[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html
|
From: |
Therese Godefroy |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html |
|
Date: |
Sun, 19 Sep 2021 11:24:45 -0400 (EDT) |
CVSROOT: /webcvs/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Therese Godefroy <th_g> 21/09/19 11:24:45
Modified files:
philosophy : rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html
Log message:
Add breadcrumbs; update to boilerplate 1.96;
only list copyrightable years; standardize quotes & dashes;
restyle editor's comments.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.8&r2=1.9
Patches:
Index: rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /webcvs/www/www/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html,v
retrieving revision 1.8
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -b -r1.8 -r1.9
--- rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html 22 Nov 2016 00:58:41 -0000 1.8
+++ rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html 19 Sep 2021 15:24:45 -0000 1.9
@@ -1,23 +1,33 @@
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="speeches" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
<title>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<style type="text/css" media="screen"><!--
+#content span { font-style: italic; color: #505050; }
+--></style>
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width">
<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>
+<address class="byline">by Richard Stallman</address>
-<div class="announcement">
-<blockquote><p>A <a href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt">plain
+<div class="infobox">
+<p>Transcript of a speech that was given at New York University in
+New York, NY, on 29 May 2001.</p>
+
+<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>
+are also available.</p>
</div>
+<hr class="thin" />
<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
@@ -31,10 +41,10 @@
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>
+… <span>[Laughter]</span></p>
<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I do free software. Open source is a
-different movement. <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p>
+different movement. <span>[Laughter] [Applause]</span></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
@@ -59,7 +69,7 @@
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
+to straighten out and correct and <span>[Laughter]</span> sharpen
considerably the parameters of the debate.</p>
<p>So, let me make the briefest possible introduction to somebody who
@@ -69,13 +79,13 @@
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>
+represents. Let me welcome Richard Stallman. <span>[Applause]</span></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
+watch? <span>[Laughter]</span> Thank you. So, I'd like to thank Microsoft
+for providing me the opportunity to <span>[Laughter]</span> 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
+book was fortuitously banned somewhere. <span>[Laughter]</span> 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
@@ -93,12 +103,12 @@
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
+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
+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?
@@ -109,7 +119,7 @@
<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.
+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
@@ -146,12 +156,12 @@
<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
+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
+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,
@@ -179,18 +189,18 @@
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
+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
+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
+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
@@ -201,37 +211,37 @@
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.
+to give you a copy.” <span>[Laughter]</span> 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
+room. Maybe I slammed the door. <span>[Laughter]</span> 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
+<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.
+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. <span>[Pointing at
+member of audience.]</span> And I think, mostly likely, he did it to you
+too. <span>[Pointing at another member of audience.] [Laughter]</span> And
+he probably did it to you as well. <span>[Pointing to third member of
+audience.]</span> 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
+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
+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
@@ -246,7 +256,7 @@
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
+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
@@ -259,23 +269,23 @@
<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 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>
+least, it's probably not generally useful. <span>[Laughter]</span></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
+<p>There is a small chance—and it's a possibility
+though—that you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex
+technique, <span>[Laughter]</span> and I would then feel a moral
+duty <span>[Laughter]</span> 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
+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
+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>
@@ -293,27 +303,27 @@
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
+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
+waiter. <span>[Laughter]</span> Not at a fancy restaurant; they wouldn't
+hire me, <span>[Laughter]</span> 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
+as a waiter, you're not going to starve. <span>[Laughter]</span> 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>
+you'd be justified in writing proprietary software. <span>[Laughter]</span>
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
+forgivable. <span>[Laughter]</span> 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
@@ -330,11 +340,11 @@
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
+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
+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
@@ -343,7 +353,7 @@
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>
+die trying … of old age, of course. <span>[Laughter]</span></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
@@ -354,10 +364,10 @@
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
+furthermore, why <span>[Tape unclear]</span> 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
+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
@@ -382,57 +392,57 @@
<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
+writing the program. <span>[Laughter]</span> 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
+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 Eine Is
Not Emacs, and MINCE for Mince Is Not Complete
-Emacs. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was a stripped down imitation. And
+Emacs. <span>[Laughter]</span> 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>
+called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially. <span>[Laughter]</span></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
+<span>[Laughter]</span> 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
+And I tried letters, and I came across the word “GNU”—the
+word “GNU” is the funniest word in the English
+language. <span>[Laughter]</span> 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
+“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
+it. <span>[Laughter]</span> 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
+pronouncing.” <span>[Laughter]</span> 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>
+somebody who can teach me to pronounce click sounds, <span>[Laughter]</span>
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
+“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>
+now, so it is not new any more. <span>[Laughter]</span> But it still is,
+and always will be, GNU—no matter how many people call it
+Linux by mistake. <span>[Laughter]</span></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
+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
@@ -440,10 +450,10 @@
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
+editor. <span>[Laughter]</span> 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>
+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
@@ -473,16 +483,17 @@
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?” <i>[Laughter]</i> Well, the
reason they asked this was
+mean it's free software if it costs $150?” <span>[Laughter]</span>
+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
+“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
+beer. <span>[Laughter]</span> 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
+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
@@ -512,7 +523,7 @@
</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.
+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>
@@ -521,7 +532,7 @@
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
+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>
@@ -545,7 +556,7 @@
<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>
+and you're good at getting them to owe you favors. <span>[Laughter]</span>
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>
@@ -574,14 +585,14 @@
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
+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
+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
@@ -601,29 +612,29 @@
<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>
+a ship. <span>[Laughter]</span></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
+something different. <span>[Laughter]</span> Who knows what L. Ron Hubbard
would say? But …</p>
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <span>[Inaudible]</span></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. <span>[Laughter] [Inaudible]</span> Charles Manson's also
+dead. <span>[Laughter]</span> They're dead, Jesus's dead, Buddha's
dead…</p>
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, that's true. <i>[Laughter]</i> So
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, that's true. <span>[Laughter]</span> So
I guess, in that regard, L. Ron Hubbard is no worse than the
-others. <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway — <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+others. <span>[Laughter]</span> Anyway—<span>[Inaudible]</span></p>
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: L. Ron always used free software —
-it freed him from Zanu. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: L. Ron always used free software—it
+freed him from Zanu. <span>[Laughter]</span></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
@@ -632,13 +643,13 @@
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
+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,
+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,
@@ -680,15 +691,15 @@
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
+<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>
+have this problem. <span>[Laughter]</span></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
@@ -702,8 +713,8 @@
<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
+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
@@ -715,7 +726,7 @@
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
+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>
@@ -729,8 +740,8 @@
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
+<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,
@@ -747,7 +758,7 @@
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
+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
@@ -760,7 +771,7 @@
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
+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>
@@ -771,9 +782,9 @@
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
+<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
+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>
@@ -782,8 +793,8 @@
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
+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
@@ -798,13 +809,13 @@
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>
+you? <span>[Pointing at member of audience.]</span> Is it free software for
+you? <span>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</span> Is it free
+software for you? <span>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</span>
Yes?</p>
<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you explain a bit about the
-difference between Freedom Two and Three? <i>[inaudible]</i></p>
+difference between Freedom Two and Three? <span>[inaudible]</span></p>
<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, they certainly relate, because if
you don't have freedom to redistribute at all, you certainly don't
@@ -818,13 +829,13 @@
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
+<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
+hard. <span>[Laughter]</span> Even trivial changes like using four digits
+for the date, <span>[Laughter]</span> 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>
@@ -832,8 +843,8 @@
<em>you</em>? 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
+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
@@ -870,9 +881,9 @@
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
+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.
+over. <span>[Laughter]</span> 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
@@ -889,13 +900,13 @@
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
+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
+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
@@ -905,29 +916,29 @@
<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 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
+tempting people to give up their freedom. And the result would
+be—you know, if we let people do that—that we would
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
+<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
+<p>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
+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
+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 <em>can</em> take those
@@ -936,7 +947,7 @@
<p>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
+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
@@ -957,25 +968,25 @@
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>
+incompatible changes is all they need. <span>[Laughter]</span></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
+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
+<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>
+right. <span>[Laughter]</span> 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
@@ -1013,7 +1024,7 @@
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
+essential, although not exciting at all <span>[Laughter]</span> was written
this way. I believe GNU grep was written this way. And so, we're
approaching our goal.</p>
@@ -1050,10 +1061,10 @@
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
+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>
+looked around—and lo and behold, everything they needed was
+already available. What good fortune, they said. <span>[Laughter]</span>
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>
@@ -1062,13 +1073,13 @@
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>QUESTION</strong>: <span>[Inaudible]</span></p>
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can't hear you — what?</p>
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can't hear you—what?</p>
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <span>[Inaudible]</span></p>
-<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, it's just not — you know,
+<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
@@ -1079,11 +1090,11 @@
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
+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
+<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.
@@ -1092,13 +1103,13 @@
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
+<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 <code>ld</code>, 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
+or <code>mv</code>. <span>[Laughter]</span> We did it. Or <code>ld</code>,
you know
+there's nothing very exciting in <code>ld</code>—but I wrote
+one. <span>[Laughter]</span> 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
@@ -1117,53 +1128,53 @@
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. <span>[Laughter]</span> 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>
+stuffed animal! <span>[Laughter]</span></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
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have an animal—a
+gnu. <span>[Laughter]</span> Anyway. So, yes, when you draw a penguin,
+draw a gnu next to it. <span>[Laughter]</span> 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?
+opinion of me, <span>[Laughter]</span> 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>
+saying—I'm not asking you to call it “Stallmanix,”
+right? <span>[Laughter] [Applause]</span></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
+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
+<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
+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>
+GNU-user.” <span>[Laughter]</span></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
+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
@@ -1196,12 +1207,12 @@
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
+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,
+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,
@@ -1209,23 +1220,23 @@
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”.
+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
-<em>Pay</em> To Get It. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+<em>Pay</em> To Get It. <span>[Laughter]</span></p>
-<p>And they call these things “value-added packages”,
+<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
+packages.” <span>[Laughter]</span> 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
+<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 nonfree software, essentially putting the seal of approval
@@ -1241,14 +1252,14 @@
<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
+fewer syllables than Windows 2000. <span>[Laughter]</span> 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
+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
@@ -1295,10 +1306,10 @@
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
+the privilege of reporting a bug. <span>[Laughter]</span> 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>
+fixed it.” <span>[Laughter]</span></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
@@ -1356,9 +1367,9 @@
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
+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,
+this feature be done.” <span>[Laughter]</span> 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?
@@ -1427,7 +1438,7 @@
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>
+software. <span>[Laughter]</span> 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
@@ -1444,7 +1455,7 @@
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
+done in a lot fewer hours. <span>[Laughter]</span> 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>
@@ -1490,7 +1501,7 @@
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
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <span>[Inaudible]</span> … What did you
say before, Linux?</p>
<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I said GNU/Linux.</p>
@@ -1536,9 +1547,9 @@
(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
+<p><span>[Editor's note: The day before was “Memorial Day” in
the USA. Memorial Day is a day where war heros are
-commemorated.]</i></p>
+commemorated.]</span></p>
<p>But, fortunately, to maintain our freedom in using software,
doesn't call for big sacrifices. Just tiny, little sacrifices are
@@ -1558,7 +1569,7 @@
<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
+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
@@ -1568,7 +1579,7 @@
<p>And so now I guess that I should ask for questions.</p>
-<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <span>[Inaudible]</span></p>
<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Could you speak up a bit louder please?
I can't really hear you.</p>
@@ -1596,8 +1607,8 @@
<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
+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
@@ -1616,9 +1627,9 @@
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
+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
+trying. <span>[Laughter]</span> 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
@@ -1655,7 +1666,7 @@
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>
+about patents, but it takes an hour. <span>[Laughter]</span></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
@@ -1735,8 +1746,8 @@
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>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>
@@ -1763,7 +1774,7 @@
<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>STALLMAN</strong>: Thank you. <span>[Laughter]</span></p>
<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: …for the past four years. The one
thing that has been problematical for me and is something that is
@@ -1792,8 +1803,8 @@
<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>
+tremendous advantage, in you don't see the ads. <span>[Laughter]
+[Applause]</span></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
@@ -1809,8 +1820,8 @@
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><span>[Recording switches tapes; end of question and start of answer
+is missing]</span></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
@@ -1828,7 +1839,7 @@
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>
+GNU/Linux systems. <span>[Laughter]</span></p>
<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: That's right! Well, tell the top sales
person. He doesn't know anything for GNU.</p>
@@ -1848,8 +1859,8 @@
<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
+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
@@ -1859,21 +1870,21 @@
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
+Wow! Whee! A billion dollars from IBM. <span>[Laughter]</span> 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>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, here's the—I'm sorry, I'm
+answering his question now. <span>[Laughter]</span></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
+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>
@@ -1890,9 +1901,9 @@
<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>
+copyleft, you are essentially saying: <span>[speaking meekly]</span>
“Take my code. Do what you want. I don't say no.” So,
-anybody can come along and say: <i>[speaking very firmly]</i>
+anybody can come along and say: <span>[speaking very firmly]</span>
“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
@@ -2048,21 +2059,22 @@
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><span>[Applause]</span></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>
+know. <span>[Laughter]</span> I'm not holding you prisoner here.</p>
-<p><i>[Audience adjourns…]</i></p>
+<p><span>[Audience adjourns…]</span></p>
-<p><i>[overlapping conversations…]</i></p>
+<p><span>[overlapping conversations…]</span></p>
<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: One final thing. Our website:
www.gnu.org</p>
+</div>
</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
-<div id="footer">
+<div id="footer" role="contentinfo">
<div class="unprintable">
<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
@@ -2080,13 +2092,13 @@
to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org";>
<web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
- <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ <p>For information on coordinating and contributing 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
+README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations
of this article.</p>
</div>
@@ -2107,7 +2119,7 @@
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, 2016 Richard M. Stallman</p>
+<p>Copyright © 2001, 2005 Richard Stallman</p>
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/";>Creative
@@ -2117,10 +2129,10 @@
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2016/11/22 00:58:41 $
+$Date: 2021/09/19 15:24:45 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
-</div>
+</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
</body>
</html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html,
Therese Godefroy <=