Talk Things Over With Richard M. Stallman

Richard M. Stallman is not everybody's best friend, but in my opinion he is the most unwavering believer in the concept of free software there has ever been. Check gnu.org to learn more about RMS (as he is commonly known) and his many good works. Then post your questions below. We'll select 10-15 of the highest-moderated ones Tuesday afternoon (US EDT) and forward them to RMS by e-mail. His answers will appear within the next week or so.

What (if any) remedy do you favor for Microsoft?

Hello RMS, If you were filing a friend-of-the-court brief in Microsoft's antitrust trial, what remedies (if any) would you recommend for the court to impose on Microsoft? And, more generally, what do you think of Microsoft as a software provider?

Technical Stuff: Emacs Scheme Core

Hi, Sorry for a technical question; I think most of the other questions are on philosophy. Perhaps this will be a nice break?

First, thank you, thank you for emacs.
Second, I was wondering about the transition to a scheme core in emacs. It strikes me that there is so much legacy code written in elisp that you'll need to support this somehow. Will you just lay in an elisp-->scheme interpreter, or will there be two low-level C engines for scheme and elisp?

I see this transition as quite significant in the history of emacs, and I wonder how projects such as this, that have accumulated a large body of working legacy elisp code, have to plan for backward compatability.

How to recover development expenses in a OSS model

How do I convince someone to invest in my idea given the Open Source paradigm.

I'd like to hear Richard answer this one because honestly, I haven't heard a good, business saavy answer.

This is NOT as easy as it seems. People that would invest WILL eventually want to see some project return on their $$$. If the ONLY way you claim to recoup your development expenses is to sell services on the finished product - you've got a problem.

Why? Because GPL allows anyone can pickup your and sell services immediately. No waiting period to allow you to recoup your development expenses (ie, what your investors were paying for). Thus immediately cutting your service marketshare n-ways. (n being the number of people that pickup your program and resell it).

I have yet to see anyone make headway in solving this problem.

Another problem with the service-selling idea, is the usability of your programs MUST be pitiful for you to make a killing in the market (ie, why make the program inheriently easy to use when it would just diminish your profits from selling services down the road?). This is contrary to the noble idea of bring supercomputing power to the masses.

These are two problems I see with how the open source community has positioned themselves. I'd LOVE to see someone fix them, but no one to my knowledge has come forward with a good 'fix' yet.

Thanks,
Tom Gooding

Free software for closed OS's?

The question of free software on closed OS's has come up twice for me recently. I'd like to know your thoughts on these issues.

I write free software (GPL) for PalmOS in my spare time. There is a small, but growing, community of free software authors for PalmOS, and I feel it is important to make an effort to replace some of the (ridiculously-priced, even ignoring the closedness) shareware which is prevalant on this platform. Do you think it's a good idea to work on this kind of thing, when it is unlikely that the PalmOS will ever be freed or (properly) replaced with a free OS? Is it worth working on free software for a non-free platform, when there is a need for the software and a need for it to be free, as opposed to working on free software for a free platform?

Another, similar, issue has recently come up in the PalmOS developer community. About 3 years ago, a free PalmOS development kit based on GCC was released, and it is very popular in the PalmOS developer community - estimates of up to 50% of the developers are using it. This toolkit (version 0.5.0) has now fallen somewhat behind the times, and needed some work, and someone stood up and took over 'ownership' of the toolkit, with the stated intention of producing a newer toolkit based on GCC 2.9x (and feeding the changes back to the GCC maintainers, hopefully for eventual inclusion in the main tree). This work took longer than expected, and before it was completed, Palm Inc. hired the developer to work on it full-time under their auspices. He released it (as version 2.0) earlier on this year and while it (apparently - I haven't actually used it yet) fixes some of the problems, it causes others, and apparently breaks some backwards compatibility. At around the time of this release, someone else (who had never said anything about working on this toolkit before in public, as far as I can tell) announced that he was also working on a modernisation of the toolkit. He released a beta version of his toolkit (version 0.6.0) and has been rather over-enthusiastic in his defence of his version versus the 'official' Palm-sponsored release. The discussion got quite rude at times, with the second developer (the 'owner' of the 0.6.0 release) being quite rude about the design of the 2.0 release, and stating that he felt it was wrong for a Palm employee to work on the GPLed toolkit - that it should be done by a third party so as to keep it independent of the Palm 'party line'.
Anyway, the point of the story is that a large number (probably a majority) of the users of this toolkit are using it on Windows, with the Cygnus Cygwin environment to provide enough of a GNU-ish environment to run the GCC-based toolkit. The 0.6.0 author has stated that he doesn't care about making his toolkit work on Windows, whereas the Palm-employed 2.0 author has treated Windows as something of a priority. My personal feeling is that it is better for Windows users to be using a GCC-based toolkit in a GNU-ish environment (if they cannot be persuaded to move from Windows) than that they use a proprietary toolkit. What are your thoughts?

If this makes no sense, tell me and I'll try to clarify. I haven't bothered naming names above, mainly because they're not important - it's the issue I'm interested in, but the full story is available in various mailing list archives, so it isn't a secret.

Hidden Open Source

Something has always puzzled me about the GPL. Suppose the following: a company/individual has a closed source program that could be improved by some GPL software, so they decide to take the GPL code and put it into their product, but not publish their source. How would the original programmer (the one who wrote the GPL program) discover such an infringement, and what recourse would/could/should they have?

We Desperately Need Updates To The GPL

I'm concerned that GPL restrictions on derived works haven't kept up with software technology. The most pernicious example is CORBA, which lets us create derived works from components that aren't in the same address space at all, yet work seamlessly as if they were. I'd rather not see my GPL work end up in somebody's proprietary program, simply because it's been server-ized to avoid my license restrictions.

A more common problem is dynamic libraries that are distributed separately from the executable. You say that a court would hold those to be devices explicitly used to circumvent the license restrictions, but that's rather chancy, and no substitute for explicit language regarding what is, and what isn't, considered a derived work in the GPL. You seem to be hoping that copyright law will take care of that definition for you, but that doesn't seem to be happening.

There's also the problem of Application Service Providers, who make a work available for people to use without distributing it, and thus would be under no obligation to make the source code of their modifications available. Do I have to see my GPL work abused that way as well?

It seems there's a lot of new technology that the GPL isn't keeping up with. Can't we have some changes to address these things?

Thanks

Bruce Perens

OSS and CSS and the fundamental mindsets behind...

One thing I've never been able to find in your writing...or perhaps I'm missing it, and if so could anyone here enlighten me, is what you believe the fundamental reasonings are behind those choosing to do Open Source Software and those doing Closed Source Software? Is it simply a matter of the all mighty buck vs. the common good? Or is it more complicated and/or deeper then that? I guess what I'm asking is what do you belive the fundamental chism is between the two camps and is there a realistic way to bridge that gap? Or will the two always be fundamentally exclusive to each other?

Another rambling post brought to you by:

SgtPepper

Softening the approach but not the message.

Hokay, here goes:

Over the years, my socio-economic views on software have moved closer to yours. This took me several years and some conceptual revelations. You clearly sussed out the implications of infinitely copyable bits well before anyone else.

However, to the untrained observer, you espouse your points of view with a harsh, impatient energy that many people find off-putting. You stand on the intellectual peak of Free Software, beckoning others to come join you, but when others ask you to point out the logical path you took to get there, you seem to respond, "Isn't it obvious??"

No, it isn't. Not to everyone, anyway. (I'm marginally clever, and I had to pick my own way up the mountain.) Have you considered, if not "softening" the energy of your views, at least conceptually decomposing the path to Free Software so that more people can grok how you got there, and how other people can get there, too?

Schwab

ASP

Mr. Stallman, How do you feel about ASP model of software development and its affects on free software? For example, do you feel that hosted apps (such as yahoo maps, for example) should have GPL'd source code available?

2000... where to?

As one of the most prominent "elder generation" hackers, and as one who has worked extensively with *non*-Unix systems such as ITS and the Lisp Machine, what do you see as an important focus for free software programmers in the near future? My (limited) personal experience with, for example, Lisp vs. C has led me to believe that more productive and useful systems can be designed on high-level languages than C-based ones such as Unix, Windows, BeOS, etc. Is the Unix platform worth keeping on technological merits? I understand the social reasons for adopting Unix as the base for a free-software system; now that we have one, what next?

Support from Hardware Manufacturers

I'm currently attempting to persuade [wgz.org] a hardware manufacturer to provide unobfuscated source code and hardware documentation to free driver writers.

In your opinion, what is the best and/or most effective way to go about this? The court of public opinion? Economic arguments? Pointing out the higher quality of free drivers? Or should I just advise people to move to more enlightened hardware manufacturers.

(Thanks for the GNU/Abacus [abacusworldexpo.com], by the way!)

--

What's Next?

Lets assume for a moment that free software becomes the way business happens. Every company, if it wants to keep shareholder value anyway, opens up the source, makes their softwre free. What's next? Where do you go from there? What do you do for an encore? Or is that the "end of the war" and at that point, GPL protecting our freedoms, you go back to coding?

Where does the open source model break down?

Every system has it's weak points. Where does the open source model (and the GPL) break down and becaome ineffective or inhibiting? What are the alternatives to the open source/GPL model under these circumstances?

Would you like more (free software) kernels?

Richard,

Would you like to see more free software kernels out there, which could be used as part of a GNU system, as the Linux kernel is currently used? Would you like new kernels to be able to compete on a level playing field based on quality, technology and other merits? Would you like to eliminate a major barrier to entry for alternative kernels, including the HURD [gnu.org]?

Enough of the rhetorical questions; here's the real question: Would you reconsider supporting Project UDI [project-udi.org], so that developers don't have to waste time duplicating effort supporting the same devices in one kernel after another?

Yes, I know you've already addressed [gnu.org] this question, but I believe it bears revisiting. Here is a quote from your opening:

If we imagine a number of operating systems and hardware developers, all cooperating on an equal footing, UDI (if technically feasible) would be a very good idea. It would permit us to develop just one driver for any given hardware device, and then all share it. It would enable a higher level of cooperation.

Isn't this exactly the sort of cooperation that free software is intended to encourage? Can't we work towards the ideal you've described? Must we shackle ourselves to poor legacy practices merely because proprietary interests could benefit? The free software community has a lot to gain here in the long term, and it may help us more than the proprietary interests in the end...

At risk of making this posting way too long, let me briefly respond to some of your objections:

• "People could run free GPL-covered Linux drivers with Windows systems." If the GPL-covered drivers are dynamically loaded, this is probably true. However, the cat's out of the bag on this one; the proprietary company could always port the GPL driver to UDI themselves.
• "It would not directly hurt us, either; but the developers of GPL-covered free drivers could be discouraged to see them used in this way, and that would be very bad." Look at the flip side; developers of GPL-covered free drivers might be very encouraged to see their driver used on a wide variety of free kernels, knowing that their efforts have been leveraged to increase the greater good. (This could outweigh the downside of possible use by proprietary systems, couldn't it?)
• "People could run non-free Windows drivers on GNU/Linux systems." The cat's out of the bag on this one already also; since Linus has declared the API between the Linux kernel and device drivers to be public, and not covered by the GPL, it is already possible to distribute proprietary drivers for Linux. (One might try to argue that this is still improper under the GPL, but Linus would have to enforce it, and it appears that he won't.)
• "To the extent that the community began to accept the temptation, we would be moving to using non-free drivers instead of writing free ones." This is a user/developer education issue more than anything. It is important to help people understand the value of freedom for its own sake. Many people have trouble with that concept (witness the struggles of the Libertarian Party), since too many people are willing to sacrifice liberty for convenience. This is an ongoing battle, with or without UDI.
• "But why encourage the community to be weaker than it needs to be? Why make unnecessary difficulties for the future of free software? Since UDI does no good for us, it is better to reject UDI." Having a lack of stable APIs for device drivers makes us weaker. (Look at how often Linux drivers have needed to be recoded to adapt to kernel architectural changes.) Having incompatible drivers between different free operating systems (e.g. Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, HURD) creates unnecessary difficulties, keeping us much more factionalized, which makes us much weaker than Windows. If free operating system developers could cooperate and leverage their efforts, we have a lot to be gained here. What does Microsoft have to gain here? Not much; the hardware vendors will always write drivers for Windows without Microsoft lifting a finger, as long as Windows is the dominant platform. If we could level the playing field with UDI, Microsoft would lose a key strategic advantage they currently enjoy over free operating systems.
• "Given these consequences, it is no surprise that Intel, a supporter of UDI, has started to ``look to the Linux community for help with UDI.'' How does a richand self-seeking company approach a cooperating community? By asking for a handout, of course. They have nothing to lose by asking, and we might becaught off guard and say yes." I agree that Intel was less than tactful in asking (nay, expecting) Linux developers to assume the burden of UDI driver development. (Bear in mind, however, that UDI originated with SCO a number of years before Intel recently jumped on the bandwagon; it started as a standardization attempt for UNIX systems.) Indeed, Intel is hoping to freeload off our efforts. They should have offered some fair compensation for our efforts, such as writing their own UDI drivers for all old and new Intel hardware, and releasing those drivers as free software along with hardware specifications. A commitment like that would have been taken more seriously. Instead, they asked for a handout, and it backfired on them. Now we have many honorable members of the free software community hostile to the idea of UDI (irrespective of the technology) because of the (correct) perception that Intel (and others) would like to take advantage of our efforts in this area. At the same time, "don't cut off your nose to spite your face." Free software can benefit greatly from a common API (whether UDI or not), and refusing to use one because it might help "the enemy" still leaves us in the same mess we've been in for too long. Let's evaluate it on the benefits we can derive, not on the benefits we can deny to the opposition.
• "One way to make a deal a good one could be by modifying the UDI project itself. Eric Raymond has proposed that UDI compliance could require that the driver be free software. That would be ideal, but other alternatives could also work. Just requiring source for the driver to be published, and not a trade secret, could do the job--because even if that driver is not free, it would at least tell us what we need to know to write a free driver." Actually, a good start would be to convince them to honor their commitment to place the specification in the public domain as described in the following paragraph from the "Project UDI Policies and Procedures" page [project-udi.org]:
  
  

  The definition of any specification developed by the working group will be placed in the public domain, not subject to copyright, patent or any other intellectual property right, so that any party may implement or utilize the specification. However, any party may develop and assert intellectual property rights over a particular implementation of the interface.

  This statement couldn't be any more clear, yet the UDI 1.0 specification [project-udi.org] as finally released has an entire page filled to the brim with copyright declarations. A good question for Project UDI is why they failed to follow through on this commitment. (The lawyers probably insisted...)
  
  UDI drivers released by vendors would be valuable to us, even if some of those vendors fail to release their UDI drivers as free software. First, the source to a non-free driver might be published by the vendor, simply to increase market share -- UDI compatibility is only guaranteed at the source level. Even if the source is not released, the UDI driver is tightly constrained; it must funnel all interaction with outside code and actual devices through the UDI environment implementation -- this allows "black box" investigations that can easily see what effects the driver has, even if the source is not available. This should make UDI drivers easier to reverse-engineer than Windows drivers, especially if a special "test-rig" UDI environment implementation was created to facilitate such reverse-engineering.
• "One difficulty with any deal with Intel about UDI is that we would do our part for Intel at the beginning, but Intel's payback would extend over a long time." Not necessarily; we could implement UDI environments for free operating systems and wait for them to start creating some UDI drivers before we put too much more effort into it. After all, they have a vested interested; they'll surely invest some effort into writing drivers if they can't get us to subsidize their bottom line with charity work. Free-software developers might still port some drivers in their own interest (e.g. a FreeBSD hacker porting a Linux driver to UDI, perhaps) but we wouldn't have to "loan" our efforts to Intel (et al) if we choose not to. Even if we don't, we might as well implement UDI environments to take advantage of the work of proprietary companies...

Basically, I believe that a common device-driver API represents the best opportunity for new free operating systems to flourish without having to compete with established free operating systems (much less Windows) on the basis of levels of device driver support. Whether UDI is the best API for this, I don't know. Perhaps UDI will be a dismal failure for performance reasons, as Alan Cox repeatedly insists will be the case. Perhaps a better API will come along. But we need something if we're to stop wasting time retracing our steps over and over again. Right now, UDI seems like the best prospect, and I believe we should embrace it for our own benefit rather than letting fear of possible misuse dissuade us from improving our software and methodology.

Personally, I'd like to play around with writing a new kernel from scratch, even if nobody but me ever uses it. I may never finish (or even start) such a project, or it may never be useful compared to a mature kernel like Linux. Suppose (for the sake of argument) that I do finish it, and it's somehow superior to the design of the Linux kernel (as it sounds like HURD may be) -- would I really want to port all Linux drivers to this kernel and maintain them? Of course not. I'd much rather invest the time once in implementing a UDI environment, and support free-software UDI drivers, unchanged. That's what people mean when they talk about "working smarter, not harder"...

Re:ASP

I'd like to second this, and expand on it; it's one of the most interesting questions so far.

The GPL was designed in a world when networks were slow and software almost always had to be installed at the site where it was used. Because of this, the GPL attaches all its requirements to the concept of ``distribution''.

These days, however, software can often be ``distributed'' without distributing it at all, by operating a Web service. Currently, free software can be effectively turned into proprietary software by ASPs. (Or is this not true? If so, I'm pretty sure a lot of people misunderstand the GPL, and could use some clarification.)

Is this OK with you? I could imagine a world where the good news is that all the software on our desktop is free, but the bad news is that that software is little more than a dumb terminal used to communicate with the ``real'' software that does all the actual work -- software that's built on the back of free software, but which has had modifications kept proprietary by service providers looking to protect their market advantage.

Does the GPL need revision, or am I wrong about the GPL, or am I wrong about your intent?

Why Unix?

Judging from the userbases and past successes of Mac, Amiga, and Windows, there would seem to be a demand for a fast single-user operating systems. Yet there are no well-known free OSes like that. Is there anything special about Unix that has made it particularly suitable for adoption by free software advocates?

---

What would you do with Microsoft?

If it were up to you, what remedy would you impose on Microsoft?

Will "web freedom" survive?

As you know, there are serious threats to what we refer to as the "freedom of the Internet", such as the

• Method of Business Patents (Amazon, etc.)
• deCSS court cases
• RIAA vs. MP3, Napster, etc.
• Censorship cases [Mattel vs. CP Hack, Australia's censorship attempts, the Demon UK ruling, etc.]
• conflicting versions of Java, Javascript, etc.
• domain registration conflicts
• DCMA and UCITA legislation

What do you think that we need to do to insure that free, open source (GPL, LGPL, etc.) software survives in this current litigious and regulatory climate?

OSS software

How do you feel about OSS software
More importantly, how do you feel about people who use an acronym and then expand part of the acronym? For example,

SAT (or ACT) test
PC computer
SIMM memory
FSF foundation

Is this redundancy morally wrong, or merely non-optimal? And what do you think about the pedants who point these errors out? Jerks, or merely really really bored?

Re:There isn't one good, generic answer

This is the basic issue so many people have with support and open source software--closed, commercial softare provides little enough in the way of guarantees, but open source provides even less in most (but not all) cases.

I couldn't disagree with this more strongly than I do. I've had a number of nifty little closed-source commercial products that I have used, and continue to use, to aid me in software development. I have a set of C documentation tools that I run under DOSEMU on my Linux box to help me cross reference my code. These companies have long since discontinued their products and support for them and there is not one thing I can do about it. So I rely on open source tools (Linux and DOSEMU) to extend their useful life.

If these had been free software (in the FSF sense) I would have had the source code and the option to port them to my more modern operating systems. When you have the source you have a much better support guarantee than you can or will EVER get from a closed source vendor.

Sure, IBM, Oracle, and Microsoft are going to be around for some time. There is (probably) little risk in selecting them as a vendor. But they do have you on the upgrade treadmill. How many companies that bought into OS/2 (and there are more of them than you think, especially in the banking and insurance sectors) are now abandoning it out of fear that IBM will stop supporting it?

So, while I think a case can be made for the purchase of closed solutions for the "big" "enterprise" system components (OS, database, etc.), it is in the smaller utility and yes, specialty development tool space that I think free software is ALWAYS more supportable. Truth is, I think this open source supportability question extends to the "big ticket" items as well.

So, you use a tool from a small company. It goes under. You've got nothing.

You use a tool from a free software product. The developer abandons it. What do you have? Nothing? Nonsense! You've got the source code and the right to use it. (This is part of why the GPL is so important -- this guarantee of your present and future right to use the code.)

I don't think the AC here meant to make a FUDish statement -- I can se where he/she is coming from, but I still think he/she is DEAD WRONG!

Re:Education on copyright law

I make this distinction, because if I understand copyright law and your structure, then GPL'd software isn't enough. Unless all the code is copyrighted by the same person (fictional or real), then the license would be difficult to enforce.

So here's what we do: start a campaign decrying copyrights as imoral. Castigate anyone who retains ownership of source code, even if they release it under a innocuous unrestrictive license like MIT. At the same time, we have to discourage people from following up on this by their releasing stuff into the public domain. So we attack public domain as anarchistic and lacking protection for the author's rights. When everyone gets all confused over this, and can't decide whether they should relinquish ownership rights and take it public domain, or hold on the copyright in face of public disapproval, we step in with tactic number three. We offer ourselves up as arbiters of morality and demand that they transfer ownership and copyrights to us. After all, it is only we that have the moral foundations and rightness of purpose and strength of will not to abuse ownership priviledges. Software ownership is wrong, so let us own your software for you.

Yes, this means that we will be in a position of legal and political authority over you if we hold title to the software you yourselves wrote. But fear not! Our dictatorship of the hacker will wither away in time, leaving all people free.

Public Domain and the GPL

You have stated several times that the restrictions and conditions in the GPL serve the purpose of ensuring freedom, to guarantee that the source code will always be available for copying, modifications and redistribution.

You have also stated on several occasions that copyrights for software are wrong, and even have a few articles and links to articles on that line at www.gnu.org. Yet, because copyrights exist, you use them "defensively" to protect software through the GPL and LGPL.

But what if copyright laws were repealed? What then? What would now protect software? What prevents people from statically linking their closed source programs to readline? What prevents people from distributing emacs itself closed source? What prevents people from distributing binary-only encrypted derivations of gcc that require monetary payments to obtain the key?

How is a future without copyrights any better for software than simply releasing software as public domain today?

Re:What would you do with Microsoft?

RMS has already answered this question. See The Microsoft Antitrust Trial and Free Software [gnu.org].

Cheers,
Gary.

You tell us

What question do you think is the most important one we could ask you and what's the answer to it?
--

Intensity

You seem to approach just about everything with a rather suprising amount of intensity and focus.

What sort of things do you do in your spare time, and do you approach them with the same amount of intensity that you have for free software?
--

network computing.

Someone touched on this already, but I thought I'd ask anyway.

Something I've been wondering about is the use of Open Source on web-based applications. A good example would be slashdot; witch is GPL'd as far as I know. Right now, that means that there's nothing stopping me from making my own site, making tons of modifications, and lots of money off it, without contributing my code back, since it's still 'private use'.

As bandwidth gets better, and our network interfaces more seamless, what's to stop someone from 'hijacking' open source projects with proprietary web interfaces?

I guess what I'm trying to ask is 'what is the user that gets the rights to this source?' The person using the software for day-to-day tasks, or the admin who actually starts the program on their box? And what rights should those people have?

Do you think this is something that needs to be addressed by the GNU organization as network computing becomes more prevalent?

Most interesting project?

Which Free Software project do you personally consider to be the most exciting project at the moment? (And why?)

Is it too soon for opensource madness?

As we have seen, opensource has brought some great effects. Many security issues have been flushed out as well as some great advances. But with the idiotic patent issues flying back and forth, should the opensource community wait until source code patents are guaranteed not to happen? If you look hard enough, you will see patents for stupid algorithms such as bubble sort and the y2k "if the year is greater than 70, it's 1970-1999" patent. What are your opinions on patenting and OSS (and possibly the BSD license)

---

OSS compatibility with capitalism.

To what extent is the spread of OSS compatible with capitalism? Most of OSS is made possible by companies that pay us to write other stuff, thereby keeping us alive to write the free variety.

Could you envision an extreme situation where OSS becomes too successful and it is difficult to make a living in the software business?

Hotnutz.com [hotnutz.com] - Funny

The HURD

What is the current state of the HURD [gnu.org]? In reading the web page it looks like a great kernel, but it seems as though development is moving on rather slowly. What can people out there do to spur development on the HURD? What resources are available to developers to help them get started? I personally think it would be great to see another free software kernel based on fresh ideas.

Why still asking for donations?

The success of such ventures as Red Hat and Cygnus imply that there is a valid business model in providing support for free software. The FSF, however, still charges heavily for software distributions (not licenses, obviously) and asks for donations.

Why not go into the business of funding GNU development with GNU consulting fees? While you probably wouldn't want to become a full for-profit center (imagine all the back taxes!), I'm certain that any excess revenue could be plowed into something useful.

Re:ASP

Currently, free software can be effectively turned into proprietary software by ASPs. (Or is this not true? If so, I'm pretty sure a lot of people misunderstand the GPL, and could use some clarification.)

My take:

An ASP can take free software, host it on their machine, and charge you to run it on their system. They aren't charging a license fee, they are giving a service charge, literally charging you for CPU-seconds. ASPs don't distribute code any more than taxi companies distribute cars.

If they make changes, they can distribute it (under the GPL), but they don't have to. Remember that you can do all sorts of mean nasty secret things to the code in your hands; you only have to worry about GPL restrictions when you distribute it.

Test of the GPL

More than anything else I think, the GPL has been the most influential thing you've ever created. Do you think the time will come when the GPL will get tested in court? If it is upheld I think free software developers everywhere will be happy.

What if it isn't? What then?

Software Patents

Alot has been talked about the Free Software patent pool.
Software algorithms/methods will be patented and will be allowed to use only in free software.
The idea is to give free software a competitive advantage over propietery software.

What do you think?

Another BSD/GNU/etc. question

Why is or isn't it consistent with your 'GNU/Linux' position to call Linux 'X/GNU/BSD/Linux'?

Free Software and Transmeta

Given that the GNU/Linux community has made so much of free software under various licenses, does it surprise you to see Linus Torvalds, a man who is as responsible for making free software popular as you are for writing it, working on a largely closed source project?

Secondly, what application does the Free Software line of thinking have for hardware control below the operating system level (particularly with Transmeta)?

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

Many many years ago, like 1990ish, I read that you had carpal tunnel syndrome so badly from typing all the time, that you were unable to type at all, needed a student to type for you, and it was considered "un-fixable."

Are you still unable to type? Do you use any alternative input devices and if so, what are they and are they as efficient as you used to be at hacking out code in the 80s and before? Do you still have an assistant type for you?

Finally, on a personal level, how did you cope with the news when you first realized you couldn't type anymore? I can just imagine it must have been difficult for you.

And the answer is...

What question do you think is the most important one we could ask you and what's the answer to it?

The most important question we could ask (as judged by moderation) is:

"What question do you think is the most important one we could ask you and what's the answer to it?"

And the answer to this question is:

"What question do you think is the most important one we could ask you and what's the answer to it?"

Be careful what you wish for.

Content Control Protection through Encryption

The battle over CSS has been about whether people have the right to use software (I consider DVDs software because they are programs read by a computer chip) when it is controlled by the content control system CSS, even after they've bought it. I hope they'll lose in the courts, but it is unclear at this point whether they will, however, my question is on another, related topic.

Suppose very strong, nearly unbreakable encryption were used on traditional Software DVD (i.e. stuff like M$ software or other companies software, just in a DVD format) and a DVD CCA for software were set up saying, "You aren't allowed to access the content of any DVDs unless you use our licensed DVD decryption software. Oh, and our DVD decryption software contains a legally enforceable (under UCITA) software license which states that you cannot reverse engineer any content you have decrypted using our decryption software." How would Free Software handle it? Does there now need to be a Free Hardware philosophy which states that "Hardware which exists tied to a proprietary software system must be replaced by Free Hardware standards" or something similar?

I ask only because I believe the future battles against proprietary software are going to be against tied hardware/software combinations and that the anti-Free Software forces are going to use the DMCA, UCITA, and strong encryption in their arsenal.

Free at the Enterprise level ?

Free Software and its variant has proved to be very successful in the product arena, Emacs, Linux, sendmail et al. And with the likes of Enhydra the supply to the enterprise is there. However most of the work I've ever done has been working on large scale systems that cost millions of dollars over several years and have a definate business defined delivery date.

I just don't see how Free Software scales as an idea into the enterprise arena. To take one example:

I worked on an Air Traffic Control system which will take in total around 10 years and $4 billion. How would the free software model meet the rigours and demands of this sort of enviroment ?

Coding: still enjoying it?

When I first read "Hackers" in 1984 I remember you mentioning how much you enjoyed the coding process, just like everybody else profiled in the book. With all the hassles and politics you've faced in the past 10-15 years, is programming still as pleasant a pastime for you?

The dark ones, and the sheep that could.

RMS: I'm fairly new to the opensource world as a user, but I've supported the idea for a long time. However in my work and daily use I mostly use Windows. The question I have is: outside of the linux/unix world, does GNU and openSource truely exsist, and what do you think would happen to our nation of geekdom if some of the big players went opensource, such as BeOS, the rumored "new Amiga", and *gasp* even MS or Apple. The point I am trying to get at hre is would this cause such a huge surge as to totally overwhelm everyone, and cripple everything, or is this something that the people at the tops of these projects wouldREALLY like to see?
hope my question makes since, I'm in a rush to get in here first :)
-Doug

Will you let me help?

Hi Mr. Stallman. I don't use Linux for various reasons of personal preference, but I am excited about the GNU HURD OS and I would like to participate.

The thing is, I work for Microsoft. I am in a bind that I'm sure is shared by many developers who work in large corporations. I want to help out with certain free software projects, but when I was hired at my company, I signed all the various "you own my brain" forms that big companies typically require.

I want to know, would you let a person in a legal situation like mine work on software that is meant to be GPL'd and free? Or would you decline my help based upon the fact that the ownership of my code is disputable?


-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!

The rights of programmers

In many of your rights you speak eloquently about the rights of the public to software that may be freely distributed, examined and modified. And I agree strongly that software must be open/free if it is to be maximally effective.

Whoever, I have on problem. Before software can be freely distributed and used it must first be produced. While all digitally based information is freely and infinitely distributable, there is not an infinite pool of talent creating the content. Far from it. Yet in many of your writings you seem to ignore this problem to the point of saying that programmers should make their living at something else rather than writing programs! Why? This is a highly scarce and quite needed talent. Why is it wrong to be paid for being able to do it and do it well? As anyone like yourself who has created major software knows, the effort and dedication involved is quite intense. Yet you seem to say that the person putting in that effort has little or no rights to the fruits of the effort or to expect any rewards at all for having put out that kind of energy. This seems very lopsided to me.

GIFS, PNG, and *the* patent

So, will it be OK to use GIF again once the patent on LZW runs out in the next year or so?

Re:What's Next?

I like the question above, but I would refine it a bit:

The GNU project and the FSF seem to be succeeding. All of the tools that were intended to be freely available have been built. That isn't to say that the work is now, or ever will be complete. I merely mean that free software has achieved parity or better in the realm of development tools. I have also noticed in the past couple of years that certain projects have been handed off. egcs replaced gcc/g++ as the central compiler development effort. And you have handed off many of the day to day tasks with Emacs development. Are you freeing up time for advocacy, new programming projects or both? What do you have in mind for the future?

Commercial interest

How do you feel about the recent commercial interest in free software? Do you care? Is it good/bad? Why?

Most effective response to 'who supports it'?

I like to think that I work at a small progressive company, one composed mostly of techies and engineers that would appreciate the advantages of Open Source / Free software. One that would show willingness to accept and use such outside tools and code.

However within the past 6 months a 'marketing' group has appeared, composed entirely of respected programmers and techies.

I was recently in a meeting/review of a new product, one for which we were considering various open-source databases and tools, and was quite taken aback when the head of marketing, a real tech head and respected software engineer, asked "So who supports this? There is a company out there that provides patches and support right?".

( To me this seems like an idiotic question. In the past 6 months we ourselves, a 'real' company, have abandoned ("end-of-life'd" in marketspeak) a product and left our best customers hanging, and here was the person who had made that 'end-of-life' product decision, demanding that another company exist to 'support' (for free) the free software we were considering using. )

What is the 'killer' counter to that question? What is the most effective retort? Remember, we're not speaking to engineers and techies here any more. (Even if they were formerly). They're now marketing droids. What has been the most effective way to approach this question with them? Have you ever managed to successfully counter or convert a marketing droid? Be concise :)

opening proprietary software case studies

Are there any good case studies of large corporations opening up proprietary in-house source code? My ITmanagers don't see any value in this, and my opinion is that it is inevitable in the industry where I work. I don't want my work to perish when some forward thinking ITmanager at a competitor takes the plunge and their house standards becomes the industry standards. Please Help!

"Web" GPL?

At the CFP conference in Toronto Tim O'Reilly pointed out a possible weakness in the GPL. If websites, like www.onlinephotolab.com, become more and more like applications, the GPL's intention to keep freely developed software open and free is not met, the website's code can be closed even if it includes GPL code because it is not being distributed. This extends beyond only websites to any client server setup over the net.

What plans are there to address this issue? Might a new, stronger licence be developed that web developers might choose to keep their code free if they desire?

Do you worry about misuse of free software?

After Dr. Pollack's interview on Slashdot last week, I am curious as to what you think about his notion of "dispossession," where coders are encouraged through a sort of "peer pressure" to release their stuff into the community without any compensation.

I imagine a situation not too far into the future where there is potential for serious misuse of free technologies, with no legal (that is, reasonably successful) recourse available to the coder or coders, software which also ends up being used to violate the civil rights of average citizens.

One example might be where use of open source, heavy cryptography is regulated and exploited by government and corporate groups to questionable ends.

I mean, how much weight can the GPL and other licenses hold in a courtroom? What individual or small group has the resources to fight with _______ (insert monolithic entity with lots of pull and cash)?

Open Source and End Users

I (and presumably most of slashdot's readers) advocate free software primarily for the "free speech" concept behind it: it allows programmers and administrators to modify any piece of code anywhere on their system. Given this (somewhat broad) assumption, what benefits do you believe free software gives an average end user (aside from improved code review by the community)? Do you see free software being adopted en masse by end users anytime soon? And if so, on what merits?


43rd Law of Computing: Anything that can go wr

Education on copyright law

One area that you have been clear on is that to be incorporated into the GNU System, is that fixes must have copyright assigned to the FSF. I understand that this is important to allow the FSF to defend the GPL in regards to GNU software.

However, much of the "open source community" has taken the "code is code" mentality. When the GNU project is "complete" and we have a fully functional free system made available by the FSF, will the Linux "open source" group join us to create a truly free system or will we settle for almost completely free.

I make this distinction, because if I understand copyright law and your structure, then GPL'd software isn't enough. Unless all the code is copyrighted by the same person (fictional or real), then the license would be difficult to enforce.

Also, how do we get other hackers to do so. I mean, you were an MIT professor, many of the programmers in the "open source community" are in high school or college. While I'm not implying that education = intelligence, I am implying the education makes you more likely to have read up on these topics. The average hacker GPLing code doesn't. How do we get copyright assignments made so that the GNU system can include all the wonderful contributions that have been made.

Alex M. Hochberger

Other free licenses

It seems to me that recently several GPL-like licenses are springing up, and there's a lot of talk about Open Music licenses, Open Book licenses, etc.. It seems that a lot of people want to extend the concepts embodied in the GPL to other areas.

How applicable do you think the GPL is to these other areas? (As in, the concepts embodied in the GPL). Also, what are the essential aspects of any license that wishes to convey the same kind of freedom the GPL conveys? (For example, if I want to come up with a GPL-like license for my music, what would be the most essential aspects of it?) Is there any set of principles that can be applied to any areas of endeavour, not only to software? (In other words, can the principles in GPL be generalized so that it also applies to other areas?)

Open Source Newest Hype...

Everyone today is hearing about one thing or another going open source. Then everyone is hearing the critics about how open source is also hurting the community.

All that aside did you ever in your wildest dreams at the very start of the "crusade" think that open source would be a "movment"?

There is money, power, and influence all behind open source today. Computers boot and rely on open source to work every day. And you've even managed to help influence others to open source their own projects in order to gain help on their own making powerful software free to the masses.

So did you ever imagine anything like what is happening now with open source would ever happen?

Your ethical ideas

I've been reading your opinions for some time now, and while they make sense in and of themselves, they beg certain other questions. What interest me most are your meta-ethical notions.

You often speak of notions such as right and wrong as if they were objective things; do you hold them to be so? Are there "natural" rights, and what is the nature of their existence? If so, how does this fit with your atheism? If not, do you feel that ethical claims have some basis beyond personal taste?

I'd love to hear you go a bit further and speak of your view of the world, of your notion of what knowledge is, and so on. I understand that you might not wish to tie the ideas you publically sponsor to those which you hold personally, but I think it'd be gratifying for many of us to get a better sense of "where is Richard Stallman coming from?"

And though I'm sure the other questions will say so as well: many thanks for many things! :-)

GPL, Patents and Universities.

I am working on a research project at my university that involves Linux, video conferecning and a new patented algorithem. As a Linux user, I would like to release the program open source under the GPL. However, the University would like to sell or license the patent/program, for money. Does the GPL allow for the protection of intelectual property while not giving away the usefullness or money making possibilities of the patent? Does the GPL allow for compromise situations where patended material needs to stay commercially still viable? Aron Rosenberg.

GPL 3

I've read a few thing about a new version of the GPL license, what can you tell us about it?

Your views on certain technologies

What kind of a position do you take on applications such as Napster?

I discovered there are 15+ different unix/java/perl/etc. implementations of what appears to be the same or equivalent Napster application. I'm sure you're aware of what the music industry thinks of Napster.

Upon doing a quick search at freshmeat.net:

http://freshmeat.net/search.php3?que ry=napster [freshmeat.net]

one finds the music industry will have a hard time fighting something that is already open source and free, not to mention how many different entities there are.

In particular, I see GTK Napster [freshmeat.net] carries a standard GPL. I'd just like to know what happens when someone like Metallica [metallica.com] wins a lawsuit against Napster who has a GPL'd counterpart such as GTK Napster? Can they touch it at all?

Your thoughts?

Thanks,
Greg Donald

Two questions

What would happen, in the hypothetical case, where you litigated the GPL, and lost? Do you have a Plan B?

and

Have you ever thought of taking a more conciliatory attitude to things? Does the phrase "Don't Sweat the Small Stuff" (I'm thinking of the "GNU/Linux" thing) have any resonance at all with you? Are there any things that you sort of care about, but not very much?