|
By Laxmi Murthy Copy, Reproduce and Modify is the dictum of Richard Stallman, the world's best-known guru of the free software movement
 Richard Stallman, maverick guru of the free software movement, tongue firmly in cheek, black embroidered robe billowing and a halo of a computer diskette perched over his flowing locks, addresses a seminar at the World Social Forum in Mumbai. Describing his crisis in the mid-1980s during his employment at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Stallman was faced with the choice of continuing in the field of software development in the same paradigm of developing proprietary software, quitting programming altogether, or following his vision of free software that would contribute to increasing general freedoms in society. Stallman's life choices and philosophy have had a profound impact on the future of software the world over. Excerpts from his lecture:
Building walls between people General scientific information is meant for humanity to use. If we do not share it, we are failing the mission of our field. Signing a non-disclosure agreement, as most programmers are forced to do, is like signing a blank cheque of betrayal of all people. Continuing to develop non-free software would have amounted to building walls between people. And this would have shamed me. I was faced with a stark moral choice. Not having any other noteworthy skills, I could have become a waiter in a non-fancy restaurant. As a waiter, you are not doing anything immoral (unless you work at McDonald's!). Secondly, as a waiter, you will never go hungry (unless you work at McDonald's!). Although this would not be misusing my skill, it would be wasting my skill as a programmer. The other option for an operating system developer in the mid-1980s was to develop non-proprietary software. I realised this was the most important job I could ever do. I decided I had been elected by circumstance to do this job. GNU is born At the time, there was only one portable operating system -- UNIX. So I needed to make my programs compatible with UNIX, since users find compatible systems more convenient. This made other decisions easier. All that was needed was a name. We in the hacker community like playful cleverness and mischievous names. Imagining users being amused by the name is half the fun of programming! Using a recursive acronym, I called the new program GNU (GNU's Not UNIX). With the 'G' silent, you had people in America asking each other, "what's nu?" It will always be GNU, no matter if people call it LINUX by mistake. I quit my job in MIT in 1984 -- so that MIT could not claim my work as its own -- although I was allowed to continue use of the lab facilities at the Institute. By 1985, GNU-EMACS (the text editor I had developed back in 1974) was beginning to work. People wanted copies, so I put it on the Net. But in those days, Internet access was limited, even in the US . So I began making copies and distributing them for $150 per copy, and orders continued to trickle in. Free software does not mean "non-commercial". A free program must be available for commercial use and development and distribution, of course, along with the source codes. The LINUX 'take-over' of GNU In the early 1980s our work was to develop pieces of programs, mostly by volunteers. In October 1985, we set up the Free Software Foundation as a charitable trust, not as a company. I was its honorary president. Working mostly on volunteer strength, by 1990 we were almost ready. In 1991, Linus Torvalds, a Swedish technocrat, developed the LINUX system, and licensed it under the GNU GPL. By 1992, LINUX could be used to fill in the gaps in the GNU system. But people made the mistake of thinking they were adding GNU to LINUX, and did not recognise that they were using GNU with LINUX added. It was a big blow to the free software movement and the philosophy behind it. But it is not too late to correct the mistake. We deserve equal mention, so in future, do call it GNU/LINUX. This will acknowledge the programmers who worked hard, recognising their social responsibility and the social consequences of technology. 'Free' as in Free Speech, not Free Beer Distributing free software for a price is undoubtedly confusing. Let me clarify that what is meant by 'free' software is that it gives freedom, and does not mean that it is available without a price. And what does this freedom entail: - Freedom Zero: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
- Freedom One: The freedom to study how the program works and to adapt it to your needs. Access to the source code is a pre-condition to this.
- Freedom Two: The freedom to redistribute copies.
- Freedom Three: The freedom to improve the program and release your improvements to the public so that the whole community benefits.
Freedom One gives you control over your computer. If you do not have access to the source codes, it is the developer who controls your computer, and you are powerless. Other problems with non-free software are the spying features inherent in many programs. Malicious features are encrypted to report what is on your hard disk, for instance. Additionally, there are some bugs, which are mistakes, but without Freedom One you are helpless to fix the bugs yourself. With free software, our technical decisions do not restrict you or control you. Towards building a community Freedom Three makes community proactivity possible. Not everyone needs to know programming, but free software helps it to evolve in the direction users want it to. Convenient features according to the needs of users can be developed. What is important is that even those who do not do programming benefit from being in a society where programmers can do their work without control. It is akin to Freedom of Speech or Freedom of the Press, which impacts everyone in society even those who do not write. Making people sign 'non-disclosure' agreements, and promise that they will not share, is attacking society's most valuable psychosocial resource -- goodwill. They say: "If you help your neighbour, you are a pirate." We have turned this on its head with 'Copyleft', which uses copyright law to protect people's freedoms. We say: "You are authorised to copy, reproduce and modify, on condition that no restrictions are made on others using the program." The GNU General Public License, or GPL, is based on this philosophy. Today, we have free operating systems with free software that is user-friendly. In Sao Paulo , for instance, the computers set up by the city government in poor neighbourhoods all use free software. Free software is ready for use everywhere. We should be introducing it in schools. Schools should not be teaching children a system that allows corporations to put the squeeze on them. In India , the Free Software Foundation is developing free software in Indian languages, and introducing it in schools. Free software is not merely a technical or practical choice, but implies moving towards freedom in general. We need to globalise co-operation, rather than corporations. (In conclusion, Stallman, or Saint IGNUcias of the Church of GNU/LINUX, as he describes himself, urges the audience to vow to "excommunicate" all proprietary software.) (Laxmi Murthy is a Delhi-based journalist who writes on women's issues and sustainable development) (InfoChange News & Features, January 2004)
|
