Tom's Hardware > Tous les dossiers > Les journées du FOSDEM

Richard Stallman Interview (english)

00:00 - lundi 1 mars 2004 par Benoit Dupont

Presence-PC: Richard, first of all, I would like to say that I appreciate a lot the effort you made to let this interview become real. How can I introduce you to our readers ? I would like to say that you are one of the founder of the Free Software Foundation in 1984, you are the Author of the GNU Compiler GCC, of GDB and of Emacs. And you are now the 'spiritual' leader of the free software movement. Did I forgot something ?

Richard M Stallman: GCC, GDB and GNU Emacs are all part of a larger project, the GNU operating system. Individually, those programs would merely have been useful. As a whole, the GNU system does something far more important: it gives us the chance to use a computer in freedom.
Operating system projects are usually launched for a commercial or technical purpose. GNU's purpose is ethical and social: to be the path by which we can escape from freedom-trampling proprietary software. Nowadays, millions of users are running a variant of the GNU operating system, but most of them don't realize this, because they think that the whole system is "Linux".

PPC: In our previous discussion, you made a clear difference between FREE software and Open Source Software, which more or less derive from the original FREE software movement but uses some licenced software like Qt.

RMS: Apparently I must not have been clear, because that's not what the difference is. It is a total misunderstanding. The difference between the free software movement and the open source movement is a matter of different basic values.

PPC: Would you like to explain to our readers what is for you the main difference between 2 approachs ?

RMS: In the free software movement, we insist on the freedom to share and change software. (When the software provides these freedoms, we call it "free software".) We have worked for years to have these freedoms, which ought to be human rights for all computer users, and we will continue working to preserve them. We will not give up our freedom without a struggle.
The open source movement has completely different views. It says that it recommends a "development methodology" which is superior in the sense that it usually (but not always) leads to more powerful and reliable software.
The free software movement response, "If that is true, it is a nice bonus, but focusing on that is missing the real point. Whether the software is more powerful or more reliable is a secondary issue. The important thing is to be free: free to control your own computer, and free to share with others."
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html for more explanation of how the two movements differ.

PPC: Another common 'term abuse' is the use of LINUX term to define what GNU/LINUX is in reallity, what is your opinion on this ?

RMS: In 1984 we began developing the GNU operating system. An operating system like this one consists of many parts, some large and some small. In 1992, we had all the essential parts except the kernel.
Linus Torvalds had written a kernel but it was not free. In 1992 he relicensed it under a free software license. (Specifically, he used the GNU GPL.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html for the criteria for free software licenses.)
At that point it was possible to make a complete free operating system by using Linux to fill the gap in GNU. The combined system is GNU/Linux.
See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html for more explanation about the relationship between GNU, Linux, and GNU/Linux.

PPC: We have seen a clear change in the last mounth in the Open-Source based companies : Suse has been bought by Novel, Redhat only distribute limited distribution for free.

RMS: Free software is defined in terms of the user's freedom: it means that users are free to run it, study it and change it, and redistribute copies with or without changes. Free software does not mean that everyone distributes it "for free" (at zero price). Some programs are available at no charge without being free software, while copies of free software can be sold for money. The fact that someone distributes software gratis, or that he stops doing so, is neither here nor there.

PPC: Do you see this as a kind of 'perversion' of the Open-source way of thinking compared to the FREE Software movement ?

RMS: These two specific changes do not relate directly to the philosophical difference. However, both Red Hat and SuSe have been including non-free software in their distributions for many years. SuSe actually develops non-free software. They would not do this if they believed in the ethical principle that software should be free. Clearly they belong to the open source movement, not the free software movement.

PPC: Talking abut kernel, the GNU/FSF started its own kernel développement HURD almost in parallel with Linus Torvald ones, what is the status of this kernel at the moment and what are its advantages compare to Linux Kernels ?

RMS: The Hurd has a potential advantage in that it is based on a powerful architecture of multiple modular programs that communicate using message passing. Nowadays the Hurd does run, but is missing some features that most users would want. And the Hurd developers think we need to move it to a different microkernel, L4; this will require some rewriting.

PPC: Lots of code-leak case have taken place during the last months, for instance in video game industries, also in OS market, is it civil desobedience or a simple theft ?

RMS: I cannot tell what motives were in the minds of the people who did the leaking. You would have to ask them. I would like to point out that leaking the source code for a program does not make it free software. It makes the source code available, at least to some users, but it does not enable users to use the program in freedom, because use of it would be illegal. To live without fear in freedom, we need to develop our own alternative software and reject the non-free software that is offered to us.

PPC: Everybody knows about the IBM vs SCO case which concerns GPL licence. What is your position and the FSF position on this ?

RMS: We have every reason to believe that the GNU GPL is valid. Lawyers all see that the arguments made by SCO are absurd; however, some non-lawyers who don't know much about copyright law might not be able to recognize this.

PPC: Short question: are you still coding ?

RMS: Very little--I don't have time for it. I wish that I did.

PPC: Final question : lots of People consider you as a spiritual guide, a guru. I have even seen "saint Richard" on the web. How to you deal with that ?

RMS: I present Saint IGNUcius as a way of making fun of myself. As stated on my web site, "Taking any religion too seriously, even the Church of Emacs, may be hazardous to your health."