I didn't realize that this problem was developing until I looked at the schedule for this event.
So, hope, remember software freedom.
The free software movement stands for users' freedom.
We say users deserve to have control of the software that does their computing.
A proprietary non-free program gives its proprietor power over the users, which is wrong, and is likely to be malware.
Software freedom is a human right.
By contrast, the idea of open source is amoral and apolitical.
The practical criteria are nearly the same, but it presents them as an option for developers that feel like it.
I'll talk, I'll talk, put away the lights, put away the lights, I'll talk.
Please, please, please.
By contrast, the idea of open source is amoral and apolitical.
The practical criteria are nearly the same, but it presents them as an option for developers that feel like it.
When developers prefer to subjugate users instead, open source says, okay, hope is about freedom and using technology.
The free software movement embodies hope's values, while open source rejects them.
We would expect to find strong support for free software at hope.
In fact, hope has mostly forgotten free software.
Many of the presentation's abstracts say open source, only two refer to free software.
Hackers of hope show you support software freedom, say free Libra software.
It's not too late to change the slides of your talk, even its abstract on xi.hope.net, to visibly support software freedom.
So every time you say free software, you're choosing to show your support.
Think of this as like a political campaign.
When you put up a sign saying black lives matter, you're making a statement to people.
And if you put up a sign saying lives, well, you're not making any political statement at all.
So you have a choice every time you're going to talk about the issue.
The VGA is still... no, that's not going to do anything, please.
That's going to cause confusion.
I've tried this.
Nothing's still visible.
And then there's a third mode it goes through.
But it's not working.
Damn.
Well, this is going to be quite unfortunate.
It looks like you're not going to be able to see any slides.
There's something fishy.
No, I don't.
I have an adapter, but it's in Queens.
Well, this is a horrible screw.
I wanted to show you what my talks are like now that I have...
Put it up here.
The GNU is supposed to be seen.
You see, having a GNU where people don't see it doesn't make a statement to people.
Having a GNU where people can see it makes a statement.
Well, this is so sad.
I know my machine works.
I've been making VGA presentations over and over and over.
Why does it not work here?
Yeah, I'm doing it over and over.
Oh, well...
That's good.
In any case, I hope you get it fixed soon.
It's still not quite 12 o'clock.
Yeah.
Okay.
That's fine.
I can cope.
Yes.
Right.
Yes, good.
And I always like to be able to see the people I'm talking to, but it's so dark in here I can't see you.
Now, I mean, I might conceivably enjoy sleeping with some of you, but that's not what we're here for.
So if it's possible to increase the light on the audience, please.
What?
Someone's saying something I can't hear, but...
Someone's uncomfortable with something.
I'd like more light on the audience if that's possible.
House lights!
If you shine it towards your face, I could see your face, that would help a little bit.
But only with one of the people in the audience.
We need light everywhere.
Maybe they don't have.
I think it's for recording.
It just makes it harder for me to give the talk when I can't see people.
Oh, good.
Good, thank you.
I don't know why it is, you might think I could give the same speech to this blankness and it would be the same, but it's not the same, it doesn't feel the same.
Now I can see I'm talking to people.
And I can see some expressions on people's faces, it really helps.
How much more time do I have to fill before we get the video?
Tell your joke.
Well, my latest joke is not safe for work, so I think I shouldn't tell it here.
Your dentist joke.
My which one?
Your dentist joke.
Oh, I don't know if that joke is funny enough to most people to make it worth telling.
Well, I had a tooth extracted a week ago.
And I was told I could only eat soft foods, so if I ate pasta, it couldn't be al dente, it had to be a la gengiva.
Well, at least some people got it.
Well, maybe I should start talking and looking at the slides myself.
Yeah , do that.
I guess I'd better.
So this is in the right mode now for showing a slideshow.
Anyway, free software refers to freedom, not price.
It's a mistake to think that free software means you get it, quote, for free, unquote.
We're not talking about the price at all.
It's not wrong to sell copies of a free program.
In fact, that's part of the freedom that defines free software.
It's perfectly legitimate.
You are free to make more copies and sell them for whatever someone will pay.
We're just not concerned with the issue of price.
That's a distraction from the issue that matters, which is your freedom when you do computing.
So we sometimes use the word Libre, which comes from French or Spanish, instead of free or together with free, so that...
Oh, now they're showing me, but can you show the slides?
I mean, people can see me.
The last time I had a video problem, I put my computer up on a chair on a table and turned it around.
The room was small enough people could see it that way.
Anyway, by using the word Libre, you clarify what free means.
And I've personally decided never to use the word free to refer to price.
Never in any context at all.
I always say gratis.
If I mean something is available at zero price, I always say gratis.
So that whenever I say free, you know I'm talking about freedom.
And only freedom.
Now, to think about free software, we need to think about what is a program and what's a computer.
A computer is a simple machine, conceptually simple, that can only do one thing.
Get the next instruction and do what it says.
And it does that over and over millions of times a second.
And depending on what the instructions are, the same computer could do any computation.
So the program gives the instructions to the computer and determines what it will do.
The same computer can do almost anything within the limits of what's possible.
So who gives the instructions to your computer?
Oh, it's so sad you don't get to see this picture.
It's so... people won't be able to... uh-oh.
Shit.
It fell down and the battery came out.
But I can... can you repair it for me?
That battery is not... it's just irrelevant.
It was there.
Okay, well then...
Would somebody like to put the battery back in this clock for me?
So in any case, you might think that you give the instructions to your computer when really it's somebody else, like Microsoft, giving the instructions.
Oh, that would actually work.
Okay, well the problem is I won't be able to see it myself.
Okay.
Now make it... zoom in, zoom in.
People can't see it if they...
Now we can see it.
I can see it.
Let's see what I can do.
Maybe this way...
Oh no, my body is jittering.
That sounds a little risky.
Do you want to just put it on the table?
I guess.
I'm not doing any of that.
I don't know what's happening.
There you are.
Let's just see if we can get it.
I think that's going to be satisfying.
Why don't we put it on the table?
Okay, let's put it on the table and see if that helps.
Do you know why this is called Poland Springwater?
Oh boy.
Do you know why this is called Poland Springwater?
Because they used to deliver it using pogo sticks.
This
is what a computer does with the instructions it gets out of the program.
So...
So there are some things that the computer can't do.
They are just impossible.
But within that limit, the same computer could do anything.
So who gives the instructions to your computer?
You might think it's you, when really it's someone else.
You might think your computer is obeying you, when really it's obeying someone else first, and only obeys you when the real master says it's allowed to obey you.
That's no good.
So there are two possibilities for any program.
Either the users control the program, or the program controls the users.
When the users control the program, that's free software.
That's what it takes for the program to respect the users' freedom.
Which is the definition, the fundamental idea of free software.
Software that respects the users' freedom.
But in order for it to do that, the users must have control of the program.
What is freedom?
Freedom is having control of your own life.
Control of the activities you do in your life.
Which means if you use a program to do the activity, you need control of that program.
To make it do the activity the way you want, instead of the way someone else wants to impose on you.
So, when the users control the program, it respects their freedom and it's free software.
But that, for the users to have control over the program, they need to have the four essential freedoms.
Freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.
Freedom 1 is the freedom to study the program's source code and change it, so that it does your computing activities as you wish.
Why source code?
Why is source code important?
Well, here's some source code.
It's a combination of English and math.
If you've learned to program and you know that programming language, you can see what that program will do.
And you can change it to do something different.
But in order to run the program, we typically convert it into an executable.
An executable is an enigmatic series of zeros and ones.
Figuring out what those zeros and ones do is a very hard job called reverse engineering.
Now, when the program is that small, it's not really so hard.
But for a real program that might be, say, a hundred thousand lines in its source code, to figure out from the executable what it's doing is tremendously hard.
It's done only as a desperate last resort.
So, if someone tells you, you're free to change this program.
You'll have to reverse engineer it first, but you're free.
That's bogus.
That's mocking the users with a parody of freedom.
So, the freedom to change the program is only real when the users have the source code.
Now, these two freedoms give us separate control.
Each user separately has control over per copies.
So, I can change my copies and you're free to change your copies.
And this much is essential, but it's not enough.
Because most users don't know how to program.
They do other things.
There are lots of useful things to do in life and there's no reason to expect that everybody is capable of being a good programmer or has any interest in being a programmer.
But they all deserve control over their computing.
How are non-programmers going to have that?
Through collective control.
The freedom to work with other users to exercise control over that program.
At the top, we see a group of three users that are working together to exercise control over what this program does.
Two of them are directly changing the code.
They must be programmers.
The third one on the left is not changing the code.
Maybe he is a non-programmer.
But by participating in the group's decisions, he participates in control over what that version of the program is going to do.
The people who collaborate in this way are those who choose to collaborate.
Those three choose to work together.
At the bottom, we see two others that are not working with them.
Why not?
Maybe they don't know each other.
Maybe those two just want different things.
They don't agree with those three, so they prefer the original version.
Maybe they just don't like each other and don't want to work together.
Maybe tomorrow they'll meet each other and decide to work together, all five.
It's whatever they want.
Those who choose to work together are free to do so.
Collective control requires two more essential freedoms.
Freedom two is the freedom to make exact copies, that is, of the version you got, and then give or sell them to others when you wish.
And freedom three is the freedom to redistribute modified versions.
So supposing you exercised freedom one and you changed a copy of the program, with freedom three, you're free to make more copies of that version and give or sell them to others when you wish.
By the way, if you want to make a recording of this talk, I have conditions for that, for distributing copies.
Basically, about how they're distributed, what kind of site can be used.
It shouldn't require running any non-free software.
That's unethical, to distribute an audio or video in that way.
I don't want you making a hypocrite out of me by distributing a recording of my talk in a way that requires people to run non-free software to hear the recording.
So come talk with me if you want to distribute copies.
Also, I want it under the Creative Commons No Derivatives License, because this is a presentation of my point of view.
So, and by the way, if you take a photo of me, do not put it in Facebook.
Or Instagram, because it's the same company.
Facebook is a surveillance engine.
It recognizes people in photos by their faces or even the backs of their heads.
So if you put a photo showing someone else into Facebook, you are helping the company to track that person.
You shouldn't do that to people, and in any case, please don't do that to me.
And really, I think you should decline to be a used of Facebook.
Facebook doesn't have users, it has useds.
We have to say no to systems that are designed to track people.
And especially the ones that use us as bait for others to be tracked.
So, when the program...
These two freedoms allow the members of any group to work together.
So if one in the group makes a modified version, then with Freedom 3, she can make more copies of that and distribute them to others in the group.
And they can make more copies, and using Freedom 2, they can distribute those copies to yet others in the group until they've all got it.
In addition, these same freedoms permit them to offer copies to others.
Even to publish versions, which means offering copies to all and sundry.
Now, in Freedom 2, there is a part which has a special moral importance.
And that is sharing copies.
The non-commercial redistribution of exact copies.
Sharing has a privileged moral status because it builds communities that cooperate.
So sharing must be treated as sacred.
Any law that forbids sharing copies of a published work is directly anti-social.
It's an attack on society.
Is this some tea?
I'll be alright.
Just have to get this off here.
Because otherwise it will be...
So, the war on sharing is completely vicious, not only in its methods, which are often draconian and violate established principles of justice.
But the very idea of trying to stop people from share is, you might say, the heart of evil.
This is why I reject terms such as piracy, propaganda for the war on sharing.
Piracy is attacking ships.
Piracy is very bad.
But sharing is good.
So let's not call them both by the same word.
That's just propaganda for the copyright industry.
And if we repeat that word, we're spreading their propaganda.
So let's make an effort to consciously refuse to spread their propaganda.
If you agree with it, you're free to do so.
If you don't agree, then you're free not to do so.
So when people ask me what I think of piracy, I say attacking ships is very bad, let's send the Navy.
If they ask me what I think of movie piracy, I say I like the first Pirates of the Caribbean.
I couldn't stand the second one because it had a parrot that was a villain.
If you insult parrots, you're not going to win my support.
So I believe we should legalize sharing copies of any published work.
As a separate matter, I believe that all software, even if it's not published, must be free.
Whoever is using that software must have the four freedoms.
And likewise, other works that are designed to do practical jobs must be free.
Because the same arguments about that the users must have control over the work, they apply to any work that people use.
Use to do practical jobs.
Now you don't use fiction to do practical jobs, you appreciate it.
You don't use poetry for a practical job.
You don't use a song.
You don't use somebody's statement of opinion.
So that argument only applies to functional works.
Works whose reason for existence is they do something.
They do a practical thing and you want to do that practical thing so you use the work to do it.
Perhaps the entries in the obfuscated C context are the one exception to the conclusion that software must be free.
Because they are not written to be used.
They are written to be looked at and admired.
So they are art rather than functional work.
So we can treat them ethically like all the other art.
On the other hand, if one of them actually is useful and people use it as well as looking at the source and saying how funny, then it's a functional work.
So, if the program carries these four freedoms adequately, completely, then up to the usual standards that is, then it's free software.
And that means it respects the user's freedom and it's distributed in a way that is ethical.
But, if any of these freedoms is missing or incomplete, then the users do not control the program.
Instead, the program controls the users and the proprietor controls the program.
So this is what happens with a non-free program.
It's an instrument of unjust power.
It's used by some proprietor to subjugate users.
Sorry, I'm trying to put it...
because sometimes I have to be down here, you see.
I'm trying to make it work all the time, which is...
because standing bent over like this is not too nice either.
I don't know what you're talking about.
Oh, right, there's another mic.
Let's see what happens.
Maybe now I can get stereo.
So, this is an injustice.
Non-free software is intrinsically an injustice.
We should never tolerate it.
It has no legitimate place in human life.
But, although this is an injustice, it leads to other injustices.
Non-free software is very often malware.
Malware means a program designed to mistreat the people who run it.
You will find that most discussions of malware close their eyes to proprietary software product malware.
And they only think about virus or inserted code malware.
Why this semi-blindness, I wonder.
But, because proprietary product malware is omitted from most such discussions, I will focus on that now to make up for the gap.
You see, with proprietary software, the proprietor knows the power it exercises over the users.
It knows that if it puts in malware, the malicious functionalities, the users will be unable to remove it and in many cases they won't be able to find out it's happening.
So, that means they face constant temptation to mistreat the users.
And they do this constantly.
For instance, they make programs spy on the user.
This shows the Amazon swindle.
Amazon's e-book reader.
Let me try sitting down.
Maybe this will actually work more easily for my back.
It does Orwellian surveillance of the reader because it transmits from time to time the title of the book and the page number to Amazon's servers.
Not only that, if the user underlines anything, that's sent to Amazon.
If the user enters any notes, they're sent to Amazon.
So, it's total surveillance.
Amazon's e-book distribution system is also unjust.
It also surveils readers.
So, please do not let yourself become accustomed to this.
The healthy reaction when you find out these facts is to say, I will never use such a thing.
That's what you do if you love freedom.
And it's not too late for you to start being a person who loves freedom.
But spying on users is very common in proprietary software.
There are surveillance functionalities in Windows, in Mac OS, in the iThings, in Flash Player, and in lots of proprietary apps.
Remember that when the press talks about, quote, free apps, unquote, they mean gratis proprietary apps in most cases.
Even Android apps whose source code is free, typically depend on the non-free Google Play services library, which means the program as a whole is not free.
And what does Google like to do with people's data?
If you use a proprietary program from Google, what do you think it's doing with your data?
Probably collecting it from you and putting it in Google servers.
So, we know that even flashlight apps connect over the net and send data to somebody.
Why should that be necessary?
Does it need to ask, hey, what's the light level over here?
How hard should I turn on the screen?
Are there certain local rules that it has to look up about whether you're allowed to have a flashlight?
No, it's just surveillance.
It can't be anything else.
Almost all the streaming apps are spy devices.
Consider Spotify, for instance.
Spotify, one of the reasons... well, Spotify does three evil things.
One of them is DRM.
Another is it imposes a contract on the user that restricts what the user does when the user gets a copy.
It's restricted by this contract.
It's an end-user license agreement, basically.
And the third nasty thing that Spotify does is it tracks what people listen to.
We should never tolerate devices that track what we listen to.
So I say, out, out, damned Spotify.
By the way, raise your hand if you would like to get a sticker that says, out, out, damned Spotify.
I see there's demand for it.
I'd like to arrange to get them made.
So, the way that the app does this is with proprietary software.
You see, malicious functionalities like this depend on proprietary software because that's why the users can't fix them.
But Spotify is not unusual.
It's typical for internet music or video distribution services to do all of these things.
And any one of them is enough to make it an injustice.
But beyond just spying, there's also the functionality of refusing to do what users want.
DRM, Digital Restrictions Management.
This shows the notorious Blu-ray that attacks users who want to share.
I have never used a Blu-ray disc, and I never will, until we have free software that can read it.
So that I don't subject myself to the digital handcuffs of that device.
DRM is very common.
The software to provide the basis for DRM is found in Windows, in Mac OS, and I'm pretty sure it's in iOS, the system of the iThings, and in Android.
DRM is found in Flash Player, it's found in the Amazon Swindle, in lots of streaming apps, and it's totally unacceptable.
But there's also worse.
There are backdoors.
Functionalities that accept commands from the proprietor or someone else to do something nasty to the user.
And the user has no choice, no say over the matter.
We know of backdoors in Windows, in the iThings, and in the Amazon Swindle, and in nearly all portable phones.
Now you can't generally tell that there is a backdoor, unless you're lucky and you get to observe its use.
The backdoor in the Amazon Swindle was detected because in 2009, Amazon remotely erased thousands of copies of a particular book.
Which book was it?
It was 1984 by George Orwell.
I wouldn't dare make this up in fiction.
People would say, that's too implausible.
But it's what happened.
A person came to one of my talks and told me afterwards that he had seen the book disappear as he was in the middle of reading it.
Of course there was a lot of criticism, so Amazon pretended to promise it would never do this again, unless ordered to by the state.
Think about that.
If you've read 1984, that is not a very comforting promise.
But, turns out it wasn't a sincere promise.
It wasn't a real promise.
It was just something to say to remove the momentum from the criticism.
And a few years later, Amazon went back to arbitrarily remotely erasing books without even an order from the state.
And then there is censorship.
Apple pioneered censorship of apps in the iPhone.
For the first time, a general purpose computer was on sale, which didn't let users install the software of their choice.
They could only install software approved by the manufacturer of the computer.
Software approved by Apple from Apple's App Store.
Well, this is censorship.
It is completely intolerable.
Some users found ways to break the censorship, to get around it and install programs that were not approved by Apple.
They called this jailbreak.
Recognizing that these computers are designed to be jails for their users.
That's our term for such a computer.
It's a jail.
Of course, Microsoft followed Apple's lead.
There is also another way to attack the users.
This describes what happened to the PlayStation 3.
Originally, it was sold with two modes of use.
One was to play proprietary games over Sony's gaming network.
And the other was to install systems such as GNU plus Linux.
But then somebody figured out a way to break some of the DRM from GNU plus Linux.
And Sony decided they didn't want people to be able to run it anymore.
So, they released a firmware downgrade.
And said, from now on, you can either install the downgrade and you will lose the ability to run GNU slash Linux.
Or you can stay with the old firmware and lose the ability to play games over the gaming network.
Now, since those games are proprietary, they attack your freedom anyway.
If it had been me, I would have kept the old firmware and I wouldn't have played those games anyway.
I won't run a non-free program on my computer.
But that doesn't reduce the viciousness of what Sony did.
And later on, somebody found a way to jailbreak the PlayStation 3.
And Sony sent the cops after him.
Which is why we started our total boycott of Sony.
See BoycottSony.org If Sony ever apologizes for its conduct and undoes what it's done, we could reconsider that boycott.
And then, there are universal backdoors.
A universal backdoor is one that has the power to remotely install software changes.
Which means that the controller of the backdoor can do absolutely anything to the user.
First install the code to do that thing, and then it runs and does that thing.
So, that's why the term universal is appropriate.
It's universal in the same sense that a computer is a universal computing engine.
Windows has a universal backdoor since at least Windows XP.
This was demonstrated to exist.
Microsoft didn't admit it.
But nowadays in Windows 10, Microsoft cheerfully says that it has a universal backdoor, which is called auto-upgrade.
Basically, it's a way Microsoft can forcibly change the code in the machine.
So, the user of Windows is totally at Microsoft's mercy.
The Amazon Swindle also has a universal backdoor.
So do most portable phones.
In portable phones, they use the backdoor to convert them into full-time listening devices.
That never really shut off and listen all the time and transmit whatever they hear.
And when you put this together with the fact that they are always being tracked.
And the phone network can track the phone without the phone's cooperation.
As long as the phone is transmitting occasionally, so as to be in communication, the towers can triangulate to determine where that phone is.
So, a portable phone, even if it's not a smartphone, is a tracking and listening device.
It's Stalin's dream.
That's why I refuse to carry one.
Those of you who were old enough in 1996 to think about questions like this, if you had been told, here's a nice device, you can use it to make phone calls, and it will track you everywhere, and it will listen to everything you say and all the conversation around you,
you would have said, that's disgusting, I won't take it.
Well, I had good fortune.
By the time I thought about getting one, since I'm generally a late adopter of technology, I had already learned these things, I already knew how horrible it was, so I said no.
And I went on living the way I had been living for years before.
And it wasn't any harder than it had been before.
Nowadays, if I'm walking around somewhere and I need to make a phone call, I ask someone, could you please make a call for me?
Typically a stranger.
Almost always I find someone who will.
Some people won't, some people can't, they're foreigners, their phones are expensive to use.
So I ask a few people and I find someone.
So, think about that when you decide whether to carry a portable phone.
We have a project to try to, in the planning stages, to try to make a portable phone safe to carry.
Which means you've got to be able to prevent the back door from turning it into a listening device.
A smartphone has two processors.
There's the modem processor and the application processor.
The application processor can run a free operating system, for instance, Replicant, which is the free version of Android.
But the modem processor, we have no free software for.
The processor is secret.
We don't know how to write free software for it.
And nowadays they check for signatures so we wouldn't be allowed to install the free software.
It wouldn't work.
It would be automatically blocked from functioning even if it were a correct program.
And that's where the back door is, you see.
And in most phones, once they take control of the modem processor, or maybe it's already given to them in advance, they can rewrite the software in the application processor.
So even if you install the free system there, they can put a non-free one there.
What good is that?
So we have to make sure that it's safe from that.
We have to get the non-free software for that modem processor out of the software load so that people won't be installing non-free software.
It should be in a ROM.
We have to give it a one-way pager capability so that you can have your phone in non-transmitting mode all the time and people notify you when they're trying to contact you.
That way you can receive calls.
But you get to decide where you are going to and when to disclose your location to receive the call.
When someone pages you, you can decide how urgent it is.
Do I have to reveal my location here to talk to that person now?
Or should I wait till four hours from now when I'm in another place and I don't mind if Big Brother knows?
There needs to be a switch in the antenna line so that the modem processor can't send signals when it's supposed to be not doing so.
So various changes have to be made in the phone.
And we're looking at this.
With some luck it may be possible.
If you are an expert in this area, please come talk to me or send me mail.
So, there's another way that the proprietor can attack users.
Microsoft does it.
Microsoft shows security bugs in Windows to the NSA before fixing them.
Thus directly betraying every one of its clients.
We only have evidence in the case of Microsoft.
For every other proprietary software developer, we simply don't know whether they're doing this or not.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
It's just uncertainty.
So basically, if you're using proprietary software, you're almost certainly being dragged behind the bus.
The examples I've mentioned are used by nearly every user of proprietary software.
So I've already proved it, but we have a lot more examples.
We have dozens more examples.
Look at gnu.org slash proprietary.
For long organized lists.
And why do they do it?
Because they make more money by mistreating users.
They collect data, they manipulate users into buying more, all sorts of nasty things they can do.
And it's only getting nastier with the Internet of Stings.
Proprietary devices in your house are mistreating you, of course.
And a lot of them are mistreating people in a new way.
They depend on a remote server.
If that server stops running, the device can't be used anymore.
I first found out about this with the Fitbit.
The Fitbit measures things like people's steps and so on.
And then it sends that data to the company's server.
The company then invites the device's so-called owner to buy her own personal data from the company.
I mean, what kind of sucker is that meant for?
So, and then there was the thermostat that stopped working because the server was disconnected.
And then there's the camera Wi-Fi device that's going to stop working or stop being configurable because its server is going to be disconnected.
Have people learned yet that any product that depends on using a remote server is a trap?
So, part of the reason I call it the Internet of Stings is this.
But also it's been pointed out that a lot of these devices have a chance to guide the user's actions.
Which means that the proprietor can be paid to guide people a particular way.
You've probably learned a long time ago that the yellow pages doesn't list all the restaurants, only the ones that pay to be listed.
And the best ones are probably not in there.
But this... take that and magnify it a million times.
In addition, they can be doing nasty things to you directly.
So, you mustn't trust a device in your home that is run by proprietary software.
And the dependence on a remote server should be considered a malicious functionality which is typical in proprietary software.
When they listen to people's voice, they're transmitting all that voice to a server.
So, they're spying on everything.
They're listening all the time.
I was staying in somebody's house who had an Alexa device.
I unplugged it.
I didn't want it reporting what I said to anybody ever.
Oh, it's a voice command device which depends on a remote server.
I'm pretty sure.
It doesn't do things itself.
It's comparable to Siri.
And so, it's a serious threat to your privacy.
And basically, what all these malicious functionalities show is that you can't trust proprietary software.
I'm sorry to say this, but using proprietary software is acting like a sucker.
And I hope that you are wise enough not to be a sucker.
You can never rationally trust a proprietary program.
You can never have a rational basis for trusting it.
Because the same one that stops you, that could put in malicious functionalities, is also stopping you from checking for them and fixing them.
So, the proprietary software developers face temptation because they have power.
And this power corrupts them.
And in general, they are corrupt.
It's not a rare exception.
It's not even considered newsworthy anymore.
You'll find articles warning that third parties might break the security and get your personal data.
These articles often refer to them as hackers, which is not nice.
It's insulting us.
They should call those people crackers, people who break security.
But that's a real danger.
But they fail to notice the danger that the company that made the device will collect your personal data and mistreat it.
And privacy policies are no protection against this.
As Eben Moglen recently said, they are generally designed to give the impression that something has been promised.
Well, in fact, letting them do whatever they want.
So, if you find yourself wondering what a privacy policy says, you shouldn't be using that thing.
If it matters to you what somebody pledges about respecting your privacy, you shouldn't be putting that person or that entity in a position to have that kind of power over you.
The place where I get medical care uses something called Follow My Health, which I refer to as tracking your health.
And I looked at their terms of service, which say they can change the terms at any time, and by continuing to use the service you've agreed, and various other nasty things, and their privacy policy was absolute crap.
They could release your data as long as they anonymized it, and that means they only have to remove a few identifying data, and, of course, we know it can be re-identified, and surely they will sell that data to data brokers that will do so.
So, I would have said no for this reason, but I didn't have a choice, because it depends on non-free JavaScript code, so I couldn't run it anyway.
So, the thing is, with proprietary software, the only way to use it is with blind faith, and often it's blind faith in a company that has already shown it is not worthy of such faith, because it has already released proprietary malware.
So, just don't use it.
However, in the free world, the free software developers, we know that we don't have power over you.
The users control the program.
If the users don't like what we did, the users can change it, and users are studying that code from time to time, because they want to make some other change, add a feature, fix a bug.
But in the process, they are understanding some of the code, and they have a chance to notice if we did anything wrong, which they can't even try to do with proprietary software.
So, the result is, we aren't corrupted, because we don't have power.
And proprietary developers have no shame about mistreating people.
They give speeches where they talk about their latest advances in how to mistreat users.
They have completely lost their moral standard about this.
Compare Windows XP, where Microsoft didn't want to admit that it had a universal backdoor, because that would bring disapproval, with Windows 10, where Microsoft announces the universal backdoor.
The moral standards in proprietary software are going down.
And I suppose they'll keep going down until an organized movement starts rejecting their software and condemning it.
And I'm, of course, launching that movement, and you've got to help me.
So, what you need to do is escape from proprietary software and come to the free world that we have built, with the GNU operating system and the Linux kernel.
Together, they make it possible for you to run an operating system that's entirely free software, and escape from proprietary software.
I started GNU in 1984.
In 1991, GNU was nearly complete at an initial level of service, but one important component was missing.
That was the kernel, which allocates the machine's resources to the other programs you run.
We started developing a kernel in 1990.
Unfortunately, I chose a very advanced, elegant design, which made it a sort of research project, and it took six years to get a test version running.
But we didn't have to wait for that, because in 1991, Torvald started developing his kernel Linux.
In 1991, Linux was proprietary software.
Its license did not fully grant freedoms 2 and 3.
However, in 1992, he switched to a free license, so Linux became free software, and the combination of GNU and Linux made it possible for the first time to use a PC in freedom.
Now, GNU slash Linux is, in principle, a free operating system, but there are over a thousand different versions, distros, of GNU slash Linux, and in each one, the developers add some other programs.
And sometimes they add proprietary programs, and then they make a distro that is not free as a whole.
Now, an operating system is a collection of programs.
In order for it to respect users' freedom, every program in the collection, with no exceptions, must be free software.
If there is one non-free program in the collection, that tramples users' freedom, so the collection as a whole tramples users' freedom.
Sad to say, almost all of the distros contain some non-free software.
There are around 10 distros that are free.
For more information, look at gnu.org slash distros, which lists the free distros, and for the well-known non-free distros, it explains, in a very general way, why they are non-free.
If you want to help us in distro development, please join the development of one of the existing free distros.
Please don't start another.
We don't need to scatter the community's effort more.
If you join up with one of the free distros that's now under development, you'll be helping in a very effective way.
Now, how do you make a program free?
You've got to put a free license on it.
Every program that's written is automatically copyrighted.
That's the badly designed copyright law of today.
It does a lot of harm, but that's how it is.
So, if someone writes a program, by default, it's forbidden to copy it, change it, redistribute it, even run it in many circumstances, because that requires making a copy.
Copying it into memory is copyright infringement.
So, although it may depend on the details of the circumstances and what country you're in and so on.
So, how do you make it free?
With an explicit declaration by the copyright holders giving every user, anyone who has a copy, that is, the four freedoms.
That is called a free software license.
And it qualifies as a free software license if it provides the four freedoms adequately, in full.
So, there are many different free software licenses.
There are many different ways to do that job.
But there are two main categories.
The lax permissive licenses or pushover licenses say, oh, do whatever you like.
Just keep my name on this somewhere.
Well, those do grant you freedoms.
The program with that license is free software.
But it's not such a good way to do the job.
And the reason is, it permits a company to put that code into a proprietary program and use it to subjugate users.
You may end up with millions of users running that code but not having freedom for it.
This happened with Apache, for instance.
You've seen statistics, perhaps, for how many websites were running Apache.
Well, actually, they weren't all running the free Apache web server.
Some of them were running IBM's proprietary modified web server.
Which had the code for Apache in it.
But so what?
It doesn't give users freedom.
Fortunately, when I started releasing GNU software, I had already seen how this could happen.
I knew that I had to stop it from happening if I wanted to succeed in giving the users freedom.
So, I developed Copyleft in the GNU general public license.
Copyleft puts a condition on how you exercise freedoms 2 and 3.
It says, when you distribute a copy to someone, whether it's modified or not, you must provide the source code.
And you must provide the source and the executable, if any, under this same license.
So you must respect the freedom of the next people, just as we respected your freedom.
What we're saying to the middleman is, no, you may not convert our code into a proprietary program and use it to subjugate people.
You're welcome to use this in freedom and to distribute your modifications to others, as long as you respect their freedom as well.
So that every user is legally required to be given freedom.
The middlemen are not allowed to strip off the freedom and pass along the code as proprietary software.
I have two motivations for this.
One is, I want the users to get freedom.
That's why I wrote the programs.
To give users freedom.
So, if what they got were proprietary modified versions, that would ruin everything.
It would fail to liberate people.
The other thing is, that I don't want my code to be perverted into proprietary software, which is an injustice.
Now, there shouldn't be any proprietary software.
Proprietary software is equally wrong, whether it contains my code or not.
You know, where the code came from is a side issue.
But if they want to use my code, I have a chance to stop them by using copyleft.
And say to them, my code is available to put into free software only.
And this also gives an advantage to anybody doing free software.
Namely, they can use my code in it.
Over anyone making proprietary software, who is not allowed to use my code in it.
And I want to give free software projects an advantage over non-free software projects.
Free software projects build the free world, and proprietary software projects subjugate people.
And so, when companies see a copylefted program, often they decide that the best thing for them to do is to cooperate in improving the free version.
Since they don't have the option of making a proprietary version, and they want a version with certain features to be out there, because it suits their business model, the best thing for them to do is contribute to the free software.
Now, when you put the license on your program, you need to do it in a clear way.
Otherwise, you risk creating avoidable legal uncertainty for users, and that is a bad thing.
Now, GitHub is a very bad influence on our community.
Most of the programs in GitHub don't carry any license.
They are not free software.
It would be better if they didn't exist.
And you can't be safe in using them.
Maybe the developers aren't likely to sue you personally, but still, they haven't ever given people permission to redistribute and use these programs.
But when they do put on a free license, they often do it in a way that is not clear.
For instance, sometimes they just put the license in a README file, alongside dozens or hundreds of other files that don't say anything about their license.
Well, when you look at it in the repository, you can get the feeling they probably meant that license to cover those source files, but they didn't, even though they failed to say so.
But really, they should say so.
They should say in each file, the license for this file is such and such.
When they use the GNU GPL, there's another thing you need to say in the source file, and that is which GPL versions you mean.
Nowadays, many free licenses say that users can use a later version of the license if they wish.
The Creative Commons licenses do this, the MPL does this, some other licenses do this.
And maybe that's a better way, but in 1989, when I wrote version 1 of the GNU GPL, it seemed to me that it was more correct to give each software developer of his choice to either say GPL version N or GPL version N or later versions.
So you've got to say on the source file which one it is.
If you don't say, no one can tell.
The GPL itself mentions both possibilities, it doesn't give a default.
So when someone puts GPL version 3, for instance, into a license file, we don't know if that means GPL version 3 only or GPL version 3 or later.
The place you say that is in the source file, in the notice at the top of the file that comes after the copyright notice and says this file may be distributed under terms of GPL version 3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
You've got to say there which versions are permitted.
Please don't ever fail to say this.
Please spread the word.
Sloppiness on this is inviting lots of confusion and lossage.
And it's a real shame that GitHub continues to encourage the sloppiness.
A lot of people have put programs...
I'm sure of those people who have put programs in GitHub with no license, more than half must think it's free software.
It's a job of education that we need to do.
Now, once you've installed a completely free system...
Oh, I should mention one other thing.
If you're developing a useful free program that runs on the GNU system, and you'd like it to be a GNU package, just write to us.
If your program is good, we would like to make it a GNU package.
We have people who will evaluate it, perhaps make suggestions to how to make it fit the GNU system better, and then it can be a GNU package.
So, once you have a completely free operating system installed, your browser may still be running non-free programs that come in web pages.
They're typically written in JavaScript.
Those programs get installed silently into the browser just by browsing.
The browser doesn't mention to you that it's running a program that came from the site, and it doesn't check whether the program is free or not.
Some of those programs are free, most of them are non-free.
To be free, it has to carry a license statement and point you to the source.
So, we developed LibreJS, which is an add-on for Firefox, to check whether the program is either trivial or free.
In those cases, it runs.
In the other cases, it blocks the program.
Our browser, Icecat, is obviously a modified Firefox with two kinds of improvements.
One is it has LibreJS, and the other is it turns off many kinds of things that would enable websites to snoop on you.
So, it's a good thing to use to protect your privacy also.
There's another way to lose your control of your computing, and that is to let it be done in somebody else's server.
There are lots of services that offer to do your computing for you, and it's a mistake to accept any of them ever, because then you don't have control over that computing.
It's equivalent to running a proprietary program.
We call this Service as a Software Substitute, or SAS, because it's a service that offers itself as a substitute for running a program yourself.
In order to have control over your computing activity, you've got to do it with your copy of a free program.
If you're doing it with Google's copy, or Yahoo's copy of a free program, it's not under your control, it's under the control of Google, or Yahoo, or whatever.
So, we want freedom, but there are obstacles to overcome.
One of them is, the companies that subjugate users with proprietary software get lots of money, and they use this money to build up obstacles to freeing yourself.
Sometimes these obstacles take the form of the network effect.
People pressure their peers into running the same proprietary program that they're using.
Skype is a good example.
If you run a proprietary program, first of all, you're the victim.
Your freedom is being taken away.
But if your use pressures other people to use it, then you are helping to take away the freedom of other people.
In other words, you're a victim co-perpetrator.
That's what happens when there's a network effect pushing people to be victims of an injustice.
They're victim co-perpetrators, and it's important to refuse to do that.
So, I absolutely refuse to use Skype.
I won't use it on someone else's computer either.
If someone asks to use Skype to talk to me, I say, absolutely not.
So, we have to protest these companies when they show up.
Now, another obstacle is the concept of open source, which is just an amoral, apolitical substitute for the free software movement.
It's not a movement.
That's the whole point.
Not to be a movement.
Not to say, this must be done.
It's the open source non-movement.
And that's why it's an inferior substitute, because it's not a movement.
Because it doesn't say, that is mistreating people.
We must not be mistreated.
We must not mistreat others.
That's the core of the free software movement.
We must not let non-free software mistreat us, and we must not develop non-free software, because that would mistreat others.
The whole point of open source was not to say anything about should.
Not to address this issue of justice.
So, where we say we want freedom and community, open source supporters say that the value is better code quality.
It's just a practical choice.
We say, you must, as a software developer, respect the user's freedom.
They say, as a software developer, you might find it useful to let users improve your code.
They present it as if nothing but the developer's own interests were pertinent to the issue.
And that's the fundamental mistake.
Unfortunately, they were the majority in 1998 when they coined that term.
Most people had views that were more open source than free software.
And the companies, almost because most of them made proprietary software too, they certainly didn't want to promote the free software idea, so they started saying open source.
The politicians and the journalists followed the business, the money, and since then the mainstream media talk about open source almost exclusively.
It's up to us to compensate for that by always saying free software.
Or Libra software.
You don't have to use the term open source.
I never use it.
I mention it.
I cite it to express my disagreements with that idea.
I never use that to talk about what I'm doing.
Because I want to promote the free software idea as much as I can in my activities.
If you agree with the free software idea, please do the same.
We need that kind of support.
And remember, it's not enough just to be inwardly in agreement.
That's good, but that's not helping.
But when you show your views to others, that's helping.
Now, another big obstacle is secret hardware specs that require reverse engineering to make free drivers or free firmware.
If you want to make a big technical contribution, the biggest possible one, do reverse engineering.
Figure out the specs of the hardware, so someone else can write a free replacement program to run that hardware.
By the way, we also need work on free reverse engineering tools.
Very important area if you're interested in working on something that will make a real difference.
But, don't assume that contributing means developing software.
Don't assume that contributing has to be technical.
What we need most is activists.
People who want to organize free software activist groups.
People who want to give talks like this one.
To spread the idea of free software.
People who will write articles to explain to other people the issue here and why we need free software, why non-free software can't be trusted.
We need to teach exclusively free software in schools.
And this is for various reasons.
The school has a social mission.
To educate good citizens of a society that is strong, capable, independent, cooperating and free.
In the field of computing, that means graduating people who are accustomed to using free software and ready to live in a free digital society.
But the school should not just do this, it should say why it's doing this.
It should teach them the civic values of free software.
To understand why it would be wrong for the school to teach a non-free program.
Giving non-free software to kids to use is like giving them tobacco.
It's implanting dependence.
And nowadays, many schools require their students to use non-free software.
Often the students are given tablets with non-free software that snoop on them.
And it doesn't matter a damn what promises the company makes that the student's data is going to because privacy statements are worthless.
If you need to be concerned with what the privacy statement promises, you shouldn't be using the system.
Parents need to fight against the violations of their children's privacy.
If the school makes an account in a company's server in the name of the student, that is already violating the student's privacy.
The school must drop that kind of practice.
It must never put any data about the students, even their names, on a company's server unless it's in encrypted form as a backup so that the company can't tell what's in that backup.
Then it's safe.
But there's another issue.
Schools should teach good citizenship.
The habit of helping other people around you.
So, every class should have this rule.
Students, if you bring software to class, you may not keep it for yourself.
You must share it with the rest of the class, including the source code in case someone here wants to learn because this class is a place where we share our knowledge.
Therefore, it's not permitted to bring proprietary software to class except to do reverse engineering on it.
The school has to follow its own rule to set a good example.
So it must bring only free software to class and share copies of the source code with anyone that wants a copy except in the case of exercises for reverse engineering study.
Because obviously you shouldn't release the answers until the students have turned in their work.
In that case, the source code is the answer to the exercise.
But it's also necessary for education in programming.
Every program embodies knowledge.
It's a mistake to equate software with knowledge.
That's not true.
But every program embodies some knowledge.
If it's proprietary, it withholds that knowledge from the students.
So it's the enemy of education.
But if it's free, it offers the knowledge to the student.
Schools must show their loyalty to the spirit of education.
That must be the number one principle in everything they do.
Therefore, schools must not tolerate proprietary software on campus except for reverse engineering.
Sorry, I don't have enough time.
If you're saying you agree, if we had more time, it would be good.
I'd be glad, but let me go ahead.
So, how do you learn to write good, clear code?
You do it by reading lots of code and writing lots of code.
Well, only free software lets you read the code of large programs we use.
Then you've got to write lots of code.
In order to write code for large programs, you've got to write lots of code for large programs, but you have to start small in doing it.
How do you start small writing code for large programs?
By writing small changes for existing large programs.
Then you can move on to bigger changes and bigger until eventually you can write a new large program, which is really changing a large program starting from zero.
Only free software gives you the chance to write changes of any size in existing large programs that we really use.
Every school can offer students the opportunity to master the craft of programming if it is a free software school, as they all should be.
Human rights depend on each other.
If you lose one, it becomes hard to maintain the rest.
And now that we use computing for so many vital activities in our lives, control of our computing, in other words, free software, is one of the human rights we must insist on and defend.
Sometimes that requires a sacrifice.
People who won't make any practical sacrifice to keep their freedom will lose their freedom.
We can't make people value freedom.
But when they don't, we can point out to others how foolish they are.
Sometimes I've suggested, this program is mistreating you, you could switch to that free program.
And they say, well, that free program is not quite as convenient.
And when you give me a free program that does absolutely everything this proprietary program does and does it just as well and just as conveniently, then I'll switch.
What they are really saying is, for them, the value of freedom is zero.
So zero is the size of sacrifice they are willing to make for it.
People like that will not have freedom.
They will be crushed.
But we can point to them as examples for others to learn from.
How do you help our movement?
Well, if you are a good programmer, write free software.
Contribute to 15 existing projects before you start writing your own.
You need to learn how to handle a project.
And you learn that by participating in projects that are run by others.
And doing a good job of advancing those projects in cooperation with the main developers.
Then you'll know how to be a main developer yourself.
But you may not have skill at programming.
So then you can organize free software activism.
You can become a speaker.
You can do the secretarial work to keep the organization going.
It's also important.
You can persuade schools and governments to switch to free software.
For schools, look at gnu.org slash education.
For governments, look at gnu.org slash government.
The government does its computing for the people.
It has a duty to the people to maintain full control over that computing.
Which means do it with exclusively free software.
And reject service as a software substitute.
Help other users.
If you are an expert user, then helping other people get what they want from gnu.org slash linux is a useful thing to do.
You could join a gnu slash linux user group.
Or start one.
And if there is one but it's called a linux user group, you can help show them why they should change their name.
It's treating us unfairly to call the gnu system linux.
We started almost a decade before Torvald started linux.
We did a bigger part of the job.
We deserve at least equal mention.
To call the gnu system linux is to deny us credit for our work and give that credit to someone else.
And the worst part is he is an open source supporter.
He won't try to teach people to demand freedom in their computing.
So please don't treat us wrong.
Please call the system gnu slash linux every time.
Give us equal mention.
I think we deserve that much for the work we've done.
And by doing it, you'll also be helping the free software movement.
People will understand what we did so they will see why they should listen to what we say.
And above all, say free software rather than open source.
Say free software and libre software as often as you can.
In every context where it makes sense to mention it.
That's an opportunity.
Don't ask, do I have to mention free software here?
Think, is this a useful place for me to mention free software?
Will my visible support for the movement help?
And if the answer is yes, then use the opportunity.
Now, I'm sure everyone here is aware that software and computing are a disaster for privacy.
In fact, digital technology may have made the world much, much worse.
If we don't defeat massive digital surveillance, one way we can resist it is by running free software.
But that only resists snooping on us through our own computers.
There are systems to snoop on people that we use but we don't own.
ISPs for instance, phone companies.
It's harder to protect ourselves there.
In some cases there is technology we can use to protect ourselves.
I protect myself from ISPs by browsing through Tor.
But there are other systems that we can't stop or we can't refuse to use.
Systems keeping track of our prescriptions.
I don't trust those systems.
And not only because they can be snooping on people for unjust purposes, but because they can be turned into arms for the war on pain sufferers.
And that's basically equivalent to torture.
Not me at the moment, but I've experienced this briefly.
Having pain so bad I wished I were dead.
But there are people who go through that for years or decades.
And their lives can be turned into torture by not allowing them to get the painkiller they need.
And that's the way things are going in the US today.
And then there are the cameras on the street that recognize license plates or people's faces.
They're working on technology to track people around the city from camera to camera.
I believe that it's fundamentally inadequate as a solution to restrict the use of the data once accumulated.
The data will be misused.
It will be misused officially because our government's rules for using it have such loopholes that it can get away with doing anything it wants.
But even if it had rules that actually limited the use, the data would be misused by rogue employees and by crackers through data breaches.
And so we need to do more than limit the use of these databases.
We need to prevent them from being made.
It's the accumulation of the data that we have to stop.
And one way that works well is that if we legally require systems to be designed so that they don't accumulate data about people anywhere, it's not so easy to change them.
The imaginary hypothetical laws restricting the use of databases could be changed in a week by passing a different law.
And then all the old data could be misused.
However, if a system was designed in accord with a law that says it can't accumulate data, to change it to accumulate data would be hard work, especially if there are many such systems scattered around the country.
So we're much safer with systems that are designed not to accumulate data.
And I wrote an article called, How Much Surveillance Can Democracy Withstand?
which presents the absolute limit on the level of surveillance that is compatible with democracy.
When the state knows where everyone goes and who talks with whom, democracy will be crushed because the state can always find the whistleblowers and put them in prison.
And the state, of course, tries to put whistleblowers in prison.
But why do we need them?
You see, it's because we need them for democracy.
Democracy means that the people control what the state does.
But in order to control it, we have to know what the state does.
When the state acts secretly and does nasty things that we would want to stop it from doing, how can we stop it?
We need a whistleblower to show us what the state is really doing.
We need heroes like Edward Snowden.
And there's something that we should do.
Three cheers for Edward Snowden.
Hip-hip-hooray!
There are still
politicians that want to put him in prison.
So we have to stand up for him very visibly and firmly when we have a chance.
So if it takes the knowledge and clear thinking of a Snowden to blow the whistle and not be put in prison, there are not going to be enough whistleblowers.
Democracy is therefore in danger.
So we must make sure that the state doesn't in general know where people go and who talks with whom.
We must limit all the kinds of surveillance systems.
What?
Yes.
We need to legally require systems to be designed so they do not accumulate data about people.
We need anonymous e-commerce where you can pay to download something and the site doesn't know who's paying.
But it knows it got its money.
We have developed a program for this called GNU Taller.
It's not a currency.
It's a payment system.
It's anonymous about the payer but it's not anonymous for the payee so it can't be used for tax evasion.
It's true that that won't block all tax evasion because when laws allow companies to dodge taxes, we can't stop it this way.
We've got to stop that through political activity against plutocracy.
That's why I supported Bernie Sanders and why I do not support Clinton.
So, that article which is found in gnu.org slash philosophy slash surveillance vs.
democracy dot html.
And by the way, we always put dashes between words.
It lists many technical methods for getting various jobs done without contributing to massive surveillance.
I believe, for instance, that it should be illegal to operate a scheme to systematically watch people on the street.
Even if it operates by asking millions of people to upload photos of other people on the street.
Taking a photo of someone occasionally and posting it must be legal.
Having a scheme to organize to do this to track people should be a crime.
So, now I better do the auction so I have a little time for questions.
And I will skip presenting St.
Ignatius.
Sorry, but time presses.
So, this is an adorable gnu that needs a home.
So, I'm going to auction it for the benefit of the Free Software Foundation.
If you buy it, I can sign the card for you.
If you have a penguin at home, you need a gnu for the penguin.
A penguin can't hardly function without a gnu.
There should never be a penguin without a gnu.
We can accept payment in cash, by a check, or with a bank card if it can make phone purchases.
And we can also accept Bitcoin if you have something here you can make the payment in.
The problem is Bitcoin payments take so long.
I don't know if you could show me nowadays that the payment has been completed.
When you bid, please wave your arm and shout the amount you're bidding.
Don't wait for me to look at you before you shout.
It's the opposite.
Shout so I will look at you.
And the starting price is $25.
Do I get $25 for this?
$25.
Do I get $30?
I've got $30.
Do I get $35?
I've got $35.
Do I get $40?
I've got $40.
Do I get $45?
She said $45 first.
Do I get $50?
I've got $50.
Do I get $55?
Do I get $60?
Do I get $65?
Who's speaking?
Okay, do I get $70?
I've got $80.
Do I get $85?
I've got $100.
Do I get $110?
I've got $100.
Do I get $110?
Who said that?
Okay, I've got $125.
Do I get $135?
For this adorable...
How much?
What?
$135.
Do I get $150?
I've got $135.
Do I get $150?
I've got $150.
Do I get $160?
I've got $200.
Now that's getting there.
I was expecting to get high bids here.
Do I get $220?
I've got $200.
Do I get $220 for this adorable...
$220 to the Free Software Foundation to defend freedom?
Last chance to bid $220 or more?
No?
Okay.
I've got $225.
Do I get $250?
I've got $300.
Do I get $330 for this adorable canoe?
$330 to the Free Software Foundation to defend freedom?
Do I get $330 or more?
Last chance to bid $330 or more?
Last chance...
Going... going... gone for $300.
Please come up and pay.
How do you wish to pay?
How?
Okay, yeah, credit cards works, but also going to an ATM and getting the money out and coming back will work?
I can't hear anything you're saying.
I'm hard of hearing.
What?
Okay, good.
Staying around here near the door of this room until you come back.
So, now it's time for questions, but I have hearing problems.
Where's the microphone for questioners?
Okay, so speak loud, clearly and slowly.
Pronounce each consonant carefully so I can hear it.
By the way, you can join the Free Software Foundation.
You can do that here.
Come up to me.
Or you can do it through fsf.org if you do e-commerce.
Okay, so I guess I'll start off.
I'm curious if you are developing software, let's say for a commercial purpose, but you do ultimately want to open source it?
Let's not talk about open source.
I'm not in favor of open source.
It's an idea I disagree with.
I will not have a discussion about open source.
Okay, so you just want to make it free software then ultimately, but you do want to use it for commercial purposes first.
That's fine.
First of all, there are several things I need to explain here.
One is, free software doesn't say it can't be used for commercial purposes.
Businesses can use it.
They can use it for anything.
Anybody who gets a copy can use it.
Second, free software doesn't mean it has to be released.
You can write a program yourself and use it yourself and it's free software.
Because every user has the four freedoms.
All one of the users have the four freedoms.
So it's free software for all one of them.
And if someday you decide to release it, then I hope you release it with a free software license so the other users get it as free software.
But the free software movement doesn't say you must release every program you write.
It says when you do release a program, you must not do it in a way that subjugates the other users.
So there's no difficulty with that at all.
But in fact, it's quite possible to release the program as free software and use it yourself in some commercial way and make money.
And is there some amount of time that you think that's reasonable or ethical to release it within?
Should I have 10 more?
It says before 1.50, I should have 10 minutes.
It is?
Oh, maybe it lost time when it fell apart.
Okay.
I was just wondering, is there some specific amount of time you think that is maximum ethical?
No, no, no, no, no.
When you release it, release it as free software.
The four freedoms are not required.
They're all optional.
You do them when you want to do them.
You're not required to run the program.
You're not required to study and change the source code.
You're not required to distribute exact copies.
You're not required to distribute copies of a modified version.
You're free to do any of them when you wish.
But none of them is mandatory.
Dr.
Stallman, let me first say thank you very much for coming.
It's a privilege to have the opportunity to attend your talk.
Now, earlier in your talk, you spoke of computers and computing as a means to an end so that people can do things.
However, there are critical, fundamental usability problems with free software.
As we saw, when you yourself were unable to get your laptop to communicate with...
That was their problem.
Their system's problem.
It wasn't... My laptop was working just fine.
Dr.
Stallman, we have had many people giving talks in the last couple of days, very few, if any, of whom have had that kind of difficulty.
They said that a cable had come loose.
You're bullshitting.
This is utter bullshit.
Since we have so little time...
I'm not done, sir, if I may.
Get lost.
I'll go to the next person.
You spoke with contempt of users who choose.
You say that...
That's right.
I have contempt for fools.
You are contemptuous of people at the same time your rhetoric speaks of freedom for all.
How do you reconcile this contradiction, sir?
Absolutely.
When I respect people's freedom to make a decision, I can also have contempt for them if they make a decision I think is utterly foolish.
Those two are entirely compatible.
To respect people, to say people can use a proprietary program, can shoot up cocaine, I mean, I can still say it's a totally stupid thing to do and you shouldn't do it.
Hi, my name is Luke Layton.
I'm a software Libra developer of 20 years and I've just started doing hardware development as well.
Now, my question is, it's a bit of a leading question, I must apologize, is what hardware is available for people?
Look at fsf.orgslashresourcesslashhw for that information.
Fantastic .
Be brief, now next question.
Hey, Richard.
Oh, and by the way, if you're concerned with free hardware designs, look at genou.orgslashphilosophyslashfreehardweardesigns.html If you're in the maker community, you've got to fight to establish forges that only permit free designs for useful objects.
It's limits on what a given organization will do.
For instance, the FSF can't stop you from making or running a non-free program, but it's up to us whether we're going to recommend it.
We won't host a non-free program on our repository, because if we did, we would be partially responsible for the loss of freedom that those programs would impose on others.
But, you know, this kind of argument, it's fundamentally mistaken, and I've heard it thousands of times.
I summarize it with a haiku.
Using GPL is encroaching on our rights to encroach on yours.
They think they're entitled to use our code to subjugate other people, and if we say, no, you can't use our code that way, they think we're doing them wrong, but they want to restrict their users much, much more than that.
They don't want their users to be able to change the code at all.
They want it to be proprietary.
But they think it's okay for them to do that to other people, and when we say, yes, you can use our code, just respect other people's freedom with it, they think we're doing wrong.
Now, this is clearly morally contradictory, but it makes sense to them.
Hey, Richard, I recently installed a new Linux distribution on my MacBook, dual-booted, and it was really a rough ride.
Do you have any practical suggestions?
I wouldn't know anything about it.
No, just for what computer you would suggest to install Linux on, and what distribution.
Look at what I said.
This is a computer that runs a free system and a free BIOS.
There are many computers that can run a totally free system.
Look at the information about your favorite totally free GNU-slash-Linux distro.
It will say, I suppose, which models it can run on easily.
But dual-booting is just a step.
You've got to erase the non-free system.
The goal is to get the non-free software out of your life, if you don't want it to be attacking your freedom anymore.
So dual-booting is a step there, and it's an important step, but it doesn't get all the way there.
Don't forget to take the next step.
Hi, Richard.
I karmically owe you a comment that has no question mark at the end.
So I just want to say, I think it's a shame that you're ignoring all of the wonderful work that's going on under the banner of open-source software to help enable people to use things which you don't seem to have any kind of concrete plan for the distribution,
the dissemination of your software, or the training of everyday users, except that you've not done anything for training everyday users to understand how to get up to the level...
Please , you're identifying two separate things.
Listen, man...
The programs you're talking about, almost all of them are free software, and I think they're fine.
All I'm saying is that the turnabout is fair play.
No, you're just making a mistake.
I'm not doing what you said, and you've just misunderstood the facts.
The programs that you're talking about...
No, the programs you're talking about, the work you're talking about, almost all of it is free software.
And if I saw those projects, I'd say, what you're doing is good, I just think it's a shame you call it open source.
I'm not criticizing those projects or those people.
I'm saying that they're supporting a cause I don't agree with in not saying free software.
And if there's some job that we should be doing that we're not doing, well, remember, we're a bunch of volunteers, and what we do is what people join us to do.
And we probably should do more.
So, come join and do more for the free software movement.