ithout with non-free software.
[laughter]
Okay, now, now we can continue.
Oh, it's was you, I think, you.
Uh, what is your current view about
building something like the Lisp Machine on generic hardware?
I'm sorry, I couldn't really understand the words you said.
If you want to, you have talked
before about building something like the Lisp Machine
on the,
ordinary, general hardware.
Oh, I decided that that would too inefficient,
and therefore I rejected the idea.
But
när du
when you argued that you wanted an operating system
and, then something like a Lisp Machine on top of it...
Well, OK, yeah, I'd like to have a Lisp system,
unfortunately,
well, we *do* have some Lisp Systems, you know, we have a Scheme interpreter,
and there is GNU Common Lisp.
It needs work, you know, it only supports
Common Lisp version *one*.
So if you're interested in getting us better Lisp support,
please volunteer, either, either help with GNU Common Lisp,
or help with Guile.
But, all I can do is wait for people who want to do the work.
Yes, do you know about "Larry Wall", does he confess himself to the Open Source Movement or Free Software?
I don't know.
You'd have to ask him.
Because he, he issued his program,
Perl,
with two different licenses, one is the "Artistic License"...
That's an inde, that's an unrelated question.
You see,
both movements endorse use of the GPL,
and both movements also say it's legitimate to use the BSD license,
both movements say that the Perl license is legitimate,
so,
really, tho...
The difference between the movements is primarily *not*
a matter of licenses.
It's primarily a matter of the *reasons* we give.
There was somebody over there?
Where do you draw,
the line,
between hardware and software?
When it comes to firmware, for example...
Well as you said, it's, it's a gray area so you got to find someplace to draw the line, and,
I don't think it's worth worrying too hard
about
little movements in the line.
Is there a project to create some free hardware?
There are such projects,
and I *think* there's a link somewhere on www.gnu.org, although I'm not sure where,
but I think that's not terribly important, and the reason is
these moral issues become important
*when you can easily copy something*.
And when you can easily *modify* it and then make *copies* of the modified version.
Now,
You can ea...
If you have a hardware *design*, you can easily copy and modify *that*,
but turning it into hardware is *not* easy.
So,
because of that,
it's you know, "Am I allowed to copy this computer?".
Well, I don't have a copier that will copy it, so it doesn't make any difference.
Y'know
in "Star Trek",
you know, if I had a transporter on hand,
[laughter]
and I could
flip some, I could modify some switches to make it duplicate things instead, then,
Uh, then yeah, then I,
think that whether I'm *allowed* to copy my computer is a very important moral issue.
And whether I'm allowed to copy the food
that I just bought, and, and the car, and so on, all those things should be important issues.
But since we don't *have* car copiers,
it's not an important moral issue *today*.
You know,
In the age of the printing press,
when copies of information could *only* be made efficiently through mass production,
by sp, with specialized expensive equipment,
uh,
copyright did *not* raise an important ethical issue,
because it was *only* a restriction on publishers, it was a kind of industrial regulation.
The reason why it now creates moral issues
that affect our way of life,
is
that *now* we have technology that permits *all* of us to do this kind of copying,
so copyright is now a restriction
on everybody's way of life.
However, for ph, material physical objects,
*those* are still in the state of affairs
like the age, like books in the age of the printing press, where it takes a *factory* to make them.
And so,
you know, the question of whether we're allowed to copy them
doesn't really
have a practical difference,
and whether we're allowed to *modify* them,
well, actually, yes, we *are* allowed to modify them,
you know,
if I own a computer I'm allowed to modify it,
except that it's pretty impractical to modify the ins, the internals of a chip.
Even if you *manufacture* the chip, you, you work for the company that made the chip, you can't change it.
You ca, it just can't be done.
Does that mean that you have exactly the same views on all intellectual properties?
I don't believe you should use the term "intellectual property";
it's too big a generalization.
It encourages you to,
it, it's an invitation
to m, bad sloppy thinking,
because
patents and copyrights are *so different* from each other,
that, almost *everything* is different, hardly *anything* is similar.
So you should *never* try to treat them both together.
And, therefore you shouldn't use the term "intellectual property",
and if somebody else is trying to talk about "intellectual property", you should say:
"Please be more fs, specific;
what are you talking about?
Are you talking about copyrights, are you talking about patents, are you talking about trade secrets, are you talking about trademarks?"
And there are various other kinds as well.
They're *all* *totally* different.
The *other* thing is,
that even,
I think,
even if we stick to just *one* of them, say,
copyrights,
that's *still* too big an area.
I don't think we should treat it uniformly,
different kinds of works,
that might be copyrighted,
are *used* in different ways,
and, so,
the *same basic questions*
have to be asked,
but the answers,
at least in *my* view,
are *not* all, always the same.
But, but, the reasons for, say,
an,
not having the same views on a book, or something like that...
N, I'm sorry, I can't hear you, could you speak *louder* please?
The reasons for not having the same views on, say, a book or something like that,
couldn't they be applied to software as well, then?
Well,
yeah, first of all I don't say I have
views about
books
because
you know, for *some* kinds of books, say, like manuals and textbooks,
I'd say that those are,
just like software and that they have to be free in the same way,
but for *other* kinds of books, say, like...
Uh, an, an, and for dictionaries also, I'd say those have to be free in the same way,
but for *other* kinds of books, like novels, that may be a different question.
So,
uh, it has to do with how they're *used*.
Software is a *functional*
work.
Uh,
it's very rare that a program is written
*primarily* to be *admired* by people who look at it.
*Normally*, it's written to be *run* by a computer,
and when people look at it and study it they're doing so because they're interested in what it *does*
when you run it on a computer.
So,
uh,
you know, when something is mainly *functional*,
that has certain consequences,
which don't apply to a novel, say.
Uh, I would like to make a comparison, then,
to,
eh, you say that, a functional
book, like a dictionary,
that should be
general,
that should be generally available, that should...
It should be free.
Yes.
But, as...
In the same sense as software.
Yes.
But then,
you say, novels,
which are more for entertainment and amusements,
they don't need to be free.
More that, maybe the definition of "free" that's appropriate for a novel
would be different from the criterion of "free" for a program or a manual.
Yeah, how would you then make the difference between
a utility program and a game program?
Well, I would say that the game *program* should be free software in the same sense as a compiler.
But, perhaps the game *scenario* could be treated differently.
I would say that there is a certain *basic minimum* freedom that should apply to absolutely any kind of work that you could have on your computer.
And that is the freedom to occasionally mail a copy to your friend.
That kind of private, non-organized redistribution is
the absolute minimum, because any attempt to take that away from people becomes oppressive.
And requires a police state to enforce it.
But whether additional freedoms are essential, that depends on what sort of thing it is.
So maybe it's good enough for the game *scenario* if,
if people are just allowed to redistribute it c, by occasionally mailing it to their friends.
But for the game *engine*, it should be free software.
You said that
the, the, hard,
hardware redevelopment for the free software ideology would be easy to replicate
Yeah.
So, in regards to firmware and software patents, what are your comments on gene patents?
Well,
I'm not sure.
I'm definitely against gene patents for natural genes.
That's clear.
Whether there should be gene patents for artificial genes,
I'm not sure.
Uh, the situation with, you, you know, you couldn't find...
But if there *are* gene patents for artificial genes, then farmers should be allowed to save the seeds nonetheless.
It's clear that farmers should be allowed and *must* be allowed to save their seeds and replant them the next year,
and also, trade them to other farmers.
Farmers must be allowed to continue doing breeding
the way they've done for ten thousand years.
But,
that doesn't, wh...
It may be, though, that some limited kind of patenting for *artificial* genes
could be a reasonable system to have.
But I, but f...
But for naturally occuring genes, those sh, *definitely* should not be patentable at all.
Has your work had any, uh, effect on legislation in countries in international law? Has copyleft been...
Not yet.
Uh, so far, the software companies and the other media companies have been dictating changes in copyright law.
Which is a tremendous injustice.
We are just now getting to the point where we might *begin* to have an effect on slowing them down.
There are now proposals, in both France and Denmark, to pass a law saying
that the government must use free software al, whenever that is possible.
Uh, which would be the first instance of laws
passed for the sake of encouraging free software.
I think, though, that
the issue of software patents is *more important*,
and,
there is a lot of effort now within the Free Software community
to work to *stop* Europe from adopting software patents.
To get more, th...
There is an important decision that would be made next June, I believe.
Whether to amend the Munich treaty, which establishes the European patent office,
to *permit* patenting software.
That's the proposal. And we are working to block it.
And you should help. So, if we succeed, that will have been the first really important effect of free software on international law.
How have you managed to control software quality and interoperability within the GNU project?
Well, for the most part, everybody working on free software
tends to recognize that the users want it to be able to work with other software.
So, they tend to try to support interoperability.
And if the original developer doesn't pay attention to that but the users want that, the users can change the program to make it interoperate.
And, th, th, the awareness that the users can do that,
tends to encourage the developer to do what the users are going to want.
Because it's rather frustrating to have the users change your program to make it compatible and not use your version anymore.
So, you will tend to make your version compatible so that that, the users won't have to do that.
There *are* of course occasional exceptions, there are people who are just very stubborn about something, and, and don't care.
And when that happens, well, the users either don't use that program, or, or they change it to be compatible,
or, if it's not *too* bad a problem they accept it the way it is.
And, as far as q...
Within the GNU project *specifically*,
well,
if I see, if I find out about a lack of interoperability or a lack of coherence,
between two parts of the GNU project,
I think about it and I ask one or both of the maintainers to make some changes.
Because, be,
because they're working for the GNU project they have a, they're supposed to listen.
Because it's, they're not independent projects, they're part of one larger project.
Is that what,
uh,
groups called the cheap programming team on?
I don't know.
[laughter]
Hi, when I, when I look at all these Linux distributions, it came to my mind that...
[laughter]
It came to my mind that today, even the free software movement have to get money some way.
Yeah.
and
Well, actually, it *helps*, but it's not absolutely necessary.
Yes, but I, I, I,
I thought maybe you, it could be organized in some way and maybe you shoot me down after say this, but
Eh,
It came to my mind that there's a lot of proprietary software in each distribution
Yeah, it's really sad.
...argue that free software in the sense you, you're paying for the proprietary softw...
No, no, that's not true. They don't say that. You're paying for the whole thing.
Oh yeah, OK, OK.
But, that's just the impression you get. But...
Well, actually, I'm interested in what you just said.
If there is something specific on one of these distributions
which says that "you're paying for this added proprietary software",
then I would like you to e-mail me
a description of, you know, who, which product is it, and what exactly did they say?
Because I want to complain to them.
But, continue.
Yeah, let's say you organize it in this way, that you allow eh, people to, eh, contribute to a, free s, free software CD, by just the binaries.
But tell them that, in, "in half a year you have to give us also the software".
The source code.
That way they can d, earn money and we could still get more free software.
Well, we can't do that.
Because basically we can't enc, we can't endorse any program that isn't fr...
We can't endorse a program *today* if it isn't free software *today*.
Our principle is that if you get the program you should get the source code.
Now, I've already explained how,
I'm,
I'm willing to wait a year for it to become free software.
I'd rather have that than have it *never* be free software.
But *during that year*, I won't distribute the program.
Uh, but you, you, formerly you said it doesn't matter if, if, how fast we do it,
the main thing is getting it moving in the right direction.
And some things could be very difficult to get from just free software, you need [a company behind it to organize it.]
Well, it might be, s... Actually, I'm not convinced of that.
I don't think that there's any project that *needs* a company behind it, we have done some *very big* projects.
And some *very hard* projects.
However, I will agree that having companies contributing is useful.
That there will probably get *more* projects done if companies are contributing.
And if there are going to be some companies that will make the pr, the so, the program *non-free* for the first year,
I recognize that ultimately they will contribute.
But,
I won't distribute or recommend the new versions which aren't free yet.
I will only recommend and distribute the versions that have become free.
Because, we have to practice what we preach. You know, there's, there's too much willingness to compromise *any* possible principle,
never hold *any* kind of line.
And the problem is, if you do that, you don't teach *anybody* to stand firm about *anything*.
And then they compromise away the whole goal.
A more personal question: do you still get to code?
No. No, I found somebody else to maintain Emacs, a few months ago, and, so now I have no programming responsibility.
Once in a while I do a little bit of programming on Emacs.
It's fun.
But I don't have time for it very much.
Me? You were earlier talking about the challenges that the FSF and GNU/Linux was facing,
and, uh,
you did mention that Microsoft didn't [unintelligible] with five time...
you're stealing market shares from them.
Well, yes, Microsoft threatens to use secret file formats, secret communication protocols, and software patents to hurt us.
However, in fact, they wer, they were doing that for other reasons anyway.
[laughter]
So...
What I'm asking is really: Is there a, is there a plan to counter-attack or
There isn't! And what can we do? To, to deal with the secret formats and protocols the only thing we can do is reverse engineering.
And, to deal with the software patents, the only thing we can do is try to fight to convince our governments not to allow software patents.
Uh,
In other words,
Microsoft is doing those things, but they're not the only ones.
So, in,
instead of focusing narrowly on Microsoft in particular, let's look at the overall problem. You know,
Microsoft's software patents don't hurt us any more than any, everybody else's software patents, they *all* are dangerous.
So, rather than getting too much of our attention drawn specifically to Microsoft,
and neglecting the danger from everywhere else,
lets's look at the *whole* issue. So,
if you fight, if you get politically organized and
convince the Swedish government to oppose software patents,
then that will help protect you from Microsoft's software patents, and from everybody else's software patents too.
How about using, uh, non-free, non-free programs to aid the development of the free programs?
For example using Java sm, the Sun's implementation of Java, uh, in order to aid your, your implementation of Java.
Oh. Uh, the,
I had to face the moral question at the beginning of the GNU project:
Was it legitimate for us to use Unix to develop GNU?
Because,
being an ordinary user of a non-free program is, is participating in a secondary way
in an immoral activity.
And since we were trying to put an end to that, you know, our, our purpose was to urge people *not* to participate,
I had to ask:
Under what circumstances is it, is there an exception?
And I concluded that since the purpose of our participation in the immorality of Unix
was to bring *that very activity* to an end,
that *that* justified it.
Because our participation was secondary,
and we were helping to enable other people to stop.
However,
I have decided that a m, a looser connection was not enough, so it's *not* enough to say:
"It's OK for me to use Unix because I'm developing free software."
You have to be working on *replacing* the *very non-free software that you're using*
in order, in order to legitimize it.
And so, a few years ago, when I had hand trouble, when I couldn't type;
at first I thought "Well, maybe I'll get some kind of speech recognition system,
and use that to enter my commands", but I found out that that included non-free software.
And my first thought was that "maybe it's a hardware product", but, but there's a program you have to install on it.
And, because I was *not* working on speech recognition software I decided it was *not ethical* for me to use
this non-free speech recognition software, so I never used it.
Eh,
but software patents, then, have you thought about using software patents to eh, to *release* them?
Yes, it's a, it's an, an idea that occurs to everyone, it's *much harder* done, than said.
It's really hard to do a thing like that.
And, uh,
you can't expect to, to do anything like "copyleft" for patents. Uh,
The reason is that copyright and patents are totally different, and copy...
The idea of copyleft simply does not make sense for patents.
What *could* make sense for patents is to, if somebody got a collection of patents,
and then decided to use them
as part of a collective security arrangement.
Saying "We will use our patents only for defense",
and "If you want to join us in a defensive alliance you're all welcome",
and "Anybody who's willing to agree to support our alliance, and never use patents for aggression, is welcome".
That kind of thing would have *some* effect.
Nobody has ever got it started yet.
The problem is, that in order for this alliance to be powerful it needs to have some, it needs to have members who have a lot of patents. And,
We haven't yet found anybody with a l, with a lot of patents who wants to join.
Tends to be big companies that have a lot of patents,
and they, big companies tend to think that patents are advantageous *for them*, so,
they don't join.
Maybe someday w, some, we'll find an opportunity to start a thing like this. I don't know.
Uh, don't you think, don't you think that the Open Source mov, movements serves an important role to get uh, business to abandon, uh, abandon non-free software, and embrace free software?
Well,
I think that the Open Source Movement *does* make a useful contribution.
I don't exp, they *do* convince some businesses to start using
free software, and they do convince some businesses to *develop* free software.
I don't think that they will convince businesses to *abandon* non-free software, that's
going very far, but they certainly already have accomplished some useful contributions.
However,
if that's *all* we have,
if *everything* is focused on practical arguments to convince businesses, and *nobody* talks about freedom,
to build up a political base for people to stand up for their rights,
I think our commun, community is in terrible danger over the next few years.
Uh, but don't you think that the Free Software movement and the Open Source movement complete each other?
Yes, there is, there...
We focus on, on one area and they focus on another. There is...
It's useful to have a certain number of people
focusing on convincing businesses that they can gain something by developing free software.
But the *problem* is, that the Open Source movement sort of doesn't know where to stop! They're
*actively* trying to convince *everyone* to join *them*, and *everybody* to say "open source".
Part of the reason being that one of their leaders, Eric Raymond,
really *doesn't* agree that this is a matter of freedom. So,
he, for his own reasons, is *happy* to have people *not* talking about this as a matter of principle.
Uh,
So, the, the problem is that we may have *too much* of that,
and not enough of this. See, it's good to invite people to *try* GNU/Linux
for *any* reason, whatever reason will convince them, it's a good reason,
but once they are using the system, *then* we have to educate them about the civics of our community.
And, right now, *that's* the part where we are falling behind.
So, everyone who *does* s, who *does* respond to the issue of freedom,
you should be helping to talk about freedom as much as possible because there are plenty of other people to talk about purely practical issues.
When it comes to software patents, are there any, uh, uh, projects or whatever you can call it
about compiling cases of prior art to refute patents?
That won't help.
It won't help very much.
Uh, yes, when, when somebody gets sued or threatened,
then you need to collect some prior art.
However, it's a mistake to think
that having knowledge of the prior art will solve the problem.
Because,
The worst it, the most it can do
is help prevent or deactivate
the *invalid* patents.
And that would still leave all the *valid* patents for all the ideas that really are new in the past 20 years.
And that is enough to be devastating.
Yes.
So we must never get distracted
by the issue of prior art
into ignoring the danger posed by *valid* software patents.
It's *much* more effective to work on convincing governments to reject software patents
in places like Europe where there's a chance of doing that.
So forget about prior art and help fight
to stop the change in the Munich treaty.
I knew that if I waited long enough, *somebody* would ask another question.
What would happen if Europe says "no" to software patents and you have them in the US?
Then Americans will be screwed by software patents
and Europeans won't.
[laughter]
Won't get, won't uh, US companies get an advantage?
No.
Europea, US companies...
Well, actually it has nothing to do with whether you're a US company or European company, it's totally irrelevant.
Because patents have nothing to do with *where you are*, it has to do with where the software is being *used* or *distributed*.
So, what it means is that *Americans* will be, will have to suffer with these monopolies,
and Europeans won't.
It'll mean, that the European software market or software users
will be, will have the choice of multiple programs available including some that are free software,
and americans will not.
It will, however,
as long as Europe does not have software patents, there will be
programs being l, openly and lawfully distributed in Europe,
which, if used, if distributed or used in the US would be infringement.
However, the fact is, a lot of individuals will be able to get them from Europe, and use them,
and the patent holders will never be able to find these individuals and sue them.
So, in fact, a lot of americans will be helped as well.
For example, right now, "BladeEnc", the MP3 encoder, is available, I think, in Sweden. Uh,
You, it can't be distributed in the US, because there's a patent there.
But, if you're an individual American,
or for that matter, even a business, after all, how wi, how is the, the patent holder going to know?
So, yeah, you can *get* BladeEnc and you can run it.
It can't be distributed by the various people distributing the GNU/Linux system in America.
Which is a serious problem.
But, the situation is much better because Europe is there, to serve as a safe haven for these free programs.
But the idea for, if you have an idea, would you be afraid of big companies keeping, uh, developing for themselves...
I'm sorry, why would I be afraid of this? I publish my ideas;
They're available to big companies and small ones, so,
what is this strange assumption you're making?
I mean the other way around, when big companies holding their ideas, when they, when they,
when they can't take a patent on them, when they can't...
I'm sorry, I can't hear you. When they *what*?
Can't take a patent on them or when they can't say "this is worth of money",
What keep them from just keeping the patent within the walls and...
It doesn't matter that much. If they never tell me the idea, then,
maybe somebody else will think of it.
Or mayb, but a lot of these ideas are obvious, you know, you...
Once you see the product, at least.
When there, when a feature is patented,
the fact is, if they're going to put this feature in some product,
everybody who uses the product is going to see the feature.
There's no possibility of keeping it secret.
In other cases, when you're talking about, say, an algorithm for use within a program,
there, it might not be possible to see it.
But you, but it, you know, if it was really *that* important we could figure it out by reverse engineering.
So,
And a lot of these things are s, are things that multiple people discovered.
That happens very often.
In other fields as well, it's well known,
that, uh, i, some of the great inventions of history had been invented by several people at about the same time.
Uh,
And the reason is essentially, there are certain precursors for that invention,
and once the precursors are available, it becomes feasible to invent that thing.
And it's going to happen. Now, when it's steam engine time, you steam. So,
Uh,
Basically, I don't think that that factor is a really important factor. In any case,
what good is it to have them publish the idea if we can't use it 'til 20 years later?
It might as well not exist.
In fact, it's worse than that, because,
if it didn't exist, proprietary software wouldn't be using it.
But if it exists and it's patented,
then there's proprietary software using it, and free software can not use it, so it acts as
encouragement for people to give up their freedom, and not use free software.
So I'd rather that they kept it a secret, personally, or, or that they dropped it in a hole in the ground and covered it over.
Ah, there's nobody else... Anymore questions.
Yeah, it's been a long time, so, uh...
Eeh, thank you very much, I think you have given us a lot of, to think of. Eh, welcome...
[applause]
Japp! Lite information då, innan ni går ut.
Eh, de här papprena som vi pratade om, de finns därute på bordet, det kommer att säljas lite t-shirtar, lite märken, och lite andra saker, böcker.
Om man väntar en liten stund.
Eh...
Dessutom så kommer det säkert finnas möjlighet att bli medlem i DF om man inte redan är det, därnere.
We have these stickers.
Let's take them, all of these things should be up at the table there.
That's all right.
OK. There's,
Take these stickers, if, as many as you've got a use for,
and a good use for them is putting them anywhere where they will stay permanently or for some substantial period of time, so people might see them.
If we could bring these up, right, let's bring them up now.
Let's bring...