Differences between revisions 1 and 3 (spanning 2 versions)
⇤ ← Revision 1 as of 2009-10-30 02:45:07 →
Size: 55755
Editor: FengXiGang
Comment:
← Revision 3 as of 2009-10-30 03:41:43 → ⇥
Size: 57699
Editor: FengXiGang
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 3: Line 3:

Line 4: Line 6:
Line 5: Line 8:
Line 6: Line 10:
Line 8: Line 13:

Line 9: Line 16:
Line 10: Line 18:
so they can't change it, they can't even study what it's realy doing to them.
so they can't change it, they can't even study what it's really doing to them.
Line 13: Line 24:
Line 14: Line 26:
user can do. And there're malicious features which are backdoors, that can be
user can do. And there are malicious features which are backdoors, that can be
Line 16: Line 30:
Line 18: Line 33:

Line 19: Line 36:
Line 21: Line 39:

Line 22: Line 42:
Line 23: Line 44:
Line 24: Line 46:
Line 25: Line 48:
Line 26: Line 50:
Line 27: Line 52:
Line 29: Line 55:

Line 30: Line 58:
Line 31: Line 60:
Line 32: Line 62:
Line 34: Line 65:

Line 35: Line 68:
Line 36: Line 70:
Line 38: Line 73:

Line 39: Line 76:
program is free or proprietary is not a question of the techinal details of the
program is free or proprietary is not a question of the technical details of the
Line 41: Line 80:
Line 43: Line 83:

Line 44: Line 86:
Line 45: Line 88:
Line 46: Line 90:
Line 48: Line 93:

Line 49: Line 96:
Line 50: Line 98:
Line 52: Line 101:

Line 53: Line 104:
Line 54: Line 106:
Line 55: Line 108:
Line 56: Line 110:
Line 57: Line 112:
program is nice, could I have a copy. In that moment you will be in a dilema,
program is nice, could I have a copy. In that moment you will be in a dilemma,
Line 59: Line 116:
Line 60: Line 118:
Line 62: Line 121:

Line 63: Line 124:
Line 64: Line 126:
Line 65: Line 128:
Line 67: Line 131:
We can assume that your friend is a good friend, a good memeber of your

We can assume that your friend is a good friend, a good member of your
Line 69: Line 136:
proprietary program has acted to seperate you and your community, has tried to
proprietary program has acted to separate you and your community, has tried to
Line 71: Line 140:
Line 73: Line 143:

Line 74: Line 146:
Line 75: Line 148:
Line 76: Line 150:
Line 77: Line 152:
Line 78: Line 154:
Line 79: Line 156:
is laughing except one person just smiled. Now I'm a bit suprised, and I'm
is laughing except one person just smiled. Now I'm a bit surprised, and I'm
Line 82: Line 161:

Line 83: Line 164:
Line 84: Line 166:
Line 85: Line 168:
Line 86: Line 170:
Line 87: Line 172:
Line 88: Line 174:
Line 90: Line 177:

Line 91: Line 180:
Line 92: Line 182:
Line 93: Line 184:
Line 94: Line 186:
Line 95: Line 188:
Line 96: Line 190:
Line 97: Line 192:
Line 98: Line 194:
Line 99: Line 196:
Line 100: Line 198:
Line 101: Line 200:
Line 102: Line 202:
Line 103: Line 204:
Line 104: Line 206:
Line 105: Line 208:
Line 106: Line 210:
Line 108: Line 213:

Line 109: Line 216:
Line 110: Line 218:
Line 111: Line 220:
Line 112: Line 222:
Line 113: Line 224:
are not allowed to publishing anything that criticising the developer, imaging
are not allowed to publishing anything that criticizing the developer, imaging
Line 115: Line 228:
Line 117: Line 231:

Line 118: Line 234:
Line 119: Line 236:
Line 120: Line 238:
Line 121: Line 240:
Line 122: Line 242:
Line 123: Line 244:
Line 125: Line 247:

Line 126: Line 250:
Line 127: Line 252:
Line 128: Line 254:
Line 129: Line 256:
Line 130: Line 258:
Line 131: Line 260:
Line 132: Line 262:
design specificly to restrict what the user does with her own files in her own
mechine. And there's backdoor, a backdoor that allows Microsoft to _forceable_
change the software with asking permission of the noumenal user of the mechine.
design specifically to restrict what the user does with her own files in her own

machine. And there's backdoor, a backdoor that allows Microsoft to _forceable_

change the software with asking permission of the noumenal user of the machine.
Line 136: Line 270:
you may think you own it, but realy Microsoft has owned your computer.

Any malicious feature that is not in Windows today, Microsoft could forcably
you may think you own it, but really Microsoft has owned your computer.



Any malicious feature that is not in Windows today, Microsoft could forcibly
Line 140: Line 278:
Line 141: Line 280:
Line 142: Line 282:
when they call it "the kindo", that is meant to explain the perpose of the
when they call it "the kindo", that is meant to explain the purpose of the
Line 144: Line 286:
design to burn your books. That products spys on the user, because the only
design to burn your books. That products spy on the user, because the only
Line 146: Line 290:
Line 147: Line 292:
Line 148: Line 294:
Line 149: Line 296:
Line 150: Line 298:
Line 151: Line 300:
Line 152: Line 302:
Line 153: Line 304:
Line 154: Line 306:
Line 155: Line 308:
the people have bought copies from Amazon discovered one day that thet don't
the people have bought copies from Amazon discovered one day that they don't
Line 157: Line 312:
Line 158: Line 314:
Line 160: Line 317:

Line 161: Line 320:
Line 162: Line 322:
Line 163: Line 324:
Line 164: Line 326:
Line 165: Line 328:
Line 167: Line 331:

Line 168: Line 334:
Line 169: Line 336:
Line 170: Line 338:
Line 171: Line 340:
Line 173: Line 343:

Line 174: Line 346:
Line 175: Line 348:
Line 176: Line 350:
Line 177: Line 352:
Line 179: Line 355:

Line 180: Line 358:
Line 181: Line 360:
Line 182: Line 362:
Line 183: Line 364:
Line 185: Line 367:

Line 186: Line 370:
persionally study and change the source code, that's not enough, because
there're millions of users that don't know how to program, they don't know how
personally study and change the source code, that's not enough, because

there are millions of users that don't know how to program, they don't know how
Line 189: Line 376:
programmer like me, freedom one is not enough, because there're so many
programmer like me, freedom one is not enough, because there are so many
Line 191: Line 380:
Line 192: Line 382:
Line 193: Line 384:
all the programs that she uses and master them all, and persionally write all
all the programs that she uses and master them all, and personally write all
Line 195: Line 388:
Line 196: Line 390:
Line 197: Line 392:
Line 198: Line 394:
Line 199: Line 396:
Line 200: Line 398:
Line 201: Line 400:
ourseves. One can write write it and distribute the modified version to all of
ourselves. One can write write it and distribute the modified version to all of
Line 204: Line 405:

Line 205: Line 408:
Line 206: Line 410:
Line 207: Line 412:
Line 208: Line 414:
Line 209: Line 416:
and then we all switch to that, and we thank them for collaberating to make this
improvements. So freedom three makes it possible for us to collaberate in making
and then we all switch to that, and we thank them for collaborating to make this

improvements. So freedom three makes it possible for us to collaborate in making
Line 213: Line 423:

Line 214: Line 426:
Line 215: Line 428:
Line 216: Line 430:
Line 217: Line 432:
Line 218: Line 434:
Line 219: Line 436:
Line 220: Line 438:
Line 221: Line 440:
to write that change for you, we're assuming you don't know how to programe, you
to write that change for you, we're assuming you don't know how to program, you
Line 223: Line 444:
Line 224: Line 446:
Line 225: Line 448:
Line 226: Line 450:
Line 227: Line 452:
price, and who also has experince working on the software, and you could pick
price, and who also has experience working on the software, and you could pick
Line 229: Line 456:
Line 230: Line 458:
Line 231: Line 460:
Line 232: Line 462:
Line 233: Line 464:
Line 234: Line 466:
Line 235: Line 468:
Line 237: Line 471:

Line 238: Line 474:
Line 239: Line 476:
Line 240: Line 478:
Line 241: Line 480:
Line 242: Line 482:
Line 243: Line 484:
if we have fixed your problem, and you'll see what new problems we havn't solved for
if we have fixed your problem, and you'll see what new problems we have not solved for
Line 246: Line 489:

Line 247: Line 492:


Line 248: Line 496:
Line 249: Line 498:
Line 250: Line 500:
Line 251: Line 502:
Line 252: Line 504:
Line 254: Line 507:

Line 255: Line 510:


Line 256: Line 514:
Line 257: Line 516:
Line 258: Line 518:
Line 259: Line 520:
Line 260: Line 522:
Line 261: Line 524:
Line 262: Line 526:
Line 263: Line 528:
Line 264: Line 530:
Line 265: Line 532:
Line 266: Line 534:
fourdoms is democracy. A free program develop democraticly under the control
freedoms is democracy. A free program develop democratically under the control
Line 268: Line 538:
Line 269: Line 540:
Line 270: Line 542:
on one side we have individual freedom, social solidarity and deomcracy, on the
on one side we have individual freedom, social solidarity and democracy, on the
Line 272: Line 546:
Line 273: Line 548:
Line 274: Line 550:
Line 275: Line 552:
Line 276: Line 554:
Line 278: Line 557:

Line 279: Line 560:


Line 280: Line 564:
Line 281: Line 566:
Line 282: Line 568:
Line 283: Line 570:
I worked. In the lab I worked, the artifical intelligence lab, essentially all the
I worked. In the lab I worked, the artificial intelligence lab, essentially all the
Line 285: Line 574:
Line 286: Line 576:
Line 287: Line 578:
Line 288: Line 580:
Line 289: Line 582:
Line 290: Line 584:
Line 291: Line 586:
Line 293: Line 589:

Line 294: Line 592:
But then, I had a experence with proprietary software. Xerox gave IMIT a laser


But then, I had a experience with proprietary software. Xerox gave IMIT a laser
Line 296: Line 598:
Line 297: Line 600:
Line 298: Line 602:
not near everyone's office, so the mechine could stay jam for a long time, and
not near everyone's office, so the machine could stay jam for a long time, and
Line 300: Line 606:
Line 301: Line 608:
printed something, and they all waited an hour, that meaned it would stay jam
printed something, and they all waited an hour, that meant it would stay jam
Line 303: Line 612:
then jam again, and it might wait another hour. So things got realy bad.
then jam again, and it might wait another hour. So things got really bad.

Line 306: Line 618:


Line 307: Line 622:
Line 308: Line 624:
your screen when your job was finished, so you can go immediatly to pick it up,
your screen when your job was finished, so you can go immediately to pick it up,
Line 310: Line 628:
So you'll go immediatly to fix it. Well I want to add these features, but I was
So you'll go immediately to fix it. Well I want to add these features, but I was
Line 312: Line 632:
Line 313: Line 634:
Line 314: Line 636:
Line 315: Line 638:
Line 317: Line 641:

Line 318: Line 644:


Line 319: Line 648:
Line 320: Line 650:
Line 321: Line 652:
code", and he sayes, "No, I promised not to give you a copy". And I was shocked,
code", and he says, "No, I promised not to give you a copy". And I was shocked,
Line 323: Line 656:
Line 324: Line 658:
Line 325: Line 660:
he've done and how his betrayal of the rest of community had hurt us. And I
thought the morality of what he've done. Because he didn't just promise not to
he's done and how his betrayal of the rest of community had hurt us. And I

thought the morality of what he's done. Because he didn't just promise not to
Line 328: Line 666:
Line 329: Line 668:
IMIT, he had betrayed the whole world. And when I relised that, I thought of "曹
IMIT, he had betrayed the whole world. And when I realized that, I thought of "曹
Line 331: Line 672:
had actually done it. And this is what crystalized my understanding of the evil
had actually done it. And this is what crystallized my understanding of the evil
Line 333: Line 676:
Line 334: Line 678:
Line 335: Line 680:
Line 336: Line 682:
Line 337: Line 684:
Line 339: Line 687:

Line 340: Line 690:


Line 341: Line 694:
computer which the incompatiable time-shareing system was written for became
computer which the incompatible time-sharing system was written for became
Line 343: Line 698:
Line 344: Line 700:
Line 345: Line 702:
Line 346: Line 704:
Line 348: Line 707:

Line 349: Line 710:


Line 350: Line 714:
Line 351: Line 716:
Line 352: Line 718:
Line 353: Line 720:
Line 354: Line 722:
Line 355: Line 724:
Line 356: Line 726:
Line 357: Line 728:
Line 358: Line 730:
Line 359: Line 732:
in other goverments about whom I should not make the claim that you have a moral
in other governments about whom I should not make the claim that you have a moral
Line 361: Line 736:
don't know how to swim. But in this case, the job to be done wass not swimming,
don't know how to swim. But in this case, the job to be done was not swimming,
Line 363: Line 740:
Line 365: Line 743:

Line 366: Line 746:


Line 367: Line 750:
Line 368: Line 752:
Line 369: Line 754:
Line 370: Line 756:
Line 371: Line 758:
Line 372: Line 760:
Line 373: Line 762:
Line 374: Line 764:
disign of UNIX, so that could be a portable operating system, and it'll be able
design of UNIX, so that could be a portable operating system, and it'll be able
Line 376: Line 768:
Line 377: Line 770:
Line 378: Line 772:
Line 379: Line 774:
Line 380: Line 776:


Line 381: Line 780:
Line 382: Line 782:
Line 383: Line 784:
Line 385: Line 787:

Line 386: Line 790:


Line 387: Line 794:
Line 388: Line 796:
Line 389: Line 798:
Line 390: Line 800:
Line 391: Line 802:
Line 392: Line 804:
Line 393: Line 806:
Line 395: Line 809:

Line 396: Line 812:


Line 397: Line 816:
Line 398: Line 818:
Line 399: Line 820:
Line 400: Line 822:
Line 401: Line 824:
Line 403: Line 827:

Line 404: Line 830:
But in our community, we had a humous tradition for this cases. You could give


But in our community, we had a humorous tradition for this cases. You could give
Line 406: Line 836:
the other one, a humous way of giving credit. So, for instance, there were many
the other one, a humorous way of giving credit. So, for instance, there were many
Line 408: Line 840:
Line 409: Line 842:
Line 410: Line 844:
Line 411: Line 846:
Line 412: Line 848:
Line 413: Line 850:
Line 414: Line 852:
called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially. Zwei is german for Two. So you could
called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially. Zwei is German for Two. So you could
Line 417: Line 857:

Line 418: Line 860:


Line 419: Line 864:
Line 420: Line 866:
Line 422: Line 869:

Line 424: Line 873:

Line 425: Line 876:
And not only that, the world GNU is the most humour charged word in the English


And not only that, the world GNU is the most humor charged word in the English
Line 427: Line 882:
G is slient, and the word is pronunced [nju:]. So every time you want to write a
G is silent, and the word is pronounced [nju:]. So every time you want to write a
Line 429: Line 886:
joke, but there're lots other. So that's the reason why I chose the name GNU,
joke, but there are lots other. So that's the reason why I chose the name GNU,
Line 431: Line 890:
Line 432: Line 892:
Line 433: Line 894:
Line 435: Line 897:

Line 436: Line 900:


Line 437: Line 904:
Line 438: Line 906:
Line 439: Line 908:
Line 440: Line 910:
prople who ironiously call it Linux. But how did that error get started, how it
people who _ironically_ call it Linux. But how did that error get started, how it
Line 442: Line 914:
Line 444: Line 917:

Line 445: Line 920:


Line 446: Line 924:
Line 447: Line 926:
Line 448: Line 928:
The kernel was the system component that allocats computer's resources to all the
The kernel was the system component that allocates computer's resources to all the
Line 450: Line 932:
Line 451: Line 934:
Line 452: Line 936:
Line 453: Line 938:
Line 454: Line 940:
Line 455: Line 942:
Line 456: Line 944:
Line 457: Line 946:
Line 459: Line 949:

Line 460: Line 952:


Line 461: Line 956:
Line 462: Line 958:
Line 463: Line 960:
Line 465: Line 963:

Line 466: Line 966:
So, in fact it did not allow commercial redistribution, therefore that meaned a


So, in fact it did not allow commercial redistribution, therefore that meant a
Line 468: Line 972:
Line 469: Line 974:
in 1992, torvalds re-released Linux under the GNU GPL, making it free
in 1992, Torvalds re-released Linux under the GNU GPL, making it free
Line 472: Line 979:

Line 473: Line 982:


Line 474: Line 986:
Line 475: Line 988:
automatically copyright. And copyright law by default forbades modification,
automatically copyright. And copyright law by default forbides modification,
Line 477: Line 992:
Line 478: Line 994:
Line 479: Line 996:
Line 480: Line 998:
Line 481: Line 1000:
Line 482: Line 1002:
Line 483: Line 1004:
Line 484: Line 1006:
Line 485: Line 1008:
Line 486: Line 1010:
Line 488: Line 1013:

Line 489: Line 1016:


Line 490: Line 1020:
Line 491: Line 1022:
Line 492: Line 1024:
Line 493: Line 1026:
Line 494: Line 1028:
Line 495: Line 1030:
Line 496: Line 1032:
Line 497: Line 1034:
Line 498: Line 1036:
Line 499: Line 1038:
agreement that resticts you. And then you copy will not free software, he could
agreement that restricts you. And then you copy will not free software, he could
Line 501: Line 1042:
Line 502: Line 1044:
Line 503: Line 1046:
Line 504: Line 1048:
Line 505: Line 1050:
Line 507: Line 1053:

Line 508: Line 1056:


Line 509: Line 1060:
Line 510: Line 1062:
Line 511: Line 1064:
Line 512: Line 1066:
Line 513: Line 1068:
Line 514: Line 1070:
Line 515: Line 1072:
Line 516: Line 1074:
Line 517: Line 1076:
Line 519: Line 1079:

Line 521: Line 1083:

Line 522: Line 1086:


Line 523: Line 1090:
Line 524: Line 1092:
Line 525: Line 1094:
Line 526: Line 1096:
Line 528: Line 1099:

Line 530: Line 1103:

Line 531: Line 1106:


Line 532: Line 1110:
Line 533: Line 1112:
Line 534: Line 1114:
Line 535: Line 1116:
Line 536: Line 1118:
Line 537: Line 1120:
Line 538: Line 1122:
Line 539: Line 1124:
Line 540: Line 1126:
Line 541: Line 1128:
Line 542: Line 1130:
Line 543: Line 1132:
Line 544: Line 1134:
Line 545: Line 1136:
Line 546: Line 1138:
Line 548: Line 1141:

Line 550: Line 1145:

Line 551: Line 1148:


Line 552: Line 1152:
Line 553: Line 1154:
Line 554: Line 1156:
Line 555: Line 1158:
Line 556: Line 1160:
Line 557: Line 1162:
Line 558: Line 1164:
Line 559: Line 1166:
prject, the name GNU are associated with these ideas of freedom. By contrast,
project, the name GNU are associated with these ideas of freedom. By contrast,
Line 561: Line 1170:
Line 562: Line 1172:
doesn't think that we should give every usr freedom, he just wants powerful
doesn't think that we should give every user freedom, he just wants powerful
Line 564: Line 1176:
Line 565: Line 1178:
Line 566: Line 1180:
Line 567: Line 1182:
Line 568: Line 1184:
Line 569: Line 1186:
Line 570: Line 1188:
Line 571: Line 1190:
Line 572: Line 1192:
Line 573: Line 1194:
Line 574: Line 1196:
Line 575: Line 1198:
that, we've written a lot of software. But now we also have to organise, we have
that, we've written a lot of software. But now we also have to organize, we have
Line 577: Line 1202:
Line 578: Line 1204:
Line 579: Line 1206:
Line 580: Line 1208:
Line 582: Line 1211:

Line 584: Line 1215:

Line 585: Line 1218:


Line 586: Line 1222:
in order to defent our freedom, we have to value our freedom. And in order to
in order to defend our freedom, we have to value our freedom. And in order to
Line 588: Line 1226:
Line 589: Line 1228:
Line 590: Line 1230:
Line 591: Line 1232:
Line 592: Line 1234:
Line 593: Line 1236:
Line 594: Line 1238:
Line 595: Line 1240:
Line 596: Line 1242:
Line 597: Line 1244:
Line 598: Line 1246:
Line 599: Line 1248:
Line 600: Line 1250:
Line 601: Line 1252:
Line 602: Line 1254:
Line 604: Line 1257:

Line 606: Line 1261:

Line 607: Line 1264:


Line 608: Line 1268:
Line 609: Line 1270:
Line 610: Line 1272:
Line 611: Line 1274:
Line 612: Line 1276:
Line 613: Line 1278:
Line 614: Line 1280:
Line 615: Line 1282:
those of us who want freedom, say this software is good because it repects our
those of us who want freedom, say this software is good because it respects our
Line 617: Line 1286:
Line 618: Line 1288:
Line 619: Line 1290:
Line 620: Line 1292:
Line 621: Line 1294:
Line 622: Line 1296:
Line 625: Line 1300:


Line 626: Line 1304:


Line 627: Line 1308:
Line 628: Line 1310:
Line 629: Line 1312:
Line 630: Line 1314:
job." They won't criticise anything on ethical level. The most they'll say is
job." They won't criticize anything on ethical level. The most they'll say is
Line 632: Line 1318:
Line 633: Line 1320:
Line 634: Line 1322:
Line 635: Line 1324:
Line 636: Line 1326:
Line 637: Line 1328:
Line 638: Line 1330:
Line 640: Line 1333:

Line 642: Line 1337:

Line 643: Line 1340:


Line 644: Line 1344:
Line 645: Line 1346:
Line 646: Line 1348:
Line 647: Line 1350:
Line 648: Line 1352:
Line 649: Line 1354:
Line 650: Line 1356:
Line 651: Line 1358:
Line 652: Line 1360:
Line 653: Line 1362:
Line 654: Line 1364:
Line 655: Line 1366:
Line 656: Line 1368:
Line 657: Line 1370:
Line 658: Line 1372:
Line 660: Line 1375:

Line 661: Line 1378:


Line 662: Line 1382:
Line 663: Line 1384:
Line 665: Line 1387:

Line 667: Line 1391:

Line 668: Line 1394:
Line 669: Line 1396:


Line 670: Line 1400:
Line 671: Line 1402:
Line 672: Line 1404:
Line 673: Line 1406:
Line 674: Line 1408:
Line 675: Line 1410:
Line 676: Line 1412:
Line 677: Line 1414:
Line 678: Line 1416:
Line 679: Line 1418:
Line 680: Line 1420:
Line 681: Line 1422:
Line 682: Line 1424:
Line 683: Line 1426:
Line 684: Line 1428:
Line 685: Line 1430:
thing is they make it illegal. So we need to organise to fight this.
thing is they make it illegal. So we need to organize to fight this.
Line 688: Line 1436:


Line 689: Line 1440:
Line 690: Line 1442:
Line 691: Line 1444:
Line 692: Line 1446:
Line 693: Line 1448:
be hunderds of them are patented, which means hunderds of lawsuits. If you like
be hundreds of them are patented, which means hundreds of lawsuits. If you like
Line 695: Line 1452:
Line 696: Line 1454:
Line 697: Line 1456:
It's a foolish policy. It's only good for the mega corporationes.
It's a foolish policy. It's only good for the mega corporations.
Line 700: Line 1462:


Line 701: Line 1466:
Line 702: Line 1468:
Line 703: Line 1470:
Line 704: Line 1472:
Line 705: Line 1474:
Line 706: Line 1476:
Line 707: Line 1478:
Line 708: Line 1480:
Line 709: Line 1482:
Line 711: Line 1485:

Line 712: Line 1488:


Line 713: Line 1492:
Line 714: Line 1494:
Line 715: Line 1496:
Line 716: Line 1498:
obstrucked by prohibitions. That's what we mainly need. As long as they don't
obstructed by prohibitions. That's what we mainly need. As long as they don't
Line 718: Line 1502:
organise to make sure they don't prohibit it. In addition, we have to convince
organize to make sure they don't prohibit it. In addition, we have to convince
Line 720: Line 1506:
Line 721: Line 1508:
must use exclosive free software, because a government agency does its computing
must use exclusive free software, because a government agency does its computing
Line 723: Line 1512:
could do computing for your own pleasue, you don't have to justify it to anyone
else, but when a goverment agency does computing, that's being done for the
could do computing for your own pleasure, you don't have to justify it to anyone

else, but when a government agency does computing, that's being done for the
Line 726: Line 1518:
the public, so every government agency must maintain solvering control over the
the public, so every government agency must maintain _solvering_ control over the
Line 728: Line 1522:
Line 729: Line 1524:
Line 730: Line 1526:
Line 731: Line 1528:
Line 732: Line 1530:
Line 734: Line 1533:

Line 735: Line 1536:


Line 736: Line 1540:
Line 737: Line 1542:
Line 738: Line 1544:
Line 739: Line 1546:
some of the limited money paying for permision to run proprietary software. Now
some of the limited money paying for permission to run proprietary software. Now
Line 741: Line 1550:
Line 742: Line 1552:
Line 743: Line 1554:
Line 744: Line 1556:
Line 745: Line 1558:
Line 746: Line 1560:
Line 747: Line 1562:
Line 748: Line 1564:
Line 749: Line 1566:
Line 750: Line 1568:
Line 751: Line 1570:
Line 752: Line 1572:
Line 753: Line 1574:
Line 754: Line 1576:
Line 755: Line 1578:
Line 756: Line 1580:
Line 758: Line 1583:

Line 760: Line 1587:

Line 761: Line 1590:


Line 762: Line 1594:
Line 763: Line 1596:
Line 764: Line 1598:
Line 765: Line 1600:
Line 766: Line 1602:
capable, independent, corporating and free society. And in computing, this means
capable, independent, cooperating and free society. And in computing, this means
Line 769: Line 1607:

Line 770: Line 1610:


Line 771: Line 1614:
Line 772: Line 1616:
ten to thirteen, they become facsinating with computers, and they want to learn
ten to thirteen, they become fascinating with computers, and they want to learn
Line 774: Line 1620:
Line 775: Line 1622:
Line 776: Line 1624:
Line 777: Line 1626:
Line 779: Line 1629:

Line 780: Line 1632:


Line 781: Line 1636:
Line 782: Line 1638:
everything". And our kid will read it all, because he is facsinating and yearn
everything". And our kid will read it all, because he is fascinating and yearn
Line 784: Line 1642:
Line 785: Line 1644:
Line 786: Line 1646:
Line 787: Line 1648:
Line 788: Line 1650:
Line 789: Line 1652:
Line 790: Line 1654:
Line 791: Line 1656:
Line 793: Line 1659:

Line 795: Line 1663:

Line 796: Line 1666:


Line 797: Line 1670:
Line 798: Line 1672:
Line 799: Line 1674:
Line 800: Line 1676:
Line 801: Line 1678:
Line 802: Line 1680:
Line 803: Line 1682:
Line 804: Line 1684:
Line 805: Line 1686:
Line 806: Line 1688:
another change on another program, And I did it hunderds of times, and
another change on another program, And I did it hundreds of times, and
Line 808: Line 1692:
Line 810: Line 1695:

Line 811: Line 1698:


Line 812: Line 1702:
Line 813: Line 1704:
Line 815: Line 1707:

Line 817: Line 1711:

Line 818: Line 1714:


Line 819: Line 1718:
Line 820: Line 1720:
Line 821: Line 1722:
Line 822: Line 1724:
Line 823: Line 1726:
Line 824: Line 1728:
Line 825: Line 1730:
Line 826: Line 1732:
Line 827: Line 1734:
Line 829: Line 1737:
( 1:22:20.8) 

( 1:22:20.8)
Line 831: Line 1742:
Line 832: Line 1744:
Line 833: Line 1746:
Line 834: Line 1748:
Line 835: Line 1750:
Line 836: Line 1752:
Line 837: Line 1754:
Line 838: Line 1756:
Line 839: Line 1758:
Line 840: Line 1760:
Line 842: Line 1763:

Line 843: Line 1766:


Line 844: Line 1770:
Line 845: Line 1772:
Line 846: Line 1774:
Line 847: Line 1776:
Line 848: Line 1778:
Line 849: Line 1780:
Line 850: Line 1782:
Line 851: Line 1784:
Line 853: Line 1787:

Line 854: Line 1790:


Line 855: Line 1794:
this event, and is the main chinese organization for free software. So I'm going
this event, and is the main Chinese organization for free software. So I'm going
Line 858: Line 1799:

Line 859: Line 1802:


Line 860: Line 1806:
Line 861: Line 1808:
I'm a saint of a GNU-ers of the church of Emacs, I bless your computer, my
I'm a saint of a _GNUers_ of the church of Emacs, I bless your computer, my
Line 863: Line 1812:
Line 864: Line 1814:
extended so much that they could do all of their computin without leaving Emacs.
extended so much that they could do all of their computing without leaving Emacs.
Line 866: Line 1818:
Line 867: Line 1820:
Line 869: Line 1823:

Line 870: Line 1826:
Line 871: Line 1828:

RMS 珠海演讲听译

Free software means software that respects the user's freedom. It's a matter of

freedom, not price, so you should translate it as "自由" not "免费". If a

program is not free, then it's proprietary software, non-free software,

user-subjugating software.

Non-free software keeps users divided and helpless. Divided, because they're

forbidden to share copies, and helpless, because they don't get the source code,

so they can't change it, they can't even study what it's really doing to them.

And often the non-free software has malicious features. There are malicious

features to spy on the user. There are malicious features to restrict what the

user can do. And there are malicious features which are backdoors, that can be

used to attack the user. But fundamentally, non-free software gives the

developer power over the users, and nobody should have that power. Software must be free.

But my definition, so far, is very general. To say it,

respect your freedom, what's that means?

There are four essential freedoms that the user of a software deserves. Freedom

zero is the freedom to run the program as you wish. Freedom one is the freedom

to study the source code of the program and change it to make the program do

what you wish. Freedom two is the freedom to help your neighbor, that's the

freedom to redistribute exact copy of the program when you wish. And Freedom

three is the freedom to contribute to your community. That's the freedom to

distribute copies of your modified versions when you wish.

If the program gives you this four freedom then it is free software, which means

that the social system of the distribution and use of this program is an ethical

system. One has to respect the user's freedom and social fidelity of the user's

community.

But if one of this freedom is missing, or insufficient, then the program is

proprietary software, which means that it imposes an unethical social system on

the users.

So to develop a free program. Oh actually, first I should explain that whether a

program is free or proprietary is not a question of the technical details of the

code, it's a question of how the users get the code, what condition they can use

it.

So to develop a free program is, in general, a contribution to society, more or

less, depending on the details. But develop a proprietary program is not a

contribution, it's a power grant. The use of a non-free software is social

problem.

And so,the goal of free software movement is that all software be free, so that

all users can be free. But why this four freedom is essential, why define free

software based on these four freedoms.

Each freedom has a reason. Freedom two, the freedom to help your neighbor, the

freedom to redistribute that copy of the program is essential on fundamental

moral grounds, so that your can live an upright live as a good member of your

community. If you use a program without freedom no.2 then you are in danger at

any moment of falling into a moral dilemma. Whenever your friend says this

program is nice, could I have a copy. In that moment you will be in a dilemma,

you'll face the choice of two evils. One evil is to give your friend a copy and

violate the license of the program, the other evil is to refuse your friend a

copy and comply with the license of the program.

If you were in this dilemma, _you what_ choose a lesser evil, which is to give

your friend a copy and violate the license of the program. What makes this

_be_ lesser evil, well if you can't avoid doing wrong to somebody or other,

it's better to do wrong to somebody who deserves it, because he has acted wrong.

We can assume that your friend is a good friend, a good member of your

community, and normally deserves your cooperation. By contrast, the developer of

proprietary program has acted to separate you and your community, has tried to

divine your community. So if you have to wrong to one or the other, do it to the

developer.

But being a lesser evil does not mean that it's good. It's never good to make

an agreement and then break it. Not even in a case like this one where the

agreement is inherently evil, and keeping it is worse than breaking it. Still

breaking it is not good. And if you give your friend a copy, what will she

have, she will have an unauthorized copy of a proprietary program, and that's a

bad thing, almost as bad as an authorized copy of a proprietary program. Nobody

is laughing except one person just smiled. Now I'm a bit surprised, and I'm

worried , may be what I'm saying is not clear.

So once you have fully understood this dilemma, what you really do. You should

make sure, you are never in the dilemma. How? I know of two ways, one way is

don't have any friends. The other way, my way is, don't use that software. If

you don't have this non-free software, then there is no danger that you'll fall

into that dilemma. So when someone offers me a program on the condition I'll

not share with you, I say, my conscience does not allow me to accept that

condition, so take you program away. I won't use it.

So I reject software without freedom too on moral grounds, and you should too. And we

should also reject the proper_ terms the the developer use to demonize the

practice of cooperation. Terms like "pirate", when they call the people who

share copies "pirates", what they really saying, they want us to assume that

helping your neighbor is morally equivalent of attacking a ship. Well, I don't

think that's true. Ethical speaking, it's as false as anything could be, because

attacking ships is very bad, but helping your neighbor is good. So I refuse to

call them pirates. When somebody asking me about piracy, I say attacking

ships is very bad. In other words, I refuse to fall into their trap, I refuse to

accept the use of a term "piracy" to refer to helping your neighbor. And when

people asking me what I think of music piracy or software piracy, I say, from

what I have read pirates don't attack by running computers, or by playing

instruments very badly, although that might work with enough time. Form what I

read they use arms, so their piracy is not software or music piracy. So now

you get the point, don't fall into the trap. Well that's the reason to have

freedom reason two, the freedom to help your neighbor, the freedom to

redistribute that copy of the program when you wish.

Essential on fundamental moral grounds, freedom zero, the freedom to run the

program as you wish is essential for a different reason, so you can control your

computing. There are proprietary programs whose licenses are restrict even the

use of authorized copies. And obviously, that's not having control of your

computing. There's one program for publishing web sites, whose license says you

are not allowed to publishing anything that criticizing the developer, imaging

how outrageous that is. So there no limits how nasty they can be, but the

license shouldn't restrict your use of the program at all, that's freedom zero.

And it's essential, but it's not enough. Because that just means you could

either do or not do, whatever the code of the program is already set up to do, so

the developer continue to deciding for you, and imposing his decision on you,

not through the license but through the code of the program. So in order to have

control of your computing, you need freedom one, which is the freedom to study the

source code and then change it to make the program do what you wish, this way

you decide, instead of let the developer decide it for you.

If you don't have freedom one, you can't even tell what the program is doing.

And as I have mentioned, often they have malicious features to spy on the user,

restrict the user, and backdoors to attack the user. And not just obscure, very

little know programs, small companies you never heard of. One proprietary program

in which we have found all three of this malicious feature types that you may

have heard of, it's called "Microsoft Windows". People have found spy feature in

"Microsoft Windows". People have found, of course this is obvious, features

design specifically to restrict what the user does with her own files in her own

machine. And there's backdoor, a backdoor that allows Microsoft to _forceable_

change the software with asking permission of the noumenal user of the machine.

So if you're foolish enough to allow "Microsoft Windows" to run in you computer,

you may think you own it, but really Microsoft has owned your computer.

Any malicious feature that is not in Windows today, Microsoft could forcibly

install tomorrow. Now Microsoft is not the only company that does this, another

malicious product which has all three of these kinds of malicious features is

the "Amazon's Window", well they call it "the kindo", we call it "the swindow". But

when they call it "the kindo", that is meant to explain the purpose of the

product is meant to burn your books. "Kindo" means to start a fire. So it's

design to burn your books. That products spy on the user, because the only

place you could buy a book is from Amazon, and if you buy from Amazon, you are

forced to identify yourself, so Amazon knows exactly what books you have read,

nobody should know that. And it also has digital restriction's management,

features designed to restrict you use of the book you bought to stop people from

doing things like lending book to their friends. They want to put an end to the

practice of lending book to your friends, an end to public libraries. They don't

want sell book or use book stores. And it has a backdoor, we found out about the

backdoor a few month ago. Amazon use it to remotely erase all copies of a

particular book, and this book is 1984, by George Orwell, the book that give us

the word "Orwellian", the book that's very important for everyone to read. So

the people have bought copies from Amazon discovered one day that they don't

have their copies any more they have been erased. Amazon just send the command

to all of these swindows and erase these books. So this shows how dangerous

non-free software can be, because you can't check what it does.

Now, not all of the developers of proprietary software put in malicious

features. Some do it, some don't. The point is we can't check, since we don't have

the source code. Without freedom one, we don't have the source code, we can't

check for malicious features. So we are totally at the mercy of developer. Some

developer will abuse this power, and some won't. The point is they have power,

and they shouldn't have power. Nobody have that power.

So we can divide all the programs without freedom one into two classes. There is

this class of programs we know of malicious features, and then there is programs

which we don't know of them. And some of these program has malicious features

that the public had not found out about it and other don't, and we can't tell

which is which. We can't identify the ones with malicious features.

But even so, I can make a statement about all of them, which is their developers

are human, so they make mistakes, the code of these programs has bugs, and the

user of that program with freedom one is just as helpless, facing a accidental

bug as facing a deliberate features. If you use a program without freedom one,

you are a prisoner of the software you use.

We, the developers of free software are human too, we also make mistakes, the

code of our free programs also has bugs. But if you run into a bug in our free

software code or anything in the code you don't like, you are free to change it.

Because we don't make you a prisoner. We can't be perfect, we can, we respect

you freedom.

So freedom one is essential, but it's not enough. Because that's the freedom to

personally study and change the source code, that's not enough, because

there are millions of users that don't know how to program, they don't know how

to exercise this freedom. They can't exercise it directly. But even for

programmer like me, freedom one is not enough, because there are so many

softwares

in the world. In fact, there are so many free softwares already in the world

that no one person who uses computers can possibly study the source code of

all the programs that she uses and master them all, and personally write all

the changes that she wants, because that's more work than any one person can do.

So the only way we can fully have control of our computing is to working

together, cooperating. And for that, we need freedom three, the freedom to

contribute to your community, the freedom to redistribute your modified

versions. This way, the change that many people want only has to be written once

by somebody whose willing to release his modified version and then we can all

have it. We don't have to write it each one of us, over and over again. for

ourselves. One can write write it and distribute the modified version to all of

us, and we just get it without any additional work.

Suppose a few people release a free program, and we like it, we use it. But we

want some additional features. Well somebody can start with this version and

implement part of this features and release his modified version, and someone

else can start with that implements some more and release her modified version,

and other people can start with that, and implement the rest, and release that,

and then we all switch to that, and we thank them for collaborating to make this

improvements. So freedom three makes it possible for us to collaborate in making

a program do what we really want. So freedom three is also essential.

[21:xx.x]

Now only a programmer, only someone with the skill that's necessary can directly

exercise freedom three, but other users can indirectly take advantage of freedom

one and three. For instance, suppose you use a program in your business, _you

part of how you make money is part of your operations, _you run this program.

Suppose you know this, if a program did something different, it would work

better for you, and you business would run more smoothly, and more efficiently,

and you'll make more money, then it would be worse for you to pay a programmer

to write that change for you, we're assuming you don't know how to program, you

business is probably not a software business, most of the business in the world

don't do software, but they use software, so this is the common case that I'm

talk about. So you know this you would like a certain change, with free

software, you can look for any programmer who wants to do the job for you,

because it's a free market. So you can pick a programmer who acts for a good

price, and who also has experience working on the software, and you could pick

whoever you like. Once you make a deal with that person, then you'll give him a

copy of the version you're using, exercising you freedom no.2, then he'll study

the source code, and implement your changes, exercising his freedom no.1 for

you. In this scenario, you're not a programmer, you don't know how to exercise

freedom no.1, but he does, and you're going to pay him to do it for you. Then

when his changes are working, he gives you a copy of his modified version,

exercising his freedom no.3 for you, then if it works, you pay him. And an

important part of free software business works this way.

Now this is impossible with proprietary software, because you generally don't have

the source code. In fact, only the developer has the source code, so the only

way you can get a change is to beg the developer, or pray to the developer,

"Oh, oh, mighty developer, please make this change for me". Some developers say,

"pay us, and we'll listen to your problem". And if you pay, the developer says,

"Thank you. in six months, there won't be an upgrade, by the upgrade, you'll see

if we have fixed your problem, and you'll see what new problems we have not solved for

you".

(24:55.1)

But with free software, anybody can go into this field, this business. Anyone

with the skill necessary can offer to make change for people. And therefore all

this organizations that use software say they need good support, they should

insist on free software, so that they can get their support from a free market,

which means in general they'll get better support with lesser money. And thus

all the users get the benefit of the four freedoms.

(25:43.1)

Every users can exercise freedom no.0 and 2, the freedom to run the program as

you wish, the freedom to redistribute exact copies. Because these don't require

programming, if you can use a program at all, you can take advantage of these

freedoms. Freedom one and three, the freedom to study and change the source code,

and then optional distribute copies of your modified version. These involve

programming, so any given person can exercise these more or less, depending on

how much he know to program. And there are many people who don't know how to

program, they can't directly exercise these freedoms. But when others,

programmers who exercise versions, and when they release their modified version,

all of us can install them or not, so we all get the benefit of living in a free

society where users have these four freedoms. And the combined result of these

freedoms is democracy. A free program develop democratically under the control

of its users. Because every users can participate however much he wishes. In

society's decisions about the future of this program which is simply the sum

total the decisions of various users make about what to do with this program. So

on one side we have individual freedom, social solidarity and democracy, on the

other we have dictatorship. The developer uses this program to gain power over

users, to subjugate them. The program is the instrument of the programmer's

power, and with this power the developer can bully them, exploit them and

mistreat them. Society must choose free software, and escape from proprietary

software. And so the goal of the free software movement is the liberation of

cyberspace and all of it's habitants.

(28:20.5)

I reach the conclusion around 1983, that software should free and I want to live

in freedom while using computers. How did I reach this conclusion? It was not a

stroke of genius. It was the result of my experience. During the 1970s, I

participated in a free software community, part of this community was IMIT where

I worked. In the lab I worked, the artificial intelligence lab, essentially all the

software we use was free software. We had our own operating system, the

incomparable time-sharing system, or ITS had been developed mostly by the people

in the lab. And when they hired me, my job was to make the system better, and

some programs had been developed in other places, and shared with us, we

improved them and shared them back. We shared our software with anybody who

wanted it. So I got to learn this way of live, when people share knowledge. We

developed software, we shared it. And we expected others to share. So I learned

this is a good way of life.

(30:01.1)

But then, I had a experience with proprietary software. Xerox gave IMIT a laser

printer. This was the first generation laser printer. It was actually a office

copier, a very fast, heavy duty office copier, that have been modified by adding

a laser to it. And it frequently got paper jam, and it was installed in a place

not near everyone's office, so the machine could stay jam for a long time, and

nobody would know this, And as we learn to expect, our reaction to this jam was

we wouldn't go to the printer so soon, we would wait an hour, so if a bunch of people

printed something, and they all waited an hour, that meant it would stay jam

for an hour, and then somebody would fix it, and it would print a few jobs and

then jam again, and it might wait another hour. So things got really bad.

(31:05.2)

Well I knew how to fix that, because I have fix the problem for a previous

printer. I added features to the software, one feature displayed a message on

your screen when your job was finished, so you can go immediately to pick it up,

another displayed a message on your screen when the printer got into trouble.

So you'll go immediately to fix it. Well I want to add these features, but I was

blocked. You see, for the old printer, the reason I could add these features was

it was controlled by a free software. But the new printer was controlled by

proprietary software on the special kind of computer that Xerox gave us. And I

couldn't change it, I couldn't add these features, all I can do is suffer,

along with everybody else in the lab who were suffering the same way.

(32:04.6)

And then I heard that somebody at CMU[Carnegie Mellon University] had a copy of

that source code. So eventually I was there, so I went to his office, and I say,

"Hi, I am a friend of IMIT, could I have a copy of the printer software source

code", and he says, "No, I promised not to give you a copy". And I was shocked,

I was so shocked by this refusal to cooperate in a usual way. Then I couldn't

express my anger, and do justice to it. All I can do is walk out of his office.

But because it rankle so much, I keep thinking about it. I thought about what

he's done and how his betrayal of the rest of community had hurt us. And I

thought the morality of what he's done. Because he didn't just promise not to

share with me, it wasn't personal. It was even worse. Because he has promised to

refuse his cooperation to everyone in the world. He had not just betrayed my lab

IMIT, he had betrayed the whole world. And when I realized that, I thought of "曹

操". But "曹操" only spoke of the idea of betraying the whole world, this person

had actually done it. And this is what crystallized my understanding of the evil

of proprietary software. Specifically in this case the evil of a non-disclosure

agreement, because that's what he had signed. He signed a agreement, so that he

got the source code, and the price of his getting it was to betray all the rest

of us. Well except most of you weren't born yes, so you weren't included, that

was around 1980s. But those of you were already born, you were included, you

were betrayed.

(34:37.6)

Anyway, a couple of years later, my community collapsed, it died. And the PDP10

computer which the incompatible time-sharing system was written for became

obsolete. And so I faced a prospect of spending the rest of my life using and

developing proprietary software. And I thought about that, and I concluded this

is ugly, this is a horrible way to live. I said no. I refuse to live that life.

I'm going to dedicate myself to winning freedom, to creating a new free software

share community.

(35:44.9)

So, in order to have a free software community, in order to use our computers in

freedom, the first thing we need is an operating system that's free software,

because computer won't run at all without a operating system. So, not only that,

I was an operating system developer. I was the exact right person to start a

project to develop an operating system. And that's what I decided to do. The job

had to be done, I had the necessary skills, and it looked like nobody would do

it, if I did not. So I concluded that it was my duty to do this, I was elected

by circumstance. As if you see somebody drowning, you know how to swim, there is

no one else around, and it's not Bush. Then you have a moral duty to save that

person. Well I've made too strong statements, perhaps there are other people

in other governments about whom I should not make the claim that you have a moral

duty to save them. But in any case, that's not important for me, because I

don't know how to swim. But in this case, the job to be done was not swimming,

was to developing an operating system, and that I knew how to do it. So I

decided I would develop a free software operating system, or die trying.

(37:59.0)

A old age that is, because at that time the free software movement I started had

no active enemies. Lots of people disagreed, but they just laughed and then pay

no more attention to us. They were sure we would never develop a free operating

system anyway. They didn't think they had to bother to try to stop us. And I

didn't know if we'll succeed. How could I be sure, what I knew was, that if we

didn't try, we were certain to fail. Freedom demanded this job. So I just do it,

I decided I'll develop a free operating system. I decided to recruit other

people to join in and help, so we can finish sooner. I decided to follow the

design of UNIX, so that could be a portable operating system, and it'll be able

to run on a computer five or ten or twenty years in the future. And I decided to

make it compatible with UNIX, that's using the same commands, so that the users

of UNIX would find it easy to switch.

(39:17.2)

And then I gave the name GNU as a joke. Because even though it was clear that if

I succeeded, this would be the most thing I would do in my life. No matter how

serious something is, you can still make a joke. And that's part of the hacker

spirit.

(39:42.7)

You see, in our community, in the 1970s, we called ourselves hackers. And what's

that meant and means, because we still call ourselves hackers, what it means was

we are programming because it's fascinating to use our intelligence, it's not

just a job, for us, programming is a way to be playfully clever. And playful

cleverness is what being a hacker is all about. And it doesn't have to be with

computers, if you enjoy playful cleverness, you can be playful clever in any

area of life. But it's true computers are very suitable for engaging in playful

cleverness. That gives you a lot of opportunities to do it.

(40:37.0)

Anyway, in the 1970s, system level programming is usually not portable. Every

program was written for a specific kind of computer and that's all it could run

on. So it was very common that you would want to use an existing program, but

you could run it, because it was written for some other kind of computer. And

the only solutions write another, so you would write you own program to do the

same job that you could run it on your computer. So everybody had to do this.

(41:16.2)

But in our community, we had a humorous tradition for this cases. You could give

you program a name which was a recursive acronym saying that your program is not

the other one, a humorous way of giving credit. So, for instance, there were many

fairly similar Tego text editors. And someone write one and called his program

TNT for "TNT is not Tego". That was the first recursive acronym. And then I

wrote the Emacs text editor, and there were thirty imitation Emacs afterwards.

Each one of it run it on a different kind of computer. And most of them were

called something-Emacs, which is obvious not fun. But there was also Fine, for

Fine Is Not Emacs, and Sine, for Sine Is Not Emacs, and Eine, for Eine Is Not

Emacs. And Mince, for Mince Is Not Complete Emacs, and version two of Eine was

called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially. Zwei is German for Two. So you could

have a lot of fun in recursive acronym.

(42:57.1)

And I decided to use a recursive acronym for something is not UNIX. And then

pondering for a name to use for a suitable recursive acronym, I discovered the

word GNU would work. GNU stands for GNU is Not UNIX.

[laughter]

(43:17.4)

And not only that, the world GNU is the most humor charged word in the English

language. Use for countless wordplays, because according to the dictionaries the

G is silent, and the word is pronounced [nju:]. So every time you want to write a

word NU, you could spell it GNU, and you have a joke. Perhaps not a very good

joke, but there are lots other. So that's the reason why I chose the name GNU,

it happens to the name of animal that lives in Africa. You can see drawing of

this animal on a lot of our things. Here, over here. So this is a picture of

GNU. But the reason that I chose it is not because I love this animal, it's

because it stands for GNU Is Not UNIX.

(44:28.0)

So when it is the name of our system, don't follow the dictionary. Because if

you talk about the new operating system, you'll get people confused. You see

we've worked on it for 25 years now, and we've been using it for 17 years, so

it's new any more, but it still is GNU. And it'll always be GNU, despite the

people who _ironically_ call it Linux. But how did that error get started, how it

was happened that millions of people who use the GNU system, and they think the

system is Linux. It's the confusion that started in 1991-92.

(45:15.9)

Here is what happened. During 80s, our task was to develop hundreds of

components that we need for a UNIX-like system. And in 1990s we had almost all of

the system, but one essential part is still missing. And that was the kernel.

The kernel was the system component that allocates computer's resources to all the

other programs you run. So in 1990s, the free software foundation hired somebody

to write the GNU kernel, and we decided to use advanced design, the bottom part

was micro-kernel, and on top of that we would develop a bunch of module servers

that will communicate by message-dispatching, and each server will do one

particular job. So this was an advance elegant design that we thought would make

the system more powerful. And for various reasons we thought it would be easier to

bootstrap it, and that we would get it done sooner. Well, we were wrong. Because

it took 6 years to get even a test version running, and it's still doesn't work

very well, so people don't use it.

(46:40.1)

But fortunately, we didn't have to wait for that. Because in 1991, Mr Torvalds,

a college student started to write his own kernel. And he got it to work at a

minimum level in less than a year. His kernel was called Linux, and initially

it was not free software, because initially its license was too restrictive.

(47:15.8)

So, in fact it did not allow commercial redistribution, therefore that meant a

large class of users, namely business, and individuals in their business

activities didn't have freedom two and three. So that's not free software. But

in 1992, Torvalds re-released Linux under the GNU GPL, making it free

software, because the GNU GPL is the one of the many free software licenses.

(48:00.4)

But you might ask what is a free software license? Why does a free program need

a license anyway? Well, under today's copyright law, anything that is written is

automatically copyright. And copyright law by default forbides modification,

coping, distribution. And in many counties even forbade running the program, so

by default, the program is not free. So how can we make a program free? We do it

through an explicit formal statement by copyright holders, giving the users the

four freedoms. These formal statement we call it the free software licenses, or

putting it more precisely, any such statement would be a license. If a license

give you the four freedoms, then it's a free software license. So the license

has to be written properly to give you the four freedoms. So there are many free

software licenses. There are something like fifty or sixty we know of, and may

be there may others, because anybody could theoretical write a free software

license as long as you does it right. Of course, if you going to do it, you

should get help from a lawyer, because otherwise you could make a mistake.

(49:38.7)

So the GNU General Public License or GNU GPL is a particular free software

license that I wrote to use it on the programs that we would develop for GNU,

and the GNU GPL is the most commonly used free software license, about two third

of all free software projects use the GNU GPL. And what special about GNU GPL is

that it's a copyleft license. Copyleft means that all copies of all versions of

the program must be free. You see, some free software licenses, for instance,

the _exerleven_ license, and the two different BSD licenses, they are very

lack. They let people turn the program into proprietary software. If I wrote a

program and release it under a lack license, somebody could get a copy from me, and

compile it, and gives you just the binary, putting on an end-user license

agreement that restricts you. And then you copy will not free software, he could

change the source code, and compile it, and provide you just the binary. And it

would be just impossible to get source code that correspond to that binary,

because only he would have it. Now if my goal have been success, I might say

it's good, more people would use my software, but that's just ego. My goal

wasn't to have more people to use my software, my goal was to give people

freedom.

(51:45.7)

And to achieve that goal, I had to make sure that a middle man could

not remove the freedom of your copy before you get it. So I developed this

technic of copyleft. Here is how copyleft works, the GNU GPL says, "You are free

to distribute that copies and modified versions, but you must make the source

code available, and you must distribute always under the same license, you can't

change the license, you can't add restrictions, and you can't take away

protections. So when you distribute the copy to someone else, you have to

respect his freedom, just as I respect your freedom. And so the freedom this way

goes with the free software, everywhere the code goes, the freedom goes also.

That's the idea of copyleft.

[applause]

(52:51.0)

So I noticed people who mistakenly believe that the free software is only the

software under GNU GPL, that's not true, there are other free licenses also.

There are copyleft free licenses, and there are non-copyleft free licenses. All

of them respect your freedom. But the copyleft license go even further, and they

actively defend freedom for every user.

[RMS drinking water]

(53:36.1)

So, when Torvalds re-release Linux under the GNU GPL, it became free software.

And the combination of the almost complete GNU system and the kernel Linux made

a complete free operating system. For the first time, it was possible to buy a

PC, and install a free operating system. And use it in freedom. So liberation of

Linux as free software was an important contribution for free software

community. But at the same time, the confusion started, and the people who put

Linux together with the bulk of the system got confused, they were focused so

much on Linux, they treated everything else as a minor _eron_. And they started

to call this combination a Linux system, talking _this_piece_ and ignoring most of

it. And that's not fair to us, because we started this work almost a decade

before Torvalds, we did a much bigger part of job, and we were the ones who had the goal

of doing the whole job, which is why it got done. So please give us a share of

the credit, please don't call the system Linux. Please call it GNU/Linux, so say

I'm going to set up a GNU/Linux server, I'm a GNU/Linux user, I'm going to start

a GNU/Linux user group. Please take this extra second to give us a share of the

credit.

[applause]

(55:21.2)

Now, one reason to do that is because we did this work, and you should give us

credit. But that's not really the most important thing. Credit is not the really

most important ethical issue in life. There are something much more important to

say here. And that is your freedom. You see, the name you call something, your

choice of the name doesn't directly change anything. But the name you use

determines what message you convey to other people, and that has influence on

their thought which can have an influence on their actions. So in this way, what

you say makes difference. Ever since twenty years ago, when I announced the GNU

project, the name GNU are associated with these ideas of freedom. By contrast,

the name Linux is not, because Linux is associated to Mr. Torvalds and with his

ideas, and he doesn't agree with our idea of freedom, he rejects them, he

doesn't think that we should give every user freedom, he just wants powerful

reliable software. Well, he has the rights to express his views, of course

people should be free to express his views, even if we disagree with them. But it's

not fair for him to get the benefit of the erroneous credit for our work in

order to spreed his views saying

we are wrong. That's not fair, and it's not good for your freedom either.

Because if people believe the system is Linux, they tend to follow his ideas, and that

means they don't value their own freedom, they won't join us in fighting for

freedom. And if there are few of us, we has less chance of victory, our freedom

is threatened these days. Twenty-five years ago, the only work we had to do was write

free software. Today we have powerful enemies, companies with a lot of money,

and the governments who support the purchase, like the US government and many

others. So we are going to do more than just write free software, we are pretty good at

that, we've written a lot of software. But now we also have to organize, we have

to get together to champion freedom, because our enemies are trying to make sure

that it's hard to use free software, they're trying to hold us back. And they

are trying to get the support of governments at all levels, of schools. And we

have to work, we have to make sure our governments and schools don't support

them. We have to make sure our governments and schools support freedom.

[applause]

(58:51.1)

So freedom is frequently threatened. And to keep it, we have to defend it. But

in order to defend our freedom, we have to value our freedom. And in order to

value our freedom, we have to know what it is. In our community, I'm sad to say

most of the uses have never even heard the idea. As we trying to bring people's

attention, these ideas and social solidarity that go with free software, we have

to overcome two big obstacles. One is the users of the GNU system mostly don't

know it's the GNU

system, they think it's Linux and that was started by Mr Torvalds in 1991, and they don't

think it has anything to do freedom. So we write these articles talking about

freedom, and when they see the articles they say, "Oh, that has nothing to do

with me, because that's about GNU, and I'm a Linux user, why should I care about

GNU. Now how ironic this is, if only they knew the system they call Linux if

mainly a GNU system. And that's the result of work, and we did it because we

care about our freedom, they might pay more attention, they might listen what we

were saying, and we might convince them to demand freedom for themselves. And

then they would be _join_ together_ with us to champion for freedom, and then we might

win. We need their help, and that means we need you to inform other people that this is

a GNU system, and it gives people freedom.

[applause]

( 1:00:52.6)

But the other obstacle is most of the users have never heard the term free

software, most of them hear and use a different term which stands for different

philosophy, different ideas entirely. And that term is "open source". Now I am

sure you'll be aware that I have not mention that term until this moment.

Because I support "free software" "自由软件", I don't support open source.

Because there are different ideas. What's the difference? Well, during the 1990s

as the GNU/Linux operating system gains popularity, the community had two

different camps, two different views, two different philosophies. There are

those of us who want freedom, say this software is good because it respects our

freedom. And when we say good, we mean good vs. evil. And there were the other camp

who says this software is good because it's reliable and efficient and powerful

and flexible and cheep, and when they say good, they mean good quality. And they

were looking at practical convenience values, and we were looking at ethical values.

Total different philosophies with different basic values _they_rest on. In

1998, the other camp chose the name "open source". So that's the big difference

between free software and "open source".

( 1:02:47.6)

The free software movement says, "We want freedom, we want social fidelity". The

"open source" camp says, "We want powerful reliable software". We say, "If a

program doesn't respect your freedom, that's wrong". They say, "If a program

does let you participate in the development, we were surprised if it was a good

job." They won't criticize anything on ethical level. The most they'll say is

they think that certain development model will lead to more powerful reliable

software. Well, may be they're right. If that's right, it's a nice bonus. If

freedom also gives us powerful and reliable, that's nice. I prefer powerful and

reliable software. But that's not the most important thing, there is something

more important than that, namely are freedom. So if you give me a choose between

in less powerful less reliable program that respects my freedom, and an totally

convenient proprietary program. I'm going to choose the free program. Because my

freedom is not negotiable.

[applause]

( 1:04:16.8)

Of course, what I really like to have is a program gives both advantages

together. I would like a powerful, reliable, convenient free software package.

And how are we going get that? If we start from the proprietary program, let's

propose the proprietary is already powerful, reliable and convenient, how are we

going to make it free? We can't. There is nothing we can do to make it free,

unless we would collect millions of dollars buy it from the company which I'm

sure we couldn't do. We can't make it free, There is nothing we do to make that

program free. But suppose we start from a free program which is not powerful,

reliable and convenient, all we need to do is technical work to make it

powerful, reliable and convenient, and we'll have everything we want. So the

result is this powerful, reliable proprietary program is a trap, if we make a

mistake of using that, we'll never get what we want the most, but if we start

with the free program, such as it is. And we put our work to make it better,

we'll get what we really want most. It's a matter of long-term thinking vs.

short-term thinking. And you'll find most of the time people who use proprietary

software is because of short-term thinking.

( 1:05:58.8)

Our society is full of messages from proprietary software developers that

encourage short-term thinking. They ask about where you want to go today and not

how you want to live in five years, ten years and twenty years.

[applause]

[RMS drinking]

( 1:06:25.1)

So these days we have to do more than just develop software. Because there are

enemies who are trying to ban free software for certain jobs. And they started

in US, but they are trying to do it in the whole world. For instance, one thing

you might want to with your computer is play a DVD. Well, DVDs have the video

encrypted and that format was originally secret. The reason they made it secret

was so they can design the DVD player to restrict you. And people figured out

the secret. And they released free software which decrypt the video from the

DVD. So then the video company, they got a lot of money, and they went to

congress, they pay the legislator to pass a law censoring that software, the US

practice of censorship of software, and censorship is of course discussing. So

we have to fight against a worldwide campaign to impose those laws on countries

around the world. And meanwhile they have developed another secret encryption

formats with the same purpose. They are trying to impose restrictions on how we

use our own copies of congruous works. And they are doing through proprietary

software that implements the restrictions. And because our communities are full

of clever people who could write free software to do the same job. The next

thing is they make it illegal. So we need to organize to fight this.

( 1:08:52.6)

Another thing that threaten our freedom to write free software is patent law. In

countries that allow software ideas to be patented. Any software developer is in

danger of being sued. Because when you write a program, you combine thousands of

different ideas together. Well if your country has a law that allow software

ideas to be patented, that means out of the thousands of ideas you combined, may

be hundreds of them are patented, which means hundreds of lawsuits. If you like

the idea that when you write a large program, you face a potential of hundreds of

lawsuits. Then you should support software patents. But if you don't like that

idea, then you should say that your country should not have software patents.

It's a foolish policy. It's only good for the mega corporations.

( 1:10:00.2)

You see, in many field a mega corporation typically own half of the patents. And

they cross-license each other. And they can force other companies to

cross-license with them. And the result is the mega corporations escape from

most of the problem. They've escape most of the harm done by the patents, and

that harm falls on anybody else who trying to get in the field. But in software

we can combine more different ideas into one product than any other field. The

reason is software is fundamentally easier than physical engineering because

it's just math. So whereas other people, if they want to put an additional idea

into a product, they may have to do a lot of testing, a lot of research and so

on. We just have to write the code.

( 1:11:01.5)

So given a easier field we can combine more ideas into one program, than

somebody else could put one chemical process, or one circuit, or one phiscal

structure. And as a result, patents cause a bigger problem in our field than the

any other fields. So we need to make sure that software development is not

obstructed by prohibitions. That's what we mainly need. As long as they don't

prohibit us from writing free software, we'll. But these days we have to

organize to make sure they don't prohibit it. In addition, we have to convince

social institutions to stop promoting proprietary software. For instance, we

need to convince our governments to move to free software. Government agencies

must use exclusive free software, because a government agency does its computing

for the public, it's not doing computing for its own pleasure. You know you

could do computing for your own pleasure, you don't have to justify it to anyone

else, but when a government agency does computing, that's being done for the

public. Therefore the government agency has a responsibility to do it right for

the public, so every government agency must maintain _solvering_ control over the

computing it does. If you use a proprietary program, and therefore you lose your

control of you computing, that's unfortunate for you. But if a government agency

uses a proprietary program and loses its computing, that's worse than

unfortunate, that's a failure to carry out its duty as part of the state. So all

government agency must move to free software. They must maintain control of

their computing, so they can assure it's been done right.

( 1:13:32.2)

But even more important, the schools must move to free software. Every school

must teach exclusively free software, and there are four reasons for this. The

most superficial reason is to save money. Schools don't have enough money. In

any country, the schools are limited by lack of money, so they must not waste

some of the limited money paying for permission to run proprietary software. Now

this motivation is obvious, even to people who don't understand free software,

even if they think it's "免费", they'll still understand this reason. Even

though they really don't know what there are talking about. But this is

superficial reason, and there are some proprietary software developers have a

habit of eliminating this reason by donating gratis copies of their non-free

software to schools. And why they are do that? They are trying to turn the

schools into instruments of subjugation. They want the schools to make society

depend on that developers products. Here is how it works. They provide these

gratis copies to the school, the school teaches the students to use them, and

the students become depended on these companies product. And then, they graduate

with the dependence, and after they graduated, this developer does not offer

them gratis copies, and they go to work for companies, the developer does not

offer this companies gratis copies. So in a fact, the school imposing the direct

students on the path of dependence, and then they impose with them the rest of

the society, imposing dependence on all of the society. And the developer hopes

the society will never escape from the dependence. It's just like what the

tobacco company used to, when handed out gratis packages of cigarettes.

[applause]

( 1:16:11.3)

The first dose is gratis, once you were depended, then you have to pay. Now I'm

sure the schools would refuse to hand out addictive drugs, even if the school

didn't have to pay for them. And in the same way, the school should refuse to

teach non-free software, because the school has a social mission. The mission of

the schools is to educate the next generation as good citizens of a strong,

capable, independent, cooperating and free society. And in computing, this means

teaching them to use free software.

( 1:17:03.4)

But there is a deeper reason. And that is for the education of the best

programmers. You see, some people are natural-born programmers, at the age of

ten to thirteen, they become fascinating with computers, and they want to learn

all about the computer and software. How does it do this? But when a student ask a

teacher, "How does the program do this?", if it is proprietary, the teacher can

only say, "I'm sorry, it's a secret, and we can find out". So education can't

begin. Proprietary software is the enemy of the spirit of education, and it

should not be tolerated in a school.

( 1:18:12.0)

But if a program is free, the teacher can explain as much as he knows, and then

say, "Here is the source code of the program, read it and you'll understand

everything". And our kid will read it all, because he is fascinating and yearn

to understand it, and the teacher can say, "If you come across any point, you

can't figure out, show it to me, and we'll figure it together". And in this way,

our natural-born programmers have an opportunities to learn something very

important, that is not clear, don't write it that way. You see, for a

natural-born programmer, how to program is obvious, how to program is different.

The way you learn good clear code, is by reading a lots of code and writing a

lots of code, only free software gives you the chance to read a lots of code

from really program people really use. In that way, you'll see what's clear and

what's not clear. And you can learn what good code is.

[applause]

( 1:19:28.2)

Furthermore, to write code for a large program, you have to start small. But

that doesn't mean small program. Because in a small program, you don't even see

the beginning of difficulties of a large program. So you have to start by

writing small changes in a existing large program. Only free software gives you

the chance to do that. To write a small change to improve an existing large

program. This is how I learned, I went to work at a lab where we have a free

software operating system, my job was to make it better, and my job was a system

hacker, it means somebody who works on a system. So I would read these various

programs and make a change to make it better, either fixing a bug or adding a

new feature. And then I would debug until people were happy, and then I would do

another change on another program, And I did it hundreds of times, and

eventually I learned to do it well. Today any school can offer the same

opportunity, but only if it is a free software school.

( 1:20:46.4)

But there is a even deeper reason for education in citizen ship, every school

must teach not just facts, not just skills, but above all how to be a good

citizen, how to help your neighbor, and that habit of helping your neighbor.

[applause]

( 1:21:12.2)

So every class must have this rule, "Students, if you bring software to class,

you can't keep it to yourself, you must share it with the rest of the students

and the teacher. Because a class is a place where we share our knowledge and

useful information. So if you bring some, you got to share it, and you got to

show the source code, so that people can learn how it works." But the school has

to set a good example, because people follow the example of the teacher, they

do more than listen to the words, so the teacher also must share software and

show the source code. The school must bring only free software to class. So how

is that going to happened? You are going to have to campaign for this to

happened.

( 1:22:20.8)

The biggest obstacle is social _inner_. So social _inner_ means society tends

to going to same direction it's already going. There are so many institutions

that use Windows and they don't want to change. And they keep pressure other

people to use Windows. Schools are teaching people Windows. Banks tell their

customers you have to use Windows. And in all around, you can find example of

this, so society is going down the path of dependence, it is subject to digital

colonization, this is a colonial system in which companies that develop

proprietary gain power over more users. So how do we reverse this? We have to

get together and say, "Escape from their power, don't be colonized". We have to

convince the institutions that surround us to support a society which is not a

_colonity_ of society. And how to do that is up to you.

( 1:24:38.5)

So I like to mention a couple of websites. For more information about the GNU

system and the free software movement and its philosophy, look at gnu.org.

For information about the free software foundation, look at fsf.org. In fsf.org

you can buy something, you can donate, you can find resources, our free software

directory lists 16000 useful free softwares, and you can find lists of hardware

that works well with free software. One of the problem we face today is that

there are many devices that require non-free software in order to function at

all. And the manufacture would tell us the specifications, and that stop us from

writing the free software that we need.

( 1:25:57.7)

And you can also look at the zeuux.org, which is the organization that put on

this event, and is the main Chinese organization for free software. So I'm going

to introduce to my another identity.

( 1:26:32.4)

[RMS putting on the dresses]

[la

I'm a saint of a _GNUers_ of the church of Emacs, I bless your computer, my

child. Emacs started out as a text editor, which became a way of life for many

users. Because it was an extensible text editor, and still is, and it was

extended so much that they could do all of their computing without leaving Emacs.

And then it became a church which belongs to GNU group.

which you might be amused to visit it.

Today in the church of Emacs, we have

So thank you.

( 1:30:27.9)

ZoomQuiet/2009-10-25/RMS-fengxigang (last edited 2009-12-25 07:17:05 by localhost)