Interview with Richard M. Stallman

Interview with Richard M. Stallman


Richard M. Stallman has been a pivotal, and sometimes controversial figure in the free software movement. Mr. Stallman’s accomplishments have included, but are not limited to, the creation of the GNU Public License, the Free Software Foundation, and the GNU C compiler. Here Mr. Stallman shares his thoughts on a number of topics.

Free software people: Richard M. Stallman

In September 1983, Richard Stallman announced the plan to develop a free software Unix-like operating system: GNU. In 1985, he set up the Free Software Foundation (FSF) to carry out that goal. By 1991, GNU was complete except for the kernel. When the Linux kernel became free software in 1992, the combination of GNU and Linux formed the first modern free operating system: the GNU/Linux system (often referred to as “Linux”).

Richard Stallman wrote the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) as part of developing GNU.

Richard M. StallmanRichard M. Stallman

CM: Could you explain why new free software users should think “free” as in “free speech”, not as in “free beer”?

RMS: If they want to understand the concept of “free software” correctly, this is the way to do it. The idea is that software should respect the user’s freedom. Free software means software that gives you four essential freedoms:

  • Freedom 0: the freedom to run the program as you wish.
  • Freedom 1: the freedom to study the source code, and change it to make the program do what you wish.
  • Freedom 2: the freedom to redistribute copies of the program when you wish.
  • Freedom 3: the freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions when you wish.

These freedoms give you control over your own computing, and make it possible to be part of a community where people help each other. They also bring about democracy: free software develops under the control of its users. Proprietary (non-free) software places the users under the power of its developer.

These values of freedom and social solidarity are the basic ideals of the free software movement, ever since its founding in 1983. These ideals were my motive for launching the development [of] the GNU operating system. They are the reason our community exists.

It is worth making these efforts for free software because freedom and community are important. Gratis software is not worth such an effort, because price is usually not an ethical issue. Paying isn’t wrong, and being paid isn’t wrong. Trampling other people’s freedom and community is wrong, so the free software movement aims to put an end to it, at least in the area of software.

CM: Most free software is released under version 2 of the GPL. What issues and concerns does the new GPL version 3 address?

RMS: The basic idea of the GNU General Public License is to assure that all users of the code have the four freedoms. It does this through the legal technique of copyleft, which forbids middlemen from taking those freedoms away from you. Copyleft turns out to have other benefits, and people who endorse the practical values of “open source” rather than the ethical ideals of free software have often used the GNU GPL.

In 1989, when I wrote GPL version 1, we knew of two ways middlemen could try to do that: by adding restrictive license terms, or by concealing the source code. GPL version 1 was designed to prevent those two methods. GPL version 2, in 1991, was designed also to prevent patent holders from using their patents to impose licenses on redistributors in a way that would make the software non-free.

Since then, other methods of restricting free software have been developed. For instance there is the method of tivoization, where the machine detects modified versions and shuts down. Then there is the Novell-Microsoft deal, where Microsoft uses its patents to threaten everyone except Novell customers. We designed GPL version 3 to block these two attacks on our freedom. In addition, we designed it to give results more uniform from country to country, and extended compatibility to some other free software licenses.

CM: Which of your projects are you most proud of?

RMS: Of the various programs I’ve written, the most challenging was GCC, but the one I love most is Emacs. However, when I think of what makes me proud, it isn’t any specific program. I’m proud of campaigning for freedom. There are many other things I could have enjoyed doing, but none as important as this.

CM: Why is DRM (“Digital Restrictions Management” or “Digital Rights Management”) unethical?

RMS: Digital Restrictions Management means software or hardware designed to restrict us and control our use of published works. The result is to deny us any or all of the shreds of freedom that copyright law leaves us. That’s basically unjust.

Meanwhile, many countries including the UK have adopted unjust laws that forbid the distribution of free software that could access these digitally restricted works. Thus, all DRM is also an attack against free software.

We should never buy products that have DRM unless we have the means to crack it. Thus, don’t buy a DVD unless you have a free program to play it with—and never buy HDDVD or Blueray!

CM: What else would you like readers of Free Software Magazine to know about you?

RMS: What I want them to know is that I launched the operating system most of them know as “Linux” (although not including the kernel, which Torvalds did) specifically for my freedom, your freedom, and their freedom.

It is important to know this because we will always face pressure, from those who are powerful and would like to take away our freedom, to surrender our freedom—and they frequently offer us something attractive in exchange. For instance, B’liar wanted to abolish the Rights of Englishmen, and to serve his American master, Bush, faithfully; so he offered Britons “protection” from this or that, plus the imagined idea that he influences his master on their behalf through the “special relationship”.

The same thing happens in our field, too. Companies making consumer electronics products want to impose DRM on us; they want to do this in programs that they receive as free software, then pass them on to us in such a way that we do not have the freedom to change them. So they invite us to allow our software to be tivoized, and offer us, as an inducement, that our software will be “more popular” if we cave in.

The only way to keep our freedom is to have the steadfastness to reject those tempting offers. We have to move to a license like GPL version 3 that will stop these tempters in their tracks.

CM: Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

Note from the author: the goal behind these interviews is to introduce important people in the free software community, and just let them tell their story. In e-mailed discussions before the interview Richard Stallman insisted on certain wording choices in the introduction and in the questions, which has been respected.

Category: 
License: 

Comments

Ryan Cartwright's picture

I would think so. This page in the archives of RMS' personal homepage has the following entry

24 April 2007 (Abandoned interpreters) B'liar has abandoned Iraqi interpreters who worked for the Bush forces in Iraq, and now need to flee for their lives.

I don't have much sympathy for Iraqi collaborators, who are rightly being attacked as traitors by their countrymen. But this policy shows the moral corruption of B'liar — the same moral corruption that led to his participation in the attempt to conquer Iraq.

(emphasis mine)

And it's by no means unique on his homepage. So "B'liar" is it seems the way RMS refers to Tony Blair. It's not been an uncommon practice over here in the UK either and is often seen on banners and placards at anti-Iraqi war rallies.

HTH Ryan

LockLizard's picture
Submitted by LockLizard on

Not everyone is prepared to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on creating intellectual property (whether it be software, music, content or videos) just to give it away for free. Publishers have a right to protect their income just like anyone else - no one works for free. If someone wants to create free software then fine. On the other hand, if someone else wants to get paid for theirs then so be it. That is for the individual to decide. Apart from protecting content against casual copying, DRM can provide further benefits to publishers like selling time limited or print limited versions for a low fee. The issue always comes down to price and the willingness to give purchasers the choice i.e. between purchasing a printed book for $10 or a DRM protected ebook version for $5. If the purchaser chooses the $5 ebook version then there should be no need for complaint. I provide consultancy services for www.locklizard.com and I know most of their publishers give users the choice of formats and prices.

Brian Evans

Paul Gaskin's picture

It's a question of security. If your operating system has built in support for DRM, it's functionally a root-kit or a Trojan to violate your privacy and control you.

The developer of the DRM has a sovereign environment within your computer. To keep you from violating the terms of their license, the DRM will have an auto-update feature and all kinds of permissions to violate your privacy, just to insure that you're not getting away with something.

You're welcome to swallow the poison pill, but I won't do it.

yarvin's picture
Submitted by yarvin on

Once again, you copyright-types show you simply do not understand the free software movement.

You said: "Not everyone is prepared to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on creating intellectual property (whether it be software, music, content or videos) just to give it away for free."

A lot of people get paid to work on free software. Under the moniker of "open source," it's become very big business. It's probably only a matter of time before a similar situation develops in the multimedia world. We're seeing the start of this with companies like Magnatune and various authors and artists releasing work under Creative Commons licenses.

You said: "Publishers have a right to protect their income just like anyone else"

No one has a right to protect their income through immoral means. This statement is based on a moral value - that artists own their works - that the free software movement (not to mention US legal precedence) does not share. So, from our perspective, you are forcing your values on us.

You said: "no one works for free."

Two points: (1) People get paid in many more ways than money. (2) No one's forcing them to do it. While we all value innovation, the free software movement rejects innovation fetishism.

You said: "If someone wants to create free software then fine. On the other hand, if someone else wants to get paid for theirs then so be it."

Again, free/proprietary is not about money. Many people do get paid to write free software. The issue is whether or not developers' restrict users' freedoms in the name of money or control.

Author information

Colin McGregor's picture

Biography

Colin McGregor (www.mcgregor.org) works for a Toronto-area charity, does consulting on the side and has served as President of the Toronto Free-Net. He also is secretary for and occasional guest speaker at the Greater Toronto Area Linux User Group meetings.