-"fonctionnelles devraient être libres dans le même sens que les logiciels. "
-"Vous savez, les cours, les manuels, les dictionnaires, les recettes, etc."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: I was just wondering on online music. There are "
-"similarities and differences created all through."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Je m'interrogeais sur la musique en ligne. Il y "
-"a des similarités et des différences à travers toute la création."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I'd say that the minimum freedom that we "
-"should have for any kind of published information is the freedom to non-"
-"commercially redistribute it, verbatim. For functional works, we need the "
-"freedom to commercially publish a modified version, because that's "
-"tremendously useful to society. For non-functional works, you know, things "
-"that are to entertain, or to be aesthetic, or to state a certain person's "
-"views, you know, perhaps they shouldn't be modified. And, perhaps that "
-"means that it's OK, to have copyright covering all commercial distribution "
-"of them."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Exact. Je dirais que la liberté minimum, celle "
-"dont nous devons disposer pour toute information publiée, est le droit de la
"
-"redistribuer non commercialement, sous forme de copie intégrale. Pour les "
-"Åuvres fonctionnelles, nous avons besoin de la liberté d'en redistribuer "
-"commercialement des versions modifiées, parce que c'est extrêmement utile Ã
"
-"la société. Quant aux Åuvres non fonctionnelles, vous savez, les choses "
-"destinées à être divertissantes ou esthétiques, ou à refléter les vues
d'une "
-"personne, peut-être qu'elles ne doivent pas être modifiés. Et cela veut
peut-"
-"être dire que c'est justifié d'avoir un copyright qui couvre toute "
-"distribution commerciale."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Please remember that according to the U.S. Constitution, the purpose of "
-"copyright is to benefit the public. It is to modify the behavior of certain "
-"private parties, so that they will publish more books. And the benefit of "
-"this is that society gets to discuss issues and learn. And, you know, we "
-"have literature. We have scientific works. The purpose is encourage that. "
-"Copyrights do not exist for the sake of authors, let alone for the sake of "
-"publishers. They exist for the sake of readers and all those who benefit "
-"from the communication of information that happens when people write and "
-"others read. And that goal I agree with."
-msgstr ""
-"Rappelez-vous que selon la Constitution des Ãtats-Unis, la raison d'être du
"
-"copyright est de bénéficier au public, de modifier la conduite de certaines
"
-"entités privées pour qu'elles publient plus de livres. Le bénéfice, c'est
"
-"que le public se mette à discuter des différentes questions et à "
-"s'instruire. Ainsi nous avons la littérature, nous avons les écrits "
-"scientifiques. Le but est d'encourager cela. Le copyright n'a pas été
créé "
-"pour les auteurs ni les éditeurs, mais pour les lecteurs et tous ceux qui "
-"bénéficient de la transmission d'information qui se produit quand des gens "
-"écrivent et d'autres lisent. Et cet objectif, je l'approuve !"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But in the age of the computer networks, the method is no longer tenable, "
-"because it now requires draconian laws that invade everybody's privacy and "
-"terrorize everyone. You know, years in prison for sharing with your "
-"neighbor. It wasn't like that in the age of the printing press. Then "
-"copyright was an industrial regulation. It restricted publishers. Now, "
-"it's a restriction imposed by the publishers on the public. So, the power "
-"relationship is turned around 180 degrees, even if it's the same law."
-msgstr ""
-"Mais à l'âge des réseaux informatiques la méthode n'est plus appropriée,
"
-"parce qu'elle exige des lois draconiennes qui envahissent l'intimité de "
-"chacun et terrorisent tout le monde. Vous savez, des années de prison pour "
-"avoir partagé avec son voisin. Ce n'était pas la même chose du temps de la
"
-"presse à imprimer. Le copyright était alors une réglementation
industrielle "
-"qui s'appliquait aux éditeurs. Maintenant, c'est une restriction imposée
par "
-"les éditeurs au public. Ainsi la relation de pouvoir a viré à 180°, bien
que "
-"ce soit la même loi."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: So you can have the same thing — but like "
-"in making music from other music?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Ainsi on peut avoir la même chose â comme "
-"lorsqu'on fait de la musique à partir d'une autre musique ?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. That is an interesting …"
-msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Exact. C'est intéressant…"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: And unique, new works, you know, it's still a lot "
-"of cooperation."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Et unique. De nouvelles Åuvres, c'est encore "
-"beaucoup de coopération."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: It is. And I think that probably requires some "
-"kind of fair use concept. Certainly making a few seconds of sample and "
-"using that in making some musical work, obviously that should be fair use. "
-"Even the standard idea of fair use includes that, if you think about it. "
-"Whether courts agree, I'm not sure, but they should. That wouldn't be a "
-"real change in the system as it has existed."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Tout à fait. Et je suppose que cela demande une
"
-"sorte de concept d'« usage raisonnable » <cite>[fair use]</cite>.<a id="
-"\"TransNote11-rev\" href=\"#TransNote11\"><sup>11</sup></a> Certainement "
-"faire un sample de quelques secondes et l'utiliser pour faire une Åuvre "
-"musicale, ce doit être un usage raisonnable. Même l'idée ordinaire d'usage
"
-"raisonnable renferme cela, si vous y réfléchissez. Je ne sais pas si les "
-"tribunaux seraient d'accord mais ils le devraient. Ce ne serait pas un vrai "
-"changement du système tel qu'il existe."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: What do you think about publishing public "
-"information in proprietary formats?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Que pensez-vous de la publication des données "
-"publiques dans des formats privateurs ?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, it shouldn't be. I mean, the government "
-"should never require citizens to use a non-free program to access, to "
-"communicate with the government in any way, in either direction."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Oh, c'est à proscrire. L'Ãtat ne doit jamais "
-"exiger des citoyens qu'ils utilisent un programme non libre pour accéder aux
"
-"services publics ou pour communiquer avec eux, que ce soit en émission ou en
"
-"réception, quel qu'en soit le moyen."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: I have been, what I will now say, a GNU/Linux "
-"user…"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Je suis, comment diriez-vous, un utilisateur de "
-"GNU/Linux…"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Thank you. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Merci <i>[rires]</i>."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: …for the past four years. The one thing "
-"that has been problematical for me and is something that is essential, I "
-"think, to all of us, is browsing the web."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : …Â depuis quatre ans. La seule chose qui "
-"m'ait parue problématique et qui est quelque chose d'essentiel, je crois, "
-"pour nous tous, c'est de surfer sur le web."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes."
-msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Oui."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: One thing that has been decidedly a weakness in "
-"using a GNU/Linux system has been browsing the web, because the prevailing "
-"tool for that, Netscape…"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Une chose qui est décidément une faiblesse de "
-"GNU/Linux est la navigation sur le web, parce que le principal outil pour "
-"cela, Netscape…"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: …is not free software."
-msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : …Â n'est pas un logiciel libre."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Let me respond to this. I want to get to the point, for the sake of getting "
-"in more. So, yes. There has been a terrible tendency for people to use "
-"Netscape Navigator on their GNU/Linux systems. And, in fact all the "
-"commercially packaged systems come with it. So this is an ironic situation: "
-"we worked so hard to make a free operating system, and now, if you go to the "
-"store, and you can find versions of GNU/Linux there, most of them are called "
-"Linux, and they're not free. Oh, well, part of them is. But then, there's "
-"Netscape Navigator, and maybe other non-free programs as well. So, it's "
-"very hard to actually find a free system, unless you know what you're "
-"doing. Or, of course, you can not install Netscape Navigator."
-msgstr ""
-"Laissez moi répondre à cela. Je veux mettre les choses au point. Donc oui, "
-"il y a une tendance déplorable chez les utilisateurs de GNU/Linux Ã
utiliser "
-"Netscape Navigator sur leur système GNU/Linux. Et en fait les distributions "
-"commerciales viennent avec. Voilà bien une situation ironique : nous avons "
-"travaillé dur pour faire un système d'exploitation libre, et maintenant, si
"
-"vous allez dans un magasin, vous pouvez trouver des versions de GNU/Linux "
-"(la plupart d'entre elles appelées Linux) qui ne sont pas libres, du moins "
-"en partie. Il y a Netscape Navigator et peut-être d'autres logiciels non "
-"libres. Donc il est très difficile de trouver un système libre, sauf si
vous "
-"savez ce que vous faites. Ou bien naturellement vous pouvez ne pas installer "
-"Netscape Navigator."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, in fact, there have been free web browsers for many years. There is a "
-"free web browser that I used to use called Lynx. It's a free web browser "
-"that is non-graphical; it's text-only. This has a tremendous advantage, in "
-"you don't see the ads. <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Cela dit, il y a des navigateurs libres depuis de nombreuses années. Il y en
"
-"a un que j'utilise et qui s'appelle Lynx. Il n'est pas graphique, il est en "
-"mode texte. Il a l'extraordinaire avantage de ne pas afficher les publicités
"
-"<i>[rires et applaudissements]</i>."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But anyway, there is a free graphical project called Mozilla, which is now "
-"getting to the point where you can use it. And I occasionally use it."
-msgstr ""
-"Mais de toute façon il y a un projet libre de navigateur graphique appelé "
-"Mozilla, qui est pratiquement au point. Et je l'utilise à l'occasion."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 has been very good."
-msgstr "<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Konqueror 2.01 est très bon aussi."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, OK. So that's another free graphical "
-"browser. So, we're finally solving that problem, I guess."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Très bien. Voila donc un autre navigateur "
-"graphique libre. Donc nous sommes finalement en train de résoudre ce "
-"problème, je suppose."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk to me about that philosophical/"
-"ethical division between free software and open source? Do you feel that "
-"those are irreconcilable? …"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Pouvez-vous me parler de la différence "
-"philosophique ou éthique entre le logiciel libre et l'open source ? Pensez-"
-"vous que les deux soient irréconciliables ? […]"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<i>[Recording switches tapes; end of question and start of answer is missing]"
-"</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"<i>[la fin de la question et le début de la réponse ont sauté au
changement "
-"de cassette.]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: … to a freedom, and ethics. Or whether "
-"you just say, Well, I hope that you companies will decide it's more "
-"profitable to let us be allowed to do these things."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : […] à une liberté et à une éthique,
ou "
-"bien si on dit seulement : « Eh bien, j'espère que vous, les entreprises,
"
-"déciderez qu'il est plus profitable de nous autoriser à faire tout ça. »"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, as I said, in a lot of practical work, it doesn't really matter what a "
-"person's politics are. When a person offers to help the GNU project, we "
-"don't say: “You have to agree with our politics.” We say that in "
-"a GNU package, you've got to call the system GNU/Linux, and you've got to "
-"call it free software. What you say when you're not speaking to the GNU "
-"Project, that's up to you."
-msgstr ""
-"Mais comme je le disais, dans une grande partie du travail concret, les "
-"opinions de chacun ne comptent pas. Quand une personne offre son aide au "
-"projet GNU, nous ne lui disons pas : « Vous devez être d'accord avec
notre "
-"politique. » Nous disons que dans un paquet GNU il faut appeler le système
"
-"« GNU/Linux » et le paquet lui-même « logiciel libre ». Ce que vous
dites à "
-"l'extérieur du projet GNU, ça vous regarde."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: The company, IBM, started a campaign for "
-"government agencies, to sell their big new machines, that they used Linux as "
-"selling point, and say Linux."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : IBM a commencé une campagne adressée aux "
-"services de l'Ãtat pour vendre leurs nouvelles grosses machines en utilisant
"
-"Linux comme argument de vente, en disant « Linux »."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, of course, it's really the GNU/Linux "
-"systems. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Oui, bien sûr c'est en réalité le système
GNU/"
-"Linux <i>[rires]</i>."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: That's right! Well, tell the top sales person. "
-"He doesn't know anything for GNU."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : C'est vrai. Eh bien le responsable des ventes, "
-"il n'y connaît rien à GNU."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I have to tell who?"
-msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Je dois le dire à qui ?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: The top sales person."
-msgstr "<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Au responsable des ventes."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh yes. The problem is that they've already "
-"carefully decided what they want to say for reasons of their advantage. And "
-"the issue of what is a more accurate, or fair, or correct way to describe it "
-"is not the primary issue that matters to a company like that. Now, some "
-"small companies, yes, there'll be a boss. And if the boss is inclined to "
-"think about things like that, he might make a decision that way. Not a "
-"giant corporation though. It's a shame, you know."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Oh oui. Le problème c'est qu'ils ont déjà "
-"préparé soigneusement ce qu'ils voulaient mettre en avant comme arguments
de "
-"vente. Et la question de savoir ce qu'est une description précise, juste ou "
-"correcte n'est pas primordiale pour une société comme celle-là . Dans une "
-"petite entreprise, oui, il y a un patron. Si le patron est enclin à "
-"réfléchir sur ce genre de choses, il peut prendre une décision de cette "
-"façon. Mais pas une société géante. C'est dommage, vous savez."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"There's another more important and more substantive issue about what IBM is "
-"doing. They're saying that they're putting a billion dollars into “"
-"Linux”. But perhaps, I should also put quotes around “"
-"into”, as well, because some of that money is paying people to develop "
-"free software. That really is a contribution to our community. But other "
-"parts is paying to pay people to write proprietary software, or port "
-"proprietary software to run on top of GNU/Linux, and that is <em>not</em> a "
-"contribution to our community. But IBM is lumping that altogether into "
-"this. Some of it might be advertising, which is partly a contribution, even "
-"if it's partly wrong. So, it's a complicated situation. Some of what "
-"they're doing is contribution and some is not. And some is sort is "
-"somewhat, but not exactly. And you can't just lump it altogether and think, "
-"Wow! Whee! A billion dollars from IBM. <i>[Laughter]</i> That's "
-"oversimplification."
-msgstr ""
-"Il y a un autre question plus tangible à propos de ce que fait IBM. Ils "
-"disent qu'ils mettent un milliard de dollars dans « Linux ». Mais
peut-être "
-"faut-il aussi mettre « dans » entre guillemets. Parce qu'une partie de
cet "
-"argent sert à payer des gens pour faire des logiciels libres ; c'est "
-"réellement une contribution à notre communauté. Mais une autre partie sert
à "
-"créer du logiciel privateur ou à porter des logiciels privateurs vers GNU/"
-"Linux et ce n'est <em>pas</em> une contribution à notre communauté. "
-"Cependant IBM mélange tout ça. Il pourrait y avoir une part de publicité, "
-"qui est une contribution même si elle est en partie fausse. Donc c'est une "
-"situation compliquée. Une partie de ce qu'ils font est une contribution, une
"
-"autre non et une troisième est entre les deux. On ne peut pas mélanger tout
"
-"ça et penser « Ouah ! Un milliard de dollars d'IBM ! » <i>[rires]</i>
C'est "
-"simplifier à outrance !"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk a little bit more about the thinking "
-"that went into the general public license?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Pouvez-vous en dire plus sur la pensée qui
sous-"
-"tend la licence GNU GPLÂ ?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, here's the — I'm sorry, I'm answering "
-"his question now. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Bon, voici le… Je suis désolé, je suis en
"
-"train de répondre à sa question <i>[rires]</i>."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Do you want to reserve some time for the press "
-"conference? Or do you want to continue here?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Voulez-vous réserver du temps pour la
conférence "
-"de presse ? Ou souhaitez-vous continuer ici ?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Who is here for the press conference? Not a lot "
-"of press. Oh, three — OK. Can you afford if we — if I go on "
-"answering everybody's questions for another ten minutes or so? OK. So, "
-"we'll go on answering everybody's questions."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Qui est ici pour la conférence de presse ? Pas "
-"beaucoup de journalistes. Oh, trois… OK. Est-ce que cela vous dérange
"
-"si nous… si je continue à répondre aux questions pendant encore dix "
-"minutes ? Parfait. Donc nous continuons à répondre aux questions de tout
le "
-"monde."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, the thinking that went into the GNU GPL? Part of it was that I wanted to "
-"protect the freedom of the community against the phenomena that I just "
-"described with X Windows, which has happened with other free programs as "
-"well. In fact, when I was thinking about this issue, X Windows was not yet "
-"released. But I had seen this problem happen in other free programs. For "
-"instance, TeX. I wanted to make sure that the users would all have "
-"freedom. Otherwise, I realized that I might write a program, and maybe a "
-"lot of people would use the program, but they wouldn't have freedom. And "
-"what's the point of that?"
-msgstr ""
-"La pensée qui sous-tend la licence GNU GPL ? C'est en partie que je voulais
"
-"protéger la liberté de la communauté des phénomènes que j'ai décrits Ã
"
-"propos de XÂ Windows et qui se sont produits avec d'autres logiciels libres. "
-"En fait, quand j'ai pensé à cette question, X Windows n'était pas encore "
-"sorti mais j'avais vu le problème se poser avec d'autres programmes libres, "
-"par exemple TeX. Je voulais être sûr que les utilisateurs auraient tous la "
-"liberté. Je me suis rendu compte que, sinon, je pourrais écrire un
programme "
-"que peut-être beaucoup de gens utiliseraient, mais qu'ils n'auraient pas la "
-"liberté. Alors à quoi bon ?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But the other issue I was thinking about was, I wanted to give the community "
-"a feeling that it was not a doormat, a feeling that it was not prey to any "
-"parasite who would wander along. If you don't use copyleft, you are "
-"essentially saying: <i>[speaking meekly]</i> “Take my code. Do what "
-"you want. I don't say no.” So, anybody can come along and say: <i>"
-"[speaking very firmly]</i> “Ah, I want to make a non-free version of "
-"this. I'll just take it.” And, then, of course, they probably make "
-"some improvements, those non-free versions might appeal to users, and "
-"replace the free versions. And then, what have you accomplished? You've "
-"only made a donation to some proprietary software project."
-msgstr ""
-"Mais l'autre raison, c'est que je voulais donner le sentiment à la "
-"communauté qu'elle n'était pas un paillasson, le sentiment qu'elle ne
serait "
-"pas la proie du premier parasite venu. Si vous n'utilisez pas le copyleft, "
-"vous dites en substance : <i>[voix mièvre]</i> « Prenez mon code. Faites
ce "
-"que vous voulez. Je ne dis pas non. » Alors n'importe qui peut arriver en "
-"disant : <i>[voix très ferme]</i> « Aah ! je veux en faire une version
non "
-"libre. Je le prends. » Puis il va très probablement faire quelques "
-"améliorations. Ces versions non libres intéresseront les utilisateurs et "
-"remplaceront les versions libres. Au final, qu'est-ce que vous aurez "
-"accompli ? Vous aurez simplement fait une donation à un projet de logiciel "
-"privateur."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And when people see that that's happening, when people see, other people "
-"take what I do, and they don't ever give back, it can be demoralizing. And, "
-"this is not just speculation. I had seen that happen. That was part of "
-"what happened to wipe out the old community that I belonged to the '70's. "
-"Some people started becoming uncooperative. And we assumed that they were "
-"profiting thereby. They certainly acted as if they thought they were "
-"profiting. And we realized that they can just take off cooperation and not "
-"give back. And there was nothing we could do about it. It was very "
-"discouraging. We, those of us who didn't like the trend, even had a "
-"discussion and we couldn't come up with any idea for how we could stop it."
-msgstr ""
-"Et quand les gens verront ce qui s'est produit, quand des gens verront que "
-"les autres prennent et ne donnent jamais, ça peut les démoraliser. Ce n'est
"
-"pas pure spéculation, je l'ai constaté. Cela a participé à la disparition
de "
-"l'ancienne communauté dont je faisait partie dans les années 70.
Certaines "
-"personnes sont devenues non coopératives et nous avons supposé qu'elles en "
-"tiraient profit. En tout cas elles agissaient comme si elles pensaient "
-"qu'elles en tiraient profit. Et nous nous sommes rendu compte qu'on pouvait "
-"coopérer à sens unique : prendre sans rien donner en retour. Nous ne "
-"pouvions rien y faire, c'était très décourageant. Nous qui ne suivions pas
"
-"la tendance, nous en avons discuté et ne sommes pas arrivés à trouver une "
-"idée pour arrêter ça."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, the GPL is designed to stop that. And it says, Yes, you are welcome to "
-"join the community and use this code. You can use it to do all sorts of "
-"jobs. But, if you release a modified version, you've got to release that to "
-"our community, as part of our community, as part of the free world."
-msgstr ""
-"Donc la GPL est conçue pour éviter cela. Elle dit : « Vous êtes invité
à "
-"vous joindre à la communauté et à utiliser ce code. Vous pouvez l'utiliser
"
-"de toutes les façons possibles, mais si vous publiez une version modifiée, "
-"vous devez la publier pour notre communauté, comme participation à notre "
-"communauté, au monde du libre. »"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, in fact, there are still many ways that people can get the benefit of "
-"our work and not contribute, like you don't have to write any software. "
-"Lots of people use GNU/Linux and don't write any software. There's no "
-"requirement that you've got to do anything for us. But if you do a certain "
-"kind of thing, you've got to contribute to it. So what that means is that "
-"our community is not a doormat. And I think that that helped give people "
-"the strength to feel, Yes, we won't just be trampled underfoot by "
-"everybody. We'll stand up to this."
-msgstr ""
-"En fait, il reste bien des façons pour les gens de profiter de notre travail
"
-"sans y contribuer, comme ne pas écrire de logiciels. Bien des gens utilisent
"
-"GNU/Linux et n'écrivent pas de logiciels. Il n'y a aucune obligation Ã
faire "
-"quelque chose pour nous, mais si vous faites certaines choses vous devez "
-"contribuer. Ãa signifie que notre communauté n'est pas un paillasson. Et je
"
-"pense que cela donne aux gens un sentiment de force : « Oui, nous ne
serons "
-"pas piétinés par n'importe qui. Nous tiendrons. »"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Yes, my question was, considering free but not "
-"copylefted software, since anybody can pick it up and make it proprietary, "
-"is it not possible also for someone to pick it up and make some changes and "
-"release the whole thing under the GPL?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Oui, ma question portait sur le logiciel libre, "
-"mais sans copyleft. Puisque tout le monde peut le prendre et en faire du "
-"logiciel privateur, n'est-il pas également possible de le prendre, de faire "
-"quelques modifications et de le placer sous GPLÂ ?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, it is possible."
-msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Oui, c'est possible."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Then, that would make all future copies then be "
-"GPL'ed."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Ãa placerait toutes les copies futures sous
GPL."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: From that branch. But here's why we don't do "
-"that."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Ã partir de cette branche. Mais voici pourquoi "
-"nous ne le faisons pas."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Hmm?"
-msgstr "<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Hein ?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Here's why we don't generally do that. Let me "
-"explain."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Nous ne faisons pas cela généralement.
Laissez-"
-"moi vous expliquer pourquoi."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: OK, yes."
-msgstr "<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Oui d'accord."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We could, if we wanted to, take X Windows, and "
-"make a GPL-covered copy and make changes in that. But there's a much larger "
-"group of people working on improving X Windows and <em>not</em> GPL-ing it. "
-"So, if we did that, we would be forking from them. And that's not very nice "
-"treatment of them. And, they <em>are</em> a part of our community, "
-"contributing to our community."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Nous pourrions si nous le voulions prendre "
-"XÂ Windows, faire une copie sous GPL et faire des modifications. Mais il y a "
-"un groupe beaucoup plus important de gens qui travaillent à son
amélioration "
-"et qui ne veulent <em>pas</em> le placer sous GPL. Si nous faisions cela "
-"nous créerions une branche, et ce n'est pas très sympa vis-à -vis d'eux.
Ils "
-"<em>font partie</em> de notre communauté ; ils contribuent à notre "
-"communauté."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Second, it would backfire against us, because they're doing a lot more work "
-"on X than we would be. So, our version would be inferior to theirs, and "
-"people wouldn't use it, which means, why go to the trouble at all?"
-msgstr ""
-"Deuxièmement, cela se retournerait contre nous, parce qu'ils ont fait "
-"beaucoup plus de travail sur X que nous n'en ferions. Notre version serait "
-"inférieure à la leur et les gens ne l'utiliseraient pas, alors à quoi bonÂ
?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Mmm hmm."
-msgstr "<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Mmm hmm."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: So when a person has written some improvement to "
-"X Windows, what I say that person should do is cooperate with the X "
-"development team. Send it to them and let them use it their way. Because "
-"they are developing a very important piece of free software. It's good for "
-"us to cooperate with them."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Alors quand une personne apporte une "
-"amélioration à X, je dis à cette personne : coopérez avec l'équipe de "
-"développement de X Windows. Envoyez-leur votre travail et laissez-les s'en "
-"servir, parce qu'ils développent un logiciel libre très important. C'est
bon "
-"pour nous de coopérer avec eux."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Except, considering X, in particular, about two "
-"years ago, the X Consortium that was far into the non-free open "
-"source…"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Sauf que, si on considère X en particulier, il
y "
-"a deux ans le Consortium X qui était allé très loin dans l'open source non
"
-"libre…"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually it <em>wasn't</em> open sourced. "
-"It wasn't open sourced, either. They may have said it was. I can't "
-"remember if they said that or not. But it wasn't open source. It was "
-"restricted. You couldn't commercially distribute, I think. Or you couldn't "
-"commercially distribute a modified version, or something like that. There "
-"was a restriction that's considered unacceptable by both the Free Software "
-"movement and the Open Source movement."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : En fait ce <em>n'était pas</em> vraiment open "
-"source. Ils ont peut-être dit que ça l'était, je ne peux pas me rappeler "
-"s'ils l'ont dit ou non. Mais ce n'était pas open source, Il y avait des "
-"restrictions. On ne pouvait pas distribuer commercialement, je crois. Ou on "
-"ne pouvait pas distribuer commercialement une version modifiée, ou quelque "
-"chose comme ça. Il y avait une restriction considérée comme inacceptable Ã
"
-"la fois par la Free Software Foundation et par le mouvement Open Source."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And yes, that's what using a non-copyleft license leaves you open to. In "
-"fact, the X Consortium, they had a very rigid policy. They say: If your "
-"program if copylefted even a little bit, we won't distribute it at all. We "
-"won't put it in our distribution."
-msgstr ""
-"Oui, c'est à cela que mène l'utilisation d'une licence sans copyleft. En "
-"fait, le consortium X avait une politique très rigide. Ils disaient : «Â
Si "
-"votre programme est sous copyleft, nous ne le distribuerons pas du tout. "
-"Nous ne le mettrons pas dans notre distribution. »"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, a lot of people were pressured in this way into not copylefting. And "
-"the result was that all of their software was wide open, later on. When the "
-"same people who had pressured a developer to be too all-permissive, then the "
-"X people later said, All right, now we can put on restrictions, which wasn't "
-"very ethical of them."
-msgstr ""
-"Alors un grand nombre de personnes ont été poussées à ne pas utiliser le "
-"copyleft. Le résultat, c'est que tous leurs logiciels étaient grands "
-"ouverts. Puis après avoir demandé aux gens d'être trop permissifs, ils ont
"
-"dit : « Maintenant nous pouvons mettre des restrictions. » Ce n'était
pas "
-"très éthique de leur part."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, given the situation, would we really want to scrape up the resources to "
-"maintain an alternate GPL-covered version of X? And it wouldn't make any "
-"sense to do that. There are so many other things we need to do. Let's do "
-"them instead. We can cooperate with the X developers."
-msgstr ""
-"Mais, la situation étant ce qu'elle est, allons-nous gaspiller des "
-"ressources pour maintenir une version GPL de XÂ ? Ãa n'aurait aucun sens. Il
"
-"y a tant d'autres choses à faire. Laissons-les faire plutôt. Nous pouvons "
-"coopérer avec les développeurs de X."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Do you have a comment, is the GNU a trademark? "
-"And is it practical to include it as part of the GNU General Public License "
-"allowing trademarks?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>Â : Avez-vous un commentaire, GNU est-il une marque "
-"déposée ? Et est-ce faisable de l'inclure dans une partie de la licence "
-"publique générale GNU autorisant les marques ?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We are, actually, applying for trademark "
-"registration on GNU. But it wouldn't really have anything to do with that. "
-"It's a long story to explain why."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Nous cherchons effectivement à déposer GNU
comme "
-"marque, mais cela n'aurait rien à voir avec la GPL ; c'est une longue "
-"histoire d'expliquer pourquoi."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You could require the trademark be displayed with "
-"GPL-covered programs."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Vous pourriez exiger que la marque déposée
soit "
-"affichée dans les programmes sous GPL."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: No, I don't think so. The licenses cover "
-"individual programs. And when a given program is part of the GNU Project, "
-"nobody lies about that. The name of the system as a whole is a different "
-"issue. And this is an aside. It's not worth discussing more."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Non, je ne pense pas. Les licences ne couvrent "
-"que les programmes individuels, et quand un programme fait partie du projet "
-"GNU personne ne cherche à le cacher. Mais le nom du système dans son "
-"ensemble, c'est une autre question. C'est un à -côté, cela ne vaut pas la "
-"peine d'en discuter plus longtemps."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: If there was a button that you could push and "
-"force all companies to free their software, would you press it?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : S'il y avait un bouton qui forçait toutes les "
-"sociétés à libérer leurs logiciels, l'utiliseriez-vous ?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, I would only use this for published "
-"software. You know, I think that people have the right to write a program "
-"privately and use it. And that includes companies. This is privacy issue. "
-"And it's true, there can be times when it is wrong to do that, like if it is "
-"tremendously helpful to humanity, and you are withholding it from humanity. "
-"That is a wrong but that's a different kind of wrong. It's a different "
-"issue, although it's in the same area."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Â : Je ne l'utiliserais que pour les logiciels "
-"publiés. Vous savez, je pense que les gens ont le droit d'écrire des "
-"logiciels privés et de les utiliser, et cela inclut les entreprises. C'est "
-"une question de vie privée. Il peut y avoir des moments, c'est vrai, où il "
-"est mal de garder par devers soi quelque chose de très utile à l'humanité.
"
-"Mais c'est une autre sorte de préjudice, même si cela concerne le même "
-"secteur."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But yes, I think all published software should be free software. And "
-"remember, when it's not free software, that's because of government "
-"intervention. The government is intervening to make it non-free. The "
-"government is creating special legal powers to hand out to the owners of the "
-"programs, so that they can have the police stop us from using the programs "
-"in certain ways. So I would certainly like to end that."
-msgstr ""
-"Mais oui, je pense que tout logiciel publié doit être libre. Et rappelez-"
-"vous, quand ce n'est pas un logiciel libre, c'est à cause de l'intervention "
-"du gouvernement. Le gouvernement intervient pour faire du non libre. Il crée
"
-"des pouvoirs juridiques particuliers qu'il délègue aux propriétaires de "
-"programmes, de sorte qu'ils puissent se servir de la police pour nous "
-"empêcher d'utiliser les programmes de certaines façons. Je voudrais mettre "
-"un terme à cela, c'est certain."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Richard's presentation has invariably generated "
-"an enormous amount of intellectual energy. I would suggest that some of it "
-"should be directed to using, and possibly writing, free software."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong> : Les interventions de Richard génèrent "
-"invariablement une quantité énorme d'énergie intellectuelle. Je suggère "
-"qu'une partie soit consacrée à utiliser des logiciels libres, et peut-être
à "
-"en écrire."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"We should close the proceedings shortly. I want to say that Richard has "
-"injected into a profession which is known in the general public for its "
-"terminal apolitical nerditude a level of political and moral discussion "
-"which is, I think, unprecedented in our profession. And we owe him very big "
-"for this. I'd like to note to people that there is a break."
-msgstr ""
-"Nous allons bientôt nous interrompre. Je voulais dire que Richard a injecté
"
-"dans la profession, qui est connue dans le public pour son attitude "
-"apolitique, un niveau de discussion morale et politique sans précédent. Et "
-"nous lui devons beaucoup pour cela. Je voudrais signaler au public qu'il y a "
-"maintenant une pause."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<i>[Applause]</i>"
-msgstr "<i>[applaudissements]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: You are free to leave at any time, you know. <i>"
-"[Laughter]</i> I'm not holding you prisoner here."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Vous êtes libres de sortir quand vous voulez
<i>"
-"[rires]</i>. Je ne vous retiens pas prisonniers ici, vous savez."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<i>[Audience adjourns…]</i>"
-msgstr "<i>[Le public sort…]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<i>[overlapping conversations…]</i>"
-msgstr "<i>[Conversations diffuses…]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: One final thing. Our website: www.gnu.org"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Un dernier mot, notre site web : www.gnu.org."
-
-#. TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes.
-#. type: Content of: <div>
-msgid "*GNUN-SLOT: TRANSLATOR'S NOTES*"
-msgstr ""
-"<hr /><b>Notes de traduction</b><ol>\n"
-"<li id=\"TransNote1\"><cite>Proprietary software</cite> se traduit souvent "
-"par « logiciel propriétaire ». « Privateur » est un néologisme
inventé par "
-"RMS pour exprimer la notion que les logiciels propriétaires privent "
-"l'utilisateur de ses libertés. <a href=\"#TransNote1-rev\" class="
-"\"nounderline\">↑</a></li>\n"
-"<li id=\"TransNote2\">Traduction : Bien ! <a
href=\"#TransNote2-rev\">↑"
-"</a></li>\n"
-"<li id=\"TransNote3\">Zwei était Eine à l'origine. <a
href=\"#TransNote3-rev"
-"\" class=\"nounderline\">↑</a></li>\n"
-"<li id=\"TransNote4\">Prononcer « nou » ; traduction : nouveau. <a
href="
-"\"#TransNote4-rev\" class=\"nounderline\">↑</a></li>\n"
-"<li id=\"TransNote5\">Nouveau système d'exploitation. <a
href=\"#TransNote5-"
-"rev\" class=\"nounderline\">↑</a></li>\n"
-"<li id=\"TransNote6\">Le mot français « libre » n'a pas cette
ambiguïté car "
-"« entrée libre » est à peu près le seul cas où l'on peut lui donner
le sens "
-"de « gratuit ». On constate malgré tout que le logiciel libre est
souvent "
-"assimilé (par erreur) à du logiciel gratuit. <a href=\"#TransNote6-rev\" "
-"class=\"nounderline\">↑</a></li>\n"
-"<li id=\"TransNote7\">Déclaration d'indépendance <em>américaine</em>. <a "
-"href=\"#TransNote7-rev\" class=\"nounderline\">↑</a></li>\n"
-"<li id=\"TransNote8\">« X Windows » est une abréviation de « système
X "
-"Window ». Cela n'a rien à voir avec un système d'exploitation privateur
bien "
-"connu. <a href=\"#TransNote8-rev\" class=\"nounderline\">↑</a></li>\n"
-"<li id=\"TransNote9\">Anciennement <cite>National Public Radio</cite>Â : "
-"fédération de radios locales non commerciales, produisant des programmes "
-"culturels ou d'actualité diffusés sur tout le territoire des Ãtats-Unis.Â
<a "
-"href=\"#TransNote9-rev\" class=\"nounderline\">↑</a></li>\n"
-"<li id=\"TransNote10\">L'enregistrement de ce paragraphe était probablement "
-"difficile à comprendre, ce qui a donné une transcription à peu près "
-"intraduisible. Nous en avons fait une interprétation très libre. <a href="
-"\"#TransNote10-rev\" class=\"nounderline\">↑</a></li>\n"
-"<li id=\"TransNote11\">Un concept juridique propre au copyright "
-"américain. <a href=\"#TransNote11-rev\" class=\"nounderline\">↑</a></"
-"li>\n"
-"</ol>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <div><div><p>
-msgid ""
-"Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
href=\"mailto:address@hidden";
-"\"><address@hidden></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";><address@hidden"
-"org></a>."
-msgstr ""
-"Veuillez envoyer les requêtes concernant la FSF et GNU à <a href=\"mailto:";
-"address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>. Il existe aussi <a
href=\"/contact/"
-"\">d'autres moyens de contacter</a> la FSF. Les liens orphelins et autres "
-"corrections ou suggestions peuvent être signalés à <a href=\"mailto:";
-"address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>."
-
-#. 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";>
-#. <address@hidden></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><div><p>
-msgid ""
-"Please see the <a href=\"/server/standards/README.translations.html"
-"\">Translations README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting "
-"translations of this article."
-msgstr ""
-"Nous faisons le maximum pour proposer des traductions fidèles et de bonne "
-"qualité, mais nous ne sommes pas parfaits. Merci d'adresser vos commentaires
"
-"sur cette page, ainsi que vos suggestions d'ordre général sur les "
-"traductions, Ã <a href=\"mailto:address@hidden";> <web-"
-"address@hidden></a>.</p>\n"
-"<p>Pour tout renseignement sur la coordination et la soumission des "
-"traductions de nos pages web, reportez-vous au <a href=\"/server/standards/"
-"README.translations.html\">guide de traduction</a>."
-
-#. type: Content of: <div><p>
-msgid "Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman"
-msgstr "Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman"
-
-#. 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 ""
-"Cette page peut être utilisée suivant les conditions de la licence <a rel="
-"\"license\" href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/deed.fr";
-"\">Creative Commons attribution de paternité, pas de modification, 3.0Â
Ãtats-"
-"Unis (CCÂ BY-ND 3.0Â US)</a>."
-
-#. TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.
-#. type: Content of: <div><div>
-msgid "*GNUN-SLOT: TRANSLATOR'S CREDITS*"
-msgstr ""
-"Traduction : Xavier Dumont.<br />Révision : <a href=\"mailto:trad-gnu@";
-"april.org\">trad-gnu@april.org</a>"
-
-#. timestamp start
-#. type: Content of: <div><p>
-msgid "Updated:"
-msgstr "Dernière mise à jour :"
Index: events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-diff.html
diff -N events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-diff.html
--- events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-diff.html 21 Apr 2015 13:57:27
-0000 1.1
+++ /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
@@ -1,2144 +0,0 @@
-<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
- "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
-<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
-<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
-<head>
-<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
-<title>/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html-diff</title>
-<style type="text/css">
-span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
-span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
-</style></head>
-<body><pre>
-<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
-<title>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation
-- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
-<!--#include virtual="/events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist" -->
-<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
-<h2>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation</h2>
-
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><p style="text-align: center;">
-Transcript of<br /></strong></del></span>
-
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><blockquote><p>Transcript
of</em></ins></span>
-Richard M. Stallman's <span class="removed"><del><strong>speech,<br />
-<em>“Free</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>speech,
-“Free</em></ins></span> Software: Freedom and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Cooperation”</em><br
/></strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Cooperation”,
-given at</em></ins></span> New York University in New York, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>New York<br /></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>NY,</em></ins></span>
-on 29 May <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2001</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2001</p></blockquote></em></ins></span>
-
-<div class="announcement">
-<blockquote><p>A <a
href="/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt">plain
-text</a> version of this transcript and
-a <a href="/events/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt">summary</a> of the
speech
-are also available.</p></blockquote>
-</div>
-
-<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: I'm Mike Uretsky. I'm over at
the Stern
-School of Business. I'm also one of the Co-Directors of the Center
-for Advanced Technology. And, on behalf of all of us in the Computer
-Science Department, I want to welcome you here. I want to say a few
-comments, before I turn it over to Ed, who is going to introduce the
-speaker.</p>
-
-<p>The role of a university is a place to foster debate and to have
-interesting discussions. And the role of a major university is to
-have particularly interesting discussions. And this particular
-presentation, this seminar falls right into that mold. I find the
-discussion of open source particularly interesting. In a sense
-… <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I do free software. Open
source is a
-different movement. <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: When I first started in the
field in the
-'60's, basically software was free. And we went in cycles. It became
-free, and then software manufacturers, in the need to expand their
-markets, pushed it in other directions. A lot of the developments
-that took place with the entry of the PC moved in exactly the same
-kind of a cycle.</p>
-
-<p>There's a very interesting French philosopher, Pierre Levy, who
-talks about movement to this direction and who talks about the move
-into cyberspace as not only relating to technology but also relating
-to social restructuring, to political restructuring, through a change
-in the kinds of relationships that will improve the well-being of
-mankind. And we're hoping that this debate is a movement in that
-direction, that this debate is something that cuts across a lot of the
-disciplines that normally act as solace within the University. We're
-looking forward to some very interesting discussions. Ed?</p>
-
-<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: I'm Ed Schonberg from the
Computer
-Science Department at the Courant Institute. Let me welcome you all
-to this event. Introducers are usually, and particularly, a useless
-aspect of public presentations, but in this case, actually, they serve
-a useful purpose, as Mike easily demonstrated, because an introducer
-for instance, told him, by making inaccurate comments, can allow him
-to straighten out and correct and <i>[Laughter]</i> sharpen
-considerably the parameters of the debate.</p>
-
-<p>So, let me make the briefest possible introduction to somebody who
-doesn't need one. Richard is the perfect example of somebody who, by
-acting locally, started thinking globally from problems concerning the
-unavailability of source code for printer drivers at the AI Lab many
-years ago. He has developed a coherent philosophy that has forced all
-of us to re-examine our ideas of how software is produced, of what
-intellectual property means, and what the software community actually
-represents. Let me welcome Richard Stallman.
<i>[Applause]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can someone lend me a
-watch? <i>[Laughter]</i> Thank you. So, I'd like to thank
Microsoft
-for providing me the opportunity to <i>[Laughter]</i> be on this
-platform. For the past few weeks, I have felt like an author whose
-book was fortuitously banned somewhere. <i>[Laughter]</i> Except
that
-all the articles about it are giving the wrong author's name, because
-Microsoft describes the GNU GPL as an open source license, and most of
-the press coverage followed suit. Most people, of course just
-innocently don't realize that our work has nothing to do with open
-source, that in fact we did most of it before people even coined the
-term open source.</p>
-
-<p>We are in the free software movement, and I'm going to speak about
-what the free software movement is about, what it means, what we have
-done, and, because this is partly sponsored by a school of business,
-I'll say some things more than I usually do about how free software
-relates to business, and some other areas of social life.</p>
-
-<p>Now, some of you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps
-you cook. And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably
-use recipes. And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the
-experience of getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing
-it. And you've probably also had the experience — unless you're
-a total neophyte — of changing a recipe. You know, it says
-certain things, but you don't have to do exactly that. You can leave
-out some ingredients. Add some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms.
-Put in less salt because your doctor said you should cut down on salt
-— whatever. You can even make bigger changes according to your
-skill. And if you've made changes in a recipe, and you cook it for
-your friends, and they like it, one of your friends might say,
-“Hey, could I have the recipe?” And then, what do you do?
-You could write down your modified version of the recipe and make a
-copy for your friend. These are the natural things to do with
-functionally useful recipes of any kind.</p>
-
-<p>Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program. A computer
-program's a lot like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to
-get some result that you want. So it's just as natural to do those
-same things with computer programs — hand a copy to your friend.
-Make changes in it because the job it was written to do isn't exactly
-what you want. It did a great job for somebody else, but your job is
-a different job. And after you've changed it, that's likely to be
-useful for other people. Maybe they have a job to do that's like the
-job you do. So they ask, “Hey, can I have a copy?” Of
-course, if you're a nice person, you're going to give a copy. That's
-the way to be a decent person.</p>
-
-<p>So imagine what it would be like if recipes were packaged inside
-black boxes. You couldn't see what ingredients they're using, let
-alone change them, and imagine if you made a copy for a friend, they
-would call you a pirate and try to put you in prison for years. That
-world would create tremendous outrage from all the people who are used
-to sharing recipes. But that is exactly what the world of proprietary
-software is like. A world in which common decency towards other
-people is prohibited or prevented.</p>
-
-<p>Now, why did I notice this? I noticed this because I had the good
-fortune in the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who
-shared software. Now, this community could trace its ancestry
-essentially back to the beginning of computing. In the 1970's,
-though, it was a bit rare for there to be a community where people
-shared software. And, in fact, this was sort of an extreme case,
-because in the lab where I worked, the entire operating system was
-software developed by the people in our community, and we'd share any
-of it with anybody. Anybody was welcome to come and take a look, and
-take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do. There were no
-copyright notices on these programs. Cooperation was our way of life.
-And we were secure in that way of life. We didn't fight for it. We
-didn't have to fight for it. We just lived that way. And, as far as
-we knew, we would just keep on living that way. So there was free
-software, but there was no free software movement.</p>
-
-<p>But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that
-happened to it. Ultimately it was wiped out. Ultimately, the PDP-10
-computer which we used for all our work was discontinued. And you
-know, our system — the Incompatible Timesharing System —
-was written starting in the '60's, so it was written in assembler
-language. That's what you used to write an operating system in the
-'60's. So, of course, assembler language is for one particular
-computer architecture; if that gets discontinued, all your work turns
-into dust — it's useless. And that's what happened to us. The
-20 years or so of work of our community turned into dust.</p>
-
-<p>But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me,
-helped me see what to do, helped prepare me to see what to do when
-this happened, because at certain point, Xerox gave the Artificial
-Intelligence Lab, where I worked, a laser printer, and this was a
-really handsome gift, because it was the first time anybody outside
-Xerox had a laser printer. It was very fast, printed a page a second,
-very fine in many respects, but it was unreliable, because it was
-really a high-speed office copier that had been modified into a
-printer. And, you know, copiers jam, but there's somebody there to
-fix them. The printer jammed and nobody saw. So it stayed jammed for
-a long time.</p>
-
-<p>Well, we had an idea for how to deal with this problem. Change it
-so that whenever the printer gets a jam, the machine that runs the
-printer can tell our timesharing machine, and tell the users who are
-waiting for printouts, or something like that, you know, tell them, go
-fix the printer. Because if they only knew it was jammed, of course,
-if you're waiting for a printout and you know that the printer is
-jammed, you don't want to sit and wait forever, you're going to go fix
-it.</p>
-
-<p>But at that point, we were completely stymied, because the software
-that ran that printer was not free software. It had come with the
-printer, and it was just a binary. We couldn't have the source code;
-Xerox wouldn't let us have the source code. So, despite our skill as
-programmers — after all, we had written our own timesharing
-system — we were completely helpless to add this feature to the
-printer software.</p>
-
-<p>And we just had to suffer with waiting. It would take an hour or
-two to get your printout because the machine would be jammed most of
-the time. And only once in a while — you'd wait an hour
-figuring “I know it's going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and
-go collect my printout,” and then you'd see that it had been
-jammed the whole time, and in fact, nobody else had fixed it. So
-you'd fix it and you'd go wait another half hour. Then, you'd come
-back, and you'd see it jammed again — before it got to your
-output. It would print three minutes and be jammed thirty minutes.
-Frustration up the whazzoo. But the thing that made it worse was
-knowing that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his own
-selfishness, was blocking us, obstructing us from improving the
-software. So, of course, we felt some resentment.</p>
-
-<p>And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a
-copy of that software. So I was visiting there later, so I went to
-his office and I said, “Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of
-the printer source code?” And he said “No, I promised not
-to give you a copy.” <i>[Laughter]</i> I was stunned. I was
so
-— I was angry, and I had no idea how I could do justice to it.
-All I could think of was to turn around on my heel and walk out of his
-room. Maybe I slammed the door. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I thought
-about it later on, because I realized that I was seeing not just an
-isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was important and affected
-a lot of people.</p>
-
-<p>This was — for me — I was lucky, I only got a taste of
-it, but other people had to live in this all the time. So I thought
-about it at length. See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with
-us — his colleagues at MIT. He had betrayed us. But he didn't
-just do it to us. Chances are he did it to you too. <i>[Pointing at
-member of audience.]</i> And I think, mostly likely, he did it to you
-too. <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.] [Laughter]</i>
And
-he probably did it to you as well. <i>[Pointing to third member of
-audience.]</i> He probably did it to most of the people here in this
-room — except a few, maybe, who weren't born yet in 1980.
-Because he had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about the
-entire population of the Planet Earth. He had signed a non-disclosure
-agreement.</p>
-
-<p>Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure
-agreement, and it taught me an important lesson — a lesson
-that's important because most programmers never learn it. You see,
-this was my first encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was
-the victim. I, and my whole lab, were the victims. And the lesson it
-taught me was that non-disclosure agreements have victims. They're
-not innocent. They're not harmless. Most programmers first encounter
-a non-disclosure agreement when they're invited to sign one. And
-there's always some temptation — some goody they're going to get
-if they sign. So, they make up excuses. They say, “Well, he's
-never going to get a copy no matter what, so why shouldn't I join the
-conspiracy to deprive him?” They say, “This is the way
-it's always done. Who am I to go against it?” They say,
-“If I don't sign this, someone else will.” Various excuses
-to gag their consciences.</p>
-
-<p>But when somebody invited me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, my
-conscience was already sensitized. It remembered how angry I had
-been, when somebody promised not to help me and my whole lab solve our
-problem. And I couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to
-somebody else who had never done me any harm. You know, if somebody
-asked me to promise not to share some useful information with a hated
-enemy, I would have said yes. You know? If somebody's done something
-bad, he deserves it. But, strangers — they haven't done me any
-harm. How could they deserve that kind of mistreatment? You can't
-let yourself start treating just anybody and everybody badly. Then
-you become a predator on society. So I said, “Thank you very
-much for offering me this nice software package. But I can't accept
-it in good conscience, on the conditions you are demanding, so I will
-do without it. Thank you so much.” And so, I have never
-knowingly signed a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful
-technical information such as software.</p>
-
-<p>Now there are other kinds of information which raise different
-ethical issues. For instance, there's personal information. You
-know, if you wanted to talk with me about what was happening between
-you and your boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody —
-you know, I could keep — I could agree to keep that a secret for
-you, because that's not generally useful technical information. At
-least, it's probably not generally useful.
<i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>There is a small chance — and it's a possibility though
-— that you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex
-technique, <i>[Laughter]</i> and I would then feel a moral
-duty <i>[Laughter]</i> to pass it onto the rest of humanity, so
that
-everyone could get the benefit of it. So, I'd have to put a proviso
-in that promise, you know? If it's just details about who wants this,
-and who's angry at whom, and things like that — soap opera
-— that I can keep private for you, but something that humanity
-could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't withhold. You see,
-the purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information
-for humanity to help people live their lives better. If we promise to
-withhold that information — if we keep it secret — then we
-are betraying the mission of our field. And this, I decided I
-shouldn't do.</p>
-
-<p>But, meanwhile my community had collapsed, and that was collapsing,
-and that left me in a bad situation. You see, the whole Incompatible
-Timesharing System was obsolete, because the PDP-10 was obsolete, and
-so there was no way that I could continue working as an operating
-system developer the way that I had been doing it. That depended on
-being part of the community using the community software and improving
-it. That no longer was a possibility, and that gave me a moral
-dilemma. What was I going to do? Because the most obvious
-possibility meant to go against that decision I had made. The most
-obvious possibility was to adapt myself to the change in the world.
-To accept that things were different, and that I'd just have to give
-up those principles and start signing non-disclosure agreements for
-proprietary operating systems, and most likely writing proprietary
-software as well. But I realized that that way I could have fun
-coding, and I could make money — especially if I did it other
-than at MIT — but at the end, I'd have to look back at my career
-and say, “I've spent my life building walls to divide
-people,” and I would have been ashamed of my life.</p>
-
-<p>So I looked for another alternative, and there was an obvious one.
-I could leave the software field and do something else. Now I had no
-other special noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a
-waiter. <i>[Laughter]</i> Not at a fancy restaurant; they wouldn't
-hire me, <i>[Laughter]</i> but I could be a waiter somewhere. And
-many programmers, they say to me, “The people who hire
-programmers demand this, this and this. If I don't do those things,
-I'll starve.” It's literally the word they use. Well, you know,
-as a waiter, you're not going to starve. <i>[Laughter]</i> So,
-really, they're in no danger. But — and this is important, you
-see — because sometimes you can justify doing something that
-hurts other people by saying otherwise something worse is going to
-happen to me. You know, if you were <em>really</em> going to
starve,
-you'd be justified in writing proprietary software.
<i>[Laughter]</i>
-If somebody's pointing a gun at you, then I would say, it's
-forgivable. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, I had found a way that I could
-survive without doing something unethical, so that excuse was not
-available. So I realized, though, that being a waiter would be no fun
-for me, and it would be wasting my skills as an operating system
-developer. It would avoid misusing my skills. Developing proprietary
-software would be misusing my skills. Encouraging other people to
-live in the world of proprietary software would be misusing my skills.
-So it's better to waste them than misuse them, but it's still not
-really good.</p>
-
-<p>So for those reasons, I decided to look for some other alternative.
-What can an operating system developer do that would actually improve
-the situation, make the world a better place? And I realized that an
-operating system developer was exactly what was needed. The problem,
-the dilemma, existed for me and for everyone else because all of the
-available operating systems for modern computers were proprietary.
-The free operating systems were for old, obsolete computers, right?
-So for the modern computers — if you wanted to get a modern
-computer and use it, you were forced into a proprietary operating
-system. So if an operating system developer wrote another operating
-system, and then said, “Everybody come and share this; you're
-welcome to this” — that would give everybody a way out of
-the dilemma, another alternative. So I realized that there was
-something I could do that would solve the problem. I had just the
-right skills to be able to do it. And it was the most useful thing I
-could possibly imagine that I'd be able to do with my life. And it
-was a problem that no one else was trying to solve. It was just sort
-of sitting there, getting worse, and nobody was there but me. So I
-felt, “I'm elected. I have to work on this. If not me,
-who?” So I decided I would develop a free operating system, or
-die trying … of old age, of course.
<i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>So, of course I had to decide what kind of operating system it
-should be. There are some technical design decisions to be made. I
-decided to make the system compatible with Unix for a number of
-reasons. First of all, I had just seen one operating system that I
-really loved become obsolete because it was written for one particular
-kind of computer. I didn't want that to happen again. We needed to
-have a portable system. Well, Unix was a portable system. So if I
-followed the design of Unix, I had a pretty good chance that I could
-make a system that would also be portable and workable. And
-furthermore, why <i>[Tape unclear]</i> be compatible with it in the
-details. The reason is, users hate incompatible changes. If I had
-just designed the system in my favorite way — which I would have
-loved doing, I'm sure — I would have produced something that was
-incompatible. You know, the details would be different. So, if I
-wrote the system, then the users would have said to me, “Well,
-this is very nice, but it's incompatible. It will be too much work to
-switch. We can't afford that much trouble just to use your system
-instead of Unix, so we'll stay with Unix,” they would have
-said.</p>
-
-<p>Now, if I wanted to actually create a community where there would
-be people in it, people using this free system, and enjoying the
-benefits of liberty and cooperation, I had to make a system people
-would use, a system that they would find easy to switch to, that would
-not have an obstacle making it fail at the very beginning. Now,
-making the system upward compatible with Unix actually made all the
-immediate design decisions, because Unix consists of many pieces, and
-they communicate through interfaces that are more or less documented.
-So if you want to be compatible with Unix, you have to replace each
-piece, one by one, with a compatible piece. So the remaining design
-decisions are inside one piece, and they could be made later by
-whoever decides to write that piece. They didn't have to be made at
-the outset.</p>
-
-<p>So all we had to do to start work was find a name for the system.
-Now, we hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program,
-because thinking of people being amused by the name is half the fun of
-writing the program. <i>[Laughter]</i> And we had a tradition of
-recursive acronyms, to say that the program that you're writing is
-similar to some existing program. You can give it a recursive acronym
-name which says: this one's not the other. So, for instance, there
-were many Tico text editors in the '60's and '70's, and they were
-generally called something-or-other Tico. Then one clever hacker
-called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico — the first recursive
-acronym. In 1975, I developed the first Emacs text editor, and there
-were many imitations of Emacs, and a lot of them were called
-something-or-other Emacs, but one was called Fine, for Fine Is Not
-Emacs, and there was Sine, for Sine Is Not Emacs, and Eine for Ina Is
-Not Emacs, and MINCE for Mince Is Not Complete
-Emacs. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was a stripped down imitation. And
-then, Eine was almost completely rewritten, and the new version was
-called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially.
<i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>So I looked for a recursive acronym for Something is not Unix. And
-I tried all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word.
-<i>[Laughter]</i> Hmm, try another way. I made a contraction.
That
-way I could have a three-letter acronym, for Something's not Unix.
-And I tried letters, and I came across the word “GNU”
-— the word “GNU” is the funniest word in the English
-language. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was it. Of course, the reason
it's
-funny is that according to the dictionary, it's pronounced
-“new”. You see? And so that's why people use it for a
-lot of wordplay. Let me tell you, this is the name of an animal that
-lives in Africa. And the African pronunciation had a click sound in
-it. <i>[Laughter]</i> Maybe still does. And so, the European
-colonists, when they got there, they didn't bother learning to say
-this click sound. So they just left it out, and they wrote a
-“G” which meant “there's another sound that's
-supposed to be here which we are not
-pronouncing.” <i>[Laughter]</i> So, tonight I'm leaving for
-South Africa, and I have begged them, I hope they're going to find
-somebody who can teach me to pronounce click sounds,
<i>[Laughter]</i>
-so that I'll know how to pronounce GNU the correct way, when it's the
-animal.</p>
-
-<p>But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is
-“guh-NEW” — pronounce the hard “G”. If
-you talk about the “new” operating system, you'll get
-people very confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years
-now, so it is not new any more. <i>[Laughter]</i> But it still is,
-and always will be, GNU — no matter how many people call it
-Linux by mistake. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces
-of GNU. They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities
-though. And, at the time, I thought we would write all these pieces,
-and make an entire GNU system, and then we'd say, “Come and get
-it”, and people would start to use it. That's not what
-happened. The first pieces I wrote were just equally good
-replacements, with fewer bugs for some pieces of Unix, but they
-weren't tremendously exciting. Nobody particularly wanted to get them
-and install them. But then, in September 1984, I started writing GNU
-Emacs, which was my second implementation of Emacs, and by early 1985,
-it was working. I could use it for all my editing, which was a big
-relief, because I had no intention of learning to use VI, the Unix
-editor. <i>[Laughter]</i> So, until that time, I did my editing on
-some other machine, and saved the files through the network, so that I
-could test them. But when GNU Emacs was running well enough for me to
-use it, it was also — other people wanted to use it too.</p>
-
-<p>So I had to work out the details of distribution. Of course, I put
-a copy in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people
-who were on the net They could then just pull over a tar file, but a
-lot of programmers then even were not on the net in 1985. They were
-sending me emails saying “How can I get a copy?” I had to
-decide what I would answer them. Well, I could have said, I want to
-spend my time writing more GNU software, not writing tapes, so please
-find a friend who's on the internet and who is willing to download it
-and put it on a tape for you. And I'm sure people would have found
-some friends, sooner or later, you know. They would have got copies.
-But I had no job. In fact, I've never had a job since quitting MIT in
-January 1984. So, I was looking for some way I could make money
-through my work on free software, and therefore I started a free
-software business. I announced, “Send me $150 dollars, and I'll
-mail you a tape of Emacs.” And the orders began dribbling in.
-By the middle of the year they were trickling in.</p>
-
-<p>I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month. And, if necessary, I could
-have lived on just that, because I've always lived cheaply. I live
-like a student, basically. And I like that, because it means that
-money is not telling me what to do. I can do what I think is
-important for me to do. It freed me to do what seemed worth doing.
-So make a real effort to avoid getting sucked into all the expensive
-lifestyle habits of typical Americans. Because if you do that, then
-people with the money will dictate what you do with your life. You
-won't be able to do what's really important to you.</p>
-
-<p>So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, “What do you
-mean it's free software if it costs $150
-dollars?” <i>[Laughter]</i> Well, the reason they asked this
was
-that they were confused by the multiple meanings of the English word
-“free”. One meaning refers to price, and another meaning
-refers to freedom. When I speak of free software, I'm referring to
-freedom, not price. So think of free speech, not free
-beer. <i>[Laughter]</i> Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many
years
-of my life to making sure programmers got less money. That's not my
-goal. I'm a programmer and I don't mind getting money myself. I
-won't dedicate my whole life to getting it, but I don't mind getting
-it. And I'm not — and therefore, ethics is the same for
-everyone. I'm not against some other programmer getting money either.
-I don't want prices to be low. That's not the issue at all. The
-issue is freedom. Freedom for everyone who's using software, whether
-that person be a programmer or not.</p>
-
-<p>So at this point I should give you the definition of free software.
-I better get to some real details, you see, because just saying
-“I believe in freedom” is vacuous. There's so many
-different freedoms you could believe in, and they conflict with each
-other, so the real political question is: Which are the important
-freedoms, the freedoms that we must make sure everybody has?</p>
-
-<p>And now, I will give my answer to that question for the particular
-area of using software. A program is free software for you, a
-particular user, if you have the following freedoms:</p>
-
-<ul>
-<li>First, Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the program for any
-purpose, any way you like.</li>
-<li>Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
-program to suit your needs.</li>
-<li>Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
-copies of the program.</li>
-<li>And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
-publishing an improved version so others can get the benefit of your
-work.</li>
-</ul>
-
-<p>If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software,
-for you — and that's crucial. That's why I phrase it that way.
-I'll explain why later, when I talk about the GNU General Public
-License, but right now I'm explaining what free software means, which
-is a more basic question.</p>
-
-<p>So, Freedom Zero's pretty obvious. If you're not even allowed to
-run the program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive
-program. But as it happens, most programs will at least give you
-Freedom Zero. And Freedom Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of
-Freedoms One, Two, and Three — that's the way that copyright law
-works. So the freedoms that distinguish free software from typical
-software are Freedoms One, Two, and Three, so I'll say more about them
-and why they are important.</p>
-
-<p>Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
-software to suit your needs. This could mean fixing bugs. It could
-mean adding new features. It could mean porting it to a different
-computer system. It could mean translating all the error messages
-into Navajo. Any change you want to make, you should be free to
-make.</p>
-
-<p>Now, it's obvious that professional programmers can make use of
-this freedom very effectively, but not just them. Anybody of
-reasonable intelligence can learn a little programming. You know,
-there are hard jobs, and there are easy jobs, and most people are not
-going to learn enough to do hard jobs. But lots of people can learn
-enough to do easy jobs, just the way, you know, 50 years ago, lots and
-lots of American men learned to repair cars, which is what enabled the
-U.S. to have a motorized army in World War II and win. So, very
-important, having lots of people tinkering.</p>
-
-<p>And if you are a people person, and you really don't want to learn
-technology at all, that probably means that you have a lot of friends,
-and you're good at getting them to owe you favors.
<i>[Laughter]</i>
-Some of them are probably programmers. So you can ask one of your
-programmer friends. “Would you please change this for me? Add
-this feature?” So, lots of people can benefit from it.</p>
-
-<p>Now, if you don't have this freedom, it causes practical, material
-harm to society. It makes you a prisoner of your software. I
-explained what that was like with regard to the laser printer. You
-know, it worked badly for us, and we couldn't fix it, because we were
-prisoners of our software.</p>
-
-<p>But it also affects people's morale. You know if the computer is
-constantly frustrating to use, and people are using it, their lives
-are going to be frustrating, and if they're using it in their jobs,
-their jobs are going to be frustrating; they're going to hate their
-jobs. And you know, people protect themselves from frustration by
-deciding not to care. So you end up with people whose attitude is,
-“Well, I showed up for work today. That's all I have to do. If
-I can't make progress, that's not my problem; that's the boss's
-problem.” And when this happens, it's bad for those people, and
-it's bad for society as a whole. That's Freedom One, the freedom to
-help yourself.</p>
-
-<p>Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
-copies of the program. Now, for beings that can think and learn,
-sharing useful knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship. When
-these beings use computers, this act of friendship takes the form of
-sharing software. Friends share with each other. Friends help each
-other. This is the nature of friendship. And, in fact, this spirit
-of goodwill — the spirit of helping your neighbor, voluntarily
-— is society's most important resource. It makes the difference
-between a livable society and a dog-eat-dog jungle. Its importance
-has been recognized by the world's major religions for thousands of
-years, and they explicitly try to encourage this attitude.</p>
-
-<p>When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach
-us this attitude — the spirit of sharing — by having us do
-it. They figured if we did it, we'd learn. So they said, “If
-you bring candy to school, you can't keep it all for yourself; you
-have to share some with the other kids.” Teaching us, the
-society was set up to teach, this spirit of cooperation. And why do
-you have to do that? Because people are not totally cooperative.
-That's one part of human nature, and there are other parts of human
-nature. There are lots of parts of human nature. So, if you want a
-better society, you've got to work to encourage the spirit of sharing.
-You know, it'll never get to be 100%. That's understandable. People
-have to take care of themselves too. But if we make it somewhat
-bigger, we're all better off.</p>
-
-<p>Nowadays, according to the U.S. Government, teachers are supposed
-to do the exact opposite. “Oh, Johnny, you brought software to
-school. Well, don't share it. Oh no. Sharing is wrong. Sharing
-means you're a pirate.”</p>
-
-<p>What do they mean when they say “pirate”? They're
-saying that helping your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking
-a ship. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>What would Buddha or Jesus say about that? Now, take your favorite
-religious leader. I don't know, maybe Manson would have said
-something different. <i>[Laughter]</i> Who knows what L. Ron
Hubbard
-would say? But …</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>:
<i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Of course, he's dead. But
they don't
-admit that. What?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: So are the others, also
-dead. <i>[Laughter] [Inaudible]</i> Charles Manson's also
-dead. <i>[Laughter]</i> They're dead, Jesus's dead, Buddha's
-dead…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, that's true.
<i>[Laughter]</i> So
-I guess, in that regard, L. Ron Hubbard is no worse than the
-others. <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway —
<i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: L. Ron always used free
software —
-it freed him from Zanu. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Anyway, so, I think this is
actually the
-most important reason why software should be free: We can't afford to
-pollute society's most important resource. It's true that it's not a
-physical resource like clean air and clean water. It's a
-psycho-social resource, but it's just as real for all that, and it
-makes a tremendous difference to our lives. You see, the actions we
-take influence the thoughts of other people. When we go around
-telling people, “Don't share with each other”, if they
-listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's not a good one.
-That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor.</p>
-
-<p>Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just
-cause this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes
-waste — practical, material harm. If the program has an owner,
-and the owner arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay
-in order to be able to use it, some people are going to say,
-“Never mind, I'll do without it.” And that's waste,
-deliberately inflicted waste. And the interesting thing about
-software, of course, is that fewer users doesn't mean you have to make
-less stuff. You know, if fewer people buy cars, you can make fewer
-cars. There's a saving there. There are resources to be allocated,
-or not allocated, into making cars. So that you can say that having a
-price on a car is a good thing. It prevents people from diverting
-lots of wasted resources into making cars that aren't really needed.
-But if each additional car used no resources, it wouldn't be doing any
-good saving the making of these cars. Well, for physical objects, of
-course, like cars, it is always going to take resources to make an
-additional one of them, each additional exemplar.</p>
-
-<p>But for software that's not true. Anybody can make another copy.
-And it's almost trivial to do it. It takes no resources, except a
-tiny bit of electricity. So there's nothing we can save, no resource
-we're going to allocate better by putting this financial disincentive
-on the use of the software. You often find people taking economic,
-the consequences of economic reasoning, based on premises that don't
-apply to software, and trying to transplant them from other areas of
-life where the premises may apply, and the conclusions may be valid.
-They just take the conclusions and assume that they're valid for
-software too, when the argument is based on nothing, in the case of
-software. The premises don't work in that case. It is very important
-to examine how you reach the conclusion, and what premises it depends
-on, to see where it might be valid. So, that's Freedom Two, the
-freedom to help your neighbor.</p>
-
-<p>Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
-publishing an improved version of the software. People used to say to
-me, “If the software's free, then nobody will get paid to work
-on it, so why should anybody work on it?” Well, of course, they
-were confusing the two meanings of free, so their reasoning was based
-on a misunderstanding. But, in any case, that was their theory.
-Today, we can compare that theory with empirical fact, and we find
-that hundreds of people are being paid to write free software, and
-over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers. We get lots of people
-working on free software, for various different motives.</p>
-
-<p>When I first released GNU Emacs — the first piece of the GNU
-system that people actually wanted to use — and when it started
-having users, after a while, I got a message saying, “I think I
-saw a bug in the source code, and here's a fix.” And I got
-another message, “Here's code to add a new feature.” And
-another bug fix. And another new feature. And another, and another,
-and another, until they were pouring in on me so fast that just making
-use of all this help I was getting was a big job. Microsoft doesn't
-have this problem. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>Eventually, people noted this phenomenon. You see, in the 1980's a
-lot of us thought that maybe free software wouldn't be as good as the
-non-free software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay
-people. And, of course, people like me, who value freedom and
-community said, “Well, we'll use the free software
-anyway.” It's worth making a little sacrifice in some mere
-technical convenience to have freedom. But what people began to note,
-around 1990 was that our software was actually better. It was more
-powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary alternatives.</p>
-
-<p>In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific
-measurement of reliability of software. Here's what he did. He took
-several sets of comparable programs that did the same jobs — the
-exact same jobs — in different systems. Because there were
-certain basic Unix-like utilities. And the jobs that they did, we
-know, was all, more or less, imitating the same thing, or they were
-following the POSIX spec, so they were all the same in terms of what
-jobs they did, but they were maintained by different people, written
-separately. The code was different. So they said, OK, we'll take
-these programs and run them with random data, and measure how often
-they crash, or hang. So they measured it, and the most reliable set
-of programs was the GNU programs. All the commercial alternatives
-which were proprietary software were less reliable. So he published
-this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he did the
-same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same result.
-The GNU versions were the most reliable. People — you know
-there are cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system,
-because it's so reliable, and reliability is very important to
-them.</p>
-
-<p>Anyway, there's even a group of people who focus on this particular
-benefit as the reason they give, the main reason they give, why users
-should be permitted to do these various things, and to have these
-freedoms. If you've been listening to me, you've noticed, you've seen
-that I, speaking for the free software movement, I talk about issues
-of ethics, and what kind of a society we want to live in, what makes
-for a good society, as well as practical, material benefits. They're
-both important. That's the free software movement.</p>
-
-<p>That other group of people — which is called the open source
-movement — they only cite the practical benefits. They deny
-that this is an issue of principle. They deny that people are
-entitled to the freedom to share with their neighbor and to see what
-the program's doing and change it if they don't like it. They say,
-however, that it's a useful thing to let people do that. So they go
-to companies and say to them, “You know, you might make more
-money if you let people do this.” So, what you can see is that
-to some extent, they lead people in a similar direction, but for
-totally different, for fundamentally different, philosophical
-reasons.</p>
-
-<p>Because on the deepest issue of all, you know, on the ethical
-question, the two movements disagree. You know, in the free software
-movement we say, “You're entitled to these freedoms. People
-shouldn't stop you from doing these things.” In the open source
-movement, they say, “Yes, they can stop you if you want, but
-we'll try to convince them to deign to let you to do these
-things.” Well, they have contributed — they have convinced
-a certain number of businesses to release substantial pieces of
-software as free software in our community. So they, the open source
-movement, has contributed substantially to our community. And so we
-work together on practical projects. But, philosophically, there's a
-tremendous disagreement.</p>
-
-<p>Unfortunately, the open source movement is the one that gets the
-support of business the most, and so most articles about our work
-describe it as open source, and a lot of people just innocently think
-that we're all part of the open source movement. So that's why I'm
-mentioning this distinction. I want you to be aware that the free
-software movement, which brought our community into existence and
-developed the free operating system, is still here — and that we
-still stand for this ethical philosophy. I want you to know about
-this, so that you won't mislead someone else unknowingly.</p>
-
-<p>But also, so that you can think about where you stand.</p>
-
-<p>You know, which movement you support is up to you. You might agree
-with the free software movements and my views. You might agree with
-the open source movement. You might disagree with them both. You
-decide where you stand on these political issues.</p>
-
-<p>But if you agree with the free software movement — if you see
-that there's an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled
-and directed by this decision deserve a say in it — then I hope
-you'll say that you agree with the free software movement, and one way
-you can do that is by using the term free software and just helping
-people know we exist.</p>
-
-<p>So, Freedom Three is very important both practically and
-psycho-socially. If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical
-material harm, because this community development doesn't happen, and
-we don't make powerful, reliable software. But it also causes
-psycho-social harm, which affects the spirit of scientific cooperation
-— the idea that we're working together to advance human
-knowledge. You see, progress in science crucially depends on people
-being able to work together. And nowadays though, you often find each
-little group of scientists acting like it's a war with each other gang
-of scientists and engineers. And if they don't share with each other,
-they're all held back.</p>
-
-<p>So, those are the three freedoms that distinguish free software
-from typical software. Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself,
-making changes to suit your own needs. Freedom Two is the freedom to
-help your neighbor by distributing copies. And Freedom Three is the
-freedom to help build your community by making changes and publishing
-them for other people to use. If you have all of these freedoms, the
-program is free software for you. Now, why do I define it that way in
-terms of a particular user? Is it free software for
-you? <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> Is it free software
for
-you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Is it free
-software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i>
-Yes?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you explain a bit about the
-difference between Freedom Two and Three?
<i>[inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, they certainly relate,
because if
-you don't have freedom to redistribute at all, you certainly don't
-have freedom to distribute a modified version, but they're different
-activities.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Oh.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Freedom Two is, you know, read
it, you
-make an exact copy, and hand it to your friends, so now your friend
-can use it. Or maybe you make exact copies and you sell them to a
-bunch of people, and then they can use it.</p>
-
-<p>Freedom Three is where you make improvements — or at least
-you think they're improvements, and some other people may agree with
-you. So that's the difference. Oh, and by the way, one crucial
-point. Freedoms One and Three depend on your having access to the
-source code. Because changing a binary-only program is extremely
-hard. <i>[Laughter]</i> Even trivial changes like using four
digits
-for the date, <i>[Laughter]</i> if you don't have source. So, for
-compelling, practical reasons, access to the source code is a
-precondition, a requirement, for free software.</p>
-
-<p>So, why do I define it in terms of whether it's free software for
-<em>you</em>? The reason is that sometimes the same program can be
-free software for some people, and non-free for others. Now, that
-might seem like a paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example
-to show you how it happens. A very big example — maybe the
-biggest ever — of this problem was the X Window System which was
-developed at MIT and released under a license that made it free
-software. If you got the MIT version with the MIT license, you had
-Freedoms One, Two, and Three. It was free software for you. But
-among those who got copies were various computer manufacturers that
-distributed Unix systems, and they made the necessary changes in X to
-run on their systems. You know, probably just a few thousand lines
-out of the hundreds of thousands of lines of X. And, then they
-compiled it, and they put the binaries into their Unix system and
-distributed it under the same non-disclosure agreement as the rest of
-the Unix system. And then, millions of people got these copies. They
-had the X Window System, but they had none of these freedoms. It was
-not free software for <em>them</em>.</p>
-
-<p>So, the paradox was that whether X was free software depended on
-where you made the measurement. If you made the measurement coming
-out of the developers' group, you'd say, “I observe all these
-freedoms. It's free software.” If you made the measurements
-among the users you'd say, “Hmm, most users don't have these
-freedoms. It's not free software.” Well, the people who
-developed X didn't consider this a problem, because their goal was
-just popularity, ego, essentially. They wanted a big professional
-success. They wanted to feel, “Ah, lots of people are using our
-software.” And that was true. Lots of people were using their
-software but didn't have freedom.</p>
-
-<p>Well, in the GNU project, if that same thing had happened to GNU
-software, it would have been a failure, because our goal wasn't just
-to be popular; our goal was to give people liberty, and to encourage
-cooperation, to permit people to cooperate. Remember, never force
-anyone to cooperate with any other person, but make sure that
-everybody's allowed to cooperate, everyone has the freedom to do so,
-if he or she wishes. If millions of people were running non-free
-versions of GNU, that wouldn't be success at all. The whole thing
-would have been perverted into nothing like the goal.</p>
-
-<p>So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening. The method I
-came up with is called “copyleft”. It's called copyleft
-because it's sort of like taking copyright and flipping it
-over. <i>[Laughter]</i> Legally, copyleft works based on
copyright.
-We use the existing copyright law, but we use it to achieve a very
-different goal. Here's what we do. We say, “This program is
-copyrighted.” And, of course, by default, that means it's
-prohibited to copy it, or distribute it, or modify it. But then we
-say, “You're authorized to distribute copies of this. You're
-authorized to modify it. You're authorized to distribute modified
-versions and extended versions. Change it any way you
-like.”</p>
-
-<p>But there is a condition. And the condition, of course, is the
-reason why we go to all this trouble, so that we could put the
-condition in. The condition says: Whenever you distribute anything
-that contains any piece of this program, that whole program must be
-distributed under these same terms, no more and no less. So you can
-change the program and distribute a modified version, but when you do,
-the people who get that from you must get the same freedom that you
-got from us. And not just for the parts of it — the excerpts
-that you copied from our program — but also for the other parts
-of that program that they got from you. The whole of that program has
-to be free software for them.</p>
-
-<p>The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become
-inalienable rights — a concept from the Declaration of
-Independence. Rights that we make sure can't be taken away from you.
-And, of course, the specific license that embodies the idea of
-copyleft is the GNU General Public License, a controversial license
-because it actually has the strength to say no to people who would be
-parasites on our community.</p>
-
-<p>There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of
-freedom. And they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done,
-and use it to get a head start in distributing a non-free program and
-tempting people to give up their freedom. And the result would be
-— you know, if we let people do that — that we would be
-developing these free programs, and we'd constantly have to compete
-with improved versions of our own programs. That's no fun.</p>
-
-<p>And, a lot of people also feel — you know, I'm willing to
-volunteer my time to contribute to the community, but why should I
-volunteer my time to contribute to that company's, to improving that
-company's, proprietary program? You know, some people might not even
-think that that's evil, but they want to get paid if they're going to
-do that. I, personally, would rather not do it at all.</p>
-
-<p>But both of these groups of people — both the ones like me
-who say, “I don't want to help that non-free program to get a
-foothold in our community” and the ones that say, “Sure,
-I'd work for them, but then they better pay me” — both of
-us have a good reason to use the GNU General Public License. Because
-that says to that company, “You can't just take my work, and
-distribute it without the freedom.” Whereas, the non-copyleft
-licenses, like the X Windows license, do permit that.</p>
-
-<p>So that is the big division between the two categories of free
-software — license-wise. There are the programs that are
-copylefted so that the license defends the freedom of the software for
-every user. And there are the non-copylefted programs for which
-non-free versions are allowed. Somebody <em>can</em> take those
-programs and strip off the freedom. You may get that program in a
-non-free version.</p>
-
-<p>And that problem exists today. There are still non-free versions
-of X Windows being used on our free operating systems. There is even
-hardware — which is not really supported — except by a
-non-free version of X Windows. And that's a major problem in our
-community. Nonetheless, I wouldn't say that X Windows is a bad thing,
-you know. I'd say that the developers did not do the best possible
-thing that they could have done. But they <em>did</em> release a
lot
-of software that we could all use.</p>
-
-<p>You know, there's a big difference between less than perfect, and
-evil. There are many gradations of good and bad. We have to resist
-the temptation to say, if you didn't do the absolute best possible
-thing, then you're no good. You know, the people that developed X
-Windows made a big contribution to our community. But there's
-something better that they could have done. They could have
-copylefted parts of the program and prevented those freedom-denying
-versions from being distributed by others.</p>
-
-<p>Now, the fact that the GNU General Public License defends your
-freedom, uses copyright law to defend your freedom, is, of course, why
-Microsoft is attacking it today. See, Microsoft would really like to
-be able to take all the code that we wrote and put it into proprietary
-programs, have somebody make some improvements, or even just
-incompatible changes is all they need. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>You know, with Microsoft's marketing clout, they don't need to make
-it better to have their version supplant ours. They just have to make
-it different and incompatible. And then, put it on everybody's
-desktop. So they really don't like the GNU GPL. Because the GNU GPL
-won't let them do that. It doesn't allow “embrace and
-extend”. It says, if you want to share our code in your
-programs, you can. But, you've got to share and share alike. The
-changes that you make we have to be allowed to share. So, it's a
-two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation.</p>
-
-<p>Many companies — even big companies like IBM and HP are
-willing to use our software on this basis. IBM and HP contribute
-substantial improvements to GNU software. And they develop other free
-software. But, Microsoft doesn't want to do that, so they give it out
-that businesses just can't deal with the GPL. Well, if businesses
-don't include IBM, and HP and SUN, then maybe they're
-right. <i>[Laughter]</i> More about that later.</p>
-
-<p>I should finish the historical story. You see, we set out in 1984
-not just to write some free software but to do something much more
-coherent: to develop an operating system that was entirely free
-software. So that meant we had to write piece after piece after
-piece. Of course, we were always looking for shortcuts. The job was
-so big that people said we'd never be able to finish. And, I thought
-that there was at least a chance that we'd finish it but, obviously,
-it's worth looking for shortcuts. So we kept looking around. Is there
-any program that somebody else has written that we could manage to
-adapt, to plug into here, and that way we won't have to write it from
-scratch? For instance, the X Window system. It's true it wasn't
-copylefted, but it was free software, so we could use it.</p>
-
-<p>Now, I had wanted to put a window system into GNU from day one. I
-wrote a couple of window systems at MIT before I started GNU. And so,
-even though Unix had no window system in 1984, I decided that GNU
-would have one. But, we never ended up writing a GNU window system,
-because X came along. And I said, Goody! One big job we don't have
-to do. We'll use X. So I basically said, let's take X, and put it
-into the GNU system. And we'll make the other parts of GNU, you know,
-work with X, when appropriate. And we found other pieces of software
-that had been written by other people, like the text formatter TeX,
-some library code from Berkeley. At that time there was Berkeley
-Unix, but it was not free software. This library code, initially, was
-from a different group at Berkeley, that did research on floating
-point. And, so, we kept, we fit in these pieces.</p>
-
-<p>In October 1985, we founded the Free Software Foundation. So
-please note, the GNU project came first. The Free Software Foundation
-came after, about almost two years after the announcement of the
-Project. And the Free Software Foundation is a tax-exempt charity
-that raises funds to promote the freedom to share and change software.
-And in the 1980's, one of the main things we did with our funds was to
-hire people to write parts of GNU. And essential programs, such as
-the shell and the C library were written this way, as well as parts of
-other programs. The <code>tar</code> program, which is absolutely
-essential, although not exciting at all <i>[Laughter]</i> was
written
-this way. I believe GNU grep was written this way. And so, we're
-approaching our goal.</p>
-
-<p>By 1991, there was just one major piece missing, and that was the
-kernel. Now, why did I put off the kernel? Probably because it
-doesn't really matter what order you do the things in, at least
-technically it doesn't. You've got to do them all anyway. And partly
-because I'd hoped we'd be able to find a start at a kernel somewhere
-else. And we did. We found Mach, which had been developed at
-Carnegie Mellon. And it wasn't the whole kernel; it was the bottom
-half of the kernel. So we had to write the top half, but I figured,
-you know, things like the file system, the network code, and so on.
-But running on top of Mach they're running essentially as user
-programs, which ought to make them easier to debug. You can debug
-with a real source-level debugger running at the same time. And so, I
-thought that way we'd be able to get these, the higher level parts of
-the kernel, done in a short time. It didn't work out that way. These
-asynchronous, multi-threaded processes, sending messages to each other
-turned out to be very hard to debug. And the Mach-based system that
-we were using to bootstrap with had a terrible debugging environment,
-and it was unreliable, and various problems. It took us years and
-years to get the GNU kernel to work.</p>
-
-<p>But, fortunately, our community did not have to wait for the GNU
-kernel. Because in 1991, Linus Torvalds developed another free kernel
-called Linux. And he used the old-fashioned monolithic design and it
-turns out that he got his working much faster than we got ours
-working. So maybe that's one of the mistakes that I made: that design
-decision. Anyway, at first, we didn't know about Linux, because he
-never contacted us to talk about it. Although he did know about the
-GNU Project. But he announced it to other people and other places on
-the net. And so other people then did the work of combining Linux
-with the rest of the GNU system to make a complete free operating
-system. Essentially, to make the GNU plus Linux combination.</p>
-
-<p>But, they didn't realize that's what they were doing. You see,
-they said, We have a kernel — let's look around and see what
-other pieces we can find to put together with the kernel. So, they
-looked around — and lo and behold, everything they needed was
-already available. What good fortune, they said.
<i>[Laughter]</i>
-It's all here. We can find everything we need. Let's just take all
-these different things and put it together, and have a system.</p>
-
-<p>They didn't know that most of what they found was pieces of the GNU
-system. So they didn't realize that they were fitting Linux into the
-gap in the GNU system. They thought they were taking Linux and making
-a system out of Linux. So they called it a Linux system.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>:
<i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can't hear you —
what?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>:
<i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, it's just not —
you know,
-it's provincial.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: But it's more good fortune
then finding
-X and Mach?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. The difference is that
the
-people who developed X and Mach didn't have the goal of making a
-complete free operating system. We're the only ones who had that.
-And, it was our tremendous work that made the system exist. We
-actually did a larger part of the system than any other project. No
-coincidence, because those people — they wrote useful parts of
-the system. But they didn't do it because they wanted the system to
-be finished. They had other reasons.</p>
-
-<p>Now the people who developed X — they thought that designing
-across the network window system would be a good project, and it was.
-And it turned out to help us make a good free operating system. But
-that's not what they hoped for. They didn't even think about that.
-It was an accident. An accidental benefit. Now, I'm not saying that
-what they did was bad. They did a large free software project.
-That's a good thing to do. But they didn't have that ultimate vision.
-The GNU Project is where that vision was.</p>
-
-<p>And, so, we were the ones whose — every little piece that
-didn't get done by somebody else, we did it. Because we knew that we
-wouldn't have a complete system without it. And even if it was
-totally boring and unromantic, like <code>tar</code>
-or <code>mv</code>. <i>[Laughter]</i> We did it. Or
ld, you know
-there's nothing very exciting in <code>ld</code> — but I
wrote
-one. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I did make efforts to have it do a
minimal
-amount of disk I/O so that it would be faster and handle bigger
-programs. But, you know, I like to do a good job. I like to improve
-various things about the program while I'm doing it. But the reason
-that I did it wasn't that I had brilliant ideas for a
-better <code>ld</code>. The reason I did it is that we needed one
-that was free. And we couldn't expect anyone else to do it. So, we
-had to do it, or find someone to do it.</p>
-
-<p>So, although at this point thousands of people in projects have
-contributed to this system, there is one project which is the reason
-that this system exists, and that's the GNU Project. It
<em>is</em>
-basically the GNU System, with other things added since then.</p>
-
-<p>So, however, the practice of calling the system Linux has been a
-great blow to the GNU Project, because we don't normally get credit
-for what we've done. I think Linux, the kernel, is a very useful
-piece of free software, and I have only good things to say about it.
-But, well, actually, I can find a few bad things to say about
-it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, basically, I have good things to say
about
-it. However, the practice of calling the GNU system, Linux, is just a
-mistake. I'd like to ask you please to make the small effort
-necessary to call the system GNU/Linux, and that way to help us get a
-share of the credit.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You need a mascot! Get
yourself a
-stuffed animal! <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have one.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You do?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have an animal — a
-gnu. <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway. So, yes, when you draw a penguin,
-draw a gnu next to it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, let's save the
-questions for the end. I have more to go through.</p>
-
-<p>So, why am I so concerned about this? You know, why do I think it
-is worth bothering you and perhaps giving you a, perhaps lowering your
-opinion of me, <i>[Laughter]</i> to raise this issue of credit?
-Because, you know, some people when I do this, some people think that
-it's because I want my ego to be fed, right? Of course, I'm not
-saying — I'm not asking you to call it “Stallmanix,”
-right? <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p>
-
-<p>I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to
-get credit. And there's a very specific reason for that, which is a
-lot more important than anybody getting credit, in and of itself. You
-see, these days, if you look around in our community most of the
-people talking about it and writing about it don't ever mention GNU,
-and they don't ever mention these goals of freedom — these
-political and social ideals, either. Because the place they come from
-is GNU.</p>
-
-<p>The ideas associated with Linux — the philosophy is very
-different. It is basically the apolitical philosophy of Linus
-Torvalds. So, when people think that the whole system is Linux, they
-tend to think: “Oh, it must have been all started by Linux
-Torvalds. His philosophy must be the one that we should look at
-carefully”. And when they hear about the GNU philosophy, they
-say: “Boy, this is so idealistic, this must be awfully
-impractical. I'm a Linux-user, not a
-GNU-user.” <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>What irony! If they only knew! If they knew that the system they
-liked — or, in some cases, love and go wild over — is our
-idealistic, political philosophy made real.</p>
-
-<p>They still wouldn't have to agree with us. But at least they'd see
-a reason to take it seriously, to think about it carefully, to give it
-a chance. They would see how it relates to their lives. You know, if
-they realized, “I'm using the GNU system. Here's the GNU
-philosophy. This philosophy is <em>why</em> this system that I
like
-very much exists,” they'd at least consider it with a much more
-open mind. It doesn't mean that everybody will agree. People think
-different things. That's OK. You know, people should make up their
-own minds. But I want this philosophy to get the benefit of the
-credit for the results it has achieved.</p>
-
-<p>If you look around in our community, you'll find that almost
-everywhere, the institutions are calling the system Linux. You know,
-reporters mostly call it Linux. It's not right, but they do. The
-companies mostly say it that package the system. Oh, and most of
-these reporters, when they write articles, they usually don't look at
-it as a political issue, or social issue. They're usually looking at
-it purely as a business question or what companies are going to
-succeed more or less, which is really a fairly minor question for
-society. And, if you look at the companies that package the GNU/Linux
-system for people to use, well, most of them call it Linux. And they
-<em>all</em> add non-free software to it.</p>
-
-<p>See, the GNU GPL says that if you take code, and some code out of a
-GPL-covered program, and add some more code to make a bigger program,
-that whole program has to be released under the GPL. But you could
-put other separate programs on the same disk (of either kind, hard
-disk, or CD), and they can have other licenses. That's considered
-mere aggregation, and, essentially, just distributing two programs to
-somebody at the same time is not something we have any say over. So,
-in fact, it is not true — sometimes, I wish it were true —
-that if a company uses a GPL-covered program in a product that the
-whole product has to be free software. It's not — it doesn't go
-to that range — that scope. It's the whole program. If there
-are two separate programs that communicate with each other at arm's
-length — like by sending messages to each other — then,
-they're legally separate, in general. So, these companies, by adding
-non-free software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically
-and politically, a very bad idea. They're telling the users,
-“It is OK to use non-free software. We're even putting it on
-this as a bonus.”</p>
-
-<p>If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system,
-most of them have a title like “Linux-something or other”.
-So they're calling the system Linux most of the time. And they're
-filled with ads for non-free software that you could run on top of the
-GNU/Linux system. Now those ads have a common message. They say:
-Non-free Software Is Good For You. It's So Good That You Might Even
-<em>Pay</em> To Get It. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>And they call these things “value-added packages”,
-which makes a statement about their values. They're saying: Value
-practical convenience, not freedom. And, I don't agree with those
-values, so I call them “freedom-subtracted
-packages”. <i>[Laughter]</i> Because if you have installed a
-free operating system, then you now are living in the free world. You
-enjoy the benefits of liberty that we worked for so many years to give
-you. Those packages give you an opportunity to buckle on a chain.</p>
-
-<p>And then if you look at the trade shows — about the use of
-the, dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call
-themselves “Linux” shows. And they're filled with booths
-exhibiting non-free software, essentially putting the seal of approval
-on the non-free software. So, almost everywhere you look in our
-community, the institutions are endorsing the non-free software,
-totalling negating the idea of freedom that GNU was developed for.
-And the only place that people are likely to come across the idea of
-freedom is in connection with GNU, and in connection with free
-software, the term, free software. So this is why I ask you: please
-call the system GNU/Linux. Please make people aware where the system
-came from and why.</p>
-
-<p>Of course, just by using that name, you won't be making an
-explanation of the history. You can type four extra characters and
-write GNU/Linux; you can say two extra syllables. But, GNU/Linux is
-fewer syllables than Windows 2000. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, you're
not
-telling them a lot, but you're preparing them, so that when they hear
-about GNU, and what it's all about, they'll see how that connects to
-them and their lives. And that, indirectly, makes a tremendous
-difference. So please help us.</p>
-
-<p>You'll note that Microsoft called the GPL an “open source
-license”. They don't want people to be thinking in terms of
-freedom as the issue. You'll find that they invite people to think in
-a narrow way, as consumers, and, of course, not even think very
-rationally as consumers, if they're going to choose Microsoft
-products. But they don't want people to think as citizens or
-statesmen. That's inimical to them. At least it's inimical to their
-current business model.</p>
-
-<p>Now, how does free software…well, I can tell you about how
-free software relates to our society. A secondary topic that might be
-of interest to some of you is how free software relates to business.
-Now, in fact, free software is <em>tremendously</em> useful for
-business. After all, most businesses in the advanced countries use
-software. Only a tiny fraction of them develop software.</p>
-
-<p>And free software is tremendously advantageous for any company that
-uses software, because it means that you're in control. Basically,
-free software means the users are in control of what the program does.
-Either individually, if they care enough to be, or, collectively, when
-they care enough to be. Whoever cares enough can exert some
-influence. If you don't care, you don't buy. Then you use what other
-people prefer. But, if you do care, then you have some say. With
-proprietary software, you have essentially no say.</p>
-
-<p>With free software, you can change what you want to change. And it
-doesn't matter that there are no programmers in your company; that's
-fine. You know, if you wanted to move the walls in your building, you
-don't have to be a carpentry company. You just have to be able to go
-find a carpenter and say, “What will you charge to do this
-job?” And if you want to change around the software you use, you
-don't have to be a programming company. You just have to go to a
-programming company and say, “What will you charge to implement
-these features? And when will you have it done?” And if they
-don't do the job, you can go find somebody else.</p>
-
-<p>There's a free market for support. So, any business that cares
-about support will find a tremendous advantage in free software. With
-proprietary software, support is a monopoly, because one company has
-the source code, or maybe a small number of companies that paid a
-gigantic amount of money have the source code, if it's Microsoft's
-shared source program, but, it's very few. And so, there aren't very
-many possible sources of support for you. And that means, that unless
-you're a real giant, they don't care about you. Your company is not
-important enough for them to care if they lose your business, or what
-happens. Once you're using the program, they figure you're locked in
-to getting the support from them, because to switch to a different
-program is a gigantic job. So, you end up with things like paying for
-the privilege of reporting a bug. <i>[Laughter]</i> And once
you've
-paid, they tell you, “Well, OK, we've noted your bug report.
-And in a few months, you can buy an upgrade, and you can see if we've
-fixed it.” <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>Support providers for free software can't get away with that. They
-have to please the customers. Of course, you can get a lot of good
-support gratis. You post your problem on the Internet. You may get
-an answer the next day. But that's not guaranteed, of course. If you
-want to be confident, you better make an arrangement with a company
-and pay them. And this is, of course, one of the ways that free
-software business works.</p>
-
-<p>Another advantage of free software for businesses that use software
-is security and privacy. And this applies to individuals as well, but
-I brought it up in the context of businesses. You see, when a program
-is proprietary, you can't even tell what it really does.</p>
-
-<p>It could have features, deliberately put in that you wouldn't like
-if you knew about them, like it might have a backdoor to let the
-developer get into your machine. It might snoop on what you do and
-send information back. This is not unusual. Some Microsoft software
-did this. But it's not only Microsoft. There are other proprietary
-programs that snoop on the user. And you can't even tell if it does
-this. And, of course, even assuming that the developer's totally
-honest, every programmer makes mistakes. There could be bugs that
-affect your security which are nobody's fault. But the point is: If
-it's not free software, you can't find them. And you can't fix
-them.</p>
-
-<p>Nobody has the time to check the source of every program he runs.
-You're not going to do that. But with free software there's a large
-community, and there are people in that community who are checking
-things. And you get the benefit of their checking, because if there's
-an accidental bug, there surely are, from time to time, in any
-program, they might find it and fix it. And people are much less
-likely to put in a deliberate Trojan horse, or a snooping feature, if
-they think they might get caught. The proprietary software developers
-figure they won't get caught. They'll get away with it undetected.
-But a free software developer has to figure that people will look at
-that and see it's there. So, in our community, we don't feel we can
-get away with ramming a feature down the users' throats that the users
-wouldn't like. So we know that if the users don't like it, they'll
-make a modified version which doesn't have it. And then, they'll all
-start using that version.</p>
-
-<p>In fact, we can all reason enough, we can all figure this out
-enough steps ahead, that we probably won't put in that feature. After
-all, you're writing a free program; you want people to like your
-version; you don't want to put in a thing that you know a lot of
-people are going to hate, and have another modified version catch on
-instead of yours. So you just realize that the user is king in the
-world of free software. In the world of proprietary software, the
-customer is <em>not</em> king. Because you are only a customer.
You
-have no say in the software you use.</p>
-
-<p>In this respect, free software is a new mechanism for democracy to
-operate. Professor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions
-as a kind of law. Whoever gets to write the code that just about
-everybody uses for all intents and purposes is writing the laws that
-run people's lives. With free software, these laws get written in a
-democratic way. Not the classical form of democracy — we don't
-have a big election and say, “Everybody vote which way should
-this feature be done.” <i>[Laughter]</i> Instead we say,
-basically, those of you who want to work on implementing the feature
-this way, do it. And if you want to work on implementing the feature
-that way, do it. And, it gets done one way or the other, you know?
-And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done this way.
-So, in this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by
-simply taking steps in the direction that he wants to go.</p>
-
-<p>And you're free to take as many steps, personally, as you want to
-take. A business is free to commission as many steps as they find
-useful to take. And, after you add all these things up, that says
-which direction the software goes.</p>
-
-<p>And it's often very useful to be able to take pieces out of some
-existing program, presumably usually large pieces, of course, and then
-write a certain amount of code of your own, and make a program that
-does exactly what you need, which would have cost you an arm and a leg
-to develop, if you had to write it all from scratch, if you couldn't
-cannibalize large pieces from some existing free software package.</p>
-
-<p>Another thing that results from the fact that the user is king is
-that we tend to be very good about compatibility and standardization.
-Why? Because users like that. Users are likely to reject a program
-that has gratuitous incompatibilities in it. Now, sometimes there's a
-certain group of users which actually have a need for a certain kind
-of incompatibility, and then they'll have it. That's OK. But when
-users want is to follow a standard, we developers have to follow it,
-and we know that. And we do it. By contrast, if you look at
-proprietary software developers, they often find it advantageous to
-deliberately <em>not</em> follow a standard, and not because they
-think that they're giving the user an advantage that way, but rather
-because they're imposing on the user, locking the user in. And you'll
-even find them making changes in their file formats from time to time,
-just to force people to get the newest version.</p>
-
-<p>Archivists are finding a problem now, that files written on
-computers ten years ago often can't be accessed; they were written
-with proprietary software that's essentially lost now. If it were
-written with free software, then it could be brought up-to-date and
-run. And those things would not, those records would not be lost,
-would not be inaccessible. They were even complaining about this on
-NPR recently in citing free software as a solution. And so, in
-effect, by using a non-free program to store your own data, you are
-putting your head in a noose.</p>
-
-<p>So, I've talked about how free software affects most business. But
-how does it affect that particular narrow area which is software
-business? Well, the answer is mostly not at all. And the reason is
-that 90% of the software industry, from what I'm told, is development
-of custom software, software that's not meant to be released at all.
-For custom software, this issue, or the ethical issue of free or
-proprietary, doesn't arise. You see, the issue is, are you users free
-to change, and redistribute, the software? If there's only one user,
-and that user owns the rights, there's no problem. That
-user <em>is</em> free to do all these things. So, in effect, any
-<em>custom</em> program that was developed by one company for use
-in-house is free software, as long as they have the sense to insist on
-getting the source code and all the rights.</p>
-
-<p>And the issue doesn't really arise for software that goes in a
-watch or a microwave oven or an automobile ignition system. Because
-those are places where you don't download software to install. It's
-not a real computer, as far as the user is concerned. And so, it
-doesn't raise these issues enough for them to be ethically important.
-So, for the most part, the software industry will go along, just as
-it's been going. And the interesting thing is that since such a large
-fraction of the jobs are in that part of the industry, even if there
-were no possibilities for free software business, the developers of
-free software could all get day jobs writing custom
-software. <i>[Laughter]</i> There's so many; the ratio is so
big.</p>
-
-<p>But, as it happens, there is free software business. There are
-free software companies, and at the press conference that I'm going to
-have, people from a couple of them will join us. And, of course,
-there are also companies which are <em>not</em> free software
-businesses but do develop useful pieces of free software to release,
-and the free software that they produce is substantial.</p>
-
-<p>Now, how do free software businesses work? Well, some of them sell
-copies. You know, you're free to copy it but they can still sell
-thousands of copies a month. And others sell support and various
-kinds of services. I, personally, for the second half of the '80's, I
-sold free software support services. Basically I said, for $200 an
-hour, I'll change whatever you want me to change in GNU software that
-I'd written. And, yes, it was a stiff rate, but if it was a program
-that I was the author of, people would figure that I might get the job
-done in a lot fewer hours. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I made a living
that
-way. In fact, I'd made more than I'd ever made before. I also taught
-classes. And I kept doing that until 1990, when I got a big prize and
-I didn't have to do it any more.</p>
-
-<p>But, 1990 was when the first corporation free software business was
-formed, which was Cygnus Support. And their business was to do,
-essentially, the same kind of thing that I'd been doing. I certainly
-could have worked for them, if I had needed to do that. Since I
-didn't need to, I felt it was good for the movement if I remained
-independent of any one company. That way, I could say good and bad
-things about the various free software and non-free software
-companies, without a conflict of interest. I felt that I could serve
-the movement more. But, if I had needed that to make a living, sure,
-I would have worked for them. It's an ethical business to be in. No
-reason I would have felt ashamed to take a job with them. And that
-company was profitable in its first year. It was formed with very
-little capital, just the money its three founders had. And it kept
-growing every year and being profitable every year until they got
-greedy, and looked for outside investors, and then they messed things
-up. But it was several years of success, before they got greedy.</p>
-
-<p>So, this illustrates one of the exciting things about free
-software. Free software demonstrates that you don't need to raise
-capital to develop free software. I mean, it's useful;
-it <em>can</em> help. You know, if you do raise some capital, you
can
-hire people and have them write a bunch of software. But you can get
-a lot done with a small number of people. And, in fact, the
-tremendous efficiency of the process of developing free software is
-one of the reasons it's important for the world to switch to free
-software. And it also belies what Microsoft says when they say the
-GNU GPL is bad, because it makes it harder for them to raise capital
-to develop non-free software and take our free software and put our
-code into their programs that they won't share with us. Basically, we
-don't need to have them raising capital that way. We'll get the job
-done anyway. We are getting the job done.</p>
-
-<p>People used to say we could never do a complete free operating
-system. Now we've done that and a tremendous amount more. And I
-would say that we're about an order of magnitude away from developing
-all the general purpose published software needs of the world. And
-this is in a world where more than 90% of the users don't use our free
-software yet. This is in a world where, although in certain areas of
-business, you know, more than half of all the web servers in the world
-are running on GNU/Linux with Apache as the web server.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i>
… What did you
-say before, Linux?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I said GNU/Linux.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You did?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, if I'm talking about the
kernel, I
-call it Linux. You know, that's it's name. The kernel was written by
-Linus Torvalds, and we should only call it by the name that he chose,
-out of respect for the author.</p>
-
-<p>Anyway, but in general, in business most users are not using it.
-Most home users are not using our system yet. So, when they are, we
-should automatically get 10 times as many volunteers and 10 times as
-many customers for the free software businesses that there will be.
-And so that will take us that order of magnitude. So at this point, I
-am pretty confident that we <em>can</em> do the job.</p>
-
-<p>And, this is important, because Microsoft asks us to feel
-desperate. They say, The only way you can have software to run, the
-only way you can have innovation, is if you give us power. Let us
-dominate you. Let us control what you can do with the software you're
-running, so that we can squeeze a lot of money out of you, and use a
-certain fraction of that to develop software, and take the rest as
-profit.</p>
-
-<p>Well, you shouldn't ever feel that desperate. You shouldn't ever
-feel so desperate that you give up your freedom. That's very
-dangerous.</p>
-
-<p>Another thing that Microsoft, well, not just Microsoft, people who
-don't support free software generally adopt a value system in which
-the only thing that matters is short-term practical benefits: How much
-money am I going to make this year? What job can I get done today?
-Short-term thinking and narrow thinking. Their assumption is that it
-is ridiculous to imagine that anybody ever might make a sacrifice for
-the sake of freedom.</p>
-
-<p>Yesterday, a lot of people were making speeches about Americans who
-made sacrifices for the freedom of their compatriots. Some of them
-made great sacrifices. They even sacrificed their lives for the kinds
-of freedom that everyone in our country has heard about, at least.
-(At least, in some of the cases; I guess we have to ignore the war in
-Vietnam.)</p>
-
-<p><i>[Editor's note: The day before was “Memorial
Day” in
-the USA. Memorial Day is a day where war heros are
-commemorated.]</i></p>
-
-<p>But, fortunately, to maintain our freedom in using software,
-doesn't call for big sacrifices. Just tiny, little sacrifices are
-enough, like learning a command-line interface, if we don't have a GUI
-interface program yet. Like doing the job in this way, because we
-don't have a free software package to do it that way, yet. Like,
-paying some money to a company that's going to develop a certain free
-software package, so that you can have it in a few years. Various
-little sacrifices that we can all make. And, in the long run, even we
-will have benefited from it. You know, it is really an investment
-more than a sacrifice. We just have to have enough long-term view to
-realize it's good for us to invest in improving our society, without
-counting the nickels and dimes of who gets how much of the benefit
-from that investment.</p>
-
-<p>So, at this point, I'm essentially done.</p>
-
-<p>I'd like to mention that there's a new approach to free software
-business being proposed by Tony Stanco, which he calls “Free
-Developers”, which involves a certain business structure which
-hopes eventually to pay out a certain share of the profits to every,
-to all the authors of the free software who've joined the
-organization. And they're looking at the prospects of getting me some
-rather large government software development contracts in India now,
-because they're going to be using free software as the basis, having
-tremendous cost savings that way.</p>
-
-<p>And so now I guess that I should ask for questions.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>:
<i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Could you speak up a bit
louder please?
-I can't really hear you.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: How could a company like
Microsoft
-include a free software contract?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually, Microsoft is
planning to
-shift a lot of its activity into services. And what they're planning
-to do is something dirty and dangerous, which is tie the services to
-the programs, one to the next, in a sort of zigzag, you know? So that
-to use this service, you've got to be using this Microsoft program,
-which is going to mean you need to use this service, to this Microsoft
-program, so it's all tied together. That's their plan.</p>
-
-<p>Now, the interesting thing is that selling those services doesn't
-raise the ethical issue of free software or non-free software. It
-might be perfectly fine for them to have the business for those
-businesses selling those services over the net to exist. However,
-what Microsoft is planning to do is to use them to achieve an even
-greater lock, an even greater monopoly, on the software and the
-services, and this was described in an article, I believe in Business
-Week, recently. And, other people said that it is turning the net
-into the Microsoft Company Town.</p>
-
-<p>And this is relevant because, you know, the trial court in the
-Microsoft antitrust trial recommended breaking up the company,
-Microsoft. But in a way, that makes no sense — it wouldn't do
-any good at all — into the operating part and the applications
-part.</p>
-
-<p>But having seen that article, I now see a useful, effective way to
-split up Microsoft into the services part and the software part, to
-require them to deal with each other only at arm's length, that the
-services must publish their interfaces, so that anybody can write a
-client to talk to those services, and, I guess, that they have to pay
-to get the service. Well, that's OK. That's a totally different
-issue.</p>
-
-<p>If Microsoft is split up in this way […] services and
-software, they will not be able to use their software to crush
-competition with Microsoft services. And they won't be able to use
-the services to crush competition with Microsoft software. And we
-will be able to make the free software, and maybe you people will use
-it to talk to Microsoft services, and we won't mind.</p>
-
-<p>Because, after all, although Microsoft is the proprietary software
-company that has subjugated the most people — the others have
-subjugated fewer people, it's not for want of
-trying. <i>[Laughter]</i> They just haven't succeeded in
subjugating
-as many people. So, the problem is not Microsoft and only Microsoft.
-Microsoft is just the biggest example of the problem we're trying to
-solve, which is proprietary software taking away users' freedom to
-cooperate and form an ethical society. So we shouldn't focus too much
-on Microsoft, you know, even though they did give me the opportunity
-for this platform. That doesn't make them all-important. They're not
-the be-all and end-all.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Earlier, you were discussing
the
-philosophical differences between open source software and free
-software. How do you feel about the current trend of GNU/Linux
-distributions as they head towards supporting only Intel platforms?
-And the fact that it seems that less and less programmers are
-programming correctly, and making software that will compile anywhere?
-And making software that simply works on Intel systems?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I don't see an ethical issue
there.
-Although, in fact, companies that make computers sometimes port the
-GNU/Linux system to it. HP apparently did this recently. And, they
-didn't bother paying for a port of Windows, because that would have
-cost too much. But getting GNU/Linux supported was, I think, five
-engineers for a few months. It was easily doable.</p>
-
-<p>Now, of course, I encourage people to use
<code>autoconf</code>,
-which is a GNU package that makes it easier to make your programs
-portable. I encourage them to do that. Or when somebody else fixes
-the bug that it didn't compile on that version of the system, and
-sends it to you, you should put it in. But I don't see that as an
-ethical issue.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Two comments. One is:
Recently, you
-spoke at MIT. I read the transcript. And someone asked about
-patents, and you said that “patents are a totally different
-issue. I have no comments on that.”</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I actually have a lot
to say
-about patents, but it takes an hour. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I wanted to say this: It seems
to me
-that there is an issue. I mean, there is a reason that companies call
-both patents and copyrights things like hard property in trying to get
-this concept which is, if they want to use the power of the State to
-create a course of monopoly for themselves. And so, what's common
-about these things is not that they revolve around the same issues,
-but that motivation is not really the public service issues but the
-motivation of companies to get a monopoly for their private
-interests.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I understand. But, well, I
want to
-respond because there's not too much time. So I'd like to respond to
-that.</p>
-
-<p>You're right that that's what they want. But there's another
-reason why they want to use the term intellectual property. It's that
-they don't want to encourage people to think carefully about copyright
-issues or patent issues. Because copyright law and patent law are
-totally different, and the effects of software copyrighted and
-software patents are totally different.</p>
-
-<p>Software patents are a restriction on programmers, prohibiting them
-from writing certain kinds of programs, whereas copyright doesn't do
-that. With copyright, at least if you wrote it yourself, you're
-allowed to distribute it. So, it's tremendously important to separate
-these issues.</p>
-
-<p>They have a little bit in common, at a very low level, and
-everything else is different. So, please, to encourage clear
-thinking, discuss copyright or discuss patents. But don't discuss
-intellectual property. I don't have an opinion on intellectual
-property. I have opinions on copyrights and patents and software.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You mentioned at the beginning
that a
-functional language, like recipes, are computer programs. There's a
-cross a little bit different than other kinds of language created on.
-This is also causing a problem in the DVD case.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: The issues are partly similar
but partly
-different, for things that are not functional in nature. Part of the
-issue transfers but not all of it. Unfortunately, that's another hour
-speech. I don't have time to go into it. But I would say that all
-functional works ought to be free in the same sense as software. You
-know, textbooks, manuals, dictionaries, and recipes, and so on.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I was just wondering on online
-music. There are similarities and differences created all through.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I'd say that the
minimum freedom
-that we should have for any kind of published information is the
-freedom to non-commercially redistribute it, verbatim. For functional
-works, we need the freedom to commercially publish a modified version,
-because that's tremendously useful to society. For non-functional
-works, you know, things that are to entertain, or to be aesthetic, or
-to state a certain person's views, you know, perhaps they shouldn't be
-modified. And, perhaps that means that it's OK, to have copyright
-covering all commercial distribution of them.</p>
-
-<p>Please remember that according to the U.S. Constitution, the
-purpose of copyright is to benefit the public. It is to modify the
-behavior of certain private parties, so that they will publish more
-books. And the benefit of this is that society gets to discuss issues
-and learn. And, you know, we have literature. We have scientific
-works. The purpose is encourage that. Copyrights do not exist for
-the sake of authors, let alone for the sake of publishers. They exist
-for the sake of readers and all those who benefit from the
-communication of information that happens when people write and others
-read. And that goal I agree with.</p>
-
-<p>But in the age of the computer networks, the method is no longer
-tenable, because it now requires draconian laws that invade
-everybody's privacy and terrorize everyone. You know, years in prison
-for sharing with your neighbor. It wasn't like that in the age of the
-printing press. Then copyright was an industrial regulation. It
-restricted publishers. Now, it's a restriction imposed by the
-publishers on the public. So, the power relationship is turned around
-180 degrees, even if it's the same law.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: So you can have the same thing
—
-but like in making music from other music?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. That is an interesting
-…</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: And unique, new works, you
know, it's
-still a lot of cooperation.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: It is. And I think that
probably
-requires some kind of fair use concept. Certainly making a few
-seconds of sample and using that in making some musical work,
-obviously that should be fair use. Even the standard idea of fair use
-includes that, if you think about it. Whether courts agree, I'm not
-sure, but they should. That wouldn't be a real change in the system
-as it has existed.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: What do you think about
publishing
-public information in proprietary formats?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, it shouldn't be. I mean,
the
-government should never require citizens to use a non-free program to
-access, to communicate with the government in any way, in either
-direction.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I have been, what I will now
say, a
-GNU/Linux user…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Thank you.
<i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: …for the past four
years. The one
-thing that has been problematical for me and is something that is
-essential, I think, to all of us, is browsing the web.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: One thing that has been
decidedly a
-weakness in using a GNU/Linux system has been browsing the web,
-because the prevailing tool for that, Netscape…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: …is not free
software.</p>
-
-<p>Let me respond to this. I want to get to the point, for the sake
-of getting in more. So, yes. There has been a terrible tendency for
-people to use Netscape Navigator on their GNU/Linux systems. And, in
-fact all the commercially packaged systems come with it. So this is
-an ironic situation: we worked so hard to make a free operating
-system, and now, if you go to the store, and you can find versions of
-GNU/Linux there, most of them are called Linux, and they're not free.
-Oh, well, part of them is. But then, there's Netscape Navigator, and
-maybe other non-free programs as well. So, it's very hard to actually
-find a free system, unless you know what you're doing. Or, of course,
-you can not install Netscape Navigator.</p>
-
-<p>Now, in fact, there have been free web browsers for many years.
-There is a free web browser that I used to use called Lynx. It's a
-free web browser that is non-graphical; it's text-only. This has a
-tremendous advantage, in you don't see the ads. <i>[Laughter]
-[Applause]</i></p>
-
-<p>But anyway, there is a free graphical project called Mozilla, which
-is now getting to the point where you can use it. And I occasionally
-use it.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 has been very
good.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, OK. So that's another free
-graphical browser. So, we're finally solving that problem, I
-guess.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk to me about that
-philosophical/ethical division between free software and open source?
-Do you feel that those are irreconcilable? …</p>
-
-<p><i>[Recording switches tapes; end of question and start of
answer
-is missing]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: … to a freedom, and
ethics. Or
-whether you just say, Well, I hope that you companies will decide it's
-more profitable to let us be allowed to do these things.</p>
-
-<p>But, as I said, in a lot of practical work, it doesn't really
-matter what a person's politics are. When a person offers to help the
-GNU project, we don't say: “You have to agree with our
-politics.” We say that in a GNU package, you've got to call the
-system GNU/Linux, and you've got to call it free software. What you
-say when you're not speaking to the GNU Project, that's up to you.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: The company, IBM, started a
campaign for
-government agencies, to sell their big new machines, that they used
-Linux as selling point, and say Linux.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, of course, it's really the
-GNU/Linux systems. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: That's right! Well, tell the
top sales
-person. He doesn't know anything for GNU.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I have to tell who?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: The top sales person.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh yes. The problem is that
they've
-already carefully decided what they want to say for reasons of their
-advantage. And the issue of what is a more accurate, or fair, or
-correct way to describe it is not the primary issue that matters to a
-company like that. Now, some small companies, yes, there'll be a
-boss. And if the boss is inclined to think about things like that, he
-might make a decision that way. Not a giant corporation though. It's
-a shame, you know.</p>
-
-<p>There's another more important and more substantive issue about
-what IBM is doing. They're saying that they're putting a billion
-dollars into “Linux”. But perhaps, I should also put
-quotes around “into”, as well, because some of that money
-is paying people to develop free software. That really is a
-contribution to our community. But other parts is paying to pay
-people to write proprietary software, or port proprietary software to
-run on top of GNU/Linux, and that is <em>not</em> a contribution to
-our community. But IBM is lumping that altogether into this. Some of
-it might be advertising, which is partly a contribution, even if it's
-partly wrong. So, it's a complicated situation. Some of what they're
-doing is contribution and some is not. And some is sort is somewhat,
-but not exactly. And you can't just lump it altogether and think,
-Wow! Whee! A billion dollars from IBM. <i>[Laughter]</i> That's
-oversimplification.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk a little bit more
about the
-thinking that went into the general public license?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, here's the — I'm
sorry, I'm
-answering his question now. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Do you want to reserve some
time for
-the press conference? Or do you want to continue here?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Who is here for the press
conference?
-Not a lot of press. Oh, three — OK. Can you afford if we
-— if I go on answering everybody's questions for another ten
-minutes or so? OK. So, we'll go on answering everybody's
-questions.</p>
-
-<p>So, the thinking that went into the GNU GPL? Part of it was that I
-wanted to protect the freedom of the community against the phenomena
-that I just described with X Windows, which has happened with other
-free programs as well. In fact, when I was thinking about this issue,
-X Windows was not yet released. But I had seen this problem happen in
-other free programs. For instance, TeX. I wanted to make sure that
-the users would all have freedom. Otherwise, I realized that I might
-write a program, and maybe a lot of people would use the program, but
-they wouldn't have freedom. And what's the point of that?</p>
-
-<p>But the other issue I was thinking about was, I wanted to give the
-community a feeling that it was not a doormat, a feeling that it was
-not prey to any parasite who would wander along. If you don't use
-copyleft, you are essentially saying: <i>[speaking meekly]</i>
-“Take my code. Do what you want. I don't say no.” So,
-anybody can come along and say: <i>[speaking very firmly]</i>
-“Ah, I want to make a non-free version of this. I'll just take
-it.” And, then, of course, they probably make some improvements,
-those non-free versions might appeal to users, and replace the free
-versions. And then, what have you accomplished? You've only made a
-donation to some proprietary software project.</p>
-
-<p>And when people see that that's happening, when people see, other
-people take what I do, and they don't ever give back, it can be
-demoralizing. And, this is not just speculation. I had seen that
-happen. That was part of what happened to wipe out the old community
-that I belonged to the '70's. Some people started becoming
-uncooperative. And we assumed that they were profiting thereby. They
-certainly acted as if they thought they were profiting. And we
-realized that they can just take off cooperation and not give back.
-And there was nothing we could do about it. It was very discouraging.
-We, those of us who didn't like the trend, even had a discussion and
-we couldn't come up with any idea for how we could stop it.</p>
-
-<p>So, the GPL is designed to stop that. And it says, Yes, you are
-welcome to join the community and use this code. You can use it to do
-all sorts of jobs. But, if you release a modified version, you've got
-to release that to our community, as part of our community, as part of
-the free world.</p>
-
-<p>So, in fact, there are still many ways that people can get the
-benefit of our work and not contribute, like you don't have to write
-any software. Lots of people use GNU/Linux and don't write any
-software. There's no requirement that you've got to do anything for
-us. But if you do a certain kind of thing, you've got to contribute
-to it. So what that means is that our community is not a doormat.
-And I think that that helped give people the strength to feel, Yes, we
-won't just be trampled underfoot by everybody. We'll stand up to
-this.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Yes, my question was,
considering free
-but not copylefted software, since anybody can pick it up and make it
-proprietary, is it not possible also for someone to pick it up and
-make some changes and release the whole thing under the GPL?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, it is possible.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Then, that would make all
future copies
-then be GPL'ed.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: From that branch. But here's
why we
-don't do that.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Hmm?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Here's why we don't generally
do that.
-Let me explain.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: OK, yes.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We could, if we wanted to,
take X
-Windows, and make a GPL-covered copy and make changes in that. But
-there's a much larger group of people working on improving X Windows
-and <em>not</em> GPL-ing it. So, if we did that, we would be
forking
-from them. And that's not very nice treatment of them. And, they
-<em>are</em> a part of our community, contributing to our
-community.</p>
-
-<p>Second, it would backfire against us, because they're doing a lot
-more work on X than we would be. So, our version would be inferior to
-theirs, and people wouldn't use it, which means, why go to the trouble
-at all?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Mmm hmm.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: So when a person has written
some
-improvement to X Windows, what I say that person should do is
-cooperate with the X development team. Send it to them and let them
-use it their way. Because they are developing a very important piece
-of free software. It's good for us to cooperate with them.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Except, considering X, in
particular,
-about two years ago, the X Consortium that was far into the non-free
-open source…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually it
<em>wasn't</em> open
-sourced. It wasn't open sourced, either. They may have said it was.
-I can't remember if they said that or not. But it wasn't open
-source. It was restricted. You couldn't commercially distribute, I
-think. Or you couldn't commercially distribute a modified version, or
-something like that. There was a restriction that's considered
-unacceptable by both the Free Software movement and the Open Source
-movement.</p>
-
-<p>And yes, that's what using a non-copyleft license leaves you open
-to. In fact, the X Consortium, they had a very rigid policy. They
-say: If your program if copylefted even a little bit, we won't
-distribute it at all. We won't put it in our distribution.</p>
-
-<p>So, a lot of people were pressured in this way into not
-copylefting. And the result was that all of their software was wide
-open, later on. When the same people who had pressured a developer to
-be too all-permissive, then the X people later said, All right, now we
-can put on restrictions, which wasn't very ethical of them.</p>
-
-<p>But, given the situation, would we really want to scrape up the
-resources to maintain an alternate GPL-covered version of X? And it
-wouldn't make any sense to do that. There are so many other things we
-need to do. Let's do them instead. We can cooperate with the X
-developers.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Do you have a comment, is the
GNU a
-trademark? And is it practical to include it as part of the GNU
-General Public License allowing trademarks?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We are, actually, applying for
trademark
-registration on GNU. But it wouldn't really have anything to do with
-that. It's a long story to explain why.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You could require the
trademark be
-displayed with GPL-covered programs.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: No, I don't think so. The
licenses
-cover individual programs. And when a given program is part of the
-GNU Project, nobody lies about that. The name of the system as a
-whole is a different issue. And this is an aside. It's not worth
-discussing more.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: If there was a button that you
could
-push and force all companies to free their software, would you press
-it?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, I would only use this for
-published software. You know, I think that people have the right to
-write a program privately and use it. And that includes companies.
-This is privacy issue. And it's true, there can be times when it is
-wrong to do that, like if it is tremendously helpful to humanity, and
-you are withholding it from humanity. That is a wrong but that's a
-different kind of wrong. It's a different issue, although it's in the
-same area.</p>
-
-<p>But yes, I think all published software should be free software.
-And remember, when it's not free software, that's because of
-government intervention. The government is intervening to make it
-non-free. The government is creating special legal powers to hand out
-to the owners of the programs, so that they can have the police stop
-us from using the programs in certain ways. So I would certainly like
-to end that. </p>
-
-<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Richard's presentation has
invariably
-generated an enormous amount of intellectual energy. I would suggest
-that some of it should be directed to using, and possibly writing,
-free software.</p>
-
-<p>We should close the proceedings shortly. I want to say that
-Richard has injected into a profession which is known in the general
-public for its terminal apolitical nerditude a level of political and
-moral discussion which is, I think, unprecedented in our profession.
-And we owe him very big for this. I'd like to note to people that
-there is a break.</p>
-
-<p><i>[Applause]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: You are free to leave at any
time, you
-know. <i>[Laughter]</i> I'm not holding you prisoner
here.</p>
-
-<p><i>[Audience adjourns…]</i></p>
-
-<p><i>[overlapping conversations…]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: One final thing. Our website:
-www.gnu.org</p>
-
-</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
-<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
-<div id="footer">
-<div class="unprintable">
-
-<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
-<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></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"><address@hidden></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">
- <address@hidden></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>. -->
-Please see the <a
-href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
-README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
-of this article.</p>
-</div>
-
-<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
- files generated as part of manuals) 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. -->
-
-<p>Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2014</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2014, 2015</em></ins></span> Richard M.
Stallman</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>
-
-<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
-
-<p class="unprintable">Updated:
-<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2015/04/21 13:57:27 $
-<!-- timestamp end -->
-</p>
-</div>
-</div>
-</body>
-</html>
-</pre></body></html>
Index: events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-en.html
diff -N events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-en.html
--- events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-en.html 2 May 2015 04:57:34
-0000 1.19
+++ /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
@@ -1,2127 +0,0 @@
-<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
-<title>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation
-- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
-<!--#include virtual="/events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist" -->
-<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
-<h2>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation</h2>
-
-<blockquote><p>Transcript of
-Richard M. Stallman's speech,
-“Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation”,
-given at New York University in New York, NY,
-on 29 May 2001</p></blockquote>
-
-<div class="announcement">
-<blockquote><p>A <a href="/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt">plain
-text</a> version of this transcript and
-a <a href="/events/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt">summary</a> of the speech
-are also available.</p></blockquote>
-</div>
-
-<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: I'm Mike Uretsky. I'm over at the Stern
-School of Business. I'm also one of the Co-Directors of the Center
-for Advanced Technology. And, on behalf of all of us in the Computer
-Science Department, I want to welcome you here. I want to say a few
-comments, before I turn it over to Ed, who is going to introduce the
-speaker.</p>
-
-<p>The role of a university is a place to foster debate and to have
-interesting discussions. And the role of a major university is to
-have particularly interesting discussions. And this particular
-presentation, this seminar falls right into that mold. I find the
-discussion of open source particularly interesting. In a sense
-… <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I do free software. Open source is a
-different movement. <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: When I first started in the field in the
-'60's, basically software was free. And we went in cycles. It became
-free, and then software manufacturers, in the need to expand their
-markets, pushed it in other directions. A lot of the developments
-that took place with the entry of the PC moved in exactly the same
-kind of a cycle.</p>
-
-<p>There's a very interesting French philosopher, Pierre Levy, who
-talks about movement to this direction and who talks about the move
-into cyberspace as not only relating to technology but also relating
-to social restructuring, to political restructuring, through a change
-in the kinds of relationships that will improve the well-being of
-mankind. And we're hoping that this debate is a movement in that
-direction, that this debate is something that cuts across a lot of the
-disciplines that normally act as solace within the University. We're
-looking forward to some very interesting discussions. Ed?</p>
-
-<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: I'm Ed Schonberg from the Computer
-Science Department at the Courant Institute. Let me welcome you all
-to this event. Introducers are usually, and particularly, a useless
-aspect of public presentations, but in this case, actually, they serve
-a useful purpose, as Mike easily demonstrated, because an introducer
-for instance, told him, by making inaccurate comments, can allow him
-to straighten out and correct and <i>[Laughter]</i> sharpen
-considerably the parameters of the debate.</p>
-
-<p>So, let me make the briefest possible introduction to somebody who
-doesn't need one. Richard is the perfect example of somebody who, by
-acting locally, started thinking globally from problems concerning the
-unavailability of source code for printer drivers at the AI Lab many
-years ago. He has developed a coherent philosophy that has forced all
-of us to re-examine our ideas of how software is produced, of what
-intellectual property means, and what the software community actually
-represents. Let me welcome Richard Stallman. <i>[Applause]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can someone lend me a
-watch? <i>[Laughter]</i> Thank you. So, I'd like to thank Microsoft
-for providing me the opportunity to <i>[Laughter]</i> be on this
-platform. For the past few weeks, I have felt like an author whose
-book was fortuitously banned somewhere. <i>[Laughter]</i> Except that
-all the articles about it are giving the wrong author's name, because
-Microsoft describes the GNU GPL as an open source license, and most of
-the press coverage followed suit. Most people, of course just
-innocently don't realize that our work has nothing to do with open
-source, that in fact we did most of it before people even coined the
-term open source.</p>
-
-<p>We are in the free software movement, and I'm going to speak about
-what the free software movement is about, what it means, what we have
-done, and, because this is partly sponsored by a school of business,
-I'll say some things more than I usually do about how free software
-relates to business, and some other areas of social life.</p>
-
-<p>Now, some of you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps
-you cook. And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably
-use recipes. And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the
-experience of getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing
-it. And you've probably also had the experience — unless you're
-a total neophyte — of changing a recipe. You know, it says
-certain things, but you don't have to do exactly that. You can leave
-out some ingredients. Add some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms.
-Put in less salt because your doctor said you should cut down on salt
-— whatever. You can even make bigger changes according to your
-skill. And if you've made changes in a recipe, and you cook it for
-your friends, and they like it, one of your friends might say,
-“Hey, could I have the recipe?” And then, what do you do?
-You could write down your modified version of the recipe and make a
-copy for your friend. These are the natural things to do with
-functionally useful recipes of any kind.</p>
-
-<p>Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program. A computer
-program's a lot like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to
-get some result that you want. So it's just as natural to do those
-same things with computer programs — hand a copy to your friend.
-Make changes in it because the job it was written to do isn't exactly
-what you want. It did a great job for somebody else, but your job is
-a different job. And after you've changed it, that's likely to be
-useful for other people. Maybe they have a job to do that's like the
-job you do. So they ask, “Hey, can I have a copy?” Of
-course, if you're a nice person, you're going to give a copy. That's
-the way to be a decent person.</p>
-
-<p>So imagine what it would be like if recipes were packaged inside
-black boxes. You couldn't see what ingredients they're using, let
-alone change them, and imagine if you made a copy for a friend, they
-would call you a pirate and try to put you in prison for years. That
-world would create tremendous outrage from all the people who are used
-to sharing recipes. But that is exactly what the world of proprietary
-software is like. A world in which common decency towards other
-people is prohibited or prevented.</p>
-
-<p>Now, why did I notice this? I noticed this because I had the good
-fortune in the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who
-shared software. Now, this community could trace its ancestry
-essentially back to the beginning of computing. In the 1970's,
-though, it was a bit rare for there to be a community where people
-shared software. And, in fact, this was sort of an extreme case,
-because in the lab where I worked, the entire operating system was
-software developed by the people in our community, and we'd share any
-of it with anybody. Anybody was welcome to come and take a look, and
-take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do. There were no
-copyright notices on these programs. Cooperation was our way of life.
-And we were secure in that way of life. We didn't fight for it. We
-didn't have to fight for it. We just lived that way. And, as far as
-we knew, we would just keep on living that way. So there was free
-software, but there was no free software movement.</p>
-
-<p>But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that
-happened to it. Ultimately it was wiped out. Ultimately, the PDP-10
-computer which we used for all our work was discontinued. And you
-know, our system — the Incompatible Timesharing System —
-was written starting in the '60's, so it was written in assembler
-language. That's what you used to write an operating system in the
-'60's. So, of course, assembler language is for one particular
-computer architecture; if that gets discontinued, all your work turns
-into dust — it's useless. And that's what happened to us. The
-20 years or so of work of our community turned into dust.</p>
-
-<p>But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me,
-helped me see what to do, helped prepare me to see what to do when
-this happened, because at certain point, Xerox gave the Artificial
-Intelligence Lab, where I worked, a laser printer, and this was a
-really handsome gift, because it was the first time anybody outside
-Xerox had a laser printer. It was very fast, printed a page a second,
-very fine in many respects, but it was unreliable, because it was
-really a high-speed office copier that had been modified into a
-printer. And, you know, copiers jam, but there's somebody there to
-fix them. The printer jammed and nobody saw. So it stayed jammed for
-a long time.</p>
-
-<p>Well, we had an idea for how to deal with this problem. Change it
-so that whenever the printer gets a jam, the machine that runs the
-printer can tell our timesharing machine, and tell the users who are
-waiting for printouts, or something like that, you know, tell them, go
-fix the printer. Because if they only knew it was jammed, of course,
-if you're waiting for a printout and you know that the printer is
-jammed, you don't want to sit and wait forever, you're going to go fix
-it.</p>
-
-<p>But at that point, we were completely stymied, because the software
-that ran that printer was not free software. It had come with the
-printer, and it was just a binary. We couldn't have the source code;
-Xerox wouldn't let us have the source code. So, despite our skill as
-programmers — after all, we had written our own timesharing
-system — we were completely helpless to add this feature to the
-printer software.</p>
-
-<p>And we just had to suffer with waiting. It would take an hour or
-two to get your printout because the machine would be jammed most of
-the time. And only once in a while — you'd wait an hour
-figuring “I know it's going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and
-go collect my printout,” and then you'd see that it had been
-jammed the whole time, and in fact, nobody else had fixed it. So
-you'd fix it and you'd go wait another half hour. Then, you'd come
-back, and you'd see it jammed again — before it got to your
-output. It would print three minutes and be jammed thirty minutes.
-Frustration up the whazzoo. But the thing that made it worse was
-knowing that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his own
-selfishness, was blocking us, obstructing us from improving the
-software. So, of course, we felt some resentment.</p>
-
-<p>And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a
-copy of that software. So I was visiting there later, so I went to
-his office and I said, “Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of
-the printer source code?” And he said “No, I promised not
-to give you a copy.” <i>[Laughter]</i> I was stunned. I was so
-— I was angry, and I had no idea how I could do justice to it.
-All I could think of was to turn around on my heel and walk out of his
-room. Maybe I slammed the door. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I thought
-about it later on, because I realized that I was seeing not just an
-isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was important and affected
-a lot of people.</p>
-
-<p>This was — for me — I was lucky, I only got a taste of
-it, but other people had to live in this all the time. So I thought
-about it at length. See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with
-us — his colleagues at MIT. He had betrayed us. But he didn't
-just do it to us. Chances are he did it to you too. <i>[Pointing at
-member of audience.]</i> And I think, mostly likely, he did it to you
-too. <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.] [Laughter]</i> And
-he probably did it to you as well. <i>[Pointing to third member of
-audience.]</i> He probably did it to most of the people here in this
-room — except a few, maybe, who weren't born yet in 1980.
-Because he had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about the
-entire population of the Planet Earth. He had signed a non-disclosure
-agreement.</p>
-
-<p>Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure
-agreement, and it taught me an important lesson — a lesson
-that's important because most programmers never learn it. You see,
-this was my first encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was
-the victim. I, and my whole lab, were the victims. And the lesson it
-taught me was that non-disclosure agreements have victims. They're
-not innocent. They're not harmless. Most programmers first encounter
-a non-disclosure agreement when they're invited to sign one. And
-there's always some temptation — some goody they're going to get
-if they sign. So, they make up excuses. They say, “Well, he's
-never going to get a copy no matter what, so why shouldn't I join the
-conspiracy to deprive him?” They say, “This is the way
-it's always done. Who am I to go against it?” They say,
-“If I don't sign this, someone else will.” Various excuses
-to gag their consciences.</p>
-
-<p>But when somebody invited me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, my
-conscience was already sensitized. It remembered how angry I had
-been, when somebody promised not to help me and my whole lab solve our
-problem. And I couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to
-somebody else who had never done me any harm. You know, if somebody
-asked me to promise not to share some useful information with a hated
-enemy, I would have said yes. You know? If somebody's done something
-bad, he deserves it. But, strangers — they haven't done me any
-harm. How could they deserve that kind of mistreatment? You can't
-let yourself start treating just anybody and everybody badly. Then
-you become a predator on society. So I said, “Thank you very
-much for offering me this nice software package. But I can't accept
-it in good conscience, on the conditions you are demanding, so I will
-do without it. Thank you so much.” And so, I have never
-knowingly signed a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful
-technical information such as software.</p>
-
-<p>Now there are other kinds of information which raise different
-ethical issues. For instance, there's personal information. You
-know, if you wanted to talk with me about what was happening between
-you and your boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody —
-you know, I could keep — I could agree to keep that a secret for
-you, because that's not generally useful technical information. At
-least, it's probably not generally useful. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>There is a small chance — and it's a possibility though
-— that you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex
-technique, <i>[Laughter]</i> and I would then feel a moral
-duty <i>[Laughter]</i> to pass it onto the rest of humanity, so that
-everyone could get the benefit of it. So, I'd have to put a proviso
-in that promise, you know? If it's just details about who wants this,
-and who's angry at whom, and things like that — soap opera
-— that I can keep private for you, but something that humanity
-could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't withhold. You see,
-the purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information
-for humanity to help people live their lives better. If we promise to
-withhold that information — if we keep it secret — then we
-are betraying the mission of our field. And this, I decided I
-shouldn't do.</p>
-
-<p>But, meanwhile my community had collapsed, and that was collapsing,
-and that left me in a bad situation. You see, the whole Incompatible
-Timesharing System was obsolete, because the PDP-10 was obsolete, and
-so there was no way that I could continue working as an operating
-system developer the way that I had been doing it. That depended on
-being part of the community using the community software and improving
-it. That no longer was a possibility, and that gave me a moral
-dilemma. What was I going to do? Because the most obvious
-possibility meant to go against that decision I had made. The most
-obvious possibility was to adapt myself to the change in the world.
-To accept that things were different, and that I'd just have to give
-up those principles and start signing non-disclosure agreements for
-proprietary operating systems, and most likely writing proprietary
-software as well. But I realized that that way I could have fun
-coding, and I could make money — especially if I did it other
-than at MIT — but at the end, I'd have to look back at my career
-and say, “I've spent my life building walls to divide
-people,” and I would have been ashamed of my life.</p>
-
-<p>So I looked for another alternative, and there was an obvious one.
-I could leave the software field and do something else. Now I had no
-other special noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a
-waiter. <i>[Laughter]</i> Not at a fancy restaurant; they wouldn't
-hire me, <i>[Laughter]</i> but I could be a waiter somewhere. And
-many programmers, they say to me, “The people who hire
-programmers demand this, this and this. If I don't do those things,
-I'll starve.” It's literally the word they use. Well, you know,
-as a waiter, you're not going to starve. <i>[Laughter]</i> So,
-really, they're in no danger. But — and this is important, you
-see — because sometimes you can justify doing something that
-hurts other people by saying otherwise something worse is going to
-happen to me. You know, if you were <em>really</em> going to starve,
-you'd be justified in writing proprietary software. <i>[Laughter]</i>
-If somebody's pointing a gun at you, then I would say, it's
-forgivable. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, I had found a way that I could
-survive without doing something unethical, so that excuse was not
-available. So I realized, though, that being a waiter would be no fun
-for me, and it would be wasting my skills as an operating system
-developer. It would avoid misusing my skills. Developing proprietary
-software would be misusing my skills. Encouraging other people to
-live in the world of proprietary software would be misusing my skills.
-So it's better to waste them than misuse them, but it's still not
-really good.</p>
-
-<p>So for those reasons, I decided to look for some other alternative.
-What can an operating system developer do that would actually improve
-the situation, make the world a better place? And I realized that an
-operating system developer was exactly what was needed. The problem,
-the dilemma, existed for me and for everyone else because all of the
-available operating systems for modern computers were proprietary.
-The free operating systems were for old, obsolete computers, right?
-So for the modern computers — if you wanted to get a modern
-computer and use it, you were forced into a proprietary operating
-system. So if an operating system developer wrote another operating
-system, and then said, “Everybody come and share this; you're
-welcome to this” — that would give everybody a way out of
-the dilemma, another alternative. So I realized that there was
-something I could do that would solve the problem. I had just the
-right skills to be able to do it. And it was the most useful thing I
-could possibly imagine that I'd be able to do with my life. And it
-was a problem that no one else was trying to solve. It was just sort
-of sitting there, getting worse, and nobody was there but me. So I
-felt, “I'm elected. I have to work on this. If not me,
-who?” So I decided I would develop a free operating system, or
-die trying … of old age, of course. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>So, of course I had to decide what kind of operating system it
-should be. There are some technical design decisions to be made. I
-decided to make the system compatible with Unix for a number of
-reasons. First of all, I had just seen one operating system that I
-really loved become obsolete because it was written for one particular
-kind of computer. I didn't want that to happen again. We needed to
-have a portable system. Well, Unix was a portable system. So if I
-followed the design of Unix, I had a pretty good chance that I could
-make a system that would also be portable and workable. And
-furthermore, why <i>[Tape unclear]</i> be compatible with it in the
-details. The reason is, users hate incompatible changes. If I had
-just designed the system in my favorite way — which I would have
-loved doing, I'm sure — I would have produced something that was
-incompatible. You know, the details would be different. So, if I
-wrote the system, then the users would have said to me, “Well,
-this is very nice, but it's incompatible. It will be too much work to
-switch. We can't afford that much trouble just to use your system
-instead of Unix, so we'll stay with Unix,” they would have
-said.</p>
-
-<p>Now, if I wanted to actually create a community where there would
-be people in it, people using this free system, and enjoying the
-benefits of liberty and cooperation, I had to make a system people
-would use, a system that they would find easy to switch to, that would
-not have an obstacle making it fail at the very beginning. Now,
-making the system upward compatible with Unix actually made all the
-immediate design decisions, because Unix consists of many pieces, and
-they communicate through interfaces that are more or less documented.
-So if you want to be compatible with Unix, you have to replace each
-piece, one by one, with a compatible piece. So the remaining design
-decisions are inside one piece, and they could be made later by
-whoever decides to write that piece. They didn't have to be made at
-the outset.</p>
-
-<p>So all we had to do to start work was find a name for the system.
-Now, we hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program,
-because thinking of people being amused by the name is half the fun of
-writing the program. <i>[Laughter]</i> And we had a tradition of
-recursive acronyms, to say that the program that you're writing is
-similar to some existing program. You can give it a recursive acronym
-name which says: this one's not the other. So, for instance, there
-were many Tico text editors in the '60's and '70's, and they were
-generally called something-or-other Tico. Then one clever hacker
-called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico — the first recursive
-acronym. In 1975, I developed the first Emacs text editor, and there
-were many imitations of Emacs, and a lot of them were called
-something-or-other Emacs, but one was called Fine, for Fine Is Not
-Emacs, and there was Sine, for Sine Is Not Emacs, and Eine for Ina Is
-Not Emacs, and MINCE for Mince Is Not Complete
-Emacs. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was a stripped down imitation. And
-then, Eine was almost completely rewritten, and the new version was
-called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>So I looked for a recursive acronym for Something is not Unix. And
-I tried all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word.
-<i>[Laughter]</i> Hmm, try another way. I made a contraction. That
-way I could have a three-letter acronym, for Something's not Unix.
-And I tried letters, and I came across the word “GNU”
-— the word “GNU” is the funniest word in the English
-language. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was it. Of course, the reason it's
-funny is that according to the dictionary, it's pronounced
-“new”. You see? And so that's why people use it for a
-lot of wordplay. Let me tell you, this is the name of an animal that
-lives in Africa. And the African pronunciation had a click sound in
-it. <i>[Laughter]</i> Maybe still does. And so, the European
-colonists, when they got there, they didn't bother learning to say
-this click sound. So they just left it out, and they wrote a
-“G” which meant “there's another sound that's
-supposed to be here which we are not
-pronouncing.” <i>[Laughter]</i> So, tonight I'm leaving for
-South Africa, and I have begged them, I hope they're going to find
-somebody who can teach me to pronounce click sounds, <i>[Laughter]</i>
-so that I'll know how to pronounce GNU the correct way, when it's the
-animal.</p>
-
-<p>But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is
-“guh-NEW” — pronounce the hard “G”. If
-you talk about the “new” operating system, you'll get
-people very confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years
-now, so it is not new any more. <i>[Laughter]</i> But it still is,
-and always will be, GNU — no matter how many people call it
-Linux by mistake. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces
-of GNU. They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities
-though. And, at the time, I thought we would write all these pieces,
-and make an entire GNU system, and then we'd say, “Come and get
-it”, and people would start to use it. That's not what
-happened. The first pieces I wrote were just equally good
-replacements, with fewer bugs for some pieces of Unix, but they
-weren't tremendously exciting. Nobody particularly wanted to get them
-and install them. But then, in September 1984, I started writing GNU
-Emacs, which was my second implementation of Emacs, and by early 1985,
-it was working. I could use it for all my editing, which was a big
-relief, because I had no intention of learning to use VI, the Unix
-editor. <i>[Laughter]</i> So, until that time, I did my editing on
-some other machine, and saved the files through the network, so that I
-could test them. But when GNU Emacs was running well enough for me to
-use it, it was also — other people wanted to use it too.</p>
-
-<p>So I had to work out the details of distribution. Of course, I put
-a copy in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people
-who were on the net They could then just pull over a tar file, but a
-lot of programmers then even were not on the net in 1985. They were
-sending me emails saying “How can I get a copy?” I had to
-decide what I would answer them. Well, I could have said, I want to
-spend my time writing more GNU software, not writing tapes, so please
-find a friend who's on the internet and who is willing to download it
-and put it on a tape for you. And I'm sure people would have found
-some friends, sooner or later, you know. They would have got copies.
-But I had no job. In fact, I've never had a job since quitting MIT in
-January 1984. So, I was looking for some way I could make money
-through my work on free software, and therefore I started a free
-software business. I announced, “Send me $150 dollars, and I'll
-mail you a tape of Emacs.” And the orders began dribbling in.
-By the middle of the year they were trickling in.</p>
-
-<p>I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month. And, if necessary, I could
-have lived on just that, because I've always lived cheaply. I live
-like a student, basically. And I like that, because it means that
-money is not telling me what to do. I can do what I think is
-important for me to do. It freed me to do what seemed worth doing.
-So make a real effort to avoid getting sucked into all the expensive
-lifestyle habits of typical Americans. Because if you do that, then
-people with the money will dictate what you do with your life. You
-won't be able to do what's really important to you.</p>
-
-<p>So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, “What do you
-mean it's free software if it costs $150
-dollars?” <i>[Laughter]</i> Well, the reason they asked this was
-that they were confused by the multiple meanings of the English word
-“free”. One meaning refers to price, and another meaning
-refers to freedom. When I speak of free software, I'm referring to
-freedom, not price. So think of free speech, not free
-beer. <i>[Laughter]</i> Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many years
-of my life to making sure programmers got less money. That's not my
-goal. I'm a programmer and I don't mind getting money myself. I
-won't dedicate my whole life to getting it, but I don't mind getting
-it. And I'm not — and therefore, ethics is the same for
-everyone. I'm not against some other programmer getting money either.
-I don't want prices to be low. That's not the issue at all. The
-issue is freedom. Freedom for everyone who's using software, whether
-that person be a programmer or not.</p>
-
-<p>So at this point I should give you the definition of free software.
-I better get to some real details, you see, because just saying
-“I believe in freedom” is vacuous. There's so many
-different freedoms you could believe in, and they conflict with each
-other, so the real political question is: Which are the important
-freedoms, the freedoms that we must make sure everybody has?</p>
-
-<p>And now, I will give my answer to that question for the particular
-area of using software. A program is free software for you, a
-particular user, if you have the following freedoms:</p>
-
-<ul>
-<li>First, Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the program for any
-purpose, any way you like.</li>
-<li>Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
-program to suit your needs.</li>
-<li>Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
-copies of the program.</li>
-<li>And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
-publishing an improved version so others can get the benefit of your
-work.</li>
-</ul>
-
-<p>If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software,
-for you — and that's crucial. That's why I phrase it that way.
-I'll explain why later, when I talk about the GNU General Public
-License, but right now I'm explaining what free software means, which
-is a more basic question.</p>
-
-<p>So, Freedom Zero's pretty obvious. If you're not even allowed to
-run the program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive
-program. But as it happens, most programs will at least give you
-Freedom Zero. And Freedom Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of
-Freedoms One, Two, and Three — that's the way that copyright law
-works. So the freedoms that distinguish free software from typical
-software are Freedoms One, Two, and Three, so I'll say more about them
-and why they are important.</p>
-
-<p>Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
-software to suit your needs. This could mean fixing bugs. It could
-mean adding new features. It could mean porting it to a different
-computer system. It could mean translating all the error messages
-into Navajo. Any change you want to make, you should be free to
-make.</p>
-
-<p>Now, it's obvious that professional programmers can make use of
-this freedom very effectively, but not just them. Anybody of
-reasonable intelligence can learn a little programming. You know,
-there are hard jobs, and there are easy jobs, and most people are not
-going to learn enough to do hard jobs. But lots of people can learn
-enough to do easy jobs, just the way, you know, 50 years ago, lots and
-lots of American men learned to repair cars, which is what enabled the
-U.S. to have a motorized army in World War II and win. So, very
-important, having lots of people tinkering.</p>
-
-<p>And if you are a people person, and you really don't want to learn
-technology at all, that probably means that you have a lot of friends,
-and you're good at getting them to owe you favors. <i>[Laughter]</i>
-Some of them are probably programmers. So you can ask one of your
-programmer friends. “Would you please change this for me? Add
-this feature?” So, lots of people can benefit from it.</p>
-
-<p>Now, if you don't have this freedom, it causes practical, material
-harm to society. It makes you a prisoner of your software. I
-explained what that was like with regard to the laser printer. You
-know, it worked badly for us, and we couldn't fix it, because we were
-prisoners of our software.</p>
-
-<p>But it also affects people's morale. You know if the computer is
-constantly frustrating to use, and people are using it, their lives
-are going to be frustrating, and if they're using it in their jobs,
-their jobs are going to be frustrating; they're going to hate their
-jobs. And you know, people protect themselves from frustration by
-deciding not to care. So you end up with people whose attitude is,
-“Well, I showed up for work today. That's all I have to do. If
-I can't make progress, that's not my problem; that's the boss's
-problem.” And when this happens, it's bad for those people, and
-it's bad for society as a whole. That's Freedom One, the freedom to
-help yourself.</p>
-
-<p>Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
-copies of the program. Now, for beings that can think and learn,
-sharing useful knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship. When
-these beings use computers, this act of friendship takes the form of
-sharing software. Friends share with each other. Friends help each
-other. This is the nature of friendship. And, in fact, this spirit
-of goodwill — the spirit of helping your neighbor, voluntarily
-— is society's most important resource. It makes the difference
-between a livable society and a dog-eat-dog jungle. Its importance
-has been recognized by the world's major religions for thousands of
-years, and they explicitly try to encourage this attitude.</p>
-
-<p>When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach
-us this attitude — the spirit of sharing — by having us do
-it. They figured if we did it, we'd learn. So they said, “If
-you bring candy to school, you can't keep it all for yourself; you
-have to share some with the other kids.” Teaching us, the
-society was set up to teach, this spirit of cooperation. And why do
-you have to do that? Because people are not totally cooperative.
-That's one part of human nature, and there are other parts of human
-nature. There are lots of parts of human nature. So, if you want a
-better society, you've got to work to encourage the spirit of sharing.
-You know, it'll never get to be 100%. That's understandable. People
-have to take care of themselves too. But if we make it somewhat
-bigger, we're all better off.</p>
-
-<p>Nowadays, according to the U.S. Government, teachers are supposed
-to do the exact opposite. “Oh, Johnny, you brought software to
-school. Well, don't share it. Oh no. Sharing is wrong. Sharing
-means you're a pirate.”</p>
-
-<p>What do they mean when they say “pirate”? They're
-saying that helping your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking
-a ship. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>What would Buddha or Jesus say about that? Now, take your favorite
-religious leader. I don't know, maybe Manson would have said
-something different. <i>[Laughter]</i> Who knows what L. Ron Hubbard
-would say? But …</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Of course, he's dead. But they don't
-admit that. What?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: So are the others, also
-dead. <i>[Laughter] [Inaudible]</i> Charles Manson's also
-dead. <i>[Laughter]</i> They're dead, Jesus's dead, Buddha's
-dead…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, that's true. <i>[Laughter]</i> So
-I guess, in that regard, L. Ron Hubbard is no worse than the
-others. <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway — <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: L. Ron always used free software —
-it freed him from Zanu. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Anyway, so, I think this is actually the
-most important reason why software should be free: We can't afford to
-pollute society's most important resource. It's true that it's not a
-physical resource like clean air and clean water. It's a
-psycho-social resource, but it's just as real for all that, and it
-makes a tremendous difference to our lives. You see, the actions we
-take influence the thoughts of other people. When we go around
-telling people, “Don't share with each other”, if they
-listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's not a good one.
-That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor.</p>
-
-<p>Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just
-cause this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes
-waste — practical, material harm. If the program has an owner,
-and the owner arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay
-in order to be able to use it, some people are going to say,
-“Never mind, I'll do without it.” And that's waste,
-deliberately inflicted waste. And the interesting thing about
-software, of course, is that fewer users doesn't mean you have to make
-less stuff. You know, if fewer people buy cars, you can make fewer
-cars. There's a saving there. There are resources to be allocated,
-or not allocated, into making cars. So that you can say that having a
-price on a car is a good thing. It prevents people from diverting
-lots of wasted resources into making cars that aren't really needed.
-But if each additional car used no resources, it wouldn't be doing any
-good saving the making of these cars. Well, for physical objects, of
-course, like cars, it is always going to take resources to make an
-additional one of them, each additional exemplar.</p>
-
-<p>But for software that's not true. Anybody can make another copy.
-And it's almost trivial to do it. It takes no resources, except a
-tiny bit of electricity. So there's nothing we can save, no resource
-we're going to allocate better by putting this financial disincentive
-on the use of the software. You often find people taking economic,
-the consequences of economic reasoning, based on premises that don't
-apply to software, and trying to transplant them from other areas of
-life where the premises may apply, and the conclusions may be valid.
-They just take the conclusions and assume that they're valid for
-software too, when the argument is based on nothing, in the case of
-software. The premises don't work in that case. It is very important
-to examine how you reach the conclusion, and what premises it depends
-on, to see where it might be valid. So, that's Freedom Two, the
-freedom to help your neighbor.</p>
-
-<p>Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
-publishing an improved version of the software. People used to say to
-me, “If the software's free, then nobody will get paid to work
-on it, so why should anybody work on it?” Well, of course, they
-were confusing the two meanings of free, so their reasoning was based
-on a misunderstanding. But, in any case, that was their theory.
-Today, we can compare that theory with empirical fact, and we find
-that hundreds of people are being paid to write free software, and
-over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers. We get lots of people
-working on free software, for various different motives.</p>
-
-<p>When I first released GNU Emacs — the first piece of the GNU
-system that people actually wanted to use — and when it started
-having users, after a while, I got a message saying, “I think I
-saw a bug in the source code, and here's a fix.” And I got
-another message, “Here's code to add a new feature.” And
-another bug fix. And another new feature. And another, and another,
-and another, until they were pouring in on me so fast that just making
-use of all this help I was getting was a big job. Microsoft doesn't
-have this problem. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>Eventually, people noted this phenomenon. You see, in the 1980's a
-lot of us thought that maybe free software wouldn't be as good as the
-non-free software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay
-people. And, of course, people like me, who value freedom and
-community said, “Well, we'll use the free software
-anyway.” It's worth making a little sacrifice in some mere
-technical convenience to have freedom. But what people began to note,
-around 1990 was that our software was actually better. It was more
-powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary alternatives.</p>
-
-<p>In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific
-measurement of reliability of software. Here's what he did. He took
-several sets of comparable programs that did the same jobs — the
-exact same jobs — in different systems. Because there were
-certain basic Unix-like utilities. And the jobs that they did, we
-know, was all, more or less, imitating the same thing, or they were
-following the POSIX spec, so they were all the same in terms of what
-jobs they did, but they were maintained by different people, written
-separately. The code was different. So they said, OK, we'll take
-these programs and run them with random data, and measure how often
-they crash, or hang. So they measured it, and the most reliable set
-of programs was the GNU programs. All the commercial alternatives
-which were proprietary software were less reliable. So he published
-this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he did the
-same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same result.
-The GNU versions were the most reliable. People — you know
-there are cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system,
-because it's so reliable, and reliability is very important to
-them.</p>
-
-<p>Anyway, there's even a group of people who focus on this particular
-benefit as the reason they give, the main reason they give, why users
-should be permitted to do these various things, and to have these
-freedoms. If you've been listening to me, you've noticed, you've seen
-that I, speaking for the free software movement, I talk about issues
-of ethics, and what kind of a society we want to live in, what makes
-for a good society, as well as practical, material benefits. They're
-both important. That's the free software movement.</p>
-
-<p>That other group of people — which is called the open source
-movement — they only cite the practical benefits. They deny
-that this is an issue of principle. They deny that people are
-entitled to the freedom to share with their neighbor and to see what
-the program's doing and change it if they don't like it. They say,
-however, that it's a useful thing to let people do that. So they go
-to companies and say to them, “You know, you might make more
-money if you let people do this.” So, what you can see is that
-to some extent, they lead people in a similar direction, but for
-totally different, for fundamentally different, philosophical
-reasons.</p>
-
-<p>Because on the deepest issue of all, you know, on the ethical
-question, the two movements disagree. You know, in the free software
-movement we say, “You're entitled to these freedoms. People
-shouldn't stop you from doing these things.” In the open source
-movement, they say, “Yes, they can stop you if you want, but
-we'll try to convince them to deign to let you to do these
-things.” Well, they have contributed — they have convinced
-a certain number of businesses to release substantial pieces of
-software as free software in our community. So they, the open source
-movement, has contributed substantially to our community. And so we
-work together on practical projects. But, philosophically, there's a
-tremendous disagreement.</p>
-
-<p>Unfortunately, the open source movement is the one that gets the
-support of business the most, and so most articles about our work
-describe it as open source, and a lot of people just innocently think
-that we're all part of the open source movement. So that's why I'm
-mentioning this distinction. I want you to be aware that the free
-software movement, which brought our community into existence and
-developed the free operating system, is still here — and that we
-still stand for this ethical philosophy. I want you to know about
-this, so that you won't mislead someone else unknowingly.</p>
-
-<p>But also, so that you can think about where you stand.</p>
-
-<p>You know, which movement you support is up to you. You might agree
-with the free software movements and my views. You might agree with
-the open source movement. You might disagree with them both. You
-decide where you stand on these political issues.</p>
-
-<p>But if you agree with the free software movement — if you see
-that there's an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled
-and directed by this decision deserve a say in it — then I hope
-you'll say that you agree with the free software movement, and one way
-you can do that is by using the term free software and just helping
-people know we exist.</p>
-
-<p>So, Freedom Three is very important both practically and
-psycho-socially. If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical
-material harm, because this community development doesn't happen, and
-we don't make powerful, reliable software. But it also causes
-psycho-social harm, which affects the spirit of scientific cooperation
-— the idea that we're working together to advance human
-knowledge. You see, progress in science crucially depends on people
-being able to work together. And nowadays though, you often find each
-little group of scientists acting like it's a war with each other gang
-of scientists and engineers. And if they don't share with each other,
-they're all held back.</p>
-
-<p>So, those are the three freedoms that distinguish free software
-from typical software. Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself,
-making changes to suit your own needs. Freedom Two is the freedom to
-help your neighbor by distributing copies. And Freedom Three is the
-freedom to help build your community by making changes and publishing
-them for other people to use. If you have all of these freedoms, the
-program is free software for you. Now, why do I define it that way in
-terms of a particular user? Is it free software for
-you? <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> Is it free software for
-you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Is it free
-software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i>
-Yes?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you explain a bit about the
-difference between Freedom Two and Three? <i>[inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, they certainly relate, because if
-you don't have freedom to redistribute at all, you certainly don't
-have freedom to distribute a modified version, but they're different
-activities.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Oh.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Freedom Two is, you know, read it, you
-make an exact copy, and hand it to your friends, so now your friend
-can use it. Or maybe you make exact copies and you sell them to a
-bunch of people, and then they can use it.</p>
-
-<p>Freedom Three is where you make improvements — or at least
-you think they're improvements, and some other people may agree with
-you. So that's the difference. Oh, and by the way, one crucial
-point. Freedoms One and Three depend on your having access to the
-source code. Because changing a binary-only program is extremely
-hard. <i>[Laughter]</i> Even trivial changes like using four digits
-for the date, <i>[Laughter]</i> if you don't have source. So, for
-compelling, practical reasons, access to the source code is a
-precondition, a requirement, for free software.</p>
-
-<p>So, why do I define it in terms of whether it's free software for
-<em>you</em>? The reason is that sometimes the same program can be
-free software for some people, and non-free for others. Now, that
-might seem like a paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example
-to show you how it happens. A very big example — maybe the
-biggest ever — of this problem was the X Window System which was
-developed at MIT and released under a license that made it free
-software. If you got the MIT version with the MIT license, you had
-Freedoms One, Two, and Three. It was free software for you. But
-among those who got copies were various computer manufacturers that
-distributed Unix systems, and they made the necessary changes in X to
-run on their systems. You know, probably just a few thousand lines
-out of the hundreds of thousands of lines of X. And, then they
-compiled it, and they put the binaries into their Unix system and
-distributed it under the same non-disclosure agreement as the rest of
-the Unix system. And then, millions of people got these copies. They
-had the X Window System, but they had none of these freedoms. It was
-not free software for <em>them</em>.</p>
-
-<p>So, the paradox was that whether X was free software depended on
-where you made the measurement. If you made the measurement coming
-out of the developers' group, you'd say, “I observe all these
-freedoms. It's free software.” If you made the measurements
-among the users you'd say, “Hmm, most users don't have these
-freedoms. It's not free software.” Well, the people who
-developed X didn't consider this a problem, because their goal was
-just popularity, ego, essentially. They wanted a big professional
-success. They wanted to feel, “Ah, lots of people are using our
-software.” And that was true. Lots of people were using their
-software but didn't have freedom.</p>
-
-<p>Well, in the GNU project, if that same thing had happened to GNU
-software, it would have been a failure, because our goal wasn't just
-to be popular; our goal was to give people liberty, and to encourage
-cooperation, to permit people to cooperate. Remember, never force
-anyone to cooperate with any other person, but make sure that
-everybody's allowed to cooperate, everyone has the freedom to do so,
-if he or she wishes. If millions of people were running non-free
-versions of GNU, that wouldn't be success at all. The whole thing
-would have been perverted into nothing like the goal.</p>
-
-<p>So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening. The method I
-came up with is called “copyleft”. It's called copyleft
-because it's sort of like taking copyright and flipping it
-over. <i>[Laughter]</i> Legally, copyleft works based on copyright.
-We use the existing copyright law, but we use it to achieve a very
-different goal. Here's what we do. We say, “This program is
-copyrighted.” And, of course, by default, that means it's
-prohibited to copy it, or distribute it, or modify it. But then we
-say, “You're authorized to distribute copies of this. You're
-authorized to modify it. You're authorized to distribute modified
-versions and extended versions. Change it any way you
-like.”</p>
-
-<p>But there is a condition. And the condition, of course, is the
-reason why we go to all this trouble, so that we could put the
-condition in. The condition says: Whenever you distribute anything
-that contains any piece of this program, that whole program must be
-distributed under these same terms, no more and no less. So you can
-change the program and distribute a modified version, but when you do,
-the people who get that from you must get the same freedom that you
-got from us. And not just for the parts of it — the excerpts
-that you copied from our program — but also for the other parts
-of that program that they got from you. The whole of that program has
-to be free software for them.</p>
-
-<p>The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become
-inalienable rights — a concept from the Declaration of
-Independence. Rights that we make sure can't be taken away from you.
-And, of course, the specific license that embodies the idea of
-copyleft is the GNU General Public License, a controversial license
-because it actually has the strength to say no to people who would be
-parasites on our community.</p>
-
-<p>There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of
-freedom. And they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done,
-and use it to get a head start in distributing a non-free program and
-tempting people to give up their freedom. And the result would be
-— you know, if we let people do that — that we would be
-developing these free programs, and we'd constantly have to compete
-with improved versions of our own programs. That's no fun.</p>
-
-<p>And, a lot of people also feel — you know, I'm willing to
-volunteer my time to contribute to the community, but why should I
-volunteer my time to contribute to that company's, to improving that
-company's, proprietary program? You know, some people might not even
-think that that's evil, but they want to get paid if they're going to
-do that. I, personally, would rather not do it at all.</p>
-
-<p>But both of these groups of people — both the ones like me
-who say, “I don't want to help that non-free program to get a
-foothold in our community” and the ones that say, “Sure,
-I'd work for them, but then they better pay me” — both of
-us have a good reason to use the GNU General Public License. Because
-that says to that company, “You can't just take my work, and
-distribute it without the freedom.” Whereas, the non-copyleft
-licenses, like the X Windows license, do permit that.</p>
-
-<p>So that is the big division between the two categories of free
-software — license-wise. There are the programs that are
-copylefted so that the license defends the freedom of the software for
-every user. And there are the non-copylefted programs for which
-non-free versions are allowed. Somebody <em>can</em> take those
-programs and strip off the freedom. You may get that program in a
-non-free version.</p>
-
-<p>And that problem exists today. There are still non-free versions
-of X Windows being used on our free operating systems. There is even
-hardware — which is not really supported — except by a
-non-free version of X Windows. And that's a major problem in our
-community. Nonetheless, I wouldn't say that X Windows is a bad thing,
-you know. I'd say that the developers did not do the best possible
-thing that they could have done. But they <em>did</em> release a lot
-of software that we could all use.</p>
-
-<p>You know, there's a big difference between less than perfect, and
-evil. There are many gradations of good and bad. We have to resist
-the temptation to say, if you didn't do the absolute best possible
-thing, then you're no good. You know, the people that developed X
-Windows made a big contribution to our community. But there's
-something better that they could have done. They could have
-copylefted parts of the program and prevented those freedom-denying
-versions from being distributed by others.</p>
-
-<p>Now, the fact that the GNU General Public License defends your
-freedom, uses copyright law to defend your freedom, is, of course, why
-Microsoft is attacking it today. See, Microsoft would really like to
-be able to take all the code that we wrote and put it into proprietary
-programs, have somebody make some improvements, or even just
-incompatible changes is all they need. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>You know, with Microsoft's marketing clout, they don't need to make
-it better to have their version supplant ours. They just have to make
-it different and incompatible. And then, put it on everybody's
-desktop. So they really don't like the GNU GPL. Because the GNU GPL
-won't let them do that. It doesn't allow “embrace and
-extend”. It says, if you want to share our code in your
-programs, you can. But, you've got to share and share alike. The
-changes that you make we have to be allowed to share. So, it's a
-two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation.</p>
-
-<p>Many companies — even big companies like IBM and HP are
-willing to use our software on this basis. IBM and HP contribute
-substantial improvements to GNU software. And they develop other free
-software. But, Microsoft doesn't want to do that, so they give it out
-that businesses just can't deal with the GPL. Well, if businesses
-don't include IBM, and HP and SUN, then maybe they're
-right. <i>[Laughter]</i> More about that later.</p>
-
-<p>I should finish the historical story. You see, we set out in 1984
-not just to write some free software but to do something much more
-coherent: to develop an operating system that was entirely free
-software. So that meant we had to write piece after piece after
-piece. Of course, we were always looking for shortcuts. The job was
-so big that people said we'd never be able to finish. And, I thought
-that there was at least a chance that we'd finish it but, obviously,
-it's worth looking for shortcuts. So we kept looking around. Is there
-any program that somebody else has written that we could manage to
-adapt, to plug into here, and that way we won't have to write it from
-scratch? For instance, the X Window system. It's true it wasn't
-copylefted, but it was free software, so we could use it.</p>
-
-<p>Now, I had wanted to put a window system into GNU from day one. I
-wrote a couple of window systems at MIT before I started GNU. And so,
-even though Unix had no window system in 1984, I decided that GNU
-would have one. But, we never ended up writing a GNU window system,
-because X came along. And I said, Goody! One big job we don't have
-to do. We'll use X. So I basically said, let's take X, and put it
-into the GNU system. And we'll make the other parts of GNU, you know,
-work with X, when appropriate. And we found other pieces of software
-that had been written by other people, like the text formatter TeX,
-some library code from Berkeley. At that time there was Berkeley
-Unix, but it was not free software. This library code, initially, was
-from a different group at Berkeley, that did research on floating
-point. And, so, we kept, we fit in these pieces.</p>
-
-<p>In October 1985, we founded the Free Software Foundation. So
-please note, the GNU project came first. The Free Software Foundation
-came after, about almost two years after the announcement of the
-Project. And the Free Software Foundation is a tax-exempt charity
-that raises funds to promote the freedom to share and change software.
-And in the 1980's, one of the main things we did with our funds was to
-hire people to write parts of GNU. And essential programs, such as
-the shell and the C library were written this way, as well as parts of
-other programs. The <code>tar</code> program, which is absolutely
-essential, although not exciting at all <i>[Laughter]</i> was written
-this way. I believe GNU grep was written this way. And so, we're
-approaching our goal.</p>
-
-<p>By 1991, there was just one major piece missing, and that was the
-kernel. Now, why did I put off the kernel? Probably because it
-doesn't really matter what order you do the things in, at least
-technically it doesn't. You've got to do them all anyway. And partly
-because I'd hoped we'd be able to find a start at a kernel somewhere
-else. And we did. We found Mach, which had been developed at
-Carnegie Mellon. And it wasn't the whole kernel; it was the bottom
-half of the kernel. So we had to write the top half, but I figured,
-you know, things like the file system, the network code, and so on.
-But running on top of Mach they're running essentially as user
-programs, which ought to make them easier to debug. You can debug
-with a real source-level debugger running at the same time. And so, I
-thought that way we'd be able to get these, the higher level parts of
-the kernel, done in a short time. It didn't work out that way. These
-asynchronous, multi-threaded processes, sending messages to each other
-turned out to be very hard to debug. And the Mach-based system that
-we were using to bootstrap with had a terrible debugging environment,
-and it was unreliable, and various problems. It took us years and
-years to get the GNU kernel to work.</p>
-
-<p>But, fortunately, our community did not have to wait for the GNU
-kernel. Because in 1991, Linus Torvalds developed another free kernel
-called Linux. And he used the old-fashioned monolithic design and it
-turns out that he got his working much faster than we got ours
-working. So maybe that's one of the mistakes that I made: that design
-decision. Anyway, at first, we didn't know about Linux, because he
-never contacted us to talk about it. Although he did know about the
-GNU Project. But he announced it to other people and other places on
-the net. And so other people then did the work of combining Linux
-with the rest of the GNU system to make a complete free operating
-system. Essentially, to make the GNU plus Linux combination.</p>
-
-<p>But, they didn't realize that's what they were doing. You see,
-they said, We have a kernel — let's look around and see what
-other pieces we can find to put together with the kernel. So, they
-looked around — and lo and behold, everything they needed was
-already available. What good fortune, they said. <i>[Laughter]</i>
-It's all here. We can find everything we need. Let's just take all
-these different things and put it together, and have a system.</p>
-
-<p>They didn't know that most of what they found was pieces of the GNU
-system. So they didn't realize that they were fitting Linux into the
-gap in the GNU system. They thought they were taking Linux and making
-a system out of Linux. So they called it a Linux system.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can't hear you — what?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, it's just not — you know,
-it's provincial.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: But it's more good fortune then finding
-X and Mach?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. The difference is that the
-people who developed X and Mach didn't have the goal of making a
-complete free operating system. We're the only ones who had that.
-And, it was our tremendous work that made the system exist. We
-actually did a larger part of the system than any other project. No
-coincidence, because those people — they wrote useful parts of
-the system. But they didn't do it because they wanted the system to
-be finished. They had other reasons.</p>
-
-<p>Now the people who developed X — they thought that designing
-across the network window system would be a good project, and it was.
-And it turned out to help us make a good free operating system. But
-that's not what they hoped for. They didn't even think about that.
-It was an accident. An accidental benefit. Now, I'm not saying that
-what they did was bad. They did a large free software project.
-That's a good thing to do. But they didn't have that ultimate vision.
-The GNU Project is where that vision was.</p>
-
-<p>And, so, we were the ones whose — every little piece that
-didn't get done by somebody else, we did it. Because we knew that we
-wouldn't have a complete system without it. And even if it was
-totally boring and unromantic, like <code>tar</code>
-or <code>mv</code>. <i>[Laughter]</i> We did it. Or ld, you know
-there's nothing very exciting in <code>ld</code> — but I wrote
-one. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I did make efforts to have it do a minimal
-amount of disk I/O so that it would be faster and handle bigger
-programs. But, you know, I like to do a good job. I like to improve
-various things about the program while I'm doing it. But the reason
-that I did it wasn't that I had brilliant ideas for a
-better <code>ld</code>. The reason I did it is that we needed one
-that was free. And we couldn't expect anyone else to do it. So, we
-had to do it, or find someone to do it.</p>
-
-<p>So, although at this point thousands of people in projects have
-contributed to this system, there is one project which is the reason
-that this system exists, and that's the GNU Project. It <em>is</em>
-basically the GNU System, with other things added since then.</p>
-
-<p>So, however, the practice of calling the system Linux has been a
-great blow to the GNU Project, because we don't normally get credit
-for what we've done. I think Linux, the kernel, is a very useful
-piece of free software, and I have only good things to say about it.
-But, well, actually, I can find a few bad things to say about
-it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, basically, I have good things to say about
-it. However, the practice of calling the GNU system, Linux, is just a
-mistake. I'd like to ask you please to make the small effort
-necessary to call the system GNU/Linux, and that way to help us get a
-share of the credit.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You need a mascot! Get yourself a
-stuffed animal! <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have one.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You do?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have an animal — a
-gnu. <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway. So, yes, when you draw a penguin,
-draw a gnu next to it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, let's save the
-questions for the end. I have more to go through.</p>
-
-<p>So, why am I so concerned about this? You know, why do I think it
-is worth bothering you and perhaps giving you a, perhaps lowering your
-opinion of me, <i>[Laughter]</i> to raise this issue of credit?
-Because, you know, some people when I do this, some people think that
-it's because I want my ego to be fed, right? Of course, I'm not
-saying — I'm not asking you to call it “Stallmanix,”
-right? <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p>
-
-<p>I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to
-get credit. And there's a very specific reason for that, which is a
-lot more important than anybody getting credit, in and of itself. You
-see, these days, if you look around in our community most of the
-people talking about it and writing about it don't ever mention GNU,
-and they don't ever mention these goals of freedom — these
-political and social ideals, either. Because the place they come from
-is GNU.</p>
-
-<p>The ideas associated with Linux — the philosophy is very
-different. It is basically the apolitical philosophy of Linus
-Torvalds. So, when people think that the whole system is Linux, they
-tend to think: “Oh, it must have been all started by Linux
-Torvalds. His philosophy must be the one that we should look at
-carefully”. And when they hear about the GNU philosophy, they
-say: “Boy, this is so idealistic, this must be awfully
-impractical. I'm a Linux-user, not a
-GNU-user.” <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>What irony! If they only knew! If they knew that the system they
-liked — or, in some cases, love and go wild over — is our
-idealistic, political philosophy made real.</p>
-
-<p>They still wouldn't have to agree with us. But at least they'd see
-a reason to take it seriously, to think about it carefully, to give it
-a chance. They would see how it relates to their lives. You know, if
-they realized, “I'm using the GNU system. Here's the GNU
-philosophy. This philosophy is <em>why</em> this system that I like
-very much exists,” they'd at least consider it with a much more
-open mind. It doesn't mean that everybody will agree. People think
-different things. That's OK. You know, people should make up their
-own minds. But I want this philosophy to get the benefit of the
-credit for the results it has achieved.</p>
-
-<p>If you look around in our community, you'll find that almost
-everywhere, the institutions are calling the system Linux. You know,
-reporters mostly call it Linux. It's not right, but they do. The
-companies mostly say it that package the system. Oh, and most of
-these reporters, when they write articles, they usually don't look at
-it as a political issue, or social issue. They're usually looking at
-it purely as a business question or what companies are going to
-succeed more or less, which is really a fairly minor question for
-society. And, if you look at the companies that package the GNU/Linux
-system for people to use, well, most of them call it Linux. And they
-<em>all</em> add non-free software to it.</p>
-
-<p>See, the GNU GPL says that if you take code, and some code out of a
-GPL-covered program, and add some more code to make a bigger program,
-that whole program has to be released under the GPL. But you could
-put other separate programs on the same disk (of either kind, hard
-disk, or CD), and they can have other licenses. That's considered
-mere aggregation, and, essentially, just distributing two programs to
-somebody at the same time is not something we have any say over. So,
-in fact, it is not true — sometimes, I wish it were true —
-that if a company uses a GPL-covered program in a product that the
-whole product has to be free software. It's not — it doesn't go
-to that range — that scope. It's the whole program. If there
-are two separate programs that communicate with each other at arm's
-length — like by sending messages to each other — then,
-they're legally separate, in general. So, these companies, by adding
-non-free software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically
-and politically, a very bad idea. They're telling the users,
-“It is OK to use non-free software. We're even putting it on
-this as a bonus.”</p>
-
-<p>If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system,
-most of them have a title like “Linux-something or other”.
-So they're calling the system Linux most of the time. And they're
-filled with ads for non-free software that you could run on top of the
-GNU/Linux system. Now those ads have a common message. They say:
-Non-free Software Is Good For You. It's So Good That You Might Even
-<em>Pay</em> To Get It. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>And they call these things “value-added packages”,
-which makes a statement about their values. They're saying: Value
-practical convenience, not freedom. And, I don't agree with those
-values, so I call them “freedom-subtracted
-packages”. <i>[Laughter]</i> Because if you have installed a
-free operating system, then you now are living in the free world. You
-enjoy the benefits of liberty that we worked for so many years to give
-you. Those packages give you an opportunity to buckle on a chain.</p>
-
-<p>And then if you look at the trade shows — about the use of
-the, dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call
-themselves “Linux” shows. And they're filled with booths
-exhibiting non-free software, essentially putting the seal of approval
-on the non-free software. So, almost everywhere you look in our
-community, the institutions are endorsing the non-free software,
-totalling negating the idea of freedom that GNU was developed for.
-And the only place that people are likely to come across the idea of
-freedom is in connection with GNU, and in connection with free
-software, the term, free software. So this is why I ask you: please
-call the system GNU/Linux. Please make people aware where the system
-came from and why.</p>
-
-<p>Of course, just by using that name, you won't be making an
-explanation of the history. You can type four extra characters and
-write GNU/Linux; you can say two extra syllables. But, GNU/Linux is
-fewer syllables than Windows 2000. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, you're not
-telling them a lot, but you're preparing them, so that when they hear
-about GNU, and what it's all about, they'll see how that connects to
-them and their lives. And that, indirectly, makes a tremendous
-difference. So please help us.</p>
-
-<p>You'll note that Microsoft called the GPL an “open source
-license”. They don't want people to be thinking in terms of
-freedom as the issue. You'll find that they invite people to think in
-a narrow way, as consumers, and, of course, not even think very
-rationally as consumers, if they're going to choose Microsoft
-products. But they don't want people to think as citizens or
-statesmen. That's inimical to them. At least it's inimical to their
-current business model.</p>
-
-<p>Now, how does free software…well, I can tell you about how
-free software relates to our society. A secondary topic that might be
-of interest to some of you is how free software relates to business.
-Now, in fact, free software is <em>tremendously</em> useful for
-business. After all, most businesses in the advanced countries use
-software. Only a tiny fraction of them develop software.</p>
-
-<p>And free software is tremendously advantageous for any company that
-uses software, because it means that you're in control. Basically,
-free software means the users are in control of what the program does.
-Either individually, if they care enough to be, or, collectively, when
-they care enough to be. Whoever cares enough can exert some
-influence. If you don't care, you don't buy. Then you use what other
-people prefer. But, if you do care, then you have some say. With
-proprietary software, you have essentially no say.</p>
-
-<p>With free software, you can change what you want to change. And it
-doesn't matter that there are no programmers in your company; that's
-fine. You know, if you wanted to move the walls in your building, you
-don't have to be a carpentry company. You just have to be able to go
-find a carpenter and say, “What will you charge to do this
-job?” And if you want to change around the software you use, you
-don't have to be a programming company. You just have to go to a
-programming company and say, “What will you charge to implement
-these features? And when will you have it done?” And if they
-don't do the job, you can go find somebody else.</p>
-
-<p>There's a free market for support. So, any business that cares
-about support will find a tremendous advantage in free software. With
-proprietary software, support is a monopoly, because one company has
-the source code, or maybe a small number of companies that paid a
-gigantic amount of money have the source code, if it's Microsoft's
-shared source program, but, it's very few. And so, there aren't very
-many possible sources of support for you. And that means, that unless
-you're a real giant, they don't care about you. Your company is not
-important enough for them to care if they lose your business, or what
-happens. Once you're using the program, they figure you're locked in
-to getting the support from them, because to switch to a different
-program is a gigantic job. So, you end up with things like paying for
-the privilege of reporting a bug. <i>[Laughter]</i> And once you've
-paid, they tell you, “Well, OK, we've noted your bug report.
-And in a few months, you can buy an upgrade, and you can see if we've
-fixed it.” <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>Support providers for free software can't get away with that. They
-have to please the customers. Of course, you can get a lot of good
-support gratis. You post your problem on the Internet. You may get
-an answer the next day. But that's not guaranteed, of course. If you
-want to be confident, you better make an arrangement with a company
-and pay them. And this is, of course, one of the ways that free
-software business works.</p>
-
-<p>Another advantage of free software for businesses that use software
-is security and privacy. And this applies to individuals as well, but
-I brought it up in the context of businesses. You see, when a program
-is proprietary, you can't even tell what it really does.</p>
-
-<p>It could have features, deliberately put in that you wouldn't like
-if you knew about them, like it might have a backdoor to let the
-developer get into your machine. It might snoop on what you do and
-send information back. This is not unusual. Some Microsoft software
-did this. But it's not only Microsoft. There are other proprietary
-programs that snoop on the user. And you can't even tell if it does
-this. And, of course, even assuming that the developer's totally
-honest, every programmer makes mistakes. There could be bugs that
-affect your security which are nobody's fault. But the point is: If
-it's not free software, you can't find them. And you can't fix
-them.</p>
-
-<p>Nobody has the time to check the source of every program he runs.
-You're not going to do that. But with free software there's a large
-community, and there are people in that community who are checking
-things. And you get the benefit of their checking, because if there's
-an accidental bug, there surely are, from time to time, in any
-program, they might find it and fix it. And people are much less
-likely to put in a deliberate Trojan horse, or a snooping feature, if
-they think they might get caught. The proprietary software developers
-figure they won't get caught. They'll get away with it undetected.
-But a free software developer has to figure that people will look at
-that and see it's there. So, in our community, we don't feel we can
-get away with ramming a feature down the users' throats that the users
-wouldn't like. So we know that if the users don't like it, they'll
-make a modified version which doesn't have it. And then, they'll all
-start using that version.</p>
-
-<p>In fact, we can all reason enough, we can all figure this out
-enough steps ahead, that we probably won't put in that feature. After
-all, you're writing a free program; you want people to like your
-version; you don't want to put in a thing that you know a lot of
-people are going to hate, and have another modified version catch on
-instead of yours. So you just realize that the user is king in the
-world of free software. In the world of proprietary software, the
-customer is <em>not</em> king. Because you are only a customer. You
-have no say in the software you use.</p>
-
-<p>In this respect, free software is a new mechanism for democracy to
-operate. Professor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions
-as a kind of law. Whoever gets to write the code that just about
-everybody uses for all intents and purposes is writing the laws that
-run people's lives. With free software, these laws get written in a
-democratic way. Not the classical form of democracy — we don't
-have a big election and say, “Everybody vote which way should
-this feature be done.” <i>[Laughter]</i> Instead we say,
-basically, those of you who want to work on implementing the feature
-this way, do it. And if you want to work on implementing the feature
-that way, do it. And, it gets done one way or the other, you know?
-And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done this way.
-So, in this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by
-simply taking steps in the direction that he wants to go.</p>
-
-<p>And you're free to take as many steps, personally, as you want to
-take. A business is free to commission as many steps as they find
-useful to take. And, after you add all these things up, that says
-which direction the software goes.</p>
-
-<p>And it's often very useful to be able to take pieces out of some
-existing program, presumably usually large pieces, of course, and then
-write a certain amount of code of your own, and make a program that
-does exactly what you need, which would have cost you an arm and a leg
-to develop, if you had to write it all from scratch, if you couldn't
-cannibalize large pieces from some existing free software package.</p>
-
-<p>Another thing that results from the fact that the user is king is
-that we tend to be very good about compatibility and standardization.
-Why? Because users like that. Users are likely to reject a program
-that has gratuitous incompatibilities in it. Now, sometimes there's a
-certain group of users which actually have a need for a certain kind
-of incompatibility, and then they'll have it. That's OK. But when
-users want is to follow a standard, we developers have to follow it,
-and we know that. And we do it. By contrast, if you look at
-proprietary software developers, they often find it advantageous to
-deliberately <em>not</em> follow a standard, and not because they
-think that they're giving the user an advantage that way, but rather
-because they're imposing on the user, locking the user in. And you'll
-even find them making changes in their file formats from time to time,
-just to force people to get the newest version.</p>
-
-<p>Archivists are finding a problem now, that files written on
-computers ten years ago often can't be accessed; they were written
-with proprietary software that's essentially lost now. If it were
-written with free software, then it could be brought up-to-date and
-run. And those things would not, those records would not be lost,
-would not be inaccessible. They were even complaining about this on
-NPR recently in citing free software as a solution. And so, in
-effect, by using a non-free program to store your own data, you are
-putting your head in a noose.</p>
-
-<p>So, I've talked about how free software affects most business. But
-how does it affect that particular narrow area which is software
-business? Well, the answer is mostly not at all. And the reason is
-that 90% of the software industry, from what I'm told, is development
-of custom software, software that's not meant to be released at all.
-For custom software, this issue, or the ethical issue of free or
-proprietary, doesn't arise. You see, the issue is, are you users free
-to change, and redistribute, the software? If there's only one user,
-and that user owns the rights, there's no problem. That
-user <em>is</em> free to do all these things. So, in effect, any
-<em>custom</em> program that was developed by one company for use
-in-house is free software, as long as they have the sense to insist on
-getting the source code and all the rights.</p>
-
-<p>And the issue doesn't really arise for software that goes in a
-watch or a microwave oven or an automobile ignition system. Because
-those are places where you don't download software to install. It's
-not a real computer, as far as the user is concerned. And so, it
-doesn't raise these issues enough for them to be ethically important.
-So, for the most part, the software industry will go along, just as
-it's been going. And the interesting thing is that since such a large
-fraction of the jobs are in that part of the industry, even if there
-were no possibilities for free software business, the developers of
-free software could all get day jobs writing custom
-software. <i>[Laughter]</i> There's so many; the ratio is so big.</p>
-
-<p>But, as it happens, there is free software business. There are
-free software companies, and at the press conference that I'm going to
-have, people from a couple of them will join us. And, of course,
-there are also companies which are <em>not</em> free software
-businesses but do develop useful pieces of free software to release,
-and the free software that they produce is substantial.</p>
-
-<p>Now, how do free software businesses work? Well, some of them sell
-copies. You know, you're free to copy it but they can still sell
-thousands of copies a month. And others sell support and various
-kinds of services. I, personally, for the second half of the '80's, I
-sold free software support services. Basically I said, for $200 an
-hour, I'll change whatever you want me to change in GNU software that
-I'd written. And, yes, it was a stiff rate, but if it was a program
-that I was the author of, people would figure that I might get the job
-done in a lot fewer hours. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I made a living that
-way. In fact, I'd made more than I'd ever made before. I also taught
-classes. And I kept doing that until 1990, when I got a big prize and
-I didn't have to do it any more.</p>
-
-<p>But, 1990 was when the first corporation free software business was
-formed, which was Cygnus Support. And their business was to do,
-essentially, the same kind of thing that I'd been doing. I certainly
-could have worked for them, if I had needed to do that. Since I
-didn't need to, I felt it was good for the movement if I remained
-independent of any one company. That way, I could say good and bad
-things about the various free software and non-free software
-companies, without a conflict of interest. I felt that I could serve
-the movement more. But, if I had needed that to make a living, sure,
-I would have worked for them. It's an ethical business to be in. No
-reason I would have felt ashamed to take a job with them. And that
-company was profitable in its first year. It was formed with very
-little capital, just the money its three founders had. And it kept
-growing every year and being profitable every year until they got
-greedy, and looked for outside investors, and then they messed things
-up. But it was several years of success, before they got greedy.</p>
-
-<p>So, this illustrates one of the exciting things about free
-software. Free software demonstrates that you don't need to raise
-capital to develop free software. I mean, it's useful;
-it <em>can</em> help. You know, if you do raise some capital, you can
-hire people and have them write a bunch of software. But you can get
-a lot done with a small number of people. And, in fact, the
-tremendous efficiency of the process of developing free software is
-one of the reasons it's important for the world to switch to free
-software. And it also belies what Microsoft says when they say the
-GNU GPL is bad, because it makes it harder for them to raise capital
-to develop non-free software and take our free software and put our
-code into their programs that they won't share with us. Basically, we
-don't need to have them raising capital that way. We'll get the job
-done anyway. We are getting the job done.</p>
-
-<p>People used to say we could never do a complete free operating
-system. Now we've done that and a tremendous amount more. And I
-would say that we're about an order of magnitude away from developing
-all the general purpose published software needs of the world. And
-this is in a world where more than 90% of the users don't use our free
-software yet. This is in a world where, although in certain areas of
-business, you know, more than half of all the web servers in the world
-are running on GNU/Linux with Apache as the web server.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i> … What did you
-say before, Linux?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I said GNU/Linux.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You did?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, if I'm talking about the kernel, I
-call it Linux. You know, that's it's name. The kernel was written by
-Linus Torvalds, and we should only call it by the name that he chose,
-out of respect for the author.</p>
-
-<p>Anyway, but in general, in business most users are not using it.
-Most home users are not using our system yet. So, when they are, we
-should automatically get 10 times as many volunteers and 10 times as
-many customers for the free software businesses that there will be.
-And so that will take us that order of magnitude. So at this point, I
-am pretty confident that we <em>can</em> do the job.</p>
-
-<p>And, this is important, because Microsoft asks us to feel
-desperate. They say, The only way you can have software to run, the
-only way you can have innovation, is if you give us power. Let us
-dominate you. Let us control what you can do with the software you're
-running, so that we can squeeze a lot of money out of you, and use a
-certain fraction of that to develop software, and take the rest as
-profit.</p>
-
-<p>Well, you shouldn't ever feel that desperate. You shouldn't ever
-feel so desperate that you give up your freedom. That's very
-dangerous.</p>
-
-<p>Another thing that Microsoft, well, not just Microsoft, people who
-don't support free software generally adopt a value system in which
-the only thing that matters is short-term practical benefits: How much
-money am I going to make this year? What job can I get done today?
-Short-term thinking and narrow thinking. Their assumption is that it
-is ridiculous to imagine that anybody ever might make a sacrifice for
-the sake of freedom.</p>
-
-<p>Yesterday, a lot of people were making speeches about Americans who
-made sacrifices for the freedom of their compatriots. Some of them
-made great sacrifices. They even sacrificed their lives for the kinds
-of freedom that everyone in our country has heard about, at least.
-(At least, in some of the cases; I guess we have to ignore the war in
-Vietnam.)</p>
-
-<p><i>[Editor's note: The day before was “Memorial Day” in
-the USA. Memorial Day is a day where war heros are
-commemorated.]</i></p>
-
-<p>But, fortunately, to maintain our freedom in using software,
-doesn't call for big sacrifices. Just tiny, little sacrifices are
-enough, like learning a command-line interface, if we don't have a GUI
-interface program yet. Like doing the job in this way, because we
-don't have a free software package to do it that way, yet. Like,
-paying some money to a company that's going to develop a certain free
-software package, so that you can have it in a few years. Various
-little sacrifices that we can all make. And, in the long run, even we
-will have benefited from it. You know, it is really an investment
-more than a sacrifice. We just have to have enough long-term view to
-realize it's good for us to invest in improving our society, without
-counting the nickels and dimes of who gets how much of the benefit
-from that investment.</p>
-
-<p>So, at this point, I'm essentially done.</p>
-
-<p>I'd like to mention that there's a new approach to free software
-business being proposed by Tony Stanco, which he calls “Free
-Developers”, which involves a certain business structure which
-hopes eventually to pay out a certain share of the profits to every,
-to all the authors of the free software who've joined the
-organization. And they're looking at the prospects of getting me some
-rather large government software development contracts in India now,
-because they're going to be using free software as the basis, having
-tremendous cost savings that way.</p>
-
-<p>And so now I guess that I should ask for questions.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Could you speak up a bit louder please?
-I can't really hear you.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: How could a company like Microsoft
-include a free software contract?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually, Microsoft is planning to
-shift a lot of its activity into services. And what they're planning
-to do is something dirty and dangerous, which is tie the services to
-the programs, one to the next, in a sort of zigzag, you know? So that
-to use this service, you've got to be using this Microsoft program,
-which is going to mean you need to use this service, to this Microsoft
-program, so it's all tied together. That's their plan.</p>
-
-<p>Now, the interesting thing is that selling those services doesn't
-raise the ethical issue of free software or non-free software. It
-might be perfectly fine for them to have the business for those
-businesses selling those services over the net to exist. However,
-what Microsoft is planning to do is to use them to achieve an even
-greater lock, an even greater monopoly, on the software and the
-services, and this was described in an article, I believe in Business
-Week, recently. And, other people said that it is turning the net
-into the Microsoft Company Town.</p>
-
-<p>And this is relevant because, you know, the trial court in the
-Microsoft antitrust trial recommended breaking up the company,
-Microsoft. But in a way, that makes no sense — it wouldn't do
-any good at all — into the operating part and the applications
-part.</p>
-
-<p>But having seen that article, I now see a useful, effective way to
-split up Microsoft into the services part and the software part, to
-require them to deal with each other only at arm's length, that the
-services must publish their interfaces, so that anybody can write a
-client to talk to those services, and, I guess, that they have to pay
-to get the service. Well, that's OK. That's a totally different
-issue.</p>
-
-<p>If Microsoft is split up in this way […] services and
-software, they will not be able to use their software to crush
-competition with Microsoft services. And they won't be able to use
-the services to crush competition with Microsoft software. And we
-will be able to make the free software, and maybe you people will use
-it to talk to Microsoft services, and we won't mind.</p>
-
-<p>Because, after all, although Microsoft is the proprietary software
-company that has subjugated the most people — the others have
-subjugated fewer people, it's not for want of
-trying. <i>[Laughter]</i> They just haven't succeeded in subjugating
-as many people. So, the problem is not Microsoft and only Microsoft.
-Microsoft is just the biggest example of the problem we're trying to
-solve, which is proprietary software taking away users' freedom to
-cooperate and form an ethical society. So we shouldn't focus too much
-on Microsoft, you know, even though they did give me the opportunity
-for this platform. That doesn't make them all-important. They're not
-the be-all and end-all.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Earlier, you were discussing the
-philosophical differences between open source software and free
-software. How do you feel about the current trend of GNU/Linux
-distributions as they head towards supporting only Intel platforms?
-And the fact that it seems that less and less programmers are
-programming correctly, and making software that will compile anywhere?
-And making software that simply works on Intel systems?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I don't see an ethical issue there.
-Although, in fact, companies that make computers sometimes port the
-GNU/Linux system to it. HP apparently did this recently. And, they
-didn't bother paying for a port of Windows, because that would have
-cost too much. But getting GNU/Linux supported was, I think, five
-engineers for a few months. It was easily doable.</p>
-
-<p>Now, of course, I encourage people to use <code>autoconf</code>,
-which is a GNU package that makes it easier to make your programs
-portable. I encourage them to do that. Or when somebody else fixes
-the bug that it didn't compile on that version of the system, and
-sends it to you, you should put it in. But I don't see that as an
-ethical issue.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Two comments. One is: Recently, you
-spoke at MIT. I read the transcript. And someone asked about
-patents, and you said that “patents are a totally different
-issue. I have no comments on that.”</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I actually have a lot to say
-about patents, but it takes an hour. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I wanted to say this: It seems to me
-that there is an issue. I mean, there is a reason that companies call
-both patents and copyrights things like hard property in trying to get
-this concept which is, if they want to use the power of the State to
-create a course of monopoly for themselves. And so, what's common
-about these things is not that they revolve around the same issues,
-but that motivation is not really the public service issues but the
-motivation of companies to get a monopoly for their private
-interests.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I understand. But, well, I want to
-respond because there's not too much time. So I'd like to respond to
-that.</p>
-
-<p>You're right that that's what they want. But there's another
-reason why they want to use the term intellectual property. It's that
-they don't want to encourage people to think carefully about copyright
-issues or patent issues. Because copyright law and patent law are
-totally different, and the effects of software copyrighted and
-software patents are totally different.</p>
-
-<p>Software patents are a restriction on programmers, prohibiting them
-from writing certain kinds of programs, whereas copyright doesn't do
-that. With copyright, at least if you wrote it yourself, you're
-allowed to distribute it. So, it's tremendously important to separate
-these issues.</p>
-
-<p>They have a little bit in common, at a very low level, and
-everything else is different. So, please, to encourage clear
-thinking, discuss copyright or discuss patents. But don't discuss
-intellectual property. I don't have an opinion on intellectual
-property. I have opinions on copyrights and patents and software.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You mentioned at the beginning that a
-functional language, like recipes, are computer programs. There's a
-cross a little bit different than other kinds of language created on.
-This is also causing a problem in the DVD case.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: The issues are partly similar but partly
-different, for things that are not functional in nature. Part of the
-issue transfers but not all of it. Unfortunately, that's another hour
-speech. I don't have time to go into it. But I would say that all
-functional works ought to be free in the same sense as software. You
-know, textbooks, manuals, dictionaries, and recipes, and so on.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I was just wondering on online
-music. There are similarities and differences created all through.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I'd say that the minimum freedom
-that we should have for any kind of published information is the
-freedom to non-commercially redistribute it, verbatim. For functional
-works, we need the freedom to commercially publish a modified version,
-because that's tremendously useful to society. For non-functional
-works, you know, things that are to entertain, or to be aesthetic, or
-to state a certain person's views, you know, perhaps they shouldn't be
-modified. And, perhaps that means that it's OK, to have copyright
-covering all commercial distribution of them.</p>
-
-<p>Please remember that according to the U.S. Constitution, the
-purpose of copyright is to benefit the public. It is to modify the
-behavior of certain private parties, so that they will publish more
-books. And the benefit of this is that society gets to discuss issues
-and learn. And, you know, we have literature. We have scientific
-works. The purpose is encourage that. Copyrights do not exist for
-the sake of authors, let alone for the sake of publishers. They exist
-for the sake of readers and all those who benefit from the
-communication of information that happens when people write and others
-read. And that goal I agree with.</p>
-
-<p>But in the age of the computer networks, the method is no longer
-tenable, because it now requires draconian laws that invade
-everybody's privacy and terrorize everyone. You know, years in prison
-for sharing with your neighbor. It wasn't like that in the age of the
-printing press. Then copyright was an industrial regulation. It
-restricted publishers. Now, it's a restriction imposed by the
-publishers on the public. So, the power relationship is turned around
-180 degrees, even if it's the same law.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: So you can have the same thing —
-but like in making music from other music?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. That is an interesting
-…</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: And unique, new works, you know, it's
-still a lot of cooperation.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: It is. And I think that probably
-requires some kind of fair use concept. Certainly making a few
-seconds of sample and using that in making some musical work,
-obviously that should be fair use. Even the standard idea of fair use
-includes that, if you think about it. Whether courts agree, I'm not
-sure, but they should. That wouldn't be a real change in the system
-as it has existed.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: What do you think about publishing
-public information in proprietary formats?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, it shouldn't be. I mean, the
-government should never require citizens to use a non-free program to
-access, to communicate with the government in any way, in either
-direction.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I have been, what I will now say, a
-GNU/Linux user…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Thank you. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: …for the past four years. The one
-thing that has been problematical for me and is something that is
-essential, I think, to all of us, is browsing the web.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: One thing that has been decidedly a
-weakness in using a GNU/Linux system has been browsing the web,
-because the prevailing tool for that, Netscape…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: …is not free software.</p>
-
-<p>Let me respond to this. I want to get to the point, for the sake
-of getting in more. So, yes. There has been a terrible tendency for
-people to use Netscape Navigator on their GNU/Linux systems. And, in
-fact all the commercially packaged systems come with it. So this is
-an ironic situation: we worked so hard to make a free operating
-system, and now, if you go to the store, and you can find versions of
-GNU/Linux there, most of them are called Linux, and they're not free.
-Oh, well, part of them is. But then, there's Netscape Navigator, and
-maybe other non-free programs as well. So, it's very hard to actually
-find a free system, unless you know what you're doing. Or, of course,
-you can not install Netscape Navigator.</p>
-
-<p>Now, in fact, there have been free web browsers for many years.
-There is a free web browser that I used to use called Lynx. It's a
-free web browser that is non-graphical; it's text-only. This has a
-tremendous advantage, in you don't see the ads. <i>[Laughter]
-[Applause]</i></p>
-
-<p>But anyway, there is a free graphical project called Mozilla, which
-is now getting to the point where you can use it. And I occasionally
-use it.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 has been very good.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, OK. So that's another free
-graphical browser. So, we're finally solving that problem, I
-guess.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk to me about that
-philosophical/ethical division between free software and open source?
-Do you feel that those are irreconcilable? …</p>
-
-<p><i>[Recording switches tapes; end of question and start of answer
-is missing]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: … to a freedom, and ethics. Or
-whether you just say, Well, I hope that you companies will decide it's
-more profitable to let us be allowed to do these things.</p>
-
-<p>But, as I said, in a lot of practical work, it doesn't really
-matter what a person's politics are. When a person offers to help the
-GNU project, we don't say: “You have to agree with our
-politics.” We say that in a GNU package, you've got to call the
-system GNU/Linux, and you've got to call it free software. What you
-say when you're not speaking to the GNU Project, that's up to you.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: The company, IBM, started a campaign for
-government agencies, to sell their big new machines, that they used
-Linux as selling point, and say Linux.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, of course, it's really the
-GNU/Linux systems. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: That's right! Well, tell the top sales
-person. He doesn't know anything for GNU.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I have to tell who?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: The top sales person.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh yes. The problem is that they've
-already carefully decided what they want to say for reasons of their
-advantage. And the issue of what is a more accurate, or fair, or
-correct way to describe it is not the primary issue that matters to a
-company like that. Now, some small companies, yes, there'll be a
-boss. And if the boss is inclined to think about things like that, he
-might make a decision that way. Not a giant corporation though. It's
-a shame, you know.</p>
-
-<p>There's another more important and more substantive issue about
-what IBM is doing. They're saying that they're putting a billion
-dollars into “Linux”. But perhaps, I should also put
-quotes around “into”, as well, because some of that money
-is paying people to develop free software. That really is a
-contribution to our community. But other parts is paying to pay
-people to write proprietary software, or port proprietary software to
-run on top of GNU/Linux, and that is <em>not</em> a contribution to
-our community. But IBM is lumping that altogether into this. Some of
-it might be advertising, which is partly a contribution, even if it's
-partly wrong. So, it's a complicated situation. Some of what they're
-doing is contribution and some is not. And some is sort is somewhat,
-but not exactly. And you can't just lump it altogether and think,
-Wow! Whee! A billion dollars from IBM. <i>[Laughter]</i> That's
-oversimplification.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk a little bit more about the
-thinking that went into the general public license?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, here's the — I'm sorry, I'm
-answering his question now. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Do you want to reserve some time for
-the press conference? Or do you want to continue here?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Who is here for the press conference?
-Not a lot of press. Oh, three — OK. Can you afford if we
-— if I go on answering everybody's questions for another ten
-minutes or so? OK. So, we'll go on answering everybody's
-questions.</p>
-
-<p>So, the thinking that went into the GNU GPL? Part of it was that I
-wanted to protect the freedom of the community against the phenomena
-that I just described with X Windows, which has happened with other
-free programs as well. In fact, when I was thinking about this issue,
-X Windows was not yet released. But I had seen this problem happen in
-other free programs. For instance, TeX. I wanted to make sure that
-the users would all have freedom. Otherwise, I realized that I might
-write a program, and maybe a lot of people would use the program, but
-they wouldn't have freedom. And what's the point of that?</p>
-
-<p>But the other issue I was thinking about was, I wanted to give the
-community a feeling that it was not a doormat, a feeling that it was
-not prey to any parasite who would wander along. If you don't use
-copyleft, you are essentially saying: <i>[speaking meekly]</i>
-“Take my code. Do what you want. I don't say no.” So,
-anybody can come along and say: <i>[speaking very firmly]</i>
-“Ah, I want to make a non-free version of this. I'll just take
-it.” And, then, of course, they probably make some improvements,
-those non-free versions might appeal to users, and replace the free
-versions. And then, what have you accomplished? You've only made a
-donation to some proprietary software project.</p>
-
-<p>And when people see that that's happening, when people see, other
-people take what I do, and they don't ever give back, it can be
-demoralizing. And, this is not just speculation. I had seen that
-happen. That was part of what happened to wipe out the old community
-that I belonged to the '70's. Some people started becoming
-uncooperative. And we assumed that they were profiting thereby. They
-certainly acted as if they thought they were profiting. And we
-realized that they can just take off cooperation and not give back.
-And there was nothing we could do about it. It was very discouraging.
-We, those of us who didn't like the trend, even had a discussion and
-we couldn't come up with any idea for how we could stop it.</p>
-
-<p>So, the GPL is designed to stop that. And it says, Yes, you are
-welcome to join the community and use this code. You can use it to do
-all sorts of jobs. But, if you release a modified version, you've got
-to release that to our community, as part of our community, as part of
-the free world.</p>
-
-<p>So, in fact, there are still many ways that people can get the
-benefit of our work and not contribute, like you don't have to write
-any software. Lots of people use GNU/Linux and don't write any
-software. There's no requirement that you've got to do anything for
-us. But if you do a certain kind of thing, you've got to contribute
-to it. So what that means is that our community is not a doormat.
-And I think that that helped give people the strength to feel, Yes, we
-won't just be trampled underfoot by everybody. We'll stand up to
-this.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Yes, my question was, considering free
-but not copylefted software, since anybody can pick it up and make it
-proprietary, is it not possible also for someone to pick it up and
-make some changes and release the whole thing under the GPL?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, it is possible.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Then, that would make all future copies
-then be GPL'ed.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: From that branch. But here's why we
-don't do that.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Hmm?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Here's why we don't generally do that.
-Let me explain.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: OK, yes.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We could, if we wanted to, take X
-Windows, and make a GPL-covered copy and make changes in that. But
-there's a much larger group of people working on improving X Windows
-and <em>not</em> GPL-ing it. So, if we did that, we would be forking
-from them. And that's not very nice treatment of them. And, they
-<em>are</em> a part of our community, contributing to our
-community.</p>
-
-<p>Second, it would backfire against us, because they're doing a lot
-more work on X than we would be. So, our version would be inferior to
-theirs, and people wouldn't use it, which means, why go to the trouble
-at all?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Mmm hmm.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: So when a person has written some
-improvement to X Windows, what I say that person should do is
-cooperate with the X development team. Send it to them and let them
-use it their way. Because they are developing a very important piece
-of free software. It's good for us to cooperate with them.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Except, considering X, in particular,
-about two years ago, the X Consortium that was far into the non-free
-open source…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually it <em>wasn't</em> open
-sourced. It wasn't open sourced, either. They may have said it was.
-I can't remember if they said that or not. But it wasn't open
-source. It was restricted. You couldn't commercially distribute, I
-think. Or you couldn't commercially distribute a modified version, or
-something like that. There was a restriction that's considered
-unacceptable by both the Free Software movement and the Open Source
-movement.</p>
-
-<p>And yes, that's what using a non-copyleft license leaves you open
-to. In fact, the X Consortium, they had a very rigid policy. They
-say: If your program if copylefted even a little bit, we won't
-distribute it at all. We won't put it in our distribution.</p>
-
-<p>So, a lot of people were pressured in this way into not
-copylefting. And the result was that all of their software was wide
-open, later on. When the same people who had pressured a developer to
-be too all-permissive, then the X people later said, All right, now we
-can put on restrictions, which wasn't very ethical of them.</p>
-
-<p>But, given the situation, would we really want to scrape up the
-resources to maintain an alternate GPL-covered version of X? And it
-wouldn't make any sense to do that. There are so many other things we
-need to do. Let's do them instead. We can cooperate with the X
-developers.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Do you have a comment, is the GNU a
-trademark? And is it practical to include it as part of the GNU
-General Public License allowing trademarks?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We are, actually, applying for trademark
-registration on GNU. But it wouldn't really have anything to do with
-that. It's a long story to explain why.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You could require the trademark be
-displayed with GPL-covered programs.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: No, I don't think so. The licenses
-cover individual programs. And when a given program is part of the
-GNU Project, nobody lies about that. The name of the system as a
-whole is a different issue. And this is an aside. It's not worth
-discussing more.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: If there was a button that you could
-push and force all companies to free their software, would you press
-it?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, I would only use this for
-published software. You know, I think that people have the right to
-write a program privately and use it. And that includes companies.
-This is privacy issue. And it's true, there can be times when it is
-wrong to do that, like if it is tremendously helpful to humanity, and
-you are withholding it from humanity. That is a wrong but that's a
-different kind of wrong. It's a different issue, although it's in the
-same area.</p>
-
-<p>But yes, I think all published software should be free software.
-And remember, when it's not free software, that's because of
-government intervention. The government is intervening to make it
-non-free. The government is creating special legal powers to hand out
-to the owners of the programs, so that they can have the police stop
-us from using the programs in certain ways. So I would certainly like
-to end that. </p>
-
-<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Richard's presentation has invariably
-generated an enormous amount of intellectual energy. I would suggest
-that some of it should be directed to using, and possibly writing,
-free software.</p>
-
-<p>We should close the proceedings shortly. I want to say that
-Richard has injected into a profession which is known in the general
-public for its terminal apolitical nerditude a level of political and
-moral discussion which is, I think, unprecedented in our profession.
-And we owe him very big for this. I'd like to note to people that
-there is a break.</p>
-
-<p><i>[Applause]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: You are free to leave at any time, you
-know. <i>[Laughter]</i> I'm not holding you prisoner here.</p>
-
-<p><i>[Audience adjourns…]</i></p>
-
-<p><i>[overlapping conversations…]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: One final thing. Our website:
-www.gnu.org</p>
-
-</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
-<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
-<div id="footer">
-<div class="unprintable">
-
-<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
-<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></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";><address@hidden></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";>
- <address@hidden></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>. -->
-Please see the <a
-href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
-README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
-of this article.</p>
-</div>
-
-<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
- files generated as part of manuals) 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. -->
-
-<p>Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman</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>
-
-<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
-
-<p class="unprintable">Updated:
-<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2015/05/02 04:57:34 $
-<!-- timestamp end -->
-</p>
-</div>
-</div>
-</body>
-</html>
Index: events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.po
===================================================================
RCS file: events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.po
diff -N events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.po
--- events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.po 2 May 2015 04:48:25 -0000
1.16
+++ /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
@@ -1,4586 +0,0 @@
-# Polish translation of http://www.gnu.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html
-# Copyright (C) 2005, 2011, 2014, 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
-# This file is distributed under the same license as the gnu.org article.
-# RadosÅaw MoszczyÅski, 2005.
-# Jan Owoc <jsowoc AT gmail.com>, 2011, 2014, 2015.
-msgid ""
-msgstr ""
-"Project-Id-Version: rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html\n"
-"POT-Creation-Date: 2015-02-20 15:55+0000\n"
-"PO-Revision-Date: 2015-02-21 11:38-0600\n"
-"Last-Translator: Jan Owoc <jsowoc AT gmail.com>\n"
-"Language-Team: Polish <address@hidden>\n"
-"Language: pl\n"
-"MIME-Version: 1.0\n"
-"Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n"
-"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n"
-"Plural-Forms: nplurals=3; plural=(n==1 ? 0 : n%10>=2 && n%10<=4 && (n%100<10 "
-"|| n%100>=20) ? 1 : 2);\n"
-"X-Generator: Virtaal 0.7.0\n"
-
-#. type: Content of: <title>
-msgid ""
-"Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation - GNU Project - Free Software "
-"Foundation"
-msgstr ""
-"Wolne oprogramowanie: wolnoÅÄ i wspóÅpraca - Projekt GNU - Fundacja "
-"wolnego oprogramowania (FSF)"
-
-#. type: Content of: <h2>
-msgid "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation"
-msgstr "Wolne oprogramowanie: wolnoÅÄ i wspóÅpraca"
-
-#. type: Content of: <blockquote><p>
-msgid ""
-"Transcript of Richard M. Stallman's speech, “Free Software: Freedom "
-"and Cooperation”, given at New York University in New York, NY, on 29 "
-"May 2001"
-msgstr ""
-"Transcrypcja przemównienia Richarda M. Stallmana p.t. „Wolne "
-"oprogramowanie: wolnoÅÄ i wspóÅpraca” wygÅoszonego
na New "
-"York University w Nowym Jorku, NY, 29. maja 2001 r."
-
-#. type: Content of: <div><blockquote><p>
-msgid ""
-"A <a href=\"/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt\">plain text</a> version of "
-"this transcript and a <a href=\"/events/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt\">summary</"
-"a> of the speech are also available."
-msgstr ""
-"Także dostÄpne jako <a href=\"/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt\">czysty "
-"tekst</a> [<em>po angielski</em>] oraz <a href=\"/events/rms-"
-"nyu-2001-summary.txt\">streszczenie</a>."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>URETSKY</strong>: I'm Mike Uretsky. I'm over at the Stern School of "
-"Business. I'm also one of the Co-Directors of the Center for Advanced "
-"Technology. And, on behalf of all of us in the Computer Science Department, "
-"I want to welcome you here. I want to say a few comments, before I turn it "
-"over to Ed, who is going to introduce the speaker."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>URETSKY</strong>: Nazywam siÄ Mike Uretsky. Jestem pracownikiem "
-"WydziaÅu DziaÅalnoÅci Handlowej [Stern School of Business]. Jestem także "
-"jednym z dyrektorów Centrum Zaawansowanych Technologii [Center for "
-"Advanced Technology]. ChciaÅbym wszystkich przywitaÄ w imieniu "
-"pracowników WydziaÅu Informatyki [Computer Science Department]. Pozwólcie,
"
-"że powiem jeszcze kilka sÅów zanim przekaÅ¼Ä gÅos Edowi, który "
-"przedstawi naszego goÅcia."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"The role of a university is a place to foster debate and to have interesting "
-"discussions. And the role of a major university is to have particularly "
-"interesting discussions. And this particular presentation, this seminar "
-"falls right into that mold. I find the discussion of open source "
-"particularly interesting. In a sense … <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Uniwersytet powinien byÄ miejscem sprzyjajÄ
cym debatom, w którym "
-"odbywajÄ
siÄ ciekawe dyskusje. Natomiast na wiodÄ
cym uniwersytecie "
-"powinny odbywaÄ siÄ dyskusje szczególnie ciekawe. Do tej kategorii "
-"idealnie pasuje dzisiejsze seminarium. Dla mnie dyskusja poruszajÄ
ca temat "
-"oprogramowania open source [ang. o otwartych źródÅach] jest szczególnie "
-"interesujÄ
ca. W pewnym sensie… <i>[Åmiech]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I do free software. Open source is a different "
-"movement. <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Ja siÄ zajmujÄ wolnym oprogramowaniem. "
-"Oprogramowanie open source to osobny ruch. <i>[Åmiech] [aplauz]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>URETSKY</strong>: When I first started in the field in the '60's, "
-"basically software was free. And we went in cycles. It became free, and "
-"then software manufacturers, in the need to expand their markets, pushed it "
-"in other directions. A lot of the developments that took place with the "
-"entry of the PC moved in exactly the same kind of a cycle."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>URETSKY</strong>: Kiedy w latach 60. zaczynaÅem pracÄ w "
-"tej dziedzinie, oprogramowanie byÅo w zasadzie wolne. Ale wszystko
"
-"siÄ odwróciÅo. StaÅo siÄ wolne, a potem producenci oprogramowania, "
-"którzy chcieli rozszerzyÄ swoje rynki zbytu, popchnÄli je w innych "
-"kierunkach. Wiele rzeczy, które pojawiÅy siÄ wraz z architekturÄ
PC,
"
-"przeszÅo przez podobny cykl."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"There's a very interesting French philosopher, Pierre Levy, who talks about "
-"movement to this direction and who talks about the move into cyberspace as "
-"not only relating to technology but also relating to social restructuring, "
-"to political restructuring, through a change in the kinds of relationships "
-"that will improve the well-being of mankind. And we're hoping that this "
-"debate is a movement in that direction, that this debate is something that "
-"cuts across a lot of the disciplines that normally act as solace within the "
-"University. We're looking forward to some very interesting discussions. Ed?"
-msgstr ""
-"Jest pewien bardzo interesujÄ
cy francuski filozof, Pierre Levy, który pisze
"
-"o ruchu w tym kierunku. Pisze także o wkraczaniu do "
-"cyberprzestrzeni jako czymÅ zwiÄ
zanym nie tylko z technologiÄ
,
ale "
-"również reorganizacjÄ
struktury spoÅecznej i politycznej, bÄdÄ
cej "
-"wynikiem zmiany typów relacji, które doprowadzÄ
do poprawy stanu "
-"ludzkoÅci. Mamy nadziejÄ, że ta debata to ruch w tymże
kierunku, "
-"że rozmywa ona granice pomiÄdzy wieloma dziedzinami, które zwykle "
-"funkcjonujÄ
na Uniwersytecie osobno. Mamy nadziejÄ, że dyskusje "
-"bÄdÄ
bardzo interesujÄ
ce. Ed?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: I'm Ed Schonberg from the Computer Science "
-"Department at the Courant Institute. Let me welcome you all to this event. "
-"Introducers are usually, and particularly, a useless aspect of public "
-"presentations, but in this case, actually, they serve a useful purpose, as "
-"Mike easily demonstrated, because an introducer for instance, told him, by "
-"making inaccurate comments, can allow him to straighten out and correct and "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i> sharpen considerably the parameters of the debate."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Nazywam siÄ Ed Schonberg i pracujÄ
na "
-"Wydziale Informatyki Instytutu Courant [Courant Institute]. Witam wszystkich "
-"przybyÅych. Zapowiadacze to zazwyczaj, i w szczególnoÅci,
niepotrzebny "
-"aspekt publicznych wystÄ
pieÅ, jednak w tym przypadku majÄ
użyteczne "
-"zastosowanie, co pokazaÅ Mike czyniÄ
c nieÅcisÅe uwagi. PozwoliÅ on
mówcy "
-"dodaÄ sprostowanie <i>[Åmiech]</i> i znacznie wyostrzyÄ wstÄpne "
-"zaÅożenia debaty."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, let me make the briefest possible introduction to somebody who doesn't "
-"need one. Richard is the perfect example of somebody who, by acting "
-"locally, started thinking globally from problems concerning the "
-"unavailability of source code for printer drivers at the AI Lab many years "
-"ago. He has developed a coherent philosophy that has forced all of us to re-"
-"examine our ideas of how software is produced, of what intellectual property "
-"means, and what the software community actually represents. Let me welcome "
-"Richard Stallman. <i>[Applause]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Pozwólcie wiÄc, że w jak najkrótszy sposób przedstawiÄ osobÄ,
która "
-"przedstawiania nie wymaga. Richard to doskonaÅy przykÅad kogoÅ, kto "
-"dziaÅajÄ
c lokalnie zaczÄ
Å myÅleÄ globalnie, poczynajÄ
c
od problemów "
-"zwiÄ
zanych z niedostÄpnoÅciÄ
kodu źródÅowego sterowników
drukarki "
-"w Laboratorium Sztucznej Inteligencji na MIT [AI Lab] wiele lat "
-"temu. StworzyÅ on spójnÄ
filozofiÄ, która zmusiÅa nas wszystkich
do "
-"ponownego przemyÅlenia kwestii produkcji oprogramowania, znaczenia
wÅasnoÅci "
-"intelektualnej i tego, co reprezentuje sobÄ
Årodowisko programistów. "
-"Przywitajmy Richarda Stallmana. <i>[aplauz]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can someone lend me a watch? <i>[Laughter]</i> "
-"Thank you. So, I'd like to thank Microsoft for providing me the opportunity "
-"to <i>[Laughter]</i> be on this platform. For the past few weeks, I have "
-"felt like an author whose book was fortuitously banned somewhere. <i>"
-"[Laughter]</i> Except that all the articles about it are giving the wrong "
-"author's name, because Microsoft describes the GNU GPL as an open source "
-"license, and most of the press coverage followed suit. Most people, of "
-"course just innocently don't realize that our work has nothing to do with "
-"open source, that in fact we did most of it before people even coined the "
-"term open source."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Czy ktoÅ mógÅby pożyczyÄ mi zegarek? <i>"
-"[Åmiech]</i> DziÄkujÄ. No wiÄc, chciaÅbym podziÄkowaÄ firmie Microsoft
"
-"za stworzenie mi okazji do <i>[Åmiech]</i> przemawiania z "
-"tego miejsca. Od kilku tygodni czujÄ siÄ jak autor ksiÄ
żki, która "
-"szczÄÅliwie zostaÅa gdzieÅ zakazana. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Tylko
że wszystkie "
-"artykuÅy na jej temat zawierajÄ
nazwisko niewÅaÅciwego autora,
bo "
-"Microsoft okreÅla GPL jako licencjÄ typu open source, a wiÄkszoÅÄ
prasy "
-"podÄ
ża ich Åladem. WiÄkszoÅÄ ludzi, oczywiÅcie bez zÅych
intencji, nie "
-"zdaje sobie sprawy, że nasze dziaÅania nie majÄ
nic wspólnego
z "
-"ruchem open source, oraz że zajmowaliÅmy siÄ tymi sprawami na "
-"dÅugo zanim nawet utarÅ siÄ termin open source."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"We are in the free software movement, and I'm going to speak about what the "
-"free software movement is about, what it means, what we have done, and, "
-"because this is partly sponsored by a school of business, I'll say some "
-"things more than I usually do about how free software relates to business, "
-"and some other areas of social life."
-msgstr ""
-"JesteÅmy czÄÅciÄ
ruchu wolnego oprogramowania, a ja zamierzam "
-"opowiedzieÄ, co ten ruch ma na celu, jakie ma znaczenie, co dotychczas "
-"zrobiliÅmy oraz, ponieważ to wszystko jest po czÄÅci
sponsorowane "
-"przez wydziaÅ handlowy, opowiem trochÄ wiÄcej niż zwykle o stosunku
wolnego "
-"oprogramowania do biznesu i kilku innych obszarów życia "
-"spoÅecznego."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, some of you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps you "
-"cook. And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably use "
-"recipes. And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the experience of "
-"getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing it. And you've "
-"probably also had the experience — unless you're a total neophyte "
-"— of changing a recipe. You know, it says certain things, but you "
-"don't have to do exactly that. You can leave out some ingredients. Add "
-"some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms. Put in less salt because your "
-"doctor said you should cut down on salt — whatever. You can even make "
-"bigger changes according to your skill. And if you've made changes in a "
-"recipe, and you cook it for your friends, and they like it, one of your "
-"friends might say, “Hey, could I have the recipe?” And then, "
-"what do you do? You could write down your modified version of the recipe and "
-"make a copy for your friend. These are the natural things to do with "
-"functionally useful recipes of any kind."
-msgstr ""
-"Dobrze, niektórzy z was mogÄ
nigdy nie napisaÄ Å¼adnego programu, "
-"ale byÄ może gotujecie. Jako kucharze zapewne korzystacie z "
-"przepisów, chyba że jesteÅcie naprawdÄ Åwietni. A jeÅli "
-"korzystacie z przepisów, to pewnie kiedyÅ dostaliÅcie kopiÄ jednego "
-"z nich od znajomego. ZdarzyÅo siÄ też zapewne, jeÅli tylko nie "
-"jesteÅcie zupeÅnymi nowicjuszami, że zmieniliÅcie jakiÅ przepis. No
"
-"wiecie, przepis zawiera pewne wskazówki, ale nie musicie siÄ ich "
-"dokÅadnie trzymaÄ. Możecie opuÅciÄ kilka skÅadników. DodaÄ trochÄ
grzybów, "
-"bo lubicie grzyby. ZmniejszyÄ iloÅÄ soli, bo lekarz kazaÅ wam "
-"mniej soliÄ – cokolwiek. JeÅli macie odpowiednie umiejÄtnoÅci,
"
-"możecie nawet wprowadzaÄ wiÄksze zmiany. A kiedy już zmieniliÅcie "
-"przepis i przygotowaliÅcie danie dla swoich znajomych, a im to "
-"smakowaÅo, jeden z nich może powiedzieÄ: „Hej, mogÄ dostaÄ "
-"przepis?”. I co wtedy zrobicie? Możecie zapisaÄ swojÄ
"
-"zmodyfikowanÄ
wersjÄ na kartce i skopiowaÄ jÄ
dla znajomego. To
"
-"naturalne postÄpowanie w przypadku jakiegokolwiek użytecznego
przepisu."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program. A computer program's a lot "
-"like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to get some result that "
-"you want. So it's just as natural to do those same things with computer "
-"programs — hand a copy to your friend. Make changes in it because the "
-"job it was written to do isn't exactly what you want. It did a great job "
-"for somebody else, but your job is a different job. And after you've "
-"changed it, that's likely to be useful for other people. Maybe they have a "
-"job to do that's like the job you do. So they ask, “Hey, can I have a "
-"copy?” Of course, if you're a nice person, you're going to give a "
-"copy. That's the way to be a decent person."
-msgstr ""
-"Przepisy sÄ
bardzo podobne do programów komputerowych. Programy "
-"komputerowe sÄ
bardzo podobne do przepisów: sekwencja kroków,
których "
-"podjÄcie prowadzi do jakiegoÅ pożÄ
danego rezultatu. WiÄc tak
samo "
-"naturalne jest takie postÄpowanie w przypadku programu "
-"komputerowego – rozdawanie kopii przyjacioÅom. Wprowadzanie "
-"do niego zmian, bo cel, dla jakiego zostaÅ stworzony, nie jest "
-"dokÅadnie tym, co wam jest potrzebne. MógÅ byÄ bardzo pomocny przy "
-"wykonywaniu czyjegoŠzadania, ale wasze jest inne. A jak już go "
-"zmienicie, to prawdopodobnie bÄdzie on użyteczny dla innych. Może majÄ
pracÄ "
-"do wykonania podobnÄ
do waszej. WiÄc spytajÄ
siÄ:
„Hej, "
-"czy mogÄ dostaÄ kopiÄ?” JeÅli jesteÅcie mili, to oczywiÅcie
im jÄ
"
-"dacie. Tak robiÄ
przyzwoite osoby."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So imagine what it would be like if recipes were packaged inside black "
-"boxes. You couldn't see what ingredients they're using, let alone change "
-"them, and imagine if you made a copy for a friend, they would call you a "
-"pirate and try to put you in prison for years. That world would create "
-"tremendous outrage from all the people who are used to sharing recipes. But "
-"that is exactly what the world of proprietary software is like. A world in "
-"which common decency towards other people is prohibited or prevented."
-msgstr ""
-"WiÄc wyobraźcie sobie, co by byÅo, gdyby przepisy byÅy pakowane
do "
-"czarnych skrzynek. Nie wiedzielibyÅcie, jakie sÄ
w nich zawarte "
-"skÅadniki, nie mówiÄ
c już nawet o wprowadzaniu zmian i wyobraźcie "
-"sobie, że jeÅli wykonalibyÅcie kopiÄ dla przyjaciela, nazwaliby was "
-"piratami i próbowali wsadziÄ na parÄ lat do wiÄzienia.
Taki "
-"Åwiat wywoÅaÅby wielkie oburzenie u ludzi przyzwyczajonych do "
-"dzielenia siÄ przepisami. Ale tak wÅaÅnie wyglÄ
da Åwiat objÄtego "
-"restrykcyjnymi licencjami oprogramowania. W tym Åwiecie zwyczajna "
-"przyzwoitoÅÄ wobec innych ludzi jest zabroniona lub zwalczana."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, why did I notice this? I noticed this because I had the good fortune in "
-"the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who shared software. "
-"Now, this community could trace its ancestry essentially back to the "
-"beginning of computing. In the 1970's, though, it was a bit rare for there "
-"to be a community where people shared software. And, in fact, this was sort "
-"of an extreme case, because in the lab where I worked, the entire operating "
-"system was software developed by the people in our community, and we'd share "
-"any of it with anybody. Anybody was welcome to come and take a look, and "
-"take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do. There were no copyright "
-"notices on these programs. Cooperation was our way of life. And we were "
-"secure in that way of life. We didn't fight for it. We didn't have to "
-"fight for it. We just lived that way. And, as far as we knew, we would "
-"just keep on living that way. So there was free software, but there was no "
-"free software movement."
-msgstr ""
-"Dlaczego to zauważyÅem? ZauważyÅem to, ponieważ w latach 70.
miaÅem "
-"szczÄÅcie należeÄ do spoÅecznoÅci programistów, którzy dzielili
siÄ "
-"oprogramowaniem. SpoÅecznoÅÄ ta miaÅa korzenie w samych poczÄ
tkach "
-"informatyki. Jednak w latach 70. byÅo czymÅ odrobinÄ niezwykÅym, "
-"że istniaÅa spoÅecznoÅÄ, w obrÄbie której ludzie dzielili
siÄ "
-"programami. I byÅ to tak naprawdÄ rodzaj skrajnego przypadku, "
-"ponieważ w laboratorium, w którym pracowaÅem, caÅy system "
-"operacyjny skÅadaÅ siÄ z oprogramowania napisanego przez naszÄ
"
-"spoÅecznoÅÄ i dzieliliÅmy siÄ ze wszystkimi każdÄ
jego czÄÅciÄ
. Każdy "
-"mógÅ wpaÅÄ i popatrzeÄ, wziÄ
Ä sobie kopiÄ i zrobiÄ
z niÄ
"
-"cokolwiek chciaÅ. Na tych programach nie byÅo informacji o prawach "
-"autorskich. WspóÅpraca byÅa naszym sposobem na życie. Å»yjÄ
c tak "
-"czuliÅmy siÄ bezpieczni. Nie walczyliÅmy o to. Nie musieliÅmy o to
walczyÄ. "
-"Po prostu żyliÅmy w ten sposób. I chcieliÅmy żyÄ tak
dalej. "
-"IstniaÅo wiÄc wolne oprogramowanie, ale nie istniaÅ ruch wolnego
"
-"oprogramowania."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that happened "
-"to it. Ultimately it was wiped out. Ultimately, the PDP-10 computer which "
-"we used for all our work was discontinued. And you know, our system — "
-"the Incompatible Timesharing System — was written starting in the "
-"'60's, so it was written in assembler language. That's what you used to "
-"write an operating system in the '60's. So, of course, assembler language "
-"is for one particular computer architecture; if that gets discontinued, all "
-"your work turns into dust — it's useless. And that's what happened to "
-"us. The 20 years or so of work of our community turned into dust."
-msgstr ""
-"Jednak potem nasza spoÅecznoÅÄ zostaÅa zniszczona przez seriÄ "
-"nieszczÄÅÄ, które jÄ
dotknÄÅy. W koÅcu przestaÅa istnieÄ.
W koÅcu "
-"produkcja PDP-10, czyli komputera, którego używaliÅmy do caÅej "
-"pracy, zostaÅa zawieszona. Wiecie, nasz system – ITS "
-"[Incompatible Timesharing System, Niezgodny System z PodziaÅem Czasu]"
-" – zaczÄ
Å byÄ tworzony w latach 60., wiÄc byÅ
napisany "
-"w asemblerze. Tak pisaÅo siÄ systemy operacyjne w latach 60. Jak "
-"wiadomo asembler jest przypisany do konkretnej architektury; gdy "
-"wychodzi ona z produkcji, caÅa praca idzie na marne – "
-"staje siÄ bezużyteczna. WÅaÅnie to nam siÄ przydarzyÅo. OkoÅo 20 lat
pracy "
-"naszej spoÅecznoÅci poszÅo na marne."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me, helped me "
-"see what to do, helped prepare me to see what to do when this happened, "
-"because at certain point, Xerox gave the Artificial Intelligence Lab, where "
-"I worked, a laser printer, and this was a really handsome gift, because it "
-"was the first time anybody outside Xerox had a laser printer. It was very "
-"fast, printed a page a second, very fine in many respects, but it was "
-"unreliable, because it was really a high-speed office copier that had been "
-"modified into a printer. And, you know, copiers jam, but there's somebody "
-"there to fix them. The printer jammed and nobody saw. So it stayed jammed "
-"for a long time."
-msgstr ""
-"Jednak zanim siÄ to staÅo, przydarzyÅo mi siÄ coÅ, co mnie "
-"przygotowaÅo, pomogÅo mi zrozumieÄ, co trzeba zrobiÄ, pomogÅo mi
przygotowaÄ "
-"siÄ do zrozumienia co zrobiÄ, gdy to siÄ staÅo,
ponieważ pewnego "
-"razu Xerox podarowaÅ Laboratorium Sztucznej Inteligencji, gdzie pracowaÅem,
"
-"laserowÄ
drukarkÄ i byÅ to naprawdÄ niezÅy prezent, bo po raz "
-"pierwszy ktokolwiek poza Xeroksem miaÅ dostÄp do laserowej drukarki. "
-"ByÅa bardzo szybka, wydruk strony zajmowaÅ jej sekundÄ, pod wieloma "
-"wzglÄdami byÅa bardzo dobra, ale zawodna, bo tak naprawdÄ byÅa
to "
-"szybka kopiarka biurowa, którÄ
zamieniono w drukarkÄ. Jak wiecie, "
-"kopiarki siÄ zacinajÄ
, ale zawsze znajdzie siÄ przy nich ktoÅ, kto
je "
-"naprawi. Drukarka zacinaÅa siÄ i nikt tego nie widziaÅ.
WiÄc staÅa "
-"zaciÄta przez dÅugi czas."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Well, we had an idea for how to deal with this problem. Change it so that "
-"whenever the printer gets a jam, the machine that runs the printer can tell "
-"our timesharing machine, and tell the users who are waiting for printouts, "
-"or something like that, you know, tell them, go fix the printer. Because if "
-"they only knew it was jammed, of course, if you're waiting for a printout "
-"and you know that the printer is jammed, you don't want to sit and wait "
-"forever, you're going to go fix it."
-msgstr ""
-"MieliÅmy pomysÅ jak rozwiÄ
zaÄ ten problem. WprowadziÄ zmiany, żeby
za "
-"każdym razem, kiedy drukarka siÄ zaciÄÅa, komputer, który jÄ
obsÅugiwaÅ "
-"informowaÅ naszÄ
maszynÄ z podziaÅem czasu i informowaÅ "
-"użytkowników czekajÄ
cych na wydruk, albo coÅ w tym stylu,
no "
-"wiecie – „Idź napraw drukarkÄ”. Bo gdyby tylko "
-"wiedzieli, że drukarka siÄ zaciÄÅa, oczywiste jest, że jeÅli "
-"czekasz na wydruk i wiesz, że drukarka siÄ zaciÄÅa, to nie
"
-"siedzisz i nie czekasz do koÅca Åwiata, tylko idziesz i jÄ
"
-"naprawiasz."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But at that point, we were completely stymied, because the software that ran "
-"that printer was not free software. It had come with the printer, and it "
-"was just a binary. We couldn't have the source code; Xerox wouldn't let us "
-"have the source code. So, despite our skill as programmers — after "
-"all, we had written our own timesharing system — we were completely "
-"helpless to add this feature to the printer software."
-msgstr ""
-"Jednak wtedy nie mogliÅmy zupeÅnie nic zrobiÄ, ponieważ "
-"oprogramowanie obsÅugujÄ
ce drukarkÄ nie byÅo wolne. DostaliÅmy je razem "
-"z drukarkÄ
i byÅ to po prostu plik binarny. Nie dano nam
kodu "
-"źródÅowego – Xerox nie chciaÅ siÄ na to zgodziÄ. Tak
wiÄc, "
-"mimo naszych umiejÄtnoÅci programistycznych – jakby nie patrzeÄ
"
-"napisaliÅmy wÅasny system z podziaÅem czasu – nie
mogliÅmy "
-"w żaden sposób dodaÄ tej funkcji do oprogramowania drukarki."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And we just had to suffer with waiting. It would take an hour or two to get "
-"your printout because the machine would be jammed most of the time. And "
-"only once in a while — you'd wait an hour figuring “I know it's "
-"going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and go collect my printout,” and "
-"then you'd see that it had been jammed the whole time, and in fact, nobody "
-"else had fixed it. So you'd fix it and you'd go wait another half hour. "
-"Then, you'd come back, and you'd see it jammed again — before it got "
-"to your output. It would print three minutes and be jammed thirty minutes. "
-"Frustration up the whazzoo. But the thing that made it worse was knowing "
-"that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his own selfishness, was "
-"blocking us, obstructing us from improving the software. So, of course, we "
-"felt some resentment."
-msgstr ""
-"Jedyne, co nam pozostawaÅo, to ÅcierpieÄ czekanie. Wydruk zajmowaÅ
od "
-"jednej do dwóch godzin, ponieważ przez wiÄkszoÅÄ czasu
drukarka "
-"byÅa zaciÄta. I tylko czasami – czekaÅo siÄ godzinÄ
myÅlÄ
c: "
-"„Na pewno bÄdzie zaciÄta. Poczekam godzinÄ i wtedy odbiorÄ "
-"wydruk”, a potem okazywaÅo siÄ, że byÅa zaciÄta przez
caÅy "
-"ten czas i że nikt inny jej nie naprawiÅ. WiÄc naprawiaÅo siÄ
jÄ
"
-"i czekaÅo kolejne póŠgodziny. Potem siÄ wracaÅo, a ona znów
siÄ "
-"zaciÄÅa – zanim zaczÄÅa drukowaÄ twój dokument. DrukowaÅa
przez "
-"trzy minuty, a staÅa zaciÄta przez trzydzieÅci. Frustracja siÄgaÅa "
-"sufitu. Ale gorsze byÅo to, że wiedzieliÅmy, że możemy jÄ
"
-"naprawiÄ, jednak ktoÅ inny, z powodu swojego egoizmu, nie
pozwalaÅ "
-"nam, blokowaÅ możliwoÅÄ ulepszenia oprogramowania. WiÄc oczywiÅcie
"
-"trochÄ Å¼ywiliÅmy do nich urazÄ."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a copy of "
-"that software. So I was visiting there later, so I went to his office and I "
-"said, “Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of the printer source "
-"code?” And he said “No, I promised not to give you a copy."
-"” <i>[Laughter]</i> I was stunned. I was so — I was angry, and "
-"I had no idea how I could do justice to it. All I could think of was to "
-"turn around on my heel and walk out of his room. Maybe I slammed the door. "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i> And I thought about it later on, because I realized that I "
-"was seeing not just an isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was "
-"important and affected a lot of people."
-msgstr ""
-"I wtedy dowiedziaÅem siÄ, że ktoÅ na uniwersytecie
Carnegie "
-"Mellon [Carnegie Mellon University] ma kopiÄ tego oprogramowania. ByÅem tam
"
-"jakiÅ czas później, wiÄc poszedÅem do jego biura
i spytaÅem: "
-"„CzeÅÄ, jestem z MIT. Czy mógÅbym dostaÄ kopiÄ kodu "
-"źródÅowego oprogramowania drukarki?” a on na to:
„Nie, "
-"obiecaÅem nie dawaÄ ci kopii”. <i>[Åmiech]</i> StaÅem osÅupiaÅy.
ByÅem "
-"taki – byÅem wÅciekÅy i nie wiedziaÅem jak mogÄ
zaradziÄ "
-"sytuacji. Jedyne co przyszÅo mi do gÅowy, to obróciÄ siÄ
na piÄcie "
-"i wyjÅÄ z jego biura. ByÄ może trzasnÄ
Åem drzwiami.
<i>[Åmiech]</"
-"i> A potem o tym myÅlaÅem, ponieważ zdaÅem sobie sprawÄ,
że "
-"nie miaÅem do czynienia z jednym draniem, ale ze spoÅecznym "
-"zjawiskiem, które miaÅo duże znaczenie i dotykaÅo bardzo wielu
ludzi."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"This was — for me — I was lucky, I only got a taste of it, but "
-"other people had to live in this all the time. So I thought about it at "
-"length. See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with us — his "
-"colleagues at MIT. He had betrayed us. But he didn't just do it to us. "
-"Chances are he did it to you too. <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> "
-"And I think, mostly likely, he did it to you too. <i>[Pointing at another "
-"member of audience.] [Laughter]</i> And he probably did it to you as well. "
-"<i>[Pointing to third member of audience.]</i> He probably did it to most of "
-"the people here in this room — except a few, maybe, who weren't born "
-"yet in 1980. Because he had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about "
-"the entire population of the Planet Earth. He had signed a non-disclosure "
-"agreement."
-msgstr ""
-"ByÅo to – dla mnie – miaÅem szczÄÅcie, dostaÅem
tylko "
-"przedsmak, a inni musieli z tym żyÄ przez caÅy czas. WiÄc "
-"dÅugo na ten temat myÅlaÅem. a wiÄc on obiecaÅ odmówiÄ
wspóÅpracy "
-"z nami – swoimi kolegami z MIT. ZdradziÅ nas. Ale "
-"nie tylko nas. Prawdopodobnie zdradziŠteż ciebie. <i>[wskazuje palcem "
-"któregoÅ ze sÅuchaczy]</i> Wydaje mi siÄ, że zapewne zdradziÅ też
"
-"ciebie. <i>[wskazuje palcem innego sÅuchacza] [Åmiech]</i> I ciebie "
-"pewno też zdradziÅ. <i>[wskazuje trzeciego sÅuchacza]</i> Prawdopodobnie "
-"zdradziÅ wiÄkszoÅÄ ludzi w tym pomieszczeniu – za "
-"wyjÄ
tkiem może kilku, którzy w 1980 jeszcze siÄ nie urodzili.
Bo "
-"on obiecaÅ odmówiÄ wspóÅpracy w zasadzie z caÅÄ
populacjÄ
planety "
-"Ziemia. PodpisaÅ umowÄ o poufnoÅci."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, "
-"and it taught me an important lesson — a lesson that's important "
-"because most programmers never learn it. You see, this was my first "
-"encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was the victim. I, and my "
-"whole lab, were the victims. And the lesson it taught me was that non-"
-"disclosure agreements have victims. They're not innocent. They're not "
-"harmless. Most programmers first encounter a non-disclosure agreement when "
-"they're invited to sign one. And there's always some temptation — "
-"some goody they're going to get if they sign. So, they make up excuses. "
-"They say, “Well, he's never going to get a copy no matter what, so why "
-"shouldn't I join the conspiracy to deprive him?” They say, “This "
-"is the way it's always done. Who am I to go against it?” They say, "
-"“If I don't sign this, someone else will.” Various excuses to "
-"gag their consciences."
-msgstr ""
-"To byÅ mój pierwszy, bezpoÅredni kontakt z umowÄ
o poufnoÅci
i "
-"nauczyÅ mnie on pewnej ważnej rzeczy – ważnej,
bo wiÄkszoÅÄ "
-"programistów nigdy siÄ jej nie uczy. ByÅ to mój pierwszy kontakt z "
-"umowÄ
o poufnoÅci i ja byÅem ofiarÄ
. Ja i caÅe moje
laboratorium "
-"byliÅmy ofiarami. a rzecz, której siÄ nauczyÅem, to że umowy o
"
-"poufnoÅci majÄ
swoje ofiary. Nie sÄ
niewinne. Nie sÄ
nieszkodliwe.
WiÄkszoÅÄ "
-"programistów po raz pierwszy siÄ z nimi styka, gdy majÄ
takÄ
umowÄ "
-"podpisaÄ. I zawsze istnieje jakaÅ pokusa – jakaÅ nagroda, "
-"którÄ
dostanÄ
, jeÅli podpiszÄ
. WiÄc wymyÅlajÄ
wymówki. MówiÄ
:
„No "
-"cóż, on i tak nigdy nie dostanie kopii, choÄby nie wiem co,
wiÄc "
-"czemu nie miaÅbym przyÅÄ
czyÄ siÄ do spisku chcÄ
cego odmówiÄ mu
do "
-"niej dostÄpu?”. MówiÄ
: „Zawsze siÄ to tak robi. Kim ja
jestem, "
-"żeby siÄ temu sprzeciwiaÄ?”. MówiÄ
: „JeÅli ja tego nie
podpiszÄ, "
-"ktoÅ inny to zrobi”. Przeróżne wymówki, aby uciszyÄ swoje "
-"sumienie."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But when somebody invited me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, my "
-"conscience was already sensitized. It remembered how angry I had been, when "
-"somebody promised not to help me and my whole lab solve our problem. And I "
-"couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to somebody else who had "
-"never done me any harm. You know, if somebody asked me to promise not to "
-"share some useful information with a hated enemy, I would have said yes. "
-"You know? If somebody's done something bad, he deserves it. But, strangers "
-"— they haven't done me any harm. How could they deserve that kind of "
-"mistreatment? You can't let yourself start treating just anybody and "
-"everybody badly. Then you become a predator on society. So I said, “"
-"Thank you very much for offering me this nice software package. But I can't "
-"accept it in good conscience, on the conditions you are demanding, so I will "
-"do without it. Thank you so much.” And so, I have never knowingly "
-"signed a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful technical information "
-"such as software."
-msgstr ""
-"Lecz kiedy ktoÅ poprosiÅ mnie o podpisanie umowy o poufnoÅci, moje "
-"sumienie byÅo już wyczulone. PamiÄtaÅo jaki byÅem wÅciekÅy, kiedy
ktoÅ "
-"obiecaÅ, że nie pomoże mi i mojemu laboratorium rozwiÄ
zaÄ
naszego "
-"problemu. I nie mogÅem obróciÄ siÄ i zrobiÄ dokÅadnie tego
samego "
-"komuÅ innemu, kto nigdy nie zrobiÅ mi niczego zÅego. Wiecie, gdyby ktoÅ "
-"poprosiÅ mnie, żebym obiecaÅ, że nie podzielÄ siÄ pewnymi
użytecznymi "
-"informacjami ze znienawidzonym wrogiem, to zgodziÅbym siÄ. Rozumiecie?
JeÅli "
-"ktoÅ zrobiÅ coÅ zÅego, to na to zasÅuguje. Ale nieznajomi â
nie "
-"zrobili mi niczego zÅego. W jaki sposób mieliby sobie zasÅużyÄ
na "
-"takie podÅe traktowanie? Nie można sobie pozwoliÄ na traktowanie "
-"po prostu wszystkich bez wyjÄ
tku źle. Zaczyna siÄ wtedy
żerowaÄ "
-"na spoÅeczeÅstwie. PowiedziaÅem wiÄc: „DziÄkujÄ bardzo
za "
-"zaoferowanie mi tego wspaniaÅego pakietu oprogramowania. Jednak nie "
-"mogÄ go przyjÄ
Ä w dobrej wierze na warunkach, których siÄ "
-"domagacie, wiÄc poradzÄ sobie bez niego. DziÄkujÄ
bardzo”. "
-"I w taki sposób nigdy Åwiadomie nie podpisaÅem umowy o poufnoÅci "
-"dotyczÄ
cej powszechnie użytecznych informacji technicznych, takich jak "
-"oprogramowanie."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now there are other kinds of information which raise different ethical "
-"issues. For instance, there's personal information. You know, if you "
-"wanted to talk with me about what was happening between you and your "
-"boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody — you know, I could "
-"keep — I could agree to keep that a secret for you, because that's not "
-"generally useful technical information. At least, it's probably not "
-"generally useful. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"IstniejÄ
inne rodzaje informacji, które budzÄ
inne etyczne pytania. SÄ
"
-"na przykÅad informacje osobiste. No wiecie, gdyby jakaÅ dziewczyna "
-"chciaÅa porozmawiaÄ ze mnÄ
o tym, co dziaÅo siÄ miÄdzy niÄ
a jej "
-"chÅopakiem i poprosiÅa mnie o utrzymanie tego w tajemnicy "
-"– to wiecie, mógÅbym to utrzymaÄ – mógÅbym zgodziÄ
siÄ tego "
-"nie ujawniaÄ, ponieważ nie jest to powszechnie użyteczna informacja "
-"techniczna. W każdym bÄ
dź razie prawdopodobnie nie powszechnie "
-"użyteczna. <i>[Åmiech]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"There is a small chance — and it's a possibility though — that "
-"you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex technique, <i>[Laughter]</i> "
-"and I would then feel a moral duty <i>[Laughter]</i> to pass it onto the "
-"rest of humanity, so that everyone could get the benefit of it. So, I'd "
-"have to put a proviso in that promise, you know? If it's just details about "
-"who wants this, and who's angry at whom, and things like that — soap "
-"opera — that I can keep private for you, but something that humanity "
-"could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't withhold. You see, the "
-"purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information for "
-"humanity to help people live their lives better. If we promise to withhold "
-"that information — if we keep it secret — then we are betraying "
-"the mission of our field. And this, I decided I shouldn't do."
-msgstr ""
-"Istnieje maÅa szansa – ale to tylko
możliwoÅÄ – "
-"że mogÅaby wyjawiÄ mi jakÄ
Å nowÄ
, wspaniaÅÄ
technikÄ seksualnÄ
<i>"
-"[Åmiech]</i>, a wtedy czuÅbym moralne zobowiÄ
zanie <i>[Åmiech]</i> "
-"podzieliÄ siÄ niÄ
z resztÄ
ludzkoÅci, tak aby wszyscy mogli
z "
-"niej skorzystaÄ. WiÄc musiaÅbym w tej obietnicy zawrzeÄ "
-"zastrzeżenie, prawda? JeÅli byÅyby to tylko szczegóÅowe wiadomoÅci, kto
tego "
-"chce, a kto jest zÅy na kogo, i tak dalej – "
-"brazylijski serial – to mogÄ to utrzymaÄ w tajemnicy, "
-"ale wiedzy, na której mogÅaby bardzo skorzystaÄ ludzkoÅÄ nie
mogÄ "
-"zatrzymaÄ dla siebie. Zadaniem nauki i technologii jest dawanie "
-"ludzkoÅci użytecznych informacji, dziÄki którym polepsza siÄ Å¼ycie
ludzi. "
-"JeÅli obiecujemy zatrzymaÄ takie informacje dla siebie – jeÅli "
-"trzymamy je w tajemnicy – to zdradzamy ideaÅy naszej "
-"dziedziny. A czegoÅ takiego postanowiÅem nie robiÄ."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, meanwhile my community had collapsed, and that was collapsing, and that "
-"left me in a bad situation. You see, the whole Incompatible Timesharing "
-"System was obsolete, because the PDP-10 was obsolete, and so there was no "
-"way that I could continue working as an operating system developer the way "
-"that I had been doing it. That depended on being part of the community "
-"using the community software and improving it. That no longer was a "
-"possibility, and that gave me a moral dilemma. What was I going to do? "
-"Because the most obvious possibility meant to go against that decision I had "
-"made. The most obvious possibility was to adapt myself to the change in the "
-"world. To accept that things were different, and that I'd just have to give "
-"up those principles and start signing non-disclosure agreements for "
-"proprietary operating systems, and most likely writing proprietary software "
-"as well. But I realized that that way I could have fun coding, and I could "
-"make money — especially if I did it other than at MIT — but at "
-"the end, I'd have to look back at my career and say, “I've spent my "
-"life building walls to divide people,” and I would have been ashamed "
-"of my life."
-msgstr ""
-"Tymczasem rozpadÅa siÄ moja spoÅecznoÅÄ, a to byÅo zaÅamujÄ
ce
i "
-"postawiÅo mnie w zÅej sytuacji. CaÅy ITS byÅ przestarzaÅy, "
-"ponieważ PDP-10 byÅo przestarzaÅe, wiÄc nie byÅo żadnego
sposobu, "
-"abym mógÅ kontynuowaÄ pracÄ programisty systemowego tak jak dotychczas. "
-"PolegaÅa ona na byciu czÄÅciÄ
spoÅecznoÅci, korzystaniu ze
stworzonego "
-"przez niÄ
oprogramowania i ulepszaniu go. Nie byÅo wiÄcej takiej "
-"możliwoÅci i stanÄ
Åem przed moralnym dylematem. Co miaÅem robiÄ? "
-"Bo najbardziej oczywista możliwoÅÄ oznaczaÅa zaprzeczenie podjÄtej "
-"przeze mnie decyzji. Najbardziej oczywistÄ
możliwoÅciÄ
byÅo dostosowanie
siÄ "
-"do zmian, jakie zaszÅy w Åwiecie. Zaakceptowanie, że sprawy
"
-"przedstawiaÅy siÄ inaczej i że muszÄ po prostu porzuciÄ swoje "
-"zasady, i zaczÄ
Ä podpisywaÄ umowy o poufnoÅci dotyczÄ
ce systemów "
-"operacyjnych objÄtych restrykcyjnymi licencjami, oraz "
-"najprawdopodobniej pisaÄ oprogramowanie o zamkniÄtych źródÅach. ZdaÅem
sobie "
-"sprawÄ, że w ten sposób mógÅbym miÅo spÄdzaÄ czas programujÄ
c
i "
-"zarabiaÄ pieniÄ
dze – szczególnie, gdybym pracowaÅ poza
MIT "
-"– ale potem musiaÅbym spojrzeÄ wstecz na swojÄ
drogÄ "
-"zawodowÄ
i powiedzieÄ: „SpÄdziÅem życie budujÄ
c mury dzielÄ
ce "
-"ludzi” i wstydziÅbym siÄ swojego życia."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So I looked for another alternative, and there was an obvious one. I could "
-"leave the software field and do something else. Now I had no other special "
-"noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a waiter. <i>[Laughter]"
-"</i> Not at a fancy restaurant; they wouldn't hire me, <i>[Laughter]</i> but "
-"I could be a waiter somewhere. And many programmers, they say to me, “"
-"The people who hire programmers demand this, this and this. If I don't do "
-"those things, I'll starve.” It's literally the word they use. Well, "
-"you know, as a waiter, you're not going to starve. <i>[Laughter]</i> So, "
-"really, they're in no danger. But — and this is important, you see "
-"— because sometimes you can justify doing something that hurts other "
-"people by saying otherwise something worse is going to happen to me. You "
-"know, if you were <em>really</em> going to starve, you'd be justified in "
-"writing proprietary software. <i>[Laughter]</i> If somebody's pointing a "
-"gun at you, then I would say, it's forgivable. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, I had "
-"found a way that I could survive without doing something unethical, so that "
-"excuse was not available. So I realized, though, that being a waiter would "
-"be no fun for me, and it would be wasting my skills as an operating system "
-"developer. It would avoid misusing my skills. Developing proprietary "
-"software would be misusing my skills. Encouraging other people to live in "
-"the world of proprietary software would be misusing my skills. So it's "
-"better to waste them than misuse them, but it's still not really good."
-msgstr ""
-"SzukaÅem wiÄc innej możliwoÅci – istniaÅa jedna
oczywista. "
-"MogÅem odejÅÄ z branży programistycznej i zajÄ
Ä siÄ czymÅ
innym. "
-"Nie miaÅem żadnych innych wartych uwagi umiejÄtnoÅci, ale na pewno "
-"mogÅem zostaÄ kelnerem. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Nie w drogiej restauracji, "
-"w takiej by mnie nie zatrudnili <i>[Åmiech]</i>, ale gdzieÅ tam "
-"mogÅem byÄ kelnerem. Wielu programistów mówi mi: „Ludzie
zatrudniajÄ
cy "
-"programistów wymagajÄ
tego, tego i tego. JeÅli nie bÄdÄ tego
robiÅ, to "
-"bÄdÄ gÅodowaÅ.” DokÅadnie tego sÅowa używajÄ
. No cóż, pracujÄ
c jako "
-"kelner nie bÄdziesz gÅodowaÅ. <i>[Åmiech]</i> NaprawdÄ nie ma siÄ czego
"
-"obawiaÄ. Jednak – i to jest ważne – bo "
-"czasami można usprawiedliwiaÄ robienie czegoÅ, co szkodzi innym, twierdzÄ
c, "
-"że coÅ gorszego spotka nas. GdybyÅcie <em>naprawdÄ</em> mieli
gÅodowaÄ, "
-"to bylibyÅcie usprawiedliwieni piszÄ
c oprogramowanie objÄte restrykcyjnymi
"
-"licencjami. <i>[Åmiech]</i> JeÅli ktoÅ celowaÅby do was z "
-"pistoletu, to można by wam to wybaczyÄ. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Jednak "
-"znalazÅem sposób, aby przeżyÄ nie robiÄ
c czegoÅ nieetycznego,
wiÄc "
-"ta wymówka byÅa na nic. ZdaÅem sobie sprawÄ, że bycie kelnerem
nie "
-"sprawiaÅoby mi przyjemnoÅci i marnowaÅbym swoje umiejÄtnoÅci "
-"programisty systemowego. Nie powodowaÅoby to niewÅaÅciwego wykorzystania "
-"moich umiejÄtnoÅci. Pisanie oprogramowania objÄtego restrykcyjnymi "
-"licencjami byÅoby niewÅaÅciwym ich wykorzystaniem. ZachÄcanie innych
do "
-"życia w Åwiecie takiego oprogramowania byÅoby niewÅaÅciwym ich "
-"wykorzystaniem. Lepiej jest je marnowaÄ niż wykorzystywaÄ niewÅaÅciwie, "
-"ale i ta droga nie jest naprawdÄ dobra."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So for those reasons, I decided to look for some other alternative. What "
-"can an operating system developer do that would actually improve the "
-"situation, make the world a better place? And I realized that an operating "
-"system developer was exactly what was needed. The problem, the dilemma, "
-"existed for me and for everyone else because all of the available operating "
-"systems for modern computers were proprietary. The free operating systems "
-"were for old, obsolete computers, right? So for the modern computers — "
-"if you wanted to get a modern computer and use it, you were forced into a "
-"proprietary operating system. So if an operating system developer wrote "
-"another operating system, and then said, “Everybody come and share "
-"this; you're welcome to this” — that would give everybody a way "
-"out of the dilemma, another alternative. So I realized that there was "
-"something I could do that would solve the problem. I had just the right "
-"skills to be able to do it. And it was the most useful thing I could "
-"possibly imagine that I'd be able to do with my life. And it was a problem "
-"that no one else was trying to solve. It was just sort of sitting there, "
-"getting worse, and nobody was there but me. So I felt, “I'm elected. "
-"I have to work on this. If not me, who?” So I decided I would develop "
-"a free operating system, or die trying … of old age, of course. <i>"
-"[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Z tych powodów postanowiÅem poszukaÄ innej możliwoÅci. Co może
zrobiÄ "
-"programista systemowy, aby rzeczywiÅcie poprawiÄ sytuacjÄ, uczyniÄ "
-"Åwiat lepszym? i zdaÅem sobie sprawÄ, że programista systemowy
byÅ "
-"wÅaÅnie kimÅ, kto byÅ potrzebny. Ten problem, dylemat miaÅem ja i "
-"wszyscy pozostali, ponieważ wszystkie dostÄpne systemy operacyjne dla "
-"nowych komputerów byÅy objÄte restrykcyjnymi licencjami. Wolne systemy "
-"operacyjne byÅy przeznaczone dla starych, przestarzaÅych komputerów,
prawda? "
-"WiÄc w przypadku nowych komputerów – jeÅli chcieliÅcie
kupiÄ "
-"i korzystaÄ z nowego komputera, to byliÅcie zmuszeni używaÄ "
-"niewolnego systemu operacyjnego. WiÄc jeÅli jakiÅ programista
systemowy "
-"napisaÅby inny system operacyjny, a potem powiedziaÅ: „Niech
siÄ "
-"wszyscy tym dzielÄ
– zachÄcam was do tego”, to "
-"pozwoliÅoby wszystkim uniknÄ
Ä tego dylematu, daÅoby jeszcze jednÄ
możliwoÅÄ. "
-"ZdaÅem sobie wiÄc sprawÄ, że byÅo coÅ, co mogÅem zrobiÄ,
żeby "
-"rozwiÄ
zaÄ mój problem. MiaÅem dokÅadnie te umiejÄtnoÅci, które byÅy
do "
-"tego potrzebne. I byÅa to najbardziej użyteczna rzecz, którÄ
mogÅem
"
-"zrobiÄ ze swoim życiem, jaka przyszÅa mi do gÅowy. I byÅ to "
-"problem, którego nikt inny nie próbowaÅ rozwiÄ
zaÄ. On sobie
po prostu "
-"byÅ, stawaÅ siÄ coraz wiÄkszy i nikt oprócz mnie nie zwracaÅ
na "
-"niego uwagi. PomyÅlaÅem wiÄc sobie: „ZostaÅem wybrany. MuszÄ "
-"nad tym pracowaÄ. JeÅli nie ja, to kto?” Tak wiÄc "
-"postanowiÅem, że stworzÄ wolny system operacyjny, albo umrÄ "
-"próbujÄ
c… ze staroÅci, oczywiÅcie. <i>[Åmiech]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, of course I had to decide what kind of operating system it should be. "
-"There are some technical design decisions to be made. I decided to make the "
-"system compatible with Unix for a number of reasons. First of all, I had "
-"just seen one operating system that I really loved become obsolete because "
-"it was written for one particular kind of computer. I didn't want that to "
-"happen again. We needed to have a portable system. Well, Unix was a "
-"portable system. So if I followed the design of Unix, I had a pretty good "
-"chance that I could make a system that would also be portable and workable. "
-"And furthermore, why <i>[Tape unclear]</i> be compatible with it in the "
-"details. The reason is, users hate incompatible changes. If I had just "
-"designed the system in my favorite way — which I would have loved "
-"doing, I'm sure — I would have produced something that was "
-"incompatible. You know, the details would be different. So, if I wrote the "
-"system, then the users would have said to me, “Well, this is very "
-"nice, but it's incompatible. It will be too much work to switch. We can't "
-"afford that much trouble just to use your system instead of Unix, so we'll "
-"stay with Unix,” they would have said."
-msgstr ""
-"MusiaÅem oczywiÅcie zdecydowaÄ, jakiego rodzaju miaÅ to byÄ system.
Trzeba "
-"podjÄ
Ä pewne decyzje projektowe. Z kilku powodów postanowiÅem,
że "
-"mój system bÄdzie zgodny z Uniksem. Po pierwsze, dopiero co "
-"patrzyÅem jak system operacyjny, który kochaÅem, stawaÅ siÄ
przestarzaÅy, "
-"bo zostaÅ stworzony dla jednego rodzaju komputera. Nie chciaÅem, "
-"aby to siÄ powtórzyÅo. Potrzebny byÅ przenoÅny system. Cóż, Unix
byÅ "
-"przenoÅnym systemem. WiÄc jeÅli naÅladowaÅbym budowÄ Uniksa, to
miaÅem "
-"spore szanse, że stworzÄ system, który również bÄdzie przenoÅny
i "
-"możliwy do napisania. Ponadto, dlaczego <i>[zakÅócenia
na taÅmie]</"
-"i> byÄ z nim zgodny w szczegóÅach. Powód jest taki, że "
-"użytkownicy nie znoszÄ
niezgodnych zmian. JeÅli po prostu "
-"zaprojektowaÅbym system w mój ulubiony sposób – co "
-"sprawiaÅoby mi mnóstwo przyjemnoÅci, jestem tego pewien – to "
-"stworzyÅbym coÅ niezgodnego. No wiecie, szczegóÅy byÅyby inne.
WiÄc "
-"jeÅli napisaÅbym ten system, użytkownicy powiedzieliby mi: „No tak, "
-"jest bardzo fajny, ale niezgodny. Przestawienie siÄ na niego "
-"bÄdzie wymagaÅo zbyt wiele pracy. Nie możemy sobie pozwoliÄ na tyle "
-"pracy tylko po to, aby korzystaÄ z twojego systemu zamiast "
-"z Uniksa, wiÄc pozostaniemy przy Uniksie” – tak "
-"by powiedzieli."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, if I wanted to actually create a community where there would be people "
-"in it, people using this free system, and enjoying the benefits of liberty "
-"and cooperation, I had to make a system people would use, a system that they "
-"would find easy to switch to, that would not have an obstacle making it fail "
-"at the very beginning. Now, making the system upward compatible with Unix "
-"actually made all the immediate design decisions, because Unix consists of "
-"many pieces, and they communicate through interfaces that are more or less "
-"documented. So if you want to be compatible with Unix, you have to replace "
-"each piece, one by one, with a compatible piece. So the remaining design "
-"decisions are inside one piece, and they could be made later by whoever "
-"decides to write that piece. They didn't have to be made at the outset."
-msgstr ""
-"JeÅli chciaÅem stworzyÄ spoÅecznoÅÄ, do której należeliby
ludzie, "
-"ludzie korzystajÄ
cy z tego wolnego systemu i czerpiÄ
cy korzyÅci "
-"z wolnoÅci oraz wspóÅpracy, to musiaÅem stworzyÄ system,
którego "
-"ludzie by używali, system, na który Åatwo byÅoby siÄ przestawiÄ,
który "
-"nie zawieraÅby przeszkody, z powodu której staÅby siÄ porażkÄ
na "
-"samym poczÄ
tku. Fakt, że system miaÅ byÄ zgodny w górÄ
z "
-"Uniksem automatycznie podjÄ
Å najpilniejsze decyzje projektowe,
ponieważ "
-"Unix skÅada siÄ z wielu kawaÅków, które komunikujÄ
siÄ
za pomocÄ
"
-"w jakimÅ stopniu udokumentowanych interfejsów. JeÅli
wiÄc chcesz "
-"byÄ zgodny z Uniksem, to musisz zastÄ
piÄ każdy kawaÅek, jeden
po "
-"drugim, innym zgodnym kawaÅkiem. PozostaÅe decyzje projektowe dotyczÄ
"
-"wiÄc tylko poszczególnych kawaÅków i mogÄ
zostaÄ podjÄte
przez "
-"dowolnÄ
osobÄ, która zdecyduje siÄ je napisaÄ. Nie trzeba ich
podejmowaÄ "
-"na samym poczÄ
tku."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So all we had to do to start work was find a name for the system. Now, we "
-"hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program, because "
-"thinking of people being amused by the name is half the fun of writing the "
-"program. <i>[Laughter]</i> And we had a tradition of recursive acronyms, to "
-"say that the program that you're writing is similar to some existing "
-"program. You can give it a recursive acronym name which says: this one's not "
-"the other. So, for instance, there were many Tico text editors in the '60's "
-"and '70's, and they were generally called something-or-other Tico. Then one "
-"clever hacker called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico — the first "
-"recursive acronym. In 1975, I developed the first Emacs text editor, and "
-"there were many imitations of Emacs, and a lot of them were called something-"
-"or-other Emacs, but one was called Fine, for Fine Is Not Emacs, and there "
-"was Sine, for Sine Is Not Emacs, and Eine for Ina Is Not Emacs, and MINCE "
-"for Mince Is Not Complete Emacs. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was a stripped down "
-"imitation. And then, Eine was almost completely rewritten, and the new "
-"version was called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Tak wiÄc wszystko co pozostaÅo wtedy do zrobienia przed "
-"rozpoczÄciem pracy to wymyÅlenie nazwy. My hakerzy zawsze staramy siÄ "
-"wymyÅliÄ dla programu jakÄ
Å ÅmiesznÄ
lub dwuznacznÄ
nazwÄ,
bo "
-"myÅl, że ludziom bÄdzie siÄ podobaÄ nazwa stanowi poÅowÄ radoÅci
z "
-"napisania programu. <i>[Åmiech]</i> MieliÅmy tradycjÄ rekursywnych "
-"akronimów, które wskazywaÅy, że program, który wÅaÅnie piszesz
jest "
-"podobny do jakiegoÅ już istniejÄ
cego. Możesz nadaÄ mu nazwÄ
w "
-"postaci rekursywnego akronimu, który mówi: ten program nie jest tym innym. "
-"Na przykÅad w latach 60. i 70. istniaÅo wiele edytorów Tico
"
-"i w zasadzie wszystkie nazywaÅy siÄ jakieÅ-tam Tico. Aż jakiÅ
bystry "
-"haker nazwaÅ swojÄ
wersjÄ Tint, bo „TInt to Nie Tico” "
-"[<em>Tint Is Not Tico</em>] – byÅ to pierwszy rekursywny akronim.
"
-"W roku 1975 stworzyÅem pierwszy edytor tekstu Emacs, powstaÅo wiele "
-"jego imitacji i wiÄkszoÅÄ z nich nazywaÅa siÄ jakiÅ-tam
Emacs, "
-"jednak jedna miaÅa nazwÄ Fine, ponieważ „FIne to Nie "
-"Emacs” [<em>Fine Is Not Emacs</em>], byÅ też Sine,
bo „SIne "
-"to Nie Emacs” [<em>Sine Is Not Emacs</em>] oraz Eine, bo "
-"„Ina to Nie Emacs” [<em>Ina Is Not Emacs</em>], aż wreszcie "
-"MINCE, bo „MINCe to niekompletny Emacs” [<em>Mince Is Not "
-"Complete Emacs</em>]. <i>[Åmiech]</i> ByÅa to okrojona imitacja. Potem Eine
"
-"zostaÅ napisany prawie zupeÅnie od nowa, a nowa wersja zostaÅa "
-"nazwana Zwei, bo âZWei na poczÄ
tku nazywaÅo siÄ EIneâ
[<em>Zwei "
-"Was Eine Initially</em>]. <i>[Åmiech]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So I looked for a recursive acronym for Something is not Unix. And I tried "
-"all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word. <i>[Laughter]</"
-"i> Hmm, try another way. I made a contraction. That way I could have a "
-"three-letter acronym, for Something's not Unix. And I tried letters, and I "
-"came across the word “GNU” — the word “GNU” is "
-"the funniest word in the English language. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was it. "
-"Of course, the reason it's funny is that according to the dictionary, it's "
-"pronounced “new”. You see? And so that's why people use it for "
-"a lot of wordplay. Let me tell you, this is the name of an animal that "
-"lives in Africa. And the African pronunciation had a click sound in it. <i>"
-"[Laughter]</i> Maybe still does. And so, the European colonists, when they "
-"got there, they didn't bother learning to say this click sound. So they "
-"just left it out, and they wrote a “G” which meant “"
-"there's another sound that's supposed to be here which we are not "
-"pronouncing.” <i>[Laughter]</i> So, tonight I'm leaving for South "
-"Africa, and I have begged them, I hope they're going to find somebody who "
-"can teach me to pronounce click sounds, <i>[Laughter]</i> so that I'll know "
-"how to pronounce GNU the correct way, when it's the animal."
-msgstr ""
-"SzukaÅem wiÄc rekursywnego akronimu na „CoÅ to nie "
-"Unix”. WypróbowaÅem wszystkie 26 liter i odkryÅem,
że żadna "
-"z nich nie jest sÅowem. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Hmm, spróbujmy inaczej. "
-"StworzyÅem formÄ skróconÄ
. W ten sposób mogÅem wymyÅliÄ
trzyliterowy "
-"akronim na „CoÅ to nie Unix”. PróbowaÅem z literami "
-"i natrafiÅem na sÅowo „GNU” – „"
-"GNU” to najzabawniejsze sÅowo w jÄzyku angielskim.
<i>[Åmiech]</"
-"i> To byÅo to. OczywiÅcie, powód dla którego jest to zabawne jest taki, "
-"że wedÅug sÅownika czyta siÄ je tak samo jak „new” "
-"[<em>ang. nowe</em>]. Rozumiecie? Dlatego wÅaÅnie ludzie korzystajÄ
"
-"z niego w różnych żartach jÄzykowych. WyjaÅniÄ, że jest
to "
-"nazwa zwierzÄcia żyjÄ
cego w Afryce. AfrykaÅska wymowa zawieraÅa
w "
-"sobie mlask [<em>fon. rodzaj gÅoski</em>]. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Może nadal tak "
-"jest. Gdy dotarli tam europejscy kolonizatorzy, to nie trudzili siÄ uczeniem
"
-"tego dźwiÄku. Po prostu go omijali i pisali „G”,
które "
-"oznaczaÅo „istnieje pewien dźwiÄk, który powinien tu byÄ i "
-"którego nie wymawiamy”. <i>[Åmiech]</i> DziÅ wieczorem lecÄ
do "
-"RPA i bÅagaÅem ich, mam nadziejÄ, że znajdÄ
kogoÅ, kto nauczy
mnie "
-"wymawiaÄ mlaski, <i>[Åmiech]</i> żebym wiedziaÅ jak prawidÅowo wymawiaÄ
GNU, "
-"gdy odnosi siÄ do zwierzÄcia."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is “"
-"guh-NEW” — pronounce the hard “G”. If you talk "
-"about the “new” operating system, you'll get people very "
-"confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years now, so it is not "
-"new any more. <i>[Laughter]</i> But it still is, and always will be, GNU "
-"— no matter how many people call it Linux by mistake. <i>[Laughter]</"
-"i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Jednak gdy chodzi o nazwÄ naszego systemu, prawidÅowa wymowa to
„"
-"g-NU” – wymawiamy „G”. JeÅli mówicie o „"
-"nowym” [<em>am. ang. /NU/</em>] systemie operacyjnym, to ludzie nie "
-"bÄdÄ
wiedzieli o co chodzi, bo pracujemy nad nim od 17 lat, "
-"wiÄc nie jest już nowy. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Ale caÅy czas jest to, "
-"i zawsze bÄdzie, GNU – nieważne ilu ludzi nazwie go przez "
-"pomyÅkÄ Linuksem. <i>[Åmiech]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces of GNU. "
-"They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities though. And, at "
-"the time, I thought we would write all these pieces, and make an entire GNU "
-"system, and then we'd say, “Come and get it”, and people would "
-"start to use it. That's not what happened. The first pieces I wrote were "
-"just equally good replacements, with fewer bugs for some pieces of Unix, but "
-"they weren't tremendously exciting. Nobody particularly wanted to get them "
-"and install them. But then, in September 1984, I started writing GNU Emacs, "
-"which was my second implementation of Emacs, and by early 1985, it was "
-"working. I could use it for all my editing, which was a big relief, because "
-"I had no intention of learning to use VI, the Unix editor. <i>[Laughter]</i> "
-"So, until that time, I did my editing on some other machine, and saved the "
-"files through the network, so that I could test them. But when GNU Emacs "
-"was running well enough for me to use it, it was also — other people "
-"wanted to use it too."
-msgstr ""
-"Tak wiÄc w styczniu 1984 odszedÅem z MIT, żeby zaczÄ
Ä pisaÄ "
-"kawaÅki GNU. MIT byÅo jednak na tyle miÅe, że mogÅem
korzystaÄ "
-"z ich sprzÄtu. MyÅlaÅem wtedy, że napiszemy wszystkie te
kawaÅki "
-"i stworzymy caÅy system GNU, a potem powiemy: „Chodźcie "
-"i go sobie weźcie”, a ludzie zacznÄ
go używaÄ. Tak siÄ
nie "
-"staÅo. Pierwsze kawaÅki, które napisaÅem, byÅy tak samo dobre jak
uniksowe "
-"oryginaÅy, które miaÅy zastÄ
piÄ, w niektórych przypadkach z "
-"mniejszÄ
iloÅciÄ
bÅÄdów, ale nie byÅy zbyt ekscytujÄ
ce. Nikt
specjalnie "
-"nie chciaÅ ich zdobyÄ i zainstalowaÄ. Ale potem, we wrzeÅniu
1984, "
-"zaczÄ
Åem pisaÄ GNU Emacs, który byÅ mojÄ
drugÄ
implementacjÄ
Emacsa,
a "
-"na poczÄ
tku roku 1985 zaczÄ
Å on dziaÅaÄ. MogÅem go używaÄ
do wszystkich "
-"zadaÅ wymagajÄ
cych edycji tekstu, co byÅo dużÄ
ulgÄ
, bo nie
miaÅem "
-"zamiaru uczyÄ siÄ VI, Uniksowego edytora. <em>[Åmiech]</em> Do tego "
-"czasu edycjÄ tekstu wykonywaÅem na jakimÅ innym komputerze i "
-"zapisywaÅem pliki przez sieÄ, aby móc je przetestowaÄ.
Lecz potem "
-"GNU Emacs dziaÅaÅ wystarczajÄ
co dobrze, bym mógÅ go używaÄ,
ponadto "
-"– inni ludzie też chcieli go używaÄ."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So I had to work out the details of distribution. Of course, I put a copy "
-"in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people who were on the "
-"net They could then just pull over a tar file, but a lot of programmers then "
-"even were not on the net in 1985. They were sending me emails saying “"
-"How can I get a copy?” I had to decide what I would answer them. "
-"Well, I could have said, I want to spend my time writing more GNU software, "
-"not writing tapes, so please find a friend who's on the internet and who is "
-"willing to download it and put it on a tape for you. And I'm sure people "
-"would have found some friends, sooner or later, you know. They would have "
-"got copies. But I had no job. In fact, I've never had a job since quitting "
-"MIT in January 1984. So, I was looking for some way I could make money "
-"through my work on free software, and therefore I started a free software "
-"business. I announced, “Send me $150 dollars, and I'll mail you a "
-"tape of Emacs.” And the orders began dribbling in. By the middle of "
-"the year they were trickling in."
-msgstr ""
-"WiÄc musiaÅem wymyÅliÄ sposób dystrybucji. UmieÅciÅem oczywiÅcie
kopiÄ "
-"w katalogu na anonimowym serwerze FTP i byÅo to wystarczajÄ
ce "
-"dla ludzi korzystajÄ
cych z sieci. Mogli po prostu ÅciÄ
gnÄ
Ä
plik "
-"tar, ale wtedy, w 1985, wielu programistów nie miaÅo nawet
dostÄpu "
-"do sieci. Pisali do mnie emaile z pytaniem: „W jaki "
-"sposób mogÄ zdobyÄ kopiÄ?”. MusiaÅem zdecydowaÄ, co im odpowiem.
Cóż, "
-"mogÅem powiedzieÄ, że chcÄ spÄdzaÄ czas na pisaniu wiÄkszej
iloÅci "
-"oprogramowania GNU, a nie zapisywaniu taÅm, wiÄc znajdźcie "
-"znajomych, którzy majÄ
dostÄp do sieci i bÄdÄ
chcieli ÅciÄ
gnÄ
Ä "
-"kopiÄ, oraz nagraÄ jÄ
dla was na taÅmie. Jestem pewien,
że "
-"prÄdzej czy później ludzie znaleźliby sobie takich znajomych.
Zdobyliby "
-"kopie. Ale ja nie miaÅem pracy. Tak naprawdÄ to nigdy nie miaÅem
pracy "
-"od kiedy opuÅciÅem MIT w styczniu 1984. SzukaÅem wiÄc "
-"jakiegoÅ sposobu na zarabianie poprzez pisanie wolnego "
-"oprogramowania i dlatego zaÅożyÅem firmÄ zajmujÄ
cÄ
siÄ wolnym "
-"oprogramowaniem. OgÅaszaÅem: „PrzeÅlijcie mi 150$, a ja wam
wyÅlÄ "
-"taÅmÄ z Emacsem”. No i zaczÄÅy skapywaÄ pierwsze
zamówienia. "
-"W poÅowie roku skapywaÅo ich już coraz wiÄcej."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month. And, if necessary, I could have lived "
-"on just that, because I've always lived cheaply. I live like a student, "
-"basically. And I like that, because it means that money is not telling me "
-"what to do. I can do what I think is important for me to do. It freed me "
-"to do what seemed worth doing. So make a real effort to avoid getting "
-"sucked into all the expensive lifestyle habits of typical Americans. "
-"Because if you do that, then people with the money will dictate what you do "
-"with your life. You won't be able to do what's really important to you."
-msgstr ""
-"OtrzymywaÅem od 8 do 10 zamówieÅ na miesiÄ
c. JeÅli byÅo
to "
-"konieczne, to mogÅem wyżyÄ wyÅÄ
cznie z tego, bo zawsze żyÅem
"
-"oszczÄdnie. Ogólnie rzecz biorÄ
c żyjÄ jak student. I lubiÄ to,
bo "
-"pieniÄ
dze nie mówiÄ
mi, co mam robiÄ. MogÄ robiÄ to, co uważam
za ważne "
-"dla mnie. DaÅo mi to wolnoÅÄ do robienia tego, co wydawaÅo siÄ
warte "
-"zrobienia. WiÄc naprawdÄ postarajcie siÄ uniknÄ
Ä wciÄ
gniÄcia we "
-"wszystkie drogie nawyki życiowe typowych Amerykanów. Bo jeÅli siÄ to
"
-"stanie, ludzie z pieniÄdzmi bÄdÄ
wam mówiÄ, co macie zrobiÄ ze
swoim "
-"życiem. Nie bÄdziecie mogli robiÄ tego, co dla was naprawdÄ ważne."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, “What do you mean it's "
-"free software if it costs $150 dollars?” <i>[Laughter]</i> Well, the "
-"reason they asked this was that they were confused by the multiple meanings "
-"of the English word “free”. One meaning refers to price, and "
-"another meaning refers to freedom. When I speak of free software, I'm "
-"referring to freedom, not price. So think of free speech, not free beer. "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i> Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many years of my life to "
-"making sure programmers got less money. That's not my goal. I'm a "
-"programmer and I don't mind getting money myself. I won't dedicate my whole "
-"life to getting it, but I don't mind getting it. And I'm not — and "
-"therefore, ethics is the same for everyone. I'm not against some other "
-"programmer getting money either. I don't want prices to be low. That's not "
-"the issue at all. The issue is freedom. Freedom for everyone who's using "
-"software, whether that person be a programmer or not."
-msgstr ""
-"WiÄc byÅo OK, ale ludzie pytali mnie: „Co to
za darmowe "
-"[<em>ang. free oznacza darmowe lub wolne</em>] oprogramowanie, które "
-"kosztuje 150$?” <i>[Åmiech]</i> Cóż, pytali dlatego, że "
-"angielskie sÅowo „free” ma wiele znaczeÅ. Jedno z nich "
-"odnosi siÄ do ceny, a drugie do wolnoÅci. Gdy mówiÄ o
„"
-"free software”, mam na myÅli wolnoÅÄ, a nie cenÄ.
MyÅlcie o "
-"wolnoÅci sÅowa, a nie darmowym piwie. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Nie
poÅwiÄciÅbym "
-"tylu lat mojego życia na staranie siÄ, by programiÅci zarabiali mniej
"
-"pieniÄdzy. To nie jest mój cel. Jestem programistÄ
i nie mam nic "
-"przeciwko zarabianiu pieniÄdzy. Nie poÅwiÄcÄ na to caÅego życia, "
-"ale nie mam nic przeciwko zarabianiu. I nie jestem – "
-"i dlatego, etyka jest dla wszystkich taka sama. Nie mam również nic "
-"przeciwko, żeby jakiÅ inny programista zarabiaÅ pieniÄ
dze. Nie chcÄ, by
ceny "
-"byÅy niskie. To wcale nie o to chodzi. Chodzi o wolnoÅÄ. WolnoÅÄ dla "
-"wszystkich użytkowników oprogramowania, czy sÄ
programistami,
czy "
-"też nie."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So at this point I should give you the definition of free software. I "
-"better get to some real details, you see, because just saying “I "
-"believe in freedom” is vacuous. There's so many different freedoms "
-"you could believe in, and they conflict with each other, so the real "
-"political question is: Which are the important freedoms, the freedoms that "
-"we must make sure everybody has?"
-msgstr ""
-"Teraz powinienem podaÄ wam definicjÄ wolnego oprogramowania. Lepiej
przejdÄ "
-"do konkretów, bo samo mówienie „wierzÄ
w wolnoÅÄ” "
-"jest puste. Jest tyle wolnoÅci, w które można wierzyÄ i sÄ
one
ze "
-"sobÄ
sprzeczne, wiÄc prawdziwe polityczne pytanie brzmi: „Jakie "
-"sÄ
ważne wolnoÅci – wolnoÅci, które powinniÅmy wszystkim
zapewniÄ?"
-"”"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And now, I will give my answer to that question for the particular area of "
-"using software. A program is free software for you, a particular user, if "
-"you have the following freedoms:"
-msgstr ""
-"Podam wam teraz mojÄ
odpowiedź na to pytanie z punktu widzenia "
-"korzystania z programów komputerowych. Programy sÄ
dla was,
konkretnych "
-"użytkowników, wolnym oprogramowaniem, jeÅli macie nastÄpujÄ
ce wolnoÅci:"
-
-#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
-msgid ""
-"First, Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the program for any purpose, any "
-"way you like."
-msgstr ""
-"Po pierwsze, WolnoÅÄ 0, czyli wolnoÅÄ do wykorzystywania "
-"programu do dowolnego celu i w dowolny sposób."
-
-#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
-msgid ""
-"Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the program to suit "
-"your needs."
-msgstr ""
-"WolnoÅÄ 1 to wolnoÅÄ pozwalajÄ
ca na uÅatwianie sobie życia przez "
-"wprowadzanie zmian do programu, aby dostosowaÄ go do swoich "
-"potrzeb."
-
-#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
-msgid ""
-"Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing copies of "
-"the program."
-msgstr ""
-"WolnoÅÄ 2 to wolnoÅÄ do pomagania swoim bliźnim przez dystrybucjÄ
kopii "
-"programu."
-
-#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
-msgid ""
-"And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by publishing "
-"an improved version so others can get the benefit of your work."
-msgstr ""
-"Natomiast WolnoÅÄ 3 pozwala na wspieranie rozwoju wÅasnej "
-"spoÅecznoÅci poprzez publikowanie ulepszonych wersji, tak
aby inni "
-"mogli skorzystaÄ z waszej pracy."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software, for you "
-"— and that's crucial. That's why I phrase it that way. I'll explain "
-"why later, when I talk about the GNU General Public License, but right now "
-"I'm explaining what free software means, which is a more basic question."
-msgstr ""
-"JeÅli macie wszystkie te wolnoÅci, to program jest wolnym oprogramowaniem, "
-"dla was – i to jest ważne. Dlatego w taki sposób "
-"uÅożyÅem zdanie. WyjaÅniÄ później dlaczego, gdy bÄdÄ mówiÅ o GPL,
teraz "
-"wyjaÅniam co to jest wolne oprogramowanie, a to jest bardziej "
-"podstawowÄ
kwestiÄ
."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, Freedom Zero's pretty obvious. If you're not even allowed to run the "
-"program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive program. But as it "
-"happens, most programs will at least give you Freedom Zero. And Freedom "
-"Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of Freedoms One, Two, and Three "
-"— that's the way that copyright law works. So the freedoms that "
-"distinguish free software from typical software are Freedoms One, Two, and "
-"Three, so I'll say more about them and why they are important."
-msgstr ""
-"WolnoÅÄ 0 jest doÅÄ oczywista. JeÅli nie możecie nawet korzystaÄ
z "
-"programu w dowolny sposób, to jest on cholernie restrykcyjny. "
-"Jednak w praktyce wiÄkszoÅÄ programów daje wam przynajmniej
WolnoÅÄ 0. "
-"A WolnoÅÄ 0 wynika, w prawniczym sensie, z WolnoÅci 1, 2 "
-"oraz 3 – w taki sposób dziaÅa prawo autorskie. Tak "
-"wiÄc wolnoÅci odróżniajÄ
ce wolne programy od typowych to
WolnoÅci "
-"1, 2 i 3, dlatego powiem o nich wiÄcej i wyjaÅniÄ, dlaczego
"
-"sÄ
ważne."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the software to suit "
-"your needs. This could mean fixing bugs. It could mean adding new "
-"features. It could mean porting it to a different computer system. It "
-"could mean translating all the error messages into Navajo. Any change you "
-"want to make, you should be free to make."
-msgstr ""
-"WolnoÅÄ 1 to wolnoÅÄ pozwalajÄ
ca na uÅatwienie sobie życia przez "
-"wprowadzanie zmian do programu, aby dostosowaÄ go do swoich "
-"potrzeb. Może to oznaczaÄ naprawianie bÅÄdów. Może to oznaczaÄ
dodawanie "
-"nowych funkcjonalnoÅci. Może to oznaczaÄ przeniesienie go na innÄ
"
-"platformÄ. Może oznaczaÄ przetÅumaczenie wszystkich komunikatów
bÅÄdów "
-"na jÄzyk Indian Navajo. PowinniÅcie móc wprowadziÄ każdÄ
zmianÄ, "
-"na którÄ
macie ochotÄ."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, it's obvious that professional programmers can make use of this freedom "
-"very effectively, but not just them. Anybody of reasonable intelligence can "
-"learn a little programming. You know, there are hard jobs, and there are "
-"easy jobs, and most people are not going to learn enough to do hard jobs. "
-"But lots of people can learn enough to do easy jobs, just the way, you know, "
-"50 years ago, lots and lots of American men learned to repair cars, which is "
-"what enabled the U.S. to have a motorized army in World War II and win. So, "
-"very important, having lots of people tinkering."
-msgstr ""
-"Oczywiste jest, że zawodowi programiÅci mogÄ
bardzo efektywnie "
-"wykorzystywaÄ tÄ wolnoÅÄ, ale nie tylko oni. Każda przeciÄtnie "
-"inteligentna osoba może nauczyÄ siÄ trochÄ programowaÄ. No wiecie, sÄ
trudne "
-"zadania i Åatwe zadania, wiÄkszoÅÄ ludzi nie nauczy siÄ wystarczajÄ
co "
-"dużo, żeby sprostaÄ tym trudnym. Ale mnóstwo ludzi może siÄ
nauczyÄ "
-"wystarczajÄ
co dużo, aby wykonywaÄ proste zadania, tak samo jak 50 lat
"
-"temu tysiÄ
ce Amerykanów nauczyÅo siÄ naprawiaÄ samochody, co pozwoliÅo
USA "
-"mieÄ w czasie II wojny Åwiatowej zmotoryzowanÄ
armiÄ i wygraÄ.
"
-"WiÄc bardzo ważne jest, aby wiele osób przy tym dÅubaÅo."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And if you are a people person, and you really don't want to learn "
-"technology at all, that probably means that you have a lot of friends, and "
-"you're good at getting them to owe you favors. <i>[Laughter]</i> Some of "
-"them are probably programmers. So you can ask one of your programmer "
-"friends. “Would you please change this for me? Add this feature?"
-"” So, lots of people can benefit from it."
-msgstr ""
-"A jeÅli wolicie towarzystwo ludzi i naprawdÄ nie chcecie niczego "
-"siÄ nauczyÄ o technologii, to pewno znaczy, że macie mnóstwo
przyjacióŠ"
-"i jesteÅcie nieźli w doprowadzaniu do sytuacji, w "
-"których sÄ
oni wam winni przysÅugÄ. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Niektórzy
z nich to "
-"byÄ może programiÅci. Możecie wiÄc poprosiÄ jednego z waszych
"
-"przyjacióŠprogramistów: „Czy mógÅbyÅ to dla mnie zmieniÄ?
DodaÄ tÄ "
-"funkcjÄ?” Tak wiÄc może na tym skorzystaÄ mnóstwo ludzi."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, if you don't have this freedom, it causes practical, material harm to "
-"society. It makes you a prisoner of your software. I explained what that "
-"was like with regard to the laser printer. You know, it worked badly for "
-"us, and we couldn't fix it, because we were prisoners of our software."
-msgstr ""
-"Gdy nie macie tej wolnoÅci, skutkiem jest namacalna, materialna szkoda dla "
-"spoÅeczeÅstwa. Czyni was to wiÄźniami wÅasnego oprogramowania.
WyjaÅniaÅem "
-"już jakie to uczucie na przykÅadzie drukarki laserowej. PracowaÅa
źle "
-"i nie mogliÅmy jej naprawiÄ, bo byliÅmy wiÄźniami naszego "
-"oprogramowania."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But it also affects people's morale. You know if the computer is constantly "
-"frustrating to use, and people are using it, their lives are going to be "
-"frustrating, and if they're using it in their jobs, their jobs are going to "
-"be frustrating; they're going to hate their jobs. And you know, people "
-"protect themselves from frustration by deciding not to care. So you end up "
-"with people whose attitude is, “Well, I showed up for work today. "
-"That's all I have to do. If I can't make progress, that's not my problem; "
-"that's the boss's problem.” And when this happens, it's bad for those "
-"people, and it's bad for society as a whole. That's Freedom One, the "
-"freedom to help yourself."
-msgstr ""
-"Ale dotyczy to także ludzkiego morale. JeÅli korzystanie z "
-"komputera budzi frustracjÄ, a ludzie z niego korzystajÄ
, to ich "
-"życie stanie siÄ frustrujÄ
ce, a jeÅli korzystajÄ
z niego
w "
-"pracy, to ich praca stanie siÄ frustrujÄ
ca â zacznÄ
nienawidziÄ swojej "
-"pracy. Ludzie chroniÄ
siÄ przed frustracjÄ
majÄ
c wszystko w nosie.
Ich "
-"podejÅcie zaczyna siÄ sprowadzaÄ do: „No tak, przyszedÅem dziÅ
do "
-"pracy. To wszystko, co muszÄ zrobiÄ. JeÅli nie robiÄ Å¼adnych postÄpów,
to "
-"nie mój problem; to problem szefa”. Taka sytuacja jest zÅa dla tych "
-"ludzi i dla caÅoÅci spoÅeczeÅstwa. To byÅa WolnoÅÄ 1, wolnoÅÄ "
-"pozwalajÄ
ca na uÅatwianie sobie życia."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing copies of "
-"the program. Now, for beings that can think and learn, sharing useful "
-"knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship. When these beings use "
-"computers, this act of friendship takes the form of sharing software. "
-"Friends share with each other. Friends help each other. This is the nature "
-"of friendship. And, in fact, this spirit of goodwill — the spirit of "
-"helping your neighbor, voluntarily — is society's most important "
-"resource. It makes the difference between a livable society and a dog-eat-"
-"dog jungle. Its importance has been recognized by the world's major "
-"religions for thousands of years, and they explicitly try to encourage this "
-"attitude."
-msgstr ""
-"WolnoÅÄ 2 to wolnoÅÄ do pomagania swoim bliźnim przez dystrybucjÄ
kopii "
-"programu. Dla istot zdolnych do myÅlenia i nauki dzielenie siÄ "
-"użytecznÄ
wiedzÄ
jest fundamentalnym przejawem przyjaźni. Gdy te istoty "
-"korzystajÄ
z komputerów, ten przejaw przyjaźni przyjmuje formÄ "
-"dzielenia siÄ oprogramowaniem. Przyjaciele siÄ dzielÄ
. Przyjaciele sobie "
-"pomagajÄ
. Taka jest natura przyjaźni. Tak naprawdÄ ten duch dobrej
woli "
-"– duch pomagania bliźnim bez przymusu – stanowi "
-"najważniejsze dobro spoÅeczeÅstwa. Stanowi on o różnicy pomiÄdzy "
-"spoÅeczeÅstwem, w którym da siÄ Å¼yÄ, a dżunglÄ
,
w której "
-"wszyscy pożerajÄ
siÄ nawzajem. Jego wagÄ dostrzegajÄ
od tysiÄcy
lat "
-"najwiÄksze religie Åwiata i wprost starajÄ
siÄ popieraÄ takÄ
postawÄ."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach us this "
-"attitude — the spirit of sharing — by having us do it. They "
-"figured if we did it, we'd learn. So they said, “If you bring candy "
-"to school, you can't keep it all for yourself; you have to share some with "
-"the other kids.” Teaching us, the society was set up to teach, this "
-"spirit of cooperation. And why do you have to do that? Because people are "
-"not totally cooperative. That's one part of human nature, and there are "
-"other parts of human nature. There are lots of parts of human nature. So, "
-"if you want a better society, you've got to work to encourage the spirit of "
-"sharing. You know, it'll never get to be 100%. That's understandable. "
-"People have to take care of themselves too. But if we make it somewhat "
-"bigger, we're all better off."
-msgstr ""
-"Gdy chodziÅem do przedszkola, nasi opiekunowie starali siÄ nas
nauczyÄ "
-"takiej postawy – ducha dzielenia siÄ – każÄ
c nam
siÄ "
-"dzieliÄ. Doszli do wniosku, że jak bÄdziemy tak robiÄ, to siÄ
tego "
-"nauczymy. WiÄc mówili nam: „JeÅli przyniesiecie do szkoÅy
"
-"cukierki, nie możecie po prostu zatrzymaÄ wszystkich dla siebie, "
-"musicie czÄÅciÄ
podzieliÄ siÄ z innymi dzieÄmi”. Uczyli nas,
"
-"spoÅeczeÅstwo zostaÅo powoÅane do uczenia, takiego ducha
wspóÅpracy. "
-"Dlaczego trzeba robiÄ takie rzeczy? Bo ludzie nie sÄ
w peÅni "
-"wspóÅpracujÄ
cy. To jedna czÄÅÄ ludzkiej natury i sÄ
inne jej
czÄÅci. "
-"Jest wiele czÄÅci ludzkiej natury. WiÄc jeÅli chcecie mieÄ lepsze "
-"spoÅeczeÅstwo, musicie pracowaÄ na rzecz ducha dzielenia siÄ. To
nigdy "
-"nie bÄdzie 100%. To zrozumiaÅe. Ludzie muszÄ
zadbaÄ też o samych siebie.
"
-"Ale jeÅli choÄ trochÄ go wzmocnimy, to wszyscy na tym "
-"skorzystamy."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Nowadays, according to the U.S. Government, teachers are supposed to do the "
-"exact opposite. “Oh, Johnny, you brought software to school. Well, "
-"don't share it. Oh no. Sharing is wrong. Sharing means you're a pirate."
-"”"
-msgstr ""
-"Obecnie, wedÅug rzÄ
du USA, nauczyciele majÄ
robiÄ coÅ zupeÅnie
odwrotnego. "
-"„O, Johnny, przyniosÅeÅ do szkoÅy program. No cóż, nie dziel
siÄ "
-"nim z nikim. O, nie. Dzielenie siÄ jest zÅe. Dzielenie siÄ czyni ciÄ
"
-"piratem”."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"What do they mean when they say “pirate”? They're saying that "
-"helping your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship. <i>"
-"[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Co majÄ
na myÅli, gdy mówiÄ
âpiratâ? MajÄ
na myÅli,
że "
-"pomaganie bliźnim jest moralnie równoważne z atakowaniem statku. <i>"
-"[Åmiech]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"What would Buddha or Jesus say about that? Now, take your favorite religious "
-"leader. I don't know, maybe Manson would have said something different. <i>"
-"[Laughter]</i> Who knows what L. Ron Hubbard would say? But …"
-msgstr ""
-"Co by na to powiedzieli Budda lub Jezus? Wybierzcie sobie "
-"ulubionego przywódcÄ religijnego. Nie wiem, może Manson powiedziaÅby coÅ
"
-"innego. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Kto wie co powiedziaÅby L. Ron Hubbard? Ale…"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i>"
-msgstr "<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: <i>[niewyraźne]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Of course, he's dead. But they don't admit "
-"that. What?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: OczywiÅcie, on nie żyje. Ale oni tego nie "
-"uznajÄ
. SÅucham?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: So are the others, also dead. <i>[Laughter] "
-"[Inaudible]</i> Charles Manson's also dead. <i>[Laughter]</i> They're dead, "
-"Jesus's dead, Buddha's dead…"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Inni tak samo, również nie żyjÄ
. <i>[Åmiech] "
-"[niewyraźne]</i> Charles Manson też nie żyje. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Nie żyjÄ
,
"
-"Jezus nie żyje, Budda nie żyje…"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, that's true. <i>[Laughter]</i> So I guess, "
-"in that regard, L. Ron Hubbard is no worse than the others. <i>[Laughter]</"
-"i> Anyway — <i>[Inaudible]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tak, to prawda. <i>[Åmiech]</i> No to chyba, "
-"patrzÄ
c na to z tej strony, L. Ron Hubbard nie jest gorszy niż "
-"pozostali. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Tak czy inaczej –
<i>[niewyraźne]"
-"</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: L. Ron always used free software — it freed "
-"him from Zanu. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: L. Ron zawsze używaÅ wolnego oprogramowania â "
-"wyzwoliÅo go od Zanu. <i>[Åmiech]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Anyway, so, I think this is actually the most "
-"important reason why software should be free: We can't afford to pollute "
-"society's most important resource. It's true that it's not a physical "
-"resource like clean air and clean water. It's a psycho-social resource, but "
-"it's just as real for all that, and it makes a tremendous difference to our "
-"lives. You see, the actions we take influence the thoughts of other "
-"people. When we go around telling people, “Don't share with each "
-"other”, if they listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's "
-"not a good one. That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tak czy inaczej, uważam, że tak "
-"naprawdÄ to jest najważniejszy powód, dla którego oprogramowanie powinno
byÄ "
-"wolne: nie możemy sobie pozwoliÄ na zatruwanie najważniejszego dobra "
-"posiadanego przez spoÅeczeÅstwo. OczywiÅcie nie jest to dobro materialne, "
-"takie jak czyste powietrze i czysta woda. Jest to dobro "
-"psychospoÅeczne, ale równie rzeczywiste i ma wielkie znaczenie
dla "
-"życia nas wszystkich. DziaÅania, jakie podejmujemy, majÄ
wpÅyw
na myÅli "
-"innych ludzi. JeÅli chodzimy i mówimy wszystkim dookoÅa: „Nie "
-"dzielcie siÄ niczym ze sobÄ
”, to jeÅli nas posÅuchajÄ
, bÄdziemy
mieli "
-"wpÅyw na spoÅeczeÅstwo, i to niedobry. To byÅa WolnoÅÄ 2,
wolnoÅÄ "
-"do pomagania swoim bliźnim."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just cause "
-"this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes waste — "
-"practical, material harm. If the program has an owner, and the owner "
-"arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay in order to be able "
-"to use it, some people are going to say, “Never mind, I'll do without "
-"it.” And that's waste, deliberately inflicted waste. And the "
-"interesting thing about software, of course, is that fewer users doesn't "
-"mean you have to make less stuff. You know, if fewer people buy cars, you "
-"can make fewer cars. There's a saving there. There are resources to be "
-"allocated, or not allocated, into making cars. So that you can say that "
-"having a price on a car is a good thing. It prevents people from diverting "
-"lots of wasted resources into making cars that aren't really needed. But if "
-"each additional car used no resources, it wouldn't be doing any good saving "
-"the making of these cars. Well, for physical objects, of course, like cars, "
-"it is always going to take resources to make an additional one of them, each "
-"additional exemplar."
-msgstr ""
-"A tak przy okazji, brak tej wolnoÅci nie wywoÅuje tylko wspomnianej "
-"szkody dla psychospoÅecznych dóbr spoÅeczeÅstwa, ale również "
-"marnotrawstwo, czyli szkodÄ praktycznÄ
, materialnÄ
. JeÅli program ma
"
-"wÅaÅciciela, a ten ustawi wszystko w taki sposób, żeby każdy "
-"musiaÅ pÅaciÄ za używanie programu, to niektórzy powiedzÄ
: „"
-"Nieważne, poradzÄ sobie bez tego”. A to jest marnotrawstwo,
"
-"spowodowane z premedytacjÄ
marnotrawstwo. InteresujÄ
ce
w przypadku "
-"oprogramowania jest oczywiÅcie to, że mniejsza iloÅÄ użytkowników
nie "
-"oznacza koniecznoÅci zmniejszenia produkcji. No wiecie, jeÅli mniejsza
iloÅÄ "
-"ludzi kupuje samochody, to można produkowaÄ ich mniej. Oznacza to "
-"oszczÄdnoÅci. IstniejÄ
dobra, które można przeznaczyÄ
na produkcjÄ "
-"samochodów lub nie. Można wiÄc powiedzieÄ, że to dobrze
by "
-"samochody miaÅy ceny. Uniemożliwia to ludziom wykorzystywanie wielkich "
-"iloÅci marnowanych dóbr na produkcjÄ samochodów, których nikt tak "
-"naprawdÄ nie potrzebuje. Ale jeÅli każdy kolejny samochód nie
wymagaÅby "
-"żadnych dóbr, to powstrzymywanie siÄ przed ich produkcjÄ
nie dawaÅoby "
-"niczego pożytecznego. OczywiÅcie, w przypadku rzeczy materialnych, "
-"takich jak samochody, wykonanie kolejnego egzemplarza zawsze bÄdzie "
-"pochÅaniaÄ dodatkowe dobra."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But for software that's not true. Anybody can make another copy. And it's "
-"almost trivial to do it. It takes no resources, except a tiny bit of "
-"electricity. So there's nothing we can save, no resource we're going to "
-"allocate better by putting this financial disincentive on the use of the "
-"software. You often find people taking economic, the consequences of "
-"economic reasoning, based on premises that don't apply to software, and "
-"trying to transplant them from other areas of life where the premises may "
-"apply, and the conclusions may be valid. They just take the conclusions and "
-"assume that they're valid for software too, when the argument is based on "
-"nothing, in the case of software. The premises don't work in that case. It "
-"is very important to examine how you reach the conclusion, and what premises "
-"it depends on, to see where it might be valid. So, that's Freedom Two, the "
-"freedom to help your neighbor."
-msgstr ""
-"Jednak w przypadku oprogramowania nie jest to prawdÄ
. Każdy może "
-"wykonaÄ nowÄ
kopiÄ. A zrobienie tego jest zadaniem niemal trywialnym.
"
-"Nie wymaga to żadnych dóbr prócz odrobiny elektrycznoÅci. WiÄc nie
ma "
-"tu czego oszczÄdzaÄ, nie ma żadnego dobra, które można by wykorzystaÄ
lepiej "
-"poprzez ustanowienie tego finansowego czynnika zniechÄcajÄ
cego
do "
-"korzystania z programów. Ludzie czÄsto biorÄ
ekonomiczne, wyniki "
-"ekonomicznego rozumowania oparte na przesÅankach nijak majÄ
cych siÄ "
-"do oprogramowania i próbujÄ
przenieÅÄ je z innych dziedzin
"
-"życia, dla których te przesÅanki mogÄ
byÄ prawdziwe, a wnioski "
-"prawidÅowe. Po prostu biorÄ
te wnioski i zakÅadajÄ
, że sÄ
"
-"prawdziwe także dla oprogramowania, tymczasem caÅe rozumowanie w "
-"przypadku oprogramowania jest oparte na niczym. PrzesÅanki nie "
-"dziaÅajÄ
. To bardzo ważne, by zwracaÄ uwagÄ, w jaki sposób
dochodzi siÄ "
-"do wniosków, w oparciu o jakie przesÅanki, aby zrozumieÄ "
-"kiedy mogÄ
byÄ one prawidÅowe. ByÅa to wiÄc WolnoÅÄ 2, wolnoÅÄ
do "
-"pomagania swoim bliźnim."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by publishing an "
-"improved version of the software. People used to say to me, “If the "
-"software's free, then nobody will get paid to work on it, so why should "
-"anybody work on it?” Well, of course, they were confusing the two "
-"meanings of free, so their reasoning was based on a misunderstanding. But, "
-"in any case, that was their theory. Today, we can compare that theory with "
-"empirical fact, and we find that hundreds of people are being paid to write "
-"free software, and over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers. We get lots of "
-"people working on free software, for various different motives."
-msgstr ""
-"WolnoÅÄ 3 pozwala na wspieranie rozwoju wÅasnej spoÅecznoÅci "
-"poprzez publikowanie ulepszonych wersji programów. Ludzie mówili mi: "
-"„JeÅli oprogramowanie bÄdzie darmowe [<em>free</em>], to nikt
za "
-"pracÄ nad nim nie bÄdzie dostawaÄ pieniÄdzy, wiÄc dlaczego "
-"ktokolwiek miaÅby to robiÄ?”. OczywiÅcie nie rozróżniali oni
dwóch "
-"znaczeÅ sÅowa „free” [<em>ang. darmowy, wolny</em>],
wiÄc "
-"ich rozumowanie byÅo oparte na nieporozumieniu. Ale tak czy "
-"inaczej, taka byÅa ich teoria. Dzisiaj możemy porównaÄ tÄ teoriÄ
z "
-"empiriÄ
i okazuje siÄ, że setkom ludzi pÅaci siÄ
za pracÄ "
-"nad wolnym oprogramowaniem, a ponad 100.000 robi to jako "
-"wolontariusze. Mnóstwo ludzi pracuje nad wolnym oprogramowaniem,
z "
-"różnych powodów."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"When I first released GNU Emacs — the first piece of the GNU system "
-"that people actually wanted to use — and when it started having users, "
-"after a while, I got a message saying, “I think I saw a bug in the "
-"source code, and here's a fix.” And I got another message, “"
-"Here's code to add a new feature.” And another bug fix. And another "
-"new feature. And another, and another, and another, until they were pouring "
-"in on me so fast that just making use of all this help I was getting was a "
-"big job. Microsoft doesn't have this problem. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Gdy po raz pierwszy wydaÅem edytor GNU Emacs – pierwszy "
-"kawaÅek systemu GNU, którego ludzie rzeczywiÅcie chcieli
używaÄ – "
-"i gdy pojawili siÄ użytkownicy, to po niedÅugim czasie
otrzymaÅem "
-"wiadomoÅÄ: „Wydaje mi siÄ, że znalazÅem bÅÄ
d w kodzie "
-"źródÅowym, a oto poprawka”. DostaÅem także kolejnÄ
wiadomoÅÄ: "
-"„Oto kod dodajÄ
cy nowÄ
funkcjÄ”. I kolejna poprawka
do "
-"bÅÄdu. I kolejna nowa funkcja. I kolejna, i kolejna, i "
-"kolejna, aż zaczÄÅy napÅywaÄ do mnie tak szybko, że samo ich "
-"wykorzystywanie staÅo siÄ ciÄżkÄ
pracÄ
. Microsoft nie ma tego problemu.
<i>"
-"[Åmiech]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Eventually, people noted this phenomenon. You see, in the 1980's a lot of "
-"us thought that maybe free software wouldn't be as good as the non-free "
-"software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay people. And, of "
-"course, people like me, who value freedom and community said, “Well, "
-"we'll use the free software anyway.” It's worth making a little "
-"sacrifice in some mere technical convenience to have freedom. But what "
-"people began to note, around 1990 was that our software was actually "
-"better. It was more powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary "
-"alternatives."
-msgstr ""
-"W koÅcu ludzie dostrzegli ten fenomen. Wiecie, w latach 80. wielu "
-"z nas myÅlaÅo, że byÄ może wolne oprogramowanie nie bÄdzie
tak "
-"dobre jak niewolne, bo nie bÄdziemy mieli tak samo dużo pieniÄdzy "
-"na pÅacenie ludziom. OczywiÅcie, osoby takie jak ja, które ceniÄ
"
-"wolnoÅÄ i wartoÅci spoÅeczne, mówiÅy: „Cóż, i tak
bÄdziemy "
-"korzystaÄ z wolnego oprogramowania”. Warto jest poÅwiÄciÄ
trochÄ "
-"niezbyt istotnej technicznej wygody dla wolnoÅci. Ale to, co ludzie "
-"zaczÄli dostrzegaÄ okoÅo roku 1990, to byÅ fakt, że nasze "
-"oprogramowanie jest tak naprawdÄ lepsze. ByÅo potÄżniejsze
i bardziej "
-"niezawodne od alternatywnych programów objÄtych restrykcyjnymi "
-"licencjami."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific measurement of "
-"reliability of software. Here's what he did. He took several sets of "
-"comparable programs that did the same jobs — the exact same jobs "
-"— in different systems. Because there were certain basic Unix-like "
-"utilities. And the jobs that they did, we know, was all, more or less, "
-"imitating the same thing, or they were following the POSIX spec, so they "
-"were all the same in terms of what jobs they did, but they were maintained "
-"by different people, written separately. The code was different. So they "
-"said, OK, we'll take these programs and run them with random data, and "
-"measure how often they crash, or hang. So they measured it, and the most "
-"reliable set of programs was the GNU programs. All the commercial "
-"alternatives which were proprietary software were less reliable. So he "
-"published this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he did "
-"the same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same result. "
-"The GNU versions were the most reliable. People — you know there are "
-"cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system, because it's so "
-"reliable, and reliability is very important to them."
-msgstr ""
-"Na poczÄ
tku lat 90. ktoÅ wymyÅliÅ jak przeprowadzaÄ naukowe pomiary
"
-"niezawodnoÅci oprogramowania. Oto co zrobiÅ. WziÄ
Å parÄ zbiorów "
-"porównywalnych programów, które wykonywaÅy te same zadania – "
-"dokÅadnie te same zadania – w różnych systemach. "
-"Ponieważ istniaÅy pewne podstawowe uniksowe narzÄdzia.
A zadania, "
-"które wykonywaÅy, no wiecie, to byÅo wszystko, mniej wiÄcej, imitowanie
tej "
-"samej rzeczy, albo byÅy zgodne ze standardami POSIX, wiÄc byÅy "
-"takie same w zakresie wykonywanych zadaÅ, ale byÅy utrzymywane "
-"przez innych ludzi i osobno napisane. Kod byÅ inny. WiÄc oni "
-"powiedzieli, OK, weźmiemy te programy i zaÅadujemy do nich losowe
"
-"dane, i zmierzymy jak czÄsto bÄdÄ
siÄ wywalaÄ albo zawieszaÄ.
No "
-"wiÄc to zmierzyli i najbardziej niezawodnym zbiorem programów "
-"okazaÅy siÄ programy GNU. Wszystkie komercyjne odpowiedniki objÄte "
-"restrykcyjnymi licencjami byÅy bardziej zawodne. WiÄc on to
opublikowaÅ "
-"i przedstawiÅ wszystkim programistom, i parÄ lat później
wykonaÅ "
-"ten sam eksperyment z najnowszymi wersjami, i wyniki byÅy takie "
-"same. Wersje GNU byÅy najbardziej niezawodne. Ludzie – wiecie, "
-"istniejÄ
kliniki onkologiczne oraz stacje pogotowia ratunkowego, które
"
-"korzystajÄ
z systemu GNU, bo jest taki niezawodny, a "
-"niezawodnoÅÄ jest dla nich bardzo ważna."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Anyway, there's even a group of people who focus on this particular benefit "
-"as the reason they give, the main reason they give, why users should be "
-"permitted to do these various things, and to have these freedoms. If you've "
-"been listening to me, you've noticed, you've seen that I, speaking for the "
-"free software movement, I talk about issues of ethics, and what kind of a "
-"society we want to live in, what makes for a good society, as well as "
-"practical, material benefits. They're both important. That's the free "
-"software movement."
-msgstr ""
-"W każdym bÄ
dź razie, jest nawet grupa ludzi, którzy skupiajÄ
siÄ "
-"na tej konkretnej korzyÅci podajÄ
c powód, gÅówny powód, dla
którego "
-"użytkownicy powinni móc robiÄ wszystkie te rzeczy i mieÄ te
wolnoÅci. "
-"JeÅli mnie sÅuchaliÅcie, to zauważyliÅcie, widzieliÅcie, że ja,
mówiÄ
c "
-"w imieniu ruchu wolnego oprogramowania, opowiadam o kwestiach etycznych "
-"i o spoÅeczeÅstwie, w którym chcemy mieszkaÄ, o tym, co tworzy "
-"dobre spoÅeczeÅstwo, a także o praktycznych, materialnych
korzyÅciach. "
-"Obie te rzeczy sÄ
ważne. Oto ruch wolnego oprogramowania."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"That other group of people — which is called the open source movement "
-"— they only cite the practical benefits. They deny that this is an "
-"issue of principle. They deny that people are entitled to the freedom to "
-"share with their neighbor and to see what the program's doing and change it "
-"if they don't like it. They say, however, that it's a useful thing to let "
-"people do that. So they go to companies and say to them, “You know, "
-"you might make more money if you let people do this.” So, what you can "
-"see is that to some extent, they lead people in a similar direction, but for "
-"totally different, for fundamentally different, philosophical reasons."
-msgstr ""
-"Ta druga grupa ludzi – nazywajÄ
ca siÄ ruchem open source "
-"[<em>open source movement, ruch na rzecz oprogramowania o otwartych "
-"źródÅach</em>] – oni mówiÄ
tylko o praktycznych korzyÅciach.
"
-"ZaprzeczajÄ
, jakoby byÅa to kwestia zasad. ZaprzeczajÄ
, że ludziom "
-"należy siÄ wolnoÅÄ dzielenia siÄ z bliźnimi i sprawdzania, co
"
-"robiÄ
programy, oraz zmieniania tego, jeÅli im siÄ nie podoba. MówiÄ
"
-"oni jednak, że zezwalanie na to jest użyteczne. WiÄc chodzÄ
"
-"po firmach i mówiÄ
: „Wiecie, prawdopodobnie możecie
zarabiaÄ "
-"wiÄcej pieniÄdzy, jeÅli pozwolicie ludziom to robiÄ”. WiÄc, jak "
-"widzicie, do pewnego stopnia prowadzÄ
oni ludzi w tym samym "
-"kierunku, ale z zupeÅnie innych, w podstawowym stopniu innych, "
-"przesÅanek filozoficznych."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Because on the deepest issue of all, you know, on the ethical question, the "
-"two movements disagree. You know, in the free software movement we say, "
-"“You're entitled to these freedoms. People shouldn't stop you from "
-"doing these things.” In the open source movement, they say, “"
-"Yes, they can stop you if you want, but we'll try to convince them to deign "
-"to let you to do these things.” Well, they have contributed — "
-"they have convinced a certain number of businesses to release substantial "
-"pieces of software as free software in our community. So they, the open "
-"source movement, has contributed substantially to our community. And so we "
-"work together on practical projects. But, philosophically, there's a "
-"tremendous disagreement."
-msgstr ""
-"Ponieważ w najgÅÄbszej spoÅród wszystkich kwestii, kwestii
etycznej, "
-"oba ruchy nie zgadzajÄ
siÄ ze sobÄ
. My z ruchu wolnego oprogramowania
"
-"mówimy: „NależÄ
wam siÄ te wolnoÅci. Nikt nie powinien was "
-"powstrzymywaÄ przed robieniem tych rzeczy”. Ruch open source mówi: "
-"„Tak, mogÄ
was powstrzymaÄ, jeÅli chcecie, ale postaramy siÄ
ich "
-"przekonaÄ, aby raczyli pozwoliÄ wam robiÄ te rzeczy”. Cóż,
oni "
-"wnieÅli wkÅad – przekonali pewnÄ
iloÅÄ firm
do wypuszczenia "
-"znaczÄ
cych kawaÅków oprogramowania w postaci wolnych programów,
na "
-"rzecz naszej spoÅecznoÅci. WiÄc oni, czyli ruch open source, "
-"wnieÅli znaczny wkÅad do naszej spoÅecznoÅci. Tak
wiÄc pracujemy "
-"razem nad projektami praktycznymi. Jednak pod wzglÄdem "
-"filozoficznym bardzo siÄ nie zgadzamy."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Unfortunately, the open source movement is the one that gets the support of "
-"business the most, and so most articles about our work describe it as open "
-"source, and a lot of people just innocently think that we're all part of the "
-"open source movement. So that's why I'm mentioning this distinction. I "
-"want you to be aware that the free software movement, which brought our "
-"community into existence and developed the free operating system, is still "
-"here — and that we still stand for this ethical philosophy. I want "
-"you to know about this, so that you won't mislead someone else unknowingly."
-msgstr ""
-"Niestety, to ruch open source dostaje najwiÄksze wsparcie od firm, "
-"wiÄc wiÄkszoÅÄ artykuÅów dotyczÄ
cych naszej pracy opisuje jÄ
jako open "
-"source i mnóstwo ludzi, bez zÅych intencji, myÅli,
że wszyscy "
-"jesteÅmy czÄÅciÄ
ruchu open source. Dlatego wÅaÅnie mówiÄ o tej "
-"różnicy. ChcÄ, abyÅcie zdawali sobie sprawÄ, że ruch wolnego "
-"oprogramowania, który powoÅaÅ naszÄ
spoÅecznoÅÄ do życia i "
-"stworzyÅ wolny system operacyjny, nadal istnieje – i caÅy "
-"czas gÅosimy tÄ etycznÄ
filozofiÄ. ChcÄ, żebyÅcie to wiedzieli,
aby "
-"bezwiednie nie wprowadzaÄ innych w bÅÄ
d."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "But also, so that you can think about where you stand."
-msgstr ""
-"Ale także dlatego, żebyÅcie mogli pomyÅleÄ o tym, gdzie sami
należycie."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"You know, which movement you support is up to you. You might agree with the "
-"free software movements and my views. You might agree with the open source "
-"movement. You might disagree with them both. You decide where you stand on "
-"these political issues."
-msgstr ""
-"No wiecie, to, który ruch popieracie, to wasza sprawa. Możecie siÄ
zgadzaÄ "
-"z ruchami wolnego oprogramowania i moimi poglÄ
dami. Możecie siÄ "
-"zgadzaÄ z ruchem open source. Możecie siÄ z oboma nie zgadzaÄ.
To "
-"wy decydujecie o waszej postawie wobec tych politycznych kwestii."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But if you agree with the free software movement — if you see that "
-"there's an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled and "
-"directed by this decision deserve a say in it — then I hope you'll say "
-"that you agree with the free software movement, and one way you can do that "
-"is by using the term free software and just helping people know we exist."
-msgstr ""
-"Ale jeÅli zgadzacie siÄ z ruchem wolnego oprogramowania "
-"– jeÅli rozumiecie, że chodzi tu o to, aby ludzie, których
"
-"życie jest kontrolowane i kierowane przez tÄ decyzjÄ, mieli coÅ
w "
-"jej sprawie do powiedzenia – to mam nadziejÄ, że "
-"powiecie, iż zgadzacie siÄ z ruchem wolnego oprogramowania, a "
-"jednÄ
z rzeczy, które możecie zrobiÄ, aby to pokazaÄ, jest "
-"używanie terminu wolne oprogramowanie i po prostu zwracanie uwagi ludzi
"
-"na to, że istniejemy."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, Freedom Three is very important both practically and psycho-socially. "
-"If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical material harm, because "
-"this community development doesn't happen, and we don't make powerful, "
-"reliable software. But it also causes psycho-social harm, which affects the "
-"spirit of scientific cooperation — the idea that we're working "
-"together to advance human knowledge. You see, progress in science crucially "
-"depends on people being able to work together. And nowadays though, you "
-"often find each little group of scientists acting like it's a war with each "
-"other gang of scientists and engineers. And if they don't share with each "
-"other, they're all held back."
-msgstr ""
-"Tak wiÄc WolnoÅÄ 3 jest bardzo ważna zarówno pod wzglÄdem "
-"praktycznym, jak i psychospoÅecznym. JeÅli nie macie tej wolnoÅci, "
-"powoduje to praktyczne, materialne szkody, bo nie nastÄpuje wspomniany "
-"rozwój spoÅecznoÅci i nie tworzymy potÄżnego, niezawodnego "
-"oprogramowania. Ale powoduje również szkody psychospoÅeczne, które
majÄ
"
-"wpÅyw na ducha naukowej wspóÅpracy – ideÄ, która mówi, "
-"że pracujemy razem na rzecz rozwoju ludzkiej wiedzy. Zrozumcie, "
-"postÄp naukowy zależy gÅównie od tego, że ludzie mogÄ
razem "
-"pracowaÄ. Tymczasem w dzisiejszych czasach widzi siÄ poszczególne
maÅe "
-"grupy naukowców, które zachowujÄ
siÄ jakby to byÅa wojna ze wszystkimi "
-"innymi bandami naukowców i inżynierów. A jeÅli oni nie bÄdÄ
siÄ ze "
-"sobÄ
dzieliÄ, to nie bÄdÄ
czyniÄ postÄpów."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, those are the three freedoms that distinguish free software from typical "
-"software. Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself, making changes to "
-"suit your own needs. Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by "
-"distributing copies. And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your "
-"community by making changes and publishing them for other people to use. If "
-"you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software for you. Now, "
-"why do I define it that way in terms of a particular user? Is it free "
-"software for you? <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> Is it free "
-"software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Is it "
-"free software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Yes?"
-msgstr ""
-"To sÄ
trzy wolnoÅci, które odróżniajÄ
wolne oprogramowanie
od typowych "
-"programów. WolnoÅÄ 1 to wolnoÅÄ pozwalajÄ
ca na uÅatwianie sobie
życia "
-"przez wprowadzanie zmian do programu, aby dostosowaÄ go do "
-"swoich potrzeb. WolnoÅÄ 2 to wolnoÅÄ do pomagania swoim bliźnim
przez "
-"dystrybucjÄ kopii. Natomiast WolnoÅÄ 3 pozwala na wspieranie "
-"rozwoju wÅasnej spoÅecznoÅci poprzez wprowadzanie zmian i "
-"publikowanie ich, tak aby inni mogli z nich skorzystaÄ. JeÅli "
-"macie wszystkie te wolnoÅci, to ten program jest dla was wolnym "
-"oprogramowaniem. Dlaczego definiujÄ to w ten sposób, z punktu "
-"widzenia konkretnego użytkownika? Czy to jest wolne oprogramowanie dla "
-"ciebie? <i>[wskazuje któregoÅ ze sÅuchaczy]</i> Czy to jest wolne "
-"oprogramowanie dla ciebie? <i>[wskazuje innego sÅuchacza]</i> Tak?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you explain a bit about the difference "
-"between Freedom Two and Three? <i>[inaudible]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Czy możesz krótko wyjaÅniÄ różnicÄ
pomiÄdzy "
-"WolnoÅciami 2 i 3? <i>[niewyraźne]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, they certainly relate, because if you don't "
-"have freedom to redistribute at all, you certainly don't have freedom to "
-"distribute a modified version, but they're different activities."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Cóż, z pewnoÅciÄ
sÄ
ze sobÄ
powiÄ
zane,
"
-"bo jeÅli w ogóle nie masz wolnoÅci do redystrybucji, to "
-"z pewnoÅciÄ
nie masz wolnoÅci do dystrybucji zmodyfikowanych "
-"wersji, ale to osobne rzeczy."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Oh."
-msgstr "<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Aha."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Freedom Two is, you know, read it, you make an "
-"exact copy, and hand it to your friends, so now your friend can use it. Or "
-"maybe you make exact copies and you sell them to a bunch of people, and then "
-"they can use it."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: WolnoÅÄ 2 to, no wiecie, skupcie siÄ, robicie "
-"identycznÄ
kopiÄ i rozdajecie jÄ
znajomym, a oni mogÄ
z niej "
-"korzystaÄ. Albo robicie identyczne kopie i sprzedajecie je paru "
-"osobom, a wtedy oni mogÄ
z nich korzystaÄ."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Freedom Three is where you make improvements — or at least you think "
-"they're improvements, and some other people may agree with you. So that's "
-"the difference. Oh, and by the way, one crucial point. Freedoms One and "
-"Three depend on your having access to the source code. Because changing a "
-"binary-only program is extremely hard. <i>[Laughter]</i> Even trivial "
-"changes like using four digits for the date, <i>[Laughter]</i> if you don't "
-"have source. So, for compelling, practical reasons, access to the source "
-"code is a precondition, a requirement, for free software."
-msgstr ""
-"W WolnoÅci 3 chodzi o wprowadzanie ulepszeÅ – a "
-"przynajmniej wy sÄ
dzicie, że sÄ
to ulepszenia, a inni mogÄ
siÄ
"
-"z wami zgodziÄ. WiÄc tu leży różnica. A tak przy okazji, "
-"jedna ważna uwaga. WolnoÅci 1 i 3 zależÄ
od dostÄpnoÅci kodu "
-"źródÅowego. Bo modyfikacja programu dostÄpnego tylko w formie "
-"binarnej jest niezwykle trudna. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Nawet maÅe modyfikacje, "
-"takie jak korzystanie z czterocyfrowej daty, <i>[Åmiech]</i> jeÅli nie
"
-"macie źródeÅ. Tak wiÄc z istotnych, praktycznych powodów,
dostÄpnoÅÄ "
-"kodu źródÅowego jest koniecznym warunkiem, wymaganiem wolnego
oprogramowania."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, why do I define it in terms of whether it's free software for <em>you</"
-"em>? The reason is that sometimes the same program can be free software for "
-"some people, and non-free for others. Now, that might seem like a "
-"paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example to show you how it "
-"happens. A very big example — maybe the biggest ever — of this "
-"problem was the X Window System which was developed at MIT and released "
-"under a license that made it free software. If you got the MIT version with "
-"the MIT license, you had Freedoms One, Two, and Three. It was free software "
-"for you. But among those who got copies were various computer manufacturers "
-"that distributed Unix systems, and they made the necessary changes in X to "
-"run on their systems. You know, probably just a few thousand lines out of "
-"the hundreds of thousands of lines of X. And, then they compiled it, and "
-"they put the binaries into their Unix system and distributed it under the "
-"same non-disclosure agreement as the rest of the Unix system. And then, "
-"millions of people got these copies. They had the X Window System, but they "
-"had none of these freedoms. It was not free software for <em>them</em>."
-msgstr ""
-"Dlaczego wiÄc definiuje to pod kÄ
tem tego, czy jest wolnym "
-"oprogramowaniem <em>dla was</em>? Dlatego, że czasami ten sam program "
-"może byÄ wolnym oprogramowaniem dla niektórych ludzi, a niewolnym dla
"
-"innych. Może to wyglÄ
daÄ na paradoks, wiÄc pozwólcie mi podaÄ
"
-"przykÅad, który pokaże wam, na czym to polega. Bardzo dużym "
-"przykÅadem – może najwiÄkszym w historii – tego
"
-"problemu byÅ system okien X opracowany na MIT i wydany na "
-"licencji, która czyniÅa go wolnym oprogramowaniem. JeÅli mieliÅcie
wersjÄ "
-"MIT wydanÄ
na licencji MIT, to mieliÅcie WolnoÅci 1, 2 i 3.
ByÅo "
-"to dla was wolne oprogramowanie. Ale poÅród tych, którzy otrzymali "
-"kopie, znajdowali siÄ różni producenci komputerów, którzy dostarczali "
-"systemy uniksowe i dokonywali oni zmian koniecznych do tego, "
-"aby X dziaÅaÅ na ich systemach. JakieÅ parÄ tysiÄcy linii
spoÅród "
-"setek tysiÄcy skÅadajÄ
cych siÄ na X. Potem to kompilowali,
dokÅadali "
-"binaria do swojego systemu Unix i rozprowadzali pod takÄ
samÄ
"
-"restrykcyjnÄ
licencjÄ
jak resztÄ systemu. Potem takie kopie dostaÅo
miliony "
-"ludzi. Mieli system okien X, ale nie mieli żadnej z tych
wolnoÅci. "
-"<em>Dla nich</em> to nie byÅo wolne oprogramowanie."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, the paradox was that whether X was free software depended on where you "
-"made the measurement. If you made the measurement coming out of the "
-"developers' group, you'd say, “I observe all these freedoms. It's "
-"free software.” If you made the measurements among the users you'd "
-"say, “Hmm, most users don't have these freedoms. It's not free "
-"software.” Well, the people who developed X didn't consider this a "
-"problem, because their goal was just popularity, ego, essentially. They "
-"wanted a big professional success. They wanted to feel, “Ah, lots of "
-"people are using our software.” And that was true. Lots of people "
-"were using their software but didn't have freedom."
-msgstr ""
-"Tak wiÄc paradoks polegaÅ na tym, że to czy X byÅo "
-"wolnym oprogramowaniem zależaÅo od punktu widzenia. JeÅli ktoÅ
patrzyÅ "
-"z punktu widzenia grupy programistów, to powiedziaÅby: „"
-"RespektujÄ wszystkie te wolnoÅci. To wolne oprogramowanie„. JeÅli "
-"patrzyÅ z punktu widzenia użytkowników, powiedziaÅby: „Hmm, "
-"wiÄkszoÅÄ użytkowników nie ma tych wolnoÅci. To nie jest wolne "
-"oprogramowanie”. Cóż, programiÅci X nie uważali tego
za problem, "
-"bo ich celem w gruncie rzeczy byÅa popularnoÅÄ, zaspokojenie "
-"swojego ego. Chcieli osiÄ
gnÄ
Ä duży sukces w branży. Chcieli mieÄ "
-"poczucie, że: „Taaak, mnóstwo ludzi korzysta z naszego "
-"oprogramowania”. I byÅa to prawda. Mnóstwo ludzi korzystaÅo "
-"z ich oprogramowania, ale nie miaÅo wolnoÅci."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Well, in the GNU project, if that same thing had happened to GNU software, "
-"it would have been a failure, because our goal wasn't just to be popular; "
-"our goal was to give people liberty, and to encourage cooperation, to permit "
-"people to cooperate. Remember, never force anyone to cooperate with any "
-"other person, but make sure that everybody's allowed to cooperate, everyone "
-"has the freedom to do so, if he or she wishes. If millions of people were "
-"running non-free versions of GNU, that wouldn't be success at all. The whole "
-"thing would have been perverted into nothing like the goal."
-msgstr ""
-"W przypadku projektu GNU, jeÅli to samo przydarzyÅoby siÄ "
-"oprogramowaniu GNU, to byÅaby to porażka, bo naszym celem nie byÅo "
-"wyÅÄ
cznie zdobycie popularnoÅci; naszym celem byÅo przekazanie ludziom "
-"wolnoÅci i zachÄcanie ich do wspóÅdziaÅania, pozwolenie im
na "
-"wspóÅdziaÅanie. PamiÄtajcie, nigdy nie zmuszajcie nikogo
do wspóÅpracy "
-"z kimÅ innym, ale zadbajcie o to, aby wszyscy mogli ze sobÄ
"
-"wspólnie dziaÅaÄ, żeby każdy miaÅ do tego wolnoÅÄ, jeÅli tylko
tego "
-"chce. JeÅli miliony ludzi korzystaÅoby z niewolnych wersji GNU, to "
-"wcale nie byÅby sukces. CaÅy projekt zostaÅby przewrotnie przeksztaÅcony "
-"w coÅ zupeÅnie odmiennego od pierwotnego celu."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening. The method I came up "
-"with is called “copyleft”. It's called copyleft because it's "
-"sort of like taking copyright and flipping it over. <i>[Laughter]</i> "
-"Legally, copyleft works based on copyright. We use the existing copyright "
-"law, but we use it to achieve a very different goal. Here's what we do. We "
-"say, “This program is copyrighted.” And, of course, by default, "
-"that means it's prohibited to copy it, or distribute it, or modify it. But "
-"then we say, “You're authorized to distribute copies of this. You're "
-"authorized to modify it. You're authorized to distribute modified versions "
-"and extended versions. Change it any way you like.”"
-msgstr ""
-"WiÄc szukaÅem sposobu, aby temu zapobiec. Metoda, którÄ
"
-"wymyÅliÅem, nazywa siÄ „copyleft”. Nazywa siÄ „"
-"copyleft”, bo to tak jakby wziÄ
Ä prawo autorskie [<em>ang. "
-"copyright</em>] i wywróciÄ je na drugÄ
stronÄ. <i>[Åmiech]</i>
"
-"Z prawnego punktu widzenia copyleft dziaÅa w oparciu o prawo "
-"autorskie. Wykorzystujemy istniejÄ
ce prawo autorskie, ale do "
-"osiÄ
gniÄcia zupeÅnie odmiennego celu. Oto co robimy. Mówimy: „Ten "
-"program jest objÄty prawem autorskim”. OczywiÅcie domyÅlnie oznacza "
-"to, że nie wolno go kopiowaÄ, rozpowszechniaÄ, ani modyfikowaÄ.
"
-"Ale potem mówimy: „Wolno wam rozpowszechniaÄ jego kopie. Wolno "
-"wam go modyfikowaÄ. Wolno wam rozpowszechniaÄ wersje zmodyfikowane i "
-"poszerzone. ZmieniaÄ go jak tylko siÄ wam podoba”."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But there is a condition. And the condition, of course, is the reason why "
-"we go to all this trouble, so that we could put the condition in. The "
-"condition says: Whenever you distribute anything that contains any piece of "
-"this program, that whole program must be distributed under these same terms, "
-"no more and no less. So you can change the program and distribute a "
-"modified version, but when you do, the people who get that from you must get "
-"the same freedom that you got from us. And not just for the parts of it "
-"— the excerpts that you copied from our program — but also for "
-"the other parts of that program that they got from you. The whole of that "
-"program has to be free software for them."
-msgstr ""
-"Jest jednak pewien warunek. I jest on, oczywiÅcie, powodem, dla "
-"którego to wszystko robimy, aby móc go tam wstawiÄ. Warunek mówi: "
-"rozpowszechniajÄ
c kiedykolwiek coÅ zawierajÄ
cego jakikolwiek kawaÅek tego
"
-"programu, musicie rozpowszechniaÄ caÅoÅÄ na tych samych zasadach, "
-"ni mniej, ni wiÄcej. Możecie wiÄc zmieniÄ program i "
-"rozpowszechniaÄ jego zmodyfikowanÄ
wersjÄ, ale gdy to robicie, ludzie
"
-"otrzymujÄ
cy od was program muszÄ
dostaÄ takÄ
samÄ
wolnoÅÄ, jakÄ
wy "
-"dostaliÅcie od nas. I nie tylko wobec czÄÅci
programu – "
-"tych, które skopiowaliÅcie od nas – ale także wobec "
-"reszty, którÄ
od was dostali. CaÅoÅÄ programu musi byÄ dla nich
wolnym "
-"oprogramowaniem."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become inalienable "
-"rights — a concept from the Declaration of Independence. Rights that "
-"we make sure can't be taken away from you. And, of course, the specific "
-"license that embodies the idea of copyleft is the GNU General Public "
-"License, a controversial license because it actually has the strength to say "
-"no to people who would be parasites on our community."
-msgstr ""
-"WolnoÅci do modyfikowania i rozpowszechniania tego programu stajÄ
"
-"siÄ niezbywalnymi prawami – co jest koncepcjÄ
z Deklaracji "
-"NiepodlegÅoÅci. Prawami, wobec których dbamy o to, aby nikt ich wam
nie "
-"odebraÅ. OczywiÅcie, konkretna licencja, która realizuje ideÄ copyleft to
"
-"GNU GPL, kontrowersyjna licencja, ponieważ rzeczywiÅcie posiada
siÅÄ, "
-"aby powiedzieÄ „nie” ludziom, którzy byliby pasożytami "
-"żerujÄ
cymi na naszej spoÅecznoÅci."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of freedom. And "
-"they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done, and use it to get a "
-"head start in distributing a non-free program and tempting people to give up "
-"their freedom. And the result would be — you know, if we let people "
-"do that — that we would be developing these free programs, and we'd "
-"constantly have to compete with improved versions of our own programs. "
-"That's no fun."
-msgstr ""
-"Jest mnóstwo ludzi, którzy nie doceniajÄ
ideaÅów wolnoÅci. ChÄtnie
wziÄliby "
-"rezultaty naszej pracy i wykorzystali je do uzyskania przewagi "
-"w rozpowszechnianiu niewolnego oprogramowania oraz zachÄcaniu "
-"ludzi do wyzbycia siÄ wÅasnej wolnoÅci. A rezultatem
byÅoby "
-"– no wiecie, jeÅli na to ludziom pozwolimy – że "
-"rozwijalibyÅmy te wolne programy i caÅy czas musielibyÅmy konkurowaÄ
"
-"z ulepszonymi wersjami naszego wÅasnego oprogramowania. A to nie "
-"jest fajne."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And, a lot of people also feel — you know, I'm willing to volunteer my "
-"time to contribute to the community, but why should I volunteer my time to "
-"contribute to that company's, to improving that company's, proprietary "
-"program? You know, some people might not even think that that's evil, but "
-"they want to get paid if they're going to do that. I, personally, would "
-"rather not do it at all."
-msgstr ""
-"I mnóstwo ludzi również ma poczucie – no wiecie, chcÄ "
-"bez przymusu poÅwiÄciÄ mój czas, aby wnieÅÄ wkÅad do "
-"spoÅecznoÅci, ale dlaczego miaÅbym go poÅwiÄcaÄ, aby wnieÅÄ
wkÅad "
-"na rzecz tamtej firmy, na rzecz ulepszania jej objÄtego "
-"restrykcyjnÄ
licencjÄ
programu? Wiecie, niektórzy mogÄ
nawet sÄ
dziÄ,
że "
-"to nic zÅego, ale chcÄ
, żeby im za to zapÅacono. OsobiÅcie "
-"wolaÅbym wcale tego nie robiÄ."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But both of these groups of people — both the ones like me who say, "
-"“I don't want to help that non-free program to get a foothold in our "
-"community” and the ones that say, “Sure, I'd work for them, but "
-"then they better pay me” — both of us have a good reason to use "
-"the GNU General Public License. Because that says to that company, “"
-"You can't just take my work, and distribute it without the freedom.” "
-"Whereas, the non-copyleft licenses, like the X Windows license, do permit "
-"that."
-msgstr ""
-"Jednak obie te grupy – zarówno tacy jak ja, którzy mówiÄ
:
"
-"„Nie chcÄ pomagaÄ temu objÄtemu restrykcyjnÄ
licencjÄ
programowi "
-"rozpowszechniÄ siÄ w spoÅeczeÅstwie” oraz ci, którzy
mówiÄ
: "
-"„Pewnie, mogÄ dla nich pracowaÄ, ale lepiej żeby mi "
-"zapÅacili” – obie grupy majÄ
dobry powód, aby "
-"korzystaÄ z GNU GPL. Bo mówi ona firmie: „Nie możecie "
-"po prostu wziÄ
Ä sobie wyników mojej pracy i rozpowszechniaÄ ich
"
-"bez wolnoÅci”. Tymczasem licencje niezawierajÄ
ce copyleft, takie
"
-"jak licencja systemu X, umożliwiajÄ
to."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So that is the big division between the two categories of free software "
-"— license-wise. There are the programs that are copylefted so that "
-"the license defends the freedom of the software for every user. And there "
-"are the non-copylefted programs for which non-free versions are allowed. "
-"Somebody <em>can</em> take those programs and strip off the freedom. You "
-"may get that program in a non-free version."
-msgstr ""
-"WiÄc to jest wielka różnica pomiÄdzy dwoma kategoriami wolnego "
-"oprogramowania â pod wzglÄdem licencji. SÄ
programy objÄte przez "
-"copyleft, w przypadku których licencja chroni wolnoÅci oprogramowania "
-"dla każdego użytkownika. I sÄ
programy nie objÄte przez copyleft, "
-"w przypadku których dozwolone sÄ
wersje niewolne. KtoŠ<em>może</em>
"
-"wziÄ
Ä te programy i odrzeÄ je z wolnoÅci. Możecie dostaÄ taki
"
-"program w wersji niewolnej."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And that problem exists today. There are still non-free versions of X "
-"Windows being used on our free operating systems. There is even hardware "
-"— which is not really supported — except by a non-free version "
-"of X Windows. And that's a major problem in our community. Nonetheless, I "
-"wouldn't say that X Windows is a bad thing, you know. I'd say that the "
-"developers did not do the best possible thing that they could have done. "
-"But they <em>did</em> release a lot of software that we could all use."
-msgstr ""
-"A ten problem obecnie istnieje. Nadal istniejÄ
niewolne wersje systemu "
-"X wykorzystywane w naszych wolnych systemach operacyjnych. Jest nawet "
-"sprzÄt, który nie jest tak naprawdÄ obsÅugiwany za wyjÄ
tkiem
niewolnych "
-"wersji X. To dla naszej spoÅecznoÅci ogromny problem. Tak czy inaczej "
-"nie powiedziaÅbym, że system X to coÅ zÅego. PowiedziaÅbym,
że "
-"jego autorzy nie zrobili najlepszej z możliwych rzeczy. Ale "
-"<em>wydali</em> wiele programów, które wszyscy mogliÅmy wykorzystaÄ."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"You know, there's a big difference between less than perfect, and evil. "
-"There are many gradations of good and bad. We have to resist the temptation "
-"to say, if you didn't do the absolute best possible thing, then you're no "
-"good. You know, the people that developed X Windows made a big contribution "
-"to our community. But there's something better that they could have done. "
-"They could have copylefted parts of the program and prevented those freedom-"
-"denying versions from being distributed by others."
-msgstr ""
-"Wiecie, jest duża różnica pomiÄdzy niedoskonaÅoÅciÄ
i zÅem. Jest
wiele "
-"odcieni dobrego i zÅego. Musimy oprzeÄ siÄ pokusie mówienia,
że "
-"jeÅli nie zrobiÅeÅ absolutnie najlepszej z możliwych rzeczy, to nie "
-"zrobiÅeÅ niczego dobrego. No wiecie, autorzy systemu X wnieÅli duży
wkÅad "
-"do naszej spoÅecznoÅci. Ale mogli zrobiÄ coÅ lepszego. Mogli
objÄ
Ä "
-"czÄÅci programu licencjÄ
typu copyleft i zapobiec rozpowszechnianiu "
-"przez innych wersji odrzucajÄ
cych wolnoÅÄ."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, the fact that the GNU General Public License defends your freedom, uses "
-"copyright law to defend your freedom, is, of course, why Microsoft is "
-"attacking it today. See, Microsoft would really like to be able to take all "
-"the code that we wrote and put it into proprietary programs, have somebody "
-"make some improvements, or even just incompatible changes is all they need. "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Fakt, że GNU GPL broni waszej wolnoÅci, używa prawa autorskiego,
żeby "
-"jej broniÄ, to oczywiÅcie powód, dla którego Microsoft jÄ
obecnie
atakuje. "
-"Bo Microsoft naprawdÄ chciaÅby móc wziÄ
Ä caÅy kod, który
napisaliÅmy "
-"i wsadziÄ go do objÄtych restrykcyjnymi licencjami programów, "
-"zleciÄ komuÅ wykonanie paru ulepszeÅ, albo nawet niezgodnych
zmian "
-"– to wszystko, czego potrzebujÄ
. <i>[Åmiech]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"You know, with Microsoft's marketing clout, they don't need to make it "
-"better to have their version supplant ours. They just have to make it "
-"different and incompatible. And then, put it on everybody's desktop. So "
-"they really don't like the GNU GPL. Because the GNU GPL won't let them do "
-"that. It doesn't allow “embrace and extend”. It says, if you "
-"want to share our code in your programs, you can. But, you've got to share "
-"and share alike. The changes that you make we have to be allowed to share. "
-"So, it's a two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation."
-msgstr ""
-"DziÄki przewadze marketingowej Microsoft nie musi tych programów ulepszaÄ,
"
-"żeby ich wersje wyparÅy nasze. MuszÄ
tylko sprawiÄ, aby byÅy inne "
-"i niezgodne. A potem wrzuciÄ to wszystkim na komputery. Tak "
-"wiÄc oni naprawdÄ nie lubiÄ
GNU GPL. Bo GNU GPL nie pozwala im "
-"tego zrobiÄ. Nie pozwala na „przyjÄcie
i rozszerzenie” "
-"[<em>ang. „embrace, extend (and extinguish)” – "
-"taktyka Microsoftu</em>]. Mówi ona, że jeÅli chcecie wykorzystaÄ
w "
-"swoich programach nasz kod, to możecie to zrobiÄ. Ale musicie siÄ "
-"również dzieliÄ, dzieliÄ w taki sam sposób. Musicie pozwoliÄ nam "
-"na dzielenie siÄ zmianami, które wprowadzicie. Jest to wiÄc "
-"dwukierunkowa wspóÅpraca, czyli prawdziwa wspóÅpraca."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Many companies — even big companies like IBM and HP are willing to use "
-"our software on this basis. IBM and HP contribute substantial improvements "
-"to GNU software. And they develop other free software. But, Microsoft "
-"doesn't want to do that, so they give it out that businesses just can't deal "
-"with the GPL. Well, if businesses don't include IBM, and HP and SUN, then "
-"maybe they're right. <i>[Laughter]</i> More about that later."
-msgstr ""
-"Wiele firm – nawet dużych, takich jak IBM i HP, jest "
-"skÅonnych korzystaÄ z naszych programów na tych zasadach. IBM "
-"i HP wnoszÄ
do oprogramowania GNU ważne ulepszenia. I tworzÄ
"
-"inne wolne oprogramowanie. Jednak Microsoft nie chce tego robiÄ, "
-"wiÄc ogÅasza, że dla firm GPL jest po prostu nie do "
-"przyjÄcia. No tak, jeÅli do firm nie zaliczaÅyby siÄ IBM, HP i "
-"Sun, to może mieliby racjÄ. <i>[Åmiech]</i> WiÄcej na ten temat
później."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"I should finish the historical story. You see, we set out in 1984 not just "
-"to write some free software but to do something much more coherent: to "
-"develop an operating system that was entirely free software. So that meant "
-"we had to write piece after piece after piece. Of course, we were always "
-"looking for shortcuts. The job was so big that people said we'd never be "
-"able to finish. And, I thought that there was at least a chance that we'd "
-"finish it but, obviously, it's worth looking for shortcuts. So we kept "
-"looking around. Is there any program that somebody else has written that we "
-"could manage to adapt, to plug into here, and that way we won't have to "
-"write it from scratch? For instance, the X Window system. It's true it "
-"wasn't copylefted, but it was free software, so we could use it."
-msgstr ""
-"Powinienem dokoÅczyÄ opowieÅÄ historycznÄ
. W 1984 zaczynaliÅmy "
-"dziaÅalnoÅÄ nie tylko po to, aby napisaÄ trochÄ wolnego "
-"oprogramowania, ale żeby zrobiÄ coÅ dużo bardziej spójnego:
stworzyÄ "
-"skÅadajÄ
cy siÄ wyÅÄ
cznie z wolnego oprogramowania system
operacyjny. "
-"OznaczaÅo to, że musieliÅmy pisaÄ kawaÅek za kawaÅkiem.
OczywiÅcie "
-"zawsze szukaliÅmy dróg na skróty. Praca do wykonania byÅa tak "
-"wielka, że ludzie twierdzili, iż nigdy nam siÄ nie uda jej
skoÅczyÄ. Ja "
-"uważaÅem, że istnieje co najmniej maÅa szansa, że uda nam siÄ
"
-"doprowadziÄ to do koÅca, ale oczywiÅcie warto jest szukaÄ dróg
"
-"na skróty. WiÄc ciÄ
gle rozglÄ
daliÅmy siÄ dookoÅa.
Czy jest "
-"jakiÅ program, który napisaÅ ktoÅ inny i który dalibyÅmy radÄ "
-"dostosowaÄ, wetknÄ
Ä tutaj, aby nie trzeba byÅo pisaÄ go
od nowa? "
-"Na przykÅad system okien X. To prawda, że nie byÅ objÄty przez "
-"copyleft, ale byÅ wolnym oprogramowaniem, wiÄc mogliÅmy go "
-"wykorzystaÄ."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, I had wanted to put a window system into GNU from day one. I wrote a "
-"couple of window systems at MIT before I started GNU. And so, even though "
-"Unix had no window system in 1984, I decided that GNU would have one. But, "
-"we never ended up writing a GNU window system, because X came along. And I "
-"said, Goody! One big job we don't have to do. We'll use X. So I basically "
-"said, let's take X, and put it into the GNU system. And we'll make the "
-"other parts of GNU, you know, work with X, when appropriate. And we found "
-"other pieces of software that had been written by other people, like the "
-"text formatter TeX, some library code from Berkeley. At that time there was "
-"Berkeley Unix, but it was not free software. This library code, initially, "
-"was from a different group at Berkeley, that did research on floating "
-"point. And, so, we kept, we fit in these pieces."
-msgstr ""
-"Od samego poczÄ
tku chciaÅem wÅÄ
czyÄ do GNU system okien.
NapisaÅem "
-"kilka takich systemów na MIT zanim zaczÄ
Åem pracowaÄ nad GNU. "
-"WiÄc pomimo tego, że w 1984 Unix nie miaÅ systemu okien, "
-"zdecydowaÅem, że GNU bÄdzie go miaÅo. Ale nigdy nie
napisaliÅmy "
-"systemu okien GNU, bo pojawiÅ siÄ X. A ja powiedziaÅem: „"
-"Super! Jedno wielkie zadanie, którego nie musimy wykonywaÄ. Skorzystamy "
-"z X”. WiÄc w zasadzie powiedziaÅem: „Weźmy X i "
-"doÅÄ
czmy go do systemu GNU. A potem dopasujemy inne czÄÅci GNU,
"
-"żeby z nim wspóÅpracowaÅy, gdy bÄdzie potrzeba”.
ZnaleźliÅmy "
-"również inne oprogramowanie napisane przez innych ludzi, takie jak program "
-"do skÅadu tekstu TeX i trochÄ bibliotek z Berkeley. IstniaÅ
"
-"wtedy Berkeley Unix, ale nie byÅ wolnym oprogramowaniem. Kod bibliotek "
-"pochodziÅ na poczÄ
tku od innej grupy z Berkeley, zajmujÄ
cej
"
-"siÄ badaniami nad obliczeniami zmiennoprzecinkowymi. WiÄc "
-"wziÄliÅmy te kawaÅki i dopasowaliÅmy do naszego systemu."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"In October 1985, we founded the Free Software Foundation. So please note, "
-"the GNU project came first. The Free Software Foundation came after, about "
-"almost two years after the announcement of the Project. And the Free "
-"Software Foundation is a tax-exempt charity that raises funds to promote the "
-"freedom to share and change software. And in the 1980's, one of the main "
-"things we did with our funds was to hire people to write parts of GNU. And "
-"essential programs, such as the shell and the C library were written this "
-"way, as well as parts of other programs. The <code>tar</code> program, "
-"which is absolutely essential, although not exciting at all <i>[Laughter]</"
-"i> was written this way. I believe GNU grep was written this way. And so, "
-"we're approaching our goal."
-msgstr ""
-"W październiku 1985 zaÅożyliÅmy Free Software Foundation. ZwróÄcie
"
-"proszÄ uwagÄ, że projekt GNU byÅ pierwszy. FSF powstaÅa potem,
niemal "
-"dwa lata po ogÅoszeniu Projektu. A FSF to wyÅÄ
czona z "
-"obowiÄ
zku pÅacenia podatków organizacja charytatywna, która zbiera
fundusze "
-"na promowanie wolnoÅci dzielenia siÄ oprogramowaniem i jego "
-"modyfikowania. Natomiast w latach 80. jednÄ
z gÅównych rzeczy, "
-"na które przeznaczaliÅmy pieniÄ
dze, byÅo zatrudnianie ludzi,
aby "
-"pisali kawaÅki GNU. W ten sposób zostaÅy napisane najważniejsze "
-"programy, takie jak powÅoka i biblioteka C, podobnie jak czÄÅci
innych "
-"programów. W ten sposób zostaŠnapisany program tar, który jest
bardzo "
-"ważny, chociaż niezbyt fascynujÄ
cy <i>[Åmiech]</i>. Wydaje mi siÄ,
że w "
-"ten sposób zostaÅ napisany GNU grep. I tak zbliżaliÅmy siÄ do "
-"naszego celu."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"By 1991, there was just one major piece missing, and that was the kernel. "
-"Now, why did I put off the kernel? Probably because it doesn't really matter "
-"what order you do the things in, at least technically it doesn't. You've "
-"got to do them all anyway. And partly because I'd hoped we'd be able to "
-"find a start at a kernel somewhere else. And we did. We found Mach, which "
-"had been developed at Carnegie Mellon. And it wasn't the whole kernel; it "
-"was the bottom half of the kernel. So we had to write the top half, but I "
-"figured, you know, things like the file system, the network code, and so "
-"on. But running on top of Mach they're running essentially as user "
-"programs, which ought to make them easier to debug. You can debug with a "
-"real source-level debugger running at the same time. And so, I thought that "
-"way we'd be able to get these, the higher level parts of the kernel, done in "
-"a short time. It didn't work out that way. These asynchronous, multi-"
-"threaded processes, sending messages to each other turned out to be very "
-"hard to debug. And the Mach-based system that we were using to bootstrap "
-"with had a terrible debugging environment, and it was unreliable, and "
-"various problems. It took us years and years to get the GNU kernel to work."
-msgstr ""
-"Do roku 1991 brakowaÅo tylko jednej ważnej czÄÅci, a byÅo to "
-"jÄ
dro. Dlaczego odkÅadaÅem w czasie pisanie jÄ
dra? CzÄÅciowo
dlatego, "
-"że kolejnoÅÄ pisania poszczególnych rzeczy nie gra roli,
przynajmniej "
-"pod wzglÄdem technicznym. I tak trzeba napisaÄ je wszystkie. "
-"CzÄÅciowo również dlatego, że miaÅem nadziejÄ, iż znajdziemy
rozpoczÄte "
-"jÄ
dro gdzieÅ indziej. I tak siÄ staÅo. ZnaleźliÅmy Mach, które
byÅo "
-"rozwijane na uniwersytecie Carnegie Mellon. I nie byÅo to caÅe "
-"jÄ
dro; byÅa to dolna poÅowa jÄ
dra. MusieliÅmy wiÄc napisaÄ górnÄ
"
-"poÅowÄ, ale myÅlaÅem, no wiecie, rzeczy takie jak system plików,
kod "
-"sieciowy, i tak dalej. Jednak dziaÅajÄ
c na Machu dziaÅajÄ
one "
-"w zasadzie jako programy poziomu użytkownika, co powinno uczyniÄ je "
-"Åatwiejszymi do debugowania. Można je debugowaÄ dziaÅajÄ
cym
w tym "
-"samym czasie prawdziwym debuggerem poziomu źródÅowego. MyÅlaÅem wiÄc, "
-"że w ten sposób uda nam siÄ napisaÄ te wyższe partie jÄ
dra w "
-"krótkim czasie. Nie udaÅo siÄ. Te asynchroniczne, wielowÄ
tkowe procesy, "
-"wysyÅajÄ
ce do siebie komunikaty, okazaÅy siÄ byÄ bardzo trudne
do "
-"debugowania. A system oparty na Machu, którego używaliÅmy
do "
-"ich Åadowania, miaÅ koszmarne narzÄdzia do debugowania i byÅ "
-"zawodny, do tego byÅo z nim wiele innych problemów. Doprowadzenie
"
-"jÄ
dra GNU do dziaÅania zajÄÅo nam dÅugie lata."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, fortunately, our community did not have to wait for the GNU kernel. "
-"Because in 1991, Linus Torvalds developed another free kernel called Linux. "
-"And he used the old-fashioned monolithic design and it turns out that he got "
-"his working much faster than we got ours working. So maybe that's one of "
-"the mistakes that I made: that design decision. Anyway, at first, we didn't "
-"know about Linux, because he never contacted us to talk about it. Although "
-"he did know about the GNU Project. But he announced it to other people and "
-"other places on the net. And so other people then did the work of combining "
-"Linux with the rest of the GNU system to make a complete free operating "
-"system. Essentially, to make the GNU plus Linux combination."
-msgstr ""
-"Na szczÄÅcie jednak nasza spoÅecznoÅÄ nie musiaÅa czekaÄ
na "
-"jÄ
dro GNU. Ponieważ w 1991 Linus Torvalds stworzyÅ inne wolne jÄ
dro "
-"nazwane Linux. WykorzystaÅ on starodawny, monolityczny projekt i "
-"okazaÅo siÄ, że jego jÄ
dro zaczÄÅo dziaÅaÄ znacznie szybciej
niż nasze. "
-"WiÄc może to jest jeden z bÅÄdów, które popeÅniÅem: decyzja
"
-"projektowa. Tak czy inaczej na poczÄ
tku nie wiedzieliÅmy nic o "
-"Linuksie, bo nigdy siÄ z nami nie skontaktowaÅ, aby o nim "
-"porozmawiaÄ. Chociaż wiedziaÅ o Projekcie GNU. Jednak ogÅosiÅ "
-"informacjÄ o nim innym ludziom w innych miejscach sieci. I wtedy "
-"inni ludzie wykonali robotÄ ÅÄ
czenia Linuksa z resztÄ
systemu GNU "
-"w celu stworzenia kompletnego wolnego systemu operacyjnego. W swej "
-"istocie kombinacji GNU i Linuksa."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, they didn't realize that's what they were doing. You see, they said, "
-"We have a kernel — let's look around and see what other pieces we can "
-"find to put together with the kernel. So, they looked around — and lo "
-"and behold, everything they needed was already available. What good "
-"fortune, they said. <i>[Laughter]</i> It's all here. We can find "
-"everything we need. Let's just take all these different things and put it "
-"together, and have a system."
-msgstr ""
-"Jednak nie zdawali sobie sprawy, że wÅaÅnie to robili. Wiecie,
oni "
-"mówili: „Mamy jÄ
dro – popatrzmy dookoÅa i zobaczmy. "
-"jakie inne kawaÅki da siÄ znaleÅºÄ i do niego doÅÄ
czyÄ”.
WiÄc "
-"patrzyli dookoÅa – i oto okazaÅo siÄ, że wszystko, "
-"czego potrzebowali, jest już dostÄpne. „Co
za szczÄÅcie”, "
-"powiedzieli. <i>[Åmiech]</i> „Wszystko już gotowe. Da siÄ znaleÅºÄ "
-"wszystko, czego potrzebujemy. Weźmy po prostu wszystkie te
poszczególne "
-"czÄÅci, zÅóżmy do kupy i bÄdziemy mieli system”."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"They didn't know that most of what they found was pieces of the GNU system. "
-"So they didn't realize that they were fitting Linux into the gap in the GNU "
-"system. They thought they were taking Linux and making a system out of "
-"Linux. So they called it a Linux system."
-msgstr ""
-"Nie wiedzieli, że wiÄkszoÅÄ rzeczy, które znaleźli byÅo
kawaÅkami "
-"systemu GNU. Nie zdawali sobie wiÄc sprawy, że dopasowywali "
-"Linuksa do luki w systemie GNU. MyÅleli, że biorÄ
Linuksa "
-"i robiÄ
z niego system. WiÄc nazwali go systemem Linux."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can't hear you — what?"
-msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Nie sÅyszÄ – co?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, it's just not — you know, it's "
-"provincial."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Cóż, to po prostu nie – no
wiesz, "
-"to margines."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: But it's more good fortune then finding X and "
-"Mach?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Ale to wiÄcej szczÄÅcia niż znalezienie X "
-"i Macha?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. The difference is that the people who "
-"developed X and Mach didn't have the goal of making a complete free "
-"operating system. We're the only ones who had that. And, it was our "
-"tremendous work that made the system exist. We actually did a larger part "
-"of the system than any other project. No coincidence, because those people "
-"— they wrote useful parts of the system. But they didn't do it "
-"because they wanted the system to be finished. They had other reasons."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Racja. Różnica polega na tym, że "
-"autorzy X i Macha nie mieli na celu stworzenia kompletnego wolnego "
-"systemu operacyjnego. Tylko my mieliÅmy taki cel. I to nasza ogromna "
-"praca sprawiÅa, że system istnieje. W rzeczywistoÅci
stworzyliÅmy "
-"wiÄkszÄ
czÄÅÄ systemu niż jakikolwiek inny projekt. Nieprzypadkowo,
bo "
-"ci ludzie – napisali użyteczne czÄÅci systemu. Ale nie "
-"zrobili tego, bo chcieli, żeby system zostaÅ ukoÅczony. Mieli inne "
-"powody."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now the people who developed X — they thought that designing across "
-"the network window system would be a good project, and it was. And it "
-"turned out to help us make a good free operating system. But that's not "
-"what they hoped for. They didn't even think about that. It was an "
-"accident. An accidental benefit. Now, I'm not saying that what they did "
-"was bad. They did a large free software project. That's a good thing to "
-"do. But they didn't have that ultimate vision. The GNU Project is where "
-"that vision was."
-msgstr ""
-"Autorzy systemu X – wydawaÅo im siÄ, że stworzenie "
-"sieciowego systemu okien byÅoby niezÅym projektem, i byÅo nim.
I "
-"okazaÅo siÄ, że pomogÅo to nam zrobiÄ dobry wolny system
operacyjny. "
-"Ale oni nie tego chcieli. Nawet o tym nie myÅleli. To byÅ przypadek. "
-"Przypadkowa korzyÅÄ. OczywiÅcie nie twierdzÄ, że to, co zrobili,
byÅo "
-"zÅe. Przeprowadzili duży projekt zwiÄ
zany z wolnym oprogramowaniem.
To "
-"dobra rzecz. Ale nie posiadali tej ostatecznej wizji. Wizja byÅa
w "
-"projekcie GNU."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And, so, we were the ones whose — every little piece that didn't get "
-"done by somebody else, we did it. Because we knew that we wouldn't have a "
-"complete system without it. And even if it was totally boring and "
-"unromantic, like <code>tar</code> or <code>mv</code>. <i>[Laughter]</i> We "
-"did it. Or ld, you know there's nothing very exciting in <code>ld</code> "
-"— but I wrote one. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I did make efforts to have "
-"it do a minimal amount of disk I/O so that it would be faster and handle "
-"bigger programs. But, you know, I like to do a good job. I like to improve "
-"various things about the program while I'm doing it. But the reason that I "
-"did it wasn't that I had brilliant ideas for a better <code>ld</code>. The "
-"reason I did it is that we needed one that was free. And we couldn't expect "
-"anyone else to do it. So, we had to do it, or find someone to do it."
-msgstr ""
-"WiÄc to my jesteÅmy tymi, którzy – każdy najmniejszy "
-"kawaÅek, którego nie zrobiÅ nikt inny, zrobiliÅmy my.
Bo wiedzieliÅmy, "
-"że bez tego nie bÄdziemy mieli kompletnego systemu. Nawet jeÅli byÅo
to "
-"zupeÅnie nudne i nieromantyczne, jak <code>tar</code> lub "
-"<code>mv</code>. <i>[Åmiech]</i> ZrobiliÅmy to. Lub ld, wiecie, nie ma
"
-"nic ekscytujÄ
cego w <code>ld</code> – ale ja taki "
-"napisaÅem. <i>[Åmiech]</i> I wÅożyÅem dużo wysiÅku w to,
żeby "
-"w minimalnym stopniu korzystaÅ z operacji we/wy na dysku, tak
"
-"aby byÅ szybszy i radziÅ sobie z wiÄkszymi programami. "
-"Ale wiecie, lubiÄ dobrze wykonaÄ swojÄ
pracÄ. LubiÄ w jej
trakcie "
-"ulepszaÄ w programie różne rzeczy. Ale nie napisaÅem go
dlatego, "
-"że miaÅem doskonaÅe pomysÅy na lepszy <code>ld</code>.
NapisaÅem "
-"go, bo potrzebowaliÅmy jego wolnej wersji. I nie mogliÅmy "
-"oczekiwaÄ, że ktoÅ inny to zrobi. WiÄc my musieliÅmy to
zrobiÄ, "
-"albo znaleÅºÄ kogoÅ, żeby to zrobiÅ dla nas."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, although at this point thousands of people in projects have contributed "
-"to this system, there is one project which is the reason that this system "
-"exists, and that's the GNU Project. It <em>is</em> basically the GNU "
-"System, with other things added since then."
-msgstr ""
-"WiÄc pomimo tego, że do dzisiaj tysiÄ
ce ludzi z różnych "
-"projektów wniosÅo wkÅad w ten system, to istnieje jeden projekt,
dziÄki "
-"któremu system istnieje, a jest to Projekt GNU. On w zasadzie "
-"<em>jest</em> Systemem GNU, z innymi rzeczami dodanymi od tamtej "
-"pory."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, however, the practice of calling the system Linux has been a great blow "
-"to the GNU Project, because we don't normally get credit for what we've "
-"done. I think Linux, the kernel, is a very useful piece of free software, "
-"and I have only good things to say about it. But, well, actually, I can "
-"find a few bad things to say about it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, basically, I "
-"have good things to say about it. However, the practice of calling the GNU "
-"system, Linux, is just a mistake. I'd like to ask you please to make the "
-"small effort necessary to call the system GNU/Linux, and that way to help us "
-"get a share of the credit."
-msgstr ""
-"WiÄc zwyczaj nazywania tego systemu Linuksem to dla Projektu GNU duży "
-"cios, bo zazwyczaj nie docenia siÄ tego, co zrobiliÅmy. Uważam,
że "
-"Linux, czyli jÄ
dro, jest bardzo użytecznym kawaÅkiem wolnego "
-"oprogramowania i mam do powiedzenia na jego temat same dobre "
-"rzeczy. Chociaż, tak naprawdÄ mogÄ znaleÅºÄ parÄ zÅych rzeczy
na jego "
-"temat. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Ale w zasadzie mam do powiedzenia na "
-"jego temat dobre rzeczy. Jednak zwyczaj nazywania systemu GNU „"
-"Linuksem” jest po prostu bÅÄdny. ChciaÅbym was prosiÄ o
odrobinÄ "
-"wysiÅku i nazywanie tego systemu GNU/Linuksem, aby pomóc nam "
-"w ten sposób uzyskaÄ należne uznanie."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You need a mascot! Get yourself a stuffed animal! "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Potrzebujecie maskotki! ZaÅatwcie sobie wypchane "
-"zwierzÄ
tko! <i>[Åmiech]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have one."
-msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Już mamy."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You do?"
-msgstr "<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Macie?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have an animal — a gnu. <i>[Laughter]</"
-"i> Anyway. So, yes, when you draw a penguin, draw a gnu next to it. <i>"
-"[Laughter]</i> But, let's save the questions for the end. I have more to go "
-"through."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Mamy zwierzÄ
tko – gnu.
<i>[Åmiech]</i> "
-"Nieważne. WiÄc tak, jeÅli rysujecie pingwina, narysujcie obok gnu.
<i>"
-"[Åmiech]</i> Ale zostawmy pytania na koniec. Mam jeszcze trochÄ "
-"do powiedzenia."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, why am I so concerned about this? You know, why do I think it is worth "
-"bothering you and perhaps giving you a, perhaps lowering your opinion of me, "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i> to raise this issue of credit? Because, you know, some "
-"people when I do this, some people think that it's because I want my ego to "
-"be fed, right? Of course, I'm not saying — I'm not asking you to call "
-"it “Stallmanix,” right? <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Dlaczego tak mi na tym zależy? No wiecie, dlaczego uważam, że "
-"warto jest zawracaÄ wam gÅowÄ i byÄ może dawaÄ wam, prawdopodobnie
"
-"obniżaÄ waszÄ
opiniÄ o mnie, <i>[Åmiech]</i> podnoszÄ
c kwestiÄ uznania
"
-"zasÅug? Ponieważ niektórzy ludzie, gdy to robiÄ, niektórzy ludzie "
-"myÅlÄ
, że to dlatego, że chcÄ nakarmiÄ swoje ego, tak?
OczywiÅcie "
-"nie mówiÄ – nie proszÄ, żebyÅcie nazywali go „"
-"Stallmanix”, prawda? <i>[Åmiech] [aplauz]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to get "
-"credit. And there's a very specific reason for that, which is a lot more "
-"important than anybody getting credit, in and of itself. You see, these "
-"days, if you look around in our community most of the people talking about "
-"it and writing about it don't ever mention GNU, and they don't ever mention "
-"these goals of freedom — these political and social ideals, either. "
-"Because the place they come from is GNU."
-msgstr ""
-"ProszÄ, żebyÅcie nazywali go GNU, bo chcÄ, żeby uznane zostaÅy
zasÅugi "
-"Projektu GNU. Mam konkretny powód, który sam w sobie jest dużo "
-"ważniejszy niż uznanie czyichkolwiek zasÅug. Bo jeÅli obecnie "
-"przyjrzycie siÄ naszej spoÅecznoÅci, to wiÄkszoÅÄ ludzi, którzy o niej
mówiÄ
"
-"albo piszÄ
, nigdy nie wspominajÄ
GNU, nigdy nawet nie wspominajÄ
celów "
-"zwiÄ
zanych z wolnoÅciÄ
– tych politycznych i "
-"spoÅecznych ideaÅów. Bo miejsce, z którego siÄ wywodzÄ
to
GNU."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"The ideas associated with Linux — the philosophy is very different. "
-"It is basically the apolitical philosophy of Linus Torvalds. So, when "
-"people think that the whole system is Linux, they tend to think: “Oh, "
-"it must have been all started by Linux Torvalds. His philosophy must be the "
-"one that we should look at carefully”. And when they hear about the "
-"GNU philosophy, they say: “Boy, this is so idealistic, this must be "
-"awfully impractical. I'm a Linux-user, not a GNU-user.” <i>[Laughter]"
-"</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"IdeaÅy zwiÄ
zane z Linuksem – filozofia jest bardzo
odmienna. "
-"To jest w zasadzie apolityczna filozofia Linusa Torvaldsa. WiÄc "
-"gdy ludzie sÄ
przekonani, że caÅy system to Linux, zazwyczaj myÅlÄ
:
"
-"„Aha, wiÄc to wszystko musiaÅo zostaÄ zapoczÄ
tkowane przez
Linusa "
-"Torvaldsa. To jego filozofii powinniÅmy siÄ dokÅadniej przyjrzeÄ”. "
-"A gdy sÅyszÄ
o filozofii GNU, to myÅlÄ
: „Matko, to takie "
-"idealistyczne, musi byÄ strasznie niepraktyczne. Jestem użytkownikiem "
-"Linuksa, a nie GNU”. <i>[Åmiech]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"What irony! If they only knew! If they knew that the system they liked "
-"— or, in some cases, love and go wild over — is our idealistic, "
-"political philosophy made real."
-msgstr ""
-"Co za ironia! Gdyby tylko wiedzieli! Gdyby wiedzieli, że system, "
-"który lubiÄ
– a czasami nawet kochajÄ
i szalejÄ
na "
-"jego punkcie – to nasza idealistyczna, polityczna filozofia "
-"w zmaterializowanej postaci."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"They still wouldn't have to agree with us. But at least they'd see a reason "
-"to take it seriously, to think about it carefully, to give it a chance. "
-"They would see how it relates to their lives. You know, if they realized, "
-"“I'm using the GNU system. Here's the GNU philosophy. This philosophy "
-"is <em>why</em> this system that I like very much exists,” they'd at "
-"least consider it with a much more open mind. It doesn't mean that "
-"everybody will agree. People think different things. That's OK. You know, "
-"people should make up their own minds. But I want this philosophy to get "
-"the benefit of the credit for the results it has achieved."
-msgstr ""
-"Nadal nie musieliby siÄ z nami zgadzaÄ. Ale przynajmniej mieliby "
-"powód, aby traktowaÄ to poważnie, aby dokÅadnie siÄ
nad tym "
-"zastanowiÄ, aby daÄ temu szansÄ. Zobaczyliby jak to siÄ ma
do ich "
-"życia. Wiecie, gdyby zdali sobie sprawÄ, że: „Korzystam
z systemu "
-"GNU. Oto filozofia GNU. DziÄki <em>tej</em> filozofii system, który tak "
-"lubiÄ, istnieje”, to przynajmniej traktowaliby jÄ
z dużo
wiÄkszÄ
"
-"otwartoÅciÄ
umysÅu. Nie znaczy to, że wszyscy siÄ bÄdÄ
zgadzaÄ.
Ludzie "
-"myÅlÄ
różne rzeczy. To jest w porzÄ
dku. No wiecie, ludzie powinni
sami "
-"wyrobiÄ sobie poglÄ
dy. Ale chcÄ, aby ta filozofia skorzystaÅa "
-"na uznaniu jej zasÅug wobec rezultatów, jakie osiÄ
gnÄÅa."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"If you look around in our community, you'll find that almost everywhere, the "
-"institutions are calling the system Linux. You know, reporters mostly call "
-"it Linux. It's not right, but they do. The companies mostly say it that "
-"package the system. Oh, and most of these reporters, when they write "
-"articles, they usually don't look at it as a political issue, or social "
-"issue. They're usually looking at it purely as a business question or what "
-"companies are going to succeed more or less, which is really a fairly minor "
-"question for society. And, if you look at the companies that package the "
-"GNU/Linux system for people to use, well, most of them call it Linux. And "
-"they <em>all</em> add non-free software to it."
-msgstr ""
-"JeÅli przyjrzycie siÄ naszej spoÅecznoÅci, to zobaczycie, że prawie
"
-"wszÄdzie instytucje nazywajÄ
ten system Linuksem. No wiecie, dziennikarze "
-"nazywajÄ
go gÅównie Linuksem. To niewÅaÅciwe, ale tak robiÄ
.
MówiÄ
tak "
-"przeważnie firmy, które go rozpowszechniajÄ
. Aha, i wiÄkszoÅÄ tych
"
-"dziennikarzy, gdy piszÄ
artykuÅy, zazwyczaj nie patrzy na to z "
-"punktu widzenia polityki lub spoÅeczeÅstwa. Zazwyczaj rozważajÄ
to
jako "
-"kwestiÄ czysto biznesowÄ
, chodzi im mniej wiÄcej o to, które firmy
odniosÄ
"
-"sukces, co jest dosyÄ maÅo ważne dla spoÅeczeÅstwa. A gdy
popatrzycie "
-"na firmy, które rozpowszechniajÄ
system GNU/Linux wÅród ludzi, to "
-"wiÄkszoÅÄ nazywa go Linuksem. I <em>wszyscy</em> dodajÄ
do niego "
-"niewolne oprogramowanie."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"See, the GNU GPL says that if you take code, and some code out of a GPL-"
-"covered program, and add some more code to make a bigger program, that whole "
-"program has to be released under the GPL. But you could put other separate "
-"programs on the same disk (of either kind, hard disk, or CD), and they can "
-"have other licenses. That's considered mere aggregation, and, essentially, "
-"just distributing two programs to somebody at the same time is not something "
-"we have any say over. So, in fact, it is not true — sometimes, I wish "
-"it were true — that if a company uses a GPL-covered program in a "
-"product that the whole product has to be free software. It's not — it "
-"doesn't go to that range — that scope. It's the whole program. If "
-"there are two separate programs that communicate with each other at arm's "
-"length — like by sending messages to each other — then, they're "
-"legally separate, in general. So, these companies, by adding non-free "
-"software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically and "
-"politically, a very bad idea. They're telling the users, “It is OK to "
-"use non-free software. We're even putting it on this as a bonus.”"
-msgstr ""
-"GNU GPL mówi, że jeÅli weźmiecie kod i trochÄ kodu
z programu "
-"objÄtego przez GPL, i dodacie jeszcze trochÄ kodu, aby zrobiÄ "
-"wiÄkszy program, to caÅy ten program musi zostaÄ wydany na GPL. "
-"Ale moglibyÅcie doÅożyÄ osobno inne programy na tym samym dysku
"
-"(jakimkolwiek, dysku twardym lub CD) i mogÄ
one mieÄ inne "
-"licencje. Uważa siÄ to za zwykÅÄ
agregacjÄ i w gruncie rzeczy "
-"rozpowszechnianie dwóch programów jednoczeÅnie nie jest czymÅ, wobec
czego "
-"mamy cokolwiek do powiedzenia. WiÄc, w rzeczywistoÅci, to nie
jest "
-"prawda – czasami żaÅujÄ, że tak nie jest – "
-"że jeÅli jakaÅ firma wykorzysta program objÄty przez GPL
w swoim "
-"produkcie, to caÅy produkt musi byÄ wolnym oprogramowaniem. To nie ma "
-"– nie idzie aż tak daleko – takiego zasiÄgu. To caÅy "
-"program. JeÅli sÄ
dwa programy, które komunikujÄ
siÄ ze sobÄ
na pewnÄ
"
-"odlegÅoÅÄ – na przykÅad przez wysyÅanie do siebie "
-"komunikatów – to ogólnie rzecz biorÄ
c sÄ
pod wzglÄdem "
-"prawnym rozdzielne. WiÄc te firmy, dodajÄ
c do systemu niewolne "
-"oprogramowanie, dajÄ
użytkownikom, filozoficznie i politycznie, bardzo
"
-"zÅy sygnaÅ. MówiÄ
oni użytkownikom: „Używanie niewolnego "
-"oprogramowania jest w porzÄ
dku. Nawet je tutaj dodajemy jako "
-"bonus”."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system, most of "
-"them have a title like “Linux-something or other”. So they're "
-"calling the system Linux most of the time. And they're filled with ads for "
-"non-free software that you could run on top of the GNU/Linux system. Now "
-"those ads have a common message. They say: Non-free Software Is Good For "
-"You. It's So Good That You Might Even <em>Pay</em> To Get It. <i>[Laughter]"
-"</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"JeÅli popatrzycie na magazyny o korzystaniu z GNU/Linuksa, to "
-"wiÄkszoÅÄ z nich ma tytuÅ typu „Linux coÅ-tam
coÅ-tam”. "
-"WiÄc zazwyczaj nazywajÄ
system Linuksem. I sÄ
wypeÅnione
reklamami "
-"niewolnego oprogramowania, które można uruchamiaÄ w GNU/Linuksie. Te "
-"reklamy majÄ
wspólne przesÅanie. MówiÄ
: „Niewolne oprogramowanie
jest "
-"dla was dobre. Jest tak dobre, że może nawet za nie "
-"<em>zapÅacicie</em>”. <i>[Åmiech]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And they call these things “value-added packages”, which makes a "
-"statement about their values. They're saying: Value practical convenience, "
-"not freedom. And, I don't agree with those values, so I call them “"
-"freedom-subtracted packages”. <i>[Laughter]</i> Because if you have "
-"installed a free operating system, then you now are living in the free "
-"world. You enjoy the benefits of liberty that we worked for so many years "
-"to give you. Those packages give you an opportunity to buckle on a chain."
-msgstr ""
-"I nazywajÄ
te rzeczy „pakietami o zwiÄkszonej wartoÅci” "
-"[<em>ang. value-added packages</em>], co mówi coÅ o ich wartoÅciach "
-"[<em>ang. values</em>]. MówiÄ
: „CeÅcie [<em>ang. value</em>] "
-"praktycznÄ
wygodÄ, a nie wolnoÅÄ”. A ja nie zgadzam siÄ "
-"z tymi wartoÅciami, wiÄc je nazywam „pakietami o "
-"zmniejszonej wolnoÅci” [<em>ang. freedom-subtracted packages</em>].
<i>"
-"[Åmiech]</i> Bo jeÅli zainstalujecie sobie wolny system operacyjny, to
"
-"od tego momentu żyjecie w wolnym Åwiecie. Korzystacie z "
-"wolnoÅci, na którÄ
pracowaliÅmy dla was przez wiele lat. Takie
pakiety "
-"dajÄ
wam okazjÄ do zakucia siÄ w ÅaÅcuchy."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And then if you look at the trade shows — about the use of the, "
-"dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call themselves "
-"“Linux” shows. And they're filled with booths exhibiting non-"
-"free software, essentially putting the seal of approval on the non-free "
-"software. So, almost everywhere you look in our community, the institutions "
-"are endorsing the non-free software, totalling negating the idea of freedom "
-"that GNU was developed for. And the only place that people are likely to "
-"come across the idea of freedom is in connection with GNU, and in connection "
-"with free software, the term, free software. So this is why I ask you: "
-"please call the system GNU/Linux. Please make people aware where the system "
-"came from and why."
-msgstr ""
-"A jeÅli popatrzycie na targi branżowe – dotyczÄ
ce "
-"korzystania, poÅwiÄcone korzystaniu z GNU/Linuksa, wszystkie one "
-"nazywajÄ
siÄ targami „linuksowymi”. I sÄ
wypeÅnione "
-"stoiskami promujÄ
cymi niewolne oprogramowanie, co w swej istocie "
-"przypieczÄtowuje akceptacjÄ niewolnych programów. WiÄc niemalże
z "
-"którejkolwiek strony nie spojrzy siÄ na naszÄ
spoÅecznoÅÄ,
instytucje "
-"podpisujÄ
siÄ pod niewolnym oprogramowaniem, caÅkowicie negujÄ
c
ideÄ "
-"wolnoÅci, dla której zostaÅo stworzone GNU. I jedyny moment, w "
-"którym ludzie majÄ
szansÄ zetknÄ
Ä siÄ z ideÄ
wolnoÅci, to
w "
-"nawiÄ
zaniu do GNU i do wolnego oprogramowania, terminu „"
-"wolne oprogramowanie”. Dlatego proszÄ was: nazywajcie ten system "
-"GNU/Linux. Zwracajcie uwagÄ ludzi na to, skÄ
d wziÄ
Å siÄ ten system "
-"i dlaczego."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Of course, just by using that name, you won't be making an explanation of "
-"the history. You can type four extra characters and write GNU/Linux; you "
-"can say two extra syllables. But, GNU/Linux is fewer syllables than Windows "
-"2000. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, you're not telling them a lot, but you're "
-"preparing them, so that when they hear about GNU, and what it's all about, "
-"they'll see how that connects to them and their lives. And that, "
-"indirectly, makes a tremendous difference. So please help us."
-msgstr ""
-"OczywiÅcie, korzystajÄ
c jedynie z nazwy nie bÄdziecie wyjaÅniaÄ "
-"historii. Możecie wstukiwaÄ dodatkowe cztery znaki i pisaÄ GNU/Linux;
"
-"możecie wymawiaÄ dwie dodatkowe sylaby. Ale GNU/Linux ma mniej sylab "
-"niż Windows 2000. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Jednak nie mówicie im wiele,
ale "
-"przygotowujecie ich, wiÄc jak usÅyszÄ
o GNU i o co w tym "
-"wszystkim chodzi, to zobaczÄ
, jakie to ma znaczenie dla nich i ich "
-"życia. A to ma poÅrednio wielkie znaczenie. WiÄc proszÄ,
pomóżcie "
-"nam."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"You'll note that Microsoft called the GPL an “open source "
-"license”. They don't want people to be thinking in terms of freedom "
-"as the issue. You'll find that they invite people to think in a narrow way, "
-"as consumers, and, of course, not even think very rationally as consumers, "
-"if they're going to choose Microsoft products. But they don't want people "
-"to think as citizens or statesmen. That's inimical to them. At least it's "
-"inimical to their current business model."
-msgstr ""
-"Zauważcie, że Microsoft nazwaÅ GPL „licencjÄ
open
source”. "
-"Oni nie chcÄ
, aby ludzie myÅleli, że w tej sprawie chodzi o "
-"wolnoÅÄ. Zobaczcie, że zachÄcajÄ
ludzi, aby myÅleli w wÄ
ski "
-"sposób, jak konsumenci, oczywiÅcie żeby nawet jako konsumenci myÅleli "
-"niezbyt racjonalnie, jeÅli majÄ
wybraÄ produkty Microsoftu. Ale nie "
-"chcÄ
, by ludzie myÅleli jak obywatele lub mÄżowie stanu. To im nie "
-"sprzyja. A przynajmniej ich obecnemu modelowi biznesowemu."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, how does free software…well, I can tell you about how free "
-"software relates to our society. A secondary topic that might be of "
-"interest to some of you is how free software relates to business. Now, in "
-"fact, free software is <em>tremendously</em> useful for business. After "
-"all, most businesses in the advanced countries use software. Only a tiny "
-"fraction of them develop software."
-msgstr ""
-"W jaki sposób wolne oprogramowanie… cóż, mogÄ wam
opowiedzieÄ "
-"jak wolne oprogramowanie ma siÄ do naszego spoÅeczeÅstwa.
DrugorzÄdny "
-"temat, który może niektórych z was zainteresowaÄ, to jak wolne "
-"oprogramowanie ma siÄ do biznesu. Tak naprawdÄ to wolne oprogramowanie
"
-"jest dla biznesu <em>niezwykle</em> użyteczne. W koÅcu wiÄkszoÅÄ
firm "
-"w rozwiniÄtych krajach korzysta z oprogramowania. Tylko uÅamek "
-"z nich tworzy oprogramowanie."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And free software is tremendously advantageous for any company that uses "
-"software, because it means that you're in control. Basically, free software "
-"means the users are in control of what the program does. Either "
-"individually, if they care enough to be, or, collectively, when they care "
-"enough to be. Whoever cares enough can exert some influence. If you don't "
-"care, you don't buy. Then you use what other people prefer. But, if you do "
-"care, then you have some say. With proprietary software, you have "
-"essentially no say."
-msgstr ""
-"Wolne oprogramowanie ma ogromne zalety dla każdej firmy, która korzysta "
-"z programów, bo oznacza, że to wy kontrolujecie sytuacjÄ. "
-"Zasadniczo wolne oprogramowanie oznacza, że użytkownicy kontrolujÄ
"
-"dziaÅanie programu. Indywidualnie, jeÅli im na tym wystarczajÄ
co "
-"zależy, lub kolektywnie, jeÅli im na tym wystarczajÄ
co zależy. "
-"Każdy, komu dostatecznie zależy, może wywrzeÄ jakiÅ wpÅyw. Komu
wszystko "
-"jedno, ten nie wybiera. Wtedy korzysta z tego, co preferujÄ
inni. "
-"Ale jeÅli wam zależy, to macie coÅ do powiedzenia. W "
-"przypadku oprogramowania objÄtego restrykcyjnymi licencjami w gruncie "
-"rzeczy nie macie nic do gadania."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"With free software, you can change what you want to change. And it doesn't "
-"matter that there are no programmers in your company; that's fine. You "
-"know, if you wanted to move the walls in your building, you don't have to be "
-"a carpentry company. You just have to be able to go find a carpenter and "
-"say, “What will you charge to do this job?” And if you want to "
-"change around the software you use, you don't have to be a programming "
-"company. You just have to go to a programming company and say, “What "
-"will you charge to implement these features? And when will you have it done?"
-"” And if they don't do the job, you can go find somebody else."
-msgstr ""
-"W przypadku wolnego oprogramowania możecie zmieniaÄ cokolwiek chcecie.
"
-"I nie ma znaczenia, że w waszej firmie nie ma żadnych "
-"programistów; to nic. Wiecie, gdybyÅcie chcieli przesunÄ
Ä parÄ Åcian
w "
-"swoim budynku, to nie musicie byÄ do tego firmÄ
stolarskÄ
[<em>w "
-"USA Åciany sÄ
zazwyczaj drewniano-gipsowe</em>]. Wystarczy, że "
-"bÄdziecie mogli znaleÅºÄ stolarza i powiedzieÄ: „Ile za "
-"wykonanie tej roboty?” A jeÅli chcecie zmieniÄ używane przez
was "
-"oprogramowanie, nie musicie byÄ firmÄ
programistycznÄ
. Musicie tylko iÅÄ
"
-"do firmy programistycznej i powiedzieÄ: „Ile za "
-"implementacjÄ tych funkcji? I kiedy bÄdzie to gotowe?”. A "
-"jeÅli oni tego nie zrobiÄ
, możecie iÅÄ i znaleÅºÄ kogoÅ innego."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"There's a free market for support. So, any business that cares about "
-"support will find a tremendous advantage in free software. With proprietary "
-"software, support is a monopoly, because one company has the source code, or "
-"maybe a small number of companies that paid a gigantic amount of money have "
-"the source code, if it's Microsoft's shared source program, but, it's very "
-"few. And so, there aren't very many possible sources of support for you. "
-"And that means, that unless you're a real giant, they don't care about you. "
-"Your company is not important enough for them to care if they lose your "
-"business, or what happens. Once you're using the program, they figure "
-"you're locked in to getting the support from them, because to switch to a "
-"different program is a gigantic job. So, you end up with things like paying "
-"for the privilege of reporting a bug. <i>[Laughter]</i> And once you've "
-"paid, they tell you, “Well, OK, we've noted your bug report. And in a "
-"few months, you can buy an upgrade, and you can see if we've fixed it."
-"” <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Oznacza to wolny rynek usÅug wsparcia. Tak wiÄc każda firma, której "
-"zależy na wsparciu znajdzie w wolnym oprogramowaniu ogromne "
-"zalety. W przypadku programów objÄtych restrykcyjnymi licencjami "
-"wsparcie jest objÄte monopolem, bo tylko jedna firma posiada kod "
-"źródÅowy, a może ma go kilka firm, które zapÅaciÅy za to "
-"gigantyczne sumy pieniÄdzy, jeÅli braÅy udziaÅ w programie dzielenia
"
-"kodu Microsoftu, ale jest ich tylko kilka. Tak wiÄc nie ma dla was
"
-"wielu możliwych źródeÅ wsparcia. A to oznacza, że jeÅli nie "
-"jesteÅcie prawdziwym gigantem, to oni siÄ wami nie interesujÄ
. Wasza firma
"
-"nie jest dla nich wystarczajÄ
co ważna, aby zależaÅo im na "
-"zatrzymaniu was przy sobie lub na tym, co siÄ zdarzy. Jak już
bÄdziecie "
-"używaÄ ich programu, to bÄdÄ
przekonani, że jesteÅcie zmuszeni
kupowaÄ "
-"wsparcie u nich, bo przesiadka na inny program to masa pracy. "
-"I koÅczy siÄ na tym, że pÅacicie za przywilej
zgÅaszania "
-"usterek. <i>[Åmiech]</i> A jak już zapÅacicie, powiedzÄ
wam:
„No "
-"tak, odnotowaliÅmy wasze zgÅoszenie bÅÄdu. Za kilka miesiÄcy
możecie "
-"sobie kupiÄ upgrade i zobaczyÄ, czy go naprawiliÅmy”. <i>"
-"[Åmiech]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Support providers for free software can't get away with that. They have to "
-"please the customers. Of course, you can get a lot of good support gratis. "
-"You post your problem on the Internet. You may get an answer the next day. "
-"But that's not guaranteed, of course. If you want to be confident, you "
-"better make an arrangement with a company and pay them. And this is, of "
-"course, one of the ways that free software business works."
-msgstr ""
-"Firmom sprzedajÄ
cym wsparcie dla wolnego oprogramowania coÅ takiego nie "
-"ujdzie na sucho. MuszÄ
staraÄ siÄ, aby klienci byli zadowoleni. "
-"OczywiÅcie dużo dobrego wsparcia możecie dostaÄ za darmo.
OgÅaszacie "
-"swój problem w Internecie. Odpowiedź możecie dostaÄ nastÄpnego
dnia. "
-"Ale nie ma na to oczywiÅcie gwarancji. JeÅli chcecie mieÄ
pewnoÅÄ, "
-"to lepiej podpiszcie umowÄ z jakÄ
Å firmÄ
i jej zapÅaÄcie.
I "
-"to jest, oczywiÅcie, jeden ze sposobów dziaÅania biznesu opartego na "
-"wolnym oprogramowaniu."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Another advantage of free software for businesses that use software is "
-"security and privacy. And this applies to individuals as well, but I "
-"brought it up in the context of businesses. You see, when a program is "
-"proprietary, you can't even tell what it really does."
-msgstr ""
-"Kolejna zaleta wolnego oprogramowania dla firm korzystajÄ
cych z "
-"programów komputerowych to bezpieczeÅstwo i prywatnoÅÄ. To odnosi
siÄ "
-"również do pojedynczych osób, ale mówiÄ o tym
w kontekÅcie "
-"firm. Wiecie, gdy program jest objÄty restrykcyjnÄ
licencjÄ
, to nawet nie "
-"wiadomo, co tak naprawdÄ robi."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"It could have features, deliberately put in that you wouldn't like if you "
-"knew about them, like it might have a backdoor to let the developer get into "
-"your machine. It might snoop on what you do and send information back. "
-"This is not unusual. Some Microsoft software did this. But it's not only "
-"Microsoft. There are other proprietary programs that snoop on the user. "
-"And you can't even tell if it does this. And, of course, even assuming that "
-"the developer's totally honest, every programmer makes mistakes. There "
-"could be bugs that affect your security which are nobody's fault. But the "
-"point is: If it's not free software, you can't find them. And you can't fix "
-"them."
-msgstr ""
-"Może mieÄ umyÅlnie dodane funkcje, które by siÄ wam nie spodobaÅy, "
-"jeÅlibyÅcie o nich wiedzieli, np. może mieÄ tylne wejÅcie [ang.
backdoor] "
-"pozwalajÄ
ce autorowi wejÅÄ na waszÄ
maszynÄ. Może szpiegowaÄ, co "
-"robicie i wysyÅaÄ informacje z powrotem. To nie jest nic "
-"niezwykÅego. Niektóre programy Microsoftu to robiÅy. Ale to nie
dotyczy "
-"tylko Microsoftu. SÄ
inne objÄte restrykcyjnymi licencjami programy, które
"
-"szpiegujÄ
swoich użytkowników. I nawet nie można tego stwierdziÄ. "
-"A nawet zakÅadajÄ
c, że autor jest caÅkowicie uczciwy, każdy "
-"programista popeÅnia bÅÄdy. MogÄ
pojawiÄ siÄ bÅÄdy majÄ
ce wpÅyw
na "
-"wasze bezpieczeÅstwo, które nie sÄ
niczyjÄ
winÄ
. Ale chodzi o to, "
-"że jeÅli nie jest to wolne oprogramowanie, to nie możecie ich
znaleźÄ. "
-"I nie możecie ich naprawiÄ."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Nobody has the time to check the source of every program he runs. You're "
-"not going to do that. But with free software there's a large community, and "
-"there are people in that community who are checking things. And you get the "
-"benefit of their checking, because if there's an accidental bug, there "
-"surely are, from time to time, in any program, they might find it and fix "
-"it. And people are much less likely to put in a deliberate Trojan horse, or "
-"a snooping feature, if they think they might get caught. The proprietary "
-"software developers figure they won't get caught. They'll get away with it "
-"undetected. But a free software developer has to figure that people will "
-"look at that and see it's there. So, in our community, we don't feel we can "
-"get away with ramming a feature down the users' throats that the users "
-"wouldn't like. So we know that if the users don't like it, they'll make a "
-"modified version which doesn't have it. And then, they'll all start using "
-"that version."
-msgstr ""
-"Nikt nie ma czasu na sprawdzanie źródeŠkażdego programu, którego "
-"używa. Nie bÄdziecie tego robiÄ. Ale w przypadku wolnego
oprogramowania "
-"istnieje duża spoÅecznoÅÄ i sÄ
w niej ludzie, którzy wszystko
"
-"sprawdzajÄ
. I korzystacie na ich sprawdzaniu, bo jeÅli jest "
-"jakiÅ przypadkowy bÅÄ
d â zawsze jakieÅ sÄ
od czasu do czasu
w "
-"każdym programie – to mogÄ
go znaleÅºÄ i naprawiÄ. Poza
tym "
-"ludzie znacznie mniej chÄtnie dokÅadajÄ
konia trojaÅskiego
lub funkcjÄ "
-"szpiegujÄ
cÄ
, jeÅli obawiajÄ
siÄ, że ktoÅ może ich zÅapaÄ.
Autorzy "
-"oprogramowania objÄtego restrykcyjnymi licencjami uważajÄ
, że nikt
ich "
-"nie zÅapie. Ujdzie im to na sucho. Ale autor wolnego "
-"oprogramowania musi zdawaÄ sobie sprawÄ, że ludzie bÄdÄ
na to "
-"patrzeÄ i to zauważÄ
. WiÄc w naszej spoÅecznoÅci nie
uważamy, "
-"że może nam ujÅÄ na sucho wciskanie ludziom funkcji, która by
im "
-"siÄ nie spodobaÅa. Wiemy, że jeÅli użytkownikom siÄ nie bÄdzie "
-"podobaÅa, to zrobiÄ
zmodyfikowanÄ
wersjÄ, która nie bÄdzie jej
zawieraÄ. "
-"A potem zacznÄ
wszyscy jej używaÄ."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"In fact, we can all reason enough, we can all figure this out enough steps "
-"ahead, that we probably won't put in that feature. After all, you're "
-"writing a free program; you want people to like your version; you don't want "
-"to put in a thing that you know a lot of people are going to hate, and have "
-"another modified version catch on instead of yours. So you just realize "
-"that the user is king in the world of free software. In the world of "
-"proprietary software, the customer is <em>not</em> king. Because you are "
-"only a customer. You have no say in the software you use."
-msgstr ""
-"Tak naprawdÄ to wszyscy jesteÅmy na tyle rozsÄ
dni, potrafimy siÄgnÄ
Ä "
-"wyobraźniÄ
na tyle daleko naprzód, że najpewniej nie dodamy tej
"
-"funkcji. Przecież piszecie wolny program; chcecie, żeby ludziom podobaÅa
siÄ "
-"wasza wersja; nie chcecie wstawiÄ do niej czegoÅ, czego wiele ludzi "
-"bÄdzie nienawidziÄ i przez co popularna stanie siÄ inna zmodyfikowana
"
-"wersja zamiast waszej. WiÄc dochodzicie do wniosku, że w "
-"Åwiecie wolnego oprogramowania użytkownik jest królem Åwiata.
W Åwiecie "
-"oprogramowania objÄtego restrykcyjnymi licencjami użytkownik <em>nie</em> "
-"jest królem. Bo jesteÅcie tylko klientem. Nie macie nic do "
-"powiedzenia w kwestii programów, których używacie."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"In this respect, free software is a new mechanism for democracy to operate. "
-"Professor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions as a kind of "
-"law. Whoever gets to write the code that just about everybody uses for all "
-"intents and purposes is writing the laws that run people's lives. With free "
-"software, these laws get written in a democratic way. Not the classical "
-"form of democracy — we don't have a big election and say, “"
-"Everybody vote which way should this feature be done.” <i>[Laughter]</"
-"i> Instead we say, basically, those of you who want to work on implementing "
-"the feature this way, do it. And if you want to work on implementing the "
-"feature that way, do it. And, it gets done one way or the other, you know? "
-"And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done this way. So, "
-"in this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by simply taking "
-"steps in the direction that he wants to go."
-msgstr ""
-"Pod tym wzglÄdem wolne oprogramowanie to nowy mechanizm demokratyczny. "
-"Profesor Lessig, pracujÄ
cy obecnie w Stanford, zauważyÅ, że kod
"
-"funkcjonuje jak rodzaj prawa. Ktokolwiek napisaŠkod, którego prawie
wszyscy "
-"używajÄ
do wszelkich celów, napisaÅ prawa, które kierujÄ
ich
życiem. "
-"W przypadku wolnego oprogramowania prawa te sÄ
pisane w sposób "
-"demokratyczny. Nie chodzi tu o klasycznÄ
formÄ demokracji – nie "
-"mamy wielkich wyborów, na których mówimy: „ZagÅosujmy wszyscy
jak "
-"ma byÄ zaimplementowana ta funkcja”. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Zamiast tego "
-"w zasadzie mówimy, że ci z was, którzy chcÄ
pracowaÄ
nad "
-"zaimplementowaniem tej funkcji w ten sposób, mogÄ
to robiÄ. A "
-"jeÅli chcecie pracowaÄ nad zaimplementowaniem w inny sposób, "
-"możecie to robiÄ. I wiecie co, w taki czy inny sposób
zostaje "
-"ona zaimplementowana. I jeÅli wielu ludzi chce, żeby byÅo to zrobione
"
-"w jakiÅ sposób, to tak wÅaÅnie zostanie zrobione. I tak, każdy
"
-"bierze udziaÅ w tej spoÅecznej decyzji po prostu podejmujÄ
c
kroki "
-"w kierunku, który mu odpowiada."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And you're free to take as many steps, personally, as you want to take. A "
-"business is free to commission as many steps as they find useful to take. "
-"And, after you add all these things up, that says which direction the "
-"software goes."
-msgstr ""
-"OsobiÅcie macie wolnoÅÄ do zrobienia tylu kroków, ile chcecie. Firmy
"
-"mogÄ
zrobiÄ tyle kroków, ile wyda im siÄ użyteczne. A po dodaniu
tego "
-"wszystkiego wychodzi kierunek, w którym podÄ
żaÄ bÄdzie
oprogramowanie."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And it's often very useful to be able to take pieces out of some existing "
-"program, presumably usually large pieces, of course, and then write a "
-"certain amount of code of your own, and make a program that does exactly "
-"what you need, which would have cost you an arm and a leg to develop, if you "
-"had to write it all from scratch, if you couldn't cannibalize large pieces "
-"from some existing free software package."
-msgstr ""
-"CzÄsto bardzo użyteczna jest możliwoÅÄ wyjÄcia kawaÅków
z istniejÄ
cego "
-"programu, prawdopodobnie zazwyczaj dużych kawaÅków, a później
napisania "
-"jakiejÅ iloÅci kodu samemu i zrobienia programu, który robi
dokÅadnie "
-"to, co wam jest potrzebne, i którego napisanie od zera wymagaÅoby
"
-"od was harowania jak wóÅ, gdybyÅcie nie mogli skonsumowaÄ dużych "
-"kawaÅków jakiegoÅ istniejÄ
cego pakietu wolnego oprogramowania."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Another thing that results from the fact that the user is king is that we "
-"tend to be very good about compatibility and standardization. Why? Because "
-"users like that. Users are likely to reject a program that has gratuitous "
-"incompatibilities in it. Now, sometimes there's a certain group of users "
-"which actually have a need for a certain kind of incompatibility, and then "
-"they'll have it. That's OK. But when users want is to follow a standard, we "
-"developers have to follow it, and we know that. And we do it. By contrast, "
-"if you look at proprietary software developers, they often find it "
-"advantageous to deliberately <em>not</em> follow a standard, and not because "
-"they think that they're giving the user an advantage that way, but rather "
-"because they're imposing on the user, locking the user in. And you'll even "
-"find them making changes in their file formats from time to time, just to "
-"force people to get the newest version."
-msgstr ""
-"Kolejna rzecz, która wynika z tego, że użytkownik jest królem,
to "
-"że zazwyczaj jesteÅmy bardzo dobrzy jeÅli chodzi o zgodnoÅÄ i "
-"standaryzacjÄ. Dlaczego? Bo użytkownicy to lubiÄ
. Użytkownicy "
-"prawdopodobnie odrzucÄ
program, który zawiera w sobie nieuzasadnione "
-"niezgodnoÅci. Czasami pojawia siÄ jakaÅ grupa użytkowników, która
potrzebuje "
-"wÅaÅnie jakiejÅ konkretnej niezgodnoÅci i wtedy jÄ
dostanÄ
. To
jest OK. "
-"Ale gdy użytkownicy chcÄ
zgodnoÅci ze standardem, to my, autorzy, "
-"musimy siÄ temu podporzÄ
dkowaÄ i zdajemy sobie z tego sprawÄ. "
-"I tak robimy. Dla kontrastu, gdy popatrzycie na autorów "
-"oprogramowania objÄtego restrykcyjnymi licencjami, to czÄsto widzÄ
oni "
-"korzyÅci w umyÅlnym <em>ignorowaniu</em> standardów i to nie "
-"dlatego, że sÄ
dzÄ
, że w ten sposób dajÄ
użytkownikowi coŠ"
-"lepszego, ale raczej dlatego, że w ten sposób coÅ mu narzucajÄ
,
"
-"zamykajÄ
go. ZmieniajÄ
nawet formaty plików, tylko po to, aby "
-"zmusiÄ ludzi do kupienia najnowszej wersji."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Archivists are finding a problem now, that files written on computers ten "
-"years ago often can't be accessed; they were written with proprietary "
-"software that's essentially lost now. If it were written with free "
-"software, then it could be brought up-to-date and run. And those things "
-"would not, those records would not be lost, would not be inaccessible. They "
-"were even complaining about this on NPR recently in citing free software as "
-"a solution. And so, in effect, by using a non-free program to store your "
-"own data, you are putting your head in a noose."
-msgstr ""
-"ArchiwiÅci majÄ
teraz problem, bo plików zapisanych
na komputerach "
-"10 lat temu nie da siÄ otworzyÄ; zostaÅy zapisane przy użyciu objÄtego "
-"restrykcyjnÄ
licencjÄ
oprogramowania, które od tamtego czasu
przepadÅo. "
-"Gdyby zostaÅy zapisane przy użyciu wolnego oprogramowania, to można by je "
-"odnowiÄ i uruchomiÄ. A te rzeczy nie zostaÅyby, te archiwa nie "
-"zostaÅyby stracone, nie byÅyby niedostÄpne. Narzekano nawet na to "
-"ostatnio w radiu publicznym i wymieniano wolne oprogramowanie jako "
-"rozwiÄ
zanie problemu. Tak wiÄc w rezultacie, korzystajÄ
c z "
-"niewolnego programu do przechowywania waszych danych, owijacie sobie "
-"wokóŠszyi pÄtlÄ."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, I've talked about how free software affects most business. But how does "
-"it affect that particular narrow area which is software business? Well, the "
-"answer is mostly not at all. And the reason is that 90% of the software "
-"industry, from what I'm told, is development of custom software, software "
-"that's not meant to be released at all. For custom software, this issue, or "
-"the ethical issue of free or proprietary, doesn't arise. You see, the issue "
-"is, are you users free to change, and redistribute, the software? If there's "
-"only one user, and that user owns the rights, there's no problem. That user "
-"<em>is</em> free to do all these things. So, in effect, any <em>custom</em> "
-"program that was developed by one company for use in-house is free software, "
-"as long as they have the sense to insist on getting the source code and all "
-"the rights."
-msgstr ""
-"PowiedziaÅem wiÄc jakie znaczenie wolne oprogramowanie ma dla "
-"wiÄkszoÅci firm. Ale jakie ma znaczenie dla konkretnego wÄ
skiego "
-"obszaru, jakim jest przemysŠprogramistyczny? Odpowiedź brzmi: prawie
żadne. "
-"A to dlatego, że 90% tego przemysÅu, z tego co mi mówiono,
to "
-"rozwój oprogramowania na zamówienie, które nigdy nie bÄdzie wydane. "
-"W przypadku takiego oprogramowania kwestia, lub etyczna kwestia, "
-"âobjÄte restrykcyjnÄ
licencjÄ
czy wolneâ nie ma znaczenia.
Pytanie "
-"brzmi: czy wy, użytkownicy, macie wolnoÅÄ do zmieniania i "
-"ponownego rozpowszechniania tego oprogramowania? JeÅli jest tylko jeden "
-"użytkownik i to on posiada prawa, to nie ma problemu. Ten użytkownik "
-"<em>ma</em> wolnoÅÄ do robienia wszystkich tych rzeczy. WiÄc w "
-"rezultacie każdy program napisany na <em>indywidualne zamówienie</em> "
-"przez jakÄ
Å firmÄ na wewnÄtrzny użytek to wolne oprogramowanie,
jeÅli "
-"tylko majÄ
wystarczajÄ
co oleju w gÅowie, żeby domagaÄ siÄ kodu "
-"źródÅowego i wszystkich praw."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And the issue doesn't really arise for software that goes in a watch or a "
-"microwave oven or an automobile ignition system. Because those are places "
-"where you don't download software to install. It's not a real computer, as "
-"far as the user is concerned. And so, it doesn't raise these issues enough "
-"for them to be ethically important. So, for the most part, the software "
-"industry will go along, just as it's been going. And the interesting thing "
-"is that since such a large fraction of the jobs are in that part of the "
-"industry, even if there were no possibilities for free software business, "
-"the developers of free software could all get day jobs writing custom "
-"software. <i>[Laughter]</i> There's so many; the ratio is so big."
-msgstr ""
-"Kwestia ta nie ma tak naprawdÄ znaczenia również w przypadku "
-"oprogramowania, które dziaÅa w zegarkach, mikrofalówkach lub "
-"samochodowych systemach zapÅonu. Bo tutaj nie ÅciÄ
gacie
oprogramowania, "
-"żeby je zainstalowaÄ. Z punktu widzenia użytkownika to nie jest "
-"prawdziwy komputer. WiÄc nie rozbudza to tych kwestii w "
-"wystarczajÄ
co dużym stopniu, żeby staÅy siÄ etycznie ważne. WiÄc "
-"ogólnie rzecz biorÄ
c przemysÅ programistyczny sobie poradzi, tak jak
robiÅ "
-"to dotychczas. InteresujÄ
ce jest to, że skoro tak wielka czÄÅÄ "
-"dostÄpnej pracy należy do tej kategorii, to nawet jeÅli nie byÅoby "
-"możliwoÅci zakÅadania firm zajmujÄ
cych siÄ wolnym oprogramowaniem, to
jego "
-"autorzy mogliby znaleÅºÄ sobie pracÄ przy pisaniu programów na "
-"indywidualne zamówienie. <i>[Åmiech]</i> Jest tego tak wiele; stosunek jest
"
-"tak duży."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, as it happens, there is free software business. There are free "
-"software companies, and at the press conference that I'm going to have, "
-"people from a couple of them will join us. And, of course, there are also "
-"companies which are <em>not</em> free software businesses but do develop "
-"useful pieces of free software to release, and the free software that they "
-"produce is substantial."
-msgstr ""
-"Ale zÅożyÅo siÄ tak, że istnieje biznes oparty na wolnym "
-"oprogramowaniu. SÄ
firmy zajmujÄ
ce siÄ wolnym oprogramowaniem, a na "
-"mojej konferencji prasowej pojawiÄ
siÄ ludzie z kilku z nich. "
-"OczywiÅcie, istniejÄ
też firmy, które <em>nie</em> sÄ
firmami opierajÄ
cymi "
-"dziaÅalnoÅÄ na wolnym oprogramowaniu, ale tworzÄ
i wydajÄ
"
-"użyteczne programy tego typu, a produkowane przez nich wolne "
-"oprogramowanie ma duże znaczenie."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, how do free software businesses work? Well, some of them sell copies. "
-"You know, you're free to copy it but they can still sell thousands of copies "
-"a month. And others sell support and various kinds of services. I, "
-"personally, for the second half of the '80's, I sold free software support "
-"services. Basically I said, for $200 an hour, I'll change whatever you want "
-"me to change in GNU software that I'd written. And, yes, it was a stiff "
-"rate, but if it was a program that I was the author of, people would figure "
-"that I might get the job done in a lot fewer hours. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I "
-"made a living that way. In fact, I'd made more than I'd ever made before. "
-"I also taught classes. And I kept doing that until 1990, when I got a big "
-"prize and I didn't have to do it any more."
-msgstr ""
-"Jak dziaÅajÄ
firmy zajmujÄ
ce siÄ wolnym oprogramowaniem? Cóż, niektóre
"
-"z nich sprzedajÄ
kopie. Wiecie, każdy może kopiowaÄ to do woli,
"
-"ale im i tak udaje siÄ sprzedawaÄ tysiÄ
ce kopii na miesiÄ
c. "
-"Inni sprzedajÄ
wsparcie i różne usÅugi. OsobiÅcie w drugiej "
-"poÅowie lat 80. sprzedawaÅem usÅugi wsparcia. MówiÅem: „Za 200$ "
-"za godzinÄ zmieniÄ wszystko, co tylko chcecie, w oprogramowaniu "
-"GNU, które napisaÅem”. Tak, to byÅa sÅona stawka, ale jeÅli
byÅ "
-"to program, którego byÅem autorem, to ludzie oceniali, że uda mi siÄ
"
-"skoÅczyÄ pracÄ w dużo krótszym czasie. <i>[Åmiech]</i> I tak "
-"zarabiaÅem na życie. Tak naprawdÄ to zarabiaÅem wiÄcej niż
kiedykolwiek "
-"wczeÅniej. ProwadziÅem także zajÄcia. I robiÅem to do roku
1990, "
-"kiedy otrzymaÅem dużÄ
nagrodÄ i nie musiaÅem tego wiÄcej robiÄ."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, 1990 was when the first corporation free software business was formed, "
-"which was Cygnus Support. And their business was to do, essentially, the "
-"same kind of thing that I'd been doing. I certainly could have worked for "
-"them, if I had needed to do that. Since I didn't need to, I felt it was "
-"good for the movement if I remained independent of any one company. That "
-"way, I could say good and bad things about the various free software and non-"
-"free software companies, without a conflict of interest. I felt that I "
-"could serve the movement more. But, if I had needed that to make a living, "
-"sure, I would have worked for them. It's an ethical business to be in. No "
-"reason I would have felt ashamed to take a job with them. And that company "
-"was profitable in its first year. It was formed with very little capital, "
-"just the money its three founders had. And it kept growing every year and "
-"being profitable every year until they got greedy, and looked for outside "
-"investors, and then they messed things up. But it was several years of "
-"success, before they got greedy."
-msgstr ""
-"Ale w 1990 powstaÅa pierwsza korporacja opierajÄ
ca dziaÅalnoÅÄ
na "
-"wolnym oprogramowaniu, Cygnus Support. A ich dziaÅalnoÅÄ to byÅo
w "
-"gruncie rzeczy to samo, co ja robiÅem. Z caÅÄ
pewnoÅciÄ
mógÅbym
dla "
-"nich pracowaÄ, gdyby byÅa taka potrzeba. Ponieważ takiej potrzeby nie
"
-"byÅo, to stwierdziÅem, że dobrze bÄdzie dla ruchu, gdy pozostanÄ "
-"niezależny od jakiejÅ konkretnej firmy. W ten sposób mogÅem
mówiÄ "
-"dobre i zÅe rzeczy o różnych firmach programistycznych zajmujÄ
cych
siÄ "
-"wolnym i niewolnym oprogramowaniem bez żadnego konfliktu "
-"interesów. WydawaÅo mi siÄ, że lepiej siÄ przysÅuÅ¼Ä ruchowi.
Ale "
-"gdybym potrzebowaÅ pracy u nich, żeby siÄ utrzymaÄ, to oczywiÅcie
bym "
-"dla nich pracowaÅ. To etyczny rodzaj pracy. Nie byÅoby powodu, żebym
musiaÅ "
-"siÄ wstydziÄ pracy u nich. Ta firma zaczÄÅa przynosiÄ zyski w "
-"pierwszym roku dziaÅalnoÅci. ZostaÅa zaÅożona z bardzo maÅym
kapitaÅem "
-"poczÄ
tkowym skÅadajÄ
cym siÄ wyÅÄ
cznie z pieniÄdzy jej trzech "
-"zaÅożycieli. I rozwijaÅa siÄ każdego roku i przynosiÅa zyski "
-"każdego roku, aż stali siÄ pazerni i zaczÄli szukaÄ zewnÄtrznych "
-"inwestorów, a potem wszystko zepsuli. Ale sukces trwaŠkilka lat,
"
-"zanim stali siÄ pazerni."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, this illustrates one of the exciting things about free software. Free "
-"software demonstrates that you don't need to raise capital to develop free "
-"software. I mean, it's useful; it <em>can</em> help. You know, if you do "
-"raise some capital, you can hire people and have them write a bunch of "
-"software. But you can get a lot done with a small number of people. And, "
-"in fact, the tremendous efficiency of the process of developing free "
-"software is one of the reasons it's important for the world to switch to "
-"free software. And it also belies what Microsoft says when they say the GNU "
-"GPL is bad, because it makes it harder for them to raise capital to develop "
-"non-free software and take our free software and put our code into their "
-"programs that they won't share with us. Basically, we don't need to have "
-"them raising capital that way. We'll get the job done anyway. We are "
-"getting the job done."
-msgstr ""
-"To sÅuży za przykÅad jednej z ekscytujÄ
cych rzeczy dotyczÄ
cych
"
-"wolnego oprogramowania. Wolne oprogramowanie pokazuje, że nie musicie "
-"zbieraÄ kapitaÅu, żeby tworzyÄ wolne oprogramowanie. To znaczy, to siÄ "
-"przydaje; to <em>może</em> pomóc. No wiecie, jak zbierzecie kapitaÅ, to "
-"możecie zatrudniÄ paru ludzi i kazaÄ im napisaÄ trochÄ
oprogramowania. "
-"Ale wiele można zdziaÅaÄ z niewielkÄ
liczbÄ
osób. Tak
naprawdÄ to "
-"olbrzymia wydajnoÅÄ procesu tworzenia wolnego oprogramowania jest jednym "
-"z powodów, dla których ważne jest, aby Åwiat przesiadÅ siÄ
na "
-"wolne oprogramowanie. I zadaje to także kÅam temu, co Microsoft "
-"twierdzi mówiÄ
c, że GPL jest zÅa, bo z jej powodu trudniej jest
im "
-"zbieraÄ kapitaÅ na rozwój niewolnego oprogramowania i braÄ
nasze "
-"programy, i wstawiaÄ nasz kod do swoich programów, którymi siÄ "
-"z nami nie podzielÄ
. Ogólnie rzecz biorÄ
c nie potrzeba nam, żeby
w "
-"ten sposób zbierali kapitaÅ. I tak wykonamy potrzebnÄ
pracÄ.
Wykonujemy "
-"jÄ
."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"People used to say we could never do a complete free operating system. Now "
-"we've done that and a tremendous amount more. And I would say that we're "
-"about an order of magnitude away from developing all the general purpose "
-"published software needs of the world. And this is in a world where more "
-"than 90% of the users don't use our free software yet. This is in a world "
-"where, although in certain areas of business, you know, more than half of "
-"all the web servers in the world are running on GNU/Linux with Apache as the "
-"web server."
-msgstr ""
-"KiedyÅ ludzie mówili, że nigdy nie uda nam siÄ stworzyÄ kompletnego
"
-"wolnego systemu operacyjnego. Nie doÅÄ, że stworzyliÅmy system, to "
-"zrobiliÅmy jeszcze dużo wiÄcej. PowiedziaÅbym, że jesteÅmy o rzÄ
d
"
-"wielkoÅci od stworzenia caÅego potrzebnego Åwiatu oprogramowania "
-"ogólnego przeznaczenia. I to w Åwiecie, w którym 90% "
-"użytkowników nie korzysta jeszcze z naszego oprogramowania. W "
-"Åwiecie, w którym, chociaż w niektórych branżach biznesu, no "
-"wiecie, wiÄcej niż poÅowa wszystkich serwerów sieciowych na Åwiecie
"
-"dziaÅa pod GNU/Linuksem i używa Apache jako serwera sieciowego."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i> … What did you say "
-"before, Linux?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: <i>[niewyraźne]</i> … Co powiedziaÅeÅ, "
-"Linux?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I said GNU/Linux."
-msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I said GNU/Linux."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You did?"
-msgstr "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Tak?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, if I'm talking about the kernel, I call it "
-"Linux. You know, that's it's name. The kernel was written by Linus "
-"Torvalds, and we should only call it by the name that he chose, out of "
-"respect for the author."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tak, gdy mówiÄ o jÄ
drze, to nazywam je Linux.
No "
-"wiesz, taka jest jego nazwa. JÄ
dro zostaÅo napisane przez Linusa Torvaldsa "
-"i powinniÅmy je nazywaÄ tylko tak, jak on chciaÅ, z szacunku "
-"do autora."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Anyway, but in general, in business most users are not using it. Most home "
-"users are not using our system yet. So, when they are, we should "
-"automatically get 10 times as many volunteers and 10 times as many customers "
-"for the free software businesses that there will be. And so that will take "
-"us that order of magnitude. So at this point, I am pretty confident that we "
-"<em>can</em> do the job."
-msgstr ""
-"Tak czy inaczej, ogólnie w biznesie wiÄkszoÅÄ użytkowników go
nie "
-"używa. WiÄkszoÅÄ domowych użytkowników nie korzysta jeszcze
z naszego "
-"systemu. WiÄc gdy zacznÄ
to robiÄ, to powinniÅmy automatycznie
zyskaÄ "
-"10 razy wiÄcej ochotników i 10 razy wiÄcej klientów dla firm "
-"zajmujÄ
cych siÄ wolnym oprogramowaniem, które powstanÄ
. I to nam "
-"pozwoli na pokonanie tego rzÄdu wielkoÅci. WiÄc obecnie jestem "
-"caÅkiem pewny, że <em>może</em> nam siÄ udaÄ."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And, this is important, because Microsoft asks us to feel desperate. They "
-"say, The only way you can have software to run, the only way you can have "
-"innovation, is if you give us power. Let us dominate you. Let us control "
-"what you can do with the software you're running, so that we can squeeze a "
-"lot of money out of you, and use a certain fraction of that to develop "
-"software, and take the rest as profit."
-msgstr ""
-"I to jest ważne, bo Microsoft chce, żebyÅmy czuli siÄ "
-"zdesperowani. MówiÄ
: „Jedyny sposób, żebyÅcie mieli dziaÅajÄ
ce "
-"oprogramowanie, żebyÅcie mieli innowacje, to przekazanie nam wÅadzy.
Dajcie "
-"nam siÄ zdominowaÄ. Dajcie nam kontrolÄ nad tym, co robicie ze swoim "
-"oprogramowaniem, żebyÅmy mogli wycisnÄ
Ä z was górÄ pieniÄdzy
i "
-"użyÄ jej niewielkiej czÄÅci do rozwoju programów, a resztÄ "
-"zatrzymaÄ jako zysk”."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Well, you shouldn't ever feel that desperate. You shouldn't ever feel so "
-"desperate that you give up your freedom. That's very dangerous."
-msgstr ""
-"Cóż, nie powinniÅcie siÄ nigdy czuÄ tak zdesperowani. Nigdy nie
powinniÅcie "
-"siÄ czuÄ na tyle zdesperowani, aby oddaÄ swojÄ
wolnoÅÄ. To
bardzo "
-"niebezpieczne."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Another thing that Microsoft, well, not just Microsoft, people who don't "
-"support free software generally adopt a value system in which the only thing "
-"that matters is short-term practical benefits: How much money am I going to "
-"make this year? What job can I get done today? Short-term thinking and "
-"narrow thinking. Their assumption is that it is ridiculous to imagine that "
-"anybody ever might make a sacrifice for the sake of freedom."
-msgstr ""
-"Kolejna rzecz, którÄ
Microsoft, cóż, nie tylko Microsoft, ludzie, którzy
nie "
-"popierajÄ
wolnego oprogramowania ogólnie przyjmujÄ
system wartoÅci,
w "
-"którym jedyna liczÄ
ca siÄ rzecz to krótkoterminowe praktyczne korzyÅci:
Ile "
-"pieniÄdzy zarobiÄ w tym roku? Co mogÄ zrobiÄ dzisiaj?
Krótkoterminowe "
-"i wÄ
skie myÅlenie. Ich zaÅożenie jest takie, że niedorzecznie
jest "
-"myÅleÄ, iż ktokolwiek mógÅby poÅwiÄcaÄ siÄ dla wolnoÅci."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Yesterday, a lot of people were making speeches about Americans who made "
-"sacrifices for the freedom of their compatriots. Some of them made great "
-"sacrifices. They even sacrificed their lives for the kinds of freedom that "
-"everyone in our country has heard about, at least. (At least, in some of "
-"the cases; I guess we have to ignore the war in Vietnam.)"
-msgstr ""
-"Wczoraj wielu ludzi przemawiaÅo na temat Amerykanów, którzy
poÅwiÄcali "
-"siÄ dla wolnoÅci swoich rodaków. Niektórzy z nich poÅwiÄcali
bardzo "
-"wiele. PoÅwiÄcali nawet swoje życie za takie wolnoÅci, o których "
-"wszyscy w naszym kraju przynajmniej sÅyszeli. (Przynajmniej w "
-"niektórych przypadkach; wydaje mi siÄ, że powinniÅmy zignorowaÄ
wojnÄ "
-"w Wietnamie)."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<i>[Editor's note: The day before was “Memorial Day” in the "
-"USA. Memorial Day is a day where war heros are commemorated.]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"<i>[DzieÅ wczeÅniej w USA miaÅ miejsce Memorial Day, dzieÅ, w "
-"którym oddawana jest czeÅÄ bohaterom wojennym. – przyp.
red.]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, fortunately, to maintain our freedom in using software, doesn't call "
-"for big sacrifices. Just tiny, little sacrifices are enough, like learning a "
-"command-line interface, if we don't have a GUI interface program yet. Like "
-"doing the job in this way, because we don't have a free software package to "
-"do it that way, yet. Like, paying some money to a company that's going to "
-"develop a certain free software package, so that you can have it in a few "
-"years. Various little sacrifices that we can all make. And, in the long "
-"run, even we will have benefited from it. You know, it is really an "
-"investment more than a sacrifice. We just have to have enough long-term "
-"view to realize it's good for us to invest in improving our society, without "
-"counting the nickels and dimes of who gets how much of the benefit from that "
-"investment."
-msgstr ""
-"Ale na szczÄÅcie utrzymanie naszej wolnoÅci korzystania z "
-"oprogramowania nie wymaga wielkich poÅwiÄceÅ. Malutkie, niewielkie "
-"poÅwiÄcenia wystarczÄ
, na przykÅad nauczenie siÄ interfejsu linii "
-"poleceÅ, jeÅli nie mamy jeszcze interfejsu graficznego. Na przykÅad "
-"robienie czegoŠw ten sposób, bo nie mamy jeszcze wolnego pakietu
"
-"umożliwiajÄ
cego zrobienie tego inaczej. Na przykÅad przekazanie
trochÄ "
-"pieniÄdzy firmie, która ma zamiar napisaÄ jakiÅ pakiet wolnego "
-"oprogramowania, żebyÅcie mogli go za kilka lat używaÄ. Różne maÅe
"
-"poÅwiÄcenia, które wszyscy możemy ponieÅÄ. A na dÅuższÄ
metÄ
nawet "
-"na tym skorzystamy. No wiecie, to tak naprawdÄ bardziej inwestycja niż
"
-"poÅwiÄcenie. Musimy mieÄ tylko wystarczajÄ
co dalekosiÄżnÄ
perspektywÄ, "
-"aby dostrzec, że dobre jest dla nas inwestowanie w ulepszanie
"
-"spoÅeczeÅstwa, bez rachowania miedziaków, kto i ile na tej "
-"inwestycji skorzysta."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "So, at this point, I'm essentially done."
-msgstr "W zasadzie tutaj skoÅczyÅem."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"I'd like to mention that there's a new approach to free software business "
-"being proposed by Tony Stanco, which he calls “Free Developers”, "
-"which involves a certain business structure which hopes eventually to pay "
-"out a certain share of the profits to every, to all the authors of the free "
-"software who've joined the organization. And they're looking at the "
-"prospects of getting me some rather large government software development "
-"contracts in India now, because they're going to be using free software as "
-"the basis, having tremendous cost savings that way."
-msgstr ""
-"ChciaÅbym wspomnieÄ, że istnieje nowe podejÅcie do biznesu "
-"opartego na wolnym oprogramowaniu zaproponowane przez Tony'ego Stanco, "
-"które nazywa „Free Developers„ [<em>Wolni Autorzy</em>] i "
-"które opiera siÄ na pewnej strukturze biznesowej majÄ
cej
w koÅcu "
-"wypÅaciÄ czÄÅÄ zysków każdemu, wszystkim autorom wolnego programu,
którzy "
-"doÅÄ
czyli siÄ do organizacji. W tej chwili rozważajÄ
możliwoÅci "
-"zaÅatwienia mi dosyÄ dużych kontraktów rzÄ
dowych na rozwój
programów "
-"w Indiach, bo bÄdÄ
używaÄ wolnego oprogramowania jako podstawy,
co "
-"zapewni im olbrzymie oszczÄdnoÅci."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "And so now I guess that I should ask for questions."
-msgstr "WiÄc zdaje siÄ, że teraz powinienem poprosiÄ o pytania."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Could you speak up a bit louder please? I can't "
-"really hear you."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Czy mógÅbyÅ mówiÄ odrobinÄ gÅoÅniej? "
-"NaprawdÄ nic nie sÅyszÄ."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: How could a company like Microsoft include a free "
-"software contract?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Jak mogÅaby firma taka jak Microsoft zawrzeÄ "
-"kontrakt na wolne oprogramowanie?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually, Microsoft is planning to shift a "
-"lot of its activity into services. And what they're planning to do is "
-"something dirty and dangerous, which is tie the services to the programs, "
-"one to the next, in a sort of zigzag, you know? So that to use this service, "
-"you've got to be using this Microsoft program, which is going to mean you "
-"need to use this service, to this Microsoft program, so it's all tied "
-"together. That's their plan."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Cóż, tak naprawdÄ to Microsoft planuje "
-"przeniesienie dużej czÄÅci swojej dziaÅalnoÅci na usÅugi. I "
-"planujÄ
coÅ podÅego i niebezpiecznego, tzn. przywiÄ
zanie usÅug
do "
-"programów, jednego do drugiego, w rodzaj wÄzÅa, rozumiecie? "
-"WiÄc aby korzystaÄ z tej usÅugi, bÄdziecie musieli używaÄ
tego "
-"programu Microsoftu, co bÄdzie oznaczaÅo, że bÄdziecie musieli "
-"korzystaÄ z tej usÅugi w przypadku tego programu, wiÄc to "
-"wszystko jest powiÄ
zane. Taki jest ich plan."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, the interesting thing is that selling those services doesn't raise the "
-"ethical issue of free software or non-free software. It might be perfectly "
-"fine for them to have the business for those businesses selling those "
-"services over the net to exist. However, what Microsoft is planning to do "
-"is to use them to achieve an even greater lock, an even greater monopoly, on "
-"the software and the services, and this was described in an article, I "
-"believe in Business Week, recently. And, other people said that it is "
-"turning the net into the Microsoft Company Town."
-msgstr ""
-"InteresujÄ
ce jest to, że sprzedawanie tych usÅug nie rodzi etycznej "
-"kwestii „wolne czy niewolne oprogramowanie”. MogÅoby ich "
-"zupeÅnie zadowalaÄ to, że ich interes polegaÅby na prowadzeniu "
-"dziaÅalnoÅci dla firm, które utrzymywaÅyby siÄ ze sprzedaży tych usÅug
przez "
-"sieÄ. Jednak plan Microsoftu to użycie ich do zdobycia jeszcze "
-"ÅciÅlejszej kontroli, jeszcze wiÄkszego monopolu na oprogramowanie "
-"i usÅugi, zostaÅo to ostatnio opisane w artykule w zdaje
siÄ, "
-"że „Business Week”. Inni ludzie stwierdzili, że to "
-"zmiana sieci w miasteczko firmowe Microsoftu."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And this is relevant because, you know, the trial court in the Microsoft "
-"antitrust trial recommended breaking up the company, Microsoft. But in a "
-"way, that makes no sense — it wouldn't do any good at all — into "
-"the operating part and the applications part."
-msgstr ""
-"A to jest ważne, ponieważ wiecie, w sprawie antytrustowej sÄ
d "
-"zaleciÅ podziaÅ Microsoftu. Ale w pewnym sensie to nie ma rÄ
k
ani "
-"nóg – nie daÅoby to niczego dobrego – dzielenie "
-"na czÄÅÄ operacyjnÄ
i czÄÅÄ zajmujÄ
cÄ
siÄ aplikacjami."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But having seen that article, I now see a useful, effective way to split up "
-"Microsoft into the services part and the software part, to require them to "
-"deal with each other only at arm's length, that the services must publish "
-"their interfaces, so that anybody can write a client to talk to those "
-"services, and, I guess, that they have to pay to get the service. Well, "
-"that's OK. That's a totally different issue."
-msgstr ""
-"Ale po przeczytaniu tego artykuÅu widzÄ teraz użytecznÄ
, skutecznÄ
"
-"drogÄ podziaÅu Microsoftu na czÄÅÄ usÅugowÄ
i programistycznÄ
, "
-"przy czym nie mogÅyby byÄ ze sobÄ
powiÄ
zane, musiaÅyby siÄ trzymaÄ
na "
-"dystans, a czÄÅÄ usÅugowa musiaÅaby opublikowaÄ interfejsy, tak
żeby "
-"każdy mógÅ napisaÄ program kliencki mogÄ
cy siÄ dogadaÄ z tymi
usÅugami "
-"i, jak przypuszczam, żeby trzeba byÅo pÅaciÄ za otrzymanie usÅugi.
Cóż, "
-"to jest OK. To zupeÅnie inna sprawa."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"If Microsoft is split up in this way […] services and software, they "
-"will not be able to use their software to crush competition with Microsoft "
-"services. And they won't be able to use the services to crush competition "
-"with Microsoft software. And we will be able to make the free software, and "
-"maybe you people will use it to talk to Microsoft services, and we won't "
-"mind."
-msgstr ""
-"JeÅli Microsoft zostanie podzielony w ten sposób […] usÅugi "
-"i oprogramowanie, to nie bÄdÄ
mogli używaÄ swojego oprogramowania "
-"do miażdżenia konkurencji usÅugami Microsoftu. I nie bÄdÄ
mogli "
-"używaÄ swoich usÅug do miażdżenia konkurencji oprogramowaniem "
-"Microsoftu. I bÄdziemy mogli tworzyÄ wolne oprogramowanie, a wy "
-"może bÄdziecie go używaÄ do komunikowania siÄ z usÅugami "
-"Microsoftu, a nam to nie bÄdzie przeszkadzaÄ."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Because, after all, although Microsoft is the proprietary software company "
-"that has subjugated the most people — the others have subjugated fewer "
-"people, it's not for want of trying. <i>[Laughter]</i> They just haven't "
-"succeeded in subjugating as many people. So, the problem is not Microsoft "
-"and only Microsoft. Microsoft is just the biggest example of the problem "
-"we're trying to solve, which is proprietary software taking away users' "
-"freedom to cooperate and form an ethical society. So we shouldn't focus too "
-"much on Microsoft, you know, even though they did give me the opportunity "
-"for this platform. That doesn't make them all-important. They're not the be-"
-"all and end-all."
-msgstr ""
-"Bo w gruncie rzeczy, pomimo tego, że Microsoft jest firmÄ
"
-"rozwijajÄ
cÄ
objÄte restrykcyjnymi licencjami oprogramowanie, która "
-"zniewoliÅa wiÄkszoÅÄ ludzi – inni zniewolili mniejszÄ
liczbÄ
"
-"osób, ale nie dlatego, że nie próbowali. <i>[Åmiech]</i>
Po "
-"prostu nie udaÅo im siÄ zniewoliÄ aż tylu ludzi. WiÄc problemem nie
"
-"jest tylko i wyÅÄ
cznie Microsoft. Microsoft jest tylko najwiÄkszym "
-"przejawem problemu, który chcemy rozwiÄ
zaÄ, czyli faktu,
że objÄte "
-"restrykcyjnymi licencjami oprogramowanie odbiera użytkownikom wolnoÅÄ "
-"do wspóÅpracy i tworzenia etycznego spoÅeczeÅstwa.
WiÄc nie "
-"powinniÅmy siÄ zanadto skupiaÄ na Microsofcie, no wiecie, nawet
jeÅli "
-"dali mi okazjÄ do przemawiania z tego miejsca. Nie czyni to ich "
-"najważniejszymi. Oni nie sÄ
poczÄ
tkiem i koÅcem wszystkiego."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Earlier, you were discussing the philosophical "
-"differences between open source software and free software. How do you feel "
-"about the current trend of GNU/Linux distributions as they head towards "
-"supporting only Intel platforms? And the fact that it seems that less and "
-"less programmers are programming correctly, and making software that will "
-"compile anywhere? And making software that simply works on Intel systems?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: WczeÅniej mówiÅeÅ o filozoficznych różnicach "
-"miÄdzy wolnym oprogramowaniem i oprogramowaniem open source. Co sÄ
dzisz "
-"o obecnej tendencji, w której dystrybucje GNU/Linuksa skÅaniajÄ
siÄ
ku "
-"wspieraniu wyÅÄ
cznie platform Intela? Oraz o tym, że, jak siÄ zdaje,
"
-"coraz mniej programistów pisze kod prawidÅowo i tworzy oprogramowanie,
"
-"które bÄdzie siÄ wszÄdzie kompilowaÄ? I o robieniu programów,
które "
-"dziaÅajÄ
po prostu na systemach Intela?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I don't see an ethical issue there. Although, in "
-"fact, companies that make computers sometimes port the GNU/Linux system to "
-"it. HP apparently did this recently. And, they didn't bother paying for a "
-"port of Windows, because that would have cost too much. But getting GNU/"
-"Linux supported was, I think, five engineers for a few months. It was "
-"easily doable."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Nie widzÄ tutaj etycznego problemu. Chociaż "
-"w rzeczywistoÅci firmy produkujÄ
ce komputery czasami portujÄ
na "
-"nie GNU/Linuksa. Jak widaÄ HP ostatnio to zrobiÅo. Nie chcieli pÅaciÄ "
-"za port Windowsa, bo to kosztowaÅoby zbyt wiele. Ale "
-"doprowadzenie do dziaÅania GNU/Linuksa zajÄÅo, o ile siÄ nie mylÄ, "
-"piÄciu inżynierom parÄ miesiÄcy. ByÅo to Åatwe do zrobienia."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, of course, I encourage people to use <code>autoconf</code>, which is a "
-"GNU package that makes it easier to make your programs portable. I "
-"encourage them to do that. Or when somebody else fixes the bug that it "
-"didn't compile on that version of the system, and sends it to you, you "
-"should put it in. But I don't see that as an ethical issue."
-msgstr ""
-"OczywiÅcie zachÄcam ludzi do korzystania
z <code>autoconf</code>a, "
-"który jest pakietem GNU uÅatwiajÄ
cym tworzenie przenoÅnego
oprogramowania. "
-"ZachÄcam ich do tego. Albo gdy ktoÅ naprawi bÅÄ
d, który
powodowaÅ, "
-"że nie kompilowaÅo siÄ na innej wersji systemu i wam go "
-"przeÅle, powinniÅcie to doÅÄ
czyÄ. Ale nie widzÄ tutaj etycznego "
-"problemu."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Two comments. One is: Recently, you spoke at "
-"MIT. I read the transcript. And someone asked about patents, and you said "
-"that “patents are a totally different issue. I have no comments on "
-"that.”"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Dwa komentarze. Pierwszy: Ostatnio przemawiaÅeÅ "
-"na MIT. CzytaÅem zapis. KtoÅ zapytaÅ o patenty
i odpowiedziaÅeÅ, "
-"że „patenty to zupeÅnie inna kwestia. Nie mam na ten temat "
-"nic do powiedzenia”."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I actually have a lot to say about "
-"patents, but it takes an hour. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Racja. Tak naprawdÄ to mam bardzo dużo do "
-"powiedzenia o patentach, ale to zajmuje godzinÄ. <i>[Åmiech]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: I wanted to say this: It seems to me that there "
-"is an issue. I mean, there is a reason that companies call both patents and "
-"copyrights things like hard property in trying to get this concept which is, "
-"if they want to use the power of the State to create a course of monopoly "
-"for themselves. And so, what's common about these things is not that they "
-"revolve around the same issues, but that motivation is not really the public "
-"service issues but the motivation of companies to get a monopoly for their "
-"private interests."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: ChciaÅem powiedzieÄ, że wedÅug mnie jest "
-"w tym problem. To znaczy istnieje powód, dla którego firmy nazywajÄ
"
-"zarówno patenty jak i prawa autorskie wÅasnoÅciÄ
trwaÅÄ
w celu "
-"przeforsowania tej koncepcji, próby użycia siÅy PaÅstwa
do stworzenia "
-"dla siebie monopolu. WiÄc to, co jest wspólne dla tych rzeczy, to nie "
-"to, że dotyczÄ
podobnych spraw, ale to, że nie chodzi im
tak "
-"naprawdÄ o sÅużbÄ spoÅeczeÅstwu, motywacjÄ
tych firm jest uzyskanie
monopolu "
-"dla swoich prywatnych interesów."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I understand. But, well, I want to respond "
-"because there's not too much time. So I'd like to respond to that."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Rozumiem. Ale, cóż, chcÄ odpowiedzieÄ,
bo "
-"nie ma zbyt wiele czasu. WiÄc chciaÅbym na to odpowiedzieÄ."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"You're right that that's what they want. But there's another reason why "
-"they want to use the term intellectual property. It's that they don't want "
-"to encourage people to think carefully about copyright issues or patent "
-"issues. Because copyright law and patent law are totally different, and the "
-"effects of software copyrighted and software patents are totally different."
-msgstr ""
-"Masz racjÄ, to jest to, czego oni chcÄ
. Ale jest jeszcze jeden powód,
"
-"dla którego chcÄ
używaÄ terminu „wÅasnoÅÄ intelektualna”. "
-"Bo nie chcÄ
zachÄcaÄ ludzi do dokÅadnego przemyÅlenia kwestii "
-"prawa autorskiego i kwestii patentowych. Bo prawo autorskie i "
-"prawo patentowe to dwie osobne rzeczy, a skutki objÄcia oprogramowania "
-"prawem autorskim i opatentowania programów sÄ
zupeÅnie inne."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Software patents are a restriction on programmers, prohibiting them from "
-"writing certain kinds of programs, whereas copyright doesn't do that. With "
-"copyright, at least if you wrote it yourself, you're allowed to distribute "
-"it. So, it's tremendously important to separate these issues."
-msgstr ""
-"Patenty na oprogramowanie to ograniczanie programistów, zabranianie im "
-"pisania pewnych rodzajów programów, podczas gdy prawo autorskie tego nie "
-"robi. Prawo autorskie pozwala, przynajmniej jeÅli sami to napisaliÅcie, "
-"na dystrybucjÄ. WiÄc jest ogromnie ważne, żeby rozdzielaÄ te "
-"kwestie."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"They have a little bit in common, at a very low level, and everything else "
-"is different. So, please, to encourage clear thinking, discuss copyright or "
-"discuss patents. But don't discuss intellectual property. I don't have an "
-"opinion on intellectual property. I have opinions on copyrights and patents "
-"and software."
-msgstr ""
-"MajÄ
trochÄ wspólnego na bardzo niskim poziomie, ale caÅa
reszta "
-"jest inna. WiÄc, proszÄ, aby zachÄcaÄ do jasnego myÅlenia, "
-"rozważajcie prawo autorskie albo rozważajcie patenty. Ale nie "
-"rozważajcie wÅasnoÅci intelektualnej. Nie mam opinii o wÅasnoÅci "
-"intelektualnej. Mam opinie na temat prawa autorskiego, patentów i "
-"oprogramowania."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You mentioned at the beginning that a functional "
-"language, like recipes, are computer programs. There's a cross a little bit "
-"different than other kinds of language created on. This is also causing a "
-"problem in the DVD case."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: WspomniaÅeÅ na poczÄ
tku, że jÄzyk "
-"funkcjonalny, jak przepisy kulinarne, to programy komputerowe. Tworzone jest "
-"coÅ poÅredniego, krzyżówka odrobinÄ inna niż inne rodzaje jÄzyków. To
także "
-"problem w przypadku DVD."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: The issues are partly similar but partly "
-"different, for things that are not functional in nature. Part of the issue "
-"transfers but not all of it. Unfortunately, that's another hour speech. I "
-"don't have time to go into it. But I would say that all functional works "
-"ought to be free in the same sense as software. You know, textbooks, "
-"manuals, dictionaries, and recipes, and so on."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Te kwestie sÄ
czÄÅciowo podobne, ale "
-"czÄÅciowo inne w przypadku rzeczy nie bÄdÄ
cych z natury "
-"funkcjonalnymi. CzÄÅÄ kwestii zostaje, ale nie wszystkie. Niestety to
"
-"kolejne godzinne przemówienie. Nie mam czasu, żeby siÄ w to
wgÅÄbiaÄ. "
-"Ale uważam, że wszystkie funkcjonalne dzieÅa powinny byÄ wolne "
-"w takim samym sensie jak oprogramowanie. No wiecie, podrÄczniki, "
-"instrukcje, sÅowniki, przepisy i tak dalej."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: I was just wondering on online music. There are "
-"similarities and differences created all through."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: WÅaÅnie siÄ zastanawiaÅem nad muzykÄ
dostÄpnÄ
"
-"w sieci. W caÅej tej sprawie sÄ
podobieÅstwa i różnice."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I'd say that the minimum freedom that we "
-"should have for any kind of published information is the freedom to non-"
-"commercially redistribute it, verbatim. For functional works, we need the "
-"freedom to commercially publish a modified version, because that's "
-"tremendously useful to society. For non-functional works, you know, things "
-"that are to entertain, or to be aesthetic, or to state a certain person's "
-"views, you know, perhaps they shouldn't be modified. And, perhaps that "
-"means that it's OK, to have copyright covering all commercial distribution "
-"of them."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Racja. MyÅlÄ, że minimum wolnoÅci, jakie "
-"powinniÅmy mieÄ wobec każdego rodzaju opublikowanych informacji, to
wolnoÅÄ "
-"do ich niekomercyjnego rozpowszechniania w niezmienionej postaci. "
-"W przypadku dzieÅ funkcjonalnych potrzebna nam jest wolnoÅÄ do "
-"komercyjnej dystrybucji zmienionych wersji, bo jest to ogromnie "
-"użyteczne dla spoÅeczeÅstwa. Dla dzieÅ niefunkcjonalnych, no wiecie,
rzeczy "
-"rozrywkowych lub majÄ
cych wartoÅÄ estetycznÄ
, lub wyrażajÄ
cych "
-"czyjeÅ poglÄ
dy, no wiecie, byÄ może nie powinny byÄ modyfikowane.
I byÄ "
-"może znaczy to, że jest w porzÄ
dku, aby caÅÄ
ich
komercyjnÄ
"
-"dystrybucjÄ obejmowaÅo prawo autorskie."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Please remember that according to the U.S. Constitution, the purpose of "
-"copyright is to benefit the public. It is to modify the behavior of certain "
-"private parties, so that they will publish more books. And the benefit of "
-"this is that society gets to discuss issues and learn. And, you know, we "
-"have literature. We have scientific works. The purpose is encourage that. "
-"Copyrights do not exist for the sake of authors, let alone for the sake of "
-"publishers. They exist for the sake of readers and all those who benefit "
-"from the communication of information that happens when people write and "
-"others read. And that goal I agree with."
-msgstr ""
-"PamiÄtajcie proszÄ, że wedÅug konstytucji USA celem prawa
autorskiego "
-"jest korzyÅÄ spoÅeczeÅstwa. Jest nim modyfikowanie zachowania pewnych "
-"prywatnych podmiotów, aby publikowali wiÄcej ksiÄ
żek. KorzyÅciÄ
z "
-"tego pÅynÄ
cÄ
jest to, że spoÅeczeÅstwo ma o czym dyskutowaÄ
i siÄ "
-"uczy. No i wiecie, mamy literaturÄ. Mamy prace naukowe. Celem jest "
-"zachÄcanie do ich tworzenia. Prawa autorskie nie istniejÄ
dla
autorów, "
-"a już na pewno nie wydawców. IstniejÄ
dla czytelników i "
-"wszystkich tych, którzy korzystajÄ
na wymianie informacji majÄ
cej "
-"miejsce, gdy jedni piszÄ
, a drudzy czytajÄ
. A z tym celem siÄ "
-"zgadzam."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But in the age of the computer networks, the method is no longer tenable, "
-"because it now requires draconian laws that invade everybody's privacy and "
-"terrorize everyone. You know, years in prison for sharing with your "
-"neighbor. It wasn't like that in the age of the printing press. Then "
-"copyright was an industrial regulation. It restricted publishers. Now, "
-"it's a restriction imposed by the publishers on the public. So, the power "
-"relationship is turned around 180 degrees, even if it's the same law."
-msgstr ""
-"Ale w dobie sieci komputerowych ta metoda nie jest już dÅużej
możliwa "
-"do utrzymania, bo wymaga obecnie drakoÅskich praw naruszajÄ
cych "
-"naszÄ
prywatnoÅÄ i nas terroryzujÄ
cych. No wiecie, lata w "
-"wiÄzieniu za dzielenie siÄ ze swoim bliźnim. W czasach prasy "
-"drukarskiej tak nie byÅo. Wtedy prawo autorskie byÅo regulacjÄ
branżowÄ
.
"
-"OgraniczaÅo wydawców. Teraz jest ograniczeniem naÅożonym przez wydawców "
-"na spoÅeczeÅstwo. Tak wiÄc relacja wÅadzy zmieniÅa swój
biegun o "
-"180 stopni, chociaż to wciÄ
ż to samo prawo."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: So you can have the same thing — but like "
-"in making music from other music?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: WiÄc można mieÄ to samo â ale jak
w "
-"robieniu muzyki z innej muzyki?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. That is an interesting …"
-msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Racja. To jest ciekawa…"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: And unique, new works, you know, it's still a lot "
-"of cooperation."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: I unikalne, nowe dzieÅa, no wiesz, to ciÄ
gle "
-"mnóstwo wspóÅpracy."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: It is. And I think that probably requires some "
-"kind of fair use concept. Certainly making a few seconds of sample and "
-"using that in making some musical work, obviously that should be fair use. "
-"Even the standard idea of fair use includes that, if you think about it. "
-"Whether courts agree, I'm not sure, but they should. That wouldn't be a "
-"real change in the system as it has existed."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tak jest. I wydaje mi siÄ, że wymaga
to "
-"jakiejŠkoncepcji dozwolonego użytku. Zdecydowanie robienie krótkiego
sampla "
-"i wykorzystywanie go w jakimÅ dziele muzycznym, to oczywiÅcie "
-"powinien byÄ dozwolony użytek. Nawet standardowa koncepcja dozwolonego "
-"użytku to zakÅada, jeÅli sobie przypomnicie. Nie jestem pewien, czy "
-"zgodzÄ
siÄ z tym sÄ
dy, ale powinny. To nie byÅaby rzeczywista "
-"zmiana w dotychczasowym systemie."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: What do you think about publishing public "
-"information in proprietary formats?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Co sÄ
dzisz o udostÄpnianiu publicznych
informacji "
-"w zamkniÄtych formatach?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, it shouldn't be. I mean, the government "
-"should never require citizens to use a non-free program to access, to "
-"communicate with the government in any way, in either direction."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Och, to nie powinno mieÄ miejsca. To znaczy rzÄ
d
"
-"nigdy nie powinien wymagaÄ od obywateli wykorzystywania niewolnego "
-"programu w celu dostÄpu, komunikacji z rzÄ
dem w jakikolwiek "
-"sposób, w obu kierunkach."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: I have been, what I will now say, a GNU/Linux "
-"user…"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Jestem użytkownikiem, nazwÄ go tak teraz, GNU/"
-"Linuksa…"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Thank you. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: DziÄkujÄ. <i>[Åmiech]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: …for the past four years. The one thing "
-"that has been problematical for me and is something that is essential, I "
-"think, to all of us, is browsing the web."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: …od czterech lat. Jedna rzecz, z którÄ
"
-"miaÅem problem i która jest bardzo ważna chyba dla nas wszystkich, to
"
-"przeglÄ
danie Internetu."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes."
-msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tak."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: One thing that has been decidedly a weakness in "
-"using a GNU/Linux system has been browsing the web, because the prevailing "
-"tool for that, Netscape…"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Jedna rzecz, która zdecydowanie byÅa "
-"niedogodnoÅciÄ
przy używaniu GNU/Linuksa to byÅo przeglÄ
danie Internetu,
"
-"bo gÅówne narzÄdzie, które do tego sÅuży, Netscape…"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: …is not free software."
-msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: …nie jest wolnym oprogramowaniem."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Let me respond to this. I want to get to the point, for the sake of getting "
-"in more. So, yes. There has been a terrible tendency for people to use "
-"Netscape Navigator on their GNU/Linux systems. And, in fact all the "
-"commercially packaged systems come with it. So this is an ironic situation: "
-"we worked so hard to make a free operating system, and now, if you go to the "
-"store, and you can find versions of GNU/Linux there, most of them are called "
-"Linux, and they're not free. Oh, well, part of them is. But then, there's "
-"Netscape Navigator, and maybe other non-free programs as well. So, it's "
-"very hard to actually find a free system, unless you know what you're "
-"doing. Or, of course, you can not install Netscape Navigator."
-msgstr ""
-"Pozwólcie, że odpowiem. ChcÄ przejÅÄ do rzeczy, aby byÅ
czas "
-"na wiÄcej pytaÅ. WiÄc, tak. Istnieje wÅród ludzi bardzo niedobra "
-"tendencja używania Netscape Navigatora na systemach GNU/Linux. "
-"WÅaÅciwie jest on dodawany do wszystkich komercyjnie wydawanych "
-"systemów. WiÄc jest to ironiczna sytuacja: pracowaliÅmy tak ciÄżko,
"
-"aby stworzyÄ wolny system operacyjny, a teraz, jak pójdziecie "
-"do sklepu, to możecie tam znaleÅºÄ wersje GNU/Linuksa – "
-"wiÄkszoÅÄ nazywa siÄ Linux – i nie sÄ
one wolne. No
dobra, "
-"czÄÅÄ z nich jest. Ale jest w nich Netscape Navigator
i "
-"może inne niewolne programy też. WiÄc tak naprawdÄ ciÄżko jest
znaleÅºÄ "
-"wolny system, chyba że wiecie, co robicie. Lub, oczywiÅcie, możecie
nie "
-"instalowaÄ Netscape Navigatora."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, in fact, there have been free web browsers for many years. There is a "
-"free web browser that I used to use called Lynx. It's a free web browser "
-"that is non-graphical; it's text-only. This has a tremendous advantage, in "
-"you don't see the ads. <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Tak naprawdÄ to od lat istniejÄ
wolne przeglÄ
darki internetowe. Jest "
-"wolna przeglÄ
darka, której kiedyÅ używaÅem, nazywajÄ
ca siÄ Lynx. To
jest "
-"wolna niegraficzna przeglÄ
darka internetowa, jest tekstowa. To jest wielka "
-"zaleta, bo nie oglÄ
da siÄ reklam. <i>[Åmiech] [aplauz]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But anyway, there is a free graphical project called Mozilla, which is now "
-"getting to the point where you can use it. And I occasionally use it."
-msgstr ""
-"Tak czy inaczej istnieje wolny graficzny projekt o nazwie Mozilla, "
-"który wÅaÅnie dochodzi do stanu używalnoÅci. I czasami go
używam."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 has been very good."
-msgstr "<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 jest bardzo dobry."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, OK. So that's another free graphical "
-"browser. So, we're finally solving that problem, I guess."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Aha, OK. WiÄc oto kolejna wolna graficzna "
-"przeglÄ
darka. WiÄc wydaje siÄ, że w koÅcu dochodzimy do "
-"rozwiÄ
zania tego problemu."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk to me about that philosophical/"
-"ethical division between free software and open source? Do you feel that "
-"those are irreconcilable? …"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Czy możesz mi opowiedzieÄ o tych "
-"filozoficznych/etycznych podziaÅach pomiÄdzy wolnym oprogramowaniem a "
-"open source? Czy sÄ
dzisz, że sÄ
nie do pogodzenia? …"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<i>[Recording switches tapes; end of question and start of answer is missing]"
-"</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"<i>[Zmiana kasety w trakcie nagrywania. Brakuje koÅca pytania i "
-"poczÄ
tku odpowiedzi.]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: … to a freedom, and ethics. Or whether "
-"you just say, Well, I hope that you companies will decide it's more "
-"profitable to let us be allowed to do these things."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: … do wolnoÅci i etyki.
Albo "
-"czy po prostu powiecie: „Cóż, mamy nadziejÄ, że wasze
firmy "
-"zdecydujÄ
, że bardziej zyskowne jest pozwolenie nam na robienie "
-"tych rzeczy”."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, as I said, in a lot of practical work, it doesn't really matter what a "
-"person's politics are. When a person offers to help the GNU project, we "
-"don't say: “You have to agree with our politics.” We say that in "
-"a GNU package, you've got to call the system GNU/Linux, and you've got to "
-"call it free software. What you say when you're not speaking to the GNU "
-"Project, that's up to you."
-msgstr ""
-"Ale jak mówiÅem, w przypadku dużej iloÅci praktycznej pracy, "
-"polityka pojedynczych osób nie gra tak naprawdÄ roli. Gdy ktoÅ oferuje
pomoc "
-"projektowi GNU, to nie mówimy: „Musisz siÄ zgadzaÄ z naszÄ
"
-"politykÄ
”. Mówimy, że w pakietach GNU musicie nazywaÄ system
GNU/"
-"Linuksem i nazywaÄ je wolnym oprogramowaniem. To, co mówicie, gdy nie "
-"odnosicie siÄ do projektu GNU, to wasza sprawa."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: The company, IBM, started a campaign for "
-"government agencies, to sell their big new machines, that they used Linux as "
-"selling point, and say Linux."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Firma IBM rozpoczÄÅa kampaniÄ skierowanÄ
do "
-"agencji rzÄ
dowych, promujÄ
cÄ
ich wielkie maszyny, wymieniali to, że "
-"korzystajÄ
z Linuksa, jako gÅównÄ
zaletÄ i mówili „"
-"Linux”."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, of course, it's really the GNU/Linux "
-"systems. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tak, oczywiÅcie naprawdÄ chodzi o systemy GNU/"
-"Linux. <i>[Åmiech]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: That's right! Well, tell the top sales person. "
-"He doesn't know anything for GNU."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Tak jest! WiÄc powiedz to ich szefowi "
-"sprzedaży. On nic nie wie o GNU."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I have to tell who?"
-msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Komu mam powiedzieÄ?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: The top sales person."
-msgstr "<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Szefowi sprzedaży."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh yes. The problem is that they've already "
-"carefully decided what they want to say for reasons of their advantage. And "
-"the issue of what is a more accurate, or fair, or correct way to describe it "
-"is not the primary issue that matters to a company like that. Now, some "
-"small companies, yes, there'll be a boss. And if the boss is inclined to "
-"think about things like that, he might make a decision that way. Not a "
-"giant corporation though. It's a shame, you know."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: A, tak. Problem polega na tym, że oni "
-"już dawno starannie podjÄli decyzjÄ, co chcÄ
powiedzieÄ,
aby zyskaÄ "
-"przewagÄ. A kwestia, co jest trafniejszym lub sprawiedliwszym, "
-"lub prawidÅowym sposobem jego okreÅlania, nie jest jakÄ
Å zasadniczÄ
"
-"sprawÄ
, która obchodziÅaby takÄ
firmÄ. JakieÅ maÅe firmy, tak, tam
może byÄ "
-"szef. I jeÅli ten szef jest zdeterminowany mieÄ takie rzeczy na "
-"uwadze, to może podjÄ
Ä takÄ
decyzjÄ. Ale nie gigantyczna
korporacja. To "
-"wstyd, wiecie."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"There's another more important and more substantive issue about what IBM is "
-"doing. They're saying that they're putting a billion dollars into “"
-"Linux”. But perhaps, I should also put quotes around “"
-"into”, as well, because some of that money is paying people to develop "
-"free software. That really is a contribution to our community. But other "
-"parts is paying to pay people to write proprietary software, or port "
-"proprietary software to run on top of GNU/Linux, and that is <em>not</em> a "
-"contribution to our community. But IBM is lumping that altogether into "
-"this. Some of it might be advertising, which is partly a contribution, even "
-"if it's partly wrong. So, it's a complicated situation. Some of what "
-"they're doing is contribution and some is not. And some is sort is "
-"somewhat, but not exactly. And you can't just lump it altogether and think, "
-"Wow! Whee! A billion dollars from IBM. <i>[Laughter]</i> That's "
-"oversimplification."
-msgstr ""
-"Jest inna ważniejsza i poważniejsza kwestia dotyczÄ
ca postÄpowania
IBM. "
-"TwierdzÄ
oni, że wkÅadajÄ
miliard dolarów
w „Linuksa”. "
-"Ale byÄ może powinienem wziÄ
Ä w cudzysÅów także
„w”, "
-"bo czÄÅÄ tych pieniÄdzy idzie na pÅacenie ludziom
za rozwój "
-"wolnego oprogramowania. To naprawdÄ jest wkÅad na rzecz naszej "
-"spoÅecznoÅci. Ale reszta idzie na pÅacenie ludziom
za rozwój "
-"oprogramowania objÄtego restrykcyjnymi licencjami albo za portowanie "
-"takiego oprogramowania na GNU/Linuksa, a to <em>nie</em> jest "
-"wkÅad na rzecz naszej spoÅecznoÅci. Ale IBM wkÅada to wszystko "
-"do jednego worka. CzÄÅÄ z tego wszystkiego to może byÄ
reklama, co "
-"jest pewnym wkÅadem, nawet jeÅli trochÄ nieprawidÅowym. WiÄc jest
to "
-"skomplikowana sytuacja. CzÄÅÄ z tego, co robiÄ
, nam sÅuży, a "
-"reszta nie. A czÄÅÄ jest gdzieÅ po Årodku. I nie można
tego "
-"po prostu wrzuciÄ do jednego worka i krzyczeÄ: „Wow! "
-"Hurra! Miliard dolarów od IBM”. <i>[Åmiech]</i> To zbytnie "
-"uproszczenie."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk a little bit more about the thinking "
-"that went into the general public license?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Czy możesz coÅ wiÄcej powiedzieÄ na "
-"temat pobudek, które doprowadziÅy do powstania GPL?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, here's the — I'm sorry, I'm answering "
-"his question now. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Cóż, oto – przepraszam, odpowiadam "
-"teraz na jego pytanie. <i>[Åmiech]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Do you want to reserve some time for the press "
-"conference? Or do you want to continue here?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Czy chcesz zarezerwowaÄ trochÄ czasu "
-"na konferencjÄ prasowÄ
? Czy kontynuowaÄ z tym?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Who is here for the press conference? Not a lot "
-"of press. Oh, three — OK. Can you afford if we — if I go on "
-"answering everybody's questions for another ten minutes or so? OK. So, "
-"we'll go on answering everybody's questions."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Kto tu przyszedÅ na konferencjÄ prasowÄ
? "
-"Niezbyt wielu dziennikarzy. Aha, trzech – OK. Czy nie bÄdzie
"
-"problemu jeÅli bÄdziemy – jeÅli bÄdÄ przez jeszcze jakieÅ 10
"
-"minut odpowiadaÅ na pytania z sali? OK. WiÄc bÄdÄ dalej "
-"odpowiadaÅ na pytania z sali."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, the thinking that went into the GNU GPL? Part of it was that I wanted to "
-"protect the freedom of the community against the phenomena that I just "
-"described with X Windows, which has happened with other free programs as "
-"well. In fact, when I was thinking about this issue, X Windows was not yet "
-"released. But I had seen this problem happen in other free programs. For "
-"instance, TeX. I wanted to make sure that the users would all have "
-"freedom. Otherwise, I realized that I might write a program, and maybe a "
-"lot of people would use the program, but they wouldn't have freedom. And "
-"what's the point of that?"
-msgstr ""
-"WiÄc jakie byÅy pobudki powstania GNU GPL? Po czÄÅci chciaÅem "
-"ochroniÄ wolnoÅÄ spoÅecznoÅci przed zjawiskami, które opisaÅem
na "
-"przykÅadzie systemu X, i które przydarzyÅy siÄ także innym wolnym "
-"programom. Tak naprawdÄ to gdy myÅlaÅem o tej kwestii, X jeszcze nie
zostaÅ "
-"wydany. Ale widziaÅem jak ten problem powstawaÅ przy innych wolnych "
-"programach. Na przykÅad TeX. ChciaÅem zadbaÄ o to, by wszyscy "
-"użytkownicy mieli wolnoÅÄ. ZdaÅem sobie sprawÄ, że w innym wypadku
"
-"mógÅbym napisaÄ jakiÅ program i może używaÅoby go wielu ludzi,
ale "
-"nie mieliby wolnoÅci. A jaki to ma sens?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But the other issue I was thinking about was, I wanted to give the community "
-"a feeling that it was not a doormat, a feeling that it was not prey to any "
-"parasite who would wander along. If you don't use copyleft, you are "
-"essentially saying: <i>[speaking meekly]</i> “Take my code. Do what "
-"you want. I don't say no.” So, anybody can come along and say: <i>"
-"[speaking very firmly]</i> “Ah, I want to make a non-free version of "
-"this. I'll just take it.” And, then, of course, they probably make "
-"some improvements, those non-free versions might appeal to users, and "
-"replace the free versions. And then, what have you accomplished? You've "
-"only made a donation to some proprietary software project."
-msgstr ""
-"Ale inna sprawa, o której myÅlaÅem, to daÄ spoÅecznoÅci poczucie, "
-"że nie jest wycieraczkÄ
, poczucie, że nie jest Åupem dla "
-"pierwszego pasożyta, który akurat bÄdzie przechodziÅ obok. JeÅli nie "
-"korzystacie z copyleft, to w gruncie rzeczy mówicie <i>[mówi "
-"potulnym gÅosem]</i>: „Weźcie mój kod. Zróbcie, co chcecie. Nie "
-"sprzeciwiam siÄ”. WiÄc każdy może przyjÅÄ i powiedzieÄ
<i>"
-"[mówi pewnym siebie gÅosem]</i>: „Tak, chcÄ zrobiÄ z tego "
-"niewolnÄ
wersjÄ. Po prostu to sobie wezmÄ”. OczywiÅcie potem, "
-"zrobiÄ
prawdopodobnie jakieÅ ulepszenia, te niewolne wersje mogÄ
spodobaÄ
"
-"siÄ użytkownikom i wyprzeÄ wersje wolne. I co wtedy osiÄ
gnÄliÅcie? "
-"PrzekazaliÅcie tylko darowiznÄ jakiemuÅ objÄtemu restrykcyjnÄ
licencjÄ
"
-"projektowi programistycznemu."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And when people see that that's happening, when people see, other people "
-"take what I do, and they don't ever give back, it can be demoralizing. And, "
-"this is not just speculation. I had seen that happen. That was part of "
-"what happened to wipe out the old community that I belonged to the '70's. "
-"Some people started becoming uncooperative. And we assumed that they were "
-"profiting thereby. They certainly acted as if they thought they were "
-"profiting. And we realized that they can just take off cooperation and not "
-"give back. And there was nothing we could do about it. It was very "
-"discouraging. We, those of us who didn't like the trend, even had a "
-"discussion and we couldn't come up with any idea for how we could stop it."
-msgstr ""
-"A kiedy ludzie widzÄ
, że to siÄ dzieje, gdy ludzie widzÄ
, jak
inni "
-"biorÄ
to co zrobiÅem i nigdy tego nie oddajÄ
, to może byÄ "
-"demoralizujÄ
ce. I to nie sÄ
tylko przypuszczenia. WidziaÅem to
na "
-"wÅasne oczy. To jest czÄÅÄ tego, co siÄ staÅo, gdy zniszczona zostaÅa
stara "
-"spoÅecznoÅÄ, do której należaÅem w latach 70. Niektórzy
przestali "
-"wspóÅpracowaÄ. I uznaliÅmy, że na tym korzystajÄ
.
Z pewnoÅciÄ
"
-"zachowywali siÄ tak, jakby uważali, że korzystajÄ
. I zdaliÅmy "
-"sobie sprawÄ, że nie mogÄ
tak po prostu czerpaÄ z efektów
"
-"wspóÅpracy i nic nie oddawaÄ. A nic nie mogliÅmy z tym "
-"zrobiÄ. To byÅo bardzo deprymujÄ
ce. My, ci z nas, którym siÄ ta "
-"tendencja nie podobaÅa, nawet o tym dyskutowaliÅmy i nie mogliÅmy "
-"wymyÅliÄ nic, co mogÅoby poÅożyÄ temu kres."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, the GPL is designed to stop that. And it says, Yes, you are welcome to "
-"join the community and use this code. You can use it to do all sorts of "
-"jobs. But, if you release a modified version, you've got to release that to "
-"our community, as part of our community, as part of the free world."
-msgstr ""
-"WiÄc GPL zostaÅa zaprojektowana, by to powstrzymaÄ. Mówi ona,
że "
-"tak, zapraszamy ciÄ do przystÄ
pienia do spoÅecznoÅci i "
-"korzystania z tego kodu. Możesz go wykorzystywaÄ do wszelkich "
-"zadaÅ. Jednak jeÅli wypuÅcisz zmodyfikowanÄ
wersjÄ, to musisz jÄ
"
-"udostÄpniÄ naszej spoÅecznoÅci, bÄdÄ
c czÄÅciÄ
tej spoÅecznoÅci,
bÄdÄ
c "
-"czÄÅciÄ
wolnego Åwiata."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, in fact, there are still many ways that people can get the benefit of "
-"our work and not contribute, like you don't have to write any software. "
-"Lots of people use GNU/Linux and don't write any software. There's no "
-"requirement that you've got to do anything for us. But if you do a certain "
-"kind of thing, you've got to contribute to it. So what that means is that "
-"our community is not a doormat. And I think that that helped give people "
-"the strength to feel, Yes, we won't just be trampled underfoot by "
-"everybody. We'll stand up to this."
-msgstr ""
-"WiÄc w rzeczywistoÅci i tak jest wiele sposobów, na jakie "
-"ludzie mogÄ
korzystaÄ z naszej pracy, a sami nie wnosiÄ Å¼adnego
"
-"wkÅadu, na przykÅad nie musicie pisaÄ programów. Mnóstwo ludzi
korzysta "
-"z GNU/Linuksa i nie pisze żadnego oprogramowania. Nie ma wymogu, "
-"że coÅ musicie dla nas zrobiÄ. Ale jeÅli robicie pewien
konkretny "
-"rodzaj rzeczy, to musicie wnieÅÄ to jako wkÅad. Oznacza to, że nasza
"
-"spoÅecznoÅÄ to nie wycieraczka. I myÅlÄ, że to daÅo ludziom
siÅÄ "
-"i poczucie, że wszyscy nie bÄdÄ
po nas tak po prostu "
-"deptaÄ. Przeciwstawimy siÄ temu."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Yes, my question was, considering free but not "
-"copylefted software, since anybody can pick it up and make it proprietary, "
-"is it not possible also for someone to pick it up and make some changes and "
-"release the whole thing under the GPL?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Tak, moje pytanie brzmi, biorÄ
c pod uwagÄ "
-"wolne, ale nie objÄte przez copyleft oprogramowanie, skoro każdy może
"
-"je wziÄ
Ä i objÄ
Ä restrykcyjnÄ
licencjÄ
, to czy nie jest
także "
-"możliwe, żeby ktoÅ je wziÄ
Å, dodaÅ kilka zmian i wydaÅ caÅÄ
rzecz "
-"na licencji GPL?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, it is possible."
-msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tak, to jest możliwe."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Then, that would make all future copies then be "
-"GPL'ed."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: WiÄc to by objÄÅo wszystkie przyszÅe kopie
"
-"licencjÄ
GPL."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: From that branch. But here's why we don't do "
-"that."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Od tego odgaÅÄzienia kodu. Ale oto "
-"dlaczego tak nie robimy."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Hmm?"
-msgstr "<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Hmm?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Here's why we don't generally do that. Let me "
-"explain."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oto dlaczego ogólnie tak nie robimy. Pozwólcie, "
-"że wyjaÅniÄ."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: OK, yes."
-msgstr "<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: OK, oczywiÅcie."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We could, if we wanted to, take X Windows, and "
-"make a GPL-covered copy and make changes in that. But there's a much larger "
-"group of people working on improving X Windows and <em>not</em> GPL-ing it. "
-"So, if we did that, we would be forking from them. And that's not very nice "
-"treatment of them. And, they <em>are</em> a part of our community, "
-"contributing to our community."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: MoglibyÅmy, gdybyÅmy chcieli, wziÄ
Ä system X, "
-"zrobiÄ kopiÄ objÄtÄ
przez GPL i wprowadziÄ do niej zmiany. "
-"Ale istnieje dużo wiÄksza grupa osób pracujÄ
ca nad rozwijaniem
X, "
-"która <em>nie</em> wydaje go na GPL. WiÄc, jeÅli byÅmy to zrobili,
to "
-"odgaÅÄzialibyÅmy ich kod. A to nie byÅoby miÅe traktowanie.
A oni "
-"<em>sÄ
</em> czÄÅciÄ
naszej spoÅecznoÅci, wnoszÄ
do niej wkÅad."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Second, it would backfire against us, because they're doing a lot more work "
-"on X than we would be. So, our version would be inferior to theirs, and "
-"people wouldn't use it, which means, why go to the trouble at all?"
-msgstr ""
-"Po drugie obróciÅoby siÄ to przeciwko nam, bo oni wkÅadajÄ
w "
-"X dużo wiÄcej pracy niż my byÅmy wkÅadali. WiÄc nasza wersja
byÅaby "
-"gorsza od ich wersji, ludzie by jej nie używali, wiÄc po co
w "
-"ogóle siÄ trudziÄ?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Mmm hmm."
-msgstr "<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Aha."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: So when a person has written some improvement to "
-"X Windows, what I say that person should do is cooperate with the X "
-"development team. Send it to them and let them use it their way. Because "
-"they are developing a very important piece of free software. It's good for "
-"us to cooperate with them."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: WiÄc jeÅli ktoÅ napisaÅ jakieÅ
ulepszenia "
-"dla X, to uważam, że powinien wspóÅpracowaÄ z zespoÅem "
-"rozwijajÄ
cym X. PrzeÅlijcie to im i pozwólcie wykorzystaÄ tak, jak
bÄdÄ
"
-"chcieli. Bo oni rozwijajÄ
bardzo istotny kawaÅek wolnego "
-"oprogramowania. WspóÅpraca z nimi jest dla nas korzystna."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Except, considering X, in particular, about two "
-"years ago, the X Consortium that was far into the non-free open "
-"source…"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Oprócz – biorÄ
c pod uwagÄ "
-"konkretnie X, okoÅo dwóch lat temu – X Consortium, które byÅo "
-"bardzo zaangażowane w niewolne oprogramowanie open source…"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually it <em>wasn't</em> open sourced. "
-"It wasn't open sourced, either. They may have said it was. I can't "
-"remember if they said that or not. But it wasn't open source. It was "
-"restricted. You couldn't commercially distribute, I think. Or you couldn't "
-"commercially distribute a modified version, or something like that. There "
-"was a restriction that's considered unacceptable by both the Free Software "
-"movement and the Open Source movement."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Cóż, tak naprawdÄ to <em>nie byÅo</em> open "
-"source. To nie byÅo także open source. Mogli mówiÄ, że byÅo. Nie "
-"pamiÄtam, czy tak mówili, czy nie. Ale to nie byÅo open "
-"source. ByÅo objÄte ograniczeniami. Nie można byÅo tego komercyjnie "
-"rozpowszechniaÄ, z tego co pamiÄtam. Albo nie można byÅo "
-"komercyjnie rozpowszechniaÄ zmodyfikowanych wersji, albo coÅ takiego. "
-"ByÅo jakieÅ ograniczenie nie do zaakceptowania zarówno przez ruch "
-"wolnego oprogramowania, jak i ruch open source."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And yes, that's what using a non-copyleft license leaves you open to. In "
-"fact, the X Consortium, they had a very rigid policy. They say: If your "
-"program if copylefted even a little bit, we won't distribute it at all. We "
-"won't put it in our distribution."
-msgstr ""
-"I tak, oto na co wystawia was wykorzystywanie licencji niezgodnej "
-"z copyleft. W rzeczywistoÅci X Consortium miaÅo bardzo sztywnÄ
"
-"politykÄ. Mówili: „JeÅli wasz program ma cokolwiek wspólnego
z "
-"copyleft, to nie bÄdziemy go rozpowszechniaÄ. Nie umieÅcimy go
w naszej "
-"dystrybucji”."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, a lot of people were pressured in this way into not copylefting. And "
-"the result was that all of their software was wide open, later on. When the "
-"same people who had pressured a developer to be too all-permissive, then the "
-"X people later said, All right, now we can put on restrictions, which wasn't "
-"very ethical of them."
-msgstr ""
-"WiÄc w ten sposób wielu ludzi zmuszono do zaniechania korzystania
"
-"z copyleft. A efektem tego byÅo to, że caÅe ich "
-"oprogramowanie byÅo później caÅkowicie bezbronne. Kiedy ci sami ludzie, "
-"którzy wczeÅniej naciskali autorów, żeby na zbyt wiele pozwalali,
potem "
-"ludzie z X mówili później: „OK, teraz możemy naÅożyÄ "
-"ograniczenia”, co nie byÅo z ich strony etycznym postÄpowaniem."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, given the situation, would we really want to scrape up the resources to "
-"maintain an alternate GPL-covered version of X? And it wouldn't make any "
-"sense to do that. There are so many other things we need to do. Let's do "
-"them instead. We can cooperate with the X developers."
-msgstr ""
-"Ale, biorÄ
c pod uwagÄ sytuacjÄ, czy naprawdÄ chcielibyÅmy "
-"organizowaÄ zasoby na utrzymywanie alternatywnej, objÄtej przez GPL "
-"wersji X? Robienie tego nie miaÅoby sensu. Jest tyle innych rzeczy, które "
-"musimy zrobiÄ. Zróbmy je zamiast tego. Z autorami X możemy "
-"wspóÅpracowaÄ."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Do you have a comment, is the GNU a trademark? "
-"And is it practical to include it as part of the GNU General Public License "
-"allowing trademarks?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Czy mógÅbyÅ powiedzieÄ, czy GNU to
znak "
-"towarowy? Czy nie byÅoby praktycznÄ
rzeczÄ
dodanie do GNU GPL "
-"pozwolenia na wykorzystywanie tego znaku?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We are, actually, applying for trademark "
-"registration on GNU. But it wouldn't really have anything to do with that. "
-"It's a long story to explain why."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: WÅaÅnie wystÄ
piliÅmy o rejestracjÄ znaku "
-"towarowego GNU. Ale nie miaÅoby to z tym nic wspólnego. "
-"WyjaÅnienie tego to dÅuga historia."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You could require the trademark be displayed with "
-"GPL-covered programs."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: MoglibyÅcie żÄ
daÄ, aby ten znak towarowy
byÅ "
-"widoczny na programach objÄtych przez GPL."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: No, I don't think so. The licenses cover "
-"individual programs. And when a given program is part of the GNU Project, "
-"nobody lies about that. The name of the system as a whole is a different "
-"issue. And this is an aside. It's not worth discussing more."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Nie, nie sÄ
dzÄ. Licencje obejmujÄ
poszczególne
"
-"programy. A kiedy dany program jest czÄÅciÄ
projektu GNU, to nikt nie
"
-"kÅamie na ten temat. Nazwa caÅego systemu to inna sprawa. Ale to "
-"sprawa poboczna. Nie warto na ten temat wiÄcej mówiÄ."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: If there was a button that you could push and "
-"force all companies to free their software, would you press it?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: JeÅli istniaÅby guzik, którego naciÅniÄcie "
-"zmusiÅoby wszystkie firmy do uwolnienia swojego oprogramowania, "
-"nacisnÄ
ÅbyÅ go?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, I would only use this for published "
-"software. You know, I think that people have the right to write a program "
-"privately and use it. And that includes companies. This is privacy issue. "
-"And it's true, there can be times when it is wrong to do that, like if it is "
-"tremendously helpful to humanity, and you are withholding it from humanity. "
-"That is a wrong but that's a different kind of wrong. It's a different "
-"issue, although it's in the same area."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Cóż, wykorzystaÅbym to tylko wobec
opublikowanego "
-"oprogramowania. No wiecie, uważam, że ludzie majÄ
prawo do "
-"napisania programu na prywatny użytek i korzystania z niego. "
-"Dotyczy to także firm. To kwestia prywatnoÅci. To prawda, mogÄ
byÄ "
-"przypadki, w których takie postÄpowanie jest zÅe, na przykÅad,
gdy "
-"jest on niezwykle przydatny dla ludzkoÅci, a wy go przed ludzkoÅciÄ
"
-"ukrywacie. To jest zÅe, ale w inny sposób. To osobna kwestia, chociaż
"
-"dotykajÄ
ca tego samego obszaru."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But yes, I think all published software should be free software. And "
-"remember, when it's not free software, that's because of government "
-"intervention. The government is intervening to make it non-free. The "
-"government is creating special legal powers to hand out to the owners of the "
-"programs, so that they can have the police stop us from using the programs "
-"in certain ways. So I would certainly like to end that."
-msgstr ""
-"Ale tak, sÄ
dzÄ, że caÅe opublikowane oprogramowanie powinno
byÄ "
-"wolne. I pamiÄtajcie, jeÅli nie jest wolne, to z powodu "
-"interwencji rzÄ
du. RzÄ
d interweniuje, aby uczyniÄ je niewolnym. RzÄ
d
"
-"tworzy specjalne narzÄdzia prawne dla wÅaÅcicieli programów,
aby mogli "
-"zmusiÄ policjÄ do powstrzymania nas od używania programów
na "
-"pewne sposoby. Z caÅÄ
pewnoÅciÄ
chciaÅbym poÅożyÄ temu kres."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Richard's presentation has invariably generated "
-"an enormous amount of intellectual energy. I would suggest that some of it "
-"should be directed to using, and possibly writing, free software."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Prezentacja Richarda jak zwykle wyzwoliÅa "
-"olbrzymiÄ
iloÅÄ intelektualnej energii. SugerujÄ, żeby jej czÄÅÄ
zostaÅa "
-"wykorzystana na używanie, a może również pisanie, wolnego "
-"oprogramowania."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"We should close the proceedings shortly. I want to say that Richard has "
-"injected into a profession which is known in the general public for its "
-"terminal apolitical nerditude a level of political and moral discussion "
-"which is, I think, unprecedented in our profession. And we owe him very big "
-"for this. I'd like to note to people that there is a break."
-msgstr ""
-"PowinniÅmy wkrótce zamknÄ
Ä tÄ sesjÄ. ChcÄ powiedzieÄ,
że Richard "
-"wstrzyknÄ
Å w profesjÄ, która jest znana ogóÅowi spoÅeczeÅstwa ze
swojej "
-"caÅkowicie apolitycznej postawy, dawkÄ politycznego i moralnego "
-"zamieszania, które w naszej profesji nie miaÅo wczeÅniej miejsca. "
-"I bardzo wiele jesteÅmy mu za to winni. ChciaÅbym ogÅosiÄ,
że "
-"mamy przerwÄ."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<i>[Applause]</i>"
-msgstr "<i>[aplauz]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: You are free to leave at any time, you know. <i>"
-"[Laughter]</i> I'm not holding you prisoner here."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Możecie w każdej chwili wyjÅÄ.
<i>[Åmiech]</"
-"i> Nie trzymam was tu pod kluczem."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<i>[Audience adjourns…]</i>"
-msgstr "<i>[sÅuchacze siÄ rozchodzÄ
…]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<i>[overlapping conversations…]</i>"
-msgstr "<i>[nakÅadajÄ
ce siÄ gÅosy…]</i>"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: One final thing. Our website: www.gnu.org"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Ostatnia sprawa. Nasza witryna internetowa: www."
-"gnu.org"
-
-#. 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><div><p>
-msgid ""
-"Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
href=\"mailto:address@hidden";
-"\"><address@hidden></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";><address@hidden"
-"org></a>."
-msgstr ""
-"Pytania dotyczÄ
ce GNU i FSF prosimy kierowaÄ na adres <a href="
-"\"mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>. IstniejÄ
także <a
href=\"/"
-"contact/contact.html\">inne sposoby skontaktowania siÄ</a> z FSF. <br /"
-"> Informacje o niedziaÅajÄ
cych odnoÅnikach oraz inne poprawki (lub "
-"propozycje) prosimy wysyÅaÄ na adres <a href=\"mailto:web-";
-"address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>."
-
-#. 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";>
-#. <address@hidden></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><div><p>
-msgid ""
-"Please see the <a href=\"/server/standards/README.translations.html"
-"\">Translations README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting "
-"translations of this article."
-msgstr ""
-"Staramy siÄ, aby tÅumaczenia byÅy wierne i wysokiej jakoÅci, "
-"ale nie jesteÅmy zwolnieni z niedoskonaÅoÅci. Komentarze
odnoÅnie "
-"tÅumaczenia polskiego oraz zgÅoszenia dotyczÄ
ce chÄci wspóÅpracy
w "
-"tÅumaczeniu prosimy kierowaÄ na adres <a href=\"mailto:address@hidden";
-"org\">address@hidden</a>. <br /> Aby zapoznaÄ siÄ z "
-"informacjami dotyczÄ
cymi tÅumaczenia i koordynowania tÅumaczeÅ "
-"artykuÅów, proszÄ odwiedziÄ stronÄ <a href=\"/server/standards/README."
-"translations.html\">tÅumaczeÅ</a>."
-
-#. type: Content of: <div><p>
-msgid "Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman"
-msgstr "Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman"
-
-#. 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 ""
-"Ten utwór objÄty jest licencjÄ
Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Bez "
-"utworów zależnych 3.0 Stany Zjednoczone. Aby zobaczyÄ kopiÄ
niniejszej "
-"licencji przejdź na stronÄ <a rel=\"license\" href=\"http://";
-"creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/\">http://creativecommons.org/";
-"licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/</a> lub napisz do Creative Commons, 171 "
-"Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California 94105, USA."
-
-#. TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.
-#. type: Content of: <div><div>
-msgid "*GNUN-SLOT: TRANSLATOR'S CREDITS*"
-msgstr ""
-"TÅumaczenie: RadosÅaw MoszczyÅski 2005, Jan Owoc 2011; poprawki: Jan Owoc "
-"2015."
-
-#. timestamp start
-#. type: Content of: <div><p>
-msgid "Updated:"
-msgstr "Aktualizowane:"
Index: events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pot
===================================================================
RCS file: events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pot
diff -N events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pot
--- events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pot 20 Feb 2015 15:57:53 -0000
1.13
+++ /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
@@ -1,2712 +0,0 @@
-# LANGUAGE translation of
http://www.gnu.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.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: rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html\n"
-"POT-Creation-Date: 2015-02-20 15:55+0000\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 ""
-"Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation - GNU Project - Free Software "
-"Foundation"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <h2>
-msgid "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <blockquote><p>
-msgid ""
-"Transcript of Richard M. Stallman's speech, “Free Software: Freedom "
-"and Cooperation”, given at New York University in New York, NY, on 29 "
-"May 2001"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <div><blockquote><p>
-msgid ""
-"A <a href=\"/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt\">plain text</a> version of "
-"this transcript and a <a "
-"href=\"/events/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt\">summary</a> of the speech are also "
-"available."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>URETSKY</strong>: I'm Mike Uretsky. I'm over at the Stern School of "
-"Business. I'm also one of the Co-Directors of the Center for Advanced "
-"Technology. And, on behalf of all of us in the Computer Science Department, "
-"I want to welcome you here. I want to say a few comments, before I turn it "
-"over to Ed, who is going to introduce the speaker."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"The role of a university is a place to foster debate and to have interesting "
-"discussions. And the role of a major university is to have particularly "
-"interesting discussions. And this particular presentation, this seminar "
-"falls right into that mold. I find the discussion of open source "
-"particularly interesting. In a sense … <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I do free software. Open source is a different "
-"movement. <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>URETSKY</strong>: When I first started in the field in the '60's, "
-"basically software was free. And we went in cycles. It became free, and "
-"then software manufacturers, in the need to expand their markets, pushed it "
-"in other directions. A lot of the developments that took place with the "
-"entry of the PC moved in exactly the same kind of a cycle."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"There's a very interesting French philosopher, Pierre Levy, who talks about "
-"movement to this direction and who talks about the move into cyberspace as "
-"not only relating to technology but also relating to social restructuring, "
-"to political restructuring, through a change in the kinds of relationships "
-"that will improve the well-being of mankind. And we're hoping that this "
-"debate is a movement in that direction, that this debate is something that "
-"cuts across a lot of the disciplines that normally act as solace within the "
-"University. We're looking forward to some very interesting discussions. "
-"Ed?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: I'm Ed Schonberg from the Computer Science "
-"Department at the Courant Institute. Let me welcome you all to this event. "
-"Introducers are usually, and particularly, a useless aspect of public "
-"presentations, but in this case, actually, they serve a useful purpose, as "
-"Mike easily demonstrated, because an introducer for instance, told him, by "
-"making inaccurate comments, can allow him to straighten out and correct and "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i> sharpen considerably the parameters of the debate."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, let me make the briefest possible introduction to somebody who doesn't "
-"need one. Richard is the perfect example of somebody who, by acting "
-"locally, started thinking globally from problems concerning the "
-"unavailability of source code for printer drivers at the AI Lab many years "
-"ago. He has developed a coherent philosophy that has forced all of us to "
-"re-examine our ideas of how software is produced, of what intellectual "
-"property means, and what the software community actually represents. Let me "
-"welcome Richard Stallman. <i>[Applause]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can someone lend me a watch? <i>[Laughter]</i> "
-"Thank you. So, I'd like to thank Microsoft for providing me the opportunity "
-"to <i>[Laughter]</i> be on this platform. For the past few weeks, I have "
-"felt like an author whose book was fortuitously banned somewhere. "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i> Except that all the articles about it are giving the wrong "
-"author's name, because Microsoft describes the GNU GPL as an open source "
-"license, and most of the press coverage followed suit. Most people, of "
-"course just innocently don't realize that our work has nothing to do with "
-"open source, that in fact we did most of it before people even coined the "
-"term open source."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"We are in the free software movement, and I'm going to speak about what the "
-"free software movement is about, what it means, what we have done, and, "
-"because this is partly sponsored by a school of business, I'll say some "
-"things more than I usually do about how free software relates to business, "
-"and some other areas of social life."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, some of you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps you "
-"cook. And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably use "
-"recipes. And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the experience of "
-"getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing it. And you've "
-"probably also had the experience — unless you're a total neophyte "
-"— of changing a recipe. You know, it says certain things, but you "
-"don't have to do exactly that. You can leave out some ingredients. Add "
-"some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms. Put in less salt because your "
-"doctor said you should cut down on salt — whatever. You can even make "
-"bigger changes according to your skill. And if you've made changes in a "
-"recipe, and you cook it for your friends, and they like it, one of your "
-"friends might say, “Hey, could I have the recipe?” And then, "
-"what do you do? You could write down your modified version of the recipe and "
-"make a copy for your friend. These are the natural things to do with "
-"functionally useful recipes of any kind."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program. A computer program's a lot "
-"like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to get some result that "
-"you want. So it's just as natural to do those same things with computer "
-"programs — hand a copy to your friend. Make changes in it because the "
-"job it was written to do isn't exactly what you want. It did a great job "
-"for somebody else, but your job is a different job. And after you've "
-"changed it, that's likely to be useful for other people. Maybe they have a "
-"job to do that's like the job you do. So they ask, “Hey, can I have a "
-"copy?” Of course, if you're a nice person, you're going to give a "
-"copy. That's the way to be a decent person."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So imagine what it would be like if recipes were packaged inside black "
-"boxes. You couldn't see what ingredients they're using, let alone change "
-"them, and imagine if you made a copy for a friend, they would call you a "
-"pirate and try to put you in prison for years. That world would create "
-"tremendous outrage from all the people who are used to sharing recipes. But "
-"that is exactly what the world of proprietary software is like. A world in "
-"which common decency towards other people is prohibited or prevented."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, why did I notice this? I noticed this because I had the good fortune in "
-"the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who shared software. "
-"Now, this community could trace its ancestry essentially back to the "
-"beginning of computing. In the 1970's, though, it was a bit rare for there "
-"to be a community where people shared software. And, in fact, this was sort "
-"of an extreme case, because in the lab where I worked, the entire operating "
-"system was software developed by the people in our community, and we'd share "
-"any of it with anybody. Anybody was welcome to come and take a look, and "
-"take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do. There were no copyright "
-"notices on these programs. Cooperation was our way of life. And we were "
-"secure in that way of life. We didn't fight for it. We didn't have to "
-"fight for it. We just lived that way. And, as far as we knew, we would "
-"just keep on living that way. So there was free software, but there was no "
-"free software movement."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that happened "
-"to it. Ultimately it was wiped out. Ultimately, the PDP-10 computer which "
-"we used for all our work was discontinued. And you know, our system — "
-"the Incompatible Timesharing System — was written starting in the "
-"'60's, so it was written in assembler language. That's what you used to "
-"write an operating system in the '60's. So, of course, assembler language "
-"is for one particular computer architecture; if that gets discontinued, all "
-"your work turns into dust — it's useless. And that's what happened to "
-"us. The 20 years or so of work of our community turned into dust."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me, helped me "
-"see what to do, helped prepare me to see what to do when this happened, "
-"because at certain point, Xerox gave the Artificial Intelligence Lab, where "
-"I worked, a laser printer, and this was a really handsome gift, because it "
-"was the first time anybody outside Xerox had a laser printer. It was very "
-"fast, printed a page a second, very fine in many respects, but it was "
-"unreliable, because it was really a high-speed office copier that had been "
-"modified into a printer. And, you know, copiers jam, but there's somebody "
-"there to fix them. The printer jammed and nobody saw. So it stayed jammed "
-"for a long time."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Well, we had an idea for how to deal with this problem. Change it so that "
-"whenever the printer gets a jam, the machine that runs the printer can tell "
-"our timesharing machine, and tell the users who are waiting for printouts, "
-"or something like that, you know, tell them, go fix the printer. Because if "
-"they only knew it was jammed, of course, if you're waiting for a printout "
-"and you know that the printer is jammed, you don't want to sit and wait "
-"forever, you're going to go fix it."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But at that point, we were completely stymied, because the software that ran "
-"that printer was not free software. It had come with the printer, and it "
-"was just a binary. We couldn't have the source code; Xerox wouldn't let us "
-"have the source code. So, despite our skill as programmers — after "
-"all, we had written our own timesharing system — we were completely "
-"helpless to add this feature to the printer software."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And we just had to suffer with waiting. It would take an hour or two to get "
-"your printout because the machine would be jammed most of the time. And "
-"only once in a while — you'd wait an hour figuring “I know it's "
-"going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and go collect my printout,” and "
-"then you'd see that it had been jammed the whole time, and in fact, nobody "
-"else had fixed it. So you'd fix it and you'd go wait another half hour. "
-"Then, you'd come back, and you'd see it jammed again — before it got "
-"to your output. It would print three minutes and be jammed thirty minutes. "
-"Frustration up the whazzoo. But the thing that made it worse was knowing "
-"that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his own selfishness, was "
-"blocking us, obstructing us from improving the software. So, of course, we "
-"felt some resentment."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a copy of "
-"that software. So I was visiting there later, so I went to his office and I "
-"said, “Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of the printer source "
-"code?” And he said “No, I promised not to give you a "
-"copy.” <i>[Laughter]</i> I was stunned. I was so — I was angry, "
-"and I had no idea how I could do justice to it. All I could think of was to "
-"turn around on my heel and walk out of his room. Maybe I slammed the door. "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i> And I thought about it later on, because I realized that I "
-"was seeing not just an isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was "
-"important and affected a lot of people."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"This was — for me — I was lucky, I only got a taste of it, but "
-"other people had to live in this all the time. So I thought about it at "
-"length. See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with us — his "
-"colleagues at MIT. He had betrayed us. But he didn't just do it to us. "
-"Chances are he did it to you too. <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> "
-"And I think, mostly likely, he did it to you too. <i>[Pointing at another "
-"member of audience.] [Laughter]</i> And he probably did it to you as well. "
-"<i>[Pointing to third member of audience.]</i> He probably did it to most of "
-"the people here in this room — except a few, maybe, who weren't born "
-"yet in 1980. Because he had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about "
-"the entire population of the Planet Earth. He had signed a non-disclosure "
-"agreement."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, "
-"and it taught me an important lesson — a lesson that's important "
-"because most programmers never learn it. You see, this was my first "
-"encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was the victim. I, and my "
-"whole lab, were the victims. And the lesson it taught me was that "
-"non-disclosure agreements have victims. They're not innocent. They're not "
-"harmless. Most programmers first encounter a non-disclosure agreement when "
-"they're invited to sign one. And there's always some temptation — "
-"some goody they're going to get if they sign. So, they make up excuses. "
-"They say, “Well, he's never going to get a copy no matter what, so why "
-"shouldn't I join the conspiracy to deprive him?” They say, “This "
-"is the way it's always done. Who am I to go against it?” They say, "
-"“If I don't sign this, someone else will.” Various excuses to "
-"gag their consciences."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But when somebody invited me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, my "
-"conscience was already sensitized. It remembered how angry I had been, when "
-"somebody promised not to help me and my whole lab solve our problem. And I "
-"couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to somebody else who had "
-"never done me any harm. You know, if somebody asked me to promise not to "
-"share some useful information with a hated enemy, I would have said yes. "
-"You know? If somebody's done something bad, he deserves it. But, strangers "
-"— they haven't done me any harm. How could they deserve that kind of "
-"mistreatment? You can't let yourself start treating just anybody and "
-"everybody badly. Then you become a predator on society. So I said, "
-"“Thank you very much for offering me this nice software package. But "
-"I can't accept it in good conscience, on the conditions you are demanding, "
-"so I will do without it. Thank you so much.” And so, I have never "
-"knowingly signed a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful technical "
-"information such as software."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now there are other kinds of information which raise different ethical "
-"issues. For instance, there's personal information. You know, if you "
-"wanted to talk with me about what was happening between you and your "
-"boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody — you know, I could "
-"keep — I could agree to keep that a secret for you, because that's not "
-"generally useful technical information. At least, it's probably not "
-"generally useful. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"There is a small chance — and it's a possibility though — that "
-"you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex technique, <i>[Laughter]</i> "
-"and I would then feel a moral duty <i>[Laughter]</i> to pass it onto the "
-"rest of humanity, so that everyone could get the benefit of it. So, I'd "
-"have to put a proviso in that promise, you know? If it's just details about "
-"who wants this, and who's angry at whom, and things like that — soap "
-"opera — that I can keep private for you, but something that humanity "
-"could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't withhold. You see, the "
-"purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information for "
-"humanity to help people live their lives better. If we promise to withhold "
-"that information — if we keep it secret — then we are betraying "
-"the mission of our field. And this, I decided I shouldn't do."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, meanwhile my community had collapsed, and that was collapsing, and that "
-"left me in a bad situation. You see, the whole Incompatible Timesharing "
-"System was obsolete, because the PDP-10 was obsolete, and so there was no "
-"way that I could continue working as an operating system developer the way "
-"that I had been doing it. That depended on being part of the community "
-"using the community software and improving it. That no longer was a "
-"possibility, and that gave me a moral dilemma. What was I going to do? "
-"Because the most obvious possibility meant to go against that decision I had "
-"made. The most obvious possibility was to adapt myself to the change in the "
-"world. To accept that things were different, and that I'd just have to give "
-"up those principles and start signing non-disclosure agreements for "
-"proprietary operating systems, and most likely writing proprietary software "
-"as well. But I realized that that way I could have fun coding, and I could "
-"make money — especially if I did it other than at MIT — but at "
-"the end, I'd have to look back at my career and say, “I've spent my "
-"life building walls to divide people,” and I would have been ashamed "
-"of my life."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So I looked for another alternative, and there was an obvious one. I could "
-"leave the software field and do something else. Now I had no other special "
-"noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a waiter. "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i> Not at a fancy restaurant; they wouldn't hire me, "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i> but I could be a waiter somewhere. And many programmers, "
-"they say to me, “The people who hire programmers demand this, this and "
-"this. If I don't do those things, I'll starve.” It's literally the "
-"word they use. Well, you know, as a waiter, you're not going to starve. "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i> So, really, they're in no danger. But — and this is "
-"important, you see — because sometimes you can justify doing something "
-"that hurts other people by saying otherwise something worse is going to "
-"happen to me. You know, if you were <em>really</em> going to starve, you'd "
-"be justified in writing proprietary software. <i>[Laughter]</i> If "
-"somebody's pointing a gun at you, then I would say, it's forgivable. "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i> But, I had found a way that I could survive without doing "
-"something unethical, so that excuse was not available. So I realized, "
-"though, that being a waiter would be no fun for me, and it would be wasting "
-"my skills as an operating system developer. It would avoid misusing my "
-"skills. Developing proprietary software would be misusing my skills. "
-"Encouraging other people to live in the world of proprietary software would "
-"be misusing my skills. So it's better to waste them than misuse them, but "
-"it's still not really good."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So for those reasons, I decided to look for some other alternative. What "
-"can an operating system developer do that would actually improve the "
-"situation, make the world a better place? And I realized that an operating "
-"system developer was exactly what was needed. The problem, the dilemma, "
-"existed for me and for everyone else because all of the available operating "
-"systems for modern computers were proprietary. The free operating systems "
-"were for old, obsolete computers, right? So for the modern computers — "
-"if you wanted to get a modern computer and use it, you were forced into a "
-"proprietary operating system. So if an operating system developer wrote "
-"another operating system, and then said, “Everybody come and share "
-"this; you're welcome to this” — that would give everybody a way "
-"out of the dilemma, another alternative. So I realized that there was "
-"something I could do that would solve the problem. I had just the right "
-"skills to be able to do it. And it was the most useful thing I could "
-"possibly imagine that I'd be able to do with my life. And it was a problem "
-"that no one else was trying to solve. It was just sort of sitting there, "
-"getting worse, and nobody was there but me. So I felt, “I'm elected. "
-"I have to work on this. If not me, who?” So I decided I would develop "
-"a free operating system, or die trying … of old age, of course. "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, of course I had to decide what kind of operating system it should be. "
-"There are some technical design decisions to be made. I decided to make the "
-"system compatible with Unix for a number of reasons. First of all, I had "
-"just seen one operating system that I really loved become obsolete because "
-"it was written for one particular kind of computer. I didn't want that to "
-"happen again. We needed to have a portable system. Well, Unix was a "
-"portable system. So if I followed the design of Unix, I had a pretty good "
-"chance that I could make a system that would also be portable and workable. "
-"And furthermore, why <i>[Tape unclear]</i> be compatible with it in the "
-"details. The reason is, users hate incompatible changes. If I had just "
-"designed the system in my favorite way — which I would have loved "
-"doing, I'm sure — I would have produced something that was "
-"incompatible. You know, the details would be different. So, if I wrote the "
-"system, then the users would have said to me, “Well, this is very "
-"nice, but it's incompatible. It will be too much work to switch. We can't "
-"afford that much trouble just to use your system instead of Unix, so we'll "
-"stay with Unix,” they would have said."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, if I wanted to actually create a community where there would be people "
-"in it, people using this free system, and enjoying the benefits of liberty "
-"and cooperation, I had to make a system people would use, a system that they "
-"would find easy to switch to, that would not have an obstacle making it fail "
-"at the very beginning. Now, making the system upward compatible with Unix "
-"actually made all the immediate design decisions, because Unix consists of "
-"many pieces, and they communicate through interfaces that are more or less "
-"documented. So if you want to be compatible with Unix, you have to replace "
-"each piece, one by one, with a compatible piece. So the remaining design "
-"decisions are inside one piece, and they could be made later by whoever "
-"decides to write that piece. They didn't have to be made at the outset."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So all we had to do to start work was find a name for the system. Now, we "
-"hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program, because "
-"thinking of people being amused by the name is half the fun of writing the "
-"program. <i>[Laughter]</i> And we had a tradition of recursive acronyms, to "
-"say that the program that you're writing is similar to some existing "
-"program. You can give it a recursive acronym name which says: this one's not "
-"the other. So, for instance, there were many Tico text editors in the '60's "
-"and '70's, and they were generally called something-or-other Tico. Then one "
-"clever hacker called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico — the first "
-"recursive acronym. In 1975, I developed the first Emacs text editor, and "
-"there were many imitations of Emacs, and a lot of them were called "
-"something-or-other Emacs, but one was called Fine, for Fine Is Not Emacs, "
-"and there was Sine, for Sine Is Not Emacs, and Eine for Ina Is Not Emacs, "
-"and MINCE for Mince Is Not Complete Emacs. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was a "
-"stripped down imitation. And then, Eine was almost completely rewritten, "
-"and the new version was called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially. "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So I looked for a recursive acronym for Something is not Unix. And I tried "
-"all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word. "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i> Hmm, try another way. I made a contraction. That way I "
-"could have a three-letter acronym, for Something's not Unix. And I tried "
-"letters, and I came across the word “GNU” — the word "
-"“GNU” is the funniest word in the English language. "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i> That was it. Of course, the reason it's funny is that "
-"according to the dictionary, it's pronounced “new”. You see? "
-"And so that's why people use it for a lot of wordplay. Let me tell you, "
-"this is the name of an animal that lives in Africa. And the African "
-"pronunciation had a click sound in it. <i>[Laughter]</i> Maybe still does. "
-"And so, the European colonists, when they got there, they didn't bother "
-"learning to say this click sound. So they just left it out, and they wrote "
-"a “G” which meant “there's another sound that's supposed "
-"to be here which we are not pronouncing.” <i>[Laughter]</i> So, "
-"tonight I'm leaving for South Africa, and I have begged them, I hope they're "
-"going to find somebody who can teach me to pronounce click sounds, "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i> so that I'll know how to pronounce GNU the correct way, "
-"when it's the animal."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is "
-"“guh-NEW” — pronounce the hard “G”. If you "
-"talk about the “new” operating system, you'll get people very "
-"confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years now, so it is not "
-"new any more. <i>[Laughter]</i> But it still is, and always will be, GNU "
-"— no matter how many people call it Linux by mistake. "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces of GNU. "
-"They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities though. And, at "
-"the time, I thought we would write all these pieces, and make an entire GNU "
-"system, and then we'd say, “Come and get it”, and people would "
-"start to use it. That's not what happened. The first pieces I wrote were "
-"just equally good replacements, with fewer bugs for some pieces of Unix, but "
-"they weren't tremendously exciting. Nobody particularly wanted to get them "
-"and install them. But then, in September 1984, I started writing GNU Emacs, "
-"which was my second implementation of Emacs, and by early 1985, it was "
-"working. I could use it for all my editing, which was a big relief, because "
-"I had no intention of learning to use VI, the Unix editor. <i>[Laughter]</i> "
-"So, until that time, I did my editing on some other machine, and saved the "
-"files through the network, so that I could test them. But when GNU Emacs "
-"was running well enough for me to use it, it was also — other people "
-"wanted to use it too."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So I had to work out the details of distribution. Of course, I put a copy "
-"in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people who were on the "
-"net They could then just pull over a tar file, but a lot of programmers then "
-"even were not on the net in 1985. They were sending me emails saying "
-"“How can I get a copy?” I had to decide what I would answer "
-"them. Well, I could have said, I want to spend my time writing more GNU "
-"software, not writing tapes, so please find a friend who's on the internet "
-"and who is willing to download it and put it on a tape for you. And I'm "
-"sure people would have found some friends, sooner or later, you know. They "
-"would have got copies. But I had no job. In fact, I've never had a job "
-"since quitting MIT in January 1984. So, I was looking for some way I could "
-"make money through my work on free software, and therefore I started a free "
-"software business. I announced, “Send me $150 dollars, and I'll mail "
-"you a tape of Emacs.” And the orders began dribbling in. By the "
-"middle of the year they were trickling in."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month. And, if necessary, I could have lived "
-"on just that, because I've always lived cheaply. I live like a student, "
-"basically. And I like that, because it means that money is not telling me "
-"what to do. I can do what I think is important for me to do. It freed me "
-"to do what seemed worth doing. So make a real effort to avoid getting "
-"sucked into all the expensive lifestyle habits of typical Americans. "
-"Because if you do that, then people with the money will dictate what you do "
-"with your life. You won't be able to do what's really important to you."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, “What do you mean it's "
-"free software if it costs $150 dollars?” <i>[Laughter]</i> Well, the "
-"reason they asked this was that they were confused by the multiple meanings "
-"of the English word “free”. One meaning refers to price, and "
-"another meaning refers to freedom. When I speak of free software, I'm "
-"referring to freedom, not price. So think of free speech, not free beer. "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i> Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many years of my life to "
-"making sure programmers got less money. That's not my goal. I'm a "
-"programmer and I don't mind getting money myself. I won't dedicate my whole "
-"life to getting it, but I don't mind getting it. And I'm not — and "
-"therefore, ethics is the same for everyone. I'm not against some other "
-"programmer getting money either. I don't want prices to be low. That's not "
-"the issue at all. The issue is freedom. Freedom for everyone who's using "
-"software, whether that person be a programmer or not."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So at this point I should give you the definition of free software. I "
-"better get to some real details, you see, because just saying “I "
-"believe in freedom” is vacuous. There's so many different freedoms "
-"you could believe in, and they conflict with each other, so the real "
-"political question is: Which are the important freedoms, the freedoms that "
-"we must make sure everybody has?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And now, I will give my answer to that question for the particular area of "
-"using software. A program is free software for you, a particular user, if "
-"you have the following freedoms:"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
-msgid ""
-"First, Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the program for any purpose, any "
-"way you like."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
-msgid ""
-"Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the program to suit "
-"your needs."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
-msgid ""
-"Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing copies of "
-"the program."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
-msgid ""
-"And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by publishing "
-"an improved version so others can get the benefit of your work."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software, for you "
-"— and that's crucial. That's why I phrase it that way. I'll explain "
-"why later, when I talk about the GNU General Public License, but right now "
-"I'm explaining what free software means, which is a more basic question."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, Freedom Zero's pretty obvious. If you're not even allowed to run the "
-"program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive program. But as it "
-"happens, most programs will at least give you Freedom Zero. And Freedom "
-"Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of Freedoms One, Two, and Three "
-"— that's the way that copyright law works. So the freedoms that "
-"distinguish free software from typical software are Freedoms One, Two, and "
-"Three, so I'll say more about them and why they are important."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the software to suit "
-"your needs. This could mean fixing bugs. It could mean adding new "
-"features. It could mean porting it to a different computer system. It "
-"could mean translating all the error messages into Navajo. Any change you "
-"want to make, you should be free to make."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, it's obvious that professional programmers can make use of this freedom "
-"very effectively, but not just them. Anybody of reasonable intelligence can "
-"learn a little programming. You know, there are hard jobs, and there are "
-"easy jobs, and most people are not going to learn enough to do hard jobs. "
-"But lots of people can learn enough to do easy jobs, just the way, you know, "
-"50 years ago, lots and lots of American men learned to repair cars, which is "
-"what enabled the U.S. to have a motorized army in World War II and win. So, "
-"very important, having lots of people tinkering."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And if you are a people person, and you really don't want to learn "
-"technology at all, that probably means that you have a lot of friends, and "
-"you're good at getting them to owe you favors. <i>[Laughter]</i> Some of "
-"them are probably programmers. So you can ask one of your programmer "
-"friends. “Would you please change this for me? Add this "
-"feature?” So, lots of people can benefit from it."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, if you don't have this freedom, it causes practical, material harm to "
-"society. It makes you a prisoner of your software. I explained what that "
-"was like with regard to the laser printer. You know, it worked badly for "
-"us, and we couldn't fix it, because we were prisoners of our software."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But it also affects people's morale. You know if the computer is constantly "
-"frustrating to use, and people are using it, their lives are going to be "
-"frustrating, and if they're using it in their jobs, their jobs are going to "
-"be frustrating; they're going to hate their jobs. And you know, people "
-"protect themselves from frustration by deciding not to care. So you end up "
-"with people whose attitude is, “Well, I showed up for work today. "
-"That's all I have to do. If I can't make progress, that's not my problem; "
-"that's the boss's problem.” And when this happens, it's bad for those "
-"people, and it's bad for society as a whole. That's Freedom One, the "
-"freedom to help yourself."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing copies of "
-"the program. Now, for beings that can think and learn, sharing useful "
-"knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship. When these beings use "
-"computers, this act of friendship takes the form of sharing software. "
-"Friends share with each other. Friends help each other. This is the nature "
-"of friendship. And, in fact, this spirit of goodwill — the spirit of "
-"helping your neighbor, voluntarily — is society's most important "
-"resource. It makes the difference between a livable society and a "
-"dog-eat-dog jungle. Its importance has been recognized by the world's major "
-"religions for thousands of years, and they explicitly try to encourage this "
-"attitude."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach us this "
-"attitude — the spirit of sharing — by having us do it. They "
-"figured if we did it, we'd learn. So they said, “If you bring candy "
-"to school, you can't keep it all for yourself; you have to share some with "
-"the other kids.” Teaching us, the society was set up to teach, this "
-"spirit of cooperation. And why do you have to do that? Because people are "
-"not totally cooperative. That's one part of human nature, and there are "
-"other parts of human nature. There are lots of parts of human nature. So, "
-"if you want a better society, you've got to work to encourage the spirit of "
-"sharing. You know, it'll never get to be 100%. That's understandable. "
-"People have to take care of themselves too. But if we make it somewhat "
-"bigger, we're all better off."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Nowadays, according to the U.S. Government, teachers are supposed to do the "
-"exact opposite. “Oh, Johnny, you brought software to school. Well, "
-"don't share it. Oh no. Sharing is wrong. Sharing means you're a "
-"pirate.”"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"What do they mean when they say “pirate”? They're saying that "
-"helping your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship. "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"What would Buddha or Jesus say about that? Now, take your favorite religious "
-"leader. I don't know, maybe Manson would have said something different. "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i> Who knows what L. Ron Hubbard would say? But …"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-#:
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Of course, he's dead. But they don't admit "
-"that. What?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: So are the others, also dead. <i>[Laughter] "
-"[Inaudible]</i> Charles Manson's also dead. <i>[Laughter]</i> They're dead, "
-"Jesus's dead, Buddha's dead…"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, that's true. <i>[Laughter]</i> So I guess, "
-"in that regard, L. Ron Hubbard is no worse than the others. "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway — <i>[Inaudible]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: L. Ron always used free software — it freed "
-"him from Zanu. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Anyway, so, I think this is actually the most "
-"important reason why software should be free: We can't afford to pollute "
-"society's most important resource. It's true that it's not a physical "
-"resource like clean air and clean water. It's a psycho-social resource, but "
-"it's just as real for all that, and it makes a tremendous difference to our "
-"lives. You see, the actions we take influence the thoughts of other "
-"people. When we go around telling people, “Don't share with each "
-"other”, if they listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's "
-"not a good one. That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just cause "
-"this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes waste — "
-"practical, material harm. If the program has an owner, and the owner "
-"arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay in order to be able "
-"to use it, some people are going to say, “Never mind, I'll do without "
-"it.” And that's waste, deliberately inflicted waste. And the "
-"interesting thing about software, of course, is that fewer users doesn't "
-"mean you have to make less stuff. You know, if fewer people buy cars, you "
-"can make fewer cars. There's a saving there. There are resources to be "
-"allocated, or not allocated, into making cars. So that you can say that "
-"having a price on a car is a good thing. It prevents people from diverting "
-"lots of wasted resources into making cars that aren't really needed. But if "
-"each additional car used no resources, it wouldn't be doing any good saving "
-"the making of these cars. Well, for physical objects, of course, like cars, "
-"it is always going to take resources to make an additional one of them, each "
-"additional exemplar."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But for software that's not true. Anybody can make another copy. And it's "
-"almost trivial to do it. It takes no resources, except a tiny bit of "
-"electricity. So there's nothing we can save, no resource we're going to "
-"allocate better by putting this financial disincentive on the use of the "
-"software. You often find people taking economic, the consequences of "
-"economic reasoning, based on premises that don't apply to software, and "
-"trying to transplant them from other areas of life where the premises may "
-"apply, and the conclusions may be valid. They just take the conclusions and "
-"assume that they're valid for software too, when the argument is based on "
-"nothing, in the case of software. The premises don't work in that case. It "
-"is very important to examine how you reach the conclusion, and what premises "
-"it depends on, to see where it might be valid. So, that's Freedom Two, the "
-"freedom to help your neighbor."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by publishing an "
-"improved version of the software. People used to say to me, “If the "
-"software's free, then nobody will get paid to work on it, so why should "
-"anybody work on it?” Well, of course, they were confusing the two "
-"meanings of free, so their reasoning was based on a misunderstanding. But, "
-"in any case, that was their theory. Today, we can compare that theory with "
-"empirical fact, and we find that hundreds of people are being paid to write "
-"free software, and over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers. We get lots of "
-"people working on free software, for various different motives."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"When I first released GNU Emacs — the first piece of the GNU system "
-"that people actually wanted to use — and when it started having users, "
-"after a while, I got a message saying, “I think I saw a bug in the "
-"source code, and here's a fix.” And I got another message, "
-"“Here's code to add a new feature.” And another bug fix. And "
-"another new feature. And another, and another, and another, until they were "
-"pouring in on me so fast that just making use of all this help I was getting "
-"was a big job. Microsoft doesn't have this problem. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Eventually, people noted this phenomenon. You see, in the 1980's a lot of "
-"us thought that maybe free software wouldn't be as good as the non-free "
-"software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay people. And, of "
-"course, people like me, who value freedom and community said, “Well, "
-"we'll use the free software anyway.” It's worth making a little "
-"sacrifice in some mere technical convenience to have freedom. But what "
-"people began to note, around 1990 was that our software was actually "
-"better. It was more powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary "
-"alternatives."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific measurement of "
-"reliability of software. Here's what he did. He took several sets of "
-"comparable programs that did the same jobs — the exact same jobs "
-"— in different systems. Because there were certain basic Unix-like "
-"utilities. And the jobs that they did, we know, was all, more or less, "
-"imitating the same thing, or they were following the POSIX spec, so they "
-"were all the same in terms of what jobs they did, but they were maintained "
-"by different people, written separately. The code was different. So they "
-"said, OK, we'll take these programs and run them with random data, and "
-"measure how often they crash, or hang. So they measured it, and the most "
-"reliable set of programs was the GNU programs. All the commercial "
-"alternatives which were proprietary software were less reliable. So he "
-"published this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he did "
-"the same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same result. "
-"The GNU versions were the most reliable. People — you know there are "
-"cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system, because it's so "
-"reliable, and reliability is very important to them."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Anyway, there's even a group of people who focus on this particular benefit "
-"as the reason they give, the main reason they give, why users should be "
-"permitted to do these various things, and to have these freedoms. If you've "
-"been listening to me, you've noticed, you've seen that I, speaking for the "
-"free software movement, I talk about issues of ethics, and what kind of a "
-"society we want to live in, what makes for a good society, as well as "
-"practical, material benefits. They're both important. That's the free "
-"software movement."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"That other group of people — which is called the open source movement "
-"— they only cite the practical benefits. They deny that this is an "
-"issue of principle. They deny that people are entitled to the freedom to "
-"share with their neighbor and to see what the program's doing and change it "
-"if they don't like it. They say, however, that it's a useful thing to let "
-"people do that. So they go to companies and say to them, “You know, "
-"you might make more money if you let people do this.” So, what you can "
-"see is that to some extent, they lead people in a similar direction, but for "
-"totally different, for fundamentally different, philosophical reasons."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Because on the deepest issue of all, you know, on the ethical question, the "
-"two movements disagree. You know, in the free software movement we say, "
-"“You're entitled to these freedoms. People shouldn't stop you from "
-"doing these things.” In the open source movement, they say, "
-"“Yes, they can stop you if you want, but we'll try to convince them to "
-"deign to let you to do these things.” Well, they have contributed "
-"— they have convinced a certain number of businesses to release "
-"substantial pieces of software as free software in our community. So they, "
-"the open source movement, has contributed substantially to our community. "
-"And so we work together on practical projects. But, philosophically, "
-"there's a tremendous disagreement."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Unfortunately, the open source movement is the one that gets the support of "
-"business the most, and so most articles about our work describe it as open "
-"source, and a lot of people just innocently think that we're all part of the "
-"open source movement. So that's why I'm mentioning this distinction. I "
-"want you to be aware that the free software movement, which brought our "
-"community into existence and developed the free operating system, is still "
-"here — and that we still stand for this ethical philosophy. I want "
-"you to know about this, so that you won't mislead someone else unknowingly."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "But also, so that you can think about where you stand."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"You know, which movement you support is up to you. You might agree with the "
-"free software movements and my views. You might agree with the open source "
-"movement. You might disagree with them both. You decide where you stand on "
-"these political issues."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But if you agree with the free software movement — if you see that "
-"there's an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled and "
-"directed by this decision deserve a say in it — then I hope you'll say "
-"that you agree with the free software movement, and one way you can do that "
-"is by using the term free software and just helping people know we exist."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, Freedom Three is very important both practically and psycho-socially. "
-"If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical material harm, because "
-"this community development doesn't happen, and we don't make powerful, "
-"reliable software. But it also causes psycho-social harm, which affects the "
-"spirit of scientific cooperation — the idea that we're working "
-"together to advance human knowledge. You see, progress in science crucially "
-"depends on people being able to work together. And nowadays though, you "
-"often find each little group of scientists acting like it's a war with each "
-"other gang of scientists and engineers. And if they don't share with each "
-"other, they're all held back."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, those are the three freedoms that distinguish free software from typical "
-"software. Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself, making changes to "
-"suit your own needs. Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by "
-"distributing copies. And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your "
-"community by making changes and publishing them for other people to use. If "
-"you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software for you. Now, "
-"why do I define it that way in terms of a particular user? Is it free "
-"software for you? <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> Is it free "
-"software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Is it "
-"free software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Yes?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you explain a bit about the difference "
-"between Freedom Two and Three? <i>[inaudible]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, they certainly relate, because if you don't "
-"have freedom to redistribute at all, you certainly don't have freedom to "
-"distribute a modified version, but they're different activities."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Oh."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Freedom Two is, you know, read it, you make an "
-"exact copy, and hand it to your friends, so now your friend can use it. Or "
-"maybe you make exact copies and you sell them to a bunch of people, and then "
-"they can use it."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Freedom Three is where you make improvements — or at least you think "
-"they're improvements, and some other people may agree with you. So that's "
-"the difference. Oh, and by the way, one crucial point. Freedoms One and "
-"Three depend on your having access to the source code. Because changing a "
-"binary-only program is extremely hard. <i>[Laughter]</i> Even trivial "
-"changes like using four digits for the date, <i>[Laughter]</i> if you don't "
-"have source. So, for compelling, practical reasons, access to the source "
-"code is a precondition, a requirement, for free software."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, why do I define it in terms of whether it's free software for "
-"<em>you</em>? The reason is that sometimes the same program can be free "
-"software for some people, and non-free for others. Now, that might seem "
-"like a paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example to show you how "
-"it happens. A very big example — maybe the biggest ever — of "
-"this problem was the X Window System which was developed at MIT and released "
-"under a license that made it free software. If you got the MIT version with "
-"the MIT license, you had Freedoms One, Two, and Three. It was free software "
-"for you. But among those who got copies were various computer manufacturers "
-"that distributed Unix systems, and they made the necessary changes in X to "
-"run on their systems. You know, probably just a few thousand lines out of "
-"the hundreds of thousands of lines of X. And, then they compiled it, and "
-"they put the binaries into their Unix system and distributed it under the "
-"same non-disclosure agreement as the rest of the Unix system. And then, "
-"millions of people got these copies. They had the X Window System, but they "
-"had none of these freedoms. It was not free software for <em>them</em>."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, the paradox was that whether X was free software depended on where you "
-"made the measurement. If you made the measurement coming out of the "
-"developers' group, you'd say, “I observe all these freedoms. It's "
-"free software.” If you made the measurements among the users you'd "
-"say, “Hmm, most users don't have these freedoms. It's not free "
-"software.” Well, the people who developed X didn't consider this a "
-"problem, because their goal was just popularity, ego, essentially. They "
-"wanted a big professional success. They wanted to feel, “Ah, lots of "
-"people are using our software.” And that was true. Lots of people "
-"were using their software but didn't have freedom."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Well, in the GNU project, if that same thing had happened to GNU software, "
-"it would have been a failure, because our goal wasn't just to be popular; "
-"our goal was to give people liberty, and to encourage cooperation, to permit "
-"people to cooperate. Remember, never force anyone to cooperate with any "
-"other person, but make sure that everybody's allowed to cooperate, everyone "
-"has the freedom to do so, if he or she wishes. If millions of people were "
-"running non-free versions of GNU, that wouldn't be success at all. The whole "
-"thing would have been perverted into nothing like the goal."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening. The method I came up "
-"with is called “copyleft”. It's called copyleft because it's "
-"sort of like taking copyright and flipping it over. <i>[Laughter]</i> "
-"Legally, copyleft works based on copyright. We use the existing copyright "
-"law, but we use it to achieve a very different goal. Here's what we do. We "
-"say, “This program is copyrighted.” And, of course, by default, "
-"that means it's prohibited to copy it, or distribute it, or modify it. But "
-"then we say, “You're authorized to distribute copies of this. You're "
-"authorized to modify it. You're authorized to distribute modified versions "
-"and extended versions. Change it any way you like.”"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But there is a condition. And the condition, of course, is the reason why "
-"we go to all this trouble, so that we could put the condition in. The "
-"condition says: Whenever you distribute anything that contains any piece of "
-"this program, that whole program must be distributed under these same terms, "
-"no more and no less. So you can change the program and distribute a "
-"modified version, but when you do, the people who get that from you must get "
-"the same freedom that you got from us. And not just for the parts of it "
-"— the excerpts that you copied from our program — but also for "
-"the other parts of that program that they got from you. The whole of that "
-"program has to be free software for them."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become inalienable "
-"rights — a concept from the Declaration of Independence. Rights that "
-"we make sure can't be taken away from you. And, of course, the specific "
-"license that embodies the idea of copyleft is the GNU General Public "
-"License, a controversial license because it actually has the strength to say "
-"no to people who would be parasites on our community."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of freedom. And "
-"they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done, and use it to get a "
-"head start in distributing a non-free program and tempting people to give up "
-"their freedom. And the result would be — you know, if we let people "
-"do that — that we would be developing these free programs, and we'd "
-"constantly have to compete with improved versions of our own programs. "
-"That's no fun."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And, a lot of people also feel — you know, I'm willing to volunteer my "
-"time to contribute to the community, but why should I volunteer my time to "
-"contribute to that company's, to improving that company's, proprietary "
-"program? You know, some people might not even think that that's evil, but "
-"they want to get paid if they're going to do that. I, personally, would "
-"rather not do it at all."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But both of these groups of people — both the ones like me who say, "
-"“I don't want to help that non-free program to get a foothold in our "
-"community” and the ones that say, “Sure, I'd work for them, but "
-"then they better pay me” — both of us have a good reason to use "
-"the GNU General Public License. Because that says to that company, "
-"“You can't just take my work, and distribute it without the "
-"freedom.” Whereas, the non-copyleft licenses, like the X Windows "
-"license, do permit that."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So that is the big division between the two categories of free software "
-"— license-wise. There are the programs that are copylefted so that "
-"the license defends the freedom of the software for every user. And there "
-"are the non-copylefted programs for which non-free versions are allowed. "
-"Somebody <em>can</em> take those programs and strip off the freedom. You "
-"may get that program in a non-free version."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And that problem exists today. There are still non-free versions of X "
-"Windows being used on our free operating systems. There is even hardware "
-"— which is not really supported — except by a non-free version "
-"of X Windows. And that's a major problem in our community. Nonetheless, I "
-"wouldn't say that X Windows is a bad thing, you know. I'd say that the "
-"developers did not do the best possible thing that they could have done. "
-"But they <em>did</em> release a lot of software that we could all use."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"You know, there's a big difference between less than perfect, and evil. "
-"There are many gradations of good and bad. We have to resist the temptation "
-"to say, if you didn't do the absolute best possible thing, then you're no "
-"good. You know, the people that developed X Windows made a big contribution "
-"to our community. But there's something better that they could have done. "
-"They could have copylefted parts of the program and prevented those "
-"freedom-denying versions from being distributed by others."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, the fact that the GNU General Public License defends your freedom, uses "
-"copyright law to defend your freedom, is, of course, why Microsoft is "
-"attacking it today. See, Microsoft would really like to be able to take all "
-"the code that we wrote and put it into proprietary programs, have somebody "
-"make some improvements, or even just incompatible changes is all they need. "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"You know, with Microsoft's marketing clout, they don't need to make it "
-"better to have their version supplant ours. They just have to make it "
-"different and incompatible. And then, put it on everybody's desktop. So "
-"they really don't like the GNU GPL. Because the GNU GPL won't let them do "
-"that. It doesn't allow “embrace and extend”. It says, if you "
-"want to share our code in your programs, you can. But, you've got to share "
-"and share alike. The changes that you make we have to be allowed to share. "
-"So, it's a two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Many companies — even big companies like IBM and HP are willing to use "
-"our software on this basis. IBM and HP contribute substantial improvements "
-"to GNU software. And they develop other free software. But, Microsoft "
-"doesn't want to do that, so they give it out that businesses just can't deal "
-"with the GPL. Well, if businesses don't include IBM, and HP and SUN, then "
-"maybe they're right. <i>[Laughter]</i> More about that later."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"I should finish the historical story. You see, we set out in 1984 not just "
-"to write some free software but to do something much more coherent: to "
-"develop an operating system that was entirely free software. So that meant "
-"we had to write piece after piece after piece. Of course, we were always "
-"looking for shortcuts. The job was so big that people said we'd never be "
-"able to finish. And, I thought that there was at least a chance that we'd "
-"finish it but, obviously, it's worth looking for shortcuts. So we kept "
-"looking around. Is there any program that somebody else has written that we "
-"could manage to adapt, to plug into here, and that way we won't have to "
-"write it from scratch? For instance, the X Window system. It's true it "
-"wasn't copylefted, but it was free software, so we could use it."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, I had wanted to put a window system into GNU from day one. I wrote a "
-"couple of window systems at MIT before I started GNU. And so, even though "
-"Unix had no window system in 1984, I decided that GNU would have one. But, "
-"we never ended up writing a GNU window system, because X came along. And I "
-"said, Goody! One big job we don't have to do. We'll use X. So I basically "
-"said, let's take X, and put it into the GNU system. And we'll make the "
-"other parts of GNU, you know, work with X, when appropriate. And we found "
-"other pieces of software that had been written by other people, like the "
-"text formatter TeX, some library code from Berkeley. At that time there was "
-"Berkeley Unix, but it was not free software. This library code, initially, "
-"was from a different group at Berkeley, that did research on floating "
-"point. And, so, we kept, we fit in these pieces."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"In October 1985, we founded the Free Software Foundation. So please note, "
-"the GNU project came first. The Free Software Foundation came after, about "
-"almost two years after the announcement of the Project. And the Free "
-"Software Foundation is a tax-exempt charity that raises funds to promote the "
-"freedom to share and change software. And in the 1980's, one of the main "
-"things we did with our funds was to hire people to write parts of GNU. And "
-"essential programs, such as the shell and the C library were written this "
-"way, as well as parts of other programs. The <code>tar</code> program, "
-"which is absolutely essential, although not exciting at all "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i> was written this way. I believe GNU grep was written this "
-"way. And so, we're approaching our goal."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"By 1991, there was just one major piece missing, and that was the kernel. "
-"Now, why did I put off the kernel? Probably because it doesn't really matter "
-"what order you do the things in, at least technically it doesn't. You've "
-"got to do them all anyway. And partly because I'd hoped we'd be able to "
-"find a start at a kernel somewhere else. And we did. We found Mach, which "
-"had been developed at Carnegie Mellon. And it wasn't the whole kernel; it "
-"was the bottom half of the kernel. So we had to write the top half, but I "
-"figured, you know, things like the file system, the network code, and so "
-"on. But running on top of Mach they're running essentially as user "
-"programs, which ought to make them easier to debug. You can debug with a "
-"real source-level debugger running at the same time. And so, I thought that "
-"way we'd be able to get these, the higher level parts of the kernel, done in "
-"a short time. It didn't work out that way. These asynchronous, "
-"multi-threaded processes, sending messages to each other turned out to be "
-"very hard to debug. And the Mach-based system that we were using to "
-"bootstrap with had a terrible debugging environment, and it was unreliable, "
-"and various problems. It took us years and years to get the GNU kernel to "
-"work."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, fortunately, our community did not have to wait for the GNU kernel. "
-"Because in 1991, Linus Torvalds developed another free kernel called Linux. "
-"And he used the old-fashioned monolithic design and it turns out that he got "
-"his working much faster than we got ours working. So maybe that's one of "
-"the mistakes that I made: that design decision. Anyway, at first, we didn't "
-"know about Linux, because he never contacted us to talk about it. Although "
-"he did know about the GNU Project. But he announced it to other people and "
-"other places on the net. And so other people then did the work of combining "
-"Linux with the rest of the GNU system to make a complete free operating "
-"system. Essentially, to make the GNU plus Linux combination."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, they didn't realize that's what they were doing. You see, they said, "
-"We have a kernel — let's look around and see what other pieces we can "
-"find to put together with the kernel. So, they looked around — and lo "
-"and behold, everything they needed was already available. What good "
-"fortune, they said. <i>[Laughter]</i> It's all here. We can find "
-"everything we need. Let's just take all these different things and put it "
-"together, and have a system."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"They didn't know that most of what they found was pieces of the GNU system. "
-"So they didn't realize that they were fitting Linux into the gap in the GNU "
-"system. They thought they were taking Linux and making a system out of "
-"Linux. So they called it a Linux system."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can't hear you — what?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, it's just not — you know, it's "
-"provincial."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: But it's more good fortune then finding X and "
-"Mach?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. The difference is that the people who "
-"developed X and Mach didn't have the goal of making a complete free "
-"operating system. We're the only ones who had that. And, it was our "
-"tremendous work that made the system exist. We actually did a larger part "
-"of the system than any other project. No coincidence, because those people "
-"— they wrote useful parts of the system. But they didn't do it "
-"because they wanted the system to be finished. They had other reasons."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now the people who developed X — they thought that designing across "
-"the network window system would be a good project, and it was. And it "
-"turned out to help us make a good free operating system. But that's not "
-"what they hoped for. They didn't even think about that. It was an "
-"accident. An accidental benefit. Now, I'm not saying that what they did "
-"was bad. They did a large free software project. That's a good thing to "
-"do. But they didn't have that ultimate vision. The GNU Project is where "
-"that vision was."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And, so, we were the ones whose — every little piece that didn't get "
-"done by somebody else, we did it. Because we knew that we wouldn't have a "
-"complete system without it. And even if it was totally boring and "
-"unromantic, like <code>tar</code> or <code>mv</code>. <i>[Laughter]</i> We "
-"did it. Or ld, you know there's nothing very exciting in <code>ld</code> "
-"— but I wrote one. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I did make efforts to have "
-"it do a minimal amount of disk I/O so that it would be faster and handle "
-"bigger programs. But, you know, I like to do a good job. I like to improve "
-"various things about the program while I'm doing it. But the reason that I "
-"did it wasn't that I had brilliant ideas for a better <code>ld</code>. The "
-"reason I did it is that we needed one that was free. And we couldn't expect "
-"anyone else to do it. So, we had to do it, or find someone to do it."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, although at this point thousands of people in projects have contributed "
-"to this system, there is one project which is the reason that this system "
-"exists, and that's the GNU Project. It <em>is</em> basically the GNU "
-"System, with other things added since then."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, however, the practice of calling the system Linux has been a great blow "
-"to the GNU Project, because we don't normally get credit for what we've "
-"done. I think Linux, the kernel, is a very useful piece of free software, "
-"and I have only good things to say about it. But, well, actually, I can "
-"find a few bad things to say about it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, basically, I "
-"have good things to say about it. However, the practice of calling the GNU "
-"system, Linux, is just a mistake. I'd like to ask you please to make the "
-"small effort necessary to call the system GNU/Linux, and that way to help us "
-"get a share of the credit."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You need a mascot! Get yourself a stuffed animal! "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have one."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You do?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have an animal — a gnu. "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway. So, yes, when you draw a penguin, draw a gnu next "
-"to it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, let's save the questions for the end. I have "
-"more to go through."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, why am I so concerned about this? You know, why do I think it is worth "
-"bothering you and perhaps giving you a, perhaps lowering your opinion of me, "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i> to raise this issue of credit? Because, you know, some "
-"people when I do this, some people think that it's because I want my ego to "
-"be fed, right? Of course, I'm not saying — I'm not asking you to call "
-"it “Stallmanix,” right? <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to get "
-"credit. And there's a very specific reason for that, which is a lot more "
-"important than anybody getting credit, in and of itself. You see, these "
-"days, if you look around in our community most of the people talking about "
-"it and writing about it don't ever mention GNU, and they don't ever mention "
-"these goals of freedom — these political and social ideals, either. "
-"Because the place they come from is GNU."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"The ideas associated with Linux — the philosophy is very different. "
-"It is basically the apolitical philosophy of Linus Torvalds. So, when "
-"people think that the whole system is Linux, they tend to think: “Oh, "
-"it must have been all started by Linux Torvalds. His philosophy must be the "
-"one that we should look at carefully”. And when they hear about the "
-"GNU philosophy, they say: “Boy, this is so idealistic, this must be "
-"awfully impractical. I'm a Linux-user, not a GNU-user.” "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"What irony! If they only knew! If they knew that the system they liked "
-"— or, in some cases, love and go wild over — is our idealistic, "
-"political philosophy made real."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"They still wouldn't have to agree with us. But at least they'd see a reason "
-"to take it seriously, to think about it carefully, to give it a chance. "
-"They would see how it relates to their lives. You know, if they realized, "
-"“I'm using the GNU system. Here's the GNU philosophy. This philosophy "
-"is <em>why</em> this system that I like very much exists,” they'd at "
-"least consider it with a much more open mind. It doesn't mean that "
-"everybody will agree. People think different things. That's OK. You know, "
-"people should make up their own minds. But I want this philosophy to get "
-"the benefit of the credit for the results it has achieved."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"If you look around in our community, you'll find that almost everywhere, the "
-"institutions are calling the system Linux. You know, reporters mostly call "
-"it Linux. It's not right, but they do. The companies mostly say it that "
-"package the system. Oh, and most of these reporters, when they write "
-"articles, they usually don't look at it as a political issue, or social "
-"issue. They're usually looking at it purely as a business question or what "
-"companies are going to succeed more or less, which is really a fairly minor "
-"question for society. And, if you look at the companies that package the "
-"GNU/Linux system for people to use, well, most of them call it Linux. And "
-"they <em>all</em> add non-free software to it."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"See, the GNU GPL says that if you take code, and some code out of a "
-"GPL-covered program, and add some more code to make a bigger program, that "
-"whole program has to be released under the GPL. But you could put other "
-"separate programs on the same disk (of either kind, hard disk, or CD), and "
-"they can have other licenses. That's considered mere aggregation, and, "
-"essentially, just distributing two programs to somebody at the same time is "
-"not something we have any say over. So, in fact, it is not true — "
-"sometimes, I wish it were true — that if a company uses a GPL-covered "
-"program in a product that the whole product has to be free software. It's "
-"not — it doesn't go to that range — that scope. It's the whole "
-"program. If there are two separate programs that communicate with each "
-"other at arm's length — like by sending messages to each other — "
-"then, they're legally separate, in general. So, these companies, by adding "
-"non-free software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically and "
-"politically, a very bad idea. They're telling the users, “It is OK to "
-"use non-free software. We're even putting it on this as a bonus.”"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system, most of "
-"them have a title like “Linux-something or other”. So they're "
-"calling the system Linux most of the time. And they're filled with ads for "
-"non-free software that you could run on top of the GNU/Linux system. Now "
-"those ads have a common message. They say: Non-free Software Is Good For "
-"You. It's So Good That You Might Even <em>Pay</em> To Get It. "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And they call these things “value-added packages”, which makes a "
-"statement about their values. They're saying: Value practical convenience, "
-"not freedom. And, I don't agree with those values, so I call them "
-"“freedom-subtracted packages”. <i>[Laughter]</i> Because if you "
-"have installed a free operating system, then you now are living in the free "
-"world. You enjoy the benefits of liberty that we worked for so many years "
-"to give you. Those packages give you an opportunity to buckle on a chain."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And then if you look at the trade shows — about the use of the, "
-"dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call themselves "
-"“Linux” shows. And they're filled with booths exhibiting "
-"non-free software, essentially putting the seal of approval on the non-free "
-"software. So, almost everywhere you look in our community, the institutions "
-"are endorsing the non-free software, totalling negating the idea of freedom "
-"that GNU was developed for. And the only place that people are likely to "
-"come across the idea of freedom is in connection with GNU, and in connection "
-"with free software, the term, free software. So this is why I ask you: "
-"please call the system GNU/Linux. Please make people aware where the system "
-"came from and why."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Of course, just by using that name, you won't be making an explanation of "
-"the history. You can type four extra characters and write GNU/Linux; you "
-"can say two extra syllables. But, GNU/Linux is fewer syllables than Windows "
-"2000. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, you're not telling them a lot, but you're "
-"preparing them, so that when they hear about GNU, and what it's all about, "
-"they'll see how that connects to them and their lives. And that, "
-"indirectly, makes a tremendous difference. So please help us."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"You'll note that Microsoft called the GPL an “open source "
-"license”. They don't want people to be thinking in terms of freedom "
-"as the issue. You'll find that they invite people to think in a narrow way, "
-"as consumers, and, of course, not even think very rationally as consumers, "
-"if they're going to choose Microsoft products. But they don't want people "
-"to think as citizens or statesmen. That's inimical to them. At least it's "
-"inimical to their current business model."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, how does free software…well, I can tell you about how free "
-"software relates to our society. A secondary topic that might be of "
-"interest to some of you is how free software relates to business. Now, in "
-"fact, free software is <em>tremendously</em> useful for business. After "
-"all, most businesses in the advanced countries use software. Only a tiny "
-"fraction of them develop software."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And free software is tremendously advantageous for any company that uses "
-"software, because it means that you're in control. Basically, free software "
-"means the users are in control of what the program does. Either "
-"individually, if they care enough to be, or, collectively, when they care "
-"enough to be. Whoever cares enough can exert some influence. If you don't "
-"care, you don't buy. Then you use what other people prefer. But, if you do "
-"care, then you have some say. With proprietary software, you have "
-"essentially no say."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"With free software, you can change what you want to change. And it doesn't "
-"matter that there are no programmers in your company; that's fine. You "
-"know, if you wanted to move the walls in your building, you don't have to be "
-"a carpentry company. You just have to be able to go find a carpenter and "
-"say, “What will you charge to do this job?” And if you want to "
-"change around the software you use, you don't have to be a programming "
-"company. You just have to go to a programming company and say, “What "
-"will you charge to implement these features? And when will you have it "
-"done?” And if they don't do the job, you can go find somebody else."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"There's a free market for support. So, any business that cares about "
-"support will find a tremendous advantage in free software. With proprietary "
-"software, support is a monopoly, because one company has the source code, or "
-"maybe a small number of companies that paid a gigantic amount of money have "
-"the source code, if it's Microsoft's shared source program, but, it's very "
-"few. And so, there aren't very many possible sources of support for you. "
-"And that means, that unless you're a real giant, they don't care about you. "
-"Your company is not important enough for them to care if they lose your "
-"business, or what happens. Once you're using the program, they figure "
-"you're locked in to getting the support from them, because to switch to a "
-"different program is a gigantic job. So, you end up with things like paying "
-"for the privilege of reporting a bug. <i>[Laughter]</i> And once you've "
-"paid, they tell you, “Well, OK, we've noted your bug report. And in a "
-"few months, you can buy an upgrade, and you can see if we've fixed "
-"it.” <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Support providers for free software can't get away with that. They have to "
-"please the customers. Of course, you can get a lot of good support gratis. "
-"You post your problem on the Internet. You may get an answer the next day. "
-"But that's not guaranteed, of course. If you want to be confident, you "
-"better make an arrangement with a company and pay them. And this is, of "
-"course, one of the ways that free software business works."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Another advantage of free software for businesses that use software is "
-"security and privacy. And this applies to individuals as well, but I "
-"brought it up in the context of businesses. You see, when a program is "
-"proprietary, you can't even tell what it really does."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"It could have features, deliberately put in that you wouldn't like if you "
-"knew about them, like it might have a backdoor to let the developer get into "
-"your machine. It might snoop on what you do and send information back. "
-"This is not unusual. Some Microsoft software did this. But it's not only "
-"Microsoft. There are other proprietary programs that snoop on the user. "
-"And you can't even tell if it does this. And, of course, even assuming that "
-"the developer's totally honest, every programmer makes mistakes. There "
-"could be bugs that affect your security which are nobody's fault. But the "
-"point is: If it's not free software, you can't find them. And you can't fix "
-"them."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Nobody has the time to check the source of every program he runs. You're "
-"not going to do that. But with free software there's a large community, and "
-"there are people in that community who are checking things. And you get the "
-"benefit of their checking, because if there's an accidental bug, there "
-"surely are, from time to time, in any program, they might find it and fix "
-"it. And people are much less likely to put in a deliberate Trojan horse, or "
-"a snooping feature, if they think they might get caught. The proprietary "
-"software developers figure they won't get caught. They'll get away with it "
-"undetected. But a free software developer has to figure that people will "
-"look at that and see it's there. So, in our community, we don't feel we can "
-"get away with ramming a feature down the users' throats that the users "
-"wouldn't like. So we know that if the users don't like it, they'll make a "
-"modified version which doesn't have it. And then, they'll all start using "
-"that version."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"In fact, we can all reason enough, we can all figure this out enough steps "
-"ahead, that we probably won't put in that feature. After all, you're "
-"writing a free program; you want people to like your version; you don't want "
-"to put in a thing that you know a lot of people are going to hate, and have "
-"another modified version catch on instead of yours. So you just realize "
-"that the user is king in the world of free software. In the world of "
-"proprietary software, the customer is <em>not</em> king. Because you are "
-"only a customer. You have no say in the software you use."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"In this respect, free software is a new mechanism for democracy to operate. "
-"Professor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions as a kind of "
-"law. Whoever gets to write the code that just about everybody uses for all "
-"intents and purposes is writing the laws that run people's lives. With free "
-"software, these laws get written in a democratic way. Not the classical "
-"form of democracy — we don't have a big election and say, "
-"“Everybody vote which way should this feature be done.” "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i> Instead we say, basically, those of you who want to work "
-"on implementing the feature this way, do it. And if you want to work on "
-"implementing the feature that way, do it. And, it gets done one way or the "
-"other, you know? And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done "
-"this way. So, in this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by "
-"simply taking steps in the direction that he wants to go."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And you're free to take as many steps, personally, as you want to take. A "
-"business is free to commission as many steps as they find useful to take. "
-"And, after you add all these things up, that says which direction the "
-"software goes."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And it's often very useful to be able to take pieces out of some existing "
-"program, presumably usually large pieces, of course, and then write a "
-"certain amount of code of your own, and make a program that does exactly "
-"what you need, which would have cost you an arm and a leg to develop, if you "
-"had to write it all from scratch, if you couldn't cannibalize large pieces "
-"from some existing free software package."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Another thing that results from the fact that the user is king is that we "
-"tend to be very good about compatibility and standardization. Why? Because "
-"users like that. Users are likely to reject a program that has gratuitous "
-"incompatibilities in it. Now, sometimes there's a certain group of users "
-"which actually have a need for a certain kind of incompatibility, and then "
-"they'll have it. That's OK. But when users want is to follow a standard, we "
-"developers have to follow it, and we know that. And we do it. By contrast, "
-"if you look at proprietary software developers, they often find it "
-"advantageous to deliberately <em>not</em> follow a standard, and not because "
-"they think that they're giving the user an advantage that way, but rather "
-"because they're imposing on the user, locking the user in. And you'll even "
-"find them making changes in their file formats from time to time, just to "
-"force people to get the newest version."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Archivists are finding a problem now, that files written on computers ten "
-"years ago often can't be accessed; they were written with proprietary "
-"software that's essentially lost now. If it were written with free "
-"software, then it could be brought up-to-date and run. And those things "
-"would not, those records would not be lost, would not be inaccessible. They "
-"were even complaining about this on NPR recently in citing free software as "
-"a solution. And so, in effect, by using a non-free program to store your "
-"own data, you are putting your head in a noose."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, I've talked about how free software affects most business. But how does "
-"it affect that particular narrow area which is software business? Well, the "
-"answer is mostly not at all. And the reason is that 90% of the software "
-"industry, from what I'm told, is development of custom software, software "
-"that's not meant to be released at all. For custom software, this issue, or "
-"the ethical issue of free or proprietary, doesn't arise. You see, the issue "
-"is, are you users free to change, and redistribute, the software? If there's "
-"only one user, and that user owns the rights, there's no problem. That user "
-"<em>is</em> free to do all these things. So, in effect, any <em>custom</em> "
-"program that was developed by one company for use in-house is free software, "
-"as long as they have the sense to insist on getting the source code and all "
-"the rights."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And the issue doesn't really arise for software that goes in a watch or a "
-"microwave oven or an automobile ignition system. Because those are places "
-"where you don't download software to install. It's not a real computer, as "
-"far as the user is concerned. And so, it doesn't raise these issues enough "
-"for them to be ethically important. So, for the most part, the software "
-"industry will go along, just as it's been going. And the interesting thing "
-"is that since such a large fraction of the jobs are in that part of the "
-"industry, even if there were no possibilities for free software business, "
-"the developers of free software could all get day jobs writing custom "
-"software. <i>[Laughter]</i> There's so many; the ratio is so big."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, as it happens, there is free software business. There are free "
-"software companies, and at the press conference that I'm going to have, "
-"people from a couple of them will join us. And, of course, there are also "
-"companies which are <em>not</em> free software businesses but do develop "
-"useful pieces of free software to release, and the free software that they "
-"produce is substantial."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, how do free software businesses work? Well, some of them sell copies. "
-"You know, you're free to copy it but they can still sell thousands of copies "
-"a month. And others sell support and various kinds of services. I, "
-"personally, for the second half of the '80's, I sold free software support "
-"services. Basically I said, for $200 an hour, I'll change whatever you want "
-"me to change in GNU software that I'd written. And, yes, it was a stiff "
-"rate, but if it was a program that I was the author of, people would figure "
-"that I might get the job done in a lot fewer hours. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I "
-"made a living that way. In fact, I'd made more than I'd ever made before. "
-"I also taught classes. And I kept doing that until 1990, when I got a big "
-"prize and I didn't have to do it any more."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, 1990 was when the first corporation free software business was formed, "
-"which was Cygnus Support. And their business was to do, essentially, the "
-"same kind of thing that I'd been doing. I certainly could have worked for "
-"them, if I had needed to do that. Since I didn't need to, I felt it was "
-"good for the movement if I remained independent of any one company. That "
-"way, I could say good and bad things about the various free software and "
-"non-free software companies, without a conflict of interest. I felt that I "
-"could serve the movement more. But, if I had needed that to make a living, "
-"sure, I would have worked for them. It's an ethical business to be in. No "
-"reason I would have felt ashamed to take a job with them. And that company "
-"was profitable in its first year. It was formed with very little capital, "
-"just the money its three founders had. And it kept growing every year and "
-"being profitable every year until they got greedy, and looked for outside "
-"investors, and then they messed things up. But it was several years of "
-"success, before they got greedy."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, this illustrates one of the exciting things about free software. Free "
-"software demonstrates that you don't need to raise capital to develop free "
-"software. I mean, it's useful; it <em>can</em> help. You know, if you do "
-"raise some capital, you can hire people and have them write a bunch of "
-"software. But you can get a lot done with a small number of people. And, "
-"in fact, the tremendous efficiency of the process of developing free "
-"software is one of the reasons it's important for the world to switch to "
-"free software. And it also belies what Microsoft says when they say the GNU "
-"GPL is bad, because it makes it harder for them to raise capital to develop "
-"non-free software and take our free software and put our code into their "
-"programs that they won't share with us. Basically, we don't need to have "
-"them raising capital that way. We'll get the job done anyway. We are "
-"getting the job done."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"People used to say we could never do a complete free operating system. Now "
-"we've done that and a tremendous amount more. And I would say that we're "
-"about an order of magnitude away from developing all the general purpose "
-"published software needs of the world. And this is in a world where more "
-"than 90% of the users don't use our free software yet. This is in a world "
-"where, although in certain areas of business, you know, more than half of "
-"all the web servers in the world are running on GNU/Linux with Apache as the "
-"web server."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i> … What did you say "
-"before, Linux?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I said GNU/Linux."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You did?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, if I'm talking about the kernel, I call it "
-"Linux. You know, that's it's name. The kernel was written by Linus "
-"Torvalds, and we should only call it by the name that he chose, out of "
-"respect for the author."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Anyway, but in general, in business most users are not using it. Most home "
-"users are not using our system yet. So, when they are, we should "
-"automatically get 10 times as many volunteers and 10 times as many customers "
-"for the free software businesses that there will be. And so that will take "
-"us that order of magnitude. So at this point, I am pretty confident that we "
-"<em>can</em> do the job."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And, this is important, because Microsoft asks us to feel desperate. They "
-"say, The only way you can have software to run, the only way you can have "
-"innovation, is if you give us power. Let us dominate you. Let us control "
-"what you can do with the software you're running, so that we can squeeze a "
-"lot of money out of you, and use a certain fraction of that to develop "
-"software, and take the rest as profit."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Well, you shouldn't ever feel that desperate. You shouldn't ever feel so "
-"desperate that you give up your freedom. That's very dangerous."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Another thing that Microsoft, well, not just Microsoft, people who don't "
-"support free software generally adopt a value system in which the only thing "
-"that matters is short-term practical benefits: How much money am I going to "
-"make this year? What job can I get done today? Short-term thinking and "
-"narrow thinking. Their assumption is that it is ridiculous to imagine that "
-"anybody ever might make a sacrifice for the sake of freedom."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Yesterday, a lot of people were making speeches about Americans who made "
-"sacrifices for the freedom of their compatriots. Some of them made great "
-"sacrifices. They even sacrificed their lives for the kinds of freedom that "
-"everyone in our country has heard about, at least. (At least, in some of "
-"the cases; I guess we have to ignore the war in Vietnam.)"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<i>[Editor's note: The day before was “Memorial Day” in the "
-"USA. Memorial Day is a day where war heros are commemorated.]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, fortunately, to maintain our freedom in using software, doesn't call "
-"for big sacrifices. Just tiny, little sacrifices are enough, like learning a "
-"command-line interface, if we don't have a GUI interface program yet. Like "
-"doing the job in this way, because we don't have a free software package to "
-"do it that way, yet. Like, paying some money to a company that's going to "
-"develop a certain free software package, so that you can have it in a few "
-"years. Various little sacrifices that we can all make. And, in the long "
-"run, even we will have benefited from it. You know, it is really an "
-"investment more than a sacrifice. We just have to have enough long-term "
-"view to realize it's good for us to invest in improving our society, without "
-"counting the nickels and dimes of who gets how much of the benefit from that "
-"investment."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "So, at this point, I'm essentially done."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"I'd like to mention that there's a new approach to free software business "
-"being proposed by Tony Stanco, which he calls “Free Developers”, "
-"which involves a certain business structure which hopes eventually to pay "
-"out a certain share of the profits to every, to all the authors of the free "
-"software who've joined the organization. And they're looking at the "
-"prospects of getting me some rather large government software development "
-"contracts in India now, because they're going to be using free software as "
-"the basis, having tremendous cost savings that way."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "And so now I guess that I should ask for questions."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Could you speak up a bit louder please? I can't "
-"really hear you."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: How could a company like Microsoft include a free "
-"software contract?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually, Microsoft is planning to shift a "
-"lot of its activity into services. And what they're planning to do is "
-"something dirty and dangerous, which is tie the services to the programs, "
-"one to the next, in a sort of zigzag, you know? So that to use this service, "
-"you've got to be using this Microsoft program, which is going to mean you "
-"need to use this service, to this Microsoft program, so it's all tied "
-"together. That's their plan."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, the interesting thing is that selling those services doesn't raise the "
-"ethical issue of free software or non-free software. It might be perfectly "
-"fine for them to have the business for those businesses selling those "
-"services over the net to exist. However, what Microsoft is planning to do "
-"is to use them to achieve an even greater lock, an even greater monopoly, on "
-"the software and the services, and this was described in an article, I "
-"believe in Business Week, recently. And, other people said that it is "
-"turning the net into the Microsoft Company Town."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And this is relevant because, you know, the trial court in the Microsoft "
-"antitrust trial recommended breaking up the company, Microsoft. But in a "
-"way, that makes no sense — it wouldn't do any good at all — into "
-"the operating part and the applications part."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But having seen that article, I now see a useful, effective way to split up "
-"Microsoft into the services part and the software part, to require them to "
-"deal with each other only at arm's length, that the services must publish "
-"their interfaces, so that anybody can write a client to talk to those "
-"services, and, I guess, that they have to pay to get the service. Well, "
-"that's OK. That's a totally different issue."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"If Microsoft is split up in this way […] services and software, they "
-"will not be able to use their software to crush competition with Microsoft "
-"services. And they won't be able to use the services to crush competition "
-"with Microsoft software. And we will be able to make the free software, and "
-"maybe you people will use it to talk to Microsoft services, and we won't "
-"mind."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Because, after all, although Microsoft is the proprietary software company "
-"that has subjugated the most people — the others have subjugated fewer "
-"people, it's not for want of trying. <i>[Laughter]</i> They just haven't "
-"succeeded in subjugating as many people. So, the problem is not Microsoft "
-"and only Microsoft. Microsoft is just the biggest example of the problem "
-"we're trying to solve, which is proprietary software taking away users' "
-"freedom to cooperate and form an ethical society. So we shouldn't focus too "
-"much on Microsoft, you know, even though they did give me the opportunity "
-"for this platform. That doesn't make them all-important. They're not the "
-"be-all and end-all."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Earlier, you were discussing the philosophical "
-"differences between open source software and free software. How do you feel "
-"about the current trend of GNU/Linux distributions as they head towards "
-"supporting only Intel platforms? And the fact that it seems that less and "
-"less programmers are programming correctly, and making software that will "
-"compile anywhere? And making software that simply works on Intel systems?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I don't see an ethical issue there. Although, in "
-"fact, companies that make computers sometimes port the GNU/Linux system to "
-"it. HP apparently did this recently. And, they didn't bother paying for a "
-"port of Windows, because that would have cost too much. But getting "
-"GNU/Linux supported was, I think, five engineers for a few months. It was "
-"easily doable."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, of course, I encourage people to use <code>autoconf</code>, which is a "
-"GNU package that makes it easier to make your programs portable. I "
-"encourage them to do that. Or when somebody else fixes the bug that it "
-"didn't compile on that version of the system, and sends it to you, you "
-"should put it in. But I don't see that as an ethical issue."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Two comments. One is: Recently, you spoke at "
-"MIT. I read the transcript. And someone asked about patents, and you said "
-"that “patents are a totally different issue. I have no comments on "
-"that.”"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I actually have a lot to say about "
-"patents, but it takes an hour. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: I wanted to say this: It seems to me that there "
-"is an issue. I mean, there is a reason that companies call both patents and "
-"copyrights things like hard property in trying to get this concept which is, "
-"if they want to use the power of the State to create a course of monopoly "
-"for themselves. And so, what's common about these things is not that they "
-"revolve around the same issues, but that motivation is not really the public "
-"service issues but the motivation of companies to get a monopoly for their "
-"private interests."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I understand. But, well, I want to respond "
-"because there's not too much time. So I'd like to respond to that."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"You're right that that's what they want. But there's another reason why "
-"they want to use the term intellectual property. It's that they don't want "
-"to encourage people to think carefully about copyright issues or patent "
-"issues. Because copyright law and patent law are totally different, and the "
-"effects of software copyrighted and software patents are totally different."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Software patents are a restriction on programmers, prohibiting them from "
-"writing certain kinds of programs, whereas copyright doesn't do that. With "
-"copyright, at least if you wrote it yourself, you're allowed to distribute "
-"it. So, it's tremendously important to separate these issues."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"They have a little bit in common, at a very low level, and everything else "
-"is different. So, please, to encourage clear thinking, discuss copyright or "
-"discuss patents. But don't discuss intellectual property. I don't have an "
-"opinion on intellectual property. I have opinions on copyrights and patents "
-"and software."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You mentioned at the beginning that a functional "
-"language, like recipes, are computer programs. There's a cross a little bit "
-"different than other kinds of language created on. This is also causing a "
-"problem in the DVD case."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: The issues are partly similar but partly "
-"different, for things that are not functional in nature. Part of the issue "
-"transfers but not all of it. Unfortunately, that's another hour speech. I "
-"don't have time to go into it. But I would say that all functional works "
-"ought to be free in the same sense as software. You know, textbooks, "
-"manuals, dictionaries, and recipes, and so on."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: I was just wondering on online music. There are "
-"similarities and differences created all through."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I'd say that the minimum freedom that we "
-"should have for any kind of published information is the freedom to "
-"non-commercially redistribute it, verbatim. For functional works, we need "
-"the freedom to commercially publish a modified version, because that's "
-"tremendously useful to society. For non-functional works, you know, things "
-"that are to entertain, or to be aesthetic, or to state a certain person's "
-"views, you know, perhaps they shouldn't be modified. And, perhaps that "
-"means that it's OK, to have copyright covering all commercial distribution "
-"of them."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Please remember that according to the U.S. Constitution, the purpose of "
-"copyright is to benefit the public. It is to modify the behavior of certain "
-"private parties, so that they will publish more books. And the benefit of "
-"this is that society gets to discuss issues and learn. And, you know, we "
-"have literature. We have scientific works. The purpose is encourage that. "
-"Copyrights do not exist for the sake of authors, let alone for the sake of "
-"publishers. They exist for the sake of readers and all those who benefit "
-"from the communication of information that happens when people write and "
-"others read. And that goal I agree with."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But in the age of the computer networks, the method is no longer tenable, "
-"because it now requires draconian laws that invade everybody's privacy and "
-"terrorize everyone. You know, years in prison for sharing with your "
-"neighbor. It wasn't like that in the age of the printing press. Then "
-"copyright was an industrial regulation. It restricted publishers. Now, "
-"it's a restriction imposed by the publishers on the public. So, the power "
-"relationship is turned around 180 degrees, even if it's the same law."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: So you can have the same thing — but like "
-"in making music from other music?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. That is an interesting …"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: And unique, new works, you know, it's still a lot "
-"of cooperation."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: It is. And I think that probably requires some "
-"kind of fair use concept. Certainly making a few seconds of sample and "
-"using that in making some musical work, obviously that should be fair use. "
-"Even the standard idea of fair use includes that, if you think about it. "
-"Whether courts agree, I'm not sure, but they should. That wouldn't be a "
-"real change in the system as it has existed."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: What do you think about publishing public "
-"information in proprietary formats?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, it shouldn't be. I mean, the government "
-"should never require citizens to use a non-free program to access, to "
-"communicate with the government in any way, in either direction."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: I have been, what I will now say, a GNU/Linux "
-"user…"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Thank you. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: …for the past four years. The one thing "
-"that has been problematical for me and is something that is essential, I "
-"think, to all of us, is browsing the web."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: One thing that has been decidedly a weakness in "
-"using a GNU/Linux system has been browsing the web, because the prevailing "
-"tool for that, Netscape…"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: …is not free software."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Let me respond to this. I want to get to the point, for the sake of getting "
-"in more. So, yes. There has been a terrible tendency for people to use "
-"Netscape Navigator on their GNU/Linux systems. And, in fact all the "
-"commercially packaged systems come with it. So this is an ironic situation: "
-"we worked so hard to make a free operating system, and now, if you go to the "
-"store, and you can find versions of GNU/Linux there, most of them are called "
-"Linux, and they're not free. Oh, well, part of them is. But then, there's "
-"Netscape Navigator, and maybe other non-free programs as well. So, it's "
-"very hard to actually find a free system, unless you know what you're "
-"doing. Or, of course, you can not install Netscape Navigator."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, in fact, there have been free web browsers for many years. There is a "
-"free web browser that I used to use called Lynx. It's a free web browser "
-"that is non-graphical; it's text-only. This has a tremendous advantage, in "
-"you don't see the ads. <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But anyway, there is a free graphical project called Mozilla, which is now "
-"getting to the point where you can use it. And I occasionally use it."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 has been very good."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, OK. So that's another free graphical "
-"browser. So, we're finally solving that problem, I guess."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk to me about that "
-"philosophical/ethical division between free software and open source? Do you "
-"feel that those are irreconcilable? …"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<i>[Recording switches tapes; end of question and start of answer is "
-"missing]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: … to a freedom, and ethics. Or whether "
-"you just say, Well, I hope that you companies will decide it's more "
-"profitable to let us be allowed to do these things."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, as I said, in a lot of practical work, it doesn't really matter what a "
-"person's politics are. When a person offers to help the GNU project, we "
-"don't say: “You have to agree with our politics.” We say that in "
-"a GNU package, you've got to call the system GNU/Linux, and you've got to "
-"call it free software. What you say when you're not speaking to the GNU "
-"Project, that's up to you."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: The company, IBM, started a campaign for "
-"government agencies, to sell their big new machines, that they used Linux as "
-"selling point, and say Linux."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, of course, it's really the GNU/Linux "
-"systems. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: That's right! Well, tell the top sales person. "
-"He doesn't know anything for GNU."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I have to tell who?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: The top sales person."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh yes. The problem is that they've already "
-"carefully decided what they want to say for reasons of their advantage. And "
-"the issue of what is a more accurate, or fair, or correct way to describe it "
-"is not the primary issue that matters to a company like that. Now, some "
-"small companies, yes, there'll be a boss. And if the boss is inclined to "
-"think about things like that, he might make a decision that way. Not a "
-"giant corporation though. It's a shame, you know."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"There's another more important and more substantive issue about what IBM is "
-"doing. They're saying that they're putting a billion dollars into "
-"“Linux”. But perhaps, I should also put quotes around "
-"“into”, as well, because some of that money is paying people to "
-"develop free software. That really is a contribution to our community. But "
-"other parts is paying to pay people to write proprietary software, or port "
-"proprietary software to run on top of GNU/Linux, and that is <em>not</em> a "
-"contribution to our community. But IBM is lumping that altogether into "
-"this. Some of it might be advertising, which is partly a contribution, even "
-"if it's partly wrong. So, it's a complicated situation. Some of what "
-"they're doing is contribution and some is not. And some is sort is "
-"somewhat, but not exactly. And you can't just lump it altogether and think, "
-"Wow! Whee! A billion dollars from IBM. <i>[Laughter]</i> That's "
-"oversimplification."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk a little bit more about the thinking "
-"that went into the general public license?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, here's the — I'm sorry, I'm answering "
-"his question now. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Do you want to reserve some time for the press "
-"conference? Or do you want to continue here?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Who is here for the press conference? Not a lot "
-"of press. Oh, three — OK. Can you afford if we — if I go on "
-"answering everybody's questions for another ten minutes or so? OK. So, "
-"we'll go on answering everybody's questions."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, the thinking that went into the GNU GPL? Part of it was that I wanted to "
-"protect the freedom of the community against the phenomena that I just "
-"described with X Windows, which has happened with other free programs as "
-"well. In fact, when I was thinking about this issue, X Windows was not yet "
-"released. But I had seen this problem happen in other free programs. For "
-"instance, TeX. I wanted to make sure that the users would all have "
-"freedom. Otherwise, I realized that I might write a program, and maybe a "
-"lot of people would use the program, but they wouldn't have freedom. And "
-"what's the point of that?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But the other issue I was thinking about was, I wanted to give the community "
-"a feeling that it was not a doormat, a feeling that it was not prey to any "
-"parasite who would wander along. If you don't use copyleft, you are "
-"essentially saying: <i>[speaking meekly]</i> “Take my code. Do what "
-"you want. I don't say no.” So, anybody can come along and say: "
-"<i>[speaking very firmly]</i> “Ah, I want to make a non-free version "
-"of this. I'll just take it.” And, then, of course, they probably make "
-"some improvements, those non-free versions might appeal to users, and "
-"replace the free versions. And then, what have you accomplished? You've "
-"only made a donation to some proprietary software project."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And when people see that that's happening, when people see, other people "
-"take what I do, and they don't ever give back, it can be demoralizing. And, "
-"this is not just speculation. I had seen that happen. That was part of "
-"what happened to wipe out the old community that I belonged to the '70's. "
-"Some people started becoming uncooperative. And we assumed that they were "
-"profiting thereby. They certainly acted as if they thought they were "
-"profiting. And we realized that they can just take off cooperation and not "
-"give back. And there was nothing we could do about it. It was very "
-"discouraging. We, those of us who didn't like the trend, even had a "
-"discussion and we couldn't come up with any idea for how we could stop it."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, the GPL is designed to stop that. And it says, Yes, you are welcome to "
-"join the community and use this code. You can use it to do all sorts of "
-"jobs. But, if you release a modified version, you've got to release that to "
-"our community, as part of our community, as part of the free world."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, in fact, there are still many ways that people can get the benefit of "
-"our work and not contribute, like you don't have to write any software. "
-"Lots of people use GNU/Linux and don't write any software. There's no "
-"requirement that you've got to do anything for us. But if you do a certain "
-"kind of thing, you've got to contribute to it. So what that means is that "
-"our community is not a doormat. And I think that that helped give people "
-"the strength to feel, Yes, we won't just be trampled underfoot by "
-"everybody. We'll stand up to this."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Yes, my question was, considering free but not "
-"copylefted software, since anybody can pick it up and make it proprietary, "
-"is it not possible also for someone to pick it up and make some changes and "
-"release the whole thing under the GPL?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, it is possible."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Then, that would make all future copies then be "
-"GPL'ed."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: From that branch. But here's why we don't do "
-"that."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Hmm?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Here's why we don't generally do that. Let me "
-"explain."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: OK, yes."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We could, if we wanted to, take X Windows, and "
-"make a GPL-covered copy and make changes in that. But there's a much larger "
-"group of people working on improving X Windows and <em>not</em> GPL-ing it. "
-"So, if we did that, we would be forking from them. And that's not very nice "
-"treatment of them. And, they <em>are</em> a part of our community, "
-"contributing to our community."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Second, it would backfire against us, because they're doing a lot more work "
-"on X than we would be. So, our version would be inferior to theirs, and "
-"people wouldn't use it, which means, why go to the trouble at all?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Mmm hmm."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: So when a person has written some improvement to "
-"X Windows, what I say that person should do is cooperate with the X "
-"development team. Send it to them and let them use it their way. Because "
-"they are developing a very important piece of free software. It's good for "
-"us to cooperate with them."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Except, considering X, in particular, about two "
-"years ago, the X Consortium that was far into the non-free open "
-"source…"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually it <em>wasn't</em> open sourced. "
-"It wasn't open sourced, either. They may have said it was. I can't "
-"remember if they said that or not. But it wasn't open source. It was "
-"restricted. You couldn't commercially distribute, I think. Or you couldn't "
-"commercially distribute a modified version, or something like that. There "
-"was a restriction that's considered unacceptable by both the Free Software "
-"movement and the Open Source movement."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And yes, that's what using a non-copyleft license leaves you open to. In "
-"fact, the X Consortium, they had a very rigid policy. They say: If your "
-"program if copylefted even a little bit, we won't distribute it at all. We "
-"won't put it in our distribution."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, a lot of people were pressured in this way into not copylefting. And "
-"the result was that all of their software was wide open, later on. When the "
-"same people who had pressured a developer to be too all-permissive, then the "
-"X people later said, All right, now we can put on restrictions, which wasn't "
-"very ethical of them."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, given the situation, would we really want to scrape up the resources to "
-"maintain an alternate GPL-covered version of X? And it wouldn't make any "
-"sense to do that. There are so many other things we need to do. Let's do "
-"them instead. We can cooperate with the X developers."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Do you have a comment, is the GNU a trademark? "
-"And is it practical to include it as part of the GNU General Public License "
-"allowing trademarks?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We are, actually, applying for trademark "
-"registration on GNU. But it wouldn't really have anything to do with that. "
-"It's a long story to explain why."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You could require the trademark be displayed with "
-"GPL-covered programs."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: No, I don't think so. The licenses cover "
-"individual programs. And when a given program is part of the GNU Project, "
-"nobody lies about that. The name of the system as a whole is a different "
-"issue. And this is an aside. It's not worth discussing more."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: If there was a button that you could push and "
-"force all companies to free their software, would you press it?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, I would only use this for published "
-"software. You know, I think that people have the right to write a program "
-"privately and use it. And that includes companies. This is privacy issue. "
-"And it's true, there can be times when it is wrong to do that, like if it is "
-"tremendously helpful to humanity, and you are withholding it from "
-"humanity. That is a wrong but that's a different kind of wrong. It's a "
-"different issue, although it's in the same area."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But yes, I think all published software should be free software. And "
-"remember, when it's not free software, that's because of government "
-"intervention. The government is intervening to make it non-free. The "
-"government is creating special legal powers to hand out to the owners of the "
-"programs, so that they can have the police stop us from using the programs "
-"in certain ways. So I would certainly like to end that."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Richard's presentation has invariably generated "
-"an enormous amount of intellectual energy. I would suggest that some of it "
-"should be directed to using, and possibly writing, free software."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"We should close the proceedings shortly. I want to say that Richard has "
-"injected into a profession which is known in the general public for its "
-"terminal apolitical nerditude a level of political and moral discussion "
-"which is, I think, unprecedented in our profession. And we owe him very big "
-"for this. I'd like to note to people that there is a break."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<i>[Applause]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: You are free to leave at any time, you "
-"know. <i>[Laughter]</i> I'm not holding you prisoner here."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<i>[Audience adjourns…]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<i>[overlapping conversations…]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: One final thing. Our website: www.gnu.org"
-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><div><p>
-msgid ""
-"Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a "
-"href=\"mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></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";><address@hidden></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";>
-#
-#. <address@hidden></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><div><p>
-msgid ""
-"Please see the <a "
-"href=\"/server/standards/README.translations.html\">Translations README</a> "
-"for information on coordinating and submitting translations of this article."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <div><p>
-msgid "Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman"
-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 ""
Index: events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist
===================================================================
RCS file: events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist
diff -N events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist
--- events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist 22 May 2015 04:59:23 -0000
1.10
+++ /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
@@ -1,18 +0,0 @@
-<!-- begin translist file -->
-<!--#set var="TRANSLATION_LIST"
-value='<div id="translations">
-<p>
-<span dir="ltr" class="original"><a lang="en" hreflang="en"
href="/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.en.html">English</a> [en]</span>
-<span dir="ltr"><a lang="cs" hreflang="cs"
href="/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.cs.html">Äesky</a> [cs]</span>
-<span dir="ltr"><a lang="fr" hreflang="fr"
href="/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.html">français</a> [fr]</span>
-<span dir="ltr"><a lang="pl" hreflang="pl"
href="/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.html">polski</a> [pl]</span>
-<span dir="ltr"><a lang="tr" hreflang="tr"
href="/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.html">Türkçe</a> [tr]</span>
-</p>
-</div>' -->
-<link rel="alternate" type="text/html"
href="/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html" hreflang="x-default" />
-<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" lang="en" hreflang="en"
href="/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.en.html" title="English" />
-<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" lang="cs" hreflang="cs"
href="/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.cs.html" title="Äesky" />
-<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" lang="fr" hreflang="fr"
href="/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.html" title="français" />
-<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" lang="pl" hreflang="pl"
href="/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.html" title="polski" />
-<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" lang="tr" hreflang="tr"
href="/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.html" title="Türkçe" />
-<!-- end translist file -->
Index: events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr-en.html
diff -N events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr-en.html
--- events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr-en.html 20 Feb 2015 17:28:08
-0000 1.1
+++ /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
@@ -1,2127 +0,0 @@
-<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
-<title>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation
-- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
-<!--#include virtual="/events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist" -->
-<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
-<h2>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation</h2>
-
-<blockquote><p>Transcript of
-Richard M. Stallman's speech,
-“Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation”,
-given at New York University in New York, NY,
-on 29 May 2001</p></blockquote>
-
-<div class="announcement">
-<blockquote><p>A <a href="/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt">plain
-text</a> version of this transcript and
-a <a href="/events/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt">summary</a> of the speech
-are also available.</p></blockquote>
-</div>
-
-<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: I'm Mike Uretsky. I'm over at the Stern
-School of Business. I'm also one of the Co-Directors of the Center
-for Advanced Technology. And, on behalf of all of us in the Computer
-Science Department, I want to welcome you here. I want to say a few
-comments, before I turn it over to Ed, who is going to introduce the
-speaker.</p>
-
-<p>The role of a university is a place to foster debate and to have
-interesting discussions. And the role of a major university is to
-have particularly interesting discussions. And this particular
-presentation, this seminar falls right into that mold. I find the
-discussion of open source particularly interesting. In a sense
-… <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I do free software. Open source is a
-different movement. <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: When I first started in the field in the
-'60's, basically software was free. And we went in cycles. It became
-free, and then software manufacturers, in the need to expand their
-markets, pushed it in other directions. A lot of the developments
-that took place with the entry of the PC moved in exactly the same
-kind of a cycle.</p>
-
-<p>There's a very interesting French philosopher, Pierre Levy, who
-talks about movement to this direction and who talks about the move
-into cyberspace as not only relating to technology but also relating
-to social restructuring, to political restructuring, through a change
-in the kinds of relationships that will improve the well-being of
-mankind. And we're hoping that this debate is a movement in that
-direction, that this debate is something that cuts across a lot of the
-disciplines that normally act as solace within the University. We're
-looking forward to some very interesting discussions. Ed?</p>
-
-<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: I'm Ed Schonberg from the Computer
-Science Department at the Courant Institute. Let me welcome you all
-to this event. Introducers are usually, and particularly, a useless
-aspect of public presentations, but in this case, actually, they serve
-a useful purpose, as Mike easily demonstrated, because an introducer
-for instance, told him, by making inaccurate comments, can allow him
-to straighten out and correct and <i>[Laughter]</i> sharpen
-considerably the parameters of the debate.</p>
-
-<p>So, let me make the briefest possible introduction to somebody who
-doesn't need one. Richard is the perfect example of somebody who, by
-acting locally, started thinking globally from problems concerning the
-unavailability of source code for printer drivers at the AI Lab many
-years ago. He has developed a coherent philosophy that has forced all
-of us to re-examine our ideas of how software is produced, of what
-intellectual property means, and what the software community actually
-represents. Let me welcome Richard Stallman. <i>[Applause]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can someone lend me a
-watch? <i>[Laughter]</i> Thank you. So, I'd like to thank Microsoft
-for providing me the opportunity to <i>[Laughter]</i> be on this
-platform. For the past few weeks, I have felt like an author whose
-book was fortuitously banned somewhere. <i>[Laughter]</i> Except that
-all the articles about it are giving the wrong author's name, because
-Microsoft describes the GNU GPL as an open source license, and most of
-the press coverage followed suit. Most people, of course just
-innocently don't realize that our work has nothing to do with open
-source, that in fact we did most of it before people even coined the
-term open source.</p>
-
-<p>We are in the free software movement, and I'm going to speak about
-what the free software movement is about, what it means, what we have
-done, and, because this is partly sponsored by a school of business,
-I'll say some things more than I usually do about how free software
-relates to business, and some other areas of social life.</p>
-
-<p>Now, some of you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps
-you cook. And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably
-use recipes. And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the
-experience of getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing
-it. And you've probably also had the experience — unless you're
-a total neophyte — of changing a recipe. You know, it says
-certain things, but you don't have to do exactly that. You can leave
-out some ingredients. Add some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms.
-Put in less salt because your doctor said you should cut down on salt
-— whatever. You can even make bigger changes according to your
-skill. And if you've made changes in a recipe, and you cook it for
-your friends, and they like it, one of your friends might say,
-“Hey, could I have the recipe?” And then, what do you do?
-You could write down your modified version of the recipe and make a
-copy for your friend. These are the natural things to do with
-functionally useful recipes of any kind.</p>
-
-<p>Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program. A computer
-program's a lot like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to
-get some result that you want. So it's just as natural to do those
-same things with computer programs — hand a copy to your friend.
-Make changes in it because the job it was written to do isn't exactly
-what you want. It did a great job for somebody else, but your job is
-a different job. And after you've changed it, that's likely to be
-useful for other people. Maybe they have a job to do that's like the
-job you do. So they ask, “Hey, can I have a copy?” Of
-course, if you're a nice person, you're going to give a copy. That's
-the way to be a decent person.</p>
-
-<p>So imagine what it would be like if recipes were packaged inside
-black boxes. You couldn't see what ingredients they're using, let
-alone change them, and imagine if you made a copy for a friend, they
-would call you a pirate and try to put you in prison for years. That
-world would create tremendous outrage from all the people who are used
-to sharing recipes. But that is exactly what the world of proprietary
-software is like. A world in which common decency towards other
-people is prohibited or prevented.</p>
-
-<p>Now, why did I notice this? I noticed this because I had the good
-fortune in the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who
-shared software. Now, this community could trace its ancestry
-essentially back to the beginning of computing. In the 1970's,
-though, it was a bit rare for there to be a community where people
-shared software. And, in fact, this was sort of an extreme case,
-because in the lab where I worked, the entire operating system was
-software developed by the people in our community, and we'd share any
-of it with anybody. Anybody was welcome to come and take a look, and
-take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do. There were no
-copyright notices on these programs. Cooperation was our way of life.
-And we were secure in that way of life. We didn't fight for it. We
-didn't have to fight for it. We just lived that way. And, as far as
-we knew, we would just keep on living that way. So there was free
-software, but there was no free software movement.</p>
-
-<p>But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that
-happened to it. Ultimately it was wiped out. Ultimately, the PDP-10
-computer which we used for all our work was discontinued. And you
-know, our system — the Incompatible Timesharing System —
-was written starting in the '60's, so it was written in assembler
-language. That's what you used to write an operating system in the
-'60's. So, of course, assembler language is for one particular
-computer architecture; if that gets discontinued, all your work turns
-into dust — it's useless. And that's what happened to us. The
-20 years or so of work of our community turned into dust.</p>
-
-<p>But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me,
-helped me see what to do, helped prepare me to see what to do when
-this happened, because at certain point, Xerox gave the Artificial
-Intelligence Lab, where I worked, a laser printer, and this was a
-really handsome gift, because it was the first time anybody outside
-Xerox had a laser printer. It was very fast, printed a page a second,
-very fine in many respects, but it was unreliable, because it was
-really a high-speed office copier that had been modified into a
-printer. And, you know, copiers jam, but there's somebody there to
-fix them. The printer jammed and nobody saw. So it stayed jammed for
-a long time.</p>
-
-<p>Well, we had an idea for how to deal with this problem. Change it
-so that whenever the printer gets a jam, the machine that runs the
-printer can tell our timesharing machine, and tell the users who are
-waiting for printouts, or something like that, you know, tell them, go
-fix the printer. Because if they only knew it was jammed, of course,
-if you're waiting for a printout and you know that the printer is
-jammed, you don't want to sit and wait forever, you're going to go fix
-it.</p>
-
-<p>But at that point, we were completely stymied, because the software
-that ran that printer was not free software. It had come with the
-printer, and it was just a binary. We couldn't have the source code;
-Xerox wouldn't let us have the source code. So, despite our skill as
-programmers — after all, we had written our own timesharing
-system — we were completely helpless to add this feature to the
-printer software.</p>
-
-<p>And we just had to suffer with waiting. It would take an hour or
-two to get your printout because the machine would be jammed most of
-the time. And only once in a while — you'd wait an hour
-figuring “I know it's going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and
-go collect my printout,” and then you'd see that it had been
-jammed the whole time, and in fact, nobody else had fixed it. So
-you'd fix it and you'd go wait another half hour. Then, you'd come
-back, and you'd see it jammed again — before it got to your
-output. It would print three minutes and be jammed thirty minutes.
-Frustration up the whazzoo. But the thing that made it worse was
-knowing that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his own
-selfishness, was blocking us, obstructing us from improving the
-software. So, of course, we felt some resentment.</p>
-
-<p>And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a
-copy of that software. So I was visiting there later, so I went to
-his office and I said, “Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of
-the printer source code?” And he said “No, I promised not
-to give you a copy.” <i>[Laughter]</i> I was stunned. I was so
-— I was angry, and I had no idea how I could do justice to it.
-All I could think of was to turn around on my heel and walk out of his
-room. Maybe I slammed the door. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I thought
-about it later on, because I realized that I was seeing not just an
-isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was important and affected
-a lot of people.</p>
-
-<p>This was — for me — I was lucky, I only got a taste of
-it, but other people had to live in this all the time. So I thought
-about it at length. See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with
-us — his colleagues at MIT. He had betrayed us. But he didn't
-just do it to us. Chances are he did it to you too. <i>[Pointing at
-member of audience.]</i> And I think, mostly likely, he did it to you
-too. <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.] [Laughter]</i> And
-he probably did it to you as well. <i>[Pointing to third member of
-audience.]</i> He probably did it to most of the people here in this
-room — except a few, maybe, who weren't born yet in 1980.
-Because he had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about the
-entire population of the Planet Earth. He had signed a non-disclosure
-agreement.</p>
-
-<p>Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure
-agreement, and it taught me an important lesson — a lesson
-that's important because most programmers never learn it. You see,
-this was my first encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was
-the victim. I, and my whole lab, were the victims. And the lesson it
-taught me was that non-disclosure agreements have victims. They're
-not innocent. They're not harmless. Most programmers first encounter
-a non-disclosure agreement when they're invited to sign one. And
-there's always some temptation — some goody they're going to get
-if they sign. So, they make up excuses. They say, “Well, he's
-never going to get a copy no matter what, so why shouldn't I join the
-conspiracy to deprive him?” They say, “This is the way
-it's always done. Who am I to go against it?” They say,
-“If I don't sign this, someone else will.” Various excuses
-to gag their consciences.</p>
-
-<p>But when somebody invited me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, my
-conscience was already sensitized. It remembered how angry I had
-been, when somebody promised not to help me and my whole lab solve our
-problem. And I couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to
-somebody else who had never done me any harm. You know, if somebody
-asked me to promise not to share some useful information with a hated
-enemy, I would have said yes. You know? If somebody's done something
-bad, he deserves it. But, strangers — they haven't done me any
-harm. How could they deserve that kind of mistreatment? You can't
-let yourself start treating just anybody and everybody badly. Then
-you become a predator on society. So I said, “Thank you very
-much for offering me this nice software package. But I can't accept
-it in good conscience, on the conditions you are demanding, so I will
-do without it. Thank you so much.” And so, I have never
-knowingly signed a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful
-technical information such as software.</p>
-
-<p>Now there are other kinds of information which raise different
-ethical issues. For instance, there's personal information. You
-know, if you wanted to talk with me about what was happening between
-you and your boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody —
-you know, I could keep — I could agree to keep that a secret for
-you, because that's not generally useful technical information. At
-least, it's probably not generally useful. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>There is a small chance — and it's a possibility though
-— that you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex
-technique, <i>[Laughter]</i> and I would then feel a moral
-duty <i>[Laughter]</i> to pass it onto the rest of humanity, so that
-everyone could get the benefit of it. So, I'd have to put a proviso
-in that promise, you know? If it's just details about who wants this,
-and who's angry at whom, and things like that — soap opera
-— that I can keep private for you, but something that humanity
-could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't withhold. You see,
-the purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information
-for humanity to help people live their lives better. If we promise to
-withhold that information — if we keep it secret — then we
-are betraying the mission of our field. And this, I decided I
-shouldn't do.</p>
-
-<p>But, meanwhile my community had collapsed, and that was collapsing,
-and that left me in a bad situation. You see, the whole Incompatible
-Timesharing System was obsolete, because the PDP-10 was obsolete, and
-so there was no way that I could continue working as an operating
-system developer the way that I had been doing it. That depended on
-being part of the community using the community software and improving
-it. That no longer was a possibility, and that gave me a moral
-dilemma. What was I going to do? Because the most obvious
-possibility meant to go against that decision I had made. The most
-obvious possibility was to adapt myself to the change in the world.
-To accept that things were different, and that I'd just have to give
-up those principles and start signing non-disclosure agreements for
-proprietary operating systems, and most likely writing proprietary
-software as well. But I realized that that way I could have fun
-coding, and I could make money — especially if I did it other
-than at MIT — but at the end, I'd have to look back at my career
-and say, “I've spent my life building walls to divide
-people,” and I would have been ashamed of my life.</p>
-
-<p>So I looked for another alternative, and there was an obvious one.
-I could leave the software field and do something else. Now I had no
-other special noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a
-waiter. <i>[Laughter]</i> Not at a fancy restaurant; they wouldn't
-hire me, <i>[Laughter]</i> but I could be a waiter somewhere. And
-many programmers, they say to me, “The people who hire
-programmers demand this, this and this. If I don't do those things,
-I'll starve.” It's literally the word they use. Well, you know,
-as a waiter, you're not going to starve. <i>[Laughter]</i> So,
-really, they're in no danger. But — and this is important, you
-see — because sometimes you can justify doing something that
-hurts other people by saying otherwise something worse is going to
-happen to me. You know, if you were <em>really</em> going to starve,
-you'd be justified in writing proprietary software. <i>[Laughter]</i>
-If somebody's pointing a gun at you, then I would say, it's
-forgivable. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, I had found a way that I could
-survive without doing something unethical, so that excuse was not
-available. So I realized, though, that being a waiter would be no fun
-for me, and it would be wasting my skills as an operating system
-developer. It would avoid misusing my skills. Developing proprietary
-software would be misusing my skills. Encouraging other people to
-live in the world of proprietary software would be misusing my skills.
-So it's better to waste them than misuse them, but it's still not
-really good.</p>
-
-<p>So for those reasons, I decided to look for some other alternative.
-What can an operating system developer do that would actually improve
-the situation, make the world a better place? And I realized that an
-operating system developer was exactly what was needed. The problem,
-the dilemma, existed for me and for everyone else because all of the
-available operating systems for modern computers were proprietary.
-The free operating systems were for old, obsolete computers, right?
-So for the modern computers — if you wanted to get a modern
-computer and use it, you were forced into a proprietary operating
-system. So if an operating system developer wrote another operating
-system, and then said, “Everybody come and share this; you're
-welcome to this” — that would give everybody a way out of
-the dilemma, another alternative. So I realized that there was
-something I could do that would solve the problem. I had just the
-right skills to be able to do it. And it was the most useful thing I
-could possibly imagine that I'd be able to do with my life. And it
-was a problem that no one else was trying to solve. It was just sort
-of sitting there, getting worse, and nobody was there but me. So I
-felt, “I'm elected. I have to work on this. If not me,
-who?” So I decided I would develop a free operating system, or
-die trying … of old age, of course. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>So, of course I had to decide what kind of operating system it
-should be. There are some technical design decisions to be made. I
-decided to make the system compatible with Unix for a number of
-reasons. First of all, I had just seen one operating system that I
-really loved become obsolete because it was written for one particular
-kind of computer. I didn't want that to happen again. We needed to
-have a portable system. Well, Unix was a portable system. So if I
-followed the design of Unix, I had a pretty good chance that I could
-make a system that would also be portable and workable. And
-furthermore, why <i>[Tape unclear]</i> be compatible with it in the
-details. The reason is, users hate incompatible changes. If I had
-just designed the system in my favorite way — which I would have
-loved doing, I'm sure — I would have produced something that was
-incompatible. You know, the details would be different. So, if I
-wrote the system, then the users would have said to me, “Well,
-this is very nice, but it's incompatible. It will be too much work to
-switch. We can't afford that much trouble just to use your system
-instead of Unix, so we'll stay with Unix,” they would have
-said.</p>
-
-<p>Now, if I wanted to actually create a community where there would
-be people in it, people using this free system, and enjoying the
-benefits of liberty and cooperation, I had to make a system people
-would use, a system that they would find easy to switch to, that would
-not have an obstacle making it fail at the very beginning. Now,
-making the system upward compatible with Unix actually made all the
-immediate design decisions, because Unix consists of many pieces, and
-they communicate through interfaces that are more or less documented.
-So if you want to be compatible with Unix, you have to replace each
-piece, one by one, with a compatible piece. So the remaining design
-decisions are inside one piece, and they could be made later by
-whoever decides to write that piece. They didn't have to be made at
-the outset.</p>
-
-<p>So all we had to do to start work was find a name for the system.
-Now, we hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program,
-because thinking of people being amused by the name is half the fun of
-writing the program. <i>[Laughter]</i> And we had a tradition of
-recursive acronyms, to say that the program that you're writing is
-similar to some existing program. You can give it a recursive acronym
-name which says: this one's not the other. So, for instance, there
-were many Tico text editors in the '60's and '70's, and they were
-generally called something-or-other Tico. Then one clever hacker
-called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico — the first recursive
-acronym. In 1975, I developed the first Emacs text editor, and there
-were many imitations of Emacs, and a lot of them were called
-something-or-other Emacs, but one was called Fine, for Fine Is Not
-Emacs, and there was Sine, for Sine Is Not Emacs, and Eine for Ina Is
-Not Emacs, and MINCE for Mince Is Not Complete
-Emacs. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was a stripped down imitation. And
-then, Eine was almost completely rewritten, and the new version was
-called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>So I looked for a recursive acronym for Something is not Unix. And
-I tried all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word.
-<i>[Laughter]</i> Hmm, try another way. I made a contraction. That
-way I could have a three-letter acronym, for Something's not Unix.
-And I tried letters, and I came across the word “GNU”
-— the word “GNU” is the funniest word in the English
-language. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was it. Of course, the reason it's
-funny is that according to the dictionary, it's pronounced
-“new”. You see? And so that's why people use it for a
-lot of wordplay. Let me tell you, this is the name of an animal that
-lives in Africa. And the African pronunciation had a click sound in
-it. <i>[Laughter]</i> Maybe still does. And so, the European
-colonists, when they got there, they didn't bother learning to say
-this click sound. So they just left it out, and they wrote a
-“G” which meant “there's another sound that's
-supposed to be here which we are not
-pronouncing.” <i>[Laughter]</i> So, tonight I'm leaving for
-South Africa, and I have begged them, I hope they're going to find
-somebody who can teach me to pronounce click sounds, <i>[Laughter]</i>
-so that I'll know how to pronounce GNU the correct way, when it's the
-animal.</p>
-
-<p>But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is
-“guh-NEW” — pronounce the hard “G”. If
-you talk about the “new” operating system, you'll get
-people very confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years
-now, so it is not new any more. <i>[Laughter]</i> But it still is,
-and always will be, GNU — no matter how many people call it
-Linux by mistake. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces
-of GNU. They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities
-though. And, at the time, I thought we would write all these pieces,
-and make an entire GNU system, and then we'd say, “Come and get
-it”, and people would start to use it. That's not what
-happened. The first pieces I wrote were just equally good
-replacements, with fewer bugs for some pieces of Unix, but they
-weren't tremendously exciting. Nobody particularly wanted to get them
-and install them. But then, in September 1984, I started writing GNU
-Emacs, which was my second implementation of Emacs, and by early 1985,
-it was working. I could use it for all my editing, which was a big
-relief, because I had no intention of learning to use VI, the Unix
-editor. <i>[Laughter]</i> So, until that time, I did my editing on
-some other machine, and saved the files through the network, so that I
-could test them. But when GNU Emacs was running well enough for me to
-use it, it was also — other people wanted to use it too.</p>
-
-<p>So I had to work out the details of distribution. Of course, I put
-a copy in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people
-who were on the net They could then just pull over a tar file, but a
-lot of programmers then even were not on the net in 1985. They were
-sending me emails saying “How can I get a copy?” I had to
-decide what I would answer them. Well, I could have said, I want to
-spend my time writing more GNU software, not writing tapes, so please
-find a friend who's on the internet and who is willing to download it
-and put it on a tape for you. And I'm sure people would have found
-some friends, sooner or later, you know. They would have got copies.
-But I had no job. In fact, I've never had a job since quitting MIT in
-January 1984. So, I was looking for some way I could make money
-through my work on free software, and therefore I started a free
-software business. I announced, “Send me $150 dollars, and I'll
-mail you a tape of Emacs.” And the orders began dribbling in.
-By the middle of the year they were trickling in.</p>
-
-<p>I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month. And, if necessary, I could
-have lived on just that, because I've always lived cheaply. I live
-like a student, basically. And I like that, because it means that
-money is not telling me what to do. I can do what I think is
-important for me to do. It freed me to do what seemed worth doing.
-So make a real effort to avoid getting sucked into all the expensive
-lifestyle habits of typical Americans. Because if you do that, then
-people with the money will dictate what you do with your life. You
-won't be able to do what's really important to you.</p>
-
-<p>So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, “What do you
-mean it's free software if it costs $150
-dollars?” <i>[Laughter]</i> Well, the reason they asked this was
-that they were confused by the multiple meanings of the English word
-“free”. One meaning refers to price, and another meaning
-refers to freedom. When I speak of free software, I'm referring to
-freedom, not price. So think of free speech, not free
-beer. <i>[Laughter]</i> Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many years
-of my life to making sure programmers got less money. That's not my
-goal. I'm a programmer and I don't mind getting money myself. I
-won't dedicate my whole life to getting it, but I don't mind getting
-it. And I'm not — and therefore, ethics is the same for
-everyone. I'm not against some other programmer getting money either.
-I don't want prices to be low. That's not the issue at all. The
-issue is freedom. Freedom for everyone who's using software, whether
-that person be a programmer or not.</p>
-
-<p>So at this point I should give you the definition of free software.
-I better get to some real details, you see, because just saying
-“I believe in freedom” is vacuous. There's so many
-different freedoms you could believe in, and they conflict with each
-other, so the real political question is: Which are the important
-freedoms, the freedoms that we must make sure everybody has?</p>
-
-<p>And now, I will give my answer to that question for the particular
-area of using software. A program is free software for you, a
-particular user, if you have the following freedoms:</p>
-
-<ul>
-<li>First, Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the program for any
-purpose, any way you like.</li>
-<li>Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
-program to suit your needs.</li>
-<li>Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
-copies of the program.</li>
-<li>And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
-publishing an improved version so others can get the benefit of your
-work.</li>
-</ul>
-
-<p>If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software,
-for you — and that's crucial. That's why I phrase it that way.
-I'll explain why later, when I talk about the GNU General Public
-License, but right now I'm explaining what free software means, which
-is a more basic question.</p>
-
-<p>So, Freedom Zero's pretty obvious. If you're not even allowed to
-run the program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive
-program. But as it happens, most programs will at least give you
-Freedom Zero. And Freedom Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of
-Freedoms One, Two, and Three — that's the way that copyright law
-works. So the freedoms that distinguish free software from typical
-software are Freedoms One, Two, and Three, so I'll say more about them
-and why they are important.</p>
-
-<p>Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
-software to suit your needs. This could mean fixing bugs. It could
-mean adding new features. It could mean porting it to a different
-computer system. It could mean translating all the error messages
-into Navajo. Any change you want to make, you should be free to
-make.</p>
-
-<p>Now, it's obvious that professional programmers can make use of
-this freedom very effectively, but not just them. Anybody of
-reasonable intelligence can learn a little programming. You know,
-there are hard jobs, and there are easy jobs, and most people are not
-going to learn enough to do hard jobs. But lots of people can learn
-enough to do easy jobs, just the way, you know, 50 years ago, lots and
-lots of American men learned to repair cars, which is what enabled the
-U.S. to have a motorized army in World War II and win. So, very
-important, having lots of people tinkering.</p>
-
-<p>And if you are a people person, and you really don't want to learn
-technology at all, that probably means that you have a lot of friends,
-and you're good at getting them to owe you favors. <i>[Laughter]</i>
-Some of them are probably programmers. So you can ask one of your
-programmer friends. “Would you please change this for me? Add
-this feature?” So, lots of people can benefit from it.</p>
-
-<p>Now, if you don't have this freedom, it causes practical, material
-harm to society. It makes you a prisoner of your software. I
-explained what that was like with regard to the laser printer. You
-know, it worked badly for us, and we couldn't fix it, because we were
-prisoners of our software.</p>
-
-<p>But it also affects people's morale. You know if the computer is
-constantly frustrating to use, and people are using it, their lives
-are going to be frustrating, and if they're using it in their jobs,
-their jobs are going to be frustrating; they're going to hate their
-jobs. And you know, people protect themselves from frustration by
-deciding not to care. So you end up with people whose attitude is,
-“Well, I showed up for work today. That's all I have to do. If
-I can't make progress, that's not my problem; that's the boss's
-problem.” And when this happens, it's bad for those people, and
-it's bad for society as a whole. That's Freedom One, the freedom to
-help yourself.</p>
-
-<p>Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
-copies of the program. Now, for beings that can think and learn,
-sharing useful knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship. When
-these beings use computers, this act of friendship takes the form of
-sharing software. Friends share with each other. Friends help each
-other. This is the nature of friendship. And, in fact, this spirit
-of goodwill — the spirit of helping your neighbor, voluntarily
-— is society's most important resource. It makes the difference
-between a livable society and a dog-eat-dog jungle. Its importance
-has been recognized by the world's major religions for thousands of
-years, and they explicitly try to encourage this attitude.</p>
-
-<p>When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach
-us this attitude — the spirit of sharing — by having us do
-it. They figured if we did it, we'd learn. So they said, “If
-you bring candy to school, you can't keep it all for yourself; you
-have to share some with the other kids.” Teaching us, the
-society was set up to teach, this spirit of cooperation. And why do
-you have to do that? Because people are not totally cooperative.
-That's one part of human nature, and there are other parts of human
-nature. There are lots of parts of human nature. So, if you want a
-better society, you've got to work to encourage the spirit of sharing.
-You know, it'll never get to be 100%. That's understandable. People
-have to take care of themselves too. But if we make it somewhat
-bigger, we're all better off.</p>
-
-<p>Nowadays, according to the U.S. Government, teachers are supposed
-to do the exact opposite. “Oh, Johnny, you brought software to
-school. Well, don't share it. Oh no. Sharing is wrong. Sharing
-means you're a pirate.”</p>
-
-<p>What do they mean when they say “pirate”? They're
-saying that helping your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking
-a ship. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>What would Buddha or Jesus say about that? Now, take your favorite
-religious leader. I don't know, maybe Manson would have said
-something different. <i>[Laughter]</i> Who knows what L. Ron Hubbard
-would say? But …</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Of course, he's dead. But they don't
-admit that. What?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: So are the others, also
-dead. <i>[Laughter] [Inaudible]</i> Charles Manson's also
-dead. <i>[Laughter]</i> They're dead, Jesus's dead, Buddha's
-dead…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, that's true. <i>[Laughter]</i> So
-I guess, in that regard, L. Ron Hubbard is no worse than the
-others. <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway — <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: L. Ron always used free software —
-it freed him from Zanu. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Anyway, so, I think this is actually the
-most important reason why software should be free: We can't afford to
-pollute society's most important resource. It's true that it's not a
-physical resource like clean air and clean water. It's a
-psycho-social resource, but it's just as real for all that, and it
-makes a tremendous difference to our lives. You see, the actions we
-take influence the thoughts of other people. When we go around
-telling people, “Don't share with each other”, if they
-listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's not a good one.
-That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor.</p>
-
-<p>Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just
-cause this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes
-waste — practical, material harm. If the program has an owner,
-and the owner arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay
-in order to be able to use it, some people are going to say,
-“Never mind, I'll do without it.” And that's waste,
-deliberately inflicted waste. And the interesting thing about
-software, of course, is that fewer users doesn't mean you have to make
-less stuff. You know, if fewer people buy cars, you can make fewer
-cars. There's a saving there. There are resources to be allocated,
-or not allocated, into making cars. So that you can say that having a
-price on a car is a good thing. It prevents people from diverting
-lots of wasted resources into making cars that aren't really needed.
-But if each additional car used no resources, it wouldn't be doing any
-good saving the making of these cars. Well, for physical objects, of
-course, like cars, it is always going to take resources to make an
-additional one of them, each additional exemplar.</p>
-
-<p>But for software that's not true. Anybody can make another copy.
-And it's almost trivial to do it. It takes no resources, except a
-tiny bit of electricity. So there's nothing we can save, no resource
-we're going to allocate better by putting this financial disincentive
-on the use of the software. You often find people taking economic,
-the consequences of economic reasoning, based on premises that don't
-apply to software, and trying to transplant them from other areas of
-life where the premises may apply, and the conclusions may be valid.
-They just take the conclusions and assume that they're valid for
-software too, when the argument is based on nothing, in the case of
-software. The premises don't work in that case. It is very important
-to examine how you reach the conclusion, and what premises it depends
-on, to see where it might be valid. So, that's Freedom Two, the
-freedom to help your neighbor.</p>
-
-<p>Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
-publishing an improved version of the software. People used to say to
-me, “If the software's free, then nobody will get paid to work
-on it, so why should anybody work on it?” Well, of course, they
-were confusing the two meanings of free, so their reasoning was based
-on a misunderstanding. But, in any case, that was their theory.
-Today, we can compare that theory with empirical fact, and we find
-that hundreds of people are being paid to write free software, and
-over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers. We get lots of people
-working on free software, for various different motives.</p>
-
-<p>When I first released GNU Emacs — the first piece of the GNU
-system that people actually wanted to use — and when it started
-having users, after a while, I got a message saying, “I think I
-saw a bug in the source code, and here's a fix.” And I got
-another message, “Here's code to add a new feature.” And
-another bug fix. And another new feature. And another, and another,
-and another, until they were pouring in on me so fast that just making
-use of all this help I was getting was a big job. Microsoft doesn't
-have this problem. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>Eventually, people noted this phenomenon. You see, in the 1980's a
-lot of us thought that maybe free software wouldn't be as good as the
-non-free software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay
-people. And, of course, people like me, who value freedom and
-community said, “Well, we'll use the free software
-anyway.” It's worth making a little sacrifice in some mere
-technical convenience to have freedom. But what people began to note,
-around 1990 was that our software was actually better. It was more
-powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary alternatives.</p>
-
-<p>In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific
-measurement of reliability of software. Here's what he did. He took
-several sets of comparable programs that did the same jobs — the
-exact same jobs — in different systems. Because there were
-certain basic Unix-like utilities. And the jobs that they did, we
-know, was all, more or less, imitating the same thing, or they were
-following the POSIX spec, so they were all the same in terms of what
-jobs they did, but they were maintained by different people, written
-separately. The code was different. So they said, OK, we'll take
-these programs and run them with random data, and measure how often
-they crash, or hang. So they measured it, and the most reliable set
-of programs was the GNU programs. All the commercial alternatives
-which were proprietary software were less reliable. So he published
-this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he did the
-same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same result.
-The GNU versions were the most reliable. People — you know
-there are cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system,
-because it's so reliable, and reliability is very important to
-them.</p>
-
-<p>Anyway, there's even a group of people who focus on this particular
-benefit as the reason they give, the main reason they give, why users
-should be permitted to do these various things, and to have these
-freedoms. If you've been listening to me, you've noticed, you've seen
-that I, speaking for the free software movement, I talk about issues
-of ethics, and what kind of a society we want to live in, what makes
-for a good society, as well as practical, material benefits. They're
-both important. That's the free software movement.</p>
-
-<p>That other group of people — which is called the open source
-movement — they only cite the practical benefits. They deny
-that this is an issue of principle. They deny that people are
-entitled to the freedom to share with their neighbor and to see what
-the program's doing and change it if they don't like it. They say,
-however, that it's a useful thing to let people do that. So they go
-to companies and say to them, “You know, you might make more
-money if you let people do this.” So, what you can see is that
-to some extent, they lead people in a similar direction, but for
-totally different, for fundamentally different, philosophical
-reasons.</p>
-
-<p>Because on the deepest issue of all, you know, on the ethical
-question, the two movements disagree. You know, in the free software
-movement we say, “You're entitled to these freedoms. People
-shouldn't stop you from doing these things.” In the open source
-movement, they say, “Yes, they can stop you if you want, but
-we'll try to convince them to deign to let you to do these
-things.” Well, they have contributed — they have convinced
-a certain number of businesses to release substantial pieces of
-software as free software in our community. So they, the open source
-movement, has contributed substantially to our community. And so we
-work together on practical projects. But, philosophically, there's a
-tremendous disagreement.</p>
-
-<p>Unfortunately, the open source movement is the one that gets the
-support of business the most, and so most articles about our work
-describe it as open source, and a lot of people just innocently think
-that we're all part of the open source movement. So that's why I'm
-mentioning this distinction. I want you to be aware that the free
-software movement, which brought our community into existence and
-developed the free operating system, is still here — and that we
-still stand for this ethical philosophy. I want you to know about
-this, so that you won't mislead someone else unknowingly.</p>
-
-<p>But also, so that you can think about where you stand.</p>
-
-<p>You know, which movement you support is up to you. You might agree
-with the free software movements and my views. You might agree with
-the open source movement. You might disagree with them both. You
-decide where you stand on these political issues.</p>
-
-<p>But if you agree with the free software movement — if you see
-that there's an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled
-and directed by this decision deserve a say in it — then I hope
-you'll say that you agree with the free software movement, and one way
-you can do that is by using the term free software and just helping
-people know we exist.</p>
-
-<p>So, Freedom Three is very important both practically and
-psycho-socially. If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical
-material harm, because this community development doesn't happen, and
-we don't make powerful, reliable software. But it also causes
-psycho-social harm, which affects the spirit of scientific cooperation
-— the idea that we're working together to advance human
-knowledge. You see, progress in science crucially depends on people
-being able to work together. And nowadays though, you often find each
-little group of scientists acting like it's a war with each other gang
-of scientists and engineers. And if they don't share with each other,
-they're all held back.</p>
-
-<p>So, those are the three freedoms that distinguish free software
-from typical software. Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself,
-making changes to suit your own needs. Freedom Two is the freedom to
-help your neighbor by distributing copies. And Freedom Three is the
-freedom to help build your community by making changes and publishing
-them for other people to use. If you have all of these freedoms, the
-program is free software for you. Now, why do I define it that way in
-terms of a particular user? Is it free software for
-you? <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> Is it free software for
-you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Is it free
-software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i>
-Yes?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you explain a bit about the
-difference between Freedom Two and Three? <i>[inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, they certainly relate, because if
-you don't have freedom to redistribute at all, you certainly don't
-have freedom to distribute a modified version, but they're different
-activities.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Oh.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Freedom Two is, you know, read it, you
-make an exact copy, and hand it to your friends, so now your friend
-can use it. Or maybe you make exact copies and you sell them to a
-bunch of people, and then they can use it.</p>
-
-<p>Freedom Three is where you make improvements — or at least
-you think they're improvements, and some other people may agree with
-you. So that's the difference. Oh, and by the way, one crucial
-point. Freedoms One and Three depend on your having access to the
-source code. Because changing a binary-only program is extremely
-hard. <i>[Laughter]</i> Even trivial changes like using four digits
-for the date, <i>[Laughter]</i> if you don't have source. So, for
-compelling, practical reasons, access to the source code is a
-precondition, a requirement, for free software.</p>
-
-<p>So, why do I define it in terms of whether it's free software for
-<em>you</em>? The reason is that sometimes the same program can be
-free software for some people, and non-free for others. Now, that
-might seem like a paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example
-to show you how it happens. A very big example — maybe the
-biggest ever — of this problem was the X Window System which was
-developed at MIT and released under a license that made it free
-software. If you got the MIT version with the MIT license, you had
-Freedoms One, Two, and Three. It was free software for you. But
-among those who got copies were various computer manufacturers that
-distributed Unix systems, and they made the necessary changes in X to
-run on their systems. You know, probably just a few thousand lines
-out of the hundreds of thousands of lines of X. And, then they
-compiled it, and they put the binaries into their Unix system and
-distributed it under the same non-disclosure agreement as the rest of
-the Unix system. And then, millions of people got these copies. They
-had the X Window System, but they had none of these freedoms. It was
-not free software for <em>them</em>.</p>
-
-<p>So, the paradox was that whether X was free software depended on
-where you made the measurement. If you made the measurement coming
-out of the developers' group, you'd say, “I observe all these
-freedoms. It's free software.” If you made the measurements
-among the users you'd say, “Hmm, most users don't have these
-freedoms. It's not free software.” Well, the people who
-developed X didn't consider this a problem, because their goal was
-just popularity, ego, essentially. They wanted a big professional
-success. They wanted to feel, “Ah, lots of people are using our
-software.” And that was true. Lots of people were using their
-software but didn't have freedom.</p>
-
-<p>Well, in the GNU project, if that same thing had happened to GNU
-software, it would have been a failure, because our goal wasn't just
-to be popular; our goal was to give people liberty, and to encourage
-cooperation, to permit people to cooperate. Remember, never force
-anyone to cooperate with any other person, but make sure that
-everybody's allowed to cooperate, everyone has the freedom to do so,
-if he or she wishes. If millions of people were running non-free
-versions of GNU, that wouldn't be success at all. The whole thing
-would have been perverted into nothing like the goal.</p>
-
-<p>So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening. The method I
-came up with is called “copyleft”. It's called copyleft
-because it's sort of like taking copyright and flipping it
-over. <i>[Laughter]</i> Legally, copyleft works based on copyright.
-We use the existing copyright law, but we use it to achieve a very
-different goal. Here's what we do. We say, “This program is
-copyrighted.” And, of course, by default, that means it's
-prohibited to copy it, or distribute it, or modify it. But then we
-say, “You're authorized to distribute copies of this. You're
-authorized to modify it. You're authorized to distribute modified
-versions and extended versions. Change it any way you
-like.”</p>
-
-<p>But there is a condition. And the condition, of course, is the
-reason why we go to all this trouble, so that we could put the
-condition in. The condition says: Whenever you distribute anything
-that contains any piece of this program, that whole program must be
-distributed under these same terms, no more and no less. So you can
-change the program and distribute a modified version, but when you do,
-the people who get that from you must get the same freedom that you
-got from us. And not just for the parts of it — the excerpts
-that you copied from our program — but also for the other parts
-of that program that they got from you. The whole of that program has
-to be free software for them.</p>
-
-<p>The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become
-inalienable rights — a concept from the Declaration of
-Independence. Rights that we make sure can't be taken away from you.
-And, of course, the specific license that embodies the idea of
-copyleft is the GNU General Public License, a controversial license
-because it actually has the strength to say no to people who would be
-parasites on our community.</p>
-
-<p>There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of
-freedom. And they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done,
-and use it to get a head start in distributing a non-free program and
-tempting people to give up their freedom. And the result would be
-— you know, if we let people do that — that we would be
-developing these free programs, and we'd constantly have to compete
-with improved versions of our own programs. That's no fun.</p>
-
-<p>And, a lot of people also feel — you know, I'm willing to
-volunteer my time to contribute to the community, but why should I
-volunteer my time to contribute to that company's, to improving that
-company's, proprietary program? You know, some people might not even
-think that that's evil, but they want to get paid if they're going to
-do that. I, personally, would rather not do it at all.</p>
-
-<p>But both of these groups of people — both the ones like me
-who say, “I don't want to help that non-free program to get a
-foothold in our community” and the ones that say, “Sure,
-I'd work for them, but then they better pay me” — both of
-us have a good reason to use the GNU General Public License. Because
-that says to that company, “You can't just take my work, and
-distribute it without the freedom.” Whereas, the non-copyleft
-licenses, like the X Windows license, do permit that.</p>
-
-<p>So that is the big division between the two categories of free
-software — license-wise. There are the programs that are
-copylefted so that the license defends the freedom of the software for
-every user. And there are the non-copylefted programs for which
-non-free versions are allowed. Somebody <em>can</em> take those
-programs and strip off the freedom. You may get that program in a
-non-free version.</p>
-
-<p>And that problem exists today. There are still non-free versions
-of X Windows being used on our free operating systems. There is even
-hardware — which is not really supported — except by a
-non-free version of X Windows. And that's a major problem in our
-community. Nonetheless, I wouldn't say that X Windows is a bad thing,
-you know. I'd say that the developers did not do the best possible
-thing that they could have done. But they <em>did</em> release a lot
-of software that we could all use.</p>
-
-<p>You know, there's a big difference between less than perfect, and
-evil. There are many gradations of good and bad. We have to resist
-the temptation to say, if you didn't do the absolute best possible
-thing, then you're no good. You know, the people that developed X
-Windows made a big contribution to our community. But there's
-something better that they could have done. They could have
-copylefted parts of the program and prevented those freedom-denying
-versions from being distributed by others.</p>
-
-<p>Now, the fact that the GNU General Public License defends your
-freedom, uses copyright law to defend your freedom, is, of course, why
-Microsoft is attacking it today. See, Microsoft would really like to
-be able to take all the code that we wrote and put it into proprietary
-programs, have somebody make some improvements, or even just
-incompatible changes is all they need. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>You know, with Microsoft's marketing clout, they don't need to make
-it better to have their version supplant ours. They just have to make
-it different and incompatible. And then, put it on everybody's
-desktop. So they really don't like the GNU GPL. Because the GNU GPL
-won't let them do that. It doesn't allow “embrace and
-extend”. It says, if you want to share our code in your
-programs, you can. But, you've got to share and share alike. The
-changes that you make we have to be allowed to share. So, it's a
-two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation.</p>
-
-<p>Many companies — even big companies like IBM and HP are
-willing to use our software on this basis. IBM and HP contribute
-substantial improvements to GNU software. And they develop other free
-software. But, Microsoft doesn't want to do that, so they give it out
-that businesses just can't deal with the GPL. Well, if businesses
-don't include IBM, and HP and SUN, then maybe they're
-right. <i>[Laughter]</i> More about that later.</p>
-
-<p>I should finish the historical story. You see, we set out in 1984
-not just to write some free software but to do something much more
-coherent: to develop an operating system that was entirely free
-software. So that meant we had to write piece after piece after
-piece. Of course, we were always looking for shortcuts. The job was
-so big that people said we'd never be able to finish. And, I thought
-that there was at least a chance that we'd finish it but, obviously,
-it's worth looking for shortcuts. So we kept looking around. Is there
-any program that somebody else has written that we could manage to
-adapt, to plug into here, and that way we won't have to write it from
-scratch? For instance, the X Window system. It's true it wasn't
-copylefted, but it was free software, so we could use it.</p>
-
-<p>Now, I had wanted to put a window system into GNU from day one. I
-wrote a couple of window systems at MIT before I started GNU. And so,
-even though Unix had no window system in 1984, I decided that GNU
-would have one. But, we never ended up writing a GNU window system,
-because X came along. And I said, Goody! One big job we don't have
-to do. We'll use X. So I basically said, let's take X, and put it
-into the GNU system. And we'll make the other parts of GNU, you know,
-work with X, when appropriate. And we found other pieces of software
-that had been written by other people, like the text formatter TeX,
-some library code from Berkeley. At that time there was Berkeley
-Unix, but it was not free software. This library code, initially, was
-from a different group at Berkeley, that did research on floating
-point. And, so, we kept, we fit in these pieces.</p>
-
-<p>In October 1985, we founded the Free Software Foundation. So
-please note, the GNU project came first. The Free Software Foundation
-came after, about almost two years after the announcement of the
-Project. And the Free Software Foundation is a tax-exempt charity
-that raises funds to promote the freedom to share and change software.
-And in the 1980's, one of the main things we did with our funds was to
-hire people to write parts of GNU. And essential programs, such as
-the shell and the C library were written this way, as well as parts of
-other programs. The <code>tar</code> program, which is absolutely
-essential, although not exciting at all <i>[Laughter]</i> was written
-this way. I believe GNU grep was written this way. And so, we're
-approaching our goal.</p>
-
-<p>By 1991, there was just one major piece missing, and that was the
-kernel. Now, why did I put off the kernel? Probably because it
-doesn't really matter what order you do the things in, at least
-technically it doesn't. You've got to do them all anyway. And partly
-because I'd hoped we'd be able to find a start at a kernel somewhere
-else. And we did. We found Mach, which had been developed at
-Carnegie Mellon. And it wasn't the whole kernel; it was the bottom
-half of the kernel. So we had to write the top half, but I figured,
-you know, things like the file system, the network code, and so on.
-But running on top of Mach they're running essentially as user
-programs, which ought to make them easier to debug. You can debug
-with a real source-level debugger running at the same time. And so, I
-thought that way we'd be able to get these, the higher level parts of
-the kernel, done in a short time. It didn't work out that way. These
-asynchronous, multi-threaded processes, sending messages to each other
-turned out to be very hard to debug. And the Mach-based system that
-we were using to bootstrap with had a terrible debugging environment,
-and it was unreliable, and various problems. It took us years and
-years to get the GNU kernel to work.</p>
-
-<p>But, fortunately, our community did not have to wait for the GNU
-kernel. Because in 1991, Linus Torvalds developed another free kernel
-called Linux. And he used the old-fashioned monolithic design and it
-turns out that he got his working much faster than we got ours
-working. So maybe that's one of the mistakes that I made: that design
-decision. Anyway, at first, we didn't know about Linux, because he
-never contacted us to talk about it. Although he did know about the
-GNU Project. But he announced it to other people and other places on
-the net. And so other people then did the work of combining Linux
-with the rest of the GNU system to make a complete free operating
-system. Essentially, to make the GNU plus Linux combination.</p>
-
-<p>But, they didn't realize that's what they were doing. You see,
-they said, We have a kernel — let's look around and see what
-other pieces we can find to put together with the kernel. So, they
-looked around — and lo and behold, everything they needed was
-already available. What good fortune, they said. <i>[Laughter]</i>
-It's all here. We can find everything we need. Let's just take all
-these different things and put it together, and have a system.</p>
-
-<p>They didn't know that most of what they found was pieces of the GNU
-system. So they didn't realize that they were fitting Linux into the
-gap in the GNU system. They thought they were taking Linux and making
-a system out of Linux. So they called it a Linux system.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can't hear you — what?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, it's just not — you know,
-it's provincial.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: But it's more good fortune then finding
-X and Mach?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. The difference is that the
-people who developed X and Mach didn't have the goal of making a
-complete free operating system. We're the only ones who had that.
-And, it was our tremendous work that made the system exist. We
-actually did a larger part of the system than any other project. No
-coincidence, because those people — they wrote useful parts of
-the system. But they didn't do it because they wanted the system to
-be finished. They had other reasons.</p>
-
-<p>Now the people who developed X — they thought that designing
-across the network window system would be a good project, and it was.
-And it turned out to help us make a good free operating system. But
-that's not what they hoped for. They didn't even think about that.
-It was an accident. An accidental benefit. Now, I'm not saying that
-what they did was bad. They did a large free software project.
-That's a good thing to do. But they didn't have that ultimate vision.
-The GNU Project is where that vision was.</p>
-
-<p>And, so, we were the ones whose — every little piece that
-didn't get done by somebody else, we did it. Because we knew that we
-wouldn't have a complete system without it. And even if it was
-totally boring and unromantic, like <code>tar</code>
-or <code>mv</code>. <i>[Laughter]</i> We did it. Or ld, you know
-there's nothing very exciting in <code>ld</code> — but I wrote
-one. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I did make efforts to have it do a minimal
-amount of disk I/O so that it would be faster and handle bigger
-programs. But, you know, I like to do a good job. I like to improve
-various things about the program while I'm doing it. But the reason
-that I did it wasn't that I had brilliant ideas for a
-better <code>ld</code>. The reason I did it is that we needed one
-that was free. And we couldn't expect anyone else to do it. So, we
-had to do it, or find someone to do it.</p>
-
-<p>So, although at this point thousands of people in projects have
-contributed to this system, there is one project which is the reason
-that this system exists, and that's the GNU Project. It <em>is</em>
-basically the GNU System, with other things added since then.</p>
-
-<p>So, however, the practice of calling the system Linux has been a
-great blow to the GNU Project, because we don't normally get credit
-for what we've done. I think Linux, the kernel, is a very useful
-piece of free software, and I have only good things to say about it.
-But, well, actually, I can find a few bad things to say about
-it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, basically, I have good things to say about
-it. However, the practice of calling the GNU system, Linux, is just a
-mistake. I'd like to ask you please to make the small effort
-necessary to call the system GNU/Linux, and that way to help us get a
-share of the credit.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You need a mascot! Get yourself a
-stuffed animal! <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have one.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You do?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have an animal — a
-gnu. <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway. So, yes, when you draw a penguin,
-draw a gnu next to it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, let's save the
-questions for the end. I have more to go through.</p>
-
-<p>So, why am I so concerned about this? You know, why do I think it
-is worth bothering you and perhaps giving you a, perhaps lowering your
-opinion of me, <i>[Laughter]</i> to raise this issue of credit?
-Because, you know, some people when I do this, some people think that
-it's because I want my ego to be fed, right? Of course, I'm not
-saying — I'm not asking you to call it “Stallmanix,”
-right? <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p>
-
-<p>I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to
-get credit. And there's a very specific reason for that, which is a
-lot more important than anybody getting credit, in and of itself. You
-see, these days, if you look around in our community most of the
-people talking about it and writing about it don't ever mention GNU,
-and they don't ever mention these goals of freedom — these
-political and social ideals, either. Because the place they come from
-is GNU.</p>
-
-<p>The ideas associated with Linux — the philosophy is very
-different. It is basically the apolitical philosophy of Linus
-Torvalds. So, when people think that the whole system is Linux, they
-tend to think: “Oh, it must have been all started by Linux
-Torvalds. His philosophy must be the one that we should look at
-carefully”. And when they hear about the GNU philosophy, they
-say: “Boy, this is so idealistic, this must be awfully
-impractical. I'm a Linux-user, not a
-GNU-user.” <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>What irony! If they only knew! If they knew that the system they
-liked — or, in some cases, love and go wild over — is our
-idealistic, political philosophy made real.</p>
-
-<p>They still wouldn't have to agree with us. But at least they'd see
-a reason to take it seriously, to think about it carefully, to give it
-a chance. They would see how it relates to their lives. You know, if
-they realized, “I'm using the GNU system. Here's the GNU
-philosophy. This philosophy is <em>why</em> this system that I like
-very much exists,” they'd at least consider it with a much more
-open mind. It doesn't mean that everybody will agree. People think
-different things. That's OK. You know, people should make up their
-own minds. But I want this philosophy to get the benefit of the
-credit for the results it has achieved.</p>
-
-<p>If you look around in our community, you'll find that almost
-everywhere, the institutions are calling the system Linux. You know,
-reporters mostly call it Linux. It's not right, but they do. The
-companies mostly say it that package the system. Oh, and most of
-these reporters, when they write articles, they usually don't look at
-it as a political issue, or social issue. They're usually looking at
-it purely as a business question or what companies are going to
-succeed more or less, which is really a fairly minor question for
-society. And, if you look at the companies that package the GNU/Linux
-system for people to use, well, most of them call it Linux. And they
-<em>all</em> add non-free software to it.</p>
-
-<p>See, the GNU GPL says that if you take code, and some code out of a
-GPL-covered program, and add some more code to make a bigger program,
-that whole program has to be released under the GPL. But you could
-put other separate programs on the same disk (of either kind, hard
-disk, or CD), and they can have other licenses. That's considered
-mere aggregation, and, essentially, just distributing two programs to
-somebody at the same time is not something we have any say over. So,
-in fact, it is not true — sometimes, I wish it were true —
-that if a company uses a GPL-covered program in a product that the
-whole product has to be free software. It's not — it doesn't go
-to that range — that scope. It's the whole program. If there
-are two separate programs that communicate with each other at arm's
-length — like by sending messages to each other — then,
-they're legally separate, in general. So, these companies, by adding
-non-free software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically
-and politically, a very bad idea. They're telling the users,
-“It is OK to use non-free software. We're even putting it on
-this as a bonus.”</p>
-
-<p>If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system,
-most of them have a title like “Linux-something or other”.
-So they're calling the system Linux most of the time. And they're
-filled with ads for non-free software that you could run on top of the
-GNU/Linux system. Now those ads have a common message. They say:
-Non-free Software Is Good For You. It's So Good That You Might Even
-<em>Pay</em> To Get It. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>And they call these things “value-added packages”,
-which makes a statement about their values. They're saying: Value
-practical convenience, not freedom. And, I don't agree with those
-values, so I call them “freedom-subtracted
-packages”. <i>[Laughter]</i> Because if you have installed a
-free operating system, then you now are living in the free world. You
-enjoy the benefits of liberty that we worked for so many years to give
-you. Those packages give you an opportunity to buckle on a chain.</p>
-
-<p>And then if you look at the trade shows — about the use of
-the, dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call
-themselves “Linux” shows. And they're filled with booths
-exhibiting non-free software, essentially putting the seal of approval
-on the non-free software. So, almost everywhere you look in our
-community, the institutions are endorsing the non-free software,
-totalling negating the idea of freedom that GNU was developed for.
-And the only place that people are likely to come across the idea of
-freedom is in connection with GNU, and in connection with free
-software, the term, free software. So this is why I ask you: please
-call the system GNU/Linux. Please make people aware where the system
-came from and why.</p>
-
-<p>Of course, just by using that name, you won't be making an
-explanation of the history. You can type four extra characters and
-write GNU/Linux; you can say two extra syllables. But, GNU/Linux is
-fewer syllables than Windows 2000. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, you're not
-telling them a lot, but you're preparing them, so that when they hear
-about GNU, and what it's all about, they'll see how that connects to
-them and their lives. And that, indirectly, makes a tremendous
-difference. So please help us.</p>
-
-<p>You'll note that Microsoft called the GPL an “open source
-license”. They don't want people to be thinking in terms of
-freedom as the issue. You'll find that they invite people to think in
-a narrow way, as consumers, and, of course, not even think very
-rationally as consumers, if they're going to choose Microsoft
-products. But they don't want people to think as citizens or
-statesmen. That's inimical to them. At least it's inimical to their
-current business model.</p>
-
-<p>Now, how does free software…well, I can tell you about how
-free software relates to our society. A secondary topic that might be
-of interest to some of you is how free software relates to business.
-Now, in fact, free software is <em>tremendously</em> useful for
-business. After all, most businesses in the advanced countries use
-software. Only a tiny fraction of them develop software.</p>
-
-<p>And free software is tremendously advantageous for any company that
-uses software, because it means that you're in control. Basically,
-free software means the users are in control of what the program does.
-Either individually, if they care enough to be, or, collectively, when
-they care enough to be. Whoever cares enough can exert some
-influence. If you don't care, you don't buy. Then you use what other
-people prefer. But, if you do care, then you have some say. With
-proprietary software, you have essentially no say.</p>
-
-<p>With free software, you can change what you want to change. And it
-doesn't matter that there are no programmers in your company; that's
-fine. You know, if you wanted to move the walls in your building, you
-don't have to be a carpentry company. You just have to be able to go
-find a carpenter and say, “What will you charge to do this
-job?” And if you want to change around the software you use, you
-don't have to be a programming company. You just have to go to a
-programming company and say, “What will you charge to implement
-these features? And when will you have it done?” And if they
-don't do the job, you can go find somebody else.</p>
-
-<p>There's a free market for support. So, any business that cares
-about support will find a tremendous advantage in free software. With
-proprietary software, support is a monopoly, because one company has
-the source code, or maybe a small number of companies that paid a
-gigantic amount of money have the source code, if it's Microsoft's
-shared source program, but, it's very few. And so, there aren't very
-many possible sources of support for you. And that means, that unless
-you're a real giant, they don't care about you. Your company is not
-important enough for them to care if they lose your business, or what
-happens. Once you're using the program, they figure you're locked in
-to getting the support from them, because to switch to a different
-program is a gigantic job. So, you end up with things like paying for
-the privilege of reporting a bug. <i>[Laughter]</i> And once you've
-paid, they tell you, “Well, OK, we've noted your bug report.
-And in a few months, you can buy an upgrade, and you can see if we've
-fixed it.” <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p>Support providers for free software can't get away with that. They
-have to please the customers. Of course, you can get a lot of good
-support gratis. You post your problem on the Internet. You may get
-an answer the next day. But that's not guaranteed, of course. If you
-want to be confident, you better make an arrangement with a company
-and pay them. And this is, of course, one of the ways that free
-software business works.</p>
-
-<p>Another advantage of free software for businesses that use software
-is security and privacy. And this applies to individuals as well, but
-I brought it up in the context of businesses. You see, when a program
-is proprietary, you can't even tell what it really does.</p>
-
-<p>It could have features, deliberately put in that you wouldn't like
-if you knew about them, like it might have a backdoor to let the
-developer get into your machine. It might snoop on what you do and
-send information back. This is not unusual. Some Microsoft software
-did this. But it's not only Microsoft. There are other proprietary
-programs that snoop on the user. And you can't even tell if it does
-this. And, of course, even assuming that the developer's totally
-honest, every programmer makes mistakes. There could be bugs that
-affect your security which are nobody's fault. But the point is: If
-it's not free software, you can't find them. And you can't fix
-them.</p>
-
-<p>Nobody has the time to check the source of every program he runs.
-You're not going to do that. But with free software there's a large
-community, and there are people in that community who are checking
-things. And you get the benefit of their checking, because if there's
-an accidental bug, there surely are, from time to time, in any
-program, they might find it and fix it. And people are much less
-likely to put in a deliberate Trojan horse, or a snooping feature, if
-they think they might get caught. The proprietary software developers
-figure they won't get caught. They'll get away with it undetected.
-But a free software developer has to figure that people will look at
-that and see it's there. So, in our community, we don't feel we can
-get away with ramming a feature down the users' throats that the users
-wouldn't like. So we know that if the users don't like it, they'll
-make a modified version which doesn't have it. And then, they'll all
-start using that version.</p>
-
-<p>In fact, we can all reason enough, we can all figure this out
-enough steps ahead, that we probably won't put in that feature. After
-all, you're writing a free program; you want people to like your
-version; you don't want to put in a thing that you know a lot of
-people are going to hate, and have another modified version catch on
-instead of yours. So you just realize that the user is king in the
-world of free software. In the world of proprietary software, the
-customer is <em>not</em> king. Because you are only a customer. You
-have no say in the software you use.</p>
-
-<p>In this respect, free software is a new mechanism for democracy to
-operate. Professor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions
-as a kind of law. Whoever gets to write the code that just about
-everybody uses for all intents and purposes is writing the laws that
-run people's lives. With free software, these laws get written in a
-democratic way. Not the classical form of democracy — we don't
-have a big election and say, “Everybody vote which way should
-this feature be done.” <i>[Laughter]</i> Instead we say,
-basically, those of you who want to work on implementing the feature
-this way, do it. And if you want to work on implementing the feature
-that way, do it. And, it gets done one way or the other, you know?
-And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done this way.
-So, in this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by
-simply taking steps in the direction that he wants to go.</p>
-
-<p>And you're free to take as many steps, personally, as you want to
-take. A business is free to commission as many steps as they find
-useful to take. And, after you add all these things up, that says
-which direction the software goes.</p>
-
-<p>And it's often very useful to be able to take pieces out of some
-existing program, presumably usually large pieces, of course, and then
-write a certain amount of code of your own, and make a program that
-does exactly what you need, which would have cost you an arm and a leg
-to develop, if you had to write it all from scratch, if you couldn't
-cannibalize large pieces from some existing free software package.</p>
-
-<p>Another thing that results from the fact that the user is king is
-that we tend to be very good about compatibility and standardization.
-Why? Because users like that. Users are likely to reject a program
-that has gratuitous incompatibilities in it. Now, sometimes there's a
-certain group of users which actually have a need for a certain kind
-of incompatibility, and then they'll have it. That's OK. But when
-users want is to follow a standard, we developers have to follow it,
-and we know that. And we do it. By contrast, if you look at
-proprietary software developers, they often find it advantageous to
-deliberately <em>not</em> follow a standard, and not because they
-think that they're giving the user an advantage that way, but rather
-because they're imposing on the user, locking the user in. And you'll
-even find them making changes in their file formats from time to time,
-just to force people to get the newest version.</p>
-
-<p>Archivists are finding a problem now, that files written on
-computers ten years ago often can't be accessed; they were written
-with proprietary software that's essentially lost now. If it were
-written with free software, then it could be brought up-to-date and
-run. And those things would not, those records would not be lost,
-would not be inaccessible. They were even complaining about this on
-NPR recently in citing free software as a solution. And so, in
-effect, by using a non-free program to store your own data, you are
-putting your head in a noose.</p>
-
-<p>So, I've talked about how free software affects most business. But
-how does it affect that particular narrow area which is software
-business? Well, the answer is mostly not at all. And the reason is
-that 90% of the software industry, from what I'm told, is development
-of custom software, software that's not meant to be released at all.
-For custom software, this issue, or the ethical issue of free or
-proprietary, doesn't arise. You see, the issue is, are you users free
-to change, and redistribute, the software? If there's only one user,
-and that user owns the rights, there's no problem. That
-user <em>is</em> free to do all these things. So, in effect, any
-<em>custom</em> program that was developed by one company for use
-in-house is free software, as long as they have the sense to insist on
-getting the source code and all the rights.</p>
-
-<p>And the issue doesn't really arise for software that goes in a
-watch or a microwave oven or an automobile ignition system. Because
-those are places where you don't download software to install. It's
-not a real computer, as far as the user is concerned. And so, it
-doesn't raise these issues enough for them to be ethically important.
-So, for the most part, the software industry will go along, just as
-it's been going. And the interesting thing is that since such a large
-fraction of the jobs are in that part of the industry, even if there
-were no possibilities for free software business, the developers of
-free software could all get day jobs writing custom
-software. <i>[Laughter]</i> There's so many; the ratio is so big.</p>
-
-<p>But, as it happens, there is free software business. There are
-free software companies, and at the press conference that I'm going to
-have, people from a couple of them will join us. And, of course,
-there are also companies which are <em>not</em> free software
-businesses but do develop useful pieces of free software to release,
-and the free software that they produce is substantial.</p>
-
-<p>Now, how do free software businesses work? Well, some of them sell
-copies. You know, you're free to copy it but they can still sell
-thousands of copies a month. And others sell support and various
-kinds of services. I, personally, for the second half of the '80's, I
-sold free software support services. Basically I said, for $200 an
-hour, I'll change whatever you want me to change in GNU software that
-I'd written. And, yes, it was a stiff rate, but if it was a program
-that I was the author of, people would figure that I might get the job
-done in a lot fewer hours. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I made a living that
-way. In fact, I'd made more than I'd ever made before. I also taught
-classes. And I kept doing that until 1990, when I got a big prize and
-I didn't have to do it any more.</p>
-
-<p>But, 1990 was when the first corporation free software business was
-formed, which was Cygnus Support. And their business was to do,
-essentially, the same kind of thing that I'd been doing. I certainly
-could have worked for them, if I had needed to do that. Since I
-didn't need to, I felt it was good for the movement if I remained
-independent of any one company. That way, I could say good and bad
-things about the various free software and non-free software
-companies, without a conflict of interest. I felt that I could serve
-the movement more. But, if I had needed that to make a living, sure,
-I would have worked for them. It's an ethical business to be in. No
-reason I would have felt ashamed to take a job with them. And that
-company was profitable in its first year. It was formed with very
-little capital, just the money its three founders had. And it kept
-growing every year and being profitable every year until they got
-greedy, and looked for outside investors, and then they messed things
-up. But it was several years of success, before they got greedy.</p>
-
-<p>So, this illustrates one of the exciting things about free
-software. Free software demonstrates that you don't need to raise
-capital to develop free software. I mean, it's useful;
-it <em>can</em> help. You know, if you do raise some capital, you can
-hire people and have them write a bunch of software. But you can get
-a lot done with a small number of people. And, in fact, the
-tremendous efficiency of the process of developing free software is
-one of the reasons it's important for the world to switch to free
-software. And it also belies what Microsoft says when they say the
-GNU GPL is bad, because it makes it harder for them to raise capital
-to develop non-free software and take our free software and put our
-code into their programs that they won't share with us. Basically, we
-don't need to have them raising capital that way. We'll get the job
-done anyway. We are getting the job done.</p>
-
-<p>People used to say we could never do a complete free operating
-system. Now we've done that and a tremendous amount more. And I
-would say that we're about an order of magnitude away from developing
-all the general purpose published software needs of the world. And
-this is in a world where more than 90% of the users don't use our free
-software yet. This is in a world where, although in certain areas of
-business, you know, more than half of all the web servers in the world
-are running on GNU/Linux with Apache as the web server.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i> … What did you
-say before, Linux?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I said GNU/Linux.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You did?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, if I'm talking about the kernel, I
-call it Linux. You know, that's it's name. The kernel was written by
-Linus Torvalds, and we should only call it by the name that he chose,
-out of respect for the author.</p>
-
-<p>Anyway, but in general, in business most users are not using it.
-Most home users are not using our system yet. So, when they are, we
-should automatically get 10 times as many volunteers and 10 times as
-many customers for the free software businesses that there will be.
-And so that will take us that order of magnitude. So at this point, I
-am pretty confident that we <em>can</em> do the job.</p>
-
-<p>And, this is important, because Microsoft asks us to feel
-desperate. They say, The only way you can have software to run, the
-only way you can have innovation, is if you give us power. Let us
-dominate you. Let us control what you can do with the software you're
-running, so that we can squeeze a lot of money out of you, and use a
-certain fraction of that to develop software, and take the rest as
-profit.</p>
-
-<p>Well, you shouldn't ever feel that desperate. You shouldn't ever
-feel so desperate that you give up your freedom. That's very
-dangerous.</p>
-
-<p>Another thing that Microsoft, well, not just Microsoft, people who
-don't support free software generally adopt a value system in which
-the only thing that matters is short-term practical benefits: How much
-money am I going to make this year? What job can I get done today?
-Short-term thinking and narrow thinking. Their assumption is that it
-is ridiculous to imagine that anybody ever might make a sacrifice for
-the sake of freedom.</p>
-
-<p>Yesterday, a lot of people were making speeches about Americans who
-made sacrifices for the freedom of their compatriots. Some of them
-made great sacrifices. They even sacrificed their lives for the kinds
-of freedom that everyone in our country has heard about, at least.
-(At least, in some of the cases; I guess we have to ignore the war in
-Vietnam.)</p>
-
-<p><i>[Editor's note: The day before was “Memorial Day” in
-the USA. Memorial Day is a day where war heros are
-commemorated.]</i></p>
-
-<p>But, fortunately, to maintain our freedom in using software,
-doesn't call for big sacrifices. Just tiny, little sacrifices are
-enough, like learning a command-line interface, if we don't have a GUI
-interface program yet. Like doing the job in this way, because we
-don't have a free software package to do it that way, yet. Like,
-paying some money to a company that's going to develop a certain free
-software package, so that you can have it in a few years. Various
-little sacrifices that we can all make. And, in the long run, even we
-will have benefited from it. You know, it is really an investment
-more than a sacrifice. We just have to have enough long-term view to
-realize it's good for us to invest in improving our society, without
-counting the nickels and dimes of who gets how much of the benefit
-from that investment.</p>
-
-<p>So, at this point, I'm essentially done.</p>
-
-<p>I'd like to mention that there's a new approach to free software
-business being proposed by Tony Stanco, which he calls “Free
-Developers”, which involves a certain business structure which
-hopes eventually to pay out a certain share of the profits to every,
-to all the authors of the free software who've joined the
-organization. And they're looking at the prospects of getting me some
-rather large government software development contracts in India now,
-because they're going to be using free software as the basis, having
-tremendous cost savings that way.</p>
-
-<p>And so now I guess that I should ask for questions.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Could you speak up a bit louder please?
-I can't really hear you.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: How could a company like Microsoft
-include a free software contract?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually, Microsoft is planning to
-shift a lot of its activity into services. And what they're planning
-to do is something dirty and dangerous, which is tie the services to
-the programs, one to the next, in a sort of zigzag, you know? So that
-to use this service, you've got to be using this Microsoft program,
-which is going to mean you need to use this service, to this Microsoft
-program, so it's all tied together. That's their plan.</p>
-
-<p>Now, the interesting thing is that selling those services doesn't
-raise the ethical issue of free software or non-free software. It
-might be perfectly fine for them to have the business for those
-businesses selling those services over the net to exist. However,
-what Microsoft is planning to do is to use them to achieve an even
-greater lock, an even greater monopoly, on the software and the
-services, and this was described in an article, I believe in Business
-Week, recently. And, other people said that it is turning the net
-into the Microsoft Company Town.</p>
-
-<p>And this is relevant because, you know, the trial court in the
-Microsoft antitrust trial recommended breaking up the company,
-Microsoft. But in a way, that makes no sense — it wouldn't do
-any good at all — into the operating part and the applications
-part.</p>
-
-<p>But having seen that article, I now see a useful, effective way to
-split up Microsoft into the services part and the software part, to
-require them to deal with each other only at arm's length, that the
-services must publish their interfaces, so that anybody can write a
-client to talk to those services, and, I guess, that they have to pay
-to get the service. Well, that's OK. That's a totally different
-issue.</p>
-
-<p>If Microsoft is split up in this way […] services and
-software, they will not be able to use their software to crush
-competition with Microsoft services. And they won't be able to use
-the services to crush competition with Microsoft software. And we
-will be able to make the free software, and maybe you people will use
-it to talk to Microsoft services, and we won't mind.</p>
-
-<p>Because, after all, although Microsoft is the proprietary software
-company that has subjugated the most people — the others have
-subjugated fewer people, it's not for want of
-trying. <i>[Laughter]</i> They just haven't succeeded in subjugating
-as many people. So, the problem is not Microsoft and only Microsoft.
-Microsoft is just the biggest example of the problem we're trying to
-solve, which is proprietary software taking away users' freedom to
-cooperate and form an ethical society. So we shouldn't focus too much
-on Microsoft, you know, even though they did give me the opportunity
-for this platform. That doesn't make them all-important. They're not
-the be-all and end-all.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Earlier, you were discussing the
-philosophical differences between open source software and free
-software. How do you feel about the current trend of GNU/Linux
-distributions as they head towards supporting only Intel platforms?
-And the fact that it seems that less and less programmers are
-programming correctly, and making software that will compile anywhere?
-And making software that simply works on Intel systems?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I don't see an ethical issue there.
-Although, in fact, companies that make computers sometimes port the
-GNU/Linux system to it. HP apparently did this recently. And, they
-didn't bother paying for a port of Windows, because that would have
-cost too much. But getting GNU/Linux supported was, I think, five
-engineers for a few months. It was easily doable.</p>
-
-<p>Now, of course, I encourage people to use <code>autoconf</code>,
-which is a GNU package that makes it easier to make your programs
-portable. I encourage them to do that. Or when somebody else fixes
-the bug that it didn't compile on that version of the system, and
-sends it to you, you should put it in. But I don't see that as an
-ethical issue.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Two comments. One is: Recently, you
-spoke at MIT. I read the transcript. And someone asked about
-patents, and you said that “patents are a totally different
-issue. I have no comments on that.”</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I actually have a lot to say
-about patents, but it takes an hour. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I wanted to say this: It seems to me
-that there is an issue. I mean, there is a reason that companies call
-both patents and copyrights things like hard property in trying to get
-this concept which is, if they want to use the power of the State to
-create a course of monopoly for themselves. And so, what's common
-about these things is not that they revolve around the same issues,
-but that motivation is not really the public service issues but the
-motivation of companies to get a monopoly for their private
-interests.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I understand. But, well, I want to
-respond because there's not too much time. So I'd like to respond to
-that.</p>
-
-<p>You're right that that's what they want. But there's another
-reason why they want to use the term intellectual property. It's that
-they don't want to encourage people to think carefully about copyright
-issues or patent issues. Because copyright law and patent law are
-totally different, and the effects of software copyrighted and
-software patents are totally different.</p>
-
-<p>Software patents are a restriction on programmers, prohibiting them
-from writing certain kinds of programs, whereas copyright doesn't do
-that. With copyright, at least if you wrote it yourself, you're
-allowed to distribute it. So, it's tremendously important to separate
-these issues.</p>
-
-<p>They have a little bit in common, at a very low level, and
-everything else is different. So, please, to encourage clear
-thinking, discuss copyright or discuss patents. But don't discuss
-intellectual property. I don't have an opinion on intellectual
-property. I have opinions on copyrights and patents and software.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You mentioned at the beginning that a
-functional language, like recipes, are computer programs. There's a
-cross a little bit different than other kinds of language created on.
-This is also causing a problem in the DVD case.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: The issues are partly similar but partly
-different, for things that are not functional in nature. Part of the
-issue transfers but not all of it. Unfortunately, that's another hour
-speech. I don't have time to go into it. But I would say that all
-functional works ought to be free in the same sense as software. You
-know, textbooks, manuals, dictionaries, and recipes, and so on.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I was just wondering on online
-music. There are similarities and differences created all through.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I'd say that the minimum freedom
-that we should have for any kind of published information is the
-freedom to non-commercially redistribute it, verbatim. For functional
-works, we need the freedom to commercially publish a modified version,
-because that's tremendously useful to society. For non-functional
-works, you know, things that are to entertain, or to be aesthetic, or
-to state a certain person's views, you know, perhaps they shouldn't be
-modified. And, perhaps that means that it's OK, to have copyright
-covering all commercial distribution of them.</p>
-
-<p>Please remember that according to the U.S. Constitution, the
-purpose of copyright is to benefit the public. It is to modify the
-behavior of certain private parties, so that they will publish more
-books. And the benefit of this is that society gets to discuss issues
-and learn. And, you know, we have literature. We have scientific
-works. The purpose is encourage that. Copyrights do not exist for
-the sake of authors, let alone for the sake of publishers. They exist
-for the sake of readers and all those who benefit from the
-communication of information that happens when people write and others
-read. And that goal I agree with.</p>
-
-<p>But in the age of the computer networks, the method is no longer
-tenable, because it now requires draconian laws that invade
-everybody's privacy and terrorize everyone. You know, years in prison
-for sharing with your neighbor. It wasn't like that in the age of the
-printing press. Then copyright was an industrial regulation. It
-restricted publishers. Now, it's a restriction imposed by the
-publishers on the public. So, the power relationship is turned around
-180 degrees, even if it's the same law.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: So you can have the same thing —
-but like in making music from other music?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. That is an interesting
-…</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: And unique, new works, you know, it's
-still a lot of cooperation.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: It is. And I think that probably
-requires some kind of fair use concept. Certainly making a few
-seconds of sample and using that in making some musical work,
-obviously that should be fair use. Even the standard idea of fair use
-includes that, if you think about it. Whether courts agree, I'm not
-sure, but they should. That wouldn't be a real change in the system
-as it has existed.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: What do you think about publishing
-public information in proprietary formats?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, it shouldn't be. I mean, the
-government should never require citizens to use a non-free program to
-access, to communicate with the government in any way, in either
-direction.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I have been, what I will now say, a
-GNU/Linux user…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Thank you. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: …for the past four years. The one
-thing that has been problematical for me and is something that is
-essential, I think, to all of us, is browsing the web.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: One thing that has been decidedly a
-weakness in using a GNU/Linux system has been browsing the web,
-because the prevailing tool for that, Netscape…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: …is not free software.</p>
-
-<p>Let me respond to this. I want to get to the point, for the sake
-of getting in more. So, yes. There has been a terrible tendency for
-people to use Netscape Navigator on their GNU/Linux systems. And, in
-fact all the commercially packaged systems come with it. So this is
-an ironic situation: we worked so hard to make a free operating
-system, and now, if you go to the store, and you can find versions of
-GNU/Linux there, most of them are called Linux, and they're not free.
-Oh, well, part of them is. But then, there's Netscape Navigator, and
-maybe other non-free programs as well. So, it's very hard to actually
-find a free system, unless you know what you're doing. Or, of course,
-you can not install Netscape Navigator.</p>
-
-<p>Now, in fact, there have been free web browsers for many years.
-There is a free web browser that I used to use called Lynx. It's a
-free web browser that is non-graphical; it's text-only. This has a
-tremendous advantage, in you don't see the ads. <i>[Laughter]
-[Applause]</i></p>
-
-<p>But anyway, there is a free graphical project called Mozilla, which
-is now getting to the point where you can use it. And I occasionally
-use it.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 has been very good.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, OK. So that's another free
-graphical browser. So, we're finally solving that problem, I
-guess.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk to me about that
-philosophical/ethical division between free software and open source?
-Do you feel that those are irreconcilable? …</p>
-
-<p><i>[Recording switches tapes; end of question and start of answer
-is missing]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: … to a freedom, and ethics. Or
-whether you just say, Well, I hope that you companies will decide it's
-more profitable to let us be allowed to do these things.</p>
-
-<p>But, as I said, in a lot of practical work, it doesn't really
-matter what a person's politics are. When a person offers to help the
-GNU project, we don't say: “You have to agree with our
-politics.” We say that in a GNU package, you've got to call the
-system GNU/Linux, and you've got to call it free software. What you
-say when you're not speaking to the GNU Project, that's up to you.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: The company, IBM, started a campaign for
-government agencies, to sell their big new machines, that they used
-Linux as selling point, and say Linux.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, of course, it's really the
-GNU/Linux systems. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: That's right! Well, tell the top sales
-person. He doesn't know anything for GNU.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I have to tell who?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: The top sales person.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh yes. The problem is that they've
-already carefully decided what they want to say for reasons of their
-advantage. And the issue of what is a more accurate, or fair, or
-correct way to describe it is not the primary issue that matters to a
-company like that. Now, some small companies, yes, there'll be a
-boss. And if the boss is inclined to think about things like that, he
-might make a decision that way. Not a giant corporation though. It's
-a shame, you know.</p>
-
-<p>There's another more important and more substantive issue about
-what IBM is doing. They're saying that they're putting a billion
-dollars into “Linux”. But perhaps, I should also put
-quotes around “into”, as well, because some of that money
-is paying people to develop free software. That really is a
-contribution to our community. But other parts is paying to pay
-people to write proprietary software, or port proprietary software to
-run on top of GNU/Linux, and that is <em>not</em> a contribution to
-our community. But IBM is lumping that altogether into this. Some of
-it might be advertising, which is partly a contribution, even if it's
-partly wrong. So, it's a complicated situation. Some of what they're
-doing is contribution and some is not. And some is sort is somewhat,
-but not exactly. And you can't just lump it altogether and think,
-Wow! Whee! A billion dollars from IBM. <i>[Laughter]</i> That's
-oversimplification.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk a little bit more about the
-thinking that went into the general public license?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, here's the — I'm sorry, I'm
-answering his question now. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Do you want to reserve some time for
-the press conference? Or do you want to continue here?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Who is here for the press conference?
-Not a lot of press. Oh, three — OK. Can you afford if we
-— if I go on answering everybody's questions for another ten
-minutes or so? OK. So, we'll go on answering everybody's
-questions.</p>
-
-<p>So, the thinking that went into the GNU GPL? Part of it was that I
-wanted to protect the freedom of the community against the phenomena
-that I just described with X Windows, which has happened with other
-free programs as well. In fact, when I was thinking about this issue,
-X Windows was not yet released. But I had seen this problem happen in
-other free programs. For instance, TeX. I wanted to make sure that
-the users would all have freedom. Otherwise, I realized that I might
-write a program, and maybe a lot of people would use the program, but
-they wouldn't have freedom. And what's the point of that?</p>
-
-<p>But the other issue I was thinking about was, I wanted to give the
-community a feeling that it was not a doormat, a feeling that it was
-not prey to any parasite who would wander along. If you don't use
-copyleft, you are essentially saying: <i>[speaking meekly]</i>
-“Take my code. Do what you want. I don't say no.” So,
-anybody can come along and say: <i>[speaking very firmly]</i>
-“Ah, I want to make a non-free version of this. I'll just take
-it.” And, then, of course, they probably make some improvements,
-those non-free versions might appeal to users, and replace the free
-versions. And then, what have you accomplished? You've only made a
-donation to some proprietary software project.</p>
-
-<p>And when people see that that's happening, when people see, other
-people take what I do, and they don't ever give back, it can be
-demoralizing. And, this is not just speculation. I had seen that
-happen. That was part of what happened to wipe out the old community
-that I belonged to the '70's. Some people started becoming
-uncooperative. And we assumed that they were profiting thereby. They
-certainly acted as if they thought they were profiting. And we
-realized that they can just take off cooperation and not give back.
-And there was nothing we could do about it. It was very discouraging.
-We, those of us who didn't like the trend, even had a discussion and
-we couldn't come up with any idea for how we could stop it.</p>
-
-<p>So, the GPL is designed to stop that. And it says, Yes, you are
-welcome to join the community and use this code. You can use it to do
-all sorts of jobs. But, if you release a modified version, you've got
-to release that to our community, as part of our community, as part of
-the free world.</p>
-
-<p>So, in fact, there are still many ways that people can get the
-benefit of our work and not contribute, like you don't have to write
-any software. Lots of people use GNU/Linux and don't write any
-software. There's no requirement that you've got to do anything for
-us. But if you do a certain kind of thing, you've got to contribute
-to it. So what that means is that our community is not a doormat.
-And I think that that helped give people the strength to feel, Yes, we
-won't just be trampled underfoot by everybody. We'll stand up to
-this.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Yes, my question was, considering free
-but not copylefted software, since anybody can pick it up and make it
-proprietary, is it not possible also for someone to pick it up and
-make some changes and release the whole thing under the GPL?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, it is possible.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Then, that would make all future copies
-then be GPL'ed.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: From that branch. But here's why we
-don't do that.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Hmm?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Here's why we don't generally do that.
-Let me explain.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: OK, yes.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We could, if we wanted to, take X
-Windows, and make a GPL-covered copy and make changes in that. But
-there's a much larger group of people working on improving X Windows
-and <em>not</em> GPL-ing it. So, if we did that, we would be forking
-from them. And that's not very nice treatment of them. And, they
-<em>are</em> a part of our community, contributing to our
-community.</p>
-
-<p>Second, it would backfire against us, because they're doing a lot
-more work on X than we would be. So, our version would be inferior to
-theirs, and people wouldn't use it, which means, why go to the trouble
-at all?</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Mmm hmm.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: So when a person has written some
-improvement to X Windows, what I say that person should do is
-cooperate with the X development team. Send it to them and let them
-use it their way. Because they are developing a very important piece
-of free software. It's good for us to cooperate with them.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Except, considering X, in particular,
-about two years ago, the X Consortium that was far into the non-free
-open source…</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually it <em>wasn't</em> open
-sourced. It wasn't open sourced, either. They may have said it was.
-I can't remember if they said that or not. But it wasn't open
-source. It was restricted. You couldn't commercially distribute, I
-think. Or you couldn't commercially distribute a modified version, or
-something like that. There was a restriction that's considered
-unacceptable by both the Free Software movement and the Open Source
-movement.</p>
-
-<p>And yes, that's what using a non-copyleft license leaves you open
-to. In fact, the X Consortium, they had a very rigid policy. They
-say: If your program if copylefted even a little bit, we won't
-distribute it at all. We won't put it in our distribution.</p>
-
-<p>So, a lot of people were pressured in this way into not
-copylefting. And the result was that all of their software was wide
-open, later on. When the same people who had pressured a developer to
-be too all-permissive, then the X people later said, All right, now we
-can put on restrictions, which wasn't very ethical of them.</p>
-
-<p>But, given the situation, would we really want to scrape up the
-resources to maintain an alternate GPL-covered version of X? And it
-wouldn't make any sense to do that. There are so many other things we
-need to do. Let's do them instead. We can cooperate with the X
-developers.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Do you have a comment, is the GNU a
-trademark? And is it practical to include it as part of the GNU
-General Public License allowing trademarks?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We are, actually, applying for trademark
-registration on GNU. But it wouldn't really have anything to do with
-that. It's a long story to explain why.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You could require the trademark be
-displayed with GPL-covered programs.</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: No, I don't think so. The licenses
-cover individual programs. And when a given program is part of the
-GNU Project, nobody lies about that. The name of the system as a
-whole is a different issue. And this is an aside. It's not worth
-discussing more.</p>
-
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: If there was a button that you could
-push and force all companies to free their software, would you press
-it?</p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, I would only use this for
-published software. You know, I think that people have the right to
-write a program privately and use it. And that includes companies.
-This is privacy issue. And it's true, there can be times when it is
-wrong to do that, like if it is tremendously helpful to humanity, and
-you are withholding it from humanity. That is a wrong but that's a
-different kind of wrong. It's a different issue, although it's in the
-same area.</p>
-
-<p>But yes, I think all published software should be free software.
-And remember, when it's not free software, that's because of
-government intervention. The government is intervening to make it
-non-free. The government is creating special legal powers to hand out
-to the owners of the programs, so that they can have the police stop
-us from using the programs in certain ways. So I would certainly like
-to end that. </p>
-
-<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Richard's presentation has invariably
-generated an enormous amount of intellectual energy. I would suggest
-that some of it should be directed to using, and possibly writing,
-free software.</p>
-
-<p>We should close the proceedings shortly. I want to say that
-Richard has injected into a profession which is known in the general
-public for its terminal apolitical nerditude a level of political and
-moral discussion which is, I think, unprecedented in our profession.
-And we owe him very big for this. I'd like to note to people that
-there is a break.</p>
-
-<p><i>[Applause]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: You are free to leave at any time, you
-know. <i>[Laughter]</i> I'm not holding you prisoner here.</p>
-
-<p><i>[Audience adjourns…]</i></p>
-
-<p><i>[overlapping conversations…]</i></p>
-
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: One final thing. Our website:
-www.gnu.org</p>
-
-</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
-<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
-<div id="footer">
-<div class="unprintable">
-
-<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
-<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></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";><address@hidden></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";>
- <address@hidden></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>. -->
-Please see the <a
-href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
-README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
-of this article.</p>
-</div>
-
-<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
- files generated as part of manuals) 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. -->
-
-<p>Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman</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>
-
-<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
-
-<p class="unprintable">Updated:
-<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2015/02/20 17:28:08 $
-<!-- timestamp end -->
-</p>
-</div>
-</div>
-</body>
-</html>
Index: events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.po
===================================================================
RCS file: events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.po
diff -N events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.po
--- events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.po 20 Feb 2015 17:28:09 -0000
1.14
+++ /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
@@ -1,4689 +0,0 @@
-# Turkish translations for rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html package
-# rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html paketi için Türkçe çeviriler
-# Copyright (C) 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
-# This file is distributed under the same license as the
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html package.
-# Tahir Emre Kalaycı <address@hidden>, 2009.
-# ÃiÄdem ÃzÅar, 2009.
-# Birkan SarıfakıoÄlu, 2009.
-# Serkan Ãapkan, 2009.
-# Ä°zlem GözükeleÅ, 2009.
-# Feb 2015: trivial update; fix quotes (T. Godefroy).
-#
-msgid ""
-msgstr ""
-"Project-Id-Version: rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html\n"
-"POT-Creation-Date: 2015-02-20 15:55+0000\n"
-"PO-Revision-Date: 2010-01-12 00:31+0100\n"
-"Last-Translator: Tahir Emre Kalaycı <address@hidden>\n"
-"Language-Team: Turkish <address@hidden>\n"
-"Language: tr\n"
-"MIME-Version: 1.0\n"
-"Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n"
-"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n"
-"Plural-Forms: nplurals=1; plural=0;\n"
-
-# type: Content of: <title>
-#. type: Content of: <title>
-msgid ""
-"Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation - GNU Project - Free Software "
-"Foundation"
-msgstr ""
-"Ãzgür Yazılım: Ãzgürlük ve Ä°ÅbirliÄi - GNU Projesi - Ãzgür
Yazılım Vakfı"
-
-# type: Content of: <h2>
-#. type: Content of: <h2>
-msgid "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation"
-msgstr "Ãzgür Yazılım: Ãzgürlük ve Ä°ÅbirliÄi"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <blockquote><p>
-msgid ""
-"Transcript of Richard M. Stallman's speech, “Free Software: Freedom "
-"and Cooperation”, given at New York University in New York, NY, on 29 "
-"May 2001"
-msgstr ""
-"Richard M. Stallman'ın âÃzgür Yazılım: Ãzgürlük ve Ä°ÅbirliÄiâ
isimli, New "
-"York'taki New York Ãniversitesi'nde, 29 Mayıs 2001 tarihinde yaptıÄı "
-"konuÅmanın metnidir."
-
-# type: Content of: <div><blockquote><p>
-#. type: Content of: <div><blockquote><p>
-msgid ""
-"A <a href=\"/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt\">plain text</a> version of "
-"this transcript and a <a href=\"/events/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt\">summary</"
-"a> of the speech are also available."
-msgstr ""
-"Bu konuÅmanın <a href=\"/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt\">düz
metin</a> "
-"sürümü ve <a href=\"/events/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt\">özeti</a> de
vardır."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>URETSKY</strong>: I'm Mike Uretsky. I'm over at the Stern School of "
-"Business. I'm also one of the Co-Directors of the Center for Advanced "
-"Technology. And, on behalf of all of us in the Computer Science Department, "
-"I want to welcome you here. I want to say a few comments, before I turn it "
-"over to Ed, who is going to introduce the speaker."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>URETSKY</strong>: Ben Mike Uretsky. Stern Ä°Åletme Fakültesiâni "
-"bitirdim. Ayrıca Ä°leri Teknoloji Merkeziânin Müdür Yardımcılarından
biriyim. "
-"Ve Bilgisayar Bilimi Departmanında hepimiz adına, sizlere burada hoŠ"
-"geldiniz demek istiyorum. Size konuÅmacıyı takdim edecek olan Edâe
mikrofonu "
-"vermeden önce bazı açıklamalarda bulunmak istiyorum."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"The role of a university is a place to foster debate and to have interesting "
-"discussions. And the role of a major university is to have particularly "
-"interesting discussions. And this particular presentation, this seminar "
-"falls right into that mold. I find the discussion of open source "
-"particularly interesting. In a sense … <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Ãniversitenin rolü, tartıÅmaların yapılması için uygun bir alan
olması ve "
-"ilginç tartıÅmaların yapılabilmesidir. Ve büyük bir üniversitenin
rolü, "
-"özellikle ilginç tartıÅmaların yapılabilmesidir. Ve bu özel sunum, bu "
-"seminer bu kalıba girer. Açık kaynak tartıÅmasını özellikle ilginç "
-"buluyorum. Bir anlamdaâ¦.<i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i>"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I do free software. Open source is a different "
-"movement. <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Ãzgür yazılım yapıyorum. Açık kaynak
farklı bir "
-"harekettir. <i>[dinleyiciler güler] [AlkıÅ]</i>"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>URETSKY</strong>: When I first started in the field in the '60's, "
-"basically software was free. And we went in cycles. It became free, and "
-"then software manufacturers, in the need to expand their markets, pushed it "
-"in other directions. A lot of the developments that took place with the "
-"entry of the PC moved in exactly the same kind of a cycle."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>URETSKY</strong>: 1960âlarda ilgili alanda çalıÅmaya ilk "
-"baÅladıÄımda, temel olarak yazılım özgürdü. Ve çevrimlere girdik.
Ãzgür hale "
-"geldi ve daha sonra pazarlarını geniÅletme ihtiyacında olan yazılım "
-"üreticileri, bunu baÅka taraflara doÄru çektiler. PCânin giriÅiyle "
-"gerçekleÅen birçok hareket, tam olarak da benzer bir çevrim tipinde
hareket "
-"etti."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"There's a very interesting French philosopher, Pierre Levy, who talks about "
-"movement to this direction and who talks about the move into cyberspace as "
-"not only relating to technology but also relating to social restructuring, "
-"to political restructuring, through a change in the kinds of relationships "
-"that will improve the well-being of mankind. And we're hoping that this "
-"debate is a movement in that direction, that this debate is something that "
-"cuts across a lot of the disciplines that normally act as solace within the "
-"University. We're looking forward to some very interesting discussions. Ed?"
-msgstr ""
-"Pierre Levy adında çok ilginç bir Fransız filozof vardır, bu filozof, "
-"insanlıÄın refahını geliÅtirecek iliÅki tiplerindeki deÄiÅim ile,
yalnızca "
-"teknolojiyle ilgili olarak deÄil ayrıca sosyal yeniden yapılanma, politik "
-"yeniden yapılanma ile iliÅkili olarak bu yöne doÄru olan hareketten ve
siber "
-"aleme doÄru olan hareketten bahsetmektedir. Ve bu tartıÅmanın söz konusu
"
-"yöndeki bir hareket olmasını ve bu tartıÅmanın, normalde Ãniversitede
bir "
-"teselli gibi olan çok sayıda disiplinin sınırlarının ötesine giden bir
Åey "
-"olmasını umuyoruz. Bazı çok ilginç tartıÅmaları dört gözle
bekliyoruz. Ed?"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: I'm Ed Schonberg from the Computer Science "
-"Department at the Courant Institute. Let me welcome you all to this event. "
-"Introducers are usually, and particularly, a useless aspect of public "
-"presentations, but in this case, actually, they serve a useful purpose, as "
-"Mike easily demonstrated, because an introducer for instance, told him, by "
-"making inaccurate comments, can allow him to straighten out and correct and "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i> sharpen considerably the parameters of the debate."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Ben Courant Enstitüsüândeki Bilgisayar Bilimi
"
-"Departmanından Ed Schonberg. Hepinize öncelikle hoŠgeldiniz demek "
-"istiyorum. GiriÅ konuÅmasını yapanlar genellikle ve özellikle halka "
-"sunumların yararsız bir kısmını yapanlardır ancak bu durumda, gerçekte
"
-"yararlı bir amaca hizmet etmektedirler, Mikeâın da kolayca gösterdiÄi
gibi, "
-"giriÅ konuÅmasını yapan kiÅi, örneÄin, hatalı açıklamalar yaparak, "
-"tartıÅmanın parametrelerini ciddi ölçüde düzeltebilir ve
<i>[dinleyiciler "
-"güler]</i> keskin hale getirebilir."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, let me make the briefest possible introduction to somebody who doesn't "
-"need one. Richard is the perfect example of somebody who, by acting "
-"locally, started thinking globally from problems concerning the "
-"unavailability of source code for printer drivers at the AI Lab many years "
-"ago. He has developed a coherent philosophy that has forced all of us to re-"
-"examine our ideas of how software is produced, of what intellectual property "
-"means, and what the software community actually represents. Let me welcome "
-"Richard Stallman. <i>[Applause]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Bu nedenle, açıklamaya ihtiyaç duymayan birine anlatır gibi mümkün olan
en "
-"kısa giriÅi yapayım. Richard, yıllar önce MIT YZ Laboratuarında
yazıcı "
-"sürücüleri için kaynak kodunun elveriÅli olmamasına iliÅkin
problemlerden "
-"küresel olarak düÅünen ve yerel hareket eden biri için mükemmel bir "
-"örnektir. Yazılımın nasıl oluÅturulduÄu, hangi fikri mülkiyet
araçlarına "
-"sahip olduÄu ve yazılım topluluÄunun gerçekte neyi temsil ettiÄi
fikirlerini "
-"yeniden incelemek için hepimizi zorlamıŠolan baÄlı bir felsefe "
-"geliÅtirmiÅtir. Richard Stallmanâa hoÅ geldiniz demek istiyorum.
<i>[AlkıÅ]</"
-"i>"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can someone lend me a watch? <i>[Laughter]</i> "
-"Thank you. So, I'd like to thank Microsoft for providing me the opportunity "
-"to <i>[Laughter]</i> be on this platform. For the past few weeks, I have "
-"felt like an author whose book was fortuitously banned somewhere. <i>"
-"[Laughter]</i> Except that all the articles about it are giving the wrong "
-"author's name, because Microsoft describes the GNU GPL as an open source "
-"license, and most of the press coverage followed suit. Most people, of "
-"course just innocently don't realize that our work has nothing to do with "
-"open source, that in fact we did most of it before people even coined the "
-"term open source."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Biri bana bir saat ödünç verebilir mi? <i>"
-"[Dinleyiciler güler]</i> TeÅekkür ederim. Bu vesileyle, bu platformda olma
"
-"imkânı verdikleri için Microsoftâa <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i>
teÅekkür "
-"ederim. Son birkaç haftadır, kitabı bir yerlerde kazara yasaklanmıŠolan
bir "
-"yazar gibi hissediyorum.<i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Ancak buna iliÅkin "
-"yazıların tümünde yanlıŠyazarın adı verilmektedir çünkü Microsoft
GNU "
-"GPLâyi açık kaynaklı bir lisans olarak tanımlamaktadır ve bunu izleyen
baskı "
-"kapsamının çoÄunluÄu buna uygundur. Tabi ki, insanların çoÄunluÄu, "
-"çalıÅmamızın açık kaynakla iÅinin olmadıÄını fark etmemektedir,
çünkü "
-"insanlar âaçık kaynakâ ifadesini bulmadan önce iÅin çoÄunu
gerçekleÅtirdik."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"We are in the free software movement, and I'm going to speak about what the "
-"free software movement is about, what it means, what we have done, and, "
-"because this is partly sponsored by a school of business, I'll say some "
-"things more than I usually do about how free software relates to business, "
-"and some other areas of social life."
-msgstr ""
-"Ãzgür yazılım hareketindeyiz ve özgür yazılım hareketinin ne
hakkında "
-"olduÄu, ne anlama geldiÄi, ne yaptıÄımız üzerine konuÅacaÄım ve bu
bir "
-"iÅletme okulu tarafından desteklendiÄi için, özgür yazılımın
iÅletmeyle "
-"nasıl bir ilgisi olduÄu hakkında ve sosyal hayatın bazı diÄer alanları
"
-"hakkında bir Åeyler söyleyeceÄim."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, some of you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps you "
-"cook. And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably use "
-"recipes. And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the experience of "
-"getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing it. And you've "
-"probably also had the experience — unless you're a total neophyte "
-"— of changing a recipe. You know, it says certain things, but you "
-"don't have to do exactly that. You can leave out some ingredients. Add "
-"some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms. Put in less salt because your "
-"doctor said you should cut down on salt — whatever. You can even make "
-"bigger changes according to your skill. And if you've made changes in a "
-"recipe, and you cook it for your friends, and they like it, one of your "
-"friends might say, “Hey, could I have the recipe?” And then, "
-"what do you do? You could write down your modified version of the recipe and "
-"make a copy for your friend. These are the natural things to do with "
-"functionally useful recipes of any kind."
-msgstr ""
-"Åimdi, bazılarınız hayatında hiç bilgisayar programı yazmamıÅ
olabilir ama "
-"belki de yemek piÅirdiniz. Ve yemek piÅirdiyseniz, çok mükemmel
deÄilseniz, "
-"muhtemelen yemek tariflerini kullandınız. Ve yemek tariflerini "
-"kullandıysanız, bir arkadaÅınızla muhtemelen bir yemek tarifinin
kopyasını "
-"paylaÅtınız. Ve tam anlamıyla bir acemi deÄilseniz, yemek tarifi
alıÅveriÅi "
-"yapmıÅsınızdır. Yemek tariflerinde belirli Åeyler söylenmektedir ancak
tam "
-"olarak aynı Åeyleri yapmanız gerekmez. İçeriklerden bazılarını "
-"katmayabilirsiniz. Mantarı sevdiÄiniz için biraz mantar ekleyebilirsiniz. "
-"Doktorunuz tuzu azaltmanız gerektiÄini söylediÄi için daha az tuz "
-"koyabilirsiniz. YeteneÄinize göre daha büyük deÄiÅiklikler bile "
-"yapabilirsiniz. Ve bir yemek tarifinde deÄiÅiklik yaptıysanız ve bu yemek
"
-"tarifine göre arkadaÅlarınıza yemek piÅirdiyseniz ve yemeÄi sevdilerse,
size "
-"Åunu söyleyebilirler: âTarifini bana da verir misin?â Ve o zaman ne "
-"yaparsınız? Yemek tarifinin deÄiÅmiÅ halini yazıp arkadaÅınıza bir
kopyasını "
-"verebilirsiniz. Bunlar, herhangi bir tipteki iÅlevsel olarak yararlı yemek "
-"tarifleriyle yapabileceÄiniz doÄal Åeylerdir."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program. A computer program's a lot "
-"like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to get some result that "
-"you want. So it's just as natural to do those same things with computer "
-"programs — hand a copy to your friend. Make changes in it because the "
-"job it was written to do isn't exactly what you want. It did a great job "
-"for somebody else, but your job is a different job. And after you've "
-"changed it, that's likely to be useful for other people. Maybe they have a "
-"job to do that's like the job you do. So they ask, “Hey, can I have a "
-"copy?” Of course, if you're a nice person, you're going to give a "
-"copy. That's the way to be a decent person."
-msgstr ""
-"Åimdi yemek tarifi, bir bilgisayar programına çok benzemektedir. Bir "
-"bilgisayar programı yemek tarifine çok benzemektedir: istediÄiniz bir
sonuca "
-"ulaÅmak için gerçekleÅtirilecek bir seri adımdan ibarettir. Bu nedenle, "
-"yemek tarifleriyle yaptıÄınız Åeyleri bilgisayar programlarıyla da
yapmanız "
-"çok doÄaldır, örneÄin, arkadaÅınıza bir kopyasını vermek gibi.
Farklı bir "
-"iÅlevi görmesi için bilgisayar programını deÄiÅtirebilirsiniz de.
BaÅka biri "
-"için iyi bir iŠgörmüŠolabilir ancak sizinki farklı bir iŠolabilir.
Bu "
-"nedenle programı deÄiÅtirirsiniz. Ve deÄiÅtirdikten sonra, baÅka
insanlar "
-"için yararlı olabilir. Belki de sizin yaptıÄınız iÅe benzer bir iÅ
için "
-"kullanılacaktır. Bu nedenle, Åu soruyu sorarlar: âBana bilgisayar "
-"programının bir kopyasını verir misin?â Tabi ki, kibar bir insan
olduÄunuz "
-"için, bilgisayar programınızın bir kopyasını verirsiniz. Bu, nazik bir
insan "
-"olmanın yoludur."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So imagine what it would be like if recipes were packaged inside black "
-"boxes. You couldn't see what ingredients they're using, let alone change "
-"them, and imagine if you made a copy for a friend, they would call you a "
-"pirate and try to put you in prison for years. That world would create "
-"tremendous outrage from all the people who are used to sharing recipes. But "
-"that is exactly what the world of proprietary software is like. A world in "
-"which common decency towards other people is prohibited or prevented."
-msgstr ""
-"Bu nedenle, yemek tariflerinin kara kutular içine yerleÅtirildiÄi durumu "
-"düÅünün. Hangi içerikleri kullandıÄınızı göremezsiniz ve
deÄiÅtiremezsiniz "
-"ve arkadaÅınıza bir kopyasını vermeye kalktıÄınızda size korsan
dendiÄini ve "
-"yıllarca hapiste yattıÄınızı düÅünün. Böyle bir dünya, yemek
tariflerini "
-"paylaÅmaya alıÅmıŠinsanlar için büyük bir zulümdür. Ancak özel
mülk yazılım "
-"dünyasında durum aynen böyledir. Bu, diÄer insanlara karÅı genel
inceliÄin "
-"olmadıÄı ya da engellendiÄi bir dünyadır. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, why did I notice this? I noticed this because I had the good fortune in "
-"the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who shared software. "
-"Now, this community could trace its ancestry essentially back to the "
-"beginning of computing. In the 1970's, though, it was a bit rare for there "
-"to be a community where people shared software. And, in fact, this was sort "
-"of an extreme case, because in the lab where I worked, the entire operating "
-"system was software developed by the people in our community, and we'd share "
-"any of it with anybody. Anybody was welcome to come and take a look, and "
-"take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do. There were no copyright "
-"notices on these programs. Cooperation was our way of life. And we were "
-"secure in that way of life. We didn't fight for it. We didn't have to "
-"fight for it. We just lived that way. And, as far as we knew, we would "
-"just keep on living that way. So there was free software, but there was no "
-"free software movement."
-msgstr ""
-"Åimdi bunu neden farkettim? Bunu farkettim çünkü 1970âlerde yazılımı
"
-"paylaÅan bir programcı birliÄinin parçası olma Åansına ulaÅmıÅtım.
Bu "
-"topluluÄun temelleri bilgisayarın baÅlangıcına dayanmaktadır. Ancak, "
-"1970âlerde, insanların yazılımı paylaÅtıÄı bir topluluk zor bulunan
bir "
-"Åeydi. Ve gerçekte bu uç bir durumdu çünkü çalıÅtıÄım
laboratuarda, tüm "
-"iÅletim sistemi, topluluÄumuz tarafından geliÅtirilen yazılımdı ve bu "
-"yazılımın herhangi bir kısmını herhangi bir kimseyle paylaÅmaktaydık.
"
-"Ä°steyen herkes gelebiliyor ve bir kopya alabiliyordu ve ne yapmak isterse "
-"yapıyordu. Bu programlar üzerinde hiçbir telif hakkı uyarısı yoktu. "
-"Ä°ÅbirliÄi bizim yaÅam biçimimizdi. Ve bu yaÅam Åeklinde güvendeydik.
Bunun "
-"için savaÅmıyorduk. Bunun için savaÅmamız gerekmiyordu. Sadece bu
Åekilde "
-"yaÅıyorduk. Ve bildiÄimiz kadarıyla, bu Åekilde yaÅamayı
sürdürecektik. Bu "
-"nedenle özgür yazılım vardı ama özgür yazılım hareketi yoktu. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that happened "
-"to it. Ultimately it was wiped out. Ultimately, the PDP-10 computer which "
-"we used for all our work was discontinued. And you know, our system — "
-"the Incompatible Timesharing System — was written starting in the "
-"'60's, so it was written in assembler language. That's what you used to "
-"write an operating system in the '60's. So, of course, assembler language "
-"is for one particular computer architecture; if that gets discontinued, all "
-"your work turns into dust — it's useless. And that's what happened to "
-"us. The 20 years or so of work of our community turned into dust."
-msgstr ""
-"Ama daha sonra topluluÄumuz çeÅitli felaketlerle yıkıldı. Sonunda
tamamen "
-"yok oldu. Sonunda tüm çalıÅmalarımız için kullandıÄımız PDP-10
bilgisayarı1 "
-"ortadan kalktı. Sistemimiz olan, Uyumlu Olmayan Zaman PaylaÅımlı Sistem, "
-"1960âlarda baÅlayarak yazılmıÅtı, bu nedenle assembler dilinde
yazılmıÅtı. "
-"1960âlarda bir iÅletim sistemi yazmak için assembler kullanılmaktaydı.
Bu "
-"nedenle, tabi ki, assembler dili belirli bir bilgisayar mimarisi içindir; "
-"bunun devamı gelmezse, tüm çalıÅmanız boÅa gider, iÅe yaramaz. Ve
bizim "
-"baÅımıza da bu geldi. 20 yıllık çalıÅma boÅa gitti. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me, helped me "
-"see what to do, helped prepare me to see what to do when this happened, "
-"because at certain point, Xerox gave the Artificial Intelligence Lab, where "
-"I worked, a laser printer, and this was a really handsome gift, because it "
-"was the first time anybody outside Xerox had a laser printer. It was very "
-"fast, printed a page a second, very fine in many respects, but it was "
-"unreliable, because it was really a high-speed office copier that had been "
-"modified into a printer. And, you know, copiers jam, but there's somebody "
-"there to fix them. The printer jammed and nobody saw. So it stayed jammed "
-"for a long time."
-msgstr ""
-"Ancak bu durum meydana gelmeden önce, bu durum meydana geldiÄinde ne "
-"yapacaÄıma iliÅkin olarak beni hazırlayan ve ne yapacaÄımı görmeme
yardımcı "
-"olan bir olay oldu çünkü belirli bir noktada, Xerox çalıÅtıÄım yer
olan "
-"Yapay Zeka Laboratuvarına bir lazer yazıcısı hediye etti ve bu hediye "
-"gerçekten de güzel bir hediyeydi çünkü Xerox dıÅında birilerinin bir
lazer "
-"yazıcısına sahip olduÄu ilk durumdu. Bu yazıcı çok hızlıydı,
saniyede bir "
-"sayfa yazıyordu, birçok anlamda çok iyiydi ancak güvenilir deÄildi
çünkü "
-"yüksek hızlı bir kopyalayıcının yazıcı olarak deÄiÅtirilmiÅ
biçimiydi. Ve "
-"bildiÄiniz gibi kopyalayıcılarda sıkıÅma meydana gelmektedir ancak
genelde "
-"bu sıkıÅmayı çözecek birileri bulunur. Yazıcıda sıkıÅma oldu ve
kimse "
-"görmedi. Bu nedenle yazıcı uzun süre sorunlu halde kaldı."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Well, we had an idea for how to deal with this problem. Change it so that "
-"whenever the printer gets a jam, the machine that runs the printer can tell "
-"our timesharing machine, and tell the users who are waiting for printouts, "
-"or something like that, you know, tell them, go fix the printer. Because if "
-"they only knew it was jammed, of course, if you're waiting for a printout "
-"and you know that the printer is jammed, you don't want to sit and wait "
-"forever, you're going to go fix it."
-msgstr ""
-"Biz de bu sorunu çözmek için bir fikir geliÅtirdik. Sistemi, yazıcı her
ne "
-"zaman bir sıkıÅma durumu yaÅarsa, yazıcıyı çalıÅtıran makine zaman
"
-"paylaÅımlı makinemize durumu bildirecek ve çıktı bekleyen
kullanıcılara "
-"yazıcıdaki problemi çözmelerini söyleyecek bir Åekilde deÄiÅtirdik.
Tabi ki "
-"kullanıcılar, bir çıktı bekliyorlarsa ve yazıcıda sıkıÅma olduÄunu
"
-"biliyorlarsa, sonsuza kadar oturup beklemeyecek ve sorunu çözeceklerdi. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But at that point, we were completely stymied, because the software that ran "
-"that printer was not free software. It had come with the printer, and it "
-"was just a binary. We couldn't have the source code; Xerox wouldn't let us "
-"have the source code. So, despite our skill as programmers — after "
-"all, we had written our own timesharing system — we were completely "
-"helpless to add this feature to the printer software."
-msgstr ""
-"Ancak bu noktada tamamen felce uÄradık çünkü söz konusu yazıcıyı
çalıÅtıran "
-"yazılım özgür yazılım deÄildi. Söz konusu yazılım yazıcı ile
birlikte "
-"gelmiÅti ve yalnızca bir ikiliydi (binary). Kaynak kodunu alamamıÅtık; "
-"Xerox, kaynak kodunu bize vermemiÅti. Bu nedenle, programlayıcılar olarak "
-"yetenekli olmamıza raÄmen, ne de olsa kendi zaman paylaÅımlı sistemimizi
"
-"yazmıÅtık, bu özelliÄi yazıcı yazılımına ekleme konusunda
tamamıyla "
-"çaresizdik. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And we just had to suffer with waiting. It would take an hour or two to get "
-"your printout because the machine would be jammed most of the time. And "
-"only once in a while — you'd wait an hour figuring “I know it's "
-"going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and go collect my printout,” and "
-"then you'd see that it had been jammed the whole time, and in fact, nobody "
-"else had fixed it. So you'd fix it and you'd go wait another half hour. "
-"Then, you'd come back, and you'd see it jammed again — before it got "
-"to your output. It would print three minutes and be jammed thirty minutes. "
-"Frustration up the whazzoo. But the thing that made it worse was knowing "
-"that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his own selfishness, was "
-"blocking us, obstructing us from improving the software. So, of course, we "
-"felt some resentment."
-msgstr ""
-"Ve beklemek zorundaydık. Ãıktımızı almanız bir ya da iki saat
sürüyordu "
-"çünkü makine çoÄu zaman sıkıÅma yapıyordu. Bir saat bekleyip
âSıkıÅacaÄını "
-"biliyorum. Bir saat bekleyeceÄim ve çıktımı alacaÄımâ diyorduk ve
daha sonra "
-"tüm zaman boyunca sıkıÅmıŠolduÄunu ve gerçekte baÅka kimsenin tamir
"
-"etmediÄini gördük. Bu nedenle, biz tamir ettik ve yarım saat daha
bekledik. "
-"Daha sonra, geri döndük ve çıktı haline gelmeden önce yine
sıkıÅtıÄını "
-"gördük. Ãç dakika basma iÅlemi yapıp otuz dakika sıkıÅmaktaydı. Bu
durum "
-"hayal kırıklıÄı yarattı. Ancak daha kötüsü, tamir edebileceÄimizi
biliyor "
-"olmamızdı ancak kendi bencilliÄi için baÅka birileri, yazılımı "
-"geliÅtirmemizi önleyerek bizi engellemekteydi. Bu nedenle tabi ki bir
miktar "
-"küskünlük hissettik."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a copy of "
-"that software. So I was visiting there later, so I went to his office and I "
-"said, “Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of the printer source "
-"code?” And he said “No, I promised not to give you a copy."
-"” <i>[Laughter]</i> I was stunned. I was so — I was angry, and "
-"I had no idea how I could do justice to it. All I could think of was to "
-"turn around on my heel and walk out of his room. Maybe I slammed the door. "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i> And I thought about it later on, because I realized that I "
-"was seeing not just an isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was "
-"important and affected a lot of people."
-msgstr ""
-"Ve daha sonra Carneige Mellon Ãniversitesiânden birilerinin söz konusu "
-"yazılımın bir kopyasını aldıÄını duydum. Ãniversiteyi ziyaret
ediyordum, bu "
-"nedenle ilgili kimsenin ofisine gittim ve dedim ki: âMerhaba, ben
MITâdenim. "
-"Yazıcı kaynak kodunun bir kopyasını alabilir miyim?â O da bana dedi ki:
"
-"âHayır, kimseye kopya vermemeye söz verdim.â <i>[Dinleyiciler
güler]</i> "
-"ÅaÅırmıÅtım. Aynı zamanda da kızmıÅtım ve nasıl adil olacaÄıma
iliÅkin "
-"hiçbir fikrim kalmamıÅtı. Belki de kapıyı çarptım. <i>[Dinleyiciler
güler]</"
-"i> Ve daha sonra da bu konuyu düÅündüm çünkü yalnızca soyutlanmıÅ
bir olay "
-"deÄil ayrıca önemli olan ve çok sayıda kimseyi etkileyen sosyal bir
fenomen "
-"görmekte olduÄumu fark ettim."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"This was — for me — I was lucky, I only got a taste of it, but "
-"other people had to live in this all the time. So I thought about it at "
-"length. See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with us — his "
-"colleagues at MIT. He had betrayed us. But he didn't just do it to us. "
-"Chances are he did it to you too. <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> "
-"And I think, mostly likely, he did it to you too. <i>[Pointing at another "
-"member of audience.] [Laughter]</i> And he probably did it to you as well. "
-"<i>[Pointing to third member of audience.]</i> He probably did it to most of "
-"the people here in this room — except a few, maybe, who weren't born "
-"yet in 1980. Because he had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about "
-"the entire population of the Planet Earth. He had signed a non-disclosure "
-"agreement."
-msgstr ""
-"Åanslıydım, çünkü bu durumu yalnızca bir kere yaÅadım. DiÄer
insanlar ise "
-"her zaman bu durumla yaÅamak zorundalar. Bu nedenle bu konuyu kapsamlı "
-"olarak düÅündüm. MITâdeki çalıÅma arkadaÅları bizimle iÅbirliÄi
yapmaktan "
-"kaçındı. Bize ihanet etti. Ama bunu yalnızca bize karÅı yapmadı. Bunu
size "
-"de yaptı <i>[Dinleyicilerden birini gösteriyor]</i>. Ve zannediyorum ki, "
-"bunu size de yaptı. <i>[BaÅka bir dinleyiciyi gösteriyor]</i>. <i>"
-"[Dinleyiciler gülüyor]</i> Ve bunu muhtemelen size de yaptı
<i>[Dinleyiciler "
-"arasında üçüncü bir dinleyiciyi gösteriyor]</i>. Bunu bu odadaki
insanların "
-"çoÄuna yaptı, belki çok azınıza yapmadı, onlar da zaten 1980âde
henüz "
-"doÄmamıŠolanlardır. Ãünkü Dünya gezegeninin tüm nüfusu ile
iÅbirliÄi "
-"yapmayı reddetmeye söz verdi. Bir gizlilik anlaÅması imzaladı. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, "
-"and it taught me an important lesson — a lesson that's important "
-"because most programmers never learn it. You see, this was my first "
-"encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was the victim. I, and my "
-"whole lab, were the victims. And the lesson it taught me was that non-"
-"disclosure agreements have victims. They're not innocent. They're not "
-"harmless. Most programmers first encounter a non-disclosure agreement when "
-"they're invited to sign one. And there's always some temptation — "
-"some goody they're going to get if they sign. So, they make up excuses. "
-"They say, “Well, he's never going to get a copy no matter what, so why "
-"shouldn't I join the conspiracy to deprive him?” They say, “This "
-"is the way it's always done. Who am I to go against it?” They say, "
-"“If I don't sign this, someone else will.” Various excuses to "
-"gag their consciences."
-msgstr ""
-"Åimdi bu benim bir gizlilik anlaÅmasıyla ilk doÄrudan karÅılaÅmamdı
ve bu "
-"bana önemli bir ders verdi, bu önemli bir dersti çünkü birçok
programcı bunu "
-"hiçbir zaman öÄrenmedi. Bu, benim bir gizlilik anlaÅmasıyla ilk "
-"karÅılaÅmamdı ve kurban bendim. Ben ve benim tüm laboratuarım
kurbandı. Ve "
-"bu bana gizlilik anlaÅmalarının kurbanlarının var olduÄunu gösterdi.
Masum "
-"deÄildiler. Zararsız deÄildiler. Birçok programcı bir gizlilik
anlaÅması "
-"imzalamaya davet edildiÄinde, ilk olarak bir gizlilik anlaÅmasıyla "
-"karÅılaÅmaktadır. Ve her zaman istek uyandırıcı bir Åey vardır â
bu "
-"anlaÅmayı imzalarlarsa bundan iyi bir sonuç elde edeceklerini
düÅünürler. Bu "
-"nedenle özürler oluÅtururlar. Åöyle derler: âNe olursa olsun bir kopya
"
-"alamayacak, bu nedenle onu yoksun bırakmak için niçin bir komploya "
-"katılayım?â Åöyle derler: âBu, bu iÅin her zaman yapıldıÄı
yoldur. Buna "
-"karÅı kime gideyim?â Åöyle derler: âBunu ben imzalamazsam baÅka biri
"
-"imzalayacak.â Vicdanlarını rahatlatmak için çeÅitli bahaneler
bulurlar."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But when somebody invited me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, my "
-"conscience was already sensitized. It remembered how angry I had been, when "
-"somebody promised not to help me and my whole lab solve our problem. And I "
-"couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to somebody else who had "
-"never done me any harm. You know, if somebody asked me to promise not to "
-"share some useful information with a hated enemy, I would have said yes. "
-"You know? If somebody's done something bad, he deserves it. But, strangers "
-"— they haven't done me any harm. How could they deserve that kind of "
-"mistreatment? You can't let yourself start treating just anybody and "
-"everybody badly. Then you become a predator on society. So I said, “"
-"Thank you very much for offering me this nice software package. But I can't "
-"accept it in good conscience, on the conditions you are demanding, so I will "
-"do without it. Thank you so much.” And so, I have never knowingly "
-"signed a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful technical information "
-"such as software."
-msgstr ""
-"Ama birileri beni bir gizlilik anlaÅması imzalamaya çaÄırdıÄında,
vicdanım "
-"zaten duyarlı hale gelmiÅti. Birisi bana yardım etmemeye söz verdiÄinde
ne "
-"kadar sinirlenmiÅ olduÄumu hatırladım ve laboratuvarım sorunumuzu
çözdü. Ve "
-"ben ise, bana hiç zarar vermemiÅ birine aynı Åeyi yapamazdım. Birileri "
-"benden nefret edilen bir düÅmanla bazı yararlı bilgileri paylaÅmamam
için "
-"söz vermemi isteseydi, evet derdim. Birileri kötü bir Åeyler yapmıÅsa,
bunu "
-"hak etmektedir. Ancak yabancılar â bana hiç zarar vermemiÅlerdir. Bu
gibi "
-"bir hatalı muameleyi nasıl hak edebilirler? Herhangi birine ve herkese
kötü "
-"davranmaya baÅlayamazsınız. O zaman toplumda yırtıcı bir hayvan haline "
-"gelirsiniz. Bu nedenle dedim ki: âBana bu güzel yazılım paketini
sunduÄunuz "
-"için çok teÅekkür ederim. Ama talep ettiÄiniz Åartlarda bu paketi kabul
"
-"edemem, bu paket olmaksızın çalıÅacaÄım. Ãok teÅekkür ederim.â Ve
böylece, "
-"yazılım gibi genel olarak yararlı teknik bilgi için bir gizlilik
anlaÅması "
-"imzalamadım."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now there are other kinds of information which raise different ethical "
-"issues. For instance, there's personal information. You know, if you "
-"wanted to talk with me about what was happening between you and your "
-"boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody — you know, I could "
-"keep — I could agree to keep that a secret for you, because that's not "
-"generally useful technical information. At least, it's probably not "
-"generally useful. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Åimdi farklı etik hususlara iliÅkin baÅka bilgi tipleri vardır.
ÃrneÄin, "
-"kiÅisel bilgiler vardır. Kendinizle erkek arkadaÅınız arasındaki bir
olay "
-"hakkında konuÅmak isterseniz ve benden bunu kimseye söylemememi
isterseniz, "
-"bunu sizin için sır olarak saklarım çünkü bu gerçekte yararlı bir
teknik "
-"bilgi deÄildir. En azından, muhtemelen genel olarak yararlı deÄildir <i>"
-"[dinleyiciler güler]</i>. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"There is a small chance — and it's a possibility though — that "
-"you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex technique, <i>[Laughter]</i> "
-"and I would then feel a moral duty <i>[Laughter]</i> to pass it onto the "
-"rest of humanity, so that everyone could get the benefit of it. So, I'd "
-"have to put a proviso in that promise, you know? If it's just details about "
-"who wants this, and who's angry at whom, and things like that — soap "
-"opera — that I can keep private for you, but something that humanity "
-"could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't withhold. You see, the "
-"purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information for "
-"humanity to help people live their lives better. If we promise to withhold "
-"that information — if we keep it secret — then we are betraying "
-"the mission of our field. And this, I decided I shouldn't do."
-msgstr ""
-"Bana harika yeni bir seks tekniÄi anlatma olasılıÄınız da vardır "
-"[dinleyiciler güler] ve o zaman bunu toplumun geri kalanına aktarmayı
görev "
-"bilirim <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i>, böylece tüm insanlar bundan
faydalanır. "
-"Bu nedenle, söz konusu söze bir Åart koymalıyım. Kim neyi ister, kim
kime "
-"kızgındır ve bu gibi pembe dizi hususları hakkında sizin için gizli "
-"tutabileceÄim ayrıntılarsa; ancak toplumun bildiÄi için çok
faydalandıÄı bir "
-"husussa, o zaman bu bilgileri saklı tutmamalıyım. Görüyorsunuz, bilimin
ve "
-"teknolojinin hedefi, insanların hayatlarını daha iyi yaÅamaları için "
-"insanlık için yararlı bilgiler geliÅtirmektir. Söz konusu bilgileri
saklı "
-"tutmaya söz verirsek â gizli tutarsak â o zaman alanımızın misyonuna
ihanet "
-"ederiz. Ve bunu yapmamaya karar verdim."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, meanwhile my community had collapsed, and that was collapsing, and that "
-"left me in a bad situation. You see, the whole Incompatible Timesharing "
-"System was obsolete, because the PDP-10 was obsolete, and so there was no "
-"way that I could continue working as an operating system developer the way "
-"that I had been doing it. That depended on being part of the community "
-"using the community software and improving it. That no longer was a "
-"possibility, and that gave me a moral dilemma. What was I going to do? "
-"Because the most obvious possibility meant to go against that decision I had "
-"made. The most obvious possibility was to adapt myself to the change in the "
-"world. To accept that things were different, and that I'd just have to give "
-"up those principles and start signing non-disclosure agreements for "
-"proprietary operating systems, and most likely writing proprietary software "
-"as well. But I realized that that way I could have fun coding, and I could "
-"make money — especially if I did it other than at MIT — but at "
-"the end, I'd have to look back at my career and say, “I've spent my "
-"life building walls to divide people,” and I would have been ashamed "
-"of my life."
-msgstr ""
-"Ancak bu arada topluluÄum çöktü ve bu da beni kötü bir duruma soktu. "
-"Görüyorsunuz, tüm Uyumlu olmayan Zaman PaylaÅımlı Sistem eskidi
çünkü PDP-10 "
-"eskiydi ve bu nedenle, eskiden yapmıŠolduÄum gibi bir iÅletim sistemi "
-"geliÅtiricisi olarak çalıÅmaya devam etmemin bir yolu yoktu. Bu,
topluluÄun "
-"yazılımını kullanmama ve geliÅtirmeme, baÅka bir deyiÅle topluluÄun
bir "
-"parçası olmama baÄlıydı. Bu artık bir ihtimal deÄildi ve bu da beni
törel "
-"bir ikileme soktu. Ne yapacaktım? Ãünkü en açık ihtimal, vermiÅ
olduÄum "
-"karara karÅı gelmek anlamına geliyordu. En açık ihtimal, dünyadaki
deÄiÅime "
-"kendimi uyarlamaktı. Bir Åeylerin farklı olduÄunu kabul etmem ve bu
ilkeleri "
-"bırakmam ve özel mülk iÅletim sistemleri için gizlilik anlaÅmaları "
-"imzalamaya baÅlamam ve muhtemelen özel mülk yazılım yazmam gerekiyordu. "
-"Ancak kod yazmaktan zevk aldıÄımı ve para kazanabileceÄimi â
özellikle MIT "
-"dıÅında yazarsam â ama sonunda kariyerimde geriye dönüp baktıÄımda,
"
-"âHayatımı insanlar arasında duvarlar örmek için harcadımâ
diyeceÄimi ve "
-"hayatımdan utanç duyacaÄımı fark ettim. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So I looked for another alternative, and there was an obvious one. I could "
-"leave the software field and do something else. Now I had no other special "
-"noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a waiter. <i>[Laughter]"
-"</i> Not at a fancy restaurant; they wouldn't hire me, <i>[Laughter]</i> but "
-"I could be a waiter somewhere. And many programmers, they say to me, “"
-"The people who hire programmers demand this, this and this. If I don't do "
-"those things, I'll starve.” It's literally the word they use. Well, "
-"you know, as a waiter, you're not going to starve. <i>[Laughter]</i> So, "
-"really, they're in no danger. But — and this is important, you see "
-"— because sometimes you can justify doing something that hurts other "
-"people by saying otherwise something worse is going to happen to me. You "
-"know, if you were <em>really</em> going to starve, you'd be justified in "
-"writing proprietary software. <i>[Laughter]</i> If somebody's pointing a "
-"gun at you, then I would say, it's forgivable. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, I had "
-"found a way that I could survive without doing something unethical, so that "
-"excuse was not available. So I realized, though, that being a waiter would "
-"be no fun for me, and it would be wasting my skills as an operating system "
-"developer. It would avoid misusing my skills. Developing proprietary "
-"software would be misusing my skills. Encouraging other people to live in "
-"the world of proprietary software would be misusing my skills. So it's "
-"better to waste them than misuse them, but it's still not really good."
-msgstr ""
-"Bu nedenle baÅka bir alternatif aradım ve açık bir alternatif vardı.
Yazılım "
-"alanını bırakıp baÅka bir Åeyler yapabilirdim. BaÅka bir özel kayda
deÄer "
-"yeteneÄe sahip deÄildim ancak bir garson olabileceÄimden emindim. <i>"
-"[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Ancak Åık bir restoranda çalıÅamazdım; beni
iÅe "
-"almazlardı <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> ancak baÅka bir yerlerde garson "
-"olabilirdim. Ve birçok programcı bana Åunu dedi: âProgramcıları iÅe
alan "
-"insanlar Åunu, Åunu ve Åunu talep etmektedir. Bu iÅleri yapmazsam, o
zaman "
-"açlıktan ölürüm.â Kullandıkları sözcükler böyleydi. Garson olarak
açlıktan "
-"ölmezsiniz. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Bu nedenle, gerçekte tehlikede "
-"deÄilsiniz. Ancak â ve bu önemlidir, görüyorsunuz â bazen diÄer
insanlara "
-"zarar veren bir Åey yaparsınız ve bunu yapmasaydım ben daha çok zarar "
-"görecektim diyerek kendinizi haklı çıkartırsınız. <em>Gerçekten</em>
de "
-"açlıktan ölseniz, özel mülk yazılım yazma konusunda haklısınızdır.
<i>"
-"[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Birileri size silah tutsa, o zaman affedilebilir "
-"bir iÅ yaptıÄınızı söyleyebilirim. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Ancak
etik "
-"olmayan bir Åeyler yapmayarak yaÅantımı sürdürmenin bir yolunu
bulmuÅtum, bu "
-"nedenle bir bahane yoktu. Ancak garsonluk yapmanın benim için eÄlenceli
bir "
-"iÅ olmayacaÄının farkına vardım, bir iÅletim sistemi geliÅtiricisi
olarak "
-"yeteneklerimi boÅa harcamama neden olacaktı. özel mülk yazılım
geliÅtirmek "
-"ise yeteneklerimi kötüye kullanmak olurdu. DiÄer insanları özel mülk
yazılım "
-"dünyasında yaÅamak için yüreklendirmek yeteneklerimi kötüye kullanmam "
-"anlamına gelirdi. Bu nedenle, yeteneklerimi kötüye kullanmak yerine
harcamak "
-"daha iyidir ancak hâlâ yine de gerçekten de iyi deÄildir. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So for those reasons, I decided to look for some other alternative. What "
-"can an operating system developer do that would actually improve the "
-"situation, make the world a better place? And I realized that an operating "
-"system developer was exactly what was needed. The problem, the dilemma, "
-"existed for me and for everyone else because all of the available operating "
-"systems for modern computers were proprietary. The free operating systems "
-"were for old, obsolete computers, right? So for the modern computers — "
-"if you wanted to get a modern computer and use it, you were forced into a "
-"proprietary operating system. So if an operating system developer wrote "
-"another operating system, and then said, “Everybody come and share "
-"this; you're welcome to this” — that would give everybody a way "
-"out of the dilemma, another alternative. So I realized that there was "
-"something I could do that would solve the problem. I had just the right "
-"skills to be able to do it. And it was the most useful thing I could "
-"possibly imagine that I'd be able to do with my life. And it was a problem "
-"that no one else was trying to solve. It was just sort of sitting there, "
-"getting worse, and nobody was there but me. So I felt, “I'm elected. "
-"I have to work on this. If not me, who?” So I decided I would develop "
-"a free operating system, or die trying … of old age, of course. <i>"
-"[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Bu nedenlerden ötürü, baÅka bir alternatif aramaya karar verdim. Durumu "
-"gerçekten de geliÅtirecek olan bir iÅletim sistemi geliÅtiricisi
dünyayı "
-"daha iyi bir yer haline getirmek için ne yapabilir? Ve gerçekten de gerekli
"
-"olanın bir iÅletim sistemi geliÅtiricisi olduÄunu fark ettim. Problem ve "
-"ikilem benim için ve herkes için mevcuttu çünkü modern bilgisayarlara "
-"iliÅkin mevcut iÅletim sistemlerinin tümü özel mülkydi. Ãzgür
iÅletim "
-"sistemleri eski, zamanı geçmiÅ bilgisayarlar içindi, deÄil mi? Bu
nedenle "
-"modern bilgisayarlar için â modern bir bilgisayarı alıp kullanmak "
-"isterseniz, özel mülk bir iÅletim sistemi kullanmaya zorlanmaktaydınız.
Bu "
-"nedenle bir iÅletim sistemi geliÅtiricisi baÅka bir iÅletim sistemi yazar
ve "
-"daha sonra Åunu derse: âHerkes gelsin ve bunu paylaÅsın; hoÅ
geldinizâ â bu, "
-"herkese ikilemden bir çıkıŠyolu, baÅka bir alternatif saÄlayacaktır.
Bu "
-"nedenle, problemi çözebilecek bir Åeyler yapabileceÄimi fark ettim. Bunu "
-"yapmak için doÄru özelliklere sahiptim. Ve bu, hayatımla ilgili "
-"yapabileceÄimi hayal ettiÄim en yararlı Åeydi. Ve bu, baÅka hiç
kimsenin "
-"çözmeye çalıÅmadıÄı bir problemdi. Bu yalnızca orada oturmak ve
iÅlerin "
-"kötüye gitmesini seyretmekti ve orada benden baÅka hiç kimse yoktu. Bu "
-"nedenle Åöyle hissettim: âBen seçildim. Bu konu üzerinde çalıÅmam
lazım. Ben "
-"deÄilsem kim çalıÅacak ki?â Bu nedenle, özgür bir iÅletim sistemi "
-"geliÅtirirken ya da geliÅtirmeye çalıÅırken...yaÅlı bir halde tabi ki
ölmeye "
-"karar verdim. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i>"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, of course I had to decide what kind of operating system it should be. "
-"There are some technical design decisions to be made. I decided to make the "
-"system compatible with Unix for a number of reasons. First of all, I had "
-"just seen one operating system that I really loved become obsolete because "
-"it was written for one particular kind of computer. I didn't want that to "
-"happen again. We needed to have a portable system. Well, Unix was a "
-"portable system. So if I followed the design of Unix, I had a pretty good "
-"chance that I could make a system that would also be portable and workable. "
-"And furthermore, why <i>[Tape unclear]</i> be compatible with it in the "
-"details. The reason is, users hate incompatible changes. If I had just "
-"designed the system in my favorite way — which I would have loved "
-"doing, I'm sure — I would have produced something that was "
-"incompatible. You know, the details would be different. So, if I wrote the "
-"system, then the users would have said to me, “Well, this is very "
-"nice, but it's incompatible. It will be too much work to switch. We can't "
-"afford that much trouble just to use your system instead of Unix, so we'll "
-"stay with Unix,” they would have said."
-msgstr ""
-"Tabi ki, bunun nasıl bir iÅletim sistemi olması gerektiÄine karar vermem "
-"gerekiyordu. Bazı teknik tasarım kararlarının verilmesi gerekiyordu.
Belirli "
-"nedenlerden ötürü, sistemi Unix ile uyumlu bir sistem haline getirmeye
karar "
-"verdim. Ä°lk olarak, gerçekten de sevdiÄim bir iÅletim sisteminin
kullanılmaz "
-"hale geldiÄini gördüm çünkü bu iÅletim sistemi, belirli bir bilgisayar
tipi "
-"için yazılmıÅtı. Bu durumun yeniden meydana gelmesini istemedim.
TaÅınabilir "
-"bir sistemimizin olması gerekiyordu. Unix taÅınabilir bir sistemdi. Bu "
-"nedenle, Unixâin tasarımını izleseydim, taÅınabilir ve
çalıÅtırılabilir bir "
-"sistem oluÅturma Åansına sahip olabilirdim. Ve dahası, <i>[kayıt
anlaÅılır "
-"deÄil]</i> ayrıntıda niçin uyumlu bir sistem olmasın ki? Bunun nedeni, "
-"kullanıcıların, uyumlu olmayan deÄiÅikliklerden nefret etmesidir.
Sistemi en "
-"sevdiÄim Åekilde tasarımlamıŠolsaydım ki böyle yapmak isterdim,
eminim ki â "
-"uyumlu olmayan bir Åeyler üretmiÅ olurdum. Ayrıntılar farklı olurdu. Bu
"
-"nedenle sistemi yazsaydım, o zaman kullanıcılar bana Åunu diyeceklerdi:
âBu "
-"çok güzel, ancak uyumlu deÄil. GeçiÅ yapmak için çok fazla çalıÅma "
-"gerekiyor. Unix yerine sizin sisteminizi kullanmamız çok zorlayıcı, bu "
-"nedenle Unixâle çalıÅmaya devam edeceÄizâ."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, if I wanted to actually create a community where there would be people "
-"in it, people using this free system, and enjoying the benefits of liberty "
-"and cooperation, I had to make a system people would use, a system that they "
-"would find easy to switch to, that would not have an obstacle making it fail "
-"at the very beginning. Now, making the system upward compatible with Unix "
-"actually made all the immediate design decisions, because Unix consists of "
-"many pieces, and they communicate through interfaces that are more or less "
-"documented. So if you want to be compatible with Unix, you have to replace "
-"each piece, one by one, with a compatible piece. So the remaining design "
-"decisions are inside one piece, and they could be made later by whoever "
-"decides to write that piece. They didn't have to be made at the outset."
-msgstr ""
-"İçinde insanların, bu özgür sistemi kullanan ve özgürlüÄün ve
iÅbirliÄinin "
-"faydalarının tadını çıkaran insanların olduÄu bir topluluk
oluÅturmak "
-"isteseydim, insanların kullanacaÄı, insanların kolay bir Åekilde "
-"dönebilecekleri ve baÅlangıçta baÅarısız olması için bir engelin
olmadıÄı "
-"bir sistem yapmak isterdim. Åimdi ise, sistemi Unix ile uyumlu hale "
-"getirmek, tasarım kararlarının tümünü gerçekleÅtirmiÅtir çünkü
Unix, birçok "
-"parçadan oluÅmaktadır ve bu parçalar, oldukça iyi bir Åekilde
klavuzları "
-"yazılmıŠolan ara yüzler üzerinden haberleÅmektedir. Bu nedenle, Unix
ile "
-"uyumlu olmak isterseniz, her bir parçayı birer birer uyumlu bir parça ile "
-"deÄiÅtirmeniz gereklidir. Bu nedenle, kalan tasarım kararları bir
parçanın "
-"içindedir ve söz konusu parçayı kim yazmaya karar verirse, o kiÅi
tarafından "
-"gerçekleÅtirilebilir. BaÅlangıçta gerçekleÅtirilmeleri gerekmez. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So all we had to do to start work was find a name for the system. Now, we "
-"hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program, because "
-"thinking of people being amused by the name is half the fun of writing the "
-"program. <i>[Laughter]</i> And we had a tradition of recursive acronyms, to "
-"say that the program that you're writing is similar to some existing "
-"program. You can give it a recursive acronym name which says: this one's not "
-"the other. So, for instance, there were many Tico text editors in the '60's "
-"and '70's, and they were generally called something-or-other Tico. Then one "
-"clever hacker called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico — the first "
-"recursive acronym. In 1975, I developed the first Emacs text editor, and "
-"there were many imitations of Emacs, and a lot of them were called something-"
-"or-other Emacs, but one was called Fine, for Fine Is Not Emacs, and there "
-"was Sine, for Sine Is Not Emacs, and Eine for Ina Is Not Emacs, and MINCE "
-"for Mince Is Not Complete Emacs. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was a stripped down "
-"imitation. And then, Eine was almost completely rewritten, and the new "
-"version was called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"ÃalıÅmayı baÅlatmak için tüm yapmamız gereken sistem için bir isim
bulmaktı. "
-"Åimdi, biz hackerâlar, bir program için her zaman komik ya da haylaz bir "
-"isim ararız çünkü programın ismi ile eÄlenen insanları düÅünmek,
programı "
-"yazmanın eÄlencesinin yarısı kadardır. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Ve "
-"sözcüklerin baÅ harflerinden oluÅan yinelemeli isimleri verme geleneÄine
"
-"sahiptik, bu, yazmakta olduÄunuz programın, mevcut bir programa benzer bir "
-"isme sahip olduÄu anlamına gelmektedir. Programınıza, Åunu söyleyen ve "
-"sözcüklerin baÅ harflerinden oluÅan (akronim) yinelemeli bir isim "
-"verebilirsiniz: bu, diÄeri deÄil. Böylece örneÄin, 1960âlarda ve
1970âlerde "
-"çok sayıda Tico metin editörü vardı ve bunlar genellikle birileri ya da "
-"diÄerleri TECO olarak adlandırılmaktaydı. Daha sonra akıllı bir hacker
bunu "
-"Tint olarak adlandırdı çünkü Tint, TECO DeÄildi â ilk yinelemeli "
-"kısaltmaydı. 1975 yılında, ilk Emacs metin editörünü geliÅtirdim ve
Emacsâin "
-"birçok taklidi vardı ve bunların birçoÄu biri ya da baÅka Emacs olarak "
-"adlandırıldı ancak biri Fine olarak adlandırıldı, çünkü Fine Emacs
DeÄildi "
-"ve Sine vardı çünkü Sine Emacs DeÄildi ve Eine, çünkü Eine Emacs
deÄildi ve "
-"MINCE çünkü Mince Tamamen Emacs DeÄildi. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> "
-"DaraltılmıŠbir taklit vardı. Ve Eine daha sonra tamamen yeniden
yazıldı ve "
-"yeni sürüm Zwei olarak adlandırıldı, BaÅlangıçta Zwei Eine Ä°di. <i>"
-"[dinleyiciler güler]</i>"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So I looked for a recursive acronym for Something is not Unix. And I tried "
-"all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word. <i>[Laughter]</"
-"i> Hmm, try another way. I made a contraction. That way I could have a "
-"three-letter acronym, for Something's not Unix. And I tried letters, and I "
-"came across the word “GNU” — the word “GNU” is "
-"the funniest word in the English language. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was it. "
-"Of course, the reason it's funny is that according to the dictionary, it's "
-"pronounced “new”. You see? And so that's why people use it for "
-"a lot of wordplay. Let me tell you, this is the name of an animal that "
-"lives in Africa. And the African pronunciation had a click sound in it. <i>"
-"[Laughter]</i> Maybe still does. And so, the European colonists, when they "
-"got there, they didn't bother learning to say this click sound. So they "
-"just left it out, and they wrote a “G” which meant “"
-"there's another sound that's supposed to be here which we are not "
-"pronouncing.” <i>[Laughter]</i> So, tonight I'm leaving for South "
-"Africa, and I have begged them, I hope they're going to find somebody who "
-"can teach me to pronounce click sounds, <i>[Laughter]</i> so that I'll know "
-"how to pronounce GNU the correct way, when it's the animal."
-msgstr ""
-"Bu nedenle, Bir Åeyler Unix deÄil (Somethingâs not Unix) için yinelemeli
bir "
-"akronim aradım. Ve 26 harfin tümünü denedim ve hiçbirinin bir sözcük "
-"oluÅturmadıÄını fark ettim. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Hım, baÅka
bir "
-"yoldan denemeliydim. Bir küçültmeye karar verdim. Bu Åekilde, Bir Åeyler
"
-"Unix deÄil için üç harfli bir akronimim oldu. Ve harfleri denedim ve
âGNUâ "
-"sözcüÄüyle karÅılaÅtım â âGNUâ sözcüÄü Ä°ngilizcedeki en
komik sözcüktür. <i>"
-"[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Bu oldu. Tabi ki, komik olmasının nedeni,
sözlüÄe "
-"göre âyeniâ olarak telaffuz edilmesiydi. Ä°nsanların onu kelime oyunu
için "
-"kullanmasının nedeni de buydu. Ayrıca size söyleyeyim ki, bu, Afrikaâda
"
-"yaÅayan bir hayvanın adıdır. Ve Afrika telaffuzu, bu isim üzerinde bir "
-"tıklama sesine sahipti. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Belki de hâlâ
öyledir. "
-"Ve böylece Avrupalı koloniciler, oraya vardıklarında, bu tıklama sesini "
-"söylemeyi öÄrenmekte sıkıntı çekmediler. Bu nedenle onu orada
bıraktılar ve "
-"bir âgâ yazdılar, bu da âtelaffuz etmediÄimiz baÅka bir sesin burada
olması "
-"gerektiÄiâ anlamına gelmekteydi. <i>[dinleyiciler güler] </i> Bu
nedenle, bu "
-"gece Güney Afrikaâya gidiyorum ve onlardan rica edeceÄim, umarım ki,
bana "
-"tıklama seslerini telaffuz etmeyi öÄretecek birilerini bulabilirler <i>"
-"[dinleyiciler güler]</i> böylece GNUâyu, bu bir hayvan adı olduÄunda,
doÄru "
-"Åekilde telaffuz etmeyi öÄreneceÄim."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is “"
-"guh-NEW” — pronounce the hard “G”. If you talk "
-"about the “new” operating system, you'll get people very "
-"confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years now, so it is not "
-"new any more. <i>[Laughter]</i> But it still is, and always will be, GNU "
-"— no matter how many people call it Linux by mistake. <i>[Laughter]</"
-"i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Ancak bu sistemimizin adı olduÄunda, doÄru telaffuz âguh-NEWâ dir,
sert "
-"âgâyi telaffuz edin. âYeniâ iÅletim sistemi hakkında
konuÅuyorsanız, "
-"insanların kafasını karıÅtıracaksınız çünkü halen bu konu
hakkında 17 yıldır "
-"çalıÅıyoruz, yani bu konu artık yeni deÄil. <i>[dinleyiciler
güler]</i> "
-"Ancak yine de yenidir ve her zaman da öyle olacaktır, GNU â kaç tane
insan "
-"yanlıÅlıkla onu Linux olarak adlandırırsa adlandırsın.
<i>[dinleyiciler "
-"güler]</i>"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces of GNU. "
-"They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities though. And, at "
-"the time, I thought we would write all these pieces, and make an entire GNU "
-"system, and then we'd say, “Come and get it”, and people would "
-"start to use it. That's not what happened. The first pieces I wrote were "
-"just equally good replacements, with fewer bugs for some pieces of Unix, but "
-"they weren't tremendously exciting. Nobody particularly wanted to get them "
-"and install them. But then, in September 1984, I started writing GNU Emacs, "
-"which was my second implementation of Emacs, and by early 1985, it was "
-"working. I could use it for all my editing, which was a big relief, because "
-"I had no intention of learning to use VI, the Unix editor. <i>[Laughter]</i> "
-"So, until that time, I did my editing on some other machine, and saved the "
-"files through the network, so that I could test them. But when GNU Emacs "
-"was running well enough for me to use it, it was also — other people "
-"wanted to use it too."
-msgstr ""
-"Bu nedenle, 1984 yılının Ocak ayında GNUânun parçalarını yazmak
için "
-"MITâdeki iÅimden ayrıldım1. Ancak imkânlarını kullanmama izin verecek
kadar "
-"kibardılar. Bu arada, tüm parçaları yazacaÄımızı ve komple bir GNU
sistemi "
-"yapabileceÄimizi düÅündüm ve daha sonra Åunu diyecektik: âGelin ve
alınâ ve "
-"insanlar, GNUâyu kullanmaya baÅlayacaklardı. Ancak durum böyle olmadı. "
-"YazdıÄım ilk parçalar, Unixâin bazı parçalarının yerine eÅit
derecede iyi "
-"bir Åekilde geçmekteydiler ve daha az hataya sahiptiler ancak ciddi
ölçüde "
-"heyecan verici deÄildiler. Hiç kimse özellikle onları alıp kurmak "
-"istemiyordu. Ancak daha sonra 1984 yılının Eylül ayında GNU Emacsâi
yazmaya "
-"baÅladım, bu, Emacsâin ikinci implementasyonuydu ve 1985âin
baÅlarında, "
-"çalıÅıyordu. Tüm düzenleme iÅlemlerim için GNU Emacsâı
kullanabiliyordum, "
-"bu, büyük bir rahatlamaydı çünkü Unix editörü olan viâyı
öÄrenmeye hiç "
-"niyetim yoktu. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Bu nedenle, o zamana kadar, "
-"düzenleme iÅlemlerimi baÅka bir makinede yaptım ve dosyaları network "
-"üzerinden kaydettim, böylece dosyaları test edebiliyordum. Ancak GNU Emacs
"
-"benim kullanabilmem için yeterince iyi bir Åekilde çalıÅtıÄında,
diÄer "
-"insanlar da onu kullanmak istemiÅtir."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So I had to work out the details of distribution. Of course, I put a copy "
-"in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people who were on the "
-"net They could then just pull over a tar file, but a lot of programmers then "
-"even were not on the net in 1985. They were sending me emails saying “"
-"How can I get a copy?” I had to decide what I would answer them. "
-"Well, I could have said, I want to spend my time writing more GNU software, "
-"not writing tapes, so please find a friend who's on the internet and who is "
-"willing to download it and put it on a tape for you. And I'm sure people "
-"would have found some friends, sooner or later, you know. They would have "
-"got copies. But I had no job. In fact, I've never had a job since quitting "
-"MIT in January 1984. So, I was looking for some way I could make money "
-"through my work on free software, and therefore I started a free software "
-"business. I announced, “Send me $150 dollars, and I'll mail you a "
-"tape of Emacs.” And the orders began dribbling in. By the middle of "
-"the year they were trickling in."
-msgstr ""
-"Bu nedenle, daÄıtımın ayrıntılarını çalıÅmam gerekti. Tabi ki,
yazarı "
-"bilinmeyen FTP dizinine bir kopya koydum ve nette olan insanlar için bu iyi "
-"bir durumdu â bir tar dosyasını taÅıyabiliyorlardı ancak 1985
yılında nette "
-"çok sayıda programcı yoktu. âBir kopyasını nasıl temin edebilirim?â
diyen e-"
-"postalar gönderiyorlardı. Onları nasıl yanıtlayacaÄıma karar
vermeliydim. "
-"Åunu diyebilirdim: âZamanımı daha fazla GNU yazılımı yazarak harcamak
"
-"istiyorum, bant yazarak zaman kaybetmek istemiyorum, bu nedenle Ä°nternette "
-"olan ve yazılımı indirmek isteyen ve sizin için bir banda koyacak olan
bir "
-"arkadaÅ bulun,â ve eminim ki, er ya da geç insanlar birtakım arkadaÅlar
"
-"bulacaktı. Kopyaları alacaklardı. Ancak bir taraftan da iÅsizdim.
Gerçekte, "
-"1984 yılının Ocak ayında MITâden ayrıldıÄımdan beri iÅsizdim. Bu
nedenle, "
-"özgür yazılım üzerindeki çalıÅmam sayesinde para kazanmanın bir
yolunu "
-"aramaya baÅladım ve böylece bir özgür yazılım iÅine baÅladım. Åu
bildiride "
-"bulundum: âBana 150 dolar gönderin ve ben de size Emacsâın bandını "
-"yollayayım.â Ve sipariÅler gelmeye baÅladı. Yılın ortası itibariyle "
-"sipariÅler arttı."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month. And, if necessary, I could have lived "
-"on just that, because I've always lived cheaply. I live like a student, "
-"basically. And I like that, because it means that money is not telling me "
-"what to do. I can do what I think is important for me to do. It freed me "
-"to do what seemed worth doing. So make a real effort to avoid getting "
-"sucked into all the expensive lifestyle habits of typical Americans. "
-"Because if you do that, then people with the money will dictate what you do "
-"with your life. You won't be able to do what's really important to you."
-msgstr ""
-"Ayda 8 ilâ 10 arasında sipariŠalıyordum. Ve gerekli olursa, bu parayla "
-"geçinebilirdim çünkü her zaman az parayla yaÅamaya alıÅıktım. Temel
olarak "
-"bir öÄrenci gibi yaÅıyorum. Ve bunu seviyorum çünkü bu, paranın bana
ne "
-"yapmam gerektiÄini söylemediÄi anlamına gelmektedir. Benim için neyin
önemli "
-"olduÄunu düÅünüyorsam onu yapabilirim. Bu, yapılmaya deÄer Åeyleri
yapmam "
-"konusunda beni özgür kıldı. Tipik Amerikalıların pahalı yaÅam "
-"alıÅkanlıklarına gömülmemi önlemek için gerçek bir çaba gösterdim.
Ãünkü "
-"pahalı yaÅarsanız (50), o zaman parası olan insanlar hayatınızla ilgili
"
-"olarak ne yapmanız gerektiÄini zorla kabul ettirir. Sizin için gerçekten
de "
-"önemli olan Åeyi yapamazsınız. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, “What do you mean it's "
-"free software if it costs $150 dollars?” <i>[Laughter]</i> Well, the "
-"reason they asked this was that they were confused by the multiple meanings "
-"of the English word “free”. One meaning refers to price, and "
-"another meaning refers to freedom. When I speak of free software, I'm "
-"referring to freedom, not price. So think of free speech, not free beer. "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i> Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many years of my life to "
-"making sure programmers got less money. That's not my goal. I'm a "
-"programmer and I don't mind getting money myself. I won't dedicate my whole "
-"life to getting it, but I don't mind getting it. And I'm not — and "
-"therefore, ethics is the same for everyone. I'm not against some other "
-"programmer getting money either. I don't want prices to be low. That's not "
-"the issue at all. The issue is freedom. Freedom for everyone who's using "
-"software, whether that person be a programmer or not."
-msgstr ""
-"Bu iyiydi ancak insanlar bana Åunu sormaktaydı: âBu yazılım 150 dolar "
-"tutuyorsa, nasıl özgür yazılım olur?â <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i>
Bunu "
-"sormalarının nedeni, Ä°ngilizcedeki âfree (özgür - ücretsiz)â
sözcüÄünün "
-"çeÅitli anlamlarıyla kafalarının karıÅmasıydı. Bir anlamı fiyata ve
diÄer "
-"anlamı özgürlüÄe atıf yapmaktadır. Ãzgür yazılım dediÄimde,
özgürlükten "
-"bahsediyorum paradan deÄil. Ãzgür konuÅmayı düÅünün, ücretsiz
birayı deÄil. "
-"<i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Åimdi yani, hayatımın bu kadar çok yılını
"
-"programcıların daha az para kazanmasını saÄlamaya adamadım. Hedefim bu "
-"deÄil. Ben bir programcıyım ve para kazanmaya çok önem vermiyorum. Tüm "
-"ömrümü para kazanmaya adamayacaÄım, para kazanmayı kafama takmıyorum.
Ancak "
-"â ahlak kuralları herkes için aynı olduÄundan â para kazanan baÅka "
-"programcılara karÅı deÄilim. Ãcretlerin düÅük olmasını istemiyorum.
Ãnemli "
-"olan konu bu deÄil. Burada önemli olan konu özgürlük. Kullanan kiÅi "
-"programcı olsun olmasın, yazılımı kullanan herkes için özgürlük."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So at this point I should give you the definition of free software. I "
-"better get to some real details, you see, because just saying “I "
-"believe in freedom” is vacuous. There's so many different freedoms "
-"you could believe in, and they conflict with each other, so the real "
-"political question is: Which are the important freedoms, the freedoms that "
-"we must make sure everybody has?"
-msgstr ""
-"Bu noktada size özgür yazılımın tanımını vermeliyim. En iyisi bazı
gerçek "
-"ayrıntılara gireyim çünkü yalnızca âözgürlüÄe inanıyorumâ
demek saçmadır. "
-"Ä°nanabileceÄiniz birçok farklı özgürlük mevcuttur ve bunlar birbiriyle
"
-"çatıÅmaktadır, bu nedenle, gerçek politik soru Åudur: Ãnemli
özgürlükler "
-"nelerdir, herkesin sahip olduÄundan emin olduÄumuz özgürlükler midir?"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And now, I will give my answer to that question for the particular area of "
-"using software. A program is free software for you, a particular user, if "
-"you have the following freedoms:"
-msgstr ""
-"Åimdi, yazılımın kullanılmasına iliÅkin belirli alan için söz konusu
soruya "
-"iliÅkin cevabı vereceÄim. AÅaÄıdaki özgürlüklere sahipseniz, bir
program "
-"sizin için âözgür yazılımâdır:"
-
-# type: Content of: <ul><li>
-#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
-msgid ""
-"First, Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the program for any purpose, any "
-"way you like."
-msgstr ""
-"Ä°lk olarak, Ãzgürlük Sıfır, programı istediÄiniz amaç için,
istediÄiniz "
-"Åekilde çalıÅtırabilme özgürlüÄüdür."
-
-# type: Content of: <ul><li>
-#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
-msgid ""
-"Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the program to suit "
-"your needs."
-msgstr ""
-"Ãzgürlük Bir, programı ihtiyaçlarınıza uygun olacak Åekilde
deÄiÅtirebilme "
-"özgürlüÄüdür."
-
-# type: Content of: <ul><li>
-#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
-msgid ""
-"Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing copies of "
-"the program."
-msgstr ""
-"Ãzgürlük Ä°ki, programın kopyalarını daÄıtarak komÅunuza yardım
edebilme "
-"özgürlüÄüdür."
-
-# type: Content of: <ul><li>
-#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
-msgid ""
-"And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by publishing "
-"an improved version so others can get the benefit of your work."
-msgstr ""
-"Ve son olarak Ãzgürlük Ãç, geliÅmiÅ sürümü yayınlayarak
topluluÄunuzu "
-"oluÅturma özgürlüÄüdür, böylece baÅkaları da çalıÅmalarınızdan
"
-"faydalanabilir."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software, for you "
-"— and that's crucial. That's why I phrase it that way. I'll explain "
-"why later, when I talk about the GNU General Public License, but right now "
-"I'm explaining what free software means, which is a more basic question."
-msgstr ""
-"Bu özgürlüklerin tümüne sahipseniz, program sizin için özgür
yazılımdır â ve "
-"bu önemlidir. Bunu bu Åekilde ifade etmemin nedeni budur. Bunun nedenini "
-"daha sonra, GNU Genel Kamu Lisansı hakkında konuÅtuÄumda
açıklayacaÄım ama "
-"Åimdi özgür yazılımın ne olduÄunu açıklayacaÄım, bu, çok daha
temel bir "
-"sorudur."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, Freedom Zero's pretty obvious. If you're not even allowed to run the "
-"program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive program. But as it "
-"happens, most programs will at least give you Freedom Zero. And Freedom "
-"Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of Freedoms One, Two, and Three "
-"— that's the way that copyright law works. So the freedoms that "
-"distinguish free software from typical software are Freedoms One, Two, and "
-"Three, so I'll say more about them and why they are important."
-msgstr ""
-"Ãzgürlük Sıfır oldukça açıktır. Programı istediÄiniz herhangi bir
Åekilde "
-"çalıÅtırmanıza izin verilmezse, bu, oldukça kötü kısıtlayıcı bir
programdır. "
-"Ancak gerçekte, birçok program size en azından Ãzgürlük Sıfırı "
-"saÄlayacaktır. Ve Ãzgürlük Bir, Ä°ki ve Ãçün bir sonucu olarak yasal
biçimde "
-"Ãzgürlük Sıfır bu özgürlükleri izler â telif hakkı kanununun
çalıÅma biçimi "
-"budur. Ãzgür yazılımı tipik yazılımdan ayıran özgürlükler
Ãzgürlük Bir, Ä°ki "
-"ve Ãçtür, bu nedenle bu özgürlükleri ve niçin önemli olduklarını "
-"açıklayacaÄım."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the software to suit "
-"your needs. This could mean fixing bugs. It could mean adding new "
-"features. It could mean porting it to a different computer system. It "
-"could mean translating all the error messages into Navajo. Any change you "
-"want to make, you should be free to make."
-msgstr ""
-"Ãzgürlük Bir, programı ihtiyaçlarınıza uygun olacak Åekilde
deÄiÅtirebilme "
-"özgürlüÄüdür. Bu özgürlük, hataların ayıklanması anlamına
gelebilir. Yeni "
-"özelliklerin eklenmesi anlamına da gelebilir. Tüm hata mesajlarının "
-"Navajoâya dönüÅtürülmesi anlamına gelebilir. Herhangi bir
deÄiÅiklik yapmak "
-"isterseniz, söz konusu deÄiÅikliÄi özgürce yapabilmelisiniz. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, it's obvious that professional programmers can make use of this freedom "
-"very effectively, but not just them. Anybody of reasonable intelligence can "
-"learn a little programming. You know, there are hard jobs, and there are "
-"easy jobs, and most people are not going to learn enough to do hard jobs. "
-"But lots of people can learn enough to do easy jobs, just the way, you know, "
-"50 years ago, lots and lots of American men learned to repair cars, which is "
-"what enabled the U.S. to have a motorized army in World War II and win. So, "
-"very important, having lots of people tinkering."
-msgstr ""
-"Åimdi, profesyonel programcılar bu özgürlüÄü çok etkin bir Åekilde "
-"kullanabilir ancak profesyonel programcılar yalnızca bu özgürlüÄü
deÄil, tüm "
-"özgürlükleri etkin bir Åekilde kullanabilir. Akıllı bir kimse biraz "
-"programlama öÄrenebilir. Zor iÅler vardır ve kolay iÅler vardır ve
çoÄu "
-"insan, zor iÅleri yapmaya yetecek kadar bilgi öÄrenmeyecektir. Ancak
birçok "
-"insan, 50 yıl önce olduÄu gibi, kolay iÅleri yapmaya yetecek kadar bilgi "
-"öÄrenebilir, çok sayıda Amerikalı erkek, araba tamir etmeyi
öÄrenmiÅtir, bu "
-"durum da, ABD.ânin 2. Dünya SavaÅında motorize bir orduya sahip
olmasını ve "
-"savaÅı kazanmasını saÄlamıÅtır. Bu tip insanlara sahip olmak çok
önemlidir. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And if you are a people person, and you really don't want to learn "
-"technology at all, that probably means that you have a lot of friends, and "
-"you're good at getting them to owe you favors. <i>[Laughter]</i> Some of "
-"them are probably programmers. So you can ask one of your programmer "
-"friends. “Would you please change this for me? Add this feature?"
-"” So, lots of people can benefit from it."
-msgstr ""
-"Sosyal bir insansanız ve aslında teknolojiye hiç merakınız yoksa, bu
durum "
-"muhtemelen çok sayıda arkadaÅınızın olduÄu ve kendinize iyilik
yaptırmak "
-"konusunda iyi olduÄunuz anlamına gelmektedir. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i>
Bu "
-"arkadaÅlardan bazıları muhtemelen programcılardır. Böylece
programlayıcı "
-"arkadaÅlarınızdan birine sorabilirsiniz. âLütfen bunu benim için
deÄiÅtirir "
-"misin? Bu özelliÄi ekler misin?â Böylece, çok sayıda insan programdan "
-"faydalanabilir."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, if you don't have this freedom, it causes practical, material harm to "
-"society. It makes you a prisoner of your software. I explained what that "
-"was like with regard to the laser printer. You know, it worked badly for "
-"us, and we couldn't fix it, because we were prisoners of our software."
-msgstr ""
-"Åimdi, bu özgürlüÄe sahip deÄilseniz, bu, toplum için pratik ve maddi "
-"kayıplara neden olur. Sizi, programınızın bir kölesi haline getirir.
Lazer "
-"yazıcısına göre bunun nasıl bir Åey olduÄunu açıklamıÅtım. Bu,
bizim için "
-"kötü bir Åekilde çalıÅmıÅtır ve bu sorunu gideremezdik çünkü
yazılımımızın "
-"kölesiydik."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But it also affects people's morale. You know if the computer is constantly "
-"frustrating to use, and people are using it, their lives are going to be "
-"frustrating, and if they're using it in their jobs, their jobs are going to "
-"be frustrating; they're going to hate their jobs. And you know, people "
-"protect themselves from frustration by deciding not to care. So you end up "
-"with people whose attitude is, “Well, I showed up for work today. "
-"That's all I have to do. If I can't make progress, that's not my problem; "
-"that's the boss's problem.” And when this happens, it's bad for those "
-"people, and it's bad for society as a whole. That's Freedom One, the "
-"freedom to help yourself."
-msgstr ""
-"Ama ayrıca bu durum, insanların moralini de etkilemektedir. Bilgisayarın "
-"kullanılması sürekli olarak hayal kırıklıÄına uÄratıcı bir durum "
-"oluÅturuyorsa ve insanlar onu kullanıyorsa, yaÅamları da hayal
kırıklıÄı "
-"içinde olacaktır ve bunu iÅlerinde kullanıyorlarsa, iÅleri de onları
hayal "
-"kırıklıÄına uÄratacaktır ve iÅlerinden nefret edeceklerdir. Ve
biliyorsunuz, "
-"insanlar bir konu hakkında hayal kırıklıÄına uÄramamak için, o konuya
önem "
-"vermemeyi tercih eder. Böylece yaklaÅımları Åu Åekilde olan insanlarla "
-"karÅılaÅırsınız: âBugün iÅimle uÄraÅtım. Tüm yapmam gereken de
buydu. "
-"Ä°lerleme kaydedemezsem, bu benim problemim deÄildir; bu, patronumun "
-"problemidir.â Ve bu durum meydana geldiÄinde, bu, bu insanlar için
kötüdür "
-"ve bu, toplumun bütünü için kötüdür. Bu, Ãzgürlük Birdir, kendinize
yardım "
-"etme özgürlüÄüdür. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing copies of "
-"the program. Now, for beings that can think and learn, sharing useful "
-"knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship. When these beings use "
-"computers, this act of friendship takes the form of sharing software. "
-"Friends share with each other. Friends help each other. This is the nature "
-"of friendship. And, in fact, this spirit of goodwill — the spirit of "
-"helping your neighbor, voluntarily — is society's most important "
-"resource. It makes the difference between a livable society and a dog-eat-"
-"dog jungle. Its importance has been recognized by the world's major "
-"religions for thousands of years, and they explicitly try to encourage this "
-"attitude."
-msgstr ""
-"Ãzgürlük Ä°ki, programınızın kopyalarını daÄıtarak komÅunuza
yardım etme "
-"özgürlüÄünüzdür. Åimdi, düÅünebilen ve öÄrenebilen canlılar
için, yararlı "
-"bilginin paylaÅılması önemli bir arkadaÅlık iÅlevidir. Bu canlılar "
-"bilgisayarı kullandıkları zaman, bu arkadaÅlık iÅlevi yazılımın
paylaÅılması "
-"biçimini almaktadır. ArkadaÅlar birbirleriyle birçok Åeyi
paylaÅmaktadır. "
-"ArkadaÅlar birbirine yardım eder. Bu, arkadaÅlıÄın doÄasında vardır.
Ve "
-"aslında, bu iyi niyet ruhu â komÅunuza yardım etme ruhu, gönüllü
olarak â "
-"toplumun en önemli kaynaÄıdır. YaÅanabilir bir toplumla vahÅi bir
toplum "
-"arasındaki farkı oluÅturur. Binlerce yıldır dünyadaki büyük dinler "
-"tarafından paylaÅmanın önemi fark edilmiÅtir ve açık bir Åekilde bu "
-"davranıÅı yüreklendirmeye çalıÅmaktadırlar."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach us this "
-"attitude — the spirit of sharing — by having us do it. They "
-"figured if we did it, we'd learn. So they said, “If you bring candy "
-"to school, you can't keep it all for yourself; you have to share some with "
-"the other kids.” Teaching us, the society was set up to teach, this "
-"spirit of cooperation. And why do you have to do that? Because people are "
-"not totally cooperative. That's one part of human nature, and there are "
-"other parts of human nature. There are lots of parts of human nature. So, "
-"if you want a better society, you've got to work to encourage the spirit of "
-"sharing. You know, it'll never get to be 100%. That's understandable. "
-"People have to take care of themselves too. But if we make it somewhat "
-"bigger, we're all better off."
-msgstr ""
-"Anaokuluna giderken, öÄretmenlerimiz bize bu yaklaÅımı benimsetmeye "
-"çalıÅıyordu â paylaÅmamızı saÄlayarak paylaÅmanın ruhunu
benimsememizi "
-"istiyorlardı. PaylaÅırsak bunu öÄrenebileceÄimizi anlamıÅlardı. Bu
nedenle "
-"Åöyle söylemekteydiler: âOkula Åeker getirirseniz, hepsini kendiniz "
-"yememelisiniz; bir kısmını baÅka çocuklarla paylaÅmalısınız.â
Toplum, bu "
-"iÅbirliÄi ruhunu öÄretmek için kurulmuÅtu. Ve niçin bunu yapmanız "
-"gereklidir? Ãünkü insanların hepsi iÅbirliÄi yapma taraftarı
deÄildir. Bu, "
-"insan ruhunun bir parçasıdır ve insan ruhunun baÅka parçaları da
vardır. "
-"Ä°nsan doÄasının çok sayıda parçası vardır. Bu nedenle, daha iyi bir
toplum "
-"istiyorsanız, paylaÅma ruhunu cesaretlendirmek için çalıÅmanız
gereklidir. "
-"Bu, hiçbir zaman % 100 olamayacaktır. Bu, anlaÅılabilir bir durumdur. "
-"İnsanların kendilerine de özen göstermeleri gereklidir. Ancak bunu biraz "
-"daha büyütebilirsek, hepimiz daha iyi durumda olacaÄız. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Nowadays, according to the U.S. Government, teachers are supposed to do the "
-"exact opposite. “Oh, Johnny, you brought software to school. Well, "
-"don't share it. Oh no. Sharing is wrong. Sharing means you're a pirate."
-"”"
-msgstr ""
-"Bugünlerde, ABD hükümetine göre, öÄretmenler bunun tam tersini
yapmaktadır. "
-"âJohnny, yazılımı okula getirdin. PaylaÅma. Hayır. PaylaÅmak
yanlıÅtır. "
-"PaylaÅmak senin bir korsan olduÄun anlamına gelir.â"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"What do they mean when they say “pirate”? They're saying that "
-"helping your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship. <i>"
-"[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-" âKorsanâ dediklerinde ne demek isterler? KomÅunuza yardım etmenin bir "
-"gemiye saldırmakla ahlaki açıdan eÅ deÄer olduÄunu söylerler. <i>"
-"[dinleyiciler güler]</i>"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"What would Buddha or Jesus say about that? Now, take your favorite religious "
-"leader. I don't know, maybe Manson would have said something different. <i>"
-"[Laughter]</i> Who knows what L. Ron Hubbard would say? But …"
-msgstr ""
-"Buda ya da Ä°sa bu konuda ne diyor? Åimdi en sevdiÄiniz dini lideri ele
alın. "
-"Bilmiyorum, belki de Manson farklı bir Åeyler söyler. <i>[dinleyiciler
güler]"
-"</i> L. Ron Hubbardâın ne söyleyeceÄini kim bilir ki? Ama …"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i>"
-msgstr "<strong>SORU</strong>: <i>[Ä°Åitilememektedir]</i>"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Of course, he's dead. But they don't admit "
-"that. What?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tabi ki, o ölmüÅtür. Ama bunu kabul etmezler. "
-"Nedir?"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: So are the others, also dead. <i>[Laughter] "
-"[Inaudible]</i> Charles Manson's also dead. <i>[Laughter]</i> They're dead, "
-"Jesus's dead, Buddha's dead…"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SORU</strong>:ÃlmüŠolan baÅkaları da vardır. <i>[dinleyiciler
güler]"
-"</i> <i>[Ä°Åitilememektedir]</i> Charles Manson da ölüdür.
<i>[dinleyiciler "
-"güler]</i> Onlar ölüdür, Ä°sa ölüdür, Buda ölüdür…"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, that's true. <i>[Laughter]</i> So I guess, "
-"in that regard, L. Ron Hubbard is no worse than the others. <i>[Laughter]</"
-"i> Anyway — <i>[Inaudible]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>:Evet, bu doÄru. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Bu "
-"nedenle tahmin ediyorum ki, bu anlamda, L. Ron Hubbard diÄerlerinden daha "
-"kötü deÄil. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Her neyse â
<i>[Ä°Åitilemez]</i>"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: L. Ron always used free software — it freed "
-"him from Zanu. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SORU</strong>:L. Ron her zaman özgür yazılım kullandı â bu,
onu "
-"Zanuâdan kurtardı. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i>"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Anyway, so, I think this is actually the most "
-"important reason why software should be free: We can't afford to pollute "
-"society's most important resource. It's true that it's not a physical "
-"resource like clean air and clean water. It's a psycho-social resource, but "
-"it's just as real for all that, and it makes a tremendous difference to our "
-"lives. You see, the actions we take influence the thoughts of other "
-"people. When we go around telling people, “Don't share with each "
-"other”, if they listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's "
-"not a good one. That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>Her neyse, zannediyorum ki, bu, yazılımın özgür
"
-"olmasının gerekli olmasının en önemli nedenidir: toplumun en önemli "
-"kaynaÄını kirletemeyiz. Bunun temiz hava ve temiz su gibi fiziksel bir "
-"kaynak olmadıÄı doÄrudur. Psikososyal bir kaynaktır ancak tüm bunlar
için "
-"gerçektir ve hayatlarımızda büyük bir fark yaratmaktadır.
YaptıÄımız "
-"hareketler baÅka insanların düÅüncelerini etkilemektedir. Ä°nsanlara "
-"âBirbirinizle paylaÅmayınâ dersek ve onlar da bizi dinlerlerse, toplum "
-"üzerinde bir etkimiz olacaktır ve bu, iyi bir etki deÄildir. Bu,
Ãzgürlük "
-"Ä°kidir, komÅunuza yardım etme özgürlüÄünüzdür."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just cause "
-"this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes waste — "
-"practical, material harm. If the program has an owner, and the owner "
-"arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay in order to be able "
-"to use it, some people are going to say, “Never mind, I'll do without "
-"it.” And that's waste, deliberately inflicted waste. And the "
-"interesting thing about software, of course, is that fewer users doesn't "
-"mean you have to make less stuff. You know, if fewer people buy cars, you "
-"can make fewer cars. There's a saving there. There are resources to be "
-"allocated, or not allocated, into making cars. So that you can say that "
-"having a price on a car is a good thing. It prevents people from diverting "
-"lots of wasted resources into making cars that aren't really needed. But if "
-"each additional car used no resources, it wouldn't be doing any good saving "
-"the making of these cars. Well, for physical objects, of course, like cars, "
-"it is always going to take resources to make an additional one of them, each "
-"additional exemplar."
-msgstr ""
-"Bu arada, söz konusu özgürlüÄe sahip deÄilseniz, bu, yalnızca toplumun
"
-"psikososyal kaynaÄına zarar vermekle kalmaz ayrıca harcama uygulamalı,
maddi "
-"zarara da neden olur. Programın bir sahibi varsa ve bu sahip, kullanmak
için "
-"ödemesinin gerekli olduÄu gidiÅatı düzenlerse, bazı insanlar Åunu "
-"diyeceklerdir: âKafana takma, onsuz da yapabilirimâ. Ve bu boÅa
harcamadır, "
-"kasıtlı olarak boÅa harcamaya neden olmaktadır. Ve tabi ki yazılım "
-"hakkındaki ilginç Åey, daha az kullanıcının daha az malzeme
oluÅturmanız "
-"gerektiÄi anlamına gelmemesidir. Daha az sayıda insan araba satın
alırsa, "
-"daha az sayıda araba yapabilirsiniz. Burada bir tasarruf vardır. Araba "
-"yapımı için tahsis edilecek ya da tahsis edilmeyecek kaynaklar vardır. "
-"Böylece bir arabanın fiyatının olmasının iyi bir Åey olduÄunu "
-"söyleyebilirsiniz. Gerçekten de ihtiyaç duyulmayan arabaların yapılması
için "
-"kaynaklar harcanmamıŠolur. Ancak her bir ilâve araba hiçbir kaynaÄı "
-"kullanmasaydı, o zaman bu arabaların yapılmasından tasarruf
saÄlanmasının "
-"bir anlamı olmayacaktı. Arabalar gibi fiziksel nesneler için, ilâve "
-"nesneler, her bir numuneyi üretmek için kaynaklar kullanılacaktır."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But for software that's not true. Anybody can make another copy. And it's "
-"almost trivial to do it. It takes no resources, except a tiny bit of "
-"electricity. So there's nothing we can save, no resource we're going to "
-"allocate better by putting this financial disincentive on the use of the "
-"software. You often find people taking economic, the consequences of "
-"economic reasoning, based on premises that don't apply to software, and "
-"trying to transplant them from other areas of life where the premises may "
-"apply, and the conclusions may be valid. They just take the conclusions and "
-"assume that they're valid for software too, when the argument is based on "
-"nothing, in the case of software. The premises don't work in that case. It "
-"is very important to examine how you reach the conclusion, and what premises "
-"it depends on, to see where it might be valid. So, that's Freedom Two, the "
-"freedom to help your neighbor."
-msgstr ""
-"Ancak yazılım için bu durum doÄru deÄildir. Herhangi biri, baÅka bir
kopya "
-"oluÅturabilir. Ve bunun yapılması hemen hemen önemsizdir. Hiçbir
kaynaÄı "
-"gerektirmez, yalnızca çok azıcık elektrik gerektirir. Bu nedenle
tasarrufunu "
-"yapabileceÄimiz bir Åey yoktur, yazılımın kullanımı üzerindeki bu
finansal "
-"engelleyiciyi koyarak daha iyi tahsis edebileceÄimiz bir kaynak yoktur. "
-"İnsanların yazılıma uygulanmayan dayanak noktalarını esas alarak
çoÄunlukla "
-"ekonomik muhakemenin sonuçlarını deÄerlendirdiÄini ve dayanak
noktalarının "
-"uygulanabildiÄi hayatın baÅka alanlarından nakletmeye
çalıÅtıklarını fark "
-"edersiniz ve sonuçlar geçerli olabilir. Ä°ddia hiçbir Åeyi esas
almadıÄında "
-"ve yazılım söz konusu olduÄunda, sonuçları alırlar ve yazılım için
de "
-"geçerli olduÄunu varsayarlar. Dayanak noktaları bu durumda çalıÅmaz.
Nerede "
-"geçerli olabildiÄinin görülmesi için bu sonuca nasıl
ulaÅtıÄınızın ve hangi "
-"dayanak noktalarına baÄlı olduÄunun incelenmesi çok önemlidir. Bu
nedenle, "
-"bu Ãzgürlük Ä°kidir, komÅunuza yardım edebilme özgürlüÄünüzdür. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by publishing an "
-"improved version of the software. People used to say to me, “If the "
-"software's free, then nobody will get paid to work on it, so why should "
-"anybody work on it?” Well, of course, they were confusing the two "
-"meanings of free, so their reasoning was based on a misunderstanding. But, "
-"in any case, that was their theory. Today, we can compare that theory with "
-"empirical fact, and we find that hundreds of people are being paid to write "
-"free software, and over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers. We get lots of "
-"people working on free software, for various different motives."
-msgstr ""
-"Ãzgürlük Ãç, yazılımın geliÅmiÅ bir sürümünü yayınlayarak
kendi "
-"topluluÄunuzu oluÅturma özgürlüÄünüzdür. Ä°nsanlar bana Åunu
söylemekteydi: "
-"âYazılım özgür olursa, o zaman yazılım konusunda çalıÅmak için
kimse para "
-"almayacaktır, o zaman insanlar yazılım konusunda neden çalıÅsınlar?â
Tabi "
-"ki, özgür kelimesinin anlamını karıÅtırmaktadırlar, bu nedenle "
-"deÄerlendirmeleri bir yanlıŠanlamayı esas almaktadır. Ancak, her
durumda, "
-"bu, onların teorisidir. Bugün, teoriyi deneysel gerçekle
karÅılaÅtırabiliriz "
-"ve yüzlerce insana özgür yazılım yazmak için para ödenmekte olduÄu ve
"
-"100,000âden fazla insanın ise gönüllü olarak çalıÅtıÄı
gerçeÄini görürüz. "
-"Birçok farklı nedenle özgür yazılım üzerinde çalıÅan çok sayıda
insan vardır."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"When I first released GNU Emacs — the first piece of the GNU system "
-"that people actually wanted to use — and when it started having users, "
-"after a while, I got a message saying, “I think I saw a bug in the "
-"source code, and here's a fix.” And I got another message, “"
-"Here's code to add a new feature.” And another bug fix. And another "
-"new feature. And another, and another, and another, until they were pouring "
-"in on me so fast that just making use of all this help I was getting was a "
-"big job. Microsoft doesn't have this problem. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"GNU Emacsâı â insanların gerçekten de kullanmak istediÄi ilk GNU
sistem "
-"parçasıdır â ilk olarak yayınladıÄım zaman ve kullanıcıları
olmaya baÅladıÄı "
-"zaman, bir süre sonra, Åu gibi mesajlar aldım: âKaynak kodunda bir hata "
-"gördüm ve iÅte bu da çözümü.â Ve baÅka bir mesaj daha aldım,
âBu, yeni bir "
-"özellik ekleme kodu.â Ve baÅka bir hata düzeltmesi daha aldım. Ve
baÅka bir "
-"yeni özellik daha aldım. Ve daha da baÅka mesajlar geldi, o kadar çok
mesaj "
-"geldi ki, bu kadar çok yardımın kullanılması büyük bir iÅti.
Microsoftâun "
-"böyle bir problemi yoktur. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i>"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Eventually, people noted this phenomenon. You see, in the 1980's a lot of "
-"us thought that maybe free software wouldn't be as good as the non-free "
-"software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay people. And, of "
-"course, people like me, who value freedom and community said, “Well, "
-"we'll use the free software anyway.” It's worth making a little "
-"sacrifice in some mere technical convenience to have freedom. But what "
-"people began to note, around 1990 was that our software was actually "
-"better. It was more powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary "
-"alternatives."
-msgstr ""
-"Sonunda, insanlar bu fenomeni kaydetti. 1980âlerde, birçoÄumuz özgür "
-"yazılımın özgür olmayan yazılım kadar iyi olmayacaÄını düÅündü
çünkü "
-"insanlara ödeme yapmak için çok paramız olmayacaktı. Ve tabi ki benim
gibi "
-"özgürlüÄe ve topluma deÄer veren insanlar Åunu dedi: âÃzgür
yazılımı her "
-"Åekilde kullanacaÄız.â ÃzgürlüÄe sahip olmak için yalnızca
birtakım teknik "
-"elveriÅlilik konusunda biraz fedakarlık yapmaya deÄer. Ancak insanlar 1990
"
-"yılı civarında yazılımımızın gerçekte daha iyi olduÄunu söylemeye
baÅladı. "
-"Ãzgür yazılım, özel mülk alternatiflerinden daha güçlü ve
güvenilirdi. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific measurement of "
-"reliability of software. Here's what he did. He took several sets of "
-"comparable programs that did the same jobs — the exact same jobs "
-"— in different systems. Because there were certain basic Unix-like "
-"utilities. And the jobs that they did, we know, was all, more or less, "
-"imitating the same thing, or they were following the POSIX spec, so they "
-"were all the same in terms of what jobs they did, but they were maintained "
-"by different people, written separately. The code was different. So they "
-"said, OK, we'll take these programs and run them with random data, and "
-"measure how often they crash, or hang. So they measured it, and the most "
-"reliable set of programs was the GNU programs. All the commercial "
-"alternatives which were proprietary software were less reliable. So he "
-"published this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he did "
-"the same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same result. "
-"The GNU versions were the most reliable. People — you know there are "
-"cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system, because it's so "
-"reliable, and reliability is very important to them."
-msgstr ""
-"1990âların baÅında, birileri, yazılımın güvenilirliÄinin bilimsel
ölçümüne "
-"iliÅkin bir yol buldu. Ä°Åte Åimdi bahsedeceklerimi yaptı. Farklı
sistemlerde "
-"aynı iÅleri â tam olarak aynı iÅleri â yapan çeÅitli
karÅılaÅtırılabilir "
-"program gruplarını aldı. Ãünkü belirli Unix benzeri temel özellikler "
-"mevcuttu. Ve yaptıkları iÅler az çok aynı Åeydi â ya da POSIX "
-"spesifikasyonunu izliyorlardı â böylece yaptıkları iÅler anlamında
tümü "
-"aynıydı; ancak farklı insanlar tarafından sorunları gideriliyordu ve
ayrı "
-"olarak yazılmıÅlardı. Kod farklıydı. Bu nedenle, Åunu diyorlardı: bu "
-"programları alacak ve rastgele veriyle çalıÅtıracaÄız ve ne sıklıkta
"
-"çakıldıklarını ölçeceÄiz. Böylece bunu ölçtüler ve en güvenilir
program "
-"grubu GNU programları oldu. özel mülk yazılım olan tüm ticari
alternatifler "
-"çok daha az güvenilirdi. Bu nedenle bunu yayınladı ve tüm
geliÅtiricilere "
-"anlattı. Birkaç yıl sonra, aynı deneyi en yeni sürümlerle de yaptı ve
aynı "
-"sonucu elde etti. GNU sürümleri en güvenilir olanlardı. BildiÄiniz gibi,
GNU "
-"sistemini kullanan kanser klinikleri ve 911 operasyonları vardır çünkü
GNU "
-"çok güvenilirdir ve güvenilirlik onlar için çok önemlidir. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Anyway, there's even a group of people who focus on this particular benefit "
-"as the reason they give, the main reason they give, why users should be "
-"permitted to do these various things, and to have these freedoms. If you've "
-"been listening to me, you've noticed, you've seen that I, speaking for the "
-"free software movement, I talk about issues of ethics, and what kind of a "
-"society we want to live in, what makes for a good society, as well as "
-"practical, material benefits. They're both important. That's the free "
-"software movement."
-msgstr ""
-"Her neyse, kullanıcıların bu çeÅitli Åeyleri yapmasına niçin izin
verilmesi "
-"gerektiÄi ve bu özgürlüklere sahip olması gerektiÄine iliÅkin temel
neden "
-"olarak bu belirli faydaya odaklanan bir insan grubu bile vardır. Beni "
-"dinliyorsanız, özgür yazılım hareketi için konuÅursak, nasıl bir
toplumun "
-"içinde yaÅamak istediÄimiz ve etik, iyi bir toplumun nasıl
oluÅturulduÄu ve "
-"pratik ve maddi çıkarlar gibi hususlar hakkında konuÅtuÄumu fark
edersiniz. "
-"Bunlar çok önemlidir. Bu, özgür yazılım hareketidir. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"That other group of people — which is called the open source movement "
-"— they only cite the practical benefits. They deny that this is an "
-"issue of principle. They deny that people are entitled to the freedom to "
-"share with their neighbor and to see what the program's doing and change it "
-"if they don't like it. They say, however, that it's a useful thing to let "
-"people do that. So they go to companies and say to them, “You know, "
-"you might make more money if you let people do this.” So, what you can "
-"see is that to some extent, they lead people in a similar direction, but for "
-"totally different, for fundamentally different, philosophical reasons."
-msgstr ""
-"Açık kaynak hareketi â olarak adlandırılan bu diÄer insan grubu
yalnızca "
-"pratik çıkarlardan bahsetmektedir. Bunun bir ilke hususu olduÄunu inkar "
-"etmektedirler. Ä°nsanların komÅularıyla paylaÅma, programın ne
yaptıÄını "
-"görme ve sevmedikleri durumda programı deÄiÅtirme özgürlüÄüne sahip
olduÄunu "
-"inkar ederler. Ancak insanların bu özgürlüklere sahip olmasının iyi bir
Åey "
-"olduÄunu söylerler. Böylece firmalara giderler ve onlara Åunu derler: "
-"âÄ°nsanların bunları yapmasına izin verirseniz, daha fazla para "
-"kazanabilirsiniz.â Bu nedenle, görebileceÄiniz Åey, belirli bir dereceye
"
-"kadar budur, insanları benzer bir yöne sürerler ancak tamamıyla farklı
â "
-"temel olarak farklı felsefi nedenler için bunu yaparlar. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Because on the deepest issue of all, you know, on the ethical question, the "
-"two movements disagree. You know, in the free software movement we say, "
-"“You're entitled to these freedoms. People shouldn't stop you from "
-"doing these things.” In the open source movement, they say, “"
-"Yes, they can stop you if you want, but we'll try to convince them to deign "
-"to let you to do these things.” Well, they have contributed — "
-"they have convinced a certain number of businesses to release substantial "
-"pieces of software as free software in our community. So they, the open "
-"source movement, has contributed substantially to our community. And so we "
-"work together on practical projects. But, philosophically, there's a "
-"tremendous disagreement."
-msgstr ""
-"En derin husus olarak, etik soruda, iki hareket birbiriyle uyumsuzdur.
Ãzgür "
-"yazılım hareketinde Åunu deriz: âBu özgürlükler hakkınızdır.
Ä°nsanlar, bu "
-"Åeyleri yapmanızı engellememelidir.â Açık kaynak hareketinde, Åunu
derler: "
-"âEvet, isterlerse sizi durdurabilirler ancak bu Åeyleri yapmanız için
size "
-"izin vermelerine tenezzül etmeleri için onları ikna etmeye
çalıÅacaÄız.â "
-"Bunu gerçekleÅtirdiler â belirli sayıda iÅyerini önemli yazılım
parçalarını, "
-"topluluÄumuzda özgür yazılım olarak yayınlamaya ikna ettiler. Açık
kaynak "
-"hareketi, topluluÄumuza büyük oranda katkıda bulunmuÅtur ve pratik "
-"projelerde [onlarla] birlikte çalıÅırız. Ancak felsefi olarak, burada,
büyük "
-"bir anlaÅmazlık mevcuttur."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Unfortunately, the open source movement is the one that gets the support of "
-"business the most, and so most articles about our work describe it as open "
-"source, and a lot of people just innocently think that we're all part of the "
-"open source movement. So that's why I'm mentioning this distinction. I "
-"want you to be aware that the free software movement, which brought our "
-"community into existence and developed the free operating system, is still "
-"here — and that we still stand for this ethical philosophy. I want "
-"you to know about this, so that you won't mislead someone else unknowingly."
-msgstr ""
-"Maalesef, açık kaynak hareketi, iÅ hayatının en çok desteÄini alan "
-"harekettir ve çalıÅmamız hakkındaki birçok makale onu açık kaynak
olarak "
-"tanımlamaktadır ve çok sayıda insan, açık kaynak hareketinin bir
parçası "
-"olduÄumuzu düÅünmektedir. Bu nedenle, bu, bu ayrımı yapmamın
nedenidir. "
-"TopluluÄumuzu oluÅturan ve özgür iÅletim sistemini geliÅtiren özgür
yazılım "
-"hareketinin hâlâ burada olduÄunu bilmenizi isterim â ve biz, bu etik "
-"felsefenin tarafını tutacaÄız. Bunu bilmenizi isterim, bilmeden baÅka "
-"birilerini yanlıŠyönlendirmenizi istemem."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "But also, so that you can think about where you stand."
-msgstr "Ancak ayrıca, nerede durduÄunuzu da bilmenizi isterim."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"You know, which movement you support is up to you. You might agree with the "
-"free software movements and my views. You might agree with the open source "
-"movement. You might disagree with them both. You decide where you stand on "
-"these political issues."
-msgstr ""
-"Hangi hareketi desteklediÄiniz size kalmıÅtır. Ãzgür yazılım
hareketleriyle "
-"ve benim görüÅlerimle aynı fikirde olabilirsiniz. Açık kaynak
hareketiyle "
-"aynı fikirde olabilirsiniz. Ama her ikisiyle de farklı fikirlerde de "
-"olabilirsiniz. Bu politik alanlarda nerede duracaÄınıza karar verin."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But if you agree with the free software movement — if you see that "
-"there's an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled and "
-"directed by this decision deserve a say in it — then I hope you'll say "
-"that you agree with the free software movement, and one way you can do that "
-"is by using the term free software and just helping people know we exist."
-msgstr ""
-"Ancak özgür yazılım hareketiyle fikir birliÄi içindeyseniz â
yaÅamları bu "
-"karar tarafından kontrol edilen ve yönlendirilen insanların bu konuda bir "
-"fikir sahibi olmayı hak ettiklerini görürseniz â o zaman umarım ki,
özgür "
-"yazılım hareketiyle fikir birliÄi içinde olduÄunuzu söyleyeceksiniz ve
bunu "
-"yapmanızın bir yolu, âözgür yazılımâ terimini kullanmak ve
insanların bizim "
-"var olduÄumuzu bilmelerini saÄlamaya yardımcı olmaktır."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, Freedom Three is very important both practically and psycho-socially. "
-"If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical material harm, because "
-"this community development doesn't happen, and we don't make powerful, "
-"reliable software. But it also causes psycho-social harm, which affects the "
-"spirit of scientific cooperation — the idea that we're working "
-"together to advance human knowledge. You see, progress in science crucially "
-"depends on people being able to work together. And nowadays though, you "
-"often find each little group of scientists acting like it's a war with each "
-"other gang of scientists and engineers. And if they don't share with each "
-"other, they're all held back."
-msgstr ""
-"Bu nedenle, Ãzgürlük Ãç hem pratik olarak hem de psikososyal olarak çok
"
-"önemlidir. Bu özgürlüÄe sahip deÄilseniz, bu, pratik maddi zarara neden
"
-"olmaktadır çünkü bu topluluk geliÅimi gerçekleÅmez ve güçlü ve
güvenilir "
-"yazılım hazırlayamayız. Ayrıca, psikososyal zarara da neden olur, bu da "
-"bilimsel iÅbirliÄinin ruhunu etkiler â bu, insanlıÄın ortak bilgi
birikimini "
-"geliÅtirmek için birlikte çalıÅma fikridir. GördüÄünüz gibi,
bilimdeki "
-"ilerleme insanların birlikte çalıÅabilme gücüne baÄlıdır. Ancak
bugünlerde, "
-"her bir küçük bilim adamı grubunun her bir bilim adamı ve mühendis
takımıyla "
-"bir savaÅtaymıŠgibi davrandıÄını görürsünüz. Ancak birbirleriyle
paylaÅımda "
-"bulunmazlarsa, tümü geride tutulmuŠolur."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, those are the three freedoms that distinguish free software from typical "
-"software. Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself, making changes to "
-"suit your own needs. Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by "
-"distributing copies. And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your "
-"community by making changes and publishing them for other people to use. If "
-"you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software for you. Now, "
-"why do I define it that way in terms of a particular user? Is it free "
-"software for you? <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> Is it free "
-"software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Is it "
-"free software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Yes?"
-msgstr ""
-"Böylece, bunlar, özgür yazılımı tipik yazılımdan ayıran üç
özgürlüktür. "
-"Ãzgürlük Bir, yazılımı kendi ihtiyaçlarınıza göre deÄiÅtirebilme "
-"özgürlüÄüdür. Ãzgürlük Ä°ki, kopyaları daÄıtarak komÅunuza
yardım edebilme "
-"özgürlüÄüdür. Ve Ãzgürlük Ãç, deÄiÅiklik yaparak ve diÄer
insanların "
-"kullanması için yayınlayarak topluluÄunuzun oluÅmasına yardım edebilme
"
-"özgürlüÄüdür. Tüm bu özgürlüklere sahipseniz, bu program sizin
için özgür "
-"yazılımdır. Åimdi, bunu niçin belirli bir kullanıcı açısından bu
Åekilde "
-"tanımlamıyorum? Bu, sizin için özgür yazılım mıdır?
<i>[Dinleyicilerden "
-"birini gösterir.]</i> Bu, sizin için özgür yazılım mıdır? <i>[BaÅka
bir "
-"dinleyiciyi gösterir.]</i> Bu, sizin için özgür yazılım mıdır?
<i>[BaÅka bir "
-"dinleyiciyi gösterir.]</i> Evet?"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you explain a bit about the difference "
-"between Freedom Two and Three? <i>[inaudible]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SORU</strong>: Ãzgürlük Ä°ki ile Ãzgürlük Ãç arasındaki fark
hakkında "
-"biraz bilgi verir misiniz? <i>[iÅitilemiyor]</i>"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, they certainly relate, because if you don't "
-"have freedom to redistribute at all, you certainly don't have freedom to "
-"distribute a modified version, but they're different activities."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>:Kesinlikle aralarında bir iliÅki vardır çünkü
"
-"daÄıtma özgürlüÄünüz yoksa, kesinlikle deÄiÅtirilmiÅ bir sürümü
daÄıtma "
-"özgürlüÄünüz de yoktur ancak bunlar farklı iÅlemlerdir."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Oh."
-msgstr "<strong>SORU</strong>:Oh."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Freedom Two is, you know, read it, you make an "
-"exact copy, and hand it to your friends, so now your friend can use it. Or "
-"maybe you make exact copies and you sell them to a bunch of people, and then "
-"they can use it."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Ãzgürlük Ä°ki, biliyorsunuz, okursunuz, bir "
-"kopyasını hazırlarsınız ve arkadaÅlarınıza verirsiniz, böylece
Åimdi "
-"arkadaÅınız da kullanabilir. Ya da belki de kopyalar hazırlayabilir ve "
-"onları bir grup insana satabilirsiniz ve onlar da bu yazılımı "
-"kullanabilirler."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Freedom Three is where you make improvements — or at least you think "
-"they're improvements, and some other people may agree with you. So that's "
-"the difference. Oh, and by the way, one crucial point. Freedoms One and "
-"Three depend on your having access to the source code. Because changing a "
-"binary-only program is extremely hard. <i>[Laughter]</i> Even trivial "
-"changes like using four digits for the date, <i>[Laughter]</i> if you don't "
-"have source. So, for compelling, practical reasons, access to the source "
-"code is a precondition, a requirement, for free software."
-msgstr ""
-"Ãzgürlük Ãç, geliÅtirme yaptıÄınız â ya da en azından
geliÅtirme yaptıÄınızı "
-"düÅündüÄünüz ve bazı insanların sizinle farklı fikirde olduÄu
özgürlüktür. "
-"Bu nedenle, fark budur. Bu arada, önemli bir nokta: Ãzgürlük Bir ve Ãç,
"
-"kaynak koduna eriÅiminize baÄlıdır. Ãünkü âyalnızca ikiliâ
[:binary-only] "
-"olan bir programın deÄiÅtirilmesi çok zordur <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i>
â "
-"tarih için dört basamak kullanmak gibi basit deÄiÅiklikler bile â
kaynak "
-"koduna sahip deÄilseniz, çok zordur. Bu nedenle, zorlama için,
uygulamadaki "
-"nedenler için, kaynak koduna eriÅim, özgür yazılım için bir ön
Åarttır, bir "
-"Åarttır. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, why do I define it in terms of whether it's free software for <em>you</"
-"em>? The reason is that sometimes the same program can be free software for "
-"some people, and non-free for others. Now, that might seem like a "
-"paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example to show you how it "
-"happens. A very big example — maybe the biggest ever — of this "
-"problem was the X Window System which was developed at MIT and released "
-"under a license that made it free software. If you got the MIT version with "
-"the MIT license, you had Freedoms One, Two, and Three. It was free software "
-"for you. But among those who got copies were various computer manufacturers "
-"that distributed Unix systems, and they made the necessary changes in X to "
-"run on their systems. You know, probably just a few thousand lines out of "
-"the hundreds of thousands of lines of X. And, then they compiled it, and "
-"they put the binaries into their Unix system and distributed it under the "
-"same non-disclosure agreement as the rest of the Unix system. And then, "
-"millions of people got these copies. They had the X Window System, but they "
-"had none of these freedoms. It was not free software for <em>them</em>."
-msgstr ""
-"Böylece, bunu niçin <em>sizin için</em> özgür yazılım olup olmadıÄı
"
-"cinsinden tanımlıyorum? Bunun nedeni, bazen aynı yazılımın bazı
insanlar "
-"için özgür yazılımken, diÄerleri için özgür olmayan yazılım
olabilmesidir. "
-"Åimdi, bu paradoksal bir durum gibi görünebilir, bu nedenle bu durumun
nasıl "
-"meydana geldiÄini size göstereyim. Ãok büyük bir örnek, bu probleme
iliÅkin "
-"çok büyük bir örnek â belki de en büyük örnek â X Window
Sistemidir, bu "
-"sistem MITâde geliÅtirilmiÅtir ve kendisini özgür yazılım haline
getiren bir "
-"lisans altında yayınlanmıÅtır. MIT lisansıyla beraber MIT sürümünü "
-"aldıysanız, Ãzgürlük Bir, Ä°ki ve Ãçe sahipsiniz. Bu, sizin için
özgür "
-"yazılımdır. Ancak kopyaları alanların arasında, Unix sistemlerini
daÄıtan "
-"çeÅitli bilgisayar üreticileri mevcuttur ve sistemleri üzerinde
çalıÅtırmak "
-"için Xâte gerekli deÄiÅiklikleri yapmıÅlardır. BildiÄiniz gibi, bu,
Xâin yüz "
-"binlerce satırından yalnızca birkaç bin satırdır. Ve daha sonra, onu "
-"derlemiÅlerdir ve ikilileri (binary) Unix sistemine koymuÅlardır ve Unix "
-"sisteminin geri kalanı gibi aynı gizlilik sözleÅmesi altında
daÄıtmıÅlardır. "
-"Ve daha sonra, milyonlarca insan bu kopyaları almıÅtır. X Window
Sistemine "
-"sahiptiler ancak bu özgürlüklerin hiçbirine sahip deÄildiler. Bu,
<em>onlar</"
-"em> için özgür yazılım deÄildi."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, the paradox was that whether X was free software depended on where you "
-"made the measurement. If you made the measurement coming out of the "
-"developers' group, you'd say, “I observe all these freedoms. It's "
-"free software.” If you made the measurements among the users you'd "
-"say, “Hmm, most users don't have these freedoms. It's not free "
-"software.” Well, the people who developed X didn't consider this a "
-"problem, because their goal was just popularity, ego, essentially. They "
-"wanted a big professional success. They wanted to feel, “Ah, lots of "
-"people are using our software.” And that was true. Lots of people "
-"were using their software but didn't have freedom."
-msgstr ""
-"Bu nedenle, buradaki paradoks, ölçümü nerede yaptıÄınıza baÄlı
olarak Xâin "
-"özgür yazılım olup olmamasıydı. GeliÅtiricilerin grubundan gelen
ölçümü "
-"yaptıysanız, Åunu diyebilirdiniz: âTüm bu özgürlükleri
gözlemliyorum. Bu, "
-"özgür yazılımdır.â Ãlçümleri kullanıcılar arasında
yaptıysanız, Åunu "
-"diyecektiniz: âBirçok kullanıcı bu özgürlüklere sahip deÄil. Bu,
özgür "
-"yazılım deÄil.â Xâi geliÅtirmiÅ insanlar bunu bir sorun olarak
görmezler "
-"çünkü hedefleri, esasen yalnızca popülerlik egosudur. Büyük bir
profesyonel "
-"baÅarı istemektedirler. Åunu hissetmek isterler: âÃok sayıda insan
bizim "
-"yazılımımızı kullanıyor.â Ve bu, doÄrudur. Ãok sayıda insan
yazılımlarını "
-"kullanıyordu ancak özgürlüÄe sahip deÄildi. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Well, in the GNU project, if that same thing had happened to GNU software, "
-"it would have been a failure, because our goal wasn't just to be popular; "
-"our goal was to give people liberty, and to encourage cooperation, to permit "
-"people to cooperate. Remember, never force anyone to cooperate with any "
-"other person, but make sure that everybody's allowed to cooperate, everyone "
-"has the freedom to do so, if he or she wishes. If millions of people were "
-"running non-free versions of GNU, that wouldn't be success at all. The whole "
-"thing would have been perverted into nothing like the goal."
-msgstr ""
-"GNU Projesinde, GNU yazılımının baÅına aynı Åey gelseydi, bu bir
sorun "
-"olurdu çünkü tek hedefimiz popüler olmak deÄil insanlara özgürlük
saÄlamak, "
-"iÅbirliÄini yüreklendirmek ve insanların iÅbirliÄi yapmalarını
saÄlamaktır. "
-"Unutmayın, hiç kimseyi baÅka herhangi bir insanla iÅbirliÄi yapmaya "
-"zorlamayın ancak herkesin iÅbirliÄi yaptıÄından emin olun, isterse
herkes bu "
-"özgürlüÄe sahiptir. Milyonlarca insan GNUânun özgür olmayan
sürümlerini "
-"çalıÅtırıyorsa, bu, bir baÅarı olmayacaktır. Her Åey, hedefe
benzemeyen bir "
-"yola sapacaktır."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening. The method I came up "
-"with is called “copyleft”. It's called copyleft because it's "
-"sort of like taking copyright and flipping it over. <i>[Laughter]</i> "
-"Legally, copyleft works based on copyright. We use the existing copyright "
-"law, but we use it to achieve a very different goal. Here's what we do. We "
-"say, “This program is copyrighted.” And, of course, by default, "
-"that means it's prohibited to copy it, or distribute it, or modify it. But "
-"then we say, “You're authorized to distribute copies of this. You're "
-"authorized to modify it. You're authorized to distribute modified versions "
-"and extended versions. Change it any way you like.”"
-msgstr ""
-"Bu nedenle, bu durumun meydana gelmemesi için bir yol aradım. Sonunda "
-"bulduÄum metot, âcopyleftâ olarak adlandırılan metottu. Bu metot,
copyleft "
-"olarak adlandırılıyordu çünkü telif hakkını alıp ters çevirmek
Åeklindeydi. "
-"<i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Yasal olarak, copyleft, telif hakkını esas "
-"alarak çalıÅmaktadır. Mevcut telif hakkı kanununu kullanmaktayız ancak
bunu, "
-"çok farklı bir amacı saÄlamak için kullanırız. Ä°Åte Åunu yaparız.
Deriz ki, "
-"âBu program telif hakkına tâbidirâ. Ve tabi ki, ön tanımlı olarak,
bu, "
-"programın kopyalanmasının, daÄıtılmasının ya da deÄiÅtirilmesinin
yasak "
-"olduÄu anlamına gelmektedir. Ancak daha sonra, Åunu deriz: âBunun "
-"kopyalarını daÄıtma yetkiniz var. Programı deÄiÅtirme yetkiniz var. "
-"deÄiÅtirilmiÅ ve geniÅletilmiÅ sürümleri daÄıtma hakkınız var.
Ä°stediÄiniz "
-"gibi deÄiÅtirin.â"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But there is a condition. And the condition, of course, is the reason why "
-"we go to all this trouble, so that we could put the condition in. The "
-"condition says: Whenever you distribute anything that contains any piece of "
-"this program, that whole program must be distributed under these same terms, "
-"no more and no less. So you can change the program and distribute a "
-"modified version, but when you do, the people who get that from you must get "
-"the same freedom that you got from us. And not just for the parts of it "
-"— the excerpts that you copied from our program — but also for "
-"the other parts of that program that they got from you. The whole of that "
-"program has to be free software for them."
-msgstr ""
-"Ancak bir Åart vardır. Ve bu Åart tabi ki, Åartı içine koymamız için
tüm bu "
-"zorluklara girmemizin nedenidir. Åart Åunu söyler: bu programın herhangi
bir "
-"parçasını içeren herhangi bir Åeyi daÄıttıÄınızda, tüm program bu
aynı "
-"ifadelerle daÄıtılmalıdır, daha fazla ya da daha azı olmamalıdır. Bu "
-"nedenle, programı deÄiÅtirebilir ve deÄiÅtirilmiÅ sürümü
daÄıtabilirsiniz "
-"ancak bunu yaptıÄınızda, bunu sizden alan insanlar, sizin bizden
aldıÄınız "
-"özgürlükle aynı özgürlüÄü almalıdır. Ve yalnızca programımızdan
"
-"kopyaladıÄınız kısımlar için deÄil, ayrıca sizden aldıkları söz
konusu "
-"programın diÄer kısımları için de bu durum geçerlidir. Söz konusu
programın "
-"tümü, onlar için özgür yazılım olmalıdır."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become inalienable "
-"rights — a concept from the Declaration of Independence. Rights that "
-"we make sure can't be taken away from you. And, of course, the specific "
-"license that embodies the idea of copyleft is the GNU General Public "
-"License, a controversial license because it actually has the strength to say "
-"no to people who would be parasites on our community."
-msgstr ""
-"Bu programın deÄiÅtirilmesi ve yeniden daÄıtılmasına iliÅkin
özgürlükler, "
-"geri alınamaz haklar haline gelmektedir â bu, BaÄımsızlık
Deklarasyonuna "
-"iliÅkin bir kavramdır. Emin olduÄunuz haklar sizden alınamaz. Copyleft "
-"fikrini yapılandıran spesifik lisans, GNU Genel Kamu Lisansıdır, bu, "
-"tartıÅmaya yol açan bir lisanstır çünkü gerçekten de topluluÄumuzda
parazit "
-"gibi davranan kimselere hayır deme gücüne sahiptir."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of freedom. And "
-"they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done, and use it to get a "
-"head start in distributing a non-free program and tempting people to give up "
-"their freedom. And the result would be — you know, if we let people "
-"do that — that we would be developing these free programs, and we'd "
-"constantly have to compete with improved versions of our own programs. "
-"That's no fun."
-msgstr ""
-"ÃzgürlüÄün ideallerini takdir etmeyen çok sayıda insan mevcuttur. Ve
bu "
-"insanlar, yapmıŠolduÄumuz çalıÅmaları alma ve özgür olmayan bir
programı "
-"daÄıtma konusunda yeni bir baÅlangıç yapma ve insanların
özgürlüklerini "
-"bıraktırma konusunda çok çaba sarf etmektedir ve bunu
gerçekleÅtirdiklerinde "
-"çok mutlu olacaklardır. Sonuç olarak â bu insanların bunu yapmalarına
izin "
-"verirsek â bu özgür programları geliÅtiriyor olacaÄız ve kendi "
-"programlarımızın geliÅmiÅ sürümleriyle sürekli olarak rekabet etmek
zorunda "
-"kalacaÄız. Bu, eÄlenceli bir durum deÄildir. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And, a lot of people also feel — you know, I'm willing to volunteer my "
-"time to contribute to the community, but why should I volunteer my time to "
-"contribute to that company's, to improving that company's, proprietary "
-"program? You know, some people might not even think that that's evil, but "
-"they want to get paid if they're going to do that. I, personally, would "
-"rather not do it at all."
-msgstr ""
-"Ayrıca çok sayıda insan Åu duyguya kapılmaktadır: âZamanımı
gönüllü olarak "
-"topluluÄa adamak istiyorum ama niçin zamanımı gönüllü olarak söz
konusu "
-"firmanın özel mülk programına adayayım?â Bazı insanlar bunun kötü
olmadıÄını "
-"bile düÅünebilir ancak bunu yapacaklarda kendilerine para ödenmesini "
-"isterler. Ben, kiÅisel olarak, bunu hiç yapmazdım bile. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But both of these groups of people — both the ones like me who say, "
-"“I don't want to help that non-free program to get a foothold in our "
-"community” and the ones that say, “Sure, I'd work for them, but "
-"then they better pay me” — both of us have a good reason to use "
-"the GNU General Public License. Because that says to that company, “"
-"You can't just take my work, and distribute it without the freedom.” "
-"Whereas, the non-copyleft licenses, like the X Windows license, do permit "
-"that."
-msgstr ""
-"Ancak bu insan grubunun her ikisinin de â benim gibi Åunu diyenler: "
-"âTopluluÄumuzda saÄlam bir yer edinmek isteyen bu özgür olmayan
programa "
-"yardım etmek istemiyorumâ ya da Åunu diyenler: âOnlar için
çalıÅırım ama o "
-"zaman bana para ödemeleri gerekirâ, her iki grubun da GNU Genel Kamu "
-"Lisansını kullanması için iyi bir nedeni vardır. Ãünkü bu o firmaya
Åunu "
-"der: âBenim çalıÅmamı alıp özgürlüÄü olmayan bir Åekilde
daÄıtamazsınâ. "
-"Bununla birlikte, X Windows lisansı gibi copyleft olmayan lisanslar buna "
-"izin vermektedir. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So that is the big division between the two categories of free software "
-"— license-wise. There are the programs that are copylefted so that "
-"the license defends the freedom of the software for every user. And there "
-"are the non-copylefted programs for which non-free versions are allowed. "
-"Somebody <em>can</em> take those programs and strip off the freedom. You "
-"may get that program in a non-free version."
-msgstr ""
-"Lisans bakımından bu, iki özgür yazılım kategorisi arasındaki büyük "
-"ayrımdır. Lisansın her kullanıcı için yazılımın özgürlüÄünü
korumasını "
-"saÄlayacaÄı Åekilde copyleft edilen programlar vardır. Ve özgür
olmayan "
-"sürümlerin izin verildiÄi copyleft edilmeyen programlar mevcuttur. Söz "
-"konusu programın özgürlüÄünü kaldırabilirsiniz. Ãzgür olmayan
sürümlerde "
-"edinebilirsiniz. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And that problem exists today. There are still non-free versions of X "
-"Windows being used on our free operating systems. There is even hardware "
-"— which is not really supported — except by a non-free version "
-"of X Windows. And that's a major problem in our community. Nonetheless, I "
-"wouldn't say that X Windows is a bad thing, you know. I'd say that the "
-"developers did not do the best possible thing that they could have done. "
-"But they <em>did</em> release a lot of software that we could all use."
-msgstr ""
-"Ve bu problem günümüzde de mevcuttur. X Windowsâun özgür olmayan
sürümleri "
-"hâlâ özgür iÅletim sistemlerinde kullanılmaktadır. X Windowsâun
özgür "
-"olmayan sürümü hariç olmak üzere gerçekten de desteklenmeyen
donanımlar bile "
-"mevcuttur. Ve bu, topluluÄumuzda büyük bir problemdir. Bununla birlikte, X
"
-"Windowsâun kötü bir Åey olduÄunu söyleyemem. GeliÅtiricilerin "
-"yapabilecekleri olası en iyi Åeyi yapmadıklarını söyleyebilirim. Ancak "
-"hepimizin kullanabileceÄi çok sayıda yazılım yayınlamıÅlardır. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"You know, there's a big difference between less than perfect, and evil. "
-"There are many gradations of good and bad. We have to resist the temptation "
-"to say, if you didn't do the absolute best possible thing, then you're no "
-"good. You know, the people that developed X Windows made a big contribution "
-"to our community. But there's something better that they could have done. "
-"They could have copylefted parts of the program and prevented those freedom-"
-"denying versions from being distributed by others."
-msgstr ""
-"Mükemmelden daha azı ile kötü arasında büyük bir fark vardır. İyi ve
kötünün "
-"birçok derecesi vardır. Mutlak olarak olası en iyi Åeyi yapmadıysan, o
zaman "
-"iyi deÄilsin gibi ayartıcı ifadelere karÅı koymalıyız. X Windowsâu "
-"geliÅtiren insanlar topluluÄumuza büyük bir katkıda bulunmuÅtur. Ancak
daha "
-"iyi yapabilecekleri bir Åeyler vardır. Programın bazı parçalarını
copyleft "
-"edebilirlerdi ve özgürlüÄü inkâr eden sürümlerin baÅkaları
tarafından "
-"daÄıtılmasını önleyebilirlerdi. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, the fact that the GNU General Public License defends your freedom, uses "
-"copyright law to defend your freedom, is, of course, why Microsoft is "
-"attacking it today. See, Microsoft would really like to be able to take all "
-"the code that we wrote and put it into proprietary programs, have somebody "
-"make some improvements, or even just incompatible changes is all they need. "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"GNU Genel Kamu Lisansıânın özgürlüÄünüzü koruduÄu ve
özgürlüÄünüzü korumak "
-"için telif hakkı kanununu kullandıÄı gerçeÄi, tabi ki, bugün
Microsoftâun "
-"ona saldırmasının nedenidir. Görüyorsunuz, Microsoft, yazdıÄımız
kodların "
-"tümünü almak ve özel mülk programlarına koymak istemektedir, birilerine
"
-"geliÅtirme yapmak istemektedir, ya da yalnızca uyumsuz deÄiÅikliklere "
-"ihtiyaç duyarlar. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i>"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"You know, with Microsoft's marketing clout, they don't need to make it "
-"better to have their version supplant ours. They just have to make it "
-"different and incompatible. And then, put it on everybody's desktop. So "
-"they really don't like the GNU GPL. Because the GNU GPL won't let them do "
-"that. It doesn't allow “embrace and extend”. It says, if you "
-"want to share our code in your programs, you can. But, you've got to share "
-"and share alike. The changes that you make we have to be allowed to share. "
-"So, it's a two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation."
-msgstr ""
-"Microsoftâun pazarlama gücüyle, sürümlerinin bizimkilerin yerine
geçmesi "
-"için daha iyi bir yazılım oluÅturmaları gerekmez. Tek yapmaları gereken
"
-"farklı ve uyumsuz bir yazılım hazırlamaktır. Ve daha sonra bunu herkesin
"
-"masaüstüne koymaktır. Bu nedenle gerçekte GNU GPLâyi sevmezler.
Ãünkü GNU "
-"GPL onların bunu yapmalarına izin vermez. âKapsama ve geniÅletmeâye
izin "
-"vermez. Programlarınızda kodumuzu paylaÅmak istiyorsanız, bunu "
-"yapabilirsiniz der. Ancak yalnızca benzerleri paylaÅmanız gerektiÄini "
-"söyler. YaptıÄınız deÄiÅiklikler, bizim paylaÅmamıza izin verilen "
-"deÄiÅiklikler olmalıdır. Bu nedenle bu, iki yollu bir iÅbirliÄidir,
gerçek "
-"bir iÅbirliÄidir. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Many companies — even big companies like IBM and HP are willing to use "
-"our software on this basis. IBM and HP contribute substantial improvements "
-"to GNU software. And they develop other free software. But, Microsoft "
-"doesn't want to do that, so they give it out that businesses just can't deal "
-"with the GPL. Well, if businesses don't include IBM, and HP and SUN, then "
-"maybe they're right. <i>[Laughter]</i> More about that later."
-msgstr ""
-"IBM ve HP gibi büyük firmalar bile â bu temelde bizim yazılımımızı "
-"kullanmayı istemektedir. IBM ve HP GNU yazılımına büyük katkılarda "
-"bulunmuÅtur. Ve onlar da, baÅka özgür yazılımlar geliÅtirmiÅtir.
Ancak "
-"Microsoft bunu yapmak istememiÅtir, bu nedenle iÅyerlerinin GPL ile baÅa "
-"çıkamadıÄını söylemiÅlerdir. Bu iÅyerleri IBM ve HP ve Sunâı
içermiyorsa, o "
-"zaman haklı olabilirler. [Dinleyiciler güler] Bu konu hakkında daha sonra "
-"açıklama yapacaÄım. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"I should finish the historical story. You see, we set out in 1984 not just "
-"to write some free software but to do something much more coherent: to "
-"develop an operating system that was entirely free software. So that meant "
-"we had to write piece after piece after piece. Of course, we were always "
-"looking for shortcuts. The job was so big that people said we'd never be "
-"able to finish. And, I thought that there was at least a chance that we'd "
-"finish it but, obviously, it's worth looking for shortcuts. So we kept "
-"looking around. Is there any program that somebody else has written that we "
-"could manage to adapt, to plug into here, and that way we won't have to "
-"write it from scratch? For instance, the X Window system. It's true it "
-"wasn't copylefted, but it was free software, so we could use it."
-msgstr ""
-"Tarihsel hikayeyi bitirmeliyim. Görüyorsunuz, 1984 yılında yalnızca
birtakım "
-"özgür yazılım yazmak için deÄil ayrıca çok daha tutarlı bir Åeyler
yapmak "
-"için yola çıktık: tamamen özgür yazılım olan bir iÅletim sistemi
geliÅtirmek "
-"istedik. Bu bizim parça ardına parça ardına parça yazmamız gerektiÄi "
-"anlamına gelmekteydi. Tabi ki, her zaman kısa yolları arıyorduk. İŠo
kadar "
-"büyüktü ki, insanlar hiçbir zaman bitiremeyeceÄimizi söylüyordu.
Bitirme "
-"Åansımız olduÄunu düÅündüm ancak açık bir Åekilde, kısa yollara
bakmaya "
-"deÄerdi. Bu nedenle bakınmaya devam ettik. BenimseyebildiÄimiz, burayla "
-"irtibatlandırabildiÄimiz ve böylece baÅtan yazmak zorunda olmadıÄımız
baÅka "
-"birilerinin yazdıÄı herhangi bir program var mıdır? ÃrneÄin, X Window "
-"sistemi vardır. Copyleft edilmediÄi doÄrudur ancak bu, özgür
yazılımdır, bu "
-"nedenle onu kullanabiliriz. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, I had wanted to put a window system into GNU from day one. I wrote a "
-"couple of window systems at MIT before I started GNU. And so, even though "
-"Unix had no window system in 1984, I decided that GNU would have one. But, "
-"we never ended up writing a GNU window system, because X came along. And I "
-"said, Goody! One big job we don't have to do. We'll use X. So I basically "
-"said, let's take X, and put it into the GNU system. And we'll make the "
-"other parts of GNU, you know, work with X, when appropriate. And we found "
-"other pieces of software that had been written by other people, like the "
-"text formatter TeX, some library code from Berkeley. At that time there was "
-"Berkeley Unix, but it was not free software. This library code, initially, "
-"was from a different group at Berkeley, that did research on floating "
-"point. And, so, we kept, we fit in these pieces."
-msgstr ""
-"Åimdi, ilk günden GNUâya bir pencere sistemi koymak istedim. GNUâya "
-"baÅlamadan önce MITâde birtakım pencere sistemleri yazdım. Ve Unixâin
1984 "
-"yılında herhangi bir pencere sistemine sahip olmamasına raÄmen, GNUânun
bir "
-"pencere sistemine sahip olmasına karar verdim. Ancak hiçbir zaman bir GNU "
-"pencere sistemi yazmayı beceremedik çünkü X birlikte geldi. Ve ben de
Åunu "
-"dedim: âYapmamızın gerekli olmadıÄı büyük bir iÅ. Xâi
kullanacaÄız.â Åunu "
-"dedim: Xâi alalım ve GNU sistemine koyalım. Ve uygun olduÄunda,
GNUânun "
-"diÄer kısımlarının X ile birlikte çalıÅmasını saÄlayacaÄız. Ve
metin "
-"biçimlendiricisı TEX gibi ya da Berkeleyâden birtakım kütüphane
kodları gibi "
-"baÅka insanlar tarafından yazılmıŠolan baÅka yazılım parçalarını
bulduk. O "
-"zamanlar Berkeley Unix vardı ancak bu, özgür yazılım deÄildi. Bu
kütüphane "
-"kodu, baÅlangıç olarak, Berkeleyâdeki kayan nokta üzerinde araÅtırma
yapan "
-"farklı bir gruba aitti. Ve bu nedenle, bu parçalara uyduk. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"In October 1985, we founded the Free Software Foundation. So please note, "
-"the GNU project came first. The Free Software Foundation came after, about "
-"almost two years after the announcement of the Project. And the Free "
-"Software Foundation is a tax-exempt charity that raises funds to promote the "
-"freedom to share and change software. And in the 1980's, one of the main "
-"things we did with our funds was to hire people to write parts of GNU. And "
-"essential programs, such as the shell and the C library were written this "
-"way, as well as parts of other programs. The <code>tar</code> program, "
-"which is absolutely essential, although not exciting at all <i>[Laughter]</"
-"i> was written this way. I believe GNU grep was written this way. And so, "
-"we're approaching our goal."
-msgstr ""
-"1985 yılının Ekim ayında, Ãzgür Yazılım Vakfını kurduk. Bu nedenle,
lütfen "
-"GNU Projesinin ilk proje olduÄunu unutmayın. Ãzgür Yazılım Vakfı, GNU "
-"Projesinden hemen hemen iki yıl sonra geldi. Ve Ãzgür Yazılım Vakfı
yazılımı "
-"paylaÅmak ve deÄiÅtirmek için özgürlüÄü saÄlamak üzere fon
toplayan vergiden "
-"muaf bir hayır kurumudur. Ve 1980âlerde, fonlarımızla yaptıÄımız
temel "
-"Åeylerden biri, GNUânun parçalarının yazılması için birilerini
tutmak oldu. "
-"Ve kabuk [:shell] ve C kütüphanesi gibi önemli programlar, diÄer "
-"programların parçaları gibi bu Åekilde yazılmıÅtı. Ãok önemli olan
ancak "
-"heyecan verici olmayan <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> <code>tar</code> "
-"programı, bu Åekilde yazılmıÅtı. GNUânun bir kısmının da bu
Åekilde yazılmıŠ"
-"olduÄuna inanmaktayım. Ve böylece hedefimize yaklaÅmaktayız."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"By 1991, there was just one major piece missing, and that was the kernel. "
-"Now, why did I put off the kernel? Probably because it doesn't really matter "
-"what order you do the things in, at least technically it doesn't. You've "
-"got to do them all anyway. And partly because I'd hoped we'd be able to "
-"find a start at a kernel somewhere else. And we did. We found Mach, which "
-"had been developed at Carnegie Mellon. And it wasn't the whole kernel; it "
-"was the bottom half of the kernel. So we had to write the top half, but I "
-"figured, you know, things like the file system, the network code, and so "
-"on. But running on top of Mach they're running essentially as user "
-"programs, which ought to make them easier to debug. You can debug with a "
-"real source-level debugger running at the same time. And so, I thought that "
-"way we'd be able to get these, the higher level parts of the kernel, done in "
-"a short time. It didn't work out that way. These asynchronous, multi-"
-"threaded processes, sending messages to each other turned out to be very "
-"hard to debug. And the Mach-based system that we were using to bootstrap "
-"with had a terrible debugging environment, and it was unreliable, and "
-"various problems. It took us years and years to get the GNU kernel to work."
-msgstr ""
-"1991 yılı itibariyle, eksik olan yalnızca tek bir büyük kısım vardı
ve bu da "
-"çekirdekti. Åimdi, niçin çekirdeÄi geciktirdim? Bu, muhtemelen iÅleri
hangi "
-"sırada yaptıÄınızın önemli olmamasından kaynaklanmaktadır, en
azından teknik "
-"açıdan durum böyledir. Her Åekilde iÅlerin tümünü yapmanız
gereklidir. Ve "
-"kısmen, baÅka bir yerlerde bir çekirdekte bir baÅlangıç
bulabileceÄimizi "
-"umduÄum içindir. Ve bunu baÅardık. Carnegie Mellonâda geliÅtirilmiÅ
olan "
-"Machâı bulduk. Ve bu, tüm çekirdek deÄildi; çekirdeÄin alt
yarısıydı. Bu "
-"nedenle, üst yarıyı; dosya sistemi, network kodu, vb. gibi bir Åeyler "
-"yazmamız gerekti. Ancak Machâın üstünde çalıÅarak, esas olarak
kullanıcı "
-"programları olarak çalıÅmaktadırlar, bu nedenle hatalarının
ayıklanması daha "
-"kolay olmalıdır. Aynı zamanda çalıÅan gerçek bir kaynak seviyesi hata "
-"ayıklayıcıyla hata ayıklayabilirsiniz. Bu Åekilde, çekirdeÄin daha
yüksek "
-"seviyedeki parçalarını daha kısa sürede yaptırmamızın daha uygun
olacaÄını "
-"düÅündüm. Birbirine mesajlar gönderen bu asenkron çoklu kullanımlı "
-"süreçlerin hatalarının ayıklanmasının çok zor olduÄu ortaya
çıkmıÅtır. Ve "
-"önyükleme yapmak için kullandıÄımız Mach tabanlı sistem korkunç bir
hata "
-"ayıklama ortamına sahipti ve güvenilmezdi. GNU çekirdeÄinin
çalıÅtırılması "
-"bizim yıllarımızı aldı."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, fortunately, our community did not have to wait for the GNU kernel. "
-"Because in 1991, Linus Torvalds developed another free kernel called Linux. "
-"And he used the old-fashioned monolithic design and it turns out that he got "
-"his working much faster than we got ours working. So maybe that's one of "
-"the mistakes that I made: that design decision. Anyway, at first, we didn't "
-"know about Linux, because he never contacted us to talk about it. Although "
-"he did know about the GNU Project. But he announced it to other people and "
-"other places on the net. And so other people then did the work of combining "
-"Linux with the rest of the GNU system to make a complete free operating "
-"system. Essentially, to make the GNU plus Linux combination."
-msgstr ""
-"Ancak neyse ki, topluluÄumuzun GNU çekirdeÄini beklemesi gerekmiyordu.
Ãünkü "
-"1991 yılında, Linus Torvalds, Linux olarak adlandırılan baÅka bir
özgür "
-"çekirdeÄi geliÅtirdi. Eski moda tek parça tasarımı kullandı ve
çalıÅmasını, "
-"bizimkilerin çalıÅmasından çok daha hızlı bir Åekilde aldıÄı
ortaya çıktı. "
-"Bu nedenle belki de, bu, yapmıŠolduÄum hatalardan biridir: bu tasarım "
-"kararı yapmıŠolduÄun hatalardan biridir. Her neyse, ilk baÅta Linux "
-"hakkında bir Åey bilmiyorduk çünkü GNU Projesini bildiÄi halde, bunun "
-"hakkında konuÅmak için hiçbir zaman bizimle temas kurmadı. Ancak bunu, "
-"netteki diÄer insanlara ve yerlere bildirdi. Ve bu nedenle diÄer insanlar, "
-"tam bir iÅletim sistemi elde etmek için Linuxâı GNU sisteminin geri "
-"kalanıyla birleÅtirdi. Esasen, GNU artı Linux birleÅimini oluÅturdular."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, they didn't realize that's what they were doing. You see, they said, "
-"We have a kernel — let's look around and see what other pieces we can "
-"find to put together with the kernel. So, they looked around — and lo "
-"and behold, everything they needed was already available. What good "
-"fortune, they said. <i>[Laughter]</i> It's all here. We can find "
-"everything we need. Let's just take all these different things and put it "
-"together, and have a system."
-msgstr ""
-"Ancak ne yaptıklarını görmüyorlardı. Ä°Åte, Åunu dediler: âBir
çekirdeÄimiz "
-"var â bakınalım ve çekirdekle bir araya getirebileceÄimiz baÅka hangi "
-"parçaların olduÄunu görelim.â Bu nedenle, etraflarına bakındılar â
ve iÅte, "
-"ihtiyaç duydukları her Åey mevcuttu. Ne kadar Åanslıyız dediler. <i>"
-"[Dinleyiciler güler]</i> Tümü burada. Ä°htiyaç duyduÄumuz her Åeyi "
-"bulabiliriz. Tüm bu farklı Åeyleri alalım ve bir araya getirelim ve bir "
-"sistem elde edelim."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"They didn't know that most of what they found was pieces of the GNU system. "
-"So they didn't realize that they were fitting Linux into the gap in the GNU "
-"system. They thought they were taking Linux and making a system out of "
-"Linux. So they called it a Linux system."
-msgstr ""
-"Buldukları Åeylerin çoÄunun GNU sisteminin parçaları olduÄunu
bilmiyorlardı. "
-"Bu nedenle, Linuxâı GNU sistemindeki boÅluÄa doldurduklarının
farkında "
-"deÄildiler. Linuxâı alıp Linuxâtan bir sistem yaptıklarını
düÅünüyorlardı. "
-"Bu nedenle bunu bir Linux sistemi olarak adlandırdılar."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can't hear you — what?"
-msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Sizi duyamadım - efendim?"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, it's just not — you know, it's "
-"provincial."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Güzel, sadece o deÄil, biliyorsun, dar
görüÅlülük."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: But it's more good fortune then finding X and "
-"Mach?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SORU</strong>:Ancak bu durum, X Window Sistemini ve Machâı
bulmaktan "
-"daha Åanslı bir durum deÄil midir?"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. The difference is that the people who "
-"developed X and Mach didn't have the goal of making a complete free "
-"operating system. We're the only ones who had that. And, it was our "
-"tremendous work that made the system exist. We actually did a larger part "
-"of the system than any other project. No coincidence, because those people "
-"— they wrote useful parts of the system. But they didn't do it "
-"because they wanted the system to be finished. They had other reasons."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>:DoÄru. Buradaki fark, Xâi ve Machâı
geliÅtiren "
-"insanlar, tam bir özgür iÅletim sistemi geliÅtirme hedefine sahip "
-"deÄildiler. Bunu isteyen yalnızca bizdik. Ve, sistemin var olmasını
saÄlayan "
-"bizim yoÄun çabalarımızdı. Gerçekte baÅka herhangi bir projeden çok
sistemin "
-"daha büyük bir parçasını oluÅturduk. Tesadüf yoktur, çünkü bu
insanlar â "
-"sistemin yararlı kısımlarını yazmıÅtır. Ancak bunu, sistemin
tamamlanmasını "
-"istedikleri için yapmamıÅlardır. BaÅka nedenleri vardı."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now the people who developed X — they thought that designing across "
-"the network window system would be a good project, and it was. And it "
-"turned out to help us make a good free operating system. But that's not "
-"what they hoped for. They didn't even think about that. It was an "
-"accident. An accidental benefit. Now, I'm not saying that what they did "
-"was bad. They did a large free software project. That's a good thing to "
-"do. But they didn't have that ultimate vision. The GNU Project is where "
-"that vision was."
-msgstr ""
-"Åimdi Xâi geliÅtiren insanlar â iyi bir proje olduÄunu
düÅündükleri network "
-"üzerinden pencere sistemini tasarımlamıÅlardır ve gerçekten de bu iyi
bir "
-"proje olmuÅtur. Ve bu, bizim iyi bir özgür iÅletim sistemi yapmamızı "
-"saÄlamıÅtır. Ancak umdukları bu deÄildir. Hatta bunun hakkında "
-"düÅünmemiÅlerdir bile. Bu, bir kazaydı. Kazara bundan faydalandılar.
Åimdi, "
-"yaptıklarının kötü bir Åey olduÄunu söylemiyorum. Büyük bir özgür
yazılım "
-"projesi gerçekleÅtirdiler. Bu, iyi bir Åeydir. Ancak esas vizyona sahip "
-"deÄildirler. Bu vizyon GNU Projesindedir. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And, so, we were the ones whose — every little piece that didn't get "
-"done by somebody else, we did it. Because we knew that we wouldn't have a "
-"complete system without it. And even if it was totally boring and "
-"unromantic, like <code>tar</code> or <code>mv</code>. <i>[Laughter]</i> We "
-"did it. Or ld, you know there's nothing very exciting in <code>ld</code> "
-"— but I wrote one. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I did make efforts to have "
-"it do a minimal amount of disk I/O so that it would be faster and handle "
-"bigger programs. But, you know, I like to do a good job. I like to improve "
-"various things about the program while I'm doing it. But the reason that I "
-"did it wasn't that I had brilliant ideas for a better <code>ld</code>. The "
-"reason I did it is that we needed one that was free. And we couldn't expect "
-"anyone else to do it. So, we had to do it, or find someone to do it."
-msgstr ""
-"Ve, bu nedenle, biz, her küçük parçayı baÅka birilerine hazırlatmayan "
-"birileriyiz. Ve <code>tar</code> ya da <code>mv</code> gibi tamamen sıkıcı
"
-"ve romantiklikten uzak olsa bile <i>[Dinleyiciler güler]</i>, bunu yaptık. "
-"Ya da <code>ld</code> gibi â bildiÄiniz gibi, <code>ld</code>âde çok
heyecan "
-"verici bir Åeyler yoktur ancak ben bir tane yazdım. <i>[Dinleyiciler
güler]</"
-"i> Ve minimal disk I/Oâsu kaplaması için çaba gösterdim böylece daha
hızlı "
-"olmuÅtur ve daha büyük programları kontrol edebilmektedir. Ä°yi iÅ
çıkarmayı "
-"severim; bir programı yazarken, program hakkında birçok Åeyi geliÅtirmek
"
-"isterim. Ancak bunu yapmamın nedeni, daha iyi bir Id için parlak "
-"fikirlerimin olması deÄildi. Bunu yapmamın nedeni, özgür bir programa "
-"ihtiyaç duymamızdı. Ve baÅka birinin bunu yapmasını bekleyemezdik. Bu "
-"nedenle, bunu yapmamız ya da baÅka birilerine yaptırmamız gerekliydi."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, although at this point thousands of people in projects have contributed "
-"to this system, there is one project which is the reason that this system "
-"exists, and that's the GNU Project. It <em>is</em> basically the GNU "
-"System, with other things added since then."
-msgstr ""
-"Bu nedenle, bu noktada binlerce insanın ya da projenin bu sisteme "
-"katılmasına raÄmen, bu sistemin var olmasının nedeni olan bir proje "
-"mevcuttur ve bu da GNU Projesidir. Bu <em>sistem</em> temelde GNU "
-"Sistemidir, o zamandan beri baÅka Åeyler de eklenmiÅtir. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, however, the practice of calling the system Linux has been a great blow "
-"to the GNU Project, because we don't normally get credit for what we've "
-"done. I think Linux, the kernel, is a very useful piece of free software, "
-"and I have only good things to say about it. But, well, actually, I can "
-"find a few bad things to say about it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, basically, I "
-"have good things to say about it. However, the practice of calling the GNU "
-"system, Linux, is just a mistake. I'd like to ask you please to make the "
-"small effort necessary to call the system GNU/Linux, and that way to help us "
-"get a share of the credit."
-msgstr ""
-"Sistemi Linux olarak adlandırmak GNU Projesi için büyük bir övünç
olmuÅtur "
-"çünkü normalde yapmıŠolduÄumuz Åeyler için itibar kazanmayız.
ÃekirdeÄin, "
-"Linuxâın çok yararlı bir özgür yazılım parçası olduÄunu
düÅünüyorum ve onun "
-"hakkında yalnızca iyi Åeyler söyleyebilirim. Aslında, onun hakkında "
-"söyleyecek kötü Åeyler de bulabilirim. <i>[Dinleyiciler güler]</i> Ancak
"
-"temelde iyi Åeyler söyleyebilirim. Ancak GNU sisteminin âLinuxâ olarak "
-"adlandırılması yalnızca bir hatadır. Sistemi GNU/Linux olarak
adlandırmanızı "
-"rica ederim ve böylece itibardan da faydalanabiliriz."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You need a mascot! Get yourself a stuffed animal! "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SORU</strong>:Bir maskota ihtiyacınız var! Dolgulu bir hayvan
alın! "
-"<i>[Dinleyiciler güler]</i>"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have one."
-msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>:Bir tane var."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You do?"
-msgstr "<strong>SORU</strong>:Var mı?"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have an animal — a gnu. <i>[Laughter]</"
-"i> Anyway. So, yes, when you draw a penguin, draw a gnu next to it. <i>"
-"[Laughter]</i> But, let's save the questions for the end. I have more to go "
-"through."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>:Bizim bir hayvanımız var â bir gnu (antilop).
<i>"
-"[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Böylece, evet, bir penguen çizdiÄinizde, yanına
bir "
-"de gnu çizin. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Ancak soruları sona saklayalım.
"
-"Daha anlatacak çok Åeyim var."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, why am I so concerned about this? You know, why do I think it is worth "
-"bothering you and perhaps giving you a, perhaps lowering your opinion of me, "
-"<i>[Laughter]</i> to raise this issue of credit? Because, you know, some "
-"people when I do this, some people think that it's because I want my ego to "
-"be fed, right? Of course, I'm not saying — I'm not asking you to call "
-"it “Stallmanix,” right? <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Bu arada, niçin bu konuyla bu kadar ilgiliyim? Bu itibar hususunu ortaya "
-"koymak için, sizin canınızı niye sıkıyorum ve belki de sizin
gözünüzdeki "
-"deÄerimi neden düÅürüyorum? <i>[Dinleyiciler güler]</i> Bunu
yaptıÄımda, "
-"bazı insanlar bunu egomu beslemek için yaptıÄımı düÅünebilir, öyle
deÄil mi? "
-"Tabi ki, bu programı âStallmanixâ olarak adlandırmanızı istemiyorum,
öyle "
-"deÄil mi? <i>[Dinleyiciler güler]</i> <i>[AlkıÅ]</i>"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to get "
-"credit. And there's a very specific reason for that, which is a lot more "
-"important than anybody getting credit, in and of itself. You see, these "
-"days, if you look around in our community most of the people talking about "
-"it and writing about it don't ever mention GNU, and they don't ever mention "
-"these goals of freedom — these political and social ideals, either. "
-"Because the place they come from is GNU."
-msgstr ""
-"Sizden bunu GNU olarak adlandırmanızı istiyorum çünkü GNU Projesinin "
-"itibarının olmasını istiyorum. Ve bunun için çok spesifik bir neden
vardır, "
-"bu, herhangi birinin itibar kazanmasından çok daha önemlidir.
Görüyorsunuz, "
-"bugünlerde, topluluÄumuza göz atacak olursanız, onun hakkında konuÅan
ve "
-"yazan kimseler GNUâyu ifade bile etmez ve özgürlüÄün bu amaçlarından
â bu "
-"politik ve sosyal ideallerden â bahsetmezler. Ãünkü onların [baÅka bir
"
-"deyiÅle, bunların] geldikleri yer GNUâdur. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"The ideas associated with Linux — the philosophy is very different. "
-"It is basically the apolitical philosophy of Linus Torvalds. So, when "
-"people think that the whole system is Linux, they tend to think: “Oh, "
-"it must have been all started by Linux Torvalds. His philosophy must be the "
-"one that we should look at carefully”. And when they hear about the "
-"GNU philosophy, they say: “Boy, this is so idealistic, this must be "
-"awfully impractical. I'm a Linux-user, not a GNU-user.” <i>[Laughter]"
-"</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Linuxâla ilgili fikirler â felsefesi çok farklıdır. Bu, temelde Linus "
-"Torvaldsâın apolitik felsefesidir. Bu nedenle, insanlar tüm sistemin
Linux "
-"olduÄunu düÅündüklerinde, Åu Åekilde düÅünme eÄilimdedirler:
âOh, bu, Linus "
-"Torvalds tarafından baÅlatılmıŠolmalıdır. Felsefesini dikkatli bir
Åekilde "
-"incelemeliyiz.â Ve GNU felsefesini duyduklarında, Åunu derler: âBu çok
"
-"idealistçi bir yaklaÅım, korkunç Åekilde uygulanamaz olması lazım. Ben
bir "
-"Linux kullanıcısıyım, GNU kullanıcısı deÄil.â [Dinleyiciler güler]"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"What irony! If they only knew! If they knew that the system they liked "
-"— or, in some cases, love and go wild over — is our idealistic, "
-"political philosophy made real."
-msgstr ""
-"Ne ironi! Yalnızca bilselerdi! HoÅlandıkları â ya da bazı durumlarda "
-"sevdikleri ve vahÅice üzerinden geçtikleri â sistemin politik felsefenin
"
-"gerçek kıldıÄı bu Åeyin bizim idealimiz olduÄunu bilselerdi. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"They still wouldn't have to agree with us. But at least they'd see a reason "
-"to take it seriously, to think about it carefully, to give it a chance. "
-"They would see how it relates to their lives. You know, if they realized, "
-"“I'm using the GNU system. Here's the GNU philosophy. This philosophy "
-"is <em>why</em> this system that I like very much exists,” they'd at "
-"least consider it with a much more open mind. It doesn't mean that "
-"everybody will agree. People think different things. That's OK. You know, "
-"people should make up their own minds. But I want this philosophy to get "
-"the benefit of the credit for the results it has achieved."
-msgstr ""
-"Yine de bizimle fikir birliÄi içinde olmazlardı. Ancak en azından bunu
ciddi "
-"bir Åekilde hesaba katmak, bu konu hakkında düÅünmek ve bir Åans vermek
için "
-"bir nedenleri olurdu. Bunun, hayatlarıyla nasıl bir iliÅkisinin olduÄunu "
-"görürlerdi. Åunu fark etselerdi: âGNU sistemini kullanıyorum. Bu da GNU
"
-"felsefesidir. Bu felsefe, hoÅlandıÄım bu sistemin var olma nedenidir,â
o "
-"zaman bunu en azından çok daha açık bir zihinle deÄerlendirirlerdi. Bu, "
-"herkesin bu konuda fikir birliÄi içinde olacaÄı anlamına gelmez.
Ä°nsanlar "
-"farklı Åeyler düÅünür. Bu uygundur â insanlar kendileri karar
vermelidirler. "
-"Ancak bu felsefenin saÄladıÄı sonuçlar için itibarının yararını
saÄlamasını "
-"isterim."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"If you look around in our community, you'll find that almost everywhere, the "
-"institutions are calling the system Linux. You know, reporters mostly call "
-"it Linux. It's not right, but they do. The companies mostly say it that "
-"package the system. Oh, and most of these reporters, when they write "
-"articles, they usually don't look at it as a political issue, or social "
-"issue. They're usually looking at it purely as a business question or what "
-"companies are going to succeed more or less, which is really a fairly minor "
-"question for society. And, if you look at the companies that package the "
-"GNU/Linux system for people to use, well, most of them call it Linux. And "
-"they <em>all</em> add non-free software to it."
-msgstr ""
-"TopluluÄumuza göz atarsak, hemen hemen her yerde kurumların sistemi Linux "
-"olarak adlandırdıÄını görürüz. Muhabirler bunu genelde Linux olarak "
-"adlandırmaktadır. Bu, doÄru deÄildir ancak bunu yaparlar. Sistemi
paketleyen "
-"firmalar sistemi genelde [Linux] olarak adlandırır. Ve bu muhabirlerin "
-"birçoÄu, makale yazdıklarında, bunu genelde politik bir husus ya da
sosyal "
-"bir husus olarak görmezler. Buna genelde safça bir iŠsorusu ya da hangi "
-"firmaların az ya da çok baÅarılı olacaÄı olarak bakarlar, bu, temelde
toplum "
-"için küçük bir sorudur. Ve insanların kullanımı için GNU/Linux
sistemini "
-"paketleyen firmalara baktıÄınızda, bu firmaların birçoÄu bu sistemi
Linux "
-"olarak adlandırmaktadır. Ve tümü de bu sisteme özgür olmayan yazılım
ekler."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"See, the GNU GPL says that if you take code, and some code out of a GPL-"
-"covered program, and add some more code to make a bigger program, that whole "
-"program has to be released under the GPL. But you could put other separate "
-"programs on the same disk (of either kind, hard disk, or CD), and they can "
-"have other licenses. That's considered mere aggregation, and, essentially, "
-"just distributing two programs to somebody at the same time is not something "
-"we have any say over. So, in fact, it is not true — sometimes, I wish "
-"it were true — that if a company uses a GPL-covered program in a "
-"product that the whole product has to be free software. It's not — it "
-"doesn't go to that range — that scope. It's the whole program. If "
-"there are two separate programs that communicate with each other at arm's "
-"length — like by sending messages to each other — then, they're "
-"legally separate, in general. So, these companies, by adding non-free "
-"software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically and "
-"politically, a very bad idea. They're telling the users, “It is OK to "
-"use non-free software. We're even putting it on this as a bonus.”"
-msgstr ""
-"GNU GPL, kodu alırsanız ve GPL kapsamlı bir programdan birtakım kodları "
-"alırsanız ve daha büyük bir program oluÅturmak için bir miktar daha
fazla "
-"kod eklerseniz, söz konusu tüm programın GPL altında yayınlanması "
-"gerektiÄini söyler. Ancak aynı disk (hard disk ya da CD) üzerine ayrı "
-"programlar koyabilirsiniz ve bunların baÅka lisansları olabilir. Bu, "
-"yalnızca toplama olarak deÄerlendirilir ve esasen aynı zamanda iki
programın "
-"birilerine daÄıtılması, hakkında herhangi bir Åey söyleyebileceÄimiz
bir "
-"durum deÄildir. Bu nedenle, gerçekte, bu durum doÄru deÄildir â bazen
doÄru "
-"olmasını ummaktayım â bir firma bir üründe GPL kapsamlı bir programı
"
-"kullanırsa, tüm ürün özgür yazılım olmalıdır. Bu ürün, söz
konusu aralıÄa "
-"girmez â söz konusu kapsamda deÄildir. Bu ürün, tüm programdır.
Emsallerine "
-"uygun bir Åekilde birbiriyle iletiÅim kuran â örneÄin, birbirine mesaj "
-"gönderen â iki ayrı program mevcutsa, o zaman bu iki program genellikle "
-"yasal olarak ayrıdır. Bu nedenle, bu firmalar, sisteme özgür olmayan
yazılım "
-"ekleyerek, kullanıcılara, felsefi ve politik açıdan çok kötü bir fikir
"
-"vermektedir. Kullanıcılara Åunu söylemektedirler: âÃzgür olmayan
yazılımın "
-"kullanılması iyidir. Hatta bunu hediye olarak veriyoruz.â"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system, most of "
-"them have a title like “Linux-something or other”. So they're "
-"calling the system Linux most of the time. And they're filled with ads for "
-"non-free software that you could run on top of the GNU/Linux system. Now "
-"those ads have a common message. They say: Non-free Software Is Good For "
-"You. It's So Good That You Might Even <em>Pay</em> To Get It. <i>[Laughter]"
-"</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"GNU/Linux sisteminin kullanımı hakkındaki dergilere baktıÄınız zaman, "
-"çoÄunluÄunun Åu Åekilde bir baÅlıÄa sahip olduÄunu görürsünüz:
âLinux-bir-"
-"Åeyler-ya-da-diÄer-Åeyler.â Böylece sistemi çoÄunlukla Linux olarak "
-"adlandırırlar. Ve bu dergiler, GNU/Linux sisteminin üstünde "
-"çalıÅtırabileceÄiniz özgür olmayan yazılıma iliÅkin reklamlarla
doludur. "
-"Åimdi, bu reklamlar ortak bir mesaja sahiptir. Åöyle demektedirler:
âÃzgür "
-"olmayan yazılım sizin için iyidir. O kadar iyidir ki, bu yazılıma sahip "
-"olmak için <em>para</em> bile ödeyebilirsiniz.â [Dinleyiciler güler]"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And they call these things “value-added packages”, which makes a "
-"statement about their values. They're saying: Value practical convenience, "
-"not freedom. And, I don't agree with those values, so I call them “"
-"freedom-subtracted packages”. <i>[Laughter]</i> Because if you have "
-"installed a free operating system, then you now are living in the free "
-"world. You enjoy the benefits of liberty that we worked for so many years "
-"to give you. Those packages give you an opportunity to buckle on a chain."
-msgstr ""
-"Ve bu Åeyleri âkatma deÄer paketleriâ olarak adlandırırız, bu,
onların "
-"deÄerleri hakkında bir ifade saÄlar. Åöyle demektedirler: ÃzgürlüÄü
deÄil, "
-"pratik elveriÅliliÄi deÄerlendirin. Ve bu deÄerlerle fikir birliÄi
içinde "
-"deÄilim, bu nedenle onları âözgürlüÄü eksilmiÅ paketlerâ olarak "
-"adlandırıyorum. [Dinleyiciler güler] Ãzgür bir iÅletim sistemi
kurduysanız, "
-"o zaman Åimdi özgür dünyada yaÅıyorsunuz demektir. Yıllardır size
vermek "
-"için uÄraÅtıÄımız özgürlüÄün faydalarının tadını çıkarın.
Bu paketler, size "
-"bir zincir üzerinde eÄilme imkânını vermektedir. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And then if you look at the trade shows — about the use of the, "
-"dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call themselves "
-"“Linux” shows. And they're filled with booths exhibiting non-"
-"free software, essentially putting the seal of approval on the non-free "
-"software. So, almost everywhere you look in our community, the institutions "
-"are endorsing the non-free software, totalling negating the idea of freedom "
-"that GNU was developed for. And the only place that people are likely to "
-"come across the idea of freedom is in connection with GNU, and in connection "
-"with free software, the term, free software. So this is why I ask you: "
-"please call the system GNU/Linux. Please make people aware where the system "
-"came from and why."
-msgstr ""
-"Ve GNU/Linux sisteminin kullanımına adanmıŠticari gösterilere
bakarsanız, "
-"bu gösteriler, kendilerini âLinuxâ gösterileri olarak
adlandırmaktadır. Ve "
-"özgür olmayan yazılımı sergileyen satıŠreyonlarıyla doludurlar,
özellikle, "
-"onay damgasını özgür olmayan yazılımın üzerine vururlar. Bu nedenle, "
-"toplumumuzda baktıÄımız her yerde, kurumlar özgür olmayan yazılımı "
-"desteklemektedir, GNUânun kendisi için geliÅtirildiÄi özgürlük
fikrini "
-"tamamen yadsırlar. Ve insanların özgürlük fikriyle karÅı karÅıya "
-"gelebilecekleri tek yer, GNU ile ve özgür yazılımla iliÅkilidir. Bu
nedenle "
-"sizden sistemi GNU/Linux olarak adlandırmanızı istememin nedeni budur. "
-"Lütfen insanları sistemin nereden ve niçin geldiÄi konusunda
bilgilendirin."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Of course, just by using that name, you won't be making an explanation of "
-"the history. You can type four extra characters and write GNU/Linux; you "
-"can say two extra syllables. But, GNU/Linux is fewer syllables than Windows "
-"2000. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, you're not telling them a lot, but you're "
-"preparing them, so that when they hear about GNU, and what it's all about, "
-"they'll see how that connects to them and their lives. And that, "
-"indirectly, makes a tremendous difference. So please help us."
-msgstr ""
-"Tabi ki, yalnızca bu ismi kullanarak, tarihsel bir açıklama
yapmayacaksınız. "
-"Dört ekstra karakter girebilir ve GNU/Linuxâı yazabilirsiniz; iki ekstra "
-"hece söyleyebilirsiniz. Ancak GNU/Linux Windows 2000âden daha az heceden "
-"oluÅmaktadır. [Dinleyiciler güler] Onlara çok fazla Åey anlatmıyorsunuz
"
-"ancak onları hazırlıyorsunuz, böylece GNU hakkında bir Åeyler
öÄrenecekler "
-"ve konunun ne olduÄunu duyduklarında, bunun kendileriyle ve yaÅamlarıyla "
-"nasıl bir iliÅkisinin olduÄunu göreceklerdir. Ve bu, doÄrudan büyük
bir fark "
-"yaratmaktadır. Bu nedenle, lütfen bize yardım edin. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"You'll note that Microsoft called the GPL an “open source "
-"license”. They don't want people to be thinking in terms of freedom "
-"as the issue. You'll find that they invite people to think in a narrow way, "
-"as consumers, and, of course, not even think very rationally as consumers, "
-"if they're going to choose Microsoft products. But they don't want people "
-"to think as citizens or statesmen. That's inimical to them. At least it's "
-"inimical to their current business model."
-msgstr ""
-"Microsoft, GPLâi âaçık kaynaklı bir lisansâ olarak adlandırdı.
İnsanların, "
-"ana husus olarak özgürlük açısından düÅünüyor olmalarını
istemediler. "
-"İnsanları, Microsoft ürünlerini seçeceklerse, tüketici olarak dar bir "
-"Åekilde düÅünmeye ve tabi ki tüketiciler olarak çok rasyonel bir
Åekilde "
-"düÅünmemeye davet ettiklerini bulacaksınız. Ancak insanların vatandaÅ
ya da "
-"devlet adamı gibi düÅünmesini istemezler, Bu, onlar için zıttır, "
-"düÅmancadır. En azından mevcut iÅ modellerine karÅı zıttır."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, how does free software…well, I can tell you about how free "
-"software relates to our society. A secondary topic that might be of "
-"interest to some of you is how free software relates to business. Now, in "
-"fact, free software is <em>tremendously</em> useful for business. After "
-"all, most businesses in the advanced countries use software. Only a tiny "
-"fraction of them develop software."
-msgstr ""
-"Åimdi, özgür yazılım nasıl…evet, özgür yazılımın
toplumumuzla nasıl "
-"bir iliÅkisinin olduÄunu anlatabilirim. Bazılarınız için önemli
olabilecek "
-"ikinci bir baÅlık ise özgür yazılımın iÅle nasıl bir ilgisi
olduÄudur. "
-"Åimdi, gerçekte, özgür yazılım iÅ için <em>büyük</em> ölçüde
yararlıdır. Ne "
-"de olsa, geliÅmiŠülkelerdeki birçok iÅyerinde yazılım
kullanılmaktadır. "
-"Yalnızca küçük bir kısmı yazılım geliÅtirmektedir. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And free software is tremendously advantageous for any company that uses "
-"software, because it means that you're in control. Basically, free software "
-"means the users are in control of what the program does. Either "
-"individually, if they care enough to be, or, collectively, when they care "
-"enough to be. Whoever cares enough can exert some influence. If you don't "
-"care, you don't buy. Then you use what other people prefer. But, if you do "
-"care, then you have some say. With proprietary software, you have "
-"essentially no say."
-msgstr ""
-"Ve özgür yazılım, yazılım kullanan herhangi bir firma için büyük
ölçüde "
-"avantajlıdır çünkü bu, kontrolün sizde olduÄunu göstermektedir. Temel
"
-"olarak, özgür yazılım, kullanıcıların, programın ne yaptıÄına
iliÅkin "
-"kontrole sahip oldukları anlamına gelmektedir. Münferit olarak ya da toplu
"
-"olarak, yeterince dikkatli olurlarsa, durum böyledir. Yeterince dikkat "
-"gösteren herkes, bazı etkileri uygulayabilir. Dikkat etmezseniz, satın "
-"almazsınız. O zaman baÅka insanların tercih ettiklerini kullanırsınız.
Ancak "
-"dikkat eder, özen gösterirseniz, o zaman söyleyecek bir Åeyleriniz olur. "
-"özel mülk yazılım söz konusu olduÄunda, söyleyecek bir Åeyiniz olmaz.
"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"With free software, you can change what you want to change. And it doesn't "
-"matter that there are no programmers in your company; that's fine. You "
-"know, if you wanted to move the walls in your building, you don't have to be "
-"a carpentry company. You just have to be able to go find a carpenter and "
-"say, “What will you charge to do this job?” And if you want to "
-"change around the software you use, you don't have to be a programming "
-"company. You just have to go to a programming company and say, “What "
-"will you charge to implement these features? And when will you have it done?"
-"” And if they don't do the job, you can go find somebody else."
-msgstr ""
-"Ãzgür yazılımla, deÄiÅtirmek istediÄiniz Åeyleri
deÄiÅtirebilirsiniz. Ve "
-"firmanızda programlayıcıların olup olmaması fark etmez; bu, iyidir. "
-"Binanızdaki duvarları hareket ettirmek isterseniz, bir marangozluk firması
"
-"olmanız gerekmez. Bir marangoz bulup, âBu iÅi yapmak için ne kadar para "
-"istersin?â diye sormanız yeterlidir. Ve kullandıÄınız yazılımı
deÄiÅtirmek "
-"isterseniz, bir programlama firması olmanız gerekmez. Tek yapmanız gereken
"
-"bir programlama firmasına gidip Åunu söylemektir: âBu özellikleri
implement "
-"etmek için ne kadar para istersiniz? Ve ne zamana bitirirsiniz?â Ve iÅi "
-"yapmazlarsa, gidip baÅka birilerini bulabilirsiniz."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"There's a free market for support. So, any business that cares about "
-"support will find a tremendous advantage in free software. With proprietary "
-"software, support is a monopoly, because one company has the source code, or "
-"maybe a small number of companies that paid a gigantic amount of money have "
-"the source code, if it's Microsoft's shared source program, but, it's very "
-"few. And so, there aren't very many possible sources of support for you. "
-"And that means, that unless you're a real giant, they don't care about you. "
-"Your company is not important enough for them to care if they lose your "
-"business, or what happens. Once you're using the program, they figure "
-"you're locked in to getting the support from them, because to switch to a "
-"different program is a gigantic job. So, you end up with things like paying "
-"for the privilege of reporting a bug. <i>[Laughter]</i> And once you've "
-"paid, they tell you, “Well, OK, we've noted your bug report. And in a "
-"few months, you can buy an upgrade, and you can see if we've fixed it."
-"” <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Destek için özgür bir piyasa mevcuttur. Bu nedenle destekle ilgilenen her "
-"türlü iÅyeri, özgür yazılımda büyük bir avantaj bulacaktır. özel
mülk "
-"yazılımla, destek bir tekeldir çünkü bir firma, bu, Microsoftâun
paylaÅılan "
-"bir kaynak programı ise kaynak koduna sahiptir â ya da belki de yüklü
bir "
-"miktar para ödeyen az sayıda firma kaynak koduna sahiptir â ancak, bu
sayı "
-"çok azdır. Bu nedenle, sizin için çok fazla sayıda olası kaynak mevcut "
-"deÄildir. Ve bu, gerçekten de büyük bir dev deÄilseniz, sizinle "
-"ilgilenmedikleri anlamına gelmektedir. Firmanız, sizin iÅinizi "
-"kaybederlerse, bu duruma önem vermelerini gerektirecek kadar önemli "
-"deÄildir. Bir kere programı kullandıÄınızda, onlar için desteÄi
almakta "
-"kilitlendiÄinizi anlarlar çünkü farklı bir programa geçmek çok büyük
bir "
-"iÅtir. Bu nedenle, bir hatanın raporlanması ayrıcalıÄının ödenmesi
gibi "
-"Åeylerle karÅılaÅırsınız. [Dinleyiciler güler] Ve bir kere ödeme
yaptıktan "
-"sonra, Åöyle derler: âÄ°yi, tamam, hata raporunuzu kaydettik. Ve birkaç
ay "
-"içinde, bir yükseltme [:upgrade] satın alabilirsiniz ve bu hatayı giderip
"
-"gidermediÄimizi görebilirsiniz.â [Dinleyiciler güler]"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Support providers for free software can't get away with that. They have to "
-"please the customers. Of course, you can get a lot of good support gratis. "
-"You post your problem on the Internet. You may get an answer the next day. "
-"But that's not guaranteed, of course. If you want to be confident, you "
-"better make an arrangement with a company and pay them. And this is, of "
-"course, one of the ways that free software business works."
-msgstr ""
-"Ãzgür yazılıma iliÅkin destek saÄlayıcıları, bundan ucuz kurtulamaz.
"
-"MüÅterileri memnun etmek zorundadırlar. Tabi ki, birçok iyi bedava destek
"
-"alabilirsiniz. Probleminizi İnternetten gönderirsiniz. Ertesi gün bir
yanıt "
-"alabilirsiniz. Ancak bu, tabi ki garantili deÄildir. Güvende olmak "
-"isterseniz, en iyisi bir firma ile anlaÅma yapın ve onlara ücret ödeyin.
Ve "
-"bu, tabi ki, özgür yazılım iÅinin çalıÅma Åekillerinden birisidir. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Another advantage of free software for businesses that use software is "
-"security and privacy. And this applies to individuals as well, but I "
-"brought it up in the context of businesses. You see, when a program is "
-"proprietary, you can't even tell what it really does."
-msgstr ""
-"Yazılım kullanan iÅler için özgür yazılımın baÅka bir avantajı,
güven ve "
-"gizliliktir. Ve bu, bireyler için de geçerlidir ancak bunu, iÅyerleri "
-"baÄlamında gündeme getirdim. Ä°Åte, bir program özel mülk olduÄunda, "
-"gerçekten de ne yaptıÄını bile söyleyemezsiniz."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"It could have features, deliberately put in that you wouldn't like if you "
-"knew about them, like it might have a backdoor to let the developer get into "
-"your machine. It might snoop on what you do and send information back. "
-"This is not unusual. Some Microsoft software did this. But it's not only "
-"Microsoft. There are other proprietary programs that snoop on the user. "
-"And you can't even tell if it does this. And, of course, even assuming that "
-"the developer's totally honest, every programmer makes mistakes. There "
-"could be bugs that affect your security which are nobody's fault. But the "
-"point is: If it's not free software, you can't find them. And you can't fix "
-"them."
-msgstr ""
-"Bunların hakkında bir Åeyler biliyorsanız, hoÅlanmayacaÄınız bir
Åekilde "
-"kasıtlı olarak ortaya konan özelliklere sahip olabilir. ÃrneÄin, "
-"geliÅtiricinin makinenize girmesine izin veren bir arka kapıya sahip "
-"olabilir. YaptıÄınız iÅlere burnunu sokabilir ve bilgileri geri "
-"gönderebilir. Bu, yaygın bir durumdur. Birtakım Microsoft yazılımları
bunu "
-"yapmaktadır. Ancak bunu yapan yalnızca Microsoft deÄildir. Kullanıcının
"
-"iÅine burnunu sokan baÅka özel mülk programlar mevcuttur. Ve bunu
yaptıkları "
-"zaman fark edemezsiniz bile. Ve tabi ki, geliÅtiricinin tamamen dürüst "
-"olduÄu varsayıldıÄında bile, her programcı hata yapar. Bunlar,
güvenliÄinizi "
-"etkileyen ve kimseden kaynaklanmayan hatalar olabilir. Ancak buradaki ana "
-"nokta Åudur: Bu, özgür yazılım deÄildir, bu hataları bulamazsınız.
Ve bu "
-"hataları gideremezsiniz."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Nobody has the time to check the source of every program he runs. You're "
-"not going to do that. But with free software there's a large community, and "
-"there are people in that community who are checking things. And you get the "
-"benefit of their checking, because if there's an accidental bug, there "
-"surely are, from time to time, in any program, they might find it and fix "
-"it. And people are much less likely to put in a deliberate Trojan horse, or "
-"a snooping feature, if they think they might get caught. The proprietary "
-"software developers figure they won't get caught. They'll get away with it "
-"undetected. But a free software developer has to figure that people will "
-"look at that and see it's there. So, in our community, we don't feel we can "
-"get away with ramming a feature down the users' throats that the users "
-"wouldn't like. So we know that if the users don't like it, they'll make a "
-"modified version which doesn't have it. And then, they'll all start using "
-"that version."
-msgstr ""
-"Hiç kimse, çalıÅtırdıÄı her programın kaynaÄını kontrol etmek
için gereken "
-"zamana sahip deÄildir. Bunu yapmayacaksınız. Ancak özgür yazılımla,
büyük "
-"bir topluluk mevcuttur ve bu toplulukta olayları kontrol eden insanlar "
-"vardır. Ve onların kontrolünden faydalanırsınız çünkü kazara bir
hata varsa, "
-"ki kesinlikle vardır, zaman zaman, herhangi bir programda, bu hatayı "
-"bulabilir ve giderebilirler. Ve yakalanacaklarını düÅündükleri zaman, "
-"insanların, kasıtlı bir Truva atı (kullanılacaÄı bilgisayara bilerek
hasar "
-"verme amacıyla hazırlanmıŠbilgisayar programı) ya da burnunu sokan bir "
-"özelliÄi koyma ihtimali çok daha düÅüktür. özel mülk yazılım "
-"geliÅtiricileri, yakalanmayacaklarını düÅünür. Bu durumun tespit
edilmeden "
-"geçeceÄini düÅünürler. Ancak özgür bir yazılım geliÅtiricisi
insanların ona "
-"bakacaÄını ve orada olduÄunu göreceÄini bilir. TopluluÄumuzda, "
-"kullanıcıların hoÅlanmayacakları bir Åekilde boÄazlarına bastırarak
bu "
-"durumdan kurtulmayı düÅünmeyiz. Biliriz ki, kullanıcılar bundan
hoÅlanmazsa, "
-"bu özelliÄe sahip olmayan deÄiÅtirilmiÅ bir sürüm hazırlanacaktır.
Ve daha "
-"sonra tümü de söz konusu sürümü kullanarak çalıÅmaya
baÅlayacaktır."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"In fact, we can all reason enough, we can all figure this out enough steps "
-"ahead, that we probably won't put in that feature. After all, you're "
-"writing a free program; you want people to like your version; you don't want "
-"to put in a thing that you know a lot of people are going to hate, and have "
-"another modified version catch on instead of yours. So you just realize "
-"that the user is king in the world of free software. In the world of "
-"proprietary software, the customer is <em>not</em> king. Because you are "
-"only a customer. You have no say in the software you use."
-msgstr ""
-"Gerçekte, muhtemelen bu özelliÄi koymayacaÄımız sonucunu hepimiz "
-"çıkarabiliriz, yeterince adım önceden bunu anlayabiliriz. Ne de olsa,
özgür "
-"bir program yazıyorsunuz; insanların sürümünüzdenhoÅlanmasını
istersiniz; "
-"birçok insanın nefret edeceÄi bir özelliÄi koymazsınız ve kendinizinki
"
-"yerine baÅka bir deÄiÅtirilmiÅ sürümü kullanmazsınız. Böylece,
özgür yazılım "
-"dünyasında kralın kullanıcı olduÄunu fark edersiniz. özel mülk
yazılım "
-"dünyasında, kral, müÅteri deÄildir. Ãünkü siz yalnızca bir
müÅterisinizdir. "
-"KullandıÄınız yazılımda söz hakkınız yoktur."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"In this respect, free software is a new mechanism for democracy to operate. "
-"Professor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions as a kind of "
-"law. Whoever gets to write the code that just about everybody uses for all "
-"intents and purposes is writing the laws that run people's lives. With free "
-"software, these laws get written in a democratic way. Not the classical "
-"form of democracy — we don't have a big election and say, “"
-"Everybody vote which way should this feature be done.” <i>[Laughter]</"
-"i> Instead we say, basically, those of you who want to work on implementing "
-"the feature this way, do it. And if you want to work on implementing the "
-"feature that way, do it. And, it gets done one way or the other, you know? "
-"And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done this way. So, "
-"in this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by simply taking "
-"steps in the direction that he wants to go."
-msgstr ""
-"Bu anlamda, özgür yazılım, demokrasinin iÅlemesi için yeni bir
mekanizmadır. "
-"Åimdi Stanfordâda olan Profesör Lessig, bir kanun çeÅidi olarak söz
konusu "
-"kod fonksiyonlarını söylemiÅtir. Tüm amaçlar ve hedefler için herkesin
"
-"kullandıÄı kod hakkında yazan her kimse, insanların hayatlarını
belirleyen "
-"kanunlar yazmaktadır. Ãzgür yazılım söz konusu olduÄunda, bu kanunlar "
-"demokratik bir Åekilde yazılır. Ancak bu, klasik demokrasi biçimi
deÄildir â "
-"büyük bir seçim yapıp Åunu demiyoruz: âHerkes, bu iÅin nasıl
yapılmasını "
-"istiyorsa ona göre oy versin.â [Dinleyiciler güler] Bunun yerine, temel "
-"olarak Åunu diyoruz: özelliÄin Åu Åekilde implement edilmesini
isteyenler, o "
-"Åekilde yapsın. Ve söz konusu özelliÄi söz konusu Åekilde
gerçekleÅtirmek "
-"için çalıÅmak isterseniz, öyle yaparsınız. Ve bir Åekilde ya da
diÄer "
-"Åekilde yapılır, deÄil mi? Ve böylece çok sayıda insan bu Åekilde
isterse, "
-"bu Åekilde yapılacaktır. Bu Åekilde, herkes, gitmek istediÄi yönde
basitçe "
-"adımlar atarak sosyal karara katkıda bulunur. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And you're free to take as many steps, personally, as you want to take. A "
-"business is free to commission as many steps as they find useful to take. "
-"And, after you add all these things up, that says which direction the "
-"software goes."
-msgstr ""
-"Ve kiÅisel olarak istediÄiniz kadar adım atmakta özgürsünüz. Bir
iÅyeri, "
-"atmalarının yararlı olduÄu kadar adımı atmakta özgürdür. Ve tüm bu
Åeyleri "
-"topladıÄınızda, bu, yazılımın hangi yönde gittiÄini söyler."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And it's often very useful to be able to take pieces out of some existing "
-"program, presumably usually large pieces, of course, and then write a "
-"certain amount of code of your own, and make a program that does exactly "
-"what you need, which would have cost you an arm and a leg to develop, if you "
-"had to write it all from scratch, if you couldn't cannibalize large pieces "
-"from some existing free software package."
-msgstr ""
-"Ve mevcut birtakım programlardan â genellikle büyük parçalardan â
bazı "
-"parçaların alınması ve daha sonra kendinize ait belirli miktardaki kodun "
-"yazılması ve ihtiyacınızı tam olarak karÅılayan bir programın
hazırlanması "
-"tabi ki çok yararlıdır; mevcut birtakım özgür yazılım paketlerinden
büyük "
-"parçaları alamazsanız, tamamını yeni baÅtan yazmak size pahalıya mal "
-"olacaktır."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Another thing that results from the fact that the user is king is that we "
-"tend to be very good about compatibility and standardization. Why? Because "
-"users like that. Users are likely to reject a program that has gratuitous "
-"incompatibilities in it. Now, sometimes there's a certain group of users "
-"which actually have a need for a certain kind of incompatibility, and then "
-"they'll have it. That's OK. But when users want is to follow a standard, we "
-"developers have to follow it, and we know that. And we do it. By contrast, "
-"if you look at proprietary software developers, they often find it "
-"advantageous to deliberately <em>not</em> follow a standard, and not because "
-"they think that they're giving the user an advantage that way, but rather "
-"because they're imposing on the user, locking the user in. And you'll even "
-"find them making changes in their file formats from time to time, just to "
-"force people to get the newest version."
-msgstr ""
-"Kralın kullanıcı olduÄu gerçeÄinden kaynaklanan baÅka bir Åey de,
uyumluluk "
-"ve standardizasyon konusunda çok iyi olma eÄilimimizdir. Niçin? Ãünkü "
-"kullanıcılar bundan hoÅlanmaktadır. Kullanıcılar, içinde büyük "
-"uyumsuzlukların olduÄu bir programı reddedecektir. Åimdi, bazen belirli
bir "
-"uyumsuzluk tipine iliÅkin ihtiyacı olan belirli bir kullanıcı grubu
vardır "
-"ve o zaman ona sahip olacaklardır. Bu tamamdır. Ancak kullanıcılar bir "
-"standardı izlemek istediklerinde, biz geliÅtiriciler de bunu izlemeliyiz ve
"
-"bunu biliriz. Ve bunu yaparız. Bunun zıttı olarak, özel mülk yazılım "
-"geliÅtiricilerine bakarsanız, genellikle kasıtlı olarak bir standardı "
-"izlememeyi avantajlı bulurlar ve bunun nedeni, bu Åekilde kullanıcıya bir
"
-"avantaj saÄladıklarını düÅündükleri için <em>deÄil</em>, ancak daha
çok "
-"kullanıcı üzerinde bir Åeyler dayattıkları, kullanıcıyı
kilitledikleri "
-"içindir. Ve özel mülk yazılım geliÅtiricilerinin zaman zaman dosya "
-"biçimlerinde deÄiÅiklikler yaptıklarını görürsünüz, bunun tek
nedeni, "
-"insanların en yeni sürümü satın almalarını saÄlamaktır. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Archivists are finding a problem now, that files written on computers ten "
-"years ago often can't be accessed; they were written with proprietary "
-"software that's essentially lost now. If it were written with free "
-"software, then it could be brought up-to-date and run. And those things "
-"would not, those records would not be lost, would not be inaccessible. They "
-"were even complaining about this on NPR recently in citing free software as "
-"a solution. And so, in effect, by using a non-free program to store your "
-"own data, you are putting your head in a noose."
-msgstr ""
-"ArÅivciler Åimdi bir problem bulmaktadır, on yıl önce bilgisayarlarda "
-"yazılan dosyalara genellikle eriÅilememektedir; bunlar, Åimdi kaybolmuÅ
olan "
-"özel mülk yazılımla yazılan dosyalardır. Bu dosyalar özgür
yazılımla "
-"yazılmıŠolsalardı, güncelleÅtirilebilip çalıÅtırılabilirlerdi. Ve
söz "
-"konusu kayıtlar kaybolmazdı, eriÅilemeyen duruma gelmezdi. NPR'de bile bu "
-"konuda Åikayetler vardı ve çözüm olarak özgür yazılım
önerilmekteydi. "
-"Aslında, kendi verilerinizi saklamak için özgür olmayan programı
kullanarak, "
-"kendinizi tuzaÄa düÅürüyorsunuz."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, I've talked about how free software affects most business. But how does "
-"it affect that particular narrow area which is software business? Well, the "
-"answer is mostly not at all. And the reason is that 90% of the software "
-"industry, from what I'm told, is development of custom software, software "
-"that's not meant to be released at all. For custom software, this issue, or "
-"the ethical issue of free or proprietary, doesn't arise. You see, the issue "
-"is, are you users free to change, and redistribute, the software? If there's "
-"only one user, and that user owns the rights, there's no problem. That user "
-"<em>is</em> free to do all these things. So, in effect, any <em>custom</em> "
-"program that was developed by one company for use in-house is free software, "
-"as long as they have the sense to insist on getting the source code and all "
-"the rights."
-msgstr ""
-"Böylece, özgür yazılımın birçok iÅi nasıl etkilediÄini anlattım.
Ancak, "
-"yazılım iÅi olan bu özel dar alanı nasıl etkilemektedir? Evet, bu
sorunun "
-"cevabı, çoÄunlukla hemen hemen hiç etkilemediÄidir. Ve bana
anlatılanlardan, "
-"bunun nedeni, yazılım endüstrisinin % 90âının özel yazılımın
geliÅimine "
-"ayrılmasıdır, baÅka bir deyiÅle, yayınlanmayan yazılıma
ayrılmasıdır. Ãzel "
-"yazılım için, bu husus ya da özgür ya da özel mülk olma hususu
gündeme "
-"gelmez. GördüÄünüz gibi, buradaki husus, siz kullanıcıların
yazılımı "
-"deÄiÅtirmek ve yeniden daÄıtmak için özgür olup olmadıÄınızdır.
Yalnızca tek "
-"bir kullanıcı varsa ve söz konusu kullanıcı haklara sahipse, o zaman
problem "
-"yoktur. Söz konusu kullanıcı tüm bu Åeyleri yapmakta özgürdür. Bu
nedenle, "
-"aslında, kaynak kodunu ve tüm hakları alma konusunda ısrar ediyorlarsa, "
-"firma içinde kullanım için bir firma tarafından geliÅtirilen her türlü
özel "
-"program özgür yazılımdır."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And the issue doesn't really arise for software that goes in a watch or a "
-"microwave oven or an automobile ignition system. Because those are places "
-"where you don't download software to install. It's not a real computer, as "
-"far as the user is concerned. And so, it doesn't raise these issues enough "
-"for them to be ethically important. So, for the most part, the software "
-"industry will go along, just as it's been going. And the interesting thing "
-"is that since such a large fraction of the jobs are in that part of the "
-"industry, even if there were no possibilities for free software business, "
-"the developers of free software could all get day jobs writing custom "
-"software. <i>[Laughter]</i> There's so many; the ratio is so big."
-msgstr ""
-"Bu husus, bir saatteki ya da bir mikrodalga fırındaki ya da bir otomobilin "
-"ateÅleme sistemindeki yazılım için söz konusu deÄildir çünkü bu
durumlarda, "
-"kurmak için yazılım indirmezsiniz. Kullanıcı söz konusu olduÄu
sürece, bu, "
-"gerçek bir bilgisayar deÄildir, bu nedenle, etik açıdan önemli olmaya "
-"yetecek kadar bu hususları büyütmez. Bu nedenle, en önemli kısım için,
"
-"yazılım endüstrisi, olduÄu gibi gitmeye devam edecektir. Ve ilginç Åey
Åudur "
-"ki, bu gibi büyük bir iÅ oranı endüstrinin ilgili kısmında olduÄu
için, "
-"özgür yazılım iÅi için hiçbir olasılık olmasa bile, özgür
yazılım "
-"geliÅtiricileri, özel yazılım yazmak için günlük iÅler alabilirler. "
-"[Dinleyiciler güler] Bunlardan çok fazla vardır; oran çok büyüktür."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, as it happens, there is free software business. There are free "
-"software companies, and at the press conference that I'm going to have, "
-"people from a couple of them will join us. And, of course, there are also "
-"companies which are <em>not</em> free software businesses but do develop "
-"useful pieces of free software to release, and the free software that they "
-"produce is substantial."
-msgstr ""
-"Ancak görüldüÄü gibi, özgür yazılım iÅi vardır. Ãzgür yazılım
firmaları "
-"vardır ve katılacaÄım basın toplantısında, birkaç özgür yazılım
firmasından "
-"insanlar bize katılacaktır. Ve tabi ki, özgür yazılım iÅi olmayan
ancak "
-"yayınlamak için yararlı özgür yazılım parçaları geliÅtiren firmalar
da "
-"vardır ve onların geliÅtirdiÄi özgür yazılım önemli ölçüdedir."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, how do free software businesses work? Well, some of them sell copies. "
-"You know, you're free to copy it but they can still sell thousands of copies "
-"a month. And others sell support and various kinds of services. I, "
-"personally, for the second half of the '80's, I sold free software support "
-"services. Basically I said, for $200 an hour, I'll change whatever you want "
-"me to change in GNU software that I'd written. And, yes, it was a stiff "
-"rate, but if it was a program that I was the author of, people would figure "
-"that I might get the job done in a lot fewer hours. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I "
-"made a living that way. In fact, I'd made more than I'd ever made before. "
-"I also taught classes. And I kept doing that until 1990, when I got a big "
-"prize and I didn't have to do it any more."
-msgstr ""
-"Åimdi, Åu soruyu sorarız: özgür yazılım iÅ dünyası nasıl
çalıÅmaktadır? "
-"Bazıları kopyaları satmaktadır. Kopyalamakta özgürsünüzdür ancak
yine de "
-"ayda binlerce kopya satabilirler. Ve diÄerleri, destek ve çeÅitli hizmet "
-"tiplerini satmaktadır. KiÅisel olarak ben, 1980âlerin ikinci yarısı
boyunca, "
-"özgür yazılım destek hizmetleri sattım. Temel olarak saatte $200 için, "
-"yazmıŠolduÄum GNU yazılımında deÄiÅtirmemi istediÄiniz her Åeyi "
-"deÄiÅtiririm dedim. Evet, bu, ciddi bir ücrettir ancak bu, benim
geliÅtirmiÅ "
-"olduÄum bir programdı ve çok daha kısa bir sürede aynı iÅi "
-"gerçekleÅtirebileceÄimi insanlar anladı. [Dinleyiciler güler] Ve bu
Åekilde "
-"ekmeÄimi kazandım. Aslında, daha önce yaptıÄımdan daha fazlasını
yaptım. "
-"Ayrıca dersler de verdim. Ve 1990 yılına kadar bunu yapmayı sürdürdüm.
1990 "
-"yılında büyük bir ödül kazandım ve bunu yapmayı bıraktım."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, 1990 was when the first corporation free software business was formed, "
-"which was Cygnus Support. And their business was to do, essentially, the "
-"same kind of thing that I'd been doing. I certainly could have worked for "
-"them, if I had needed to do that. Since I didn't need to, I felt it was "
-"good for the movement if I remained independent of any one company. That "
-"way, I could say good and bad things about the various free software and non-"
-"free software companies, without a conflict of interest. I felt that I "
-"could serve the movement more. But, if I had needed that to make a living, "
-"sure, I would have worked for them. It's an ethical business to be in. No "
-"reason I would have felt ashamed to take a job with them. And that company "
-"was profitable in its first year. It was formed with very little capital, "
-"just the money its three founders had. And it kept growing every year and "
-"being profitable every year until they got greedy, and looked for outside "
-"investors, and then they messed things up. But it was several years of "
-"success, before they got greedy."
-msgstr ""
-"Ancak 1990 yılında, Cygnus Support (Cygnus Destek) adında ilk ortak
özgür "
-"yazılım iÅi oluÅturuldu. Ve onların iÅi, benim yaptıÄım Åeyle aynı
tip Åeyi "
-"yapmaktı. Ä°htiyaç duysaydım kesinlikle onlar için çalıÅabilirdim.
Ancak "
-"ihtiyaç duymadım ve herhangi bir firmadan baÄımsız kalsaydım bunun
hareket "
-"için iyi olacaÄını hissettim. Bu Åekilde, herhangi bir çıkar
çatıÅması "
-"olmaksızın çeÅitli özgür ve özgür olmayan yazılım firmaları için
iyi ve kötü "
-"Åeyler söyleyebilirdim. Harekete daha fazla hizmet edebileceÄimi
hissettim. "
-"Ancak yaÅamımı kazanmak için buna ihtiyaç duysaydım, onlar için "
-"çalıÅacaktım. Bu, içinde bulunmak adına etik bir iÅtir. Onlarla iÅ
yapmak "
-"için utanmama hiç gerek yoktu. Ve söz konusu firma ilk yılında
kârdaydı. Ãok "
-"az ana para ile, üç kurucusunun sahip olduÄu para ile oluÅturulmuÅtu. Ve
her "
-"geçen yıl daha da büyüdüler ve kârlı oldular, sonunda iyice büyümek "
-"istediler, açgözlü oldular, dıŠyatırımcılara açıldılar ve daha
sonra her "
-"Åeyi bozdular. Ancak açgözlü olmadan önce, yıllarını baÅarı içinde
"
-"geçirdiler."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, this illustrates one of the exciting things about free software. Free "
-"software demonstrates that you don't need to raise capital to develop free "
-"software. I mean, it's useful; it <em>can</em> help. You know, if you do "
-"raise some capital, you can hire people and have them write a bunch of "
-"software. But you can get a lot done with a small number of people. And, "
-"in fact, the tremendous efficiency of the process of developing free "
-"software is one of the reasons it's important for the world to switch to "
-"free software. And it also belies what Microsoft says when they say the GNU "
-"GPL is bad, because it makes it harder for them to raise capital to develop "
-"non-free software and take our free software and put our code into their "
-"programs that they won't share with us. Basically, we don't need to have "
-"them raising capital that way. We'll get the job done anyway. We are "
-"getting the job done."
-msgstr ""
-"Bu, özgür yazılım hakkındaki heyecan verici Åeylerden birini
göstermektedir. "
-"Ãzgür yazılım, özgür yazılım geliÅtirmek için anapara
saÄlamanızın gerekli "
-"olmadıÄını göstermektedir. Demek istiyorum ki, ana para yararlıdır;
yardımcı "
-"olabilir. Bir miktar anapara toplayabilirseniz, insan tutabilir ve bu "
-"insanlara kod yazdırabilirsiniz. Ancak az sayıda insanla çok iŠ"
-"baÅarabilirsiniz. Aslında, özgür yazılımı geliÅtiren süreçin çok
etkin "
-"olması, dünyanın özgür yazılıma geçmesi için önemli nedenlerden
biridir. Ve "
-"bu, ayrıca Microsoftâun söylediÄini yalanlar, Microsoft, GNU GPLânin
kötü "
-"olduÄunu söyler çünkü özgür olmayan yazılımı geliÅtirmek için
anapara "
-"toplamak, özgür yazılımımızı alıp bizimle paylaÅmayacakları
programlara "
-"kodumuzu koymak onlar için zorlaÅır. Temel olarak, bu Åekilde anaparayı "
-"yükseltmelerine ihtiyaç duymamaktayız. Her Åekilde iÅi yaptırırız.
Ä°Åi zaten "
-"yaptırıyoruz."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"People used to say we could never do a complete free operating system. Now "
-"we've done that and a tremendous amount more. And I would say that we're "
-"about an order of magnitude away from developing all the general purpose "
-"published software needs of the world. And this is in a world where more "
-"than 90% of the users don't use our free software yet. This is in a world "
-"where, although in certain areas of business, you know, more than half of "
-"all the web servers in the world are running on GNU/Linux with Apache as the "
-"web server."
-msgstr ""
-"Ä°nsanlar, bizim hiçbir zaman tamamen özgür bir iÅletim sistemi "
-"yapamayacaÄımızı söylemekteydiler. Åimdi bunu ve ilâve olarak önemli
bir "
-"oranı daha gerçekleÅtirdik. Ve söyleyebilirim ki, dünyanın tüm genel
amaçlı "
-"olarak yayınlanan yazılımını geliÅtirmemize az kaldı. Ve bunu, "
-"kullanıcılardan % 90âından fazlasının henüz bizim özgür
yazılımımızı "
-"kullanmadıÄı bir dünyada baÅardık. Bu, dünyadaki tüm Web
sunucularının "
-"yarısından fazlasının Web sunucusu olarak Apache ile GNU/Linux üzerinde "
-"çalıÅtıÄı bir dünyada gerçekleÅmiÅtir."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i> … What did you say "
-"before, Linux?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SORU</strong>:[Duyulamıyor] … Daha önce ne dediniz, Linux
mı?"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I said GNU/Linux."
-msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>:GNU/Linux dedim."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You did?"
-msgstr "<strong>SORU</strong>:Ãyle mi dediniz?"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, if I'm talking about the kernel, I call it "
-"Linux. You know, that's it's name. The kernel was written by Linus "
-"Torvalds, and we should only call it by the name that he chose, out of "
-"respect for the author."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>:Evet, çekirdek hakkında konuÅuyorsam, onu Linux "
-"olarak adlandırırım. Biliyorsunuz, bu, onun adıdır. Ãekirdek Linus
Torvalds "
-"tarafından yazılmıÅtır ve yazara duyulan saygıdan ötürü, bu
çekirdeÄi "
-"yalnızca onun verdiÄi isimle adlandırabiliriz."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Anyway, but in general, in business most users are not using it. Most home "
-"users are not using our system yet. So, when they are, we should "
-"automatically get 10 times as many volunteers and 10 times as many customers "
-"for the free software businesses that there will be. And so that will take "
-"us that order of magnitude. So at this point, I am pretty confident that we "
-"<em>can</em> do the job."
-msgstr ""
-"Genel olarak, iÅ dünyasında, birçok kullanıcı GNU/Linuxâı
kullanmamaktadır. "
-"Birçok ev kullanıcısı henüz bizim sistemimizi kullanmamaktadır. Ev "
-"kullanıcıları da sistemimizi kullanmaya baÅladıÄında, özgür
yazılım için 10 "
-"kat daha fazla gönüllü ve 10 kat daha fazla müÅteri saÄlayacaÄız. Ve
bu bizi "
-"büyütecektir. Bu nedenle, bu noktada, bu iÅi yapabileceÄimiz konusunda "
-"oldukça güvenim var."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And, this is important, because Microsoft asks us to feel desperate. They "
-"say, The only way you can have software to run, the only way you can have "
-"innovation, is if you give us power. Let us dominate you. Let us control "
-"what you can do with the software you're running, so that we can squeeze a "
-"lot of money out of you, and use a certain fraction of that to develop "
-"software, and take the rest as profit."
-msgstr ""
-"Ve bu önemlidir çünkü Microsoft bizim çaresiz hissetmemizi istemektedir.
"
-"Åöyle derler: âÃalıÅtırılacak yazılıma sahip olmanızın tek yolu,
yeniliÄe "
-"sahip olmanızın tek yolu, gücü bize vermenizle saÄlanabilir. Biz
baskınız. "
-"ÃalıÅtırdıÄınız programla ne yapabileceÄinizi kontrol edelim,
böylece sizden "
-"çok para alabiliriz ve bu paranın belirli bir oranını yazılım
geliÅtirmek "
-"için kullanıp geri kalanını kâr yaparız.â"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Well, you shouldn't ever feel that desperate. You shouldn't ever feel so "
-"desperate that you give up your freedom. That's very dangerous."
-msgstr ""
-"Hiçbir zaman çaresiz hissetmemelisiniz. Ãok çaresiz hissedip
özgürlüÄünüzü "
-"feda etmemelisiniz. Bu çok tehlikelidir."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Another thing that Microsoft, well, not just Microsoft, people who don't "
-"support free software generally adopt a value system in which the only thing "
-"that matters is short-term practical benefits: How much money am I going to "
-"make this year? What job can I get done today? Short-term thinking and "
-"narrow thinking. Their assumption is that it is ridiculous to imagine that "
-"anybody ever might make a sacrifice for the sake of freedom."
-msgstr ""
-"Microsoftâun, yalnızca Microsoft olmamakla beraber özgür yazılımı "
-"desteklemeyen insanların genelde benimsediÄi deÄer sistemi, kısa vadeli "
-"kârdır: Bu sene ne kadar para kazanacaÄım? Bugün ne kadar iÅ
yaptırabilirim? "
-"Kısa vadeli düÅünme ve dar düÅünme. Onların varsayımına göre,
birilerinin "
-"özgürlük adına fedakarlık yapması saçmadır."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Yesterday, a lot of people were making speeches about Americans who made "
-"sacrifices for the freedom of their compatriots. Some of them made great "
-"sacrifices. They even sacrificed their lives for the kinds of freedom that "
-"everyone in our country has heard about, at least. (At least, in some of "
-"the cases; I guess we have to ignore the war in Vietnam.)"
-msgstr ""
-"Dün yurttaÅlarının özgürlüÄü için fedakarlık yapmıŠolan
Amerikalılar "
-"hakkında birçok insan konuÅma yapıyordu. Bu insanların bazıları
büyük "
-"fedakarlıklar yapmıÅlardı. Ãlkemizde herkesin duyduÄu özgürlük
çeÅitleri "
-"için yaÅamlarını bile feda etmiÅlerdi. (En azından bazı durumlarda;
tahmin "
-"ederim ki, Vietnamâdaki savaÅı burada görmezden gelmeliyiz.)"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<i>[Editor's note: The day before was “Memorial Day” in the "
-"USA. Memorial Day is a day where war heros are commemorated.]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"<i>[Editörün notu: Ãnceki gün, Yurt Åehitleri anma günüydü,
kahramanların "
-"anıldıÄı bir ABD tatil günüydü.]</i>"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, fortunately, to maintain our freedom in using software, doesn't call "
-"for big sacrifices. Just tiny, little sacrifices are enough, like learning a "
-"command-line interface, if we don't have a GUI interface program yet. Like "
-"doing the job in this way, because we don't have a free software package to "
-"do it that way, yet. Like, paying some money to a company that's going to "
-"develop a certain free software package, so that you can have it in a few "
-"years. Various little sacrifices that we can all make. And, in the long "
-"run, even we will have benefited from it. You know, it is really an "
-"investment more than a sacrifice. We just have to have enough long-term "
-"view to realize it's good for us to invest in improving our society, without "
-"counting the nickels and dimes of who gets how much of the benefit from that "
-"investment."
-msgstr ""
-"Ancak neyse ki, yazılımın kullanılmasındaki özgürlüÄümüzün
korunması bu gibi "
-"büyük fedakarlıkları gerektirmemektedir. Grafiksel Kullanıcı Ara yüzü
(GUI) "
-"programınız henüz yoksa, komut satırı ara yüzünün öÄrenilmesi gibi
yalnızca "
-"küçük ve az fedakarlıklar yeterlidir. Bunu bu Åekilde yapmak için
özgür bir "
-"yazılım paketine sahip olmadıÄımız için, bu, iÅin bu Åekilde
yapılması "
-"gibidir. Birkaç yılda sahip olabileceÄiniz gibi, belirli bir özgür
yazılım "
-"paketini geliÅtirecek olan bir firmaya bir miktar paranın ödenmesi
gibidir. "
-"Bunlar, hepimizin yapabileceÄi küçük fedakarlıklardır. Ve uzun vadede, "
-"bundan fayda görürüz. BildiÄiniz gibi, bir fedakarlıktan çok bir
yatırım "
-"gibidir. Toplumumuzun geliÅmesinde bizim için iyi olduÄunu bilmek için, "
-"yalnızca söz konusu yatırımdan kimin beÅ on senti alacaÄını saymadan
yeterli "
-"uzun vadeli görüÅe sahip olmamız gereklidir."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "So, at this point, I'm essentially done."
-msgstr "Böylece, bu noktada, anlatacaklarım sona erdi."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"I'd like to mention that there's a new approach to free software business "
-"being proposed by Tony Stanco, which he calls “Free Developers”, "
-"which involves a certain business structure which hopes eventually to pay "
-"out a certain share of the profits to every, to all the authors of the free "
-"software who've joined the organization. And they're looking at the "
-"prospects of getting me some rather large government software development "
-"contracts in India now, because they're going to be using free software as "
-"the basis, having tremendous cost savings that way."
-msgstr ""
-"Tony Stanco tarafından önerilen özgür yazılım iÅine iliÅkin yeni bir "
-"yaklaÅımın olduÄunu ifade etmek isterim, bu yaklaÅım âÃzgür
GeliÅtiricilerâ "
-"olarak adlandırılmaktadır ve organizasyona katılan tüm yazılım "
-"geliÅtiricilere kârdan belirli bir oranın verilmesini uman belirli bir iÅ
"
-"yapısını içermektedir. Ve halen Hindistanâda bazı büyük hükümet
yazılım "
-"geliÅtirme sözleÅmelerinin gerçekleÅtirilmesini ummaktadırlar çünkü
taban "
-"olarak özgür yazılımı kullanıyor olacaklardır, bu Åekilde büyük
maliyet "
-"tasarrufu saÄlamayı planlamaktadırlar."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "And so now I guess that I should ask for questions."
-msgstr "Ve Åimdi sorularınızı bekliyorum."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Could you speak up a bit louder please? I can't "
-"really hear you."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Biraz yüksek sesle konuÅabilir misiniz lütfen? "
-"Sizi gerçekten duyamıyorum."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: How could a company like Microsoft include a free "
-"software contract?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SORU</strong>: Microsoft gibi bir firma bir özgür yazılım "
-"sözleÅmesini nasıl içerebilir?"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually, Microsoft is planning to shift a "
-"lot of its activity into services. And what they're planning to do is "
-"something dirty and dangerous, which is tie the services to the programs, "
-"one to the next, in a sort of zigzag, you know? So that to use this service, "
-"you've got to be using this Microsoft program, which is going to mean you "
-"need to use this service, to this Microsoft program, so it's all tied "
-"together. That's their plan."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Microsoft aslında eylemlerinin birçoÄunu "
-"hizmetlere kaydırmayı planlamaktadır. Ve yapmayı planladıkları Åey
kirli ve "
-"tehlikeli bir Åeydir, zikzak biçiminde hizmetleri birini diÄerine olacak "
-"Åekilde baÄlamayı planlamaktadırlar. Böylece bu hizmeti kullanmak için,
bu "
-"Microsoft programını kullanıyor olmanız gereklidir, bu da, bu hizmeti ve
bu "
-"Microsoft programını kullanmanız gerektiÄi anlamına gelecektir â¦
böylece "
-"tümü birbiriyle iliÅkilidir. Planları budur. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, the interesting thing is that selling those services doesn't raise the "
-"ethical issue of free software or non-free software. It might be perfectly "
-"fine for them to have the business for those businesses selling those "
-"services over the net to exist. However, what Microsoft is planning to do "
-"is to use them to achieve an even greater lock, an even greater monopoly, on "
-"the software and the services, and this was described in an article, I "
-"believe in Business Week, recently. And, other people said that it is "
-"turning the net into the Microsoft Company Town."
-msgstr ""
-"Åimdi, ilginç olan Åey, bu hizmetlerin satılmasının özgür yazılım
ya da "
-"özgür olmayan yazılım etik hususunu gündeme getirmemesidir. Onlar için,
net "
-"üzerinden bu hizmetleri satan bu gibi iÅyerlerinin olması çok iyi
olabilir. "
-"Ancak, Microsoftâun planladıÄı, yazılım ve hizmetler üzerinde daha
bile "
-"büyük bir tekel, daha bile büyük bir kilit elde etmek için onları "
-"kullanmaktır ve bu, yakın zamanda bir makalede açıklanmıÅtır. DiÄer "
-"insanlar, bunun, neti Microsoft Firma Kasabasına dönüÅtürdüÄünü
söylemiÅtir."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And this is relevant because, you know, the trial court in the Microsoft "
-"antitrust trial recommended breaking up the company, Microsoft. But in a "
-"way, that makes no sense — it wouldn't do any good at all — into "
-"the operating part and the applications part."
-msgstr ""
-"Ve bu baÄlantılıdır çünkü Microsoft anti güven mahkemesindeki asliye "
-"mahkemesi Microsoftâun â anlamsız bir Åekilde, hiçbir iÅe yaramayacak
"
-"biçimde â iÅletim sistemi kısmına ve uygulama kısmına bölünmesini "
-"önermiÅtir. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But having seen that article, I now see a useful, effective way to split up "
-"Microsoft into the services part and the software part, to require them to "
-"deal with each other only at arm's length, that the services must publish "
-"their interfaces, so that anybody can write a client to talk to those "
-"services, and, I guess, that they have to pay to get the service. Well, "
-"that's OK. That's a totally different issue."
-msgstr ""
-"Ancak o makaleyi gördükten sonra, Åimdi yalnızca emsallerine uygun bir "
-"Åekilde birbirleriyle baÅa çıkmalarını gerektirmek için Microsoftâun
"
-"hizmetler kısmına ve yazılım kısmına bölünmesinin yararlı ve etkin
bir "
-"yolunu görmekteyim, hizmetler ara yüzlerini yayınlamalıdır, böylece "
-"hizmetlerle konuÅabilmek için herkes bir istemci yazabilir ve tahmin "
-"ediyorum ki, hizmeti almak için ödeme yapmaları gereklidir. Evet, bu "
-"tamamdır. Bu, tamamen farklı bir konudur. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"If Microsoft is split up in this way […] services and software, they "
-"will not be able to use their software to crush competition with Microsoft "
-"services. And they won't be able to use the services to crush competition "
-"with Microsoft software. And we will be able to make the free software, and "
-"maybe you people will use it to talk to Microsoft services, and we won't "
-"mind."
-msgstr ""
-"Microsoft bu Åekilde […] baÅka bir deyiÅle, hizmetler ve
yazılım "
-"Åeklinde bölünürse, Microsoft hizmetleriyle rekabete girmek için "
-"yazılımlarını kullanamayacaklardır. Ve Microsoft yazılımıyla rekabete
girmek "
-"için hizmetleri kullanamayacaklardır. Ve özgür yazılım yapabileceÄiz
ve "
-"belki de siz insanlar bunu Microsoft hizmetleriyle konuÅmak için "
-"kullanacaksınız, bu bizim için önemli deÄildir."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Because, after all, although Microsoft is the proprietary software company "
-"that has subjugated the most people — the others have subjugated fewer "
-"people, it's not for want of trying. <i>[Laughter]</i> They just haven't "
-"succeeded in subjugating as many people. So, the problem is not Microsoft "
-"and only Microsoft. Microsoft is just the biggest example of the problem "
-"we're trying to solve, which is proprietary software taking away users' "
-"freedom to cooperate and form an ethical society. So we shouldn't focus too "
-"much on Microsoft, you know, even though they did give me the opportunity "
-"for this platform. That doesn't make them all-important. They're not the be-"
-"all and end-all."
-msgstr ""
-"Ãünkü ne de olsa, Microsoftâun birçok insana boyun eÄdiren özel mülk
yazılım "
-"firması olmasına raÄmen â diÄerleri daha az insana boyun eÄdirmiÅtir,
bu, "
-"uÄraÅma isteÄinden kaynaklanmamaktadır; [dinleyiciler güler] o kadar
çok "
-"sayıda insana boyun eÄdirmeyi baÅaramamıÅlardır. Bu nedenle, problem "
-"yalnızca ve yalnızca Microsoft deÄildir. Microsoft, çözmeye
çalıÅtıÄımız "
-"problemin yalnızca en büyük örneÄidir, iÅbirliÄi yapmak ve etik bir
toplum "
-"oluÅturmak için kullanıcıların özgürlüÄünü alan özel mülk
yazılımdır. Bu "
-"nedenle, bu platform için bana imkân vermiŠolsalar bile, Microsoft
üzerine "
-"çok fazla odaklanmamalıyız. Bu, onları çok önemli yapmaz. Bu, hepsi ve "
-"hepsinin sonu deÄildir."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Earlier, you were discussing the philosophical "
-"differences between open source software and free software. How do you feel "
-"about the current trend of GNU/Linux distributions as they head towards "
-"supporting only Intel platforms? And the fact that it seems that less and "
-"less programmers are programming correctly, and making software that will "
-"compile anywhere? And making software that simply works on Intel systems?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SORU</strong>: Daha önceden, açık kaynaklı yazılımla özgür
yazılım "
-"arasındaki felsefi farkları açıklıyordunuz. Yalnızca Intel
platformlarını "
-"desteklerlerken, GNU/Linux daÄıtımlarının mevcut eÄilimi hakkında
nasıl "
-"hissediyorsunuz? Ve gitgide daha az sayıda programcının doÄru Åekilde "
-"programlama yaptıÄı ve herhangi bir yerde derleme yapacak olan yazılımı
"
-"hazırladıÄı görülmektedir? Ve basitçe Intel sistemlerinde çalıÅan
yazılımın "
-"hazırlandıÄı görülmektedir?"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I don't see an ethical issue there. Although, in "
-"fact, companies that make computers sometimes port the GNU/Linux system to "
-"it. HP apparently did this recently. And, they didn't bother paying for a "
-"port of Windows, because that would have cost too much. But getting GNU/"
-"Linux supported was, I think, five engineers for a few months. It was "
-"easily doable."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Burada etik bir husus görmüyorum. Ancak, "
-"gerçekte, bilgisayar üreten firmalar, bazen GNU/Linux sistemini bilgisayara
"
-"taÅımaktadır. HP açık bir Åekilde bunu yakın bir zamanda yapmıÅtır.
Ve "
-"Windowsâun bir portu için ödeme yapma konusunda canlarını
sıkmamıÅlardı, "
-"çünkü bu, çok fazla maliyete sahip olacaktı. Ancak zannediyorum ki GNU/"
-"Linuxâın desteklenmesi birkaç ay boyunca beÅ mühendisin
çalıÅmasını "
-"gerektirecekti. Bu, kolayca yapılabilir bir Åeydi."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, of course, I encourage people to use <code>autoconf</code>, which is a "
-"GNU package that makes it easier to make your programs portable. I "
-"encourage them to do that. Or when somebody else fixes the bug that it "
-"didn't compile on that version of the system, and sends it to you, you "
-"should put it in. But I don't see that as an ethical issue."
-msgstr ""
-"Åimdi tabi ki, insanların <code>autoconf</code>âu kullanmasını
öneriyorum, "
-"autoconf, programlarınızı taÅınabilir hale getirmeyi kolaylaÅtıran bir
GNU "
-"paketidir. Bunu yapmaları için onları yüreklendiriyorum. Ya da sistemin
söz "
-"konusu sürümünde derlenmeyen bir hatayı baÅka birileri giderdiÄinde ve
size "
-"gönderdiÄinde, o zaman bunu göz önünde bulundurmalısınız. Ancak bunu
etik "
-"bir husus olarak görmüyorum."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Two comments. One is: Recently, you spoke at "
-"MIT. I read the transcript. And someone asked about patents, and you said "
-"that “patents are a totally different issue. I have no comments on "
-"that.”"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SORU</strong>: Ä°ki yorum. Birisi: Yakın zamanda, MITâde
konuÅtunuz. "
-"Kopyasını okudum. Ve birileri, patentler hakkında bir Åeyler sordu ve siz
"
-"dediniz ki âpatentler tamamen farklı bir konudur. Bu konuda yorumum
yok.â"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I actually have a lot to say about "
-"patents, but it takes an hour. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: DoÄru. Patentler hakkında aslında söyleyecek
çok "
-"Åeyim var ama bu, bir saati bulur. [Dinleyiciler güler]"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: I wanted to say this: It seems to me that there "
-"is an issue. I mean, there is a reason that companies call both patents and "
-"copyrights things like hard property in trying to get this concept which is, "
-"if they want to use the power of the State to create a course of monopoly "
-"for themselves. And so, what's common about these things is not that they "
-"revolve around the same issues, but that motivation is not really the public "
-"service issues but the motivation of companies to get a monopoly for their "
-"private interests."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SORU</strong>: Åunu demek istedim: Bana öyle geliyor ki, burada "
-"önemli bir husus var. Demek istiyorum ki, bu konsepti almaya çalıÅırken,
"
-"firmaların, kendileri için bir tekel biçimi oluÅturmaya çalıÅırken
Devletin "
-"gücünü kullanmak isterlerse, patentler ve telif hakkı gibi Åeyleri sert "
-"özellik olarak adlandırmalarının bir nedeni vardır. Ve böylece, bu
Åeyler "
-"hakkındaki yaygın olan Åey, aynı hususlar etrafında dolaÅmaları
deÄildir "
-"ancak söz konusu motivasyon, gerçekten de genel hizmet hususu deÄildir ama
"
-"özel çıkarları için firmaların tekel saÄlama motivasyonudur. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I understand. But, well, I want to respond "
-"because there's not too much time. So I'd like to respond to that."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Anlıyorum. Ama, iyi, yanıtlamak istiyorum
çünkü "
-"çok fazla zaman yok. Bu yüzden bunu yanıtlamak istiyorum."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"You're right that that's what they want. But there's another reason why "
-"they want to use the term intellectual property. It's that they don't want "
-"to encourage people to think carefully about copyright issues or patent "
-"issues. Because copyright law and patent law are totally different, and the "
-"effects of software copyrighted and software patents are totally different."
-msgstr ""
-"Onların istediÄinin bu olduÄu konusunda haklısınız. Ancak fikri
mülkiyet "
-"terimini kullanmak istemelerinin baÅka bir nedeni vardır. Bunun nedeni, "
-"insanların, telif hakkı hususları ya da patent hususları hakkında
dikkatli "
-"bir Åekilde düÅünmesini istememeleridir. Telif hakkı kanunu ve patent
kanunu "
-"tamamen farklı olduÄu için, yazılım telif haklarının ve yazılım "
-"patentlerinin etkileri tamamen farklıdır. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Software patents are a restriction on programmers, prohibiting them from "
-"writing certain kinds of programs, whereas copyright doesn't do that. With "
-"copyright, at least if you wrote it yourself, you're allowed to distribute "
-"it. So, it's tremendously important to separate these issues."
-msgstr ""
-"Yazılım patentleri, programcıları belirli program tiplerini yazmaktan "
-"alıkoydukları için, programcılar üzerindeki bir kısıtlamadır ancak
telif "
-"hakkı bunu yapmaz. Telif hakkı söz konusu olduÄunda, en azından kendi "
-"kendinize yazıyorsanız, daÄıtmanıza izin verilmektedir. Bu nedenle, bu "
-"hususların ayrılması çok önemlidir."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"They have a little bit in common, at a very low level, and everything else "
-"is different. So, please, to encourage clear thinking, discuss copyright or "
-"discuss patents. But don't discuss intellectual property. I don't have an "
-"opinion on intellectual property. I have opinions on copyrights and patents "
-"and software."
-msgstr ""
-"Bunların, çok düÅük bir seviyede ortak bir özelliÄi vardır ve diÄer
her Åey "
-"farklıdır. Bu nedenle, lütfen, açık bir Åekilde düÅünmeyi
cesaretlendirmek "
-"için, telif hakkını ve patentleri tartıÅın. Ancak fikri mülkiyeti "
-"tartıÅmayın. fikri mülkiyet hakkında bir fikrim yoktur. Telif hakları, "
-"patentler ve yazılım hakkında düÅüncelerim vardır. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You mentioned at the beginning that a functional "
-"language, like recipes, are computer programs. There's a cross a little bit "
-"different than other kinds of language created on. This is also causing a "
-"problem in the DVD case."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SORU</strong>: BaÅlangıçta fonksiyonel bir dilin, yemek tarifleri "
-"gibi, bilgisayar programları olduÄunu ifade ettiniz. Ancak yemek "
-"tariflerinden bilgisayar programlarına ve İngilizce dilinden bilgisayar "
-"programlarına büyük bir geçiÅ vardır â âfonksiyonel dilâin
tanımı çok "
-"geniÅtir. DVD konusunda bu, neden olan problemi oluÅturmaktadır. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: The issues are partly similar but partly "
-"different, for things that are not functional in nature. Part of the issue "
-"transfers but not all of it. Unfortunately, that's another hour speech. I "
-"don't have time to go into it. But I would say that all functional works "
-"ought to be free in the same sense as software. You know, textbooks, "
-"manuals, dictionaries, and recipes, and so on."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Hususlar, doÄadaki fonksiyonel olmayan Åeylerden
"
-"ötürü kısmen benzer ancak kısmen de farklıdır. Hususun bir kısmı
aktarılır "
-"ancak tamamı aktarılmaz. Maalesef, bu da bir saatlik bir konuÅma ile "
-"açıklanabilir. Bu konuya burada girmek için yeterli vaktimiz yok. Ancak
Åunu "
-"söylemek isterim ki, yazılımla aynı anlamda tüm fonksiyonel
çalıÅmalar özgür "
-"olmalıdır. Biliyorsunuz, ders kitapları, belgeler, sözlükler ve tarifler
"
-"özgür olmalıdır."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: I was just wondering on online music. There are "
-"similarities and differences created all through."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SORU</strong>: Yalnızca online müziÄi merak ediyordum. Bir yandan "
-"öbür yana oluÅturulmuÅ benzerlikler ve farklar mevcuttur."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I'd say that the minimum freedom that we "
-"should have for any kind of published information is the freedom to non-"
-"commercially redistribute it, verbatim. For functional works, we need the "
-"freedom to commercially publish a modified version, because that's "
-"tremendously useful to society. For non-functional works, you know, things "
-"that are to entertain, or to be aesthetic, or to state a certain person's "
-"views, you know, perhaps they shouldn't be modified. And, perhaps that "
-"means that it's OK, to have copyright covering all commercial distribution "
-"of them."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: DoÄru. Yayınlanan her türlü bilgi için sahip "
-"olmamız gereken minimum özgürlük bu yayını ticari olmayan bir Åekilde "
-"yeniden aynen daÄıtma özgürlüÄüdür. Fonksiyonel çalıÅmalar için, "
-"deÄiÅtirilmiÅ bir sürümü ticari olarak yayınlama özgürlüÄüne
ihtiyaç duyarız "
-"çünkü bu, toplum için çok yararlıdır. Fonksiyonel olmayan
çalıÅmalar için â "
-"insanları eÄlendirecek ya da estetik olacak ya da belirli bir insanın "
-"görüÅlerini ifade edecek olan Åeyler, biliyorsunuz â belki de "
-"deÄiÅtirilmemelidir. Ve bu belki de onların tüm ticari daÄıtımını
kapsayan "
-"telif hakkına sahip olunmasının tamam olduÄu anlamına gelmektedir. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Please remember that according to the U.S. Constitution, the purpose of "
-"copyright is to benefit the public. It is to modify the behavior of certain "
-"private parties, so that they will publish more books. And the benefit of "
-"this is that society gets to discuss issues and learn. And, you know, we "
-"have literature. We have scientific works. The purpose is encourage that. "
-"Copyrights do not exist for the sake of authors, let alone for the sake of "
-"publishers. They exist for the sake of readers and all those who benefit "
-"from the communication of information that happens when people write and "
-"others read. And that goal I agree with."
-msgstr ""
-"Lütfen unutmayın ki, A.B.D. Anayasasına göre, telif hakkının amacı
halkın "
-"yararlanmasıdır. Telif hakkı, belirli özel tarafların davranıÅını "
-"deÄiÅtirmek böylece daha fazla kitap yayınlamalarını saÄlamak
içindir. Ve "
-"bunun yararı, toplumun hususları tartıÅmasının ve öÄrenmesinin "
-"saÄlanmasıdır. Ve, bildiÄiniz gibi, literatürümüz vardır. Bilimsel "
-"çalıÅmalarımız vardır. Hedef, bunu cesaretlendirmektir. Telif hakları,
"
-"yazarların iyiliÄi için deÄil, yalnızca yayıncıların iyiliÄi
içindir. Telif "
-"hakkı, okuyucuların ve insanlar yazdıÄında ve diÄerleri okuduÄunda "
-"gerçekleÅen bilgi alıÅveriÅinden faydalananların iyiliÄinedir. Ve bu
hedefle "
-"fikir birliÄi içerisindeyim."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But in the age of the computer networks, the method is no longer tenable, "
-"because it now requires draconian laws that invade everybody's privacy and "
-"terrorize everyone. You know, years in prison for sharing with your "
-"neighbor. It wasn't like that in the age of the printing press. Then "
-"copyright was an industrial regulation. It restricted publishers. Now, "
-"it's a restriction imposed by the publishers on the public. So, the power "
-"relationship is turned around 180 degrees, even if it's the same law."
-msgstr ""
-"Ancak bilgisayar aÄları çaÄında, yöntem, artık inanılabilen ve makul
bir "
-"yöntem deÄildir çünkü Åimdi herkesin özel hayatına giren ve herkes
için "
-"terör estiren katı kanunları gerektirmektedir. KomÅunuzla paylaÅımda "
-"bulunduÄunuz için yıllarınız hapiste geçer. Matbaa zamanında durum
böyle "
-"deÄildi. O zamanlar telif hakkı endüstriyel bir düzenlemeydi.
Yayıncıları "
-"kısıtlamaktaydı. Åimdi yayıncılar tarafından kamu üzerine dayatılan
bir "
-"kısıtlamadır. Bu nedenle güç iliÅkisi, aynı kanun yürürlükte olsa
bile, 180 "
-"derece döndü."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: So you can have the same thing — but like "
-"in making music from other music?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SORU</strong>: Böylece baÅka bir müzikten müzik yapmak gibi bir
Åeye "
-"sahip olabilir misiniz?"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. That is an interesting …"
-msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: DoÄru. Bu ilginç …"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: And unique, new works, you know, it's still a lot "
-"of cooperation."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SORU</strong>: Ve benzersiz, yeni çalıÅmalar, iÅte, hâlâ çok "
-"miktarda iÅbirliÄi var."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: It is. And I think that probably requires some "
-"kind of fair use concept. Certainly making a few seconds of sample and "
-"using that in making some musical work, obviously that should be fair use. "
-"Even the standard idea of fair use includes that, if you think about it. "
-"Whether courts agree, I'm not sure, but they should. That wouldn't be a "
-"real change in the system as it has existed."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: DoÄru. Ve bunun muhtemelen adil kullanım "
-"kavramını gerektirdiÄini düÅünüyorum. Kesinlikle birkaç saniyelik
numune "
-"yapmak ve bunu bazı müziksel çalıÅmaların hazırlanmasında kullanmak,
açık "
-"bir Åekilde bu, adil kullanım olmalıdır. Bu konu hakkında
düÅünürseniz, adil "
-"kullanıma iliÅkin standart fikir bunu içermektedir. Mahkemeler fikir
birliÄi "
-"içinde olurlarsa, emin deÄilim, ama olmalılar. Sistemde mevcut olduÄu "
-"haliyle gerçek bir deÄiÅiklik var olmayacaktır."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: What do you think about publishing public "
-"information in proprietary formats?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SORU</strong>: Ãzel mülk biçimlerde genel bilgilerin
yayınlanması "
-"hakkında ne düÅünüyorsunuz?"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, it shouldn't be. I mean, the government "
-"should never require citizens to use a non-free program to access, to "
-"communicate with the government in any way, in either direction."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Bu olmamalıdır. Hükümet, vatandaÅlardan
herhangi "
-"bir Åekilde ya da herhangi bir yönde kendisiyle haberleÅmeleri için ya da
"
-"kendisine eriÅmeleri için özgür olmayan bir programın kullanılmasını
hiçbir "
-"zaman istememelidir. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: I have been, what I will now say, a GNU/Linux "
-"user…"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SORU</strong>: Åimdi söyleyeceÄim Åeyi yani GNU/Linux
kullanıcısı "
-"olmuÅtum."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Thank you. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: TeÅekkürler. <i>[dinleyiciler
güler]</i>"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: …for the past four years. The one thing "
-"that has been problematical for me and is something that is essential, I "
-"think, to all of us, is browsing the web."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SORU</strong>: …son dört yıldır. Benim için problemli ve "
-"hepimiz için önemli olan Åeylerden biri de zannediyorum ki Webâe göz "
-"atmaktır. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes."
-msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Evet."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: One thing that has been decidedly a weakness in "
-"using a GNU/Linux system has been browsing the web, because the prevailing "
-"tool for that, Netscape…"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SORU</strong>: GNU/Linux sisteminin kullanılmasındaki zayıf "
-"noktalardan bir tanesi Webâde tarama yapılmasıdır çünkü bu konudaki
yaygın "
-"araç Netscapeâtirâ¦"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: …is not free software."
-msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: …ve özgür yazılım deÄildir."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Let me respond to this. I want to get to the point, for the sake of getting "
-"in more. So, yes. There has been a terrible tendency for people to use "
-"Netscape Navigator on their GNU/Linux systems. And, in fact all the "
-"commercially packaged systems come with it. So this is an ironic situation: "
-"we worked so hard to make a free operating system, and now, if you go to the "
-"store, and you can find versions of GNU/Linux there, most of them are called "
-"Linux, and they're not free. Oh, well, part of them is. But then, there's "
-"Netscape Navigator, and maybe other non-free programs as well. So, it's "
-"very hard to actually find a free system, unless you know what you're "
-"doing. Or, of course, you can not install Netscape Navigator."
-msgstr ""
-"Bu soruyu yanıtlayayım. Daha fazlasını elde etme adına ana noktaya
varayım. "
-"Evet. Ä°nsanların GNU/Linux sistemlerinde Netscape Navigatörâü kullanma "
-"eÄilimlerinde büyük bir artıŠvardır. Gerçekte, ticari olarak
paketlenmiÅ "
-"tüm sistemlerde Netscape Navigatör otomatik olarak vardır. Böylece bu, "
-"ironik bir durumdur: özgür bir iÅletim sistemi geliÅtirmek için çok
çalıÅtık "
-"ve Åimdi maÄazaya gittiÄinizde, orada GNU/Linuxâın sürümlerini "
-"bulabilirsiniz, çoÄu Linux olarak adlandırılmaktadır ve özgür
deÄildirler. "
-"Neyse, bazıları özgürdür aslında. Ancak Netscape Navigatör ve belki de
baÅka "
-"özgür olmayan programlar da var olabilir. Bu nedenle, gerçekte ne "
-"yaptıÄınızı bilmiyorsanız, özgür bir sistemin bulunması çok zordur.
Ya da "
-"tabi ki, Netscape Navigatörü kuramazsınız. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Now, in fact, there have been free web browsers for many years. There is a "
-"free web browser that I used to use called Lynx. It's a free web browser "
-"that is non-graphical; it's text-only. This has a tremendous advantage, in "
-"you don't see the ads. <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"Åimdi, gerçekte, yıllardır özgür Web tarayıcıları mevcuttur. Lynx
olarak "
-"adlandırılan ve eskiden kullandıÄım özgür bir Web tarayıcısı
vardır: "
-"Grafiksel olmayan özgür bir Web tarayıcısıdır; yalnızca metinden
ibarettir. "
-"Bunun büyük bir avantajı vardır, bunda reklamları görmezsiniz.
[Dinleyiciler "
-"güler] [AlkıÅ]"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But anyway, there is a free graphical project called Mozilla, which is now "
-"getting to the point where you can use it. And I occasionally use it."
-msgstr ""
-"Ama her neyse, Mozilla olarak adlandırılan ve kullanabileceÄiniz noktaya "
-"ulaÅan özgür bir grafik arayüzlü proje vardır. Ve ben onu arada sırada
"
-"kullanıyorum. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 has been very good."
-msgstr "<strong>SORU</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 çok iyidir."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, OK. So that's another free graphical "
-"browser. So, we're finally solving that problem, I guess."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Evet, Tamam. Bu, baÅka bir özgür grafiksel "
-"arayüzlü tarayıcıdır. Böylece, sonunda tahmin ediyorum ki bu problemi "
-"çözüyoruz."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk to me about that philosophical/"
-"ethical division between free software and open source? Do you feel that "
-"those are irreconcilable? …"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SORU</strong>: Bana özgür yazılımla açık kaynak arasındaki
felsefi/"
-"etik ayrımdan bahsedebilir misiniz? Bunların uzlaÅtırılamaz olduÄunu mu
"
-"hissediyorsunuz? …"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<i>[Recording switches tapes; end of question and start of answer is missing]"
-"</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"[Kayıtlar arasında kaset deÄiÅtiriliyor; sorunun sonu ve cevabın baÅı "
-"eksiktir]"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: … to a freedom, and ethics. Or whether "
-"you just say, Well, I hope that you companies will decide it's more "
-"profitable to let us be allowed to do these things."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: … bir özgürlüÄe ve etiÄe. Ya da sizin "
-"henüz söylediÄiniz gibi, umarım ki, siz firmalar, bizim bu Åeyleri
yapmamıza "
-"izin vermemizin daha kârlı olduÄuna karar verirsiniz. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, as I said, in a lot of practical work, it doesn't really matter what a "
-"person's politics are. When a person offers to help the GNU project, we "
-"don't say: “You have to agree with our politics.” We say that in "
-"a GNU package, you've got to call the system GNU/Linux, and you've got to "
-"call it free software. What you say when you're not speaking to the GNU "
-"Project, that's up to you."
-msgstr ""
-"Ancak, söylediÄim gibi, çok sayıdaki pratik çalıÅmada, bir kimsenin "
-"politikasının ne olduÄu gerçekten de fark etmemektedir. Bir kimse GNU "
-"projesine yardımcı olmayı teklif ettiÄinde, Åunu demeyiz: âBizim "
-"politikalarımızla fikir birliÄi içinde olmanız gereklidir.â Bir GNU "
-"paketinde, sistemi GNU/Linux olarak adlandırmanızın gerekli olduÄunu ve "
-"bunları özgür yazılım olarak adlandırmanız gerektiÄini söyleriz. GNU
Projesi "
-"hakkında konuÅmadıÄınızda ne söylediÄiniz, size kalmıÅtır."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: The company, IBM, started a campaign for "
-"government agencies, to sell their big new machines, that they used Linux as "
-"selling point, and say Linux."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SORU</strong>: Yeni büyük makinelerini satmak amacıyla hükümet "
-"birimleri için IBM firması bir kampanya baÅlatmıÅtır, satıŠnoktası
olarak "
-"Linuxâı kullanmıÅlar ve Linux olarak adlandırmıÅlardır. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, of course, it's really the GNU/Linux "
-"systems. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Evet. Tabi ki, bunlar gerçekten de GNU/Linux "
-"sistemleridir. [Dinleyiciler güler]"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: That's right! Well, tell the top sales person. "
-"He doesn't know anything for GNU."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SORU</strong>: Bu doÄrudur. En üstteki satıŠelemanına
söyleyin. GNU "
-"hakkında bir Åey bilmiyor. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I have to tell who?"
-msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Kime söylemeliyim?"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: The top sales person."
-msgstr "<strong>SORU</strong>: En üstteki satıŠelemanı."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh yes. The problem is that they've already "
-"carefully decided what they want to say for reasons of their advantage. And "
-"the issue of what is a more accurate, or fair, or correct way to describe it "
-"is not the primary issue that matters to a company like that. Now, some "
-"small companies, yes, there'll be a boss. And if the boss is inclined to "
-"think about things like that, he might make a decision that way. Not a "
-"giant corporation though. It's a shame, you know."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Ya, evet. Buradaki problem, avantajları için "
-"söylemek istedikleri Åeylere halihazırda dikkatli bir Åekilde karar
vermiÅ "
-"olmalarıdır. Ve bunu tanımlamanın daha doÄru, daha adil ya da daha kesin
"
-"yolunun ne olduÄu hususu, bu gibi bir firma için önemli olan temel husus "
-"deÄildir. Evet, Åimdi bazı küçük firmalarda, bir patron olacaktır. Ve
patron "
-"bu gibi hususlar hakkında düÅünmekteyse, bu Åekilde bir karara
varabilir. "
-"Ancak bu çok büyük bir ortaklık deÄildir. Bu, bir utançtır, ayıptır.
"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"There's another more important and more substantive issue about what IBM is "
-"doing. They're saying that they're putting a billion dollars into “"
-"Linux”. But perhaps, I should also put quotes around “"
-"into”, as well, because some of that money is paying people to develop "
-"free software. That really is a contribution to our community. But other "
-"parts is paying to pay people to write proprietary software, or port "
-"proprietary software to run on top of GNU/Linux, and that is <em>not</em> a "
-"contribution to our community. But IBM is lumping that altogether into "
-"this. Some of it might be advertising, which is partly a contribution, even "
-"if it's partly wrong. So, it's a complicated situation. Some of what "
-"they're doing is contribution and some is not. And some is sort is "
-"somewhat, but not exactly. And you can't just lump it altogether and think, "
-"Wow! Whee! A billion dollars from IBM. <i>[Laughter]</i> That's "
-"oversimplification."
-msgstr ""
-"IBMâin yaptıÄı Åey hakkında daha önemli ve daha baÄımsız bir husus
vardır. "
-"âLinuxâa bir milyar dolar yatırdıklarını söylüyorlar. Ancak belki
de "
-"âLinuxâa ifadesindeki aâyı da çift tırnak içine almalıyım
çünkü bu paranın "
-"bir kısmı insanların özgür yazılım geliÅtirmesi için
harcanmaktadır. Bu "
-"gerçekten de topluluÄumuz için büyük bir katkıdır. Ancak diÄer
kısımları, "
-"insanlara özel mülk yazılım yazmaları ya da özel mülk yazılımı
GNU/Linuxâın "
-"üstünde çalıÅtırmak üzere taÅımak için ödeme yapmaktadır ve bu,
topluluÄumuz "
-"için bir katkı deÄildir. Ancak IBM, tümünü bunda toplamaktadır.
Bunların "
-"bazıları reklam olabilir, bu da kısmen bir katkıdır ancak kısmen de "
-"yanlıÅtır. Bu nedenle, bu, karmaÅık bir durumdur. Yaptıkları
Åeylerden "
-"bazıları katkıdır ve bazıları deÄildir, ancak bunlar da kesin
deÄildir. Ve "
-"hepsini bir araya toplayıp âVav! IBMâden bir milyar dolar aldımâ "
-"diyemezsiniz. [Dinleyiciler güler] Bu, olayların aÅırı derecede "
-"basitleÅtirilmesidir."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk a little bit more about the thinking "
-"that went into the general public license?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SORU</strong>: Genel Kamu Lisansıâna iliÅkin düÅünceler
hakkında "
-"biraz bilgi verebilir misiniz?"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, here's the — I'm sorry, I'm answering "
-"his question now. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Åimdi, burada — özür dilerim, sorusunu "
-"Åimdi yanıtlıyorum. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Do you want to reserve some time for the press "
-"conference? Or do you want to continue here?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Basın toplantısı için zaman ayırmak istiyor "
-"musunuz? Yoksa burada mı devam etmek istiyorsunuz?"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Who is here for the press conference? Not a lot "
-"of press. Oh, three — OK. Can you afford if we — if I go on "
-"answering everybody's questions for another ten minutes or so? OK. So, "
-"we'll go on answering everybody's questions."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Basın toplantısı için kimler burada? Ãok
fazla "
-"basın yok. Oh, üç - Tamam. EÄer herkesin sorusunu yanıtlamak üzere on
dakika "
-"gibi bir Åey istesek kabul eder misiniz? Tamam. O zaman, herkesin sorusunu "
-"yanıtlamayla devam edelim."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, the thinking that went into the GNU GPL? Part of it was that I wanted to "
-"protect the freedom of the community against the phenomena that I just "
-"described with X Windows, which has happened with other free programs as "
-"well. In fact, when I was thinking about this issue, X Windows was not yet "
-"released. But I had seen this problem happen in other free programs. For "
-"instance, TeX. I wanted to make sure that the users would all have "
-"freedom. Otherwise, I realized that I might write a program, and maybe a "
-"lot of people would use the program, but they wouldn't have freedom. And "
-"what's the point of that?"
-msgstr ""
-"GNU GPLâye yol açan düÅünceler mi? Bunun bir kısmı, topluluÄun
özgürlüÄünü, "
-"X Windowsâta tanımladıÄım fenomenlere karÅı korumak istememdi, bu
durum "
-"diÄer programlarda da meydana geldi. Aslında, bu husus hakkında
düÅünürken, "
-"X Windows henüz yayınlanmamıÅtı. Ancak bu problemin baÅka özgür
programlarda "
-"meydana geldiÄini görmüÅtüm. ÃrneÄin, TeX gibi. Kullanıcıların
tümünün "
-"özgürlüÄe sahip olduÄundan emin olmak istedim. Aksi takdirde, bir
program "
-"yazabileceÄimi ve çok sayıda insanın programı kullanacaÄını
düÅündüm, ancak "
-"o insanların özgürlüÄü olmayacaktı. Ve bunun ana noktası nedir?"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But the other issue I was thinking about was, I wanted to give the community "
-"a feeling that it was not a doormat, a feeling that it was not prey to any "
-"parasite who would wander along. If you don't use copyleft, you are "
-"essentially saying: <i>[speaking meekly]</i> “Take my code. Do what "
-"you want. I don't say no.” So, anybody can come along and say: <i>"
-"[speaking very firmly]</i> “Ah, I want to make a non-free version of "
-"this. I'll just take it.” And, then, of course, they probably make "
-"some improvements, those non-free versions might appeal to users, and "
-"replace the free versions. And then, what have you accomplished? You've "
-"only made a donation to some proprietary software project."
-msgstr ""
-"Ancak düÅündüÄüm diÄer bir husus, topluluÄa, bunun bir paspas
olmadıÄı "
-"duygusunu vermekti, bu, ortalıkta dolanan herhangi bir parazite av
olmadıÄı "
-"duygusuydu. Copyleftâi kullanmıyorsanız, esas olarak Åunu diyorsunuzdur:
"
-"[Uysal bir Åekilde konuÅarak] âKodumu al. Ne istersen yap. Hayır
demem.â "
-"Böylece herhangi biri gelip Åunu diyebilir: [kesinkes konuÅarak] âA,
bunun "
-"özgür olmayan bir sürümünü yapmak istiyorum. O zaman bunu
alacaÄım.â Ve daha "
-"sonra, tabi ki, muhtemelen bazı geliÅtirmeler eklediler, bu özgür olmayan
"
-"sürümler kullanıcılara çekici geldi ve özgür sürümlerin yerini
aldı. Ve o "
-"zaman, neyi baÅarmıŠoldunuz? Yalnızca bir özel mülk yazılım
projesine "
-"katkıda bulunmuŠoldunuz. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And when people see that that's happening, when people see, other people "
-"take what I do, and they don't ever give back, it can be demoralizing. And, "
-"this is not just speculation. I had seen that happen. That was part of "
-"what happened to wipe out the old community that I belonged to the '70's. "
-"Some people started becoming uncooperative. And we assumed that they were "
-"profiting thereby. They certainly acted as if they thought they were "
-"profiting. And we realized that they can just take off cooperation and not "
-"give back. And there was nothing we could do about it. It was very "
-"discouraging. We, those of us who didn't like the trend, even had a "
-"discussion and we couldn't come up with any idea for how we could stop it."
-msgstr ""
-"Ve insanlar bu durumun meydana geldiÄini gördüÄünde, benim yaptıÄım
Åeyi "
-"diÄer insanların aldıÄını gördüklerinde ve insanlar hiçbir zaman
geri "
-"vermediÄinde, bu, moral bozucu bir durum olabilir. Ve bu yalnızca "
-"spekülasyon deÄildir. Bunun gerçekleÅtiÄini gördüm. Bu, 1970âlerde
üyesi "
-"olduÄum eski topluluÄu bozmak için meydana gelen Åeyin bir parçasıdır.
Bazı "
-"insanlar iÅbirliÄinden uzaklaÅmaya baÅladı. Ve biz de bu Åekilde kâr "
-"yaptıklarını varsaydık. Kesinlikle kâr yaptıklarını düÅünüyor
gibi "
-"davrandılar. Ve biz de, ortaklıÄımızı alabileceÄimizi ve geri "
-"vermeyebileceÄimizi fark ettik. Ve bu konu hakkında yapabileceÄimiz
hiçbir "
-"Åey yoktu. Ãok umutsuzluk vericiydi. Bizim gibi bu eÄilimden hoÅlanmayan "
-"insanlar bir tartıÅma bile yaÅadılar ancak bunu nasıl
durdurabileceÄimize "
-"iliÅkin bir fikrimiz yoktu."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, the GPL is designed to stop that. And it says, Yes, you are welcome to "
-"join the community and use this code. You can use it to do all sorts of "
-"jobs. But, if you release a modified version, you've got to release that to "
-"our community, as part of our community, as part of the free world."
-msgstr ""
-"GPL bunu durdurmak için tasarımlanmıÅtır. Åöyle der: Evet, topluluÄa
girmek "
-"ve bu kodu kullanmak konusunda özgürsünüz. Her türlü iÅi yapmak için
bu kodu "
-"kullanabilirsiniz. Ancak deÄiÅtirilmiÅ bir sürümü yayınlarsanız,
bunu, "
-"topluluÄumuza, topluluÄumuzun bir kısmına, özgür dünyanın bir
kısmına "
-"yayınlamanız gereklidir."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, in fact, there are still many ways that people can get the benefit of "
-"our work and not contribute, like you don't have to write any software. "
-"Lots of people use GNU/Linux and don't write any software. There's no "
-"requirement that you've got to do anything for us. But if you do a certain "
-"kind of thing, you've got to contribute to it. So what that means is that "
-"our community is not a doormat. And I think that that helped give people "
-"the strength to feel, Yes, we won't just be trampled underfoot by "
-"everybody. We'll stand up to this."
-msgstr ""
-"Bu nedenle, gerçekte, insanların bizim çalıÅmalarımızdan
faydalanmasının ve "
-"herhangi bir yazılım yazmak zorunda olmamanız gibi bir katkısının "
-"olmamasının hâlâ birçok yolu vardır. Birçok insan GNU/Linuxâı
kullanmakta ve "
-"hiçbir yazılım yazmamaktadır. Bizim için bir Åeyler yapmanız gibi bir
Åart "
-"yoktur. Ancak belirli bir Åey yaparsanız, buna katkıda bulunmanız
gerekir. "
-"Bu nedenle, bu, bizim topluluÄumuzun bir paspas olmadıÄı anlamına "
-"gelmektedir. Ve zannediyorum ki, bu durum insanlara Åunu hissetme gücü "
-"verdi: Evet, herkes tarafından ayakaltına alınmayacaÄız. Bunun
karÅısında "
-"ayakta duracaÄız."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Yes, my question was, considering free but not "
-"copylefted software, since anybody can pick it up and make it proprietary, "
-"is it not possible also for someone to pick it up and make some changes and "
-"release the whole thing under the GPL?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SORU</strong>: Evet sorum Åuydu, özgür ancak copyleft edilmemiÅ "
-"yazılım dikkate alındıÄında, herhangi bir kimse bu yazılımı alıp
özel mülk "
-"hale getirebileceÄi için, birilerinin bu yazılımı alıp üzerinde bazı "
-"deÄiÅiklikler yapıp sonuçtaki yazılımı GPL altında yayınlaması
mümkün müdür?"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, it is possible."
-msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Evet, bu mümkündür."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Then, that would make all future copies then be "
-"GPL'ed."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SORU</strong>: O zaman bu, gelecekteki tüm kopyaların
GPLâlenmesine "
-"neden olacaktır."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: From that branch. But here's why we don't do "
-"that."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: O açıdan öyle. Ancak neden bunu
yapmadıÄımızın "
-"nedenleri Åunlardır."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Hmm?"
-msgstr "<strong>SORU</strong>: Hım?"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Here's why we don't generally do that. Let me "
-"explain."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Neden genellikle bunu yapmıyoruz, açıklamama
izin "
-"verin."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: OK, yes."
-msgstr "<strong>SORU</strong>: Tamam, evet."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We could, if we wanted to, take X Windows, and "
-"make a GPL-covered copy and make changes in that. But there's a much larger "
-"group of people working on improving X Windows and <em>not</em> GPL-ing it. "
-"So, if we did that, we would be forking from them. And that's not very nice "
-"treatment of them. And, they <em>are</em> a part of our community, "
-"contributing to our community."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Ä°steseydik, X Windowsâu alıp GPL kapsamlı bir
"
-"kopya hazırlayıp bunda deÄiÅiklikler yapabilirdik. Ancak X Windowâun, "
-"GPLâlenmesi yerine geliÅtirilmesi üzerinde çalıÅan çok daha büyük
bir grup "
-"vardır. Bu nedenle, bunu yaparsak, onlardan bir Åeyler eÅelemiÅ olurduk.
Ve "
-"bu, iyi bir davranıŠdeÄildir. Ve onlar, bizim topluluÄumuzun bir "
-"parçasıdır, topluluÄumuza katkıda bulunmaktadırlar."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Second, it would backfire against us, because they're doing a lot more work "
-"on X than we would be. So, our version would be inferior to theirs, and "
-"people wouldn't use it, which means, why go to the trouble at all?"
-msgstr ""
-"İkinci olarak, bu bize geri tepecektir çünkü X üzerinde bizim
yapacaÄımızdan "
-"çok daha fazla iŠyapmaktadırlar. Bu nedenle, bizim sürümümüz onların
"
-"sürümünden daha kötü olacaktır ve insanlar, bizim sürümümüzü "
-"kullanmayacaktır, neden baÅımızı derde sokalım ki?"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Mmm hmm."
-msgstr "<strong>SORU</strong>: Mmm hmm."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: So when a person has written some improvement to "
-"X Windows, what I say that person should do is cooperate with the X "
-"development team. Send it to them and let them use it their way. Because "
-"they are developing a very important piece of free software. It's good for "
-"us to cooperate with them."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Bu nedenle, bir insan X Windowsâa birtakım "
-"geliÅtirmeler ilâve ettiÄinde, o insanın yapması gereken Åey bence X "
-"geliÅtirme takımıyla iÅbirliÄi yapmaktır. Bu ilâveleri onlara
gönderin ve "
-"kendi bildikleri gibi kullanmalarına izin verin. Ãünkü çok önemli bir
özgür "
-"yazılım parçası geliÅtirmektedirler. Onlarla iÅbirliÄi yapmak bizim
için "
-"iyidir. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Except, considering X, in particular, about two "
-"years ago, the X Consortium that was far into the non-free open "
-"source…"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SORU</strong>: YaklaÅık iki yıl önceki özgür olmayan açık
kaynaÄa "
-"çok yakın olan X Konsorsiyumu hariç olmak üzere…"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually it <em>wasn't</em> open sourced. "
-"It wasn't open sourced, either. They may have said it was. I can't "
-"remember if they said that or not. But it wasn't open source. It was "
-"restricted. You couldn't commercially distribute, I think. Or you couldn't "
-"commercially distribute a modified version, or something like that. There "
-"was a restriction that's considered unacceptable by both the Free Software "
-"movement and the Open Source movement."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Aslında, o açık kaynak <em>deÄildi</em>.
Açık "
-"kaynak olduÄunu söylemiÅ olabilirler. Ãyle söylemiÅ olup
olmadıklarını "
-"hatırlamıyorum. Ama açık kaynak deÄildi. Kısıtlıydı. Zannediyorum ki
ticari "
-"olarak daÄıtamıyordunuz. Ya da ticari olarak deÄiÅtirilmiÅ bir
sürümünü ya "
-"da benzeri bir Åeyleri daÄıtamıyordunuz. Bu, hem Ãzgür Yazılım
hareketi hem "
-"de Açık Kaynak hareketi tarafından kabul edilemez olan bir
kısıtlamaydı. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"And yes, that's what using a non-copyleft license leaves you open to. In "
-"fact, the X Consortium, they had a very rigid policy. They say: If your "
-"program if copylefted even a little bit, we won't distribute it at all. We "
-"won't put it in our distribution."
-msgstr ""
-"Ve evet, bu, copyleft olmayan bir lisansın sizi maruz bıraktıÄı bir "
-"durumdur. Aslında, X Konsorsiyumunun çok katı bir politikası vardı.
Åunu "
-"demekteydiler: Programınız azıcık bile copyleft edilmiŠolsa,
daÄıtmayız "
-"bile. DaÄıtımımıza koymayacaÄız."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So, a lot of people were pressured in this way into not copylefting. And "
-"the result was that all of their software was wide open, later on. When the "
-"same people who had pressured a developer to be too all-permissive, then the "
-"X people later said, All right, now we can put on restrictions, which wasn't "
-"very ethical of them."
-msgstr ""
-"Böylece, çok sayıda insan bu Åekilde copyleft etmeme konusunda baskıya "
-"uÄramıÅtır. Ve sonuçta, daha sonra onların tüm yazılımları çok
açıktı. Bir "
-"geliÅtiriciye her Åeye aÅırı izin verme konusunda baskı yapmıŠolan "
-"insanlar, daha sonra âTamam, Åimdi kısıtlamalar getirebilirizâ
dediklerinde, "
-"bu onların çok da etik olmayan hareketler yaptıklarını göstermiÅtir."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But, given the situation, would we really want to scrape up the resources to "
-"maintain an alternate GPL-covered version of X? And it wouldn't make any "
-"sense to do that. There are so many other things we need to do. Let's do "
-"them instead. We can cooperate with the X developers."
-msgstr ""
-"Ancak bu durumda, Xâin alternatif bir GPL kapsamlı sürümünü elde etmek
için "
-"kaynakları gerçekten de zar zor toplamak ister miydik? Ve bunu yapmamızın
"
-"hiçbir anlamı olmayacaktı. Yapmamız gereken baÅka birçok Åey vardır.
Bunun "
-"yerine onları yapalım. X geliÅtiricileriyle iÅbirliÄi yapabiliriz. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Do you have a comment, is the GNU a trademark? "
-"And is it practical to include it as part of the GNU General Public License "
-"allowing trademarks?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SORU</strong>: GNUânun ticari bir marka olduÄu konusunda bir "
-"yorumunuz var mı? Ve ticari markalara izin vererek bunu, GNU Genel Kamu "
-"Lisansının bir parçası olarak içermek pratik midir?"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We are, actually, applying for trademark "
-"registration on GNU. But it wouldn't really have anything to do with that. "
-"It's a long story to explain why."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Aslında, GNU üzerinde ticari marka kaydı "
-"uygulamaktayız. Ancak, bunun bir önemi yok. Bunun sebebini açıklamak uzun
"
-"sürer."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You could require the trademark be displayed with "
-"GPL-covered programs."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SORU</strong>: Ticari markanın GPL kapsamlı programlarda "
-"görüntülenmesine gereksinim duyardınız."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: No, I don't think so. The licenses cover "
-"individual programs. And when a given program is part of the GNU Project, "
-"nobody lies about that. The name of the system as a whole is a different "
-"issue. And this is an aside. It's not worth discussing more."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Hayır, öyle zannetmiyorum. Lisanslar tekil "
-"programları kapsamaktadır. Ve belirli bir program GNU Projesinin
parçasıysa, "
-"hiç kimse bu konu hakkında yalan söylemez. Bir bütün olarak sistemin
ismi "
-"farklı bir husustur. Ve bu, bir yan husustur. Daha fazla tartıÅılmaya
deÄmez."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: If there was a button that you could push and "
-"force all companies to free their software, would you press it?"
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SORU</strong>: Bir düÄme olsaydı ve bu düÄmeye bastıÄınızda,
bütün "
-"firmaları yazılımlarını özgürleÅtirmeye zorlayabilseydiniz, bu
düÄmeye basar "
-"mıydınız?"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, I would only use this for published "
-"software. You know, I think that people have the right to write a program "
-"privately and use it. And that includes companies. This is privacy issue. "
-"And it's true, there can be times when it is wrong to do that, like if it is "
-"tremendously helpful to humanity, and you are withholding it from humanity. "
-"That is a wrong but that's a different kind of wrong. It's a different "
-"issue, although it's in the same area."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Bu düÄmeyi yalnızca yayınlanan yazılımlar
için "
-"kullanırdım. İnsanların özel olarak bir program yazıp onu özel olarak "
-"kullanma hakkına sahip olduÄunu düÅünüyorum. Ve bu düÅüncem,
firmaları da "
-"içermektedir. Bu, gizlilik hususudur. Ve bu doÄrudur, yazılımın halka "
-"açılmamasının yanlıŠolduÄu zamanlar da olabilir, örneÄin, insanlık
için çok "
-"yararlı bir yazılım insanlardan gizli tutuluyorsa, bu yanlıŠbir
durumdur. "
-"Bu yanlıÅtır, ancak farklı bir yanlıŠtipidir. Aynı alanda olmasına
raÄmen, "
-"farklı bir husustur. "
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"But yes, I think all published software should be free software. And "
-"remember, when it's not free software, that's because of government "
-"intervention. The government is intervening to make it non-free. The "
-"government is creating special legal powers to hand out to the owners of the "
-"programs, so that they can have the police stop us from using the programs "
-"in certain ways. So I would certainly like to end that."
-msgstr ""
-"Ama evet, bence yayınlanan tüm yazılımlar özgür yazılım olmalıdır.
Ve "
-"unutmayın ki, bu yazılımlar özgür yazılım olmadıÄında, bunun
nedeni, "
-"hükümetin müdahalesidir. Hükümet, yazılımın özgür olmayan yazılım
olması "
-"için müdahale etmektedir. Hükümet, programların sahiplerine verilmek
üzere "
-"özel yasal güçler oluÅturmaktadır, böylece belirli Åekillerde
programları "
-"kullanmamızı polis gücüyle önleyebilir. Bu nedenle kesinlikle bunun bir
sona "
-"erdirilmesini isterim."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Richard's presentation has invariably generated "
-"an enormous amount of intellectual energy. I would suggest that some of it "
-"should be directed to using, and possibly writing, free software."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Richardâın sunumu, önemli oranda entelektüel
"
-"enerji oluÅturmuÅtur. Umarım ki, bu enerjinin bir kısmı özgür
yazılımın "
-"kullanılmasına ve muhtemelen de yazılmasına dönüÅür."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"We should close the proceedings shortly. I want to say that Richard has "
-"injected into a profession which is known in the general public for its "
-"terminal apolitical nerditude a level of political and moral discussion "
-"which is, I think, unprecedented in our profession. And we owe him very big "
-"for this. I'd like to note to people that there is a break."
-msgstr ""
-"Bu konuyu burada sona erdirmeliyiz. Åunu söylemek isterim ki Richard
politik "
-"ve ahlaksal seviyede kamuoyunda nihai politik durumundan dolayı bilinen bir "
-"uzmanlık alanına girmiÅtir ve bu, bizim uzmanlık alanımızda emsali "
-"görülmemiÅ bir davranıÅtır. Ve bunun için ona çok borçluyuz. Åimdi
bir ara "
-"olduÄunu belirtmek isterim."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<i>[Applause]</i>"
-msgstr "<i> [Dinleyiciler alkıÅlar]</i>"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: You are free to leave at any time, you know. <i>"
-"[Laughter]</i> I'm not holding you prisoner here."
-msgstr ""
-"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Ä°stediÄiniz zaman gitmekte özgürsünüz, "
-"biliyorsunuz. <i>[dinleyiciler güler]</i> Sizi burada köle olarak
tutmuyorum."
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<i>[Audience adjourns…]</i>"
-msgstr "<i>[dinleyiciler daÄılır…]</i>"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<i>[overlapping conversations…]</i>"
-msgstr "<i>[çakıÅan konuÅmalar…]</i>"
-
-# type: Content of: <p>
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: One final thing. Our website: www.gnu.org"
-msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Son bir Åey. AÄ sayfamız: www.gnu.org"
-
-# type: Content of: <div>
-#. 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>
-#. type: Content of: <div><div><p>
-msgid ""
-"Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
href=\"mailto:address@hidden";
-"\"><address@hidden></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";><address@hidden"
-"org></a>."
-msgstr ""
-"Lütfen FSF ve GNU ile ilgili sorularınızı <a
href=\"mailto:address@hidden";><"
-"address@hidden></a> adresine iletin. FSF ile iletiÅim kurmanın <a
href=\"/"
-"contact/\">baÅka yolları</a> da vardır. Lütfen çalıÅmayan
baÄlantıları ve "
-"baÅka düzeltmeleri veya önerilerinizi <a href=\"mailto:address@hidden";
-"\"><address@hidden></a> adresine gönderin."
-
-# type: Content of: <div><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";>
-#. <address@hidden></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><div><p>
-msgid ""
-"Please see the <a href=\"/server/standards/README.translations.html"
-"\">Translations README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting "
-"translations of this article."
-msgstr ""
-"Ãevirilerimizde bulmuÅ olabileceÄiniz hataları, aklınızdaki soru ve "
-"önerilerinizi lütfen <a href=\"mailto:address@hidden";>bize "
-"bildirin</a>.</p><p>Bu yazının çeviri düzenlemesi ve sunuÅu ile ilgili
bilgi "
-"için lütfen <a
href=\"/server/standards/README.translations.html\">Ãeviriler "
-"BENÄ°OKU</a> sayfasına bakın. Bu sayfanın ve diÄer tüm sayfaların
Türkçe "
-"çevirileri gönüllüler tarafından yapılmaktadır; Türkçe niteliÄi
yüksek bir "
-"<a href=\"/home.html\">www.gnu.org</a> için bize yardımcı olmak "
-"istiyorsanız, <a href=\"https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/www-tr";
-"\">çalıÅma sayfamızı</a> ziyaret edebilir."
-
-# type: Content of: <div><p>
-#. type: Content of: <div><p>
-msgid "Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman"
-msgstr "Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman"
-
-#. 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 ""
-"Bu sayfa a <a rel=\"license\" href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-";
-"nd/3.0/us/deed.tr\">Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States "
-"License</a> ile lisanslanmıÅtır."
-
-# type: Content of: <div><div>
-#. TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.
-#. type: Content of: <div><div>
-msgid "*GNUN-SLOT: TRANSLATOR'S CREDITS*"
-msgstr ""
-"<p><strong>Ãeviriye katkıda bulunanlar:</strong></p>\n"
-"<ul>\n"
-"\n"
-"<li>\n"
-"<a href=\"http://yzgrafik.ege.edu.tr/~tekrei/\";>Tahir Emre Kalaycı</a>\n"
-"<a href=\"mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></"
-"a>,\n"
-"2009.\n"
-"</li>\n"
-"\n"
-"<li>\n"
-"ÃiÄdem ÃzÅar,\n"
-"2009.\n"
-"</li>\n"
-"\n"
-"<li>\n"
-"Birkan SarıfakıoÄlu,\n"
-"2009.\n"
-"</li>\n"
-"\n"
-"<li>\n"
-"Serkan Ãapkan,\n"
-"2009.\n"
-"</li>\n"
-"\n"
-"<li>\n"
-"Ä°zlem GözükeleÅ,\n"
-"2009.\n"
-"</li>\n"
-"\n"
-"</ul>"
-
-# type: Content of: <div><p>
-#. timestamp start
-#. type: Content of: <div><p>
-msgid "Updated:"
-msgstr "Son Güncelleme:"
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www server/gnun/gnun.mk events/.symlinks philos...,
Pavel Kharitonov <=