Slashdot Mirror

Richard Stallman weighed in Friday on what he calls "massive commercial surveillance of individuals," saying that the two camps arguing about it "both miss the point." First there's the trustbusters who want to break Big Tech companies into smaller firms too small to eliminate their competition or exert undue influences on regulators. Then there's those who urge carefully-calibrated regulations to ensure tech companies always act in a way that's good for society.

RMS writes: By arguing about whether to divide up the power that this data gives to businesses, or to regulate the use of it (perhaps nationalizing it), they miss the point that both alternatives destroy our privacy and give the state a perfect basis for repression.

The danger is to collect that data at all.

More generally, I think the idea of taxing companies for the magnitude of harm that they do (regardless of whether they broke any rules to do it) is a good one.

"Proprietary software makes it possible to design products to cheat ordinary users..." writes Richard Stallman -- linking to a new essay by Cory Doctorow: Carriers adapted custom versions of Android to lock customers to their networks with shovelware apps that couldn't be removed from the home-screen and app store lock-in that forced customers to buy apps through their phone company. What began with printers and spread to phones is coming to everything: this kind of technology has proliferated to smart thermostats (no apps that let you turn your AC cooler when the power company dials it up a couple degrees), tractors (no buying your parts from third-party companies), cars (no taking your GM to an independent mechanic), and many categories besides.

All these forms of cheating treat the owner of the device as an enemy of the company that made or sold it, to be thwarted, tricked, or forced into conducting their affairs in the best interest of the company's shareholders. To do this, they run programs and processes that attempt to hide themselves and their nature from their owners, and proxies for their owners (like reviewers and researchers). Increasingly, cheating devices behave differently depending on who is looking at them. When they believe themselves to be under close scrutiny, their behavior reverts to a more respectable, less egregious standard. This is a shocking and ghastly turn of affairs, one that takes us back to the dark ages.

A while ago you had the chance to ask founder of the GNU Project, and free software advocate, Richard Stallman, about GNU/Linux, free software, and anything else. You can read his answers to a wide range of questions below. As usual, RMS didn't pull any punches. Capitalism and You
by eldavojohn

Your monkish lifestyle would leave most people who work in software screaming for a Lear Jet and you have stated "I've always lived cheaply ... like a student, basically. And I like that, because it means that money is not telling me what to do." Growing up in the United States, I have been served the koolaid of Capitalism several times and I have been taught that the inherent competition and struggle for money in all aspects of our lives make us the greatest country ever. I've read a lot of your comments on intellectual property reform and I can't help but feel that it just isn't compatible with capitalism. Have you ever had problems rectifying your stance on intellectual property with capitalism? Do you see any problems at all with no copyright or patent laws inside a capitalistic society?

RMS: First, I need to correct an apparent misunderstanding. I do not have a "stance on intellectual property", because that would mean using the term "intellectual property" in my thinking. I take pains never to do that, because that term is an obstacle to clear thinking. Every time it is used, it misrepresents the legal reality and spreads confusion.

I judge copyright law by its practical requirements and their practical effects. I judge patent law by its practical requirements and their practical effects -- totally different requirements and totally different effects. These two laws are different on every practical point; all they have in common is a very abstract idea which is of no practical significance.

I want to encourage clear thinking about copyright law. Separately, I want to encourage clear thinking about patent law. The first step in clear thinking about these laws is not to lump them together. In particular, never use the term "intellectual property", since it lumps them together.

I must not respond directly to a question that treats copyright law and patent law as a single issue. If I did, I'd be lumping them together and spreading the confusion I want to clear up.

However, I can split it into two separate questions.

First, copyright. Copyright is a legal restriction on certain kinds of use of works of authorship. The US has always had some sort of copyright law, but it has changed tremendously. The US has always practiced capitalism, but many sorts of works were, at some time in US history, not covered by copyright. Thus, we know it is possible to have capitalism without copyright.

However, I don't advocate simple elimination of copyright as a solution.

Works that are designed for use doing practical jobs must be free; however, simply eliminating copyright on those works would not have this result. In software, it would make things worse, because copyleft is based on copyright. Without copyright, programs could still be made nonfree using EULAs, tivoization, and nonrelease of source code, but we would no longer be able to prevent this using copyleft.

If we wanted to legislate to make all these works-for-use free, we would have to go further than just eliminating copyright on them. In an ideal world, we would do this, but I don't propose doing it now.

As for works of opinion and art, I don't think they must be free. I advocate some reforms of copyright for these works but I see no reason to abolish it.

Patent law is a totally different issue. A patent is an artificial monopoly on using a specified idea. There have been successful capitalist countries that didn't have a patent system. My expertise is in computing, so I campaign to eliminate patents from computing, where I know they are harmful. However, Boldrin and Levine present good arguments that patents do mostly harm in every field and that it would be better to eliminate patents entirely.

With any or all of these changes, we would still have capitalism; only some details would be different.

I feel like you have this admirable and altruistic quality where money isn't the ultimate driving force and when you speak to people who base their entire lives around money, there's a fundamental disconnect that is overlooked.

RMS: Arguments are always based on values. The free software movement is based on values of freedom and community -- that is where it differs from open source. People who don't share those values will simply not get it, no matter what I might say. Since that's inevitable, I don't worry about it. I do my best, and I persuade some, which is better than giving up and persuading none.

Re:Do you like being worshiped ?
by capt.Hij

This brings up a good point. Let me rephrase the question. Mr Stallman, you are regarded as a founding father of the free software movement, and your opinion on free software carries a lot of weight. Because of this you are put under a harsh spot light, and every little thing you do is magnified. For example, your comments about Steve Jobs immediately after his death were broadcast quite widely. To some people the timing showed a lack of taste and were seen as disrespectful.

RMS: Those people evidently were more concerned with forms of politeness that with substantive good and evil. Someone told me I should not criticize Jobs because he could not defend himself -- while thousands were lionizing him with the indirect support of Apple's PR machine. Compared to that, I was David against Goliath.

Because of your status in the free software movement your statement was used by some to smear the larger community. How do you feel about this kind of attention?

RMS: I stand by what I said about Jobs. Apple is your enemy, and if you don't recognize this and fight, you're being a chump.

If someone tried to spin my statement as something to be ashamed of, please fight back by arguing with his spin.

Have you given it much thought, and what kind of insight can you share about the situation you are in when your private and public mannerisms are misconstrued to be part of a larger group's views and outlooks?

RMS: I hope that a lot of the community shares my views of Jobs and Apple. I ask them to stand up and be counted.

Apple's favorable public image, including public admiration of Jobs for side issues, is a crucial asset in its war against our freedom. To tarnish its image, we need to speak loud and clear about Apple's wrongs. When Steve Jobs is praised for the elegant styling of the jails he designed, we must respond that it is wrong to put users in jail. Speak up and spread the word!

Role of the FSF
by ssam

It seems to me that in the early days of the FSF the main role was writing software. A huge chunk of that code is what makes up modern day free operating systems. A lot of it is class leading software (bash, gcc, emacs, etc). In the past few years it seems that the FSF is far more involved in campaigning than coding. Is this an accurate view of the situation? Is this intentional, and if so why? Should the FSF be trying to create a class leading web browser, for example.

RMS: In the first years of developing the GNU system, before Linux completed the system, not many people worked on free software. A few staff hired by the FSF made a big difference to our progress.

Once GNU/Linux caught on, lots more people got involved, so that the few people the FSF could hire were inevitably a tiny fraction of what the community did. Meanwhile, our other jobs became bigger and more important. For instance, once the DMCA made it illegal to release free software to handle common media formats, just writing free software was no longer enough, so we launched the DefectiveByDesign.org campaign. A year ago we launched our campaign against Restricted Boot, which is the way Microsoft perverts Secure Boot into an anti-security feature.

"Success" is not our goal; we're not here to win a race, we are here to win freedom. I didn't write GCC with the idea of making a "better" C compiler. I wrote it so there would be a freedom-respecting C compiler, and while I was at it, I did the best job I knew how. We didn't develop GNU to have a "better" operating system than Unix; we developed it so we could have a freedom-respecting operating system. It's the same today.

Thus, if we could raise money to hire a few software developers, we would spend it on projects that are more than technical improvements. For instance, it would make no sense to try to develop a web browser that is "better" in a merely practical sense. There is no reason to think we could outdo the Firefox developers in what they are good at, and it would be wasteful duplication to try.

Instead we are trying to do something that Firefox does not aim to do: protect the user's privacy from surveillance by web sites, and protect the user's freedom from nonfree Javascript code. A volunteer is working on our variant of Firefox, called IceCat, with changes for these purposes. We don't have funds for this, so would you like volunteer to help?

GNU visibility and factioning
by Digana

GNU is supposed to be a free operating system as well as a group of people working towards building this OS. To a casual observer, however, GNU does not appear very active.

RMS: I've decided to post new package releases in a more visible place in gnu.org.

Development of GNU is done by volunteers, so the level of activity is up to you. If you wish GNU were more active, join in the work on some GNU package that interests you. For instance, it would be useful to have more developers for LibreJS, which detects and blocks nonfree Javascript, and for IceCat.

Some of the most prominent and supposedly GNU packages, such as Gimp, Gnome, GTK+, and R are mostly GNU in name only. The hackers working on these projects have very little interaction with other hackers working on GNU projects and they very frequently espouse views contrary to GNU's philosophical aims. Thus to an outside observer, GNU does not appear to be a cohesive group of people working towards a common goal.

RMS: The GNU project is not as cohesive as I wish it were. To some extent, this is a consequence of an approach that was necessary. The only way to develop something as large as the GNU system through the work mostly of volunteers was to divide it into projects that could be implemented mostly independently by different people. The design of Unix lent itself to this. The fact that the GNU system incorporated programs such as X and TeX, that were developed by other people or groups that regarded the GNU Project as just a user, pushed in the same direction.

There is always a centrifugal tendency when many groups work mostly independently. It is often hard to persuade the developers of one component to do what improves the system as a whole rather than what will make their own component more useful and successful.

By 1990, when we started the HURD kernel, I expected that in a couple of years it would be working and we would integrate the GNU system. However, the HURD didn't work at all until 1996, and in the mean time the community began using GNU with Linux as the kernel. By the time we started using it that way, others had integrated the GNU/Linux combination, making various GNU/Linux distros.

The initial goal of GNU, to have a free operating system, has been achieved; the initial sharp focus on completing a free Unix-like system is no longer applicable. This doesn't mean our work is over; most GNU/Linux distros today contain nonfree software, and there are more things that we expect a system to do. We still need people to seek out and do the development jobs that need doing in order to win freedom for the users of computing.

My first step to make the GNU Project more cohesive was in 1999. In the 1980s and 90s, when I appointed someone as the maintainer for a GNU package, I took for granted that he would understand that his job was to manage a part of a larger project, and what that implied. In 1999 I realized this could not be taken for granted, so I began explaining this relationship to new maintainers and asking new maintainers to agree to it. However, the relationship with a few packages had already become distant.

Many GNU mailing lists being private further the public perception that GNU is not even actively producing software anymore.

RMS: Our main packages have public discussion lists, but that's a choice for the package maintainer to make. Feel free to suggest changes to the maintainer.

What can be done to remedy this situation? How can we strengthen GNU, make it reach out again to the people it's supposed to be freeing?

RMS: For the most part, this is up to you. When you start working on a new free program, do you propose making it a GNU package? Would you like it to be part of a coherent GNU Project? If so, please write to me.

How to reverse the aggregation problem?
by concealment

A problem with software and operating systems is what I call the "aggregation problem," which is that what we have now is an aggregate of past solutions to problems that may no longer exist. The stuff piles up, increasing complexity and decreasing the uniformity and effectiveness of the interface. At what point do software projects call for a top-down redesign? How can free software do this where industry cannot?

RMS: I don't have any solution to offer for this particular problem, other than the slow methods we are using now. Partly that's because I don't think this is the most important issue -- I think our freedom is more important than technical improvement.

However, this is not the only area in which more uniformity is desirable. Around 1990, I designed a protocol for configuring and building packages from source: you type `./configure; make install'. It would be nice if all free software packages supported this uniform interface, but they don't.

To help implement that uniformity, a GNU volunteer recently made it very easy to use Autoconf in Python packages, so that they can build and install using our uniform commands. If you maintain a program in Python, how about adding this support? Every user that isn't a Python programmer will be glad he can install your program without learning a special Python build method.

What project is using the wrong license?
by gQuigs

What free software project is using a license that doesn't actually match with it's mission - or hinders free software in other ways? In other words, if you could *magically* switch the license of one project - which would you choose and why? Examples: Move Mesa to GPLv3, Move Linux from GPLv2 to v3, Make android GPLv3, GCC - from GPLv3 to Apache.

RMS: If I could magically change one program to GPLv3, it would be Linux. One of the improvements of GPLv3 is that it blocks tivoization, and Linux is very frequently tivoized. (Many Android devices contain a tivoized copy of Linux.)

While we're talking about magic, I'd change the license of LLVM also.

Another program that is important to convert is LibreCAD. This is more than a fantasy: the developers of LibreCAD are working on replacing the old GPLv2-only code that they included, so as to switch to GPLv3-or-later. Would you like to help?

What do you think of non-free, non-software works?
by Shlomi Fish

Dear Dr. Stallman, In this Slashdot feature"Stallman is quoted here saying that game engines should be free, but approves of the notion that graphics, music, and stories could all be separate and treated differently (i.e., "Non-Free.")." However, this feature does not give a citation from you for that. To add to the confusion in a post to the Creative Commons Community mailing list, Rob Myers said:

"RMS's views on culture are coherent and consistent with his views on software. But he's treating game assets as a matter of functionality (software) rather than speech (culture). There is an issue with the latter not being free.."

So I'm a little confused. Do you approve of people using non-free licenses for cultural works, including the CC-by-nc, CC-by-nc-sa, CC-by-nd, and CC-by-nc-nd licenses? If so, when?

This is especially important given the fact that in the process for formulating the latest version of the Creative Commons licenses (4.0), there has been some requests to deprecate the non-commercial (nc) and/or no-derivatives (nd) options (which I doubt will happen, but is nonetheless some thing some people feel strongly about).

RMS: After some 12 years of stating my position in all my speeches on Copyright vs Community, and publishing transcripts, I'd expect interested people to have found it. But here it is.

Those works that are made for doing practical jobs must be free. This includes software, educational works, reference works, text fonts, recipes, and 3d-printer models for objects for practical use, as well as some other things.

Works of testimony and opinion, and artistic works, don't have to be free as in the four freedoms, but their users should have more freedom than now. I think people should be free to share them (noncommercial redistribution of exact copies), and to remix them. Putting DRM or EULAs on them should be banned too. I think all the CC licenses do these things, more or less, and I use CC-ND for my statements of my views, including this one.

Two of the nonfree CC licenses, CC-NC and CC-NC-SA, have a peculiar problem: they lead to making works which are orphan before they are born.

I call this a "peculiar problem" because I don't think these licenses are bad in principle. The problem is purely a matter of practical consequences, and it seems they should be avoidable, yet I can't see a way to avoid them. I hope one is found; in the mean time, I urge not using these two licenses.

Favorite hack
by vlm

Give me your best hack. Specifically something YOU did personally not hire / grad student. Hardware, software only (yes yes the GPL is cool but I'm looking for code or schematic or at least a description of something made out of source or solder) I can't put words in your mouth but the ideal answer would be something like "I'm particularly proud of the O(n) memory garbage collection routine in emacs implemented around '89 and how it worked was very roughly ..." or "I really like my homemade fully automatic automotive relay based routing system for my OH scale model railroad sorting yard" or "I built my own legal limit ham radio amplifier" almost certainly a different topic of course, but something of this form of answer.

RMS: I can't remember all the hacks that I was proud of, so I can't pick the best. But here's something I remember fondly. The last piece of Gosmacs code that I replaced was the serial terminal scrolling optimizer, a few pages of Gosling's code which was proceeded by a comment with a skull and crossbones, meaning that it was so hard to understand that it was poison. I had to replace it, but worried that the job would be hard. I found a simpler algorithm and got it to work in a few hours, producing code that was shorter, faster, clearer, and more extensible. Then I made it use the terminal commands to insert or delete multiple lines as a single operation, which made screen updating far more efficient.

Why FDR and Churchill?
by eldavojohn

During a Q&A Session a while back you were asked about people and movements near and dear to your heart and you said "I admire Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, even though I criticize some of the things that they did." I love World War II history and I also find myself in a love-hate situation with Churchill. Could you go into further detail about what specifics lead you to single out these two over leaders like Lincoln, Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin or even historical figures who have enabled information itself like Turing, Shannon, etc?

RMS: I like math, and I respect good mathematicians, but I don't admire them as heroes. The people I admire are those who fight for freedom.

Why did I mention Roosevelt and Churchill in particular? I didn't make a list of all the leaders I admire and then choose the ones I admire most. That would be a big job, and my memory does not lend itself to that, so I didn't try. I mentioned the people that came to mind.

I was thinking of leaders that fought against evil tyranny. Of the five leaders you mentioned, Roosevelt and Churchill had the hardest fight against the greatest evil. King George trampled the colonists' rights, and the Confederacy fought for slavery, but Hitler's genocidal empire was much worse.

If I were judging peacetime political leadership, I would not choose Churchill; perhaps Jefferson.

Stolen bag / laptop in Argentina
by Cigarra

What ever happened with the stolen bag and laptop? Did you get something back? Did you LOSE data (that is, was something not backed up)? Are you mad with the organizers / country that hosted the event?

RMS: My friends never found any sign of what was stolen. I lost some files, those which were outside the directories that I regularly backed up, but nothing really important.

I don't blame the speech organizers or Argentina in general for this theft. The reason I will never go to Argentina again has nothing to do with the theft. I announced it before I arrived in Argentina: I object to the requirement for visitors to give their fingerprints. I refuse to go to any country which has that policy, and I hope you too will refuse to go to any country that would demand your fingerprints.

Revolution OS ...
by i.r.id10t

Interviews with you comprised a big percentage of the documentary Revolution OS. If it were to be remade today, and the financial aspects ignored, what do you think would be different? If you were producing such a documentary today, what would you focus on?

RMS: I didn't make that movie, so how to make it was not my decision, and how to make one today would not be my decision. But I see some things that would have to be different.

Much attention was paid to business leaders of the open source bubble, which popped after the interviews. The movie ended saying how some companies' stock had gone down. If the movie were made today, those people and their commercial claims would probably not be in it. Also, I would not be found at a "Linux" event; shortly after that time, I concluded it was self-defeating to legitimize events that call the GNU system "Linux".

Other advocates
by SirGarlon

Who, other than yourself and the FSF, do you consider to be effective advocates for software freedom? Please name individuals if you can.

RMS: Eben Moglen and SFLC, Bradley Kuhn and the Conservancy, Frederic Couchet and APRIL, Via Libre, Alexandre Oliva, Octavio Rossell, Quiliro Ordoñez, are the ones that occur to me. I have probably forgotten many.

Open Source and Ethics in research?
by tsquar3d

RMS, I am a PhD student in computing and I have run up against an interesting problem. I consider FOSS to be at the core of my personal philosophy.

RMS: I have to point out that there is no "FOSS" philosophy. The term "FOSS" is a way of referring to two different philosophies: free software is one, and open source is the other.

When you want to refer to both philosophies, I recommend "FLOSS" rather than "FOSS". "FLOSS", or "Free/Libre and Open Source Software", gives the two equal visibility, whereas with "FOSS", "Free and Open Source Software", "Open Source" is more prominent. But you can't possibly agree with both of these philosophies, because they disagree at the deepest level. Your views might be one, or the other, or a mixture, or something else, but it can't be both of them at once.

See here for more explanation of the difference between free software and open source. To me it is not just a pragmatic issue, but an ethical one.

RMS: It sounds like your philosophy may be closer to the free software movement. We consider this an ethical issue, whereas the usual open source philosophy presents it as a practical issue alone.

Therefore, in my research, I use all FOSS software. Now, the problem arises when trying to justify my use of FOSS to colleagues and supervisors.

RMS: Why do you need to try to justify your _own_ use of free software? I'd expect you to decide, and follow your own decision, with no need to justify it to anyone else. Is there something I have misunderstood?

The time you need to argue is to convince other teachers and researchers to move to free software.

I have tried to make the case that it is an ethical issue, and have argued the merits of freedom and academia, however, I invariably am told "that's not an academic argument".

RMS: I suggest you respond "I'm a citizen first, and an academic second, so I care about ethical arguments as well as academic arguments."

This is incredibly frustrating and annoying to me as, in academic research, we are constantly being restricted by "research ethics" (e.g. the ethical treatment of subjects, plagiarism, etc.) and I am more than willing to bet that if a researcher objected to a methodology based on "religious principles" they would be excused.

RMS: I don't understand -- "excused" from what? I am not sure now what issue the argument is about. Are they criticizing you for your decision? If so, you don't need to be "excused", you just need to stand firm and proud. Or are you asking them for permission? There, too, standing firm is best, but it is trickier.

Or are you asking them to change their practices? That is good to try, but there is no guaranteed recipe for persuading others. I suggest telling them about the malicious features commonly found in nonfree software, to bring home to them that this is an important issue. Also, raise the issue publicly so as to build consciousness of the issue and search for allies.

A while ago you had the chance to ask founder of the GNU Project, and free software advocate, Richard Stallman, about GNU/Linux, free software, and anything else. You can read his answers to a wide range of questions below. As usual, RMS didn't pull any punches. Capitalism and You
by eldavojohn

Your monkish lifestyle would leave most people who work in software screaming for a Lear Jet and you have stated "I've always lived cheaply ... like a student, basically. And I like that, because it means that money is not telling me what to do." Growing up in the United States, I have been served the koolaid of Capitalism several times and I have been taught that the inherent competition and struggle for money in all aspects of our lives make us the greatest country ever. I've read a lot of your comments on intellectual property reform and I can't help but feel that it just isn't compatible with capitalism. Have you ever had problems rectifying your stance on intellectual property with capitalism? Do you see any problems at all with no copyright or patent laws inside a capitalistic society?

RMS: First, I need to correct an apparent misunderstanding. I do not have a "stance on intellectual property", because that would mean using the term "intellectual property" in my thinking. I take pains never to do that, because that term is an obstacle to clear thinking. Every time it is used, it misrepresents the legal reality and spreads confusion.

I judge copyright law by its practical requirements and their practical effects. I judge patent law by its practical requirements and their practical effects -- totally different requirements and totally different effects. These two laws are different on every practical point; all they have in common is a very abstract idea which is of no practical significance.

I want to encourage clear thinking about copyright law. Separately, I want to encourage clear thinking about patent law. The first step in clear thinking about these laws is not to lump them together. In particular, never use the term "intellectual property", since it lumps them together.

I must not respond directly to a question that treats copyright law and patent law as a single issue. If I did, I'd be lumping them together and spreading the confusion I want to clear up.

However, I can split it into two separate questions.

First, copyright. Copyright is a legal restriction on certain kinds of use of works of authorship. The US has always had some sort of copyright law, but it has changed tremendously. The US has always practiced capitalism, but many sorts of works were, at some time in US history, not covered by copyright. Thus, we know it is possible to have capitalism without copyright.

However, I don't advocate simple elimination of copyright as a solution.

Works that are designed for use doing practical jobs must be free; however, simply eliminating copyright on those works would not have this result. In software, it would make things worse, because copyleft is based on copyright. Without copyright, programs could still be made nonfree using EULAs, tivoization, and nonrelease of source code, but we would no longer be able to prevent this using copyleft.

If we wanted to legislate to make all these works-for-use free, we would have to go further than just eliminating copyright on them. In an ideal world, we would do this, but I don't propose doing it now.

As for works of opinion and art, I don't think they must be free. I advocate some reforms of copyright for these works but I see no reason to abolish it.

Patent law is a totally different issue. A patent is an artificial monopoly on using a specified idea. There have been successful capitalist countries that didn't have a patent system. My expertise is in computing, so I campaign to eliminate patents from computing, where I know they are harmful. However, Boldrin and Levine present good arguments that patents do mostly harm in every field and that it would be better to eliminate patents entirely.

With any or all of these changes, we would still have capitalism; only some details would be different.

I feel like you have this admirable and altruistic quality where money isn't the ultimate driving force and when you speak to people who base their entire lives around money, there's a fundamental disconnect that is overlooked.

RMS: Arguments are always based on values. The free software movement is based on values of freedom and community -- that is where it differs from open source. People who don't share those values will simply not get it, no matter what I might say. Since that's inevitable, I don't worry about it. I do my best, and I persuade some, which is better than giving up and persuading none.

Re:Do you like being worshiped ?
by capt.Hij

This brings up a good point. Let me rephrase the question. Mr Stallman, you are regarded as a founding father of the free software movement, and your opinion on free software carries a lot of weight. Because of this you are put under a harsh spot light, and every little thing you do is magnified. For example, your comments about Steve Jobs immediately after his death were broadcast quite widely. To some people the timing showed a lack of taste and were seen as disrespectful.

RMS: Those people evidently were more concerned with forms of politeness that with substantive good and evil. Someone told me I should not criticize Jobs because he could not defend himself -- while thousands were lionizing him with the indirect support of Apple's PR machine. Compared to that, I was David against Goliath.

Because of your status in the free software movement your statement was used by some to smear the larger community. How do you feel about this kind of attention?

RMS: I stand by what I said about Jobs. Apple is your enemy, and if you don't recognize this and fight, you're being a chump.

If someone tried to spin my statement as something to be ashamed of, please fight back by arguing with his spin.

Have you given it much thought, and what kind of insight can you share about the situation you are in when your private and public mannerisms are misconstrued to be part of a larger group's views and outlooks?

RMS: I hope that a lot of the community shares my views of Jobs and Apple. I ask them to stand up and be counted.

Apple's favorable public image, including public admiration of Jobs for side issues, is a crucial asset in its war against our freedom. To tarnish its image, we need to speak loud and clear about Apple's wrongs. When Steve Jobs is praised for the elegant styling of the jails he designed, we must respond that it is wrong to put users in jail. Speak up and spread the word!

Role of the FSF
by ssam

It seems to me that in the early days of the FSF the main role was writing software. A huge chunk of that code is what makes up modern day free operating systems. A lot of it is class leading software (bash, gcc, emacs, etc). In the past few years it seems that the FSF is far more involved in campaigning than coding. Is this an accurate view of the situation? Is this intentional, and if so why? Should the FSF be trying to create a class leading web browser, for example.

RMS: In the first years of developing the GNU system, before Linux completed the system, not many people worked on free software. A few staff hired by the FSF made a big difference to our progress.

Once GNU/Linux caught on, lots more people got involved, so that the few people the FSF could hire were inevitably a tiny fraction of what the community did. Meanwhile, our other jobs became bigger and more important. For instance, once the DMCA made it illegal to release free software to handle common media formats, just writing free software was no longer enough, so we launched the DefectiveByDesign.org campaign. A year ago we launched our campaign against Restricted Boot, which is the way Microsoft perverts Secure Boot into an anti-security feature.

"Success" is not our goal; we're not here to win a race, we are here to win freedom. I didn't write GCC with the idea of making a "better" C compiler. I wrote it so there would be a freedom-respecting C compiler, and while I was at it, I did the best job I knew how. We didn't develop GNU to have a "better" operating system than Unix; we developed it so we could have a freedom-respecting operating system. It's the same today.

Thus, if we could raise money to hire a few software developers, we would spend it on projects that are more than technical improvements. For instance, it would make no sense to try to develop a web browser that is "better" in a merely practical sense. There is no reason to think we could outdo the Firefox developers in what they are good at, and it would be wasteful duplication to try.

Instead we are trying to do something that Firefox does not aim to do: protect the user's privacy from surveillance by web sites, and protect the user's freedom from nonfree Javascript code. A volunteer is working on our variant of Firefox, called IceCat, with changes for these purposes. We don't have funds for this, so would you like volunteer to help?

GNU visibility and factioning
by Digana

GNU is supposed to be a free operating system as well as a group of people working towards building this OS. To a casual observer, however, GNU does not appear very active.

RMS: I've decided to post new package releases in a more visible place in gnu.org.

Development of GNU is done by volunteers, so the level of activity is up to you. If you wish GNU were more active, join in the work on some GNU package that interests you. For instance, it would be useful to have more developers for LibreJS, which detects and blocks nonfree Javascript, and for IceCat.

Some of the most prominent and supposedly GNU packages, such as Gimp, Gnome, GTK+, and R are mostly GNU in name only. The hackers working on these projects have very little interaction with other hackers working on GNU projects and they very frequently espouse views contrary to GNU's philosophical aims. Thus to an outside observer, GNU does not appear to be a cohesive group of people working towards a common goal.

RMS: The GNU project is not as cohesive as I wish it were. To some extent, this is a consequence of an approach that was necessary. The only way to develop something as large as the GNU system through the work mostly of volunteers was to divide it into projects that could be implemented mostly independently by different people. The design of Unix lent itself to this. The fact that the GNU system incorporated programs such as X and TeX, that were developed by other people or groups that regarded the GNU Project as just a user, pushed in the same direction.

There is always a centrifugal tendency when many groups work mostly independently. It is often hard to persuade the developers of one component to do what improves the system as a whole rather than what will make their own component more useful and successful.

By 1990, when we started the HURD kernel, I expected that in a couple of years it would be working and we would integrate the GNU system. However, the HURD didn't work at all until 1996, and in the mean time the community began using GNU with Linux as the kernel. By the time we started using it that way, others had integrated the GNU/Linux combination, making various GNU/Linux distros.

The initial goal of GNU, to have a free operating system, has been achieved; the initial sharp focus on completing a free Unix-like system is no longer applicable. This doesn't mean our work is over; most GNU/Linux distros today contain nonfree software, and there are more things that we expect a system to do. We still need people to seek out and do the development jobs that need doing in order to win freedom for the users of computing.

My first step to make the GNU Project more cohesive was in 1999. In the 1980s and 90s, when I appointed someone as the maintainer for a GNU package, I took for granted that he would understand that his job was to manage a part of a larger project, and what that implied. In 1999 I realized this could not be taken for granted, so I began explaining this relationship to new maintainers and asking new maintainers to agree to it. However, the relationship with a few packages had already become distant.

Many GNU mailing lists being private further the public perception that GNU is not even actively producing software anymore.

RMS: Our main packages have public discussion lists, but that's a choice for the package maintainer to make. Feel free to suggest changes to the maintainer.

What can be done to remedy this situation? How can we strengthen GNU, make it reach out again to the people it's supposed to be freeing?

RMS: For the most part, this is up to you. When you start working on a new free program, do you propose making it a GNU package? Would you like it to be part of a coherent GNU Project? If so, please write to me.

How to reverse the aggregation problem?
by concealment

A problem with software and operating systems is what I call the "aggregation problem," which is that what we have now is an aggregate of past solutions to problems that may no longer exist. The stuff piles up, increasing complexity and decreasing the uniformity and effectiveness of the interface. At what point do software projects call for a top-down redesign? How can free software do this where industry cannot?

RMS: I don't have any solution to offer for this particular problem, other than the slow methods we are using now. Partly that's because I don't think this is the most important issue -- I think our freedom is more important than technical improvement.

However, this is not the only area in which more uniformity is desirable. Around 1990, I designed a protocol for configuring and building packages from source: you type `./configure; make install'. It would be nice if all free software packages supported this uniform interface, but they don't.

To help implement that uniformity, a GNU volunteer recently made it very easy to use Autoconf in Python packages, so that they can build and install using our uniform commands. If you maintain a program in Python, how about adding this support? Every user that isn't a Python programmer will be glad he can install your program without learning a special Python build method.

What project is using the wrong license?
by gQuigs

What free software project is using a license that doesn't actually match with it's mission - or hinders free software in other ways? In other words, if you could *magically* switch the license of one project - which would you choose and why? Examples: Move Mesa to GPLv3, Move Linux from GPLv2 to v3, Make android GPLv3, GCC - from GPLv3 to Apache.

RMS: If I could magically change one program to GPLv3, it would be Linux. One of the improvements of GPLv3 is that it blocks tivoization, and Linux is very frequently tivoized. (Many Android devices contain a tivoized copy of Linux.)

While we're talking about magic, I'd change the license of LLVM also.

Another program that is important to convert is LibreCAD. This is more than a fantasy: the developers of LibreCAD are working on replacing the old GPLv2-only code that they included, so as to switch to GPLv3-or-later. Would you like to help?

What do you think of non-free, non-software works?
by Shlomi Fish

Dear Dr. Stallman, In this Slashdot feature"Stallman is quoted here saying that game engines should be free, but approves of the notion that graphics, music, and stories could all be separate and treated differently (i.e., "Non-Free.")." However, this feature does not give a citation from you for that. To add to the confusion in a post to the Creative Commons Community mailing list, Rob Myers said:

"RMS's views on culture are coherent and consistent with his views on software. But he's treating game assets as a matter of functionality (software) rather than speech (culture). There is an issue with the latter not being free.."

So I'm a little confused. Do you approve of people using non-free licenses for cultural works, including the CC-by-nc, CC-by-nc-sa, CC-by-nd, and CC-by-nc-nd licenses? If so, when?

This is especially important given the fact that in the process for formulating the latest version of the Creative Commons licenses (4.0), there has been some requests to deprecate the non-commercial (nc) and/or no-derivatives (nd) options (which I doubt will happen, but is nonetheless some thing some people feel strongly about).

RMS: After some 12 years of stating my position in all my speeches on Copyright vs Community, and publishing transcripts, I'd expect interested people to have found it. But here it is.

Those works that are made for doing practical jobs must be free. This includes software, educational works, reference works, text fonts, recipes, and 3d-printer models for objects for practical use, as well as some other things.

Works of testimony and opinion, and artistic works, don't have to be free as in the four freedoms, but their users should have more freedom than now. I think people should be free to share them (noncommercial redistribution of exact copies), and to remix them. Putting DRM or EULAs on them should be banned too. I think all the CC licenses do these things, more or less, and I use CC-ND for my statements of my views, including this one.

Two of the nonfree CC licenses, CC-NC and CC-NC-SA, have a peculiar problem: they lead to making works which are orphan before they are born.

I call this a "peculiar problem" because I don't think these licenses are bad in principle. The problem is purely a matter of practical consequences, and it seems they should be avoidable, yet I can't see a way to avoid them. I hope one is found; in the mean time, I urge not using these two licenses.

Favorite hack
by vlm

Give me your best hack. Specifically something YOU did personally not hire / grad student. Hardware, software only (yes yes the GPL is cool but I'm looking for code or schematic or at least a description of something made out of source or solder) I can't put words in your mouth but the ideal answer would be something like "I'm particularly proud of the O(n) memory garbage collection routine in emacs implemented around '89 and how it worked was very roughly ..." or "I really like my homemade fully automatic automotive relay based routing system for my OH scale model railroad sorting yard" or "I built my own legal limit ham radio amplifier" almost certainly a different topic of course, but something of this form of answer.

RMS: I can't remember all the hacks that I was proud of, so I can't pick the best. But here's something I remember fondly. The last piece of Gosmacs code that I replaced was the serial terminal scrolling optimizer, a few pages of Gosling's code which was proceeded by a comment with a skull and crossbones, meaning that it was so hard to understand that it was poison. I had to replace it, but worried that the job would be hard. I found a simpler algorithm and got it to work in a few hours, producing code that was shorter, faster, clearer, and more extensible. Then I made it use the terminal commands to insert or delete multiple lines as a single operation, which made screen updating far more efficient.

Why FDR and Churchill?
by eldavojohn

During a Q&A Session a while back you were asked about people and movements near and dear to your heart and you said "I admire Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, even though I criticize some of the things that they did." I love World War II history and I also find myself in a love-hate situation with Churchill. Could you go into further detail about what specifics lead you to single out these two over leaders like Lincoln, Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin or even historical figures who have enabled information itself like Turing, Shannon, etc?

RMS: I like math, and I respect good mathematicians, but I don't admire them as heroes. The people I admire are those who fight for freedom.

Why did I mention Roosevelt and Churchill in particular? I didn't make a list of all the leaders I admire and then choose the ones I admire most. That would be a big job, and my memory does not lend itself to that, so I didn't try. I mentioned the people that came to mind.

I was thinking of leaders that fought against evil tyranny. Of the five leaders you mentioned, Roosevelt and Churchill had the hardest fight against the greatest evil. King George trampled the colonists' rights, and the Confederacy fought for slavery, but Hitler's genocidal empire was much worse.

If I were judging peacetime political leadership, I would not choose Churchill; perhaps Jefferson.

Stolen bag / laptop in Argentina
by Cigarra

What ever happened with the stolen bag and laptop? Did you get something back? Did you LOSE data (that is, was something not backed up)? Are you mad with the organizers / country that hosted the event?

RMS: My friends never found any sign of what was stolen. I lost some files, those which were outside the directories that I regularly backed up, but nothing really important.

I don't blame the speech organizers or Argentina in general for this theft. The reason I will never go to Argentina again has nothing to do with the theft. I announced it before I arrived in Argentina: I object to the requirement for visitors to give their fingerprints. I refuse to go to any country which has that policy, and I hope you too will refuse to go to any country that would demand your fingerprints.

Revolution OS ...
by i.r.id10t

Interviews with you comprised a big percentage of the documentary Revolution OS. If it were to be remade today, and the financial aspects ignored, what do you think would be different? If you were producing such a documentary today, what would you focus on?

RMS: I didn't make that movie, so how to make it was not my decision, and how to make one today would not be my decision. But I see some things that would have to be different.

Much attention was paid to business leaders of the open source bubble, which popped after the interviews. The movie ended saying how some companies' stock had gone down. If the movie were made today, those people and their commercial claims would probably not be in it. Also, I would not be found at a "Linux" event; shortly after that time, I concluded it was self-defeating to legitimize events that call the GNU system "Linux".

Other advocates
by SirGarlon

Who, other than yourself and the FSF, do you consider to be effective advocates for software freedom? Please name individuals if you can.

RMS: Eben Moglen and SFLC, Bradley Kuhn and the Conservancy, Frederic Couchet and APRIL, Via Libre, Alexandre Oliva, Octavio Rossell, Quiliro Ordoñez, are the ones that occur to me. I have probably forgotten many.

Open Source and Ethics in research?
by tsquar3d

RMS, I am a PhD student in computing and I have run up against an interesting problem. I consider FOSS to be at the core of my personal philosophy.

RMS: I have to point out that there is no "FOSS" philosophy. The term "FOSS" is a way of referring to two different philosophies: free software is one, and open source is the other.

When you want to refer to both philosophies, I recommend "FLOSS" rather than "FOSS". "FLOSS", or "Free/Libre and Open Source Software", gives the two equal visibility, whereas with "FOSS", "Free and Open Source Software", "Open Source" is more prominent. But you can't possibly agree with both of these philosophies, because they disagree at the deepest level. Your views might be one, or the other, or a mixture, or something else, but it can't be both of them at once.

See here for more explanation of the difference between free software and open source. To me it is not just a pragmatic issue, but an ethical one.

RMS: It sounds like your philosophy may be closer to the free software movement. We consider this an ethical issue, whereas the usual open source philosophy presents it as a practical issue alone.

Therefore, in my research, I use all FOSS software. Now, the problem arises when trying to justify my use of FOSS to colleagues and supervisors.

RMS: Why do you need to try to justify your _own_ use of free software? I'd expect you to decide, and follow your own decision, with no need to justify it to anyone else. Is there something I have misunderstood?

The time you need to argue is to convince other teachers and researchers to move to free software.

I have tried to make the case that it is an ethical issue, and have argued the merits of freedom and academia, however, I invariably am told "that's not an academic argument".

RMS: I suggest you respond "I'm a citizen first, and an academic second, so I care about ethical arguments as well as academic arguments."

This is incredibly frustrating and annoying to me as, in academic research, we are constantly being restricted by "research ethics" (e.g. the ethical treatment of subjects, plagiarism, etc.) and I am more than willing to bet that if a researcher objected to a methodology based on "religious principles" they would be excused.

RMS: I don't understand -- "excused" from what? I am not sure now what issue the argument is about. Are they criticizing you for your decision? If so, you don't need to be "excused", you just need to stand firm and proud. Or are you asking them for permission? There, too, standing firm is best, but it is trickier.

Or are you asking them to change their practices? That is good to try, but there is no guaranteed recipe for persuading others. I suggest telling them about the malicious features commonly found in nonfree software, to bring home to them that this is an important issue. Also, raise the issue publicly so as to build consciousness of the issue and search for allies.

Giorgio Maone writes "Ubuntu developer and fellow Mozillian Benjamin Kerensa chatted with various people about the new Amazon Product Results in the Ubuntu 12.10 Unity Dash. Among them, Richard Stallman told him that this feature is bad because: 1. 'If Canonical gets this data, it will be forced to hand it over to various governments.'; 2. Amazon is bad. Concerned people can disable remote data retrieval for any lens and scopes or, more surgically, use sudo apt-get remove unity-lens-shopping."

New submitter UtucXul points out that Richard Stallman has penned a lengthy response to NPR intern Emily White for her post on the organization's site about how she failed to pay for a significant amount of recorded music, acquiring it instead through Kazaa, friends, and CDs owned by the radio station at which she was employed. (We previously discussed musician David Lowery's response; quite different from RMS's, as you might expect.) Stallman wrote, "Copying and sharing recordings was not a mistake, let alone wrong, because sharing is good. It's good to share musical recordings with friends and family; it's good for a radio station to share recordings with the staff, and it's good when strangers share through peer-to-peer networks. The wrong is in the repressive laws that try to block or punish sharing. Sharing ought to be legalized; in the mean time, please do not act ashamed of having shared — that would validate those repressive laws that claim that it is wrong. You did make a mistake when you chose Kazaa as the method of sharing. Kazaa mistreated you (and all its users) by requiring you to run a non-free program on your computer. ... However, that was in the past. It's more important to consider what you're doing now, which includes other mistakes. You're not alone — many others make them too, and that adds up to a big problem for society. The root mistake is treating a marketing buzzword, 'the cloud,' as if it meant something concrete. That term refers to so many things (different ways of using the Internet) that it really has no meaning at all. Marketing uses that term to lead people's attention away from the important questions about any given use of the network, such as, 'What companies would I depend on if I did this, and how? What trouble could they cause me, if they wanted to shaft me, or simply thought that a change in policies would gain them more money?'"

Garabito writes "Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation, has posted his not-so-fond memories of Steve Jobs on his personal site, saying, 'As Chicago Mayor Harold Washington said of the corrupt former Mayor Daley, "I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone." Nobody deserves to have to die — not Jobs, not Mr. Bill, not even people guilty of bigger evils than theirs. But we all deserve the end of Jobs' malign influence on people's computing.' His statement has spurred reaction from the community; some even asking to the Free Software movement to find a new voice."

An anonymous reader points out an article by Richard Stallman in The Guardian which questions whether Android should be described as 'free' or 'open.' Quoting: "Google has complied with the requirements of the GNU General Public License for Linux, but the Apache license on the rest of Android does not require source release. Google has said it will never publish the source code of Android 3.0 (aside from Linux), even though executables have been released to the public. Android 3.1 source code is also being withheld. Thus, Android 3, apart from Linux, is non-free software, pure and simple. ... Android is a major step towards an ethical, user-controlled, free-software portable phone, but there is a long way to go. Hackers are working on Replicant, but it's a big job to support a new phone model, and there remains the problem of the firmware. Even though the Android phones of today are considerably less bad than Apple or Windows smartphones, they cannot be said to respect your freedom."

Barence submitted note of a paper written by RMS called The Danger of eBooks saying "Free software guru Richard Stallman claims consumers should reject eBooks until they 'respect our freedoms.' He highlights the DRM embedded in eBooks sold by Amazon as an example of such restrictions, citing the infamous case of Amazon wiping copies of George Orwell's 1984 from users' Kindles without permission. He also rails against Amazon for forcing people to identify themselves before buying eBooks. His suggested remedy? Distributing tax funds to authors based on their popularity, or 'designing players so users can send authors anonymous voluntary payments.'"

An anonymous reader tipped us to a protest song RMS has written and recorded (while visiting Cuba) and is hosting on stallman.org. It's a sort of parody, although it's too serious really to be called that, in Spanish of the song "Guantanamera," in which a Gitmo prisoner talks about his experiences and mourns his fate. RMS wrote the lyrics in 2006 after learning what "Guantanamera" actually means. The lyrics are moving, and the recording, in Ogg, is competent — RMS sings well and he's got some amateur musicians from Cuba backing him up. Here are the lyrics and an English translation.

An anonymous reader tipped us to a protest song RMS has written and recorded (while visiting Cuba) and is hosting on stallman.org. It's a sort of parody, although it's too serious really to be called that, in Spanish of the song "Guantanamera," in which a Gitmo prisoner talks about his experiences and mourns his fate. RMS wrote the lyrics in 2006 after learning what "Guantanamera" actually means. The lyrics are moving, and the recording, in Ogg, is competent — RMS sings well and he's got some amateur musicians from Cuba backing him up. Here are the lyrics and an English translation.

Slashback tonight brings some corrections, clarifications and updates to previous Slashdot stories, including word from the worlds of corporate patent lawsuits, secretive publishers vs. inquisitive readers in Canada, and the pitiful teachers versus the splendid kids in Pennsylvania. Read on for the details. Sir, this sentence mangling machine is Pl88^74djliivc33mq again! I posted a story earlier this week which scrambled in its summary the facts of the matter. My post, as reader Raymond Fingas points out, said that the "Internet archive ... has been sued by the firm Harding Earley Follmer & Frailey." Fingas was one of several readers (thanks to all!) to correct me on this, writing "According to the linked article that isn't the case; instead they are being sued by Healthcare Advocates, represented by the firm McCarter & English. Further, the article says that Harding Earley Follmer & Frailey is actually being sued along with the Internet Archive.."

Alacritech settles litigation with MSFT and BRCM An anonymous reader writes "Alacritech, Microsoft Corporation and Broadcom Corporation today announced that they have entered into agreements that settle all outstanding disputes between Alacritech and Microsoft, as well as provide Microsoft and Broadcom access to Alacritech's patent portfolio relating to scalable networking. (Previously mentioned on Slashdot here and here.)"

Sir, you have no right to read about your rights. Hobart writes "Richard Stallman has just posted on his personal website a request for his readers to 'Don't Buy Harry Potter Books,' and offered to leak the plot - in protest of the Canadian Supreme Court ruling forbidding the purchasers from reading the books they paid for. A memorable quote in the Times article says '...There is no human right to read.'"

Don'tcha think felony is a bit strong for a few button presses? ZombyHero writes "In a follow-up to a previous story, the 13 high school students from Kutztown, PA charged with felony computer trespassing for violating district usage policy are fighting back. They've hired lawyers have begun talking with the Assistant DA. As a former student of the school, I know that the district is used to getting its way. Hopefully this will knock them down a few notches."

Starship Exeter flies again! An anonymous reader writes "There's a new episode of Starship Exeter, a fan-made feature set in the original series Star Trek universe. The new episode, The Tressaurian Intersection, follows on from The Savage Empire, which was featured on Slashdot before. This time it's better than ever... better than the original series, in fact! You can watch the entire episode online."

Treasure hunts, commence. We've posted quite a few interesting applications for Google's mapping service; now phauly writes "I created an Animated Google Map (with some gnus and mozillas attacking Microsoft office) using Google Maps API. I think it would be easy to create real playable Games on Google Maps. For sharing ideas (and implementations!) I created the Games on Google Maps wiki page. For now some ideas are: risk, freeciv, freecraft, car races on real maps! Feel free to edit the page suggesting/revising/implementing ideas."

mshiltonj writes "You know its what we've all been waiting for: RMS weighs in on the BitKeeper debacle. An excerpt: "I want to thank Larry McVoy. He recently eliminated a major weakness of the free software community, by announcing the end of his campaign to entice free software projects to use and promote his non-free software. Soon, Linux development will no longer use this program, and no longer spread the message that non-free software is a good thing if it's convenient."

Dolda2000 writes "Seeking to achieve 100% software freedom, RMS is now calling for action for a free BIOS. From the article: "The most uncooperative company is Intel, which has started a sham 'open source' BIOS project. The software consists of all the unimportant parts of of a BIOS, minus the hard parts. It won't run, and doesn't bring us any closer to a BIOS that does. It is just a distraction. By contrast, AMD cooperates pretty well." For reference, there are currently two projects for a free BIOS that I know of: LinuxBIOS and OpenBIOS."

wikinerd writes "FSFE, the European branch of Richard Stallman's Free Software Foundation announced that it was granted observer status in WIPO, the international organisation which influences nationwide copyright laws."

ChocLinux writes "A South African organisation has produced what it claims is the first television series dedicated to promoting open source software. The first episode of the show included an interview with Richard Stallman, who founded the GNU project, and Robin Rowe, who runs the Linux Movies Group, which promotes the use of Linux in Hollywood."

tres3 writes "Wired magazine has an excellent four page article discussing Brazil's new approach to Intellectual Property rights. It discusses everything from battling with the international pharmaceutical industries, to song sampling, to the national adoption of Linux. Richard Stallman stated that India's political commitment to free software is second only to Brazil's after attending a weeklong free software teach-in for members of the Brazilian national congress, where 161 out of 594 members of congress, from a broad range of parties, had signed up with the free software caucus - making it one of the largest caucuses in the Brazilian government."

rimberg writes "Richard M. Stallman has a article on NewsForge talking about ways to fight software patents. It mentions the Public Patent Foundation (and why it's a good idea), but argues that fighting patents one by one will never eliminate the danger of software patents, any more than swatting mosquitoes will eliminate malaria." (Newsforge, like Slashdot, is part of OSTG.)

NW writes "In a recent message to the MARID list RMS weighs in on the licensing issues of Sender-ID/SPF and Microsoft: 'Microsoft's Sender-ID license is directly incompatible with free software regardless of which free software license is used. Free software means users are free to run it, study and modify the source, and to redistribute it with or without changes. Free to do so means there is no requirement to ask or tell anyone that you are doing so.'" "MARID" stands for MTA Authorization Records in DNS; here's the IETF MARID working group's charter. (Read more below.)

Stallman's message continues: "The Microsoft license for Sender-ID directly forbids release of software with all these freedoms, so it is impossible for any program to be free software under Microsoft's regime. I've been expecting to see something like this ever since Gates started talking about spam. This license is an example of Microsoft's strategy for killing off free software as an alternative to Windows. Microsoft first patents something, then incorporates it into a format or protocol, then tries to make it de rigueur while excluding those it wishes to exclude. In the absence of resistance, Microsoft has a good chance of imposing whatever standards it likes. Let us, therefore, resist it here and now."

Jay Sulzberger (of New Yorkers for Fair Use) writes: "The Internet Commons Congress 2004 will start at 8:45 am on 24 March in the University of Maryland's Shady Grove campus complex. It will run until the evening of 25 March 2004. Dan Berninger and New Yorkers for Fair Use organized the ICC 2004 because we are extreme optimists: We believe that if we pull together more than we have so far, and if we organize better than we have so far, we can explain to regulators, to U.S. Congressfolk, to reporters, and to most citizens, the most basic facts of our situation. We want more people to know what we know; we want them to know of the world wide culture of freedom and enterprise and engineering that created home computers and that made the Net." (Read on for more.)

"This means conveying some 'technical' facts about the boot process for home computers, and also some 'technical' facts about copyright law in the United States of America, and much more.

In the next few days, descriptions of various projects we need help with will go up on the ICC web sites. Right now, we need places for people to stay near the ICC site, which is in Shady Grove, Maryland. We also need at least one person who can show us a free operating system running on the Xbox, and we'd like to see a St. Ignucious-certifiable OS running on Apple hardware. We need some adepts to help with the gavel-to-gavel audio coverage. We are going to need folks to write to their Representatives and Senators, and more, visit with them and talk with them. If you want to help, write to jays@panix.com, and include the string 'ICC Volunteer' in the subject line." Here's NYFU's page on the gathering.

gnuhead writes "RMS is turning 50 on the 16th, according to this post in the FSF India mailing list. Some of the members have decided to give a birthday gift to RMS by celebrating March 16th to April 15th as 'GNU/Linux' month, and having a 'It's GNU/Linux dammit!' email sig. for this month. Happy birthday RMS!!!"

oever writes "The dutch broadcaster KRO has chosen 365 modern saints or heros. One of them is Linus Torvalds, chosen for his work in on Linux and 'Open Source'. Too bad RMS or Saint Ignuciuis he wasn't chosen, even though he was recommended."

Ender, Duke_of_URL writes: "The Federal Register (PDF) announced the April 12th deadline to nominate someone to the US Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Public Advisory Committee. You can nominate any US citizen by sending a letter and the person's resume can be sent by email."

Mark Cappel writes "According to PCWorld, RMS said in an interview in India that Hurd will see the light of day this year."

phaze3000 writes "RMS, responding to questions from the audience at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil last week, has asked Miguel de Icaza to explain himself to the Free software community about comments made last week that Gnome should be based on .NET in the future. More details at Brazillian site Hotbits and in The Register." I find this amusing.

sombragris writes "I've spotted in NewsForge a very interesting editorial by none other than RMS himself on the subject of getting rid of those annoying MS Word attachment that people send. The essay is worth thinking and doubtless worth implementing." I've found that KWord and Abiword both did a fine job of reading Word files - it's the being able to Save As Word where things get messy.

Findlaw has an excellent essay discussing the history of law in wartime. The author makes the point very elegantly that inter arma silent leges (usually translated "in time of war the law is silent", but I prefer "in the face of arms, the law is silent"). Richard Stallman has an essay on a similar theme, not quite as good, but still worth reading.

Last week you asked Bradley Kuhn, VP of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) questions about working with RMS, his views on software freedom, and much more. He's answered at length below, on everything from becoming a saint to the "web app loophole," perl, and the next iteration of the GPL.

on freedom?
by merlin_jim

How do you view FSF's goal, that stated on their website as The FSF promotes the development and use of free (as in freedom) software ---particularly the GNU operating system(used widely today in its GNU/Linux variant)--- and free (as in freedom) documentation. In particular, how do you interpret what the word free means in respect to software and programmer's rights?

Bradley Kuhn: I believe strongly that all published software should be Free Software. Users should get all the freedoms as defined in the Free Software Definition. Namely, each person who receives a copy of a software program should have the freedom to study, copy, share, modify, redistribute and (optionally) redistribute modified versions of that program.

But that's surely no surprise--if I didn't believe that, I certainly wouldn't enjoy working for the FSF. ;)

As for the other half of your question, "programmer's rights," I certainly think programmers, like all users, have a right to all those freedoms I mention above. However, programmers don't deserve any "rights" that infringe on the freedoms of others. Often in society, we decide that the right to act a certain way should be limited because it infringes on the freedom of others.

For example, in the USA, white people used to have the right to own slaves. As a society, we eventually decided that this right was too restrictive on the freedom of the people who served as slaves. Because of that decision, it is now illegal to own slaves in the USA.

Our society took away the "freedom" to own slaves. Today, no one would even argue that owning slaves is a freedom. People now say that slavery is an inappropriate power that one person holds over another person.

Today, some argue that the "right to choose your own software license" is the greatest software freedom. By contrast, I think that, like slavery, it is an inappropriate power, not a freedom. The two situations both cause harm, and they differ only in the degree of harm that each causes.

Proprietary software is an exercise of power, and it harms the users by denying their freedom. When users lack the freedoms that define Free Software, they can't tell what the software is doing, can't check for back doors, can't monitor possible viruses and worms, can't find out what personal information is being reported (or stop the reports, even if they do find out). If it breaks, they can't fix it; they have to wait for the developer to exercise its power to do so. If the software simply isn't quite what they need, they are stuck with it. They can't help each other improve it.

Discussions of rights and rules for software use have usually concentrated too much on the interests of programmers alone. Few people in the world program regularly, and fewer still are owners of proprietary software businesses. But the entire developed world now needs and uses software, so decisions about software determine what kind of world we have. Software developers now control the way the world lives, does business, communicates and is entertained. The ethical and political issues cannot be avoided under the slogan of "freedom of choice (for developers only)."

The real question we now face is: who should control the code you use--you, or an elite few? We (in the Free Software Movement) believe you are entitled to control the software you use, and giving you that control is the goal of Free Software.

Current copyright law places us in the position of dictator for our code, whether we like it or not. We cannot escape making some decisions for others, so our decision is to proclaim freedom for each user, just as the bill of rights exercises government power by guaranteeing each citizen's freedoms. That is what the GNU GPL is for: it puts you in control of your usage of the software, while protecting you from others exercising their dictatorial power. This is the ethical choice, in a situation where laws give us and others such power.

New term for "Free"?
by abischof

Is the FSF brainstorming any ideas on alternatives to the term "Free"? Unlike many other languages, it seems that English does not have separate words for "without cost" and "having freedom." So, we in the Open Source community end up using phrases such as "free as in beer" or "Free with a capital 'F'" (neither of which are immediately intuitive to the public at large).

Much better, I think, would be to come up with a new adjective to describe such Free software ("Free" with a capital "F", that is). One idea that has been batted about is "liberated software," but that has the connotation of "stolen software" to some people. Of course, this isn't to say that the term "Free" wouldn't be used anymore -- but it would be nice to have an alternative for use at, for example, picnics or family gatherings.

BK: I find it odd that you talk the question in terms of the "Open Source community". The term "Open Source" is typically used to focus the discussion away from talking about freedom. Thus, a question about the drawbacks of the adjective "free" seems strange when in the context of "Open Source". But, nevertheless, I am glad to see an Open Source supporter talking more about freedom! Thank you for doing that.

By the way, I don't think about the "Open Source community" as a distinct entity. There are two movements afoot: the Free Software Movement, whose focus is the political and ethical issues of software freedom, and the Open Source Movement, whose focus is to avoid political issues of freedom, and to talk about the technological benefits of "Open Source". The movements differ greatly because their fundamental philosophies and motivations are different.

However, together we form one community---the same community that started in 1984 when the Free Software Movement started. In 1998, within that community, we had another movement start up with a different focus, but we've always been together in one community. Thus, I hope you'll think of the community as including both the Free Software Movement and the Open Source Movement, and remember that it originally started as the Free Software community. At the very least, please call it the "Free Software and Open Source community", so that Free Software isn't left completely out of the picture.

As to your question about the adjective "free," we in the Free Software Movement have never come across a term that has any great advantage over the term "Free Software."

The term "liberated software", which you mention, has a clear drawback in that it only applies to software that was once proprietary software, and is now Free. GNU Emacs, for example, was never proprietary software, so it isn't "liberated software."

Fortunately, there are lots of ways to clear up the confusion, and make up for English's shortcomings. Many of us say "free (as in freedom) software" when there is ambiguity.

Others say "software libre" or "free (libre) software", using the Spanish word to make things clear. In fact, whenever I am speaking to an audience that I know will fully understand what "libre" is (in Europe, for example), I favor the term "Libre Software".

Also, when talking about the general concept of what we stand for, I always use the term "software freedom". This doesn't change what we call the software *itself*---that's Free Software---and there's really no other good term for it. But, the term "software freedom" gives an easy way of talking about the overall concept that is completely unambiguous.

So, while the term Free Software does have some drawbacks, the confusions are easy enough to clarify, and the drawbacks here are fewer than the other alternatives. Also, using the various methods that I mention here can work well together to help clear up any confusion.

Next big technical effort?
by Lumpish Scholar

Congratulations on the release of version 3.0 of the GNU Compiler Collection. This is the cumulation of a lot of work by contributors to the GNU project from all over the world. What do you see as the GNU project's next big release? Mono and DotGNU? Bayonne? Something else?

BK: You are quite correct that the GNU project is a collaborative work of contributors from around the world. It's the work of a cooperating community---no one person deserves the credit: the congratulations go to the GNU project as a whole. (BTW, I encourage you to thank the GNU project by reminding people that the system so often called "Linux" is actually the GNU system with Linux as its kernel).

As for the next "big" release: it's hard to say. We don't force any sort of schedules on GNU developers---they work as best they can, and put a release out when they see it as ready. So, I might be surprised to find out next week some major project is ready for a big release. So, I cannot make any prediction as to what the next big release will be, as I could easily end up being proven wrong later. (However, FWIW, a project that I know is getting close to a big release is GNU Emacs 21.)

FSF and the cause?
by Lumpy

What is your stance on Software protection? In the FSF stance, what would you do or recommend to be done if (check that if -- WHEN) a GNU program and programmer is attacked in a way that will be very like what we see with Dimitri. Many of the GNU programs and software packages are, as far as I am concerned, in real danger of being attacked or persecuted by large corporations. With laws like the DCMA and other unbelievable laws that are being drafted as bills every day, What do you think can be done to protect this freedom?

BK: We must all act politically and speak out to defend our freedom. I feel as you do that we are about to enter a rough period in the history of the Free Software Movement. Large corporations such as proprietary software companies and entertainment companies now have a financial interest in restricting various software freedoms that many of us currently take for granted.

We might very well have to fight for this freedom in courts in the USA or elsewhere. We are preparing ourselves for this possibility, and we will rise to the challenge if it comes to that. The FSF is saving up money in case we need to fight a legal battle. Eben Moglen is also working with large donors to set up a separate Free Software Legal Fund.

Meanwhile, the best thing we can do is to work hard to get laws like the DMCA repealed. We encourage everyone in the USA to contact their congressional representatives, and explain why the DMCA is harmful.

Another way you can help fight the DMCA is to attend the "Free Dmitry Sklyarov March" on the Federal Building in San Francisco on Thursday, 30 August 2001. The USA government is prosecuting Dmitry, under DMCA, for making a particular program available to the public. Please join the protest---everyone is meeting outside the Moscone center in San Francisco at 11:30 in the morning on August 30th.

On another matter, please make your congress-person aware of the threat of software patents! Software patents are harmful to Free Software, but they also hurt just about any software developer who doesn't work for a big corporation that has access to large patent pools. Let people know the threat that software patents have for small software businesses and Free Software.

If you live in Europe, please help fight the possible EU decision to approve software patents.

At home?
by cnkeller

So, what types of software do you use at home?

BK: I use only Free Software on all computers that are under my control, which include the ones I use for my work at the FSF and my home computer.

I use Official Debian GNU/Linux ("testing" on my work laptop, "stable" on my home desktop machine).

As for specific programs, I spend most of my day using an email client, and I use mutt running inside GNU Emacs' ansi-term. (It sounds weird, but it really works well for me.) I use GNU Emacs for all of my editing, text manipulation, and the like.

I have always been more command-line-oriented than GUI-oriented, so I run a minimal X Windowing System desktop. I use sawfish as my window manager, which I really like, because I can script it so I rarely have to use the mouse.

I use Mozilla when I need a graphical web browser, but also use a mix of links, lynx, and Emacs/w3 when graphics aren't needed.

I use GnuCash to manage my personal finances. I really enjoy that program, as I am pretty pedantic about keeping track of ever penny I spend. If you ever go to dinner with me, you'll notice that I ask for a receipt for everything: that's so I can come home and type it into GnuCash. ;)

Related to that, I'll mention this additional amusing story since someone else asked what my "position" is in the "Church of Emacs". I officially became a saint in the Church of Emacs on 31 December 1999. I had given up nearly all non-Free Software in April 1998, but until December 1999, I still used one non-Free Software program: Quicken running under WINE. I finally got the time to convert my files over to GnuCash, and decided that I'd make a clean break with the new year (2000), and fully switch to GnuCash.

Thus, GnuCash made it very easy for me to move into full sainthood. ;) And, I've never looked back. I feel so much better using and developing only Free Software now.

The one thing I am still missing is a "saint name". At one point, I'd thought of another existing saint whose name sounded good with a "gnu" in the middle (like IGNUcius). Sadly, I didn't write it down right away, and promptly forgot. If anyone has ideas for a saint name, let me know. ;)

But, please keep in mind the the entire idea of a "Church of Emacs" and saints therein is just a joke. Sometimes, people get confused and think that Emacs really is a religion. It's not a religion, even if it is a way of life for some of us. ;)

Apple and the FSF
by imac.usr

Now that Mac OS X and Darwin are out, Apple obviously has a vested interest in supporting the FSF. They have been trying to get changes to gcc for Altivec support and PPC optimization merged back into the tree, and they are showing at least some support for both Open Source and Free Software. Plus, development of more Cocoa software should in theory lead to better support of GNUStep in the future. With these changes, has the FSF's opinion of/relationship with Apple changed since the boycotting of the '80s, or is it still more or less adversarial?

BK: Today, our feeling toward Apple is like our feeling toward most software companies who do both Free Software and proprietary software. We thank them for their Free Software contributions, but still push them to go further in supporting software freedom. We have to judge each action separately. Some things that Apple does are good for the Free Software community, and some things it does are bad Free Software community.

Apple has allowed many of its employees to contribute to various GNU programs, and we are glad that they have done so. But Apple still develops lots of proprietary software and for that we criticize them.

Also, I wouldn't say that Apple "obviously has a vested interest in supporting the FSF". They clearly have some interest in helping certain Free Software projects (such as GCC and GDB), but I don't think they are really dedicated to the goal of software freedom. For them, it's likely only a pragmatic necessity that leads them to support some Free Software projects.

I also should mention that it was only a partial victory for freedom in January 2001 when Apple released APSL 1.2. They came much closer to a Free Software license than the APSL 1.0, but they fell short by continuing to require that "deployed" versions in an organization be published. Thus, they still restrict the important freedom of private modifications.

I hope that Apple will take that final step in the next version of the license and make the APSL into a Free Software license. I urge those of you who use code released by Apple under the APSL to work at convincing Apple to make the change.

How can you get the average person to support FSF?
by ColGraff

How is the FSF going to compete with Microsoft and other closed-source-companies in public relations with the non-tech-savvy masses? Microsoft has legions of corporate and individual clients (and partners in other projects) extolling the virtues of closed-source, and spreading all sorts of vile lies about the Free Software Movement. How do you and Stallman plan to bring the goals and ideology of the FSF to the average person in a way he/she can understand and appreciate? It seems to me that without widespread public support of the FSF, judges and legislatures will tend to support the big corporate interests that (in the case of the legislators) pay for their campaigns in any conflict, such as a GPL violation case or software laws.

So, how will you rally the non-techie public to the FSF and GPL, dispelling the image of both as the product of socialist, somewhat freaky nerds? And how will you pay for such a campaign?

BK: Fortunately, we are fighting for rights of people---the same people who ultimately elect the legislators who represent us. Today, many people are beginning to feel corporate interests encroaching on their rights, and we simply need to empower them with tools to do something about it. We began our efforts reaching out to highly technical people and have been quite successful at creating momentum for Free Software alternatives to proprietary software.

Now, reaching non-technical people is an active goal for us, and we are open to ideas. I am a hacker (in the original, positive sense of the term), so I am much more comfortable talking to those who develop software. However, I am trying to retrain myself to learn how to think as non-hackers, politicians, and judges think, so that I can better deliver our message to them.

Recently, I changed my mode of dress to be a bit more traditional, and I cut my long hair. I did this in part because my fiancee wanted me to, but also in part because I realize that non-hackers are sometimes threatened by the "typical hacker style." This actually wasn't my idea; I got it from Jello Biafra, a social commentator and spoken-word artist (who is most famous for leading the now-defunct punk band "Dead Kennedys"). Jello pointed out that the "Halloween costume" approach (i.e., wearing clothes that seem like a costume to you, but are "normal" to most people) can really work when trying to reach people who don't agree with you. Some people are uncomfortable enough with our ideas, and if our dress, clothing, piercings, or mannerisms turn them off, they won't even take the time to listen to our ideas. Since I was never that attached to long hair and my "t-shirt and jeans," I decided to make the changes, in case it might help to reach such people who would otherwise be turned off. I kept the beard, though, because I really don't want to shave every morning!

That's an example of a superficial change that I've personally done to make myself more accessible to non-hackers. I also think a lot about how our work can improve everyone's life, and I always try to address my points to a person's individual concerns. For example, when talking to teachers, I often point out that proprietary software puts students at a disadvantage. The best way to learn to be a great programmer is to study the historical works of programming and to try to make them better. Only Free Software gives the freedoms required to learn well. Teachers often connect with this point, or at least it raises for them some cognitive dissonance about their school's use of proprietary software.

The point here is that you have to give each person reasons for software freedom that are relevant to her daily life. The best way I've found to do this is to imagine that person's use of software, and express to her how freedom could make her life better.

If you are trying to convince a large group of non-hackers about Free Software, please keep in mind that the FSF has a speakers' list and several on the list are excellent at reaching non-hackers. Eben Moglen, for example, is a law professor and is an excellent speaker on our behalf. Tony Stanco, who started FreeDevelopers, is also a lawyer and is good at reaching non-hackers. We also have Robert J. Chassell, who has been involved with the FSF since its inception, and he is very good at speaking with the non-hacker business community.

But, it's up to each of us to speak out about software freedom when we talk with others. Please help us. If anyone has additional ideas on how we can reach non-hackers with the message of software freedom, we'd love to hear from you.

As to the question of how we will pay for it, this is the reason we are 501(c)(3) charity. Part of what we use our funds for is these sorts of advocacy efforts.

BTW, just as "Open Source" is not what we advocate, "closed source" is not what we're against. The opposite of Free software is proprietary software. We have been working for 17 years now to replace proprietary (non-Free) software with Free software. All closed source software is non-Free, but some open source software is also non-Free.

GPL for web-apps
by webmaven

As both Bruce Perens and Tim O'Reilly have pointed out, it is possible to publicly deploy a web-app that is derived from GPL'd software without having to distribute your modifications.

While I certainly feel that it should be possible to do this for applications that are deployed internally without having the deployment count as 'distribution,' I am less happy about deployments on public websites. I would want web-applications that I create to have an additional 'public-performance' clause in their license that would require modifications that are publicly deployed to be made available in source form.

This is the so-called 'web-app loophole,' and I was wondering what your thoughts on the matter were?

BK: When a web application is run to provide a service to the public, I believe that the service provider has an ethical obligation to make the software available as Free Software to the users of that application.

Of course, we realize that the GNU GPL, version 2, does not require this. But, calling it a loophole is an exaggeration. The GPL does prohibit the worst possible wrongdoing, which is to publish a non-Free version of a Free program. In the case of web services, it doesn't prohibit a lesser form of wrongdoing.

As it turns out, it is a hard legal problem to figure out if a copyright license can even try to make this sort of requirement. This is something RMS and Eben Moglen are working on for the GPL, version 3.

Work on the GPL, version 3, has been on hiatus for nearly two years. First, work stopped so that we could do the GNU Free Documentation License (GNU FDL). After that was done, GPLv3 work was slowed substantially by personal matters that kept Eben Moglen from doing pro bono work for us during much of late 2000 and early 2001. Work on GPLv3 is just getting moving again.

I should note that it was well worth it to spend the time on the GNU FDL. It has gained adoption, as print publishers are discovering that there is a way to license their books that gives freedom and is profitable. For the first time, we can begin recommending that GNU users buy some books released by the commercial publishers. It's a very short list, but it is growing. (You can see this list on our website).

RMS
by Cirvam

How is working with RMS? If compromise is needed does he give in or does he stick to his line no matter what?

BK: RMS never compromises on matters of ethics. This is, of course, something that makes me quite glad. The last thing we want is the president of the FSF saying: "Oh, well, we might as well permit people to distribute proprietary versions of GPL'ed software." And, fortunately, I agree with the ethical positions that the FSF takes, so I never have disagreements on ethical matters with RMS.

RMS and I do disagree from time to time on matters of tactics, and on practical and technical matters. In these cases, I have found RMS to be strong-willed, but not uncompromising. In fact, when I compare RMS to other hackers that I know, he is among one of the most fair and even-handed. RMS always hears out the point of view of all sides and asks good questions to clarify the data and people's positions.

I have never known him to make a decision rashly, and he always seeks feedback from others before making any major decision. And, if we can prove to him that we have a better way to do something, and can back it up with evidence, he will change his mind.

In short, it's easy to lump "taking a firm ethical stance" together with "uncompromising". I believe these are separate issues, and I would say that RMS takes a firm ethical stance, but is willing to compromise on issues that don't impact an ethical position.

'Raving Lunatic' Image?
by Bilbo

In spite of all of RMS's great understanding of the working of Free Software, and his passion for promoting real Freedom, he has unfortunately picked up this image of a foaming-at-the-mouth raving lunatic pinko. How to you plan to combat this image, without compromising on the real issues behind Free Software, or the passion with which the FSF promotes these ideals?

BK: It's easy to dismiss someone as a "lunatic" if they are the only a few people standing up for a particular point of view. Some people once thought that abolitionists, suffragettes, and union organizers were "foaming-at-the-mouth raving lunatics", too.

For years, RMS stood up firmly for software freedom, and thus some people attacked RMS in that unfair and inaccurate way. He is still standing for software freedom all these years later, but now there are many more standing with him, including me. The best way for us in the Free Software community to combat the "lunatic" image is to stand for software freedom with him. As more people take a strong ethical stance for software freedom, those who use this underhanded tactic will find it less useful.

The ultimate solution is to change USA political sensibilities, so that USAmericans don't immediately label someone as a "lunatic" or "pinko" simply because (s)he puts freedom, community and goodwill as higher goals than the profits of shareholders. RMS has said publicly that he isn't a communist, and he isn't. As for "foaming-at-the-mouth" and "raving", those are just insults designed to turn those who don't know him away from what he stands for.

We responded to that attack by pointing out that our positions are actually in the spirit of what the USA is all about. I wrote an essay about this, and RMS did, too.

You know, when I hear the word "pinko", I can't help but associate it with the first time I ever heard that word. "Pinko" was the word that Archie Bunker always called his son-in-law, Mike "Meathead" Stivic, on the USA television show All in the Family.

It's interesting to me because, as a child in the early 1980s, that character, Mike Stivic, was the first person I ever saw on television talking about the kinds of social change and political views that I believed in. Of course, Mike wasn't a pinko, except in Archie's distorted thinking about the issues. Today, I can't hear the word "pinko" without thinking of Archie Bunker.

Your opinion on Java
by jsse

Your perljvm -- The Perl to Java Virtual Machine Compiler -- is impressive. I believe you've the authority to answer this question.

Sun has its sole control to their Java VM, and the control is extended to other JVM versions. As Richard said, free software build on non-free platform/program is useless to Free World.

We had much expectation on kaffe. However, it has halted its development long time ago, since Microsoft made business deals with Transvirtual. The only free JVM is basically dead now.

I'd like to have your opnion on this: do you have Java in your vision of Free World?

Thanks!

BK: You didn't ask the perljvm question that I was expecting: "Why isn't it done yet?" ;) (The answer to that one is: I've been working so much for my official duties at the FSF, I haven't had time to hack on it!)

But, your question is an interesting one. I certainly agree that we have to watch Sun, or any other company that exerts efforts over a 'de-facto' standard, closely, to make sure we can implement that standard in Free Software.

However, in the case of the Java environment, I am not too worried. I agree that Kaffe development seems to have slowed, but that is likely because the VM itself is quite stable and usable. (I use it as a development environment for perljvm.) I have heard they are pushing to make it compatible with newer versions of the Sun's proprietary software JVM, and I am happy to hear it.

In addition, now that GCJ has been fully integrated with GCC, Java, the language, is a first-class citizen in the GNU system. I think as time goes on, we'll see even more Java support on GNU systems. I recently saw, for example, that the GNOME-GCJ bindings are getting pretty good. So, I think that support for Java in the Free Software World is going to grow and get better, not wane. Eventually, I believe that the installed base of free Java platforms will grow enough that Sun won't be able to make incompatible changes without coordinating with the Free Software community, lest they have an outcry from the user base.

But, with Java, as with any software technology, we must keep watch for proprietary software twists that can leave the Free Software community constantly playing "catch-up". This threat exists for any technology, though, as long as we continue to live in a world with proprietary software.

In practical terms, for users of this technology, this means that we must only use those features of a technology supported with Free Software. If you are a Java programmer, make sure that your software runs in Kaffe and GCJ first, and don't make changes that require the use of a proprietary software Java environment.

Hardware Companies?
by 2400-n-8-1

Do you and/or the FSF support any certain hardware or hardware companies to go with free software?

Does the FSF have anything in mind to deal with hardware issues in the future?

BK: The important issue with hardware is to make sure that it can be controlled completely with Free Software. Some hardware companies are friendly enough to release their drivers as Free Software. Others cooperate enough to give full specifications, so that at least we can write our own drivers to compete with their proprietary ones. Sadly, some hardware companies still work against us, by keeping the interfaces to the hardware secret.

You, the hardware-buying public, have the power to change this situation by not purchasing any hardware that can't be run with Free Software. You can do even more to help by informing hardware companies that you would have bought their hardware if they'd only made a Free Software driver available.

There's a threat to freedom every time a new hardware device is released. We as a community have to watch closely and make sure that each exciting new hardware technology is fully supported with Free Software.

For a long time, we've wanted someone to build a full list of hardware vendors and note how friendly they were and are to Free Software. Compatibility HOWTOs exist, but this would be a list that gave reports of how much a given vendor helped us. If anyone wants to work on this, please let me know.

The Middle Initial
by Emil Brink

So, I notice that you share a middle initial of 'M' with RMS. The natural question then, becomes: what does your 'M' stand for? ;^) Also, for comparison's sake, what does RMS' stand for? I've actually wondered this for quite a while, but my (obviously worthless) attempts to surf it up have all failed. Thanks. BK: As people already noted on the slashdot comments, RMS' M stands for Matthew, or its pun variant: "Math You." ;) My M stands for "Michael," which sadly has no pun variant that I can think of. ;)

Food (ask, he'll understand)
by nowt

Gold Star or Skyline? Aglamesis or Graeters?

BK: I was amazed at how many people referenced my time in Cincinnati in the questions. I lived in Cincinnati for only four years before moving to Cambridge, MA. I lived in Baltimore for nearly 24 years, yet no one asked me my favorite restaurant in Baltimore ;), (which, BTW, is now closed: the Hacienda on Bel Air Road at Moravia).

But back to nowt's question: I never even went into Gold Star, but it seemed like they didn't have any vegetarian options on their menu. (I've been a vegetarian for about nine years.) Skyline had a few vegetarian items, so I ate there occasionally. My friend Matthew really hated eating there, so we stopped going on his account.

I heard of Aglamesis, but never went there. There was a Graeters not too far my apartment (I used to live near Clifton and Ludlow, as a slashdot comment mentioned), and my fiancee really loved Graeters' Chocolate cake with chocolate icing. We made sure we bought one a few weeks before leaving to have it one last time.

The Cincinnati food item that I miss most, though, is Adriatico's pizza. When he visited Cincinnati, RMS tried a piece and liked it too. I like Bertucci's, which is a brick oven pizza chain that started here in Somerville, MA, but I really miss that Adriatico's garlic crust.

Of course, I'll have to give it all up if I go completely vegan, which I've been thinking about doing. (For now, I have just resolved to reduce my dairy and egg intake by about a half.)

"Why do you answer Richard's email for him?"
by Anonymous Coward

Bradley, I've heard that you read Richard Stallman's email and replies to it, signing Richard's name rather than your own with no indication that someone else wrote the reply. In fact, I've gotten a couple of emails from "Richard" that definitely seemed like they were not written by him -- they directly contradicted things he'd said in other emails and did not sound like his style. How can you ethically justify this? Isn't it totally dishonest to sign email with someone else's name?

I do not recall ever posting nor emailing something with RMS' name on it unless RMS himself specifically gave me the text and said: "Send this as me." I do this from time to time, since RMS' network connectivity is sometimes spotty when he travels. Once or twice, I may have made very trivial edits to the text, if I saw a typo or an incorrect URL, but if I did that, I sent the text back to RMS so he knew what change I made.

One of the tasks that I was originally hired to do at the FSF was help RMS handle his huge email spool. The original idea we had was that I'd compose candidate responses, send them to RMS, and he'd decide whether or not to use them.

This ended up not working out, because RMS had to spend time editing the candidates, and it didn't save much time. However, there may have been times that RMS sent a response that was mostly written by me. But, he always saw the text and agreed that he wanted to say that first.

We at the FSF never say something came from RMS unless he approved the text (save a very rare minor typo fix, which we always inform him of after the fact).

Note, though, that there have been a number of cases of people impersonating RMS, particularly on slashdot. I believe that the slashdot staff got this under control, but what you may have seen are RMS impostors.

Most of these impostors do make statements that contradict what RMS would say. However, there's one particular case of an RMS imposter who made good points about software freedom that we agreed with. We tried to get in touch with him, to enlist his help in a non-imposter way to make points about Free Software. But, sadly, we never found him.

BTW, I'd like to note that unless I am in a big hurry or not at my own machine (both of which are rare), I GPG-sign all my messages with my GPG key. Even when I answer a general-contact addresses, such as <gnu@gnu.org>, you'll know that I answered by the GPG-signature.

RMS also has a GPG key, and occasionally he might be willing to sign a message if you are unsure about whether or not he wrote it. But, it's somewhat inconvenient for him to GPG-sign messages, so if people ask for it too much, he will likely not be able to oblige everyone.

There's more to the Free Software Foundation than Richard M. Stallman, you know. Like bkuhn, AKA Bradley M. Kuhn, who has been a full-time employee of the organization since February '01 and has taken over some of the duties that were previously RMS's exclusive province. Got a question for bkuhn about the FSF -- or anything else? Post it below. We'll select 10 of the highest-moderated questions, forward them to bkuhn, and post his replies as soon as we get them back.

Sheetrock writes: "According to a press release from the Free Software Foundation, Richard M. Stallman will be delivering a speech entitled "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation" at the New York University campus at 10:00AM on Tuesday, May 29, 2001. This speech is expected to counterbalance the one given at the university earlier this month by Craig Mundie of Microsoft (entitled "The Commercial Software Model"). Hopefully, this will get OGGed like some of RMS's other speeches so that those of us who can't attend will still get to listen to his rebuttal." Both Free and Open to the public.

pjones writes: "This just in! Open Source is bad for companies and countries too. In a New York Times article (registration required), John Markoff reports that: "In a speech defending Microsoft's business model, to be given on Thursday at the Stern School of Business at New York University, Craig Mundie, a senior vice president at Microsoft and one of its software strategists, will argue that the company already follows the best attributes of the open-source model by sharing the original programmer's instructions, or source code, more widely than is generally realized." Singled out for particular rebuke and scorn are IBM and the famous GPL and its author Richard Stallman. Who will be there to cheer Craig on?" See also ESR's dispatch on same. (Read below for update with time and place.)

Update: 05/03 01:55 PM by T : cananian points to this announcement on time and place. The upshot: from noon to 1:30 p.m, in room 1-70 of NYU's Kaufman Management Center (KMEC), 44 West 4th Street.

e271828 writes "Brian Kernighan, Marvin Minsky, Ron Rivest, and Richard Stallman are among the CS stalwarts that have jointly filed an amici curiae brief supporting the EFF and 2600. The brief, hosted on Cryptome makes for excellent reading." This is to accompany the appeal that we mentioned a few days ago.

senfman writes "The German News Service Heise Onilne writes in this article, that the Free Software Foundation Europe was founded. The four founding members are Germans who look for people in other european countries to support them. The FSF Europe is going to cooperate with Richard M. Stallman to make sure that there are no differences between this institutions." Excellent.

qbasicprogrammer writes: "Vital Source Technologies is now providing time-limited medical textbooks to universities. Password protected books as predicted in The Right To Read by Richard Stallman are finally becoming a reality." Starting on Oct. 28, (when the other part of the DMCA comes into effect), you could face a civil lawsuit and criminal penalties of up to five years in jail and a fine of $500,000 for reading someone else's textbook. See the NYU FAQ, the Advogato discussion, or the company crowing about new revenue opportunities.

tommyd writes: "In the discussion following this editorial at Freshmeat, Matthias Ettrich of KDE fame claims that it's OK for a commercial application to use GPL'd libraries. I've never heard such a claim before. It would certainly make this plea from RMS redundant (not to mention the LGPL), but could spell bad things for GPL'd software generally. What's the Slashdot community's opinion?"

If you've tossed and turned wondering whether the Plan 9 License is Free or merely free, or tossed back the warm milk and cookies waiting for the first stabilizations for XFree86 4.0 to arrive, or counted sheep as you daydream about a cheap Linux-based terminal without monthly fees, or forced deep breathing exercises to get over the thought that perhaps you could doing something to stamp out discourteous Web page behavior ... relax. Go to sleep right after you read these updates.

How soon is now? Unlike a lot of cool-sounding soon-to-be-released, wouldn't-it-be-cool promiseware, it's interesting to see hardware that actually makes it to market before its underlying idea is doomed by advances sweeping past. Larry Ellison's $199 Linux box mentioned on Slashdot a while back appears to have reached that point. The NIC Web site has changed, and no longer is the only way to order one donating it to an underserved school.

Why don't you find out for yourself? jesser writes "Many slashdotters asked on the lock-in attack story whether/when mozilla would be safe from this type of attack. Here are some links to bugzilla bug entries in case any slashdotters would like to work on making mozilla more secure:

• bug 29346: Prevent repeating pop-up windows
• bug 33448: disable 'new window' when close box clicked
• bug 22049: javascript alert should not put up extermely modal dialog"

You've got everything now. Patrick Mullen writes "I just finished my review of XFree86 4.0.1. I've had a lot of requests to see a feature on this when it hit (apparently they liked the last article), and here it is. There's benchmarks, overview of the bug fixes, and new features. In addition to the review, I've also got the new NVidia 0.9-4 drivers which allow NVidia's line of cards to function correctly on XFree86 4.0.1 available on the website-and these are not available on even NVidia's website at the time."

That joke isn't funny any more. A number of readers wrote in with harsh words about the report that Apple forced the removal of rumors regarding an alleged next-generation translucent-cased machine.

Kaufmann, for instance, wrote: "Remember the whole story about MOSR's article regarding the new generation of Macs getting pulled at the request of Apple Legal? Well, an Alan Smithee is claiming that it's a hoax. To prove it, he's put up the very same article on the Personal Homepage service provided by Apple at Mac.com. Further investigation seems necessary." Note: not that putting an article on Apple's Personal Homepage service proves it's worthiness, but it does beg the question of Apple being quick to pounce on it. "Alan Smithee" doesn't exactly inspire confidence either, though -- that's the pseudonym directors traditionally use to distance themselves from films they consider too bad to bear their real names;)

Similarly, an unnamed correpsondent had this to say: "The Apple cube that has been talked about the past few days is a total hoax. Some guy sent an email with fake specs to MacOSRumors and they posted it. Kind of makes one question the credibility of Ryan Meader saying that Apple forced him to take it down. Anyways you can see the fake email at: [this link]."

Stop me if you think you've heard this one before ... QBasic_Dude writes "Richard Stallman wrote about the Problems of the Plan Nine License. Technocrat has a discussion about this, and so does Advogato."

Richard cites what he considers odious provisions in the putatively "open source" Plan 9 license (like this one: "You agree to provide the Original Contributor, at its request, with a copy of the complete Source Code version, Object Code version and related documentation for Modifications created or contributed to by You if used for any purpose.") and responds with typical Stallman pithiness, "This prohibits modifications for private use, denying the users a basic right." There's much more to read there, and worth your time. (As are the discussions at Advogato and Technocrat!)

Proctors dropped us the following note after jetting home from the Global Linux 2000 meeting in Seoul, Korea. His account is brief, but it conveys a spirit of adventure and fun which only the thought of an RMS / ESR sing-along can.

Back from Korea and Global Linux 2000 with a killer case of jet-lag. All I gotta say is: it was an amazing experience. The show started with a ribbon cutting ceremony: Cliff Miller of Turbo, Tim Ney, the U.S. ambassador, the Korean minister of information and communication, among others, were all handed white gloves and a pair of scissors by a group of young women dressed in traditional Korean dresses. On the count of three, everyone cut the ribbon at once -- in front of a huge crowd of people and a corps of press.

In fact, that has to be one of the most incredible things about Global Linux 2000 -- Here we are: the North and South are reconciling after 50 years, Bill Gates is in town and the media kept showing up over and over in droves to cover the show and conference. It was a media flack's wet dream -- believe me, I know. It showed the enthusiasm of the Koreans for Linux.

But that wasn't the only miracle: ESR and RMS sat together briefly at a dinner reception for the participants in the Linux Greenhouse and friends. It was my birthday and after everyone sang "Happy Birthday," Richard stood up and did his own version -- only to be followed by Eric. I was sitting there, listening to them both sing to me and all I could think was "This is a oner." But it got better ...

The Greenhouse was going fab. The reason I got into this - why I love it (besides the obvious -- the pure genius of the hackers, basic principals of it) was for the enthusiasm. It's catching. And the Greenhousers are no different. This is a multi-national group of people who have companies that are doing everything from programming GNOME for PDAs to teaching GNU/Linux to more than 700,000 adult students in Sweden. They had meetings, they hacked, they danced together on the dancing machines that are the big thing in Korea -- kind of like karaoke for your feet.

Speaking of karaoke -- a bunch of us piled into this bus to go to the night market in Seoul and discovered that the bus was a KARAOKE bus. ESR sang "Deeper Shade of Pale" (he can really sing), and we all sang "We are the Champions." Eric changed the lyrics to "We'll keep on hacking to the end." It was wrong -- very, very wrong.

The night market is a giant, monolithic monument to entrepreneurship that's open all-night, every night. Hundreds of little stalls hawk everything from dried fish to Linux Sport tennis shoes. I do not lie -- someone in Korea named their shoes 'Linux Sport.' We had to buy a pair, really we did.

Did I mention that EVERYONE has a cell phone? Little old ladies, ten-year-old kids -- the young kids decorate them with 'Hello Kitty' charms and costumes (think Halloween for your cell phone). The food was completely wonderful - except the kimchee. I know, I'm a traitor -- but I have a very hard time getting behind rotten cabbage in hot sauce.

Photos will be posted soon on the Greenhouse site and ESR is threatening to add this trip to his travel diary -- where he'll put this little postcard to shame.

martin writes: "It seems RMS is not impressed by the Open Group's recent release of Motif into the community, according this email sent out on Saturday."