Anonymous Comrade writes "

What's Gnu: RMS on UnitedLinux, Free Software

Richard M. Stallman is the founder of the Free Software movement that created the basis of the GNU/Linux operating system. Since founding the project back in 1984, Stallman, known by the community as RMS, has spent his time programming and promoting free software in the hopes of eliminating the need for non-free software completely. RMS graciously agreed to be interviewed by OfB's Timothy Butler. You can find the interview, in full, below. .

Open for Business: Would you give our readers a brief summary of what Free Software is and how it relates to Open Source Software?

Richard M. Stallman: Free software is the name of a category of software; it is also the name of a movement.

The "free" in "free software" refers to freedom, not price. A program is free software if users have certain basic freedoms in using it. You should have the freedom to run it as you wish, the freedom to study the source code and modify it to suit your needs, the freedom to redistribute copies to others, and the freedom to publish an improved version. The freedom to sell copies is also included. If the program allows users these freedoms, it is free software.

In the Free Software Movement, since 1984, we aim to give computer users these freedoms. We criticize non-free software as unethical for trampling users' freedom, and we aim to replace the anti-social social system of non-free software with the social system of free software. We developed a free operating system, GNU, to make it possible to use a computer without accepting non-free software. Now we aim to develop a full range of free application software to use with GNU.

The Open Source Movement was formed in 1998 by people who liked our free software but did not agree with our views. They try to convince business[es] to allow users the same crucial freedoms, more or less, but do not present this as an ethical imperative. We work with them some of the time but we think they have the wrong basic values.

Their criteria which define open source software are quite similar to our definition of free software, but not identical. If you know that a program is open source, odds are very high that it is free software also, but it is not a certainty.

OfB: Some have suggested that both Open Source and Free Software are confusing terms in their exact meaning, and a more specific term such as "Software Libre" is preferable. Has the Free Software Foundation (FSF) ever considered moving to a term that has less chance of a double meaning?

We've considered it, but all the available alternatives in English have problems of their own and none of them would be a good replacement. In other languages, when there is a word that unambiguously means free as in freedom, of course we use that word.

OfB: What are some of the advantages of Free Software for businesses?

RMS: Free software means you control what your computer does. Non-free software means someone else controls that, and to some extent controls you. Non-free software keeps users divided and individually helpless; free software empowers the users. All these reasons apply just as well to business users as to individuals.

For a business, there is the added advantage that support for a free program comes from a free market. Support for a proprietary program is usually a monopoly, since only the company that owns the program can change it either to fix a bug or add a feature. If you are willing to pay for support, you will usually get better support for your money when you use free software.

OfB: The Open Source Initiative receives more publicity related to Open Source and Free Software promotion in the enterprise than does the FSF. Do you see the FSF taking a more visible role in promoting Free Software at the enterprise level in the future?

RMS: The Open Source Movement gets more attention from the press because our work is often labeled with their slogan; that has the effect of giving them the credit for our work. In 1999, many people believed that the Open Source Movement had absorbed or replaced the Free Software Movement; nowadays they often think that we were working for the Open Source Movement all along. Last February, New Scientist even said I founded it. I hope this interview will help correct such misinformation.

The Open Source Movement focuses its attention on enterprises. In the Free Software Movement, we intentionally focus on individuals. One reason is that it seems more urgent to liberate individuals than businesses; individuals really are persons, while corporations are only treated as persons. Another is that we think individuals are more likely to join us in defending freedom as a matter of principal. However, businesses should have the same freedoms when using software as individuals should. Every business that uses GNU/Linux is benefiting from the freedoms that we have worked to give them.

OfB: Speaking of enterprise computing, in a written statement last week, you compared the licensing of the new UnitedLinux group to that of Windows in that it restricts a user's freedom. Would you like to expand a bit more on this?

RMS: We developed the GNU operating system, a compatible replacement for Unix, so users could be free to share and change it. Unix was not free software; it was available under restrictive licenses. It was not unusual for it to be licensed per computer, or even according to the number of users who could log in.

In 1991, the last gap in GNU was the kernel; Linus Torvalds then wrote a free kernel, Linux, and released it under the GNU General Public License. Adding Linux to GNU produced a free operating system, the GNU/Linux system. (Many users believe that the whole system is Linux, and the companies that package the system spread this mistake.)

As GNU/Linux became popular, it developed a reputation as a powerful, reliable system. Thousands and then millions of users adopted it, often for its practical benefits alone, without paying any mind to the freedom it also gave them. Companies began to package and redistribute GNU/Linux, which was good; but they also began to add non-free software to the system, which defeats its purpose. Today all the commercial packagers of GNU/Linux add non-free software. Several of them--with the notable exception of Red Hat and Mandrake--develop non-free software to add to GNU/Linux. Caldera has been one of the worst offenders. It is still possible to obtain a completely free version of GNU/Linux, but you need to know where to look and you need to think about what you're doing.

"UnitedLinux" carries this regression one step further with its "per seat" licensing. Users of that GNU/Linux distribution will be as restricted as if they were using Unix, or Windows.

In fact, Caldera cannot apply that restrictive license to the whole system. Most of the programs are licensed under the GNU General Public License, which protects the freedom of every user and makes it illegal to add any restrictions. I trust that Caldera knows better than to try to impose a "per seat license" on these programs. However, some parts of the system, although normally available as free software, have lax licenses that allow middlemen to impose their own restrictions. Caldera may use those points of vulnerability. It can also add non-free programs to the system. Even though much of the system will remain free software in a legal sense, practically speaking the users are likely to believe it is not.

Many people call the whole system "Linux" because they don't know it is a mistake; they are following others who are misinformed. In the case of Caldera, I suspect this error is intentional. Users who know that the system which is offered to them with a "per seat license" is really a version of GNU, and that we developed it so they could have freedom, might question whether Caldera is really treating them properly. They might start to value their own freedom and reject the perverse system which is neither united nor Linux. Caldera probably finds it safer [to] teach users that the system is Linux and that it was developed by an apolitical college student "just for fun".

OfB: Is the FSF doing anything to lobby this group into switching to a Free Software licensing scheme?

RMS: I see no use in trying to convince them; they surely know what path they have taken, and I expect they figured in advance what we would say about it.

We will continue teaching the public about the importance of freedom to share and change software, and we will cite them as an example of the wrong path. Users who understand what they have done and value freedom will choose some other version of GNU/Linux.

OfB: With the recent release of KDE 3.0, and also the impending release of GNOME 2.0, what are your thoughts about how ready the KGX (Kde/Gnu/linuX) and GNOME/GNU/Linux desktops are for regular business usage? Do you see them becoming a viable desktop competitor to Windows in the near future?

RMS: I can't foretell the future. I can only say that we invite your contributions, both of money and of labor, so that GNOME, the GNU desktop, can make faster progress.

OfB: Now that it has been almost two decades since your original GNU announcement, is GNU where you thought it would be?

Very much not. At the outset I vaguely expected that the GNU system would be running in five years. I did not expect GNU would attain great popularity among people who were not interested in freedom, nor that they would think it was something other than GNU and developed by someone else.

I also did not expect that a rival movement which rejects the users' freedom as an ethical imperative and caters primarily to business would try to co-opt our work--but in retrospect I think that is something a more politically savvy person might have predicted.

OfB: Where do you see GNU going in the next twenty years? Do you see the Linux kernel remaining a critical part of the GNU system?

RMS: I cannot say what will happen in the future, because it depends on choices you will make. The users' freedom can triumph if you decide to fight for it.

"