www-commits
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

www server/gnun/gnun.mk events/.symlinks philos...


From: Pavel Kharitonov
Subject: www server/gnun/gnun.mk events/.symlinks philos...
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 05:45:32 +0000

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Pavel Kharitonov <ineiev>       15/09/15 05:45:31

Modified files:
        server/gnun    : gnun.mk 
        events         : .symlinks 
Added files:
        philosophy/po  : rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-diff.html 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-en.html 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.po 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-diff.html 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-en.html 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.po 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pot 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr-en.html 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.po 
        philosophy     : rms-nyu-2001-summary.pt-br.txt 
                         rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.cs.html 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.html 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.html 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pt-br.txt 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.html 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt 
Removed files:
        events         : rms-nyu-2001-summary.pt.txt 
                         rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.cs.html 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.html 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.html 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pt.txt 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.html 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt 
        events/po      : rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-diff.html 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-en.html 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.po 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-diff.html 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-en.html 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.po 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pot 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr-en.html 
                         rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.po 

Log message:
        Move from /events/ to /philosophy/.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/server/gnun/gnun.mk?cvsroot=www&r1=1.411&r2=1.412
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/.symlinks?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=1.2
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/rms-nyu-2001-summary.pt.txt?cvsroot=www&r1=1.2&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.cs.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.63&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.25&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.32&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pt.txt?cvsroot=www&r1=1.2&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.13&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt?cvsroot=www&r1=1.16&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-en.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.44&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.po?cvsroot=www&r1=1.47&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-en.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.19&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.po?cvsroot=www&r1=1.16&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pot?cvsroot=www&r1=1.13&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist?cvsroot=www&r1=1.10&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr-en.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/events/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.po?cvsroot=www&r1=1.14&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-en.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.po?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-en.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.po?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pot?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr-en.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.po?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.pt-br.txt?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.cs.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.3
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pt-br.txt?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.tr.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1

Patches:
Index: server/gnun/gnun.mk
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/server/gnun/gnun.mk,v
retrieving revision 1.411
retrieving revision 1.412
diff -u -b -r1.411 -r1.412
--- server/gnun/gnun.mk 10 Aug 2015 05:30:22 -0000      1.411
+++ server/gnun/gnun.mk 15 Sep 2015 05:45:18 -0000      1.412
@@ -191,7 +191,6 @@
                first-assoc-members-meeting \
                nyc-2004-01 \
                porto-tech-city-2001 \
-               rms-nyu-2001-transcript \
                sco_without_fear \
                usenix-2001-lifetime-achievement
 
@@ -555,6 +554,7 @@
                rms-hack \
                rms-interview-edinburgh \
                rms-kol \
+               rms-nyu-2001-transcript \
                rms-on-radio-nz \
                rtlinux-patent \
                savingeurope \

Index: events/.symlinks
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/events/.symlinks,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -b -r1.1 -r1.2
--- events/.symlinks    31 May 2001 22:45:01 -0000      1.1
+++ events/.symlinks    15 Sep 2015 05:45:18 -0000      1.2
@@ -1 +1,4 @@
 events.html index.html
+../philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html
+../philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.pt-br.txt rms-nyu-2001-summary.pt.txt
+../philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pt-br.txt rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pt.txt

Index: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-diff.html
diff -N philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-diff.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-diff.html  15 Sep 2015 05:45:26 
-0000      1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,2141 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 --&gt;
+&lt;title&gt;Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation&lt;/title&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist" 
--&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --&gt;
+&lt;h2&gt;Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation&lt;/h2&gt;
+
+&lt;p style="text-align: center;"&gt;
+Transcript of&lt;br /&gt;
+Richard M. Stallman's speech,&lt;br /&gt;
+&lt;em&gt;&ldquo;Free Software: Freedom and 
Cooperation&rdquo;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
+New York University in New York, New York&lt;br /&gt;
+on 29 May 2001&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;div class="announcement"&gt;
+&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;a 
href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt"&gt;plain
+text&lt;/a&gt; version of this transcript and
+a &lt;a href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt"&gt;summary&lt;/a&gt; of 
the speech
+are also available.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;URETSKY&lt;/strong&gt;: I'm Mike Uretsky.  I'm over at 
the Stern
+School of Business.  I'm also one of the Co-Directors of the Center
+for Advanced Technology.  And, on behalf of all of us in the Computer
+Science Department, I want to welcome you here.  I want to say a few
+comments, before I turn it over to Ed, who is going to introduce the
+speaker.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;The role of a university is a place to foster debate and to have
+interesting discussions.  And the role of a major university is to
+have particularly interesting discussions.  And this particular
+presentation, this seminar falls right into that mold.  I find the
+discussion of open source particularly interesting.  In a sense
+&hellip; &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: I do free software.  Open 
source is a
+different movement.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter] [Applause]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;URETSKY&lt;/strong&gt;: When I first started in the 
field in the
+'60's, basically software was free.  And we went in cycles.  It became
+free, and then software manufacturers, in the need to expand their
+markets, pushed it in other directions.  A lot of the developments
+that took place with the entry of the PC moved in exactly the same
+kind of a cycle.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;There's a very interesting French philosopher, Pierre Levy, who
+talks about movement to this direction and who talks about the move
+into cyberspace as not only relating to technology but also relating
+to social restructuring, to political restructuring, through a change
+in the kinds of relationships that will improve the well-being of
+mankind.  And we're hoping that this debate is a movement in that
+direction, that this debate is something that cuts across a lot of the
+disciplines that normally act as solace within the University.  We're
+looking forward to some very interesting discussions.  Ed?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SCHONBERG&lt;/strong&gt;: I'm Ed Schonberg from the 
Computer
+Science Department at the Courant Institute.  Let me welcome you all
+to this event.  Introducers are usually, and particularly, a useless
+aspect of public presentations, but in this case, actually, they serve
+a useful purpose, as Mike easily demonstrated, because an introducer
+for instance, told him, by making inaccurate comments, can allow him
+to straighten out and correct and &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; sharpen
+considerably the parameters of the debate.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, let me make the briefest possible introduction to somebody who
+doesn't need one.  Richard is the perfect example of somebody who, by
+acting locally, started thinking globally from problems concerning the
+unavailability of source code for printer drivers at the AI Lab many
+years ago.  He has developed a coherent philosophy that has forced all
+of us to re-examine our ideas of how software is produced, of what
+intellectual property means, and what the software community actually
+represents.  Let me welcome Richard Stallman.  
&lt;i&gt;[Applause]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Can someone lend me a
+watch?  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; Thank you.  So, I'd like to thank 
Microsoft
+for providing me the opportunity to &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; be on this
+platform.  For the past few weeks, I have felt like an author whose
+book was fortuitously banned somewhere.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; Except 
that
+all the articles about it are giving the wrong author's name, because
+Microsoft describes the GNU GPL as an open source license, and most of
+the press coverage followed suit.  Most people, of course just
+innocently don't realize that our work has nothing to do with open
+source, that in fact we did most of it before people even coined the
+term open source.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;We are in the free software movement, and I'm going to speak about
+what the free software movement is about, what it means, what we have
+done, and, because this is partly sponsored by a school of business,
+I'll say some things more than I usually do about how free software
+relates to business, and some other areas of social life.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now, some of you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps
+you cook.  And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably
+use recipes.  And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the
+experience of getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing
+it.  And you've probably also had the experience &mdash; unless you're
+a total neophyte &mdash; of changing a recipe.  You know, it says
+certain things, but you don't have to do exactly that.  You can leave
+out some ingredients.  Add some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms.
+Put in less salt because your doctor said you should cut down on salt
+&mdash; whatever.  You can even make bigger changes according to your
+skill.  And if you've made changes in a recipe, and you cook it for
+your friends, and they like it, one of your friends might say,
+&ldquo;Hey, could I have the recipe?&rdquo; And then, what do you do?
+You could write down your modified version of the recipe and make a
+copy for your friend.  These are the natural things to do with
+functionally useful recipes of any kind.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program.  A computer
+program's a lot like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to
+get some result that you want.  So it's just as natural to do those
+same things with computer programs &mdash; hand a copy to your friend.
+Make changes in it because the job it was written to do isn't exactly
+what you want.  It did a great job for somebody else, but your job is
+a different job.  And after you've changed it, that's likely to be
+useful for other people.  Maybe they have a job to do that's like the
+job you do.  So they ask, &ldquo;Hey, can I have a copy?&rdquo; Of
+course, if you're a nice person, you're going to give a copy.  That's
+the way to be a decent person.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So imagine what it would be like if recipes were packaged inside
+black boxes.  You couldn't see what ingredients they're using, let
+alone change them, and imagine if you made a copy for a friend, they
+would call you a pirate and try to put you in prison for years.  That
+world would create tremendous outrage from all the people who are used
+to sharing recipes.  But that is exactly what the world of proprietary
+software is like.  A world in which common decency towards other
+people is prohibited or prevented.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now, why did I notice this?  I noticed this because I had the good
+fortune in the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who
+shared software.  Now, this community could trace its ancestry
+essentially back to the beginning of computing.  In the 1970's,
+though, it was a bit rare for there to be a community where people
+shared software.  And, in fact, this was sort of an extreme case,
+because in the lab where I worked, the entire operating system was
+software developed by the people in our community, and we'd share any
+of it with anybody.  Anybody was welcome to come and take a look, and
+take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do.  There were no
+copyright notices on these programs.  Cooperation was our way of life.
+And we were secure in that way of life.  We didn't fight for it.  We
+didn't have to fight for it.  We just lived that way.  And, as far as
+we knew, we would just keep on living that way.  So there was free
+software, but there was no free software movement.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that
+happened to it.  Ultimately it was wiped out.  Ultimately, the PDP-10
+computer which we used for all our work was discontinued.  And you
+know, our system &mdash; the Incompatible Timesharing System &mdash;
+was written starting in the '60's, so it was written in assembler
+language.  That's what you used to write an operating system in the
+'60's.  So, of course, assembler language is for one particular
+computer architecture; if that gets discontinued, all your work turns
+into dust &mdash; it's useless.  And that's what happened to us.  The
+20 years or so of work of our community turned into dust.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me,
+helped me see what to do, helped prepare me to see what to do when
+this happened, because at certain point, Xerox gave the Artificial
+Intelligence Lab, where I worked, a laser printer, and this was a
+really handsome gift, because it was the first time anybody outside
+Xerox had a laser printer.  It was very fast, printed a page a second,
+very fine in many respects, but it was unreliable, because it was
+really a high-speed office copier that had been modified into a
+printer.  And, you know, copiers jam, but there's somebody there to
+fix them.  The printer jammed and nobody saw.  So it stayed jammed for
+a long time.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Well, we had an idea for how to deal with this problem.  Change it
+so that whenever the printer gets a jam, the machine that runs the
+printer can tell our timesharing machine, and tell the users who are
+waiting for printouts, or something like that, you know, tell them, go
+fix the printer.  Because if they only knew it was jammed, of course,
+if you're waiting for a printout and you know that the printer is
+jammed, you don't want to sit and wait forever, you're going to go fix
+it.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But at that point, we were completely stymied, because the software
+that ran that printer was not free software.  It had come with the
+printer, and it was just a binary.  We couldn't have the source code;
+Xerox wouldn't let us have the source code.  So, despite our skill as
+programmers &mdash; after all, we had written our own timesharing
+system &mdash; we were completely helpless to add this feature to the
+printer software.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And we just had to suffer with waiting.  It would take an hour or
+two to get your printout because the machine would be jammed most of
+the time.  And only once in a while &mdash; you'd wait an hour
+figuring &ldquo;I know it's going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and
+go collect my printout,&rdquo; and then you'd see that it had been
+jammed the whole time, and in fact, nobody else had fixed it.  So
+you'd fix it and you'd go wait another half hour.  Then, you'd come
+back, and you'd see it jammed again &mdash; before it got to your
+output.  It would print three minutes and be jammed thirty minutes.
+Frustration up the whazzoo.  But the thing that made it worse was
+knowing that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his own
+selfishness, was blocking us, obstructing us from improving the
+software.  So, of course, we felt some resentment.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a
+copy of that software.  So I was visiting there later, so I went to
+his office and I said, &ldquo;Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of
+the printer source code?&rdquo; And he said &ldquo;No, I promised not
+to give you a copy.&rdquo; &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; I was stunned.  I was 
so
+&mdash; I was angry, and I had no idea how I could do justice to it.
+All I could think of was to turn around on my heel and walk out of his
+room.  Maybe I slammed the door.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; And I thought
+about it later on, because I realized that I was seeing not just an
+isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was important and affected
+a lot of people.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;This was &mdash; for me &mdash; I was lucky, I only got a taste of
+it, but other people had to live in this all the time.  So I thought
+about it at length.  See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with
+us &mdash; his colleagues at MIT.  He had betrayed us.  But he didn't
+just do it to us.  Chances are he did it to you too.  &lt;i&gt;[Pointing at
+member of audience.]&lt;/i&gt;  And I think, mostly likely, he did it to you
+too.  &lt;i&gt;[Pointing at another member of audience.]  [Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; 
And
+he probably did it to you as well.  &lt;i&gt;[Pointing to third member of
+audience.]&lt;/i&gt; He probably did it to most of the people here in this
+room &mdash; except a few, maybe, who weren't born yet in 1980.
+Because he had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about the
+entire population of the Planet Earth.  He had signed a non-disclosure
+agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure
+agreement, and it taught me an important lesson &mdash; a lesson
+that's important because most programmers never learn it.  You see,
+this was my first encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was
+the victim.  I, and my whole lab, were the victims.  And the lesson it
+taught me was that non-disclosure agreements have victims.  They're
+not innocent.  They're not harmless.  Most programmers first encounter
+a non-disclosure agreement when they're invited to sign one.  And
+there's always some temptation &mdash; some goody they're going to get
+if they sign.  So, they make up excuses.  They say, &ldquo;Well, he's
+never going to get a copy no matter what, so why shouldn't I join the
+conspiracy to deprive him?&rdquo; They say, &ldquo;This is the way
+it's always done.  Who am I to go against it?&rdquo; They say,
+&ldquo;If I don't sign this, someone else will.&rdquo; Various excuses
+to gag their consciences.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But when somebody invited me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, my
+conscience was already sensitized.  It remembered how angry I had
+been, when somebody promised not to help me and my whole lab solve our
+problem.  And I couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to
+somebody else who had never done me any harm.  You know, if somebody
+asked me to promise not to share some useful information with a hated
+enemy, I would have said yes.  You know?  If somebody's done something
+bad, he deserves it.  But, strangers &mdash; they haven't done me any
+harm.  How could they deserve that kind of mistreatment?  You can't
+let yourself start treating just anybody and everybody badly.  Then
+you become a predator on society.  So I said, &ldquo;Thank you very
+much for offering me this nice software package.  But I can't accept
+it in good conscience, on the conditions you are demanding, so I will
+do without it.  Thank you so much.&rdquo; And so, I have never
+knowingly signed a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful
+technical information such as software.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now there are other kinds of information which raise different
+ethical issues.  For instance, there's personal information.  You
+know, if you wanted to talk with me about what was happening between
+you and your boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody &mdash;
+you know, I could keep &mdash; I could agree to keep that a secret for
+you, because that's not generally useful technical information.  At
+least, it's probably not generally useful. 
&lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;There is a small chance &mdash; and it's a possibility though
+&mdash; that you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex
+technique, &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; and I would then feel a moral
+duty &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; to pass it onto the rest of humanity, so 
that
+everyone could get the benefit of it.  So, I'd have to put a proviso
+in that promise, you know?  If it's just details about who wants this,
+and who's angry at whom, and things like that &mdash; soap opera
+&mdash; that I can keep private for you, but something that humanity
+could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't withhold.  You see,
+the purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information
+for humanity to help people live their lives better.  If we promise to
+withhold that information &mdash; if we keep it secret &mdash; then we
+are betraying the mission of our field.  And this, I decided I
+shouldn't do.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But, meanwhile my community had collapsed, and that was collapsing,
+and that left me in a bad situation.  You see, the whole Incompatible
+Timesharing System was obsolete, because the PDP-10 was obsolete, and
+so there was no way that I could continue working as an operating
+system developer the way that I had been doing it.  That depended on
+being part of the community using the community software and improving
+it.  That no longer was a possibility, and that gave me a moral
+dilemma.  What was I going to do?  Because the most obvious
+possibility meant to go against that decision I had made.  The most
+obvious possibility was to adapt myself to the change in the world.
+To accept that things were different, and that I'd just have to give
+up those principles and start signing non-disclosure agreements for
+proprietary operating systems, and most likely writing proprietary
+software as well.  But I realized that that way I could have fun
+coding, and I could make money &mdash; especially if I did it other
+than at MIT &mdash; but at the end, I'd have to look back at my career
+and say, &ldquo;I've spent my life building walls to divide
+people,&rdquo; and I would have been ashamed of my life.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So I looked for another alternative, and there was an obvious one.
+I could leave the software field and do something else.  Now I had no
+other special noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a
+waiter.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; Not at a fancy restaurant; they wouldn't
+hire me, &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; but I could be a waiter somewhere.  And
+many programmers, they say to me, &ldquo;The people who hire
+programmers demand this, this and this. If I don't do those things,
+I'll starve.&rdquo; It's literally the word they use.  Well, you know,
+as a waiter, you're not going to starve.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; So,
+really, they're in no danger.  But &mdash; and this is important, you
+see &mdash; because sometimes you can justify doing something that
+hurts other people by saying otherwise something worse is going to
+happen to me.  You know, if you were &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; going to 
starve,
+you'd be justified in writing proprietary software.  
&lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;
+If somebody's pointing a gun at you, then I would say, it's
+forgivable.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; But, I had found a way that I could
+survive without doing something unethical, so that excuse was not
+available.  So I realized, though, that being a waiter would be no fun
+for me, and it would be wasting my skills as an operating system
+developer.  It would avoid misusing my skills.  Developing proprietary
+software would be misusing my skills.  Encouraging other people to
+live in the world of proprietary software would be misusing my skills.
+So it's better to waste them than misuse them, but it's still not
+really good.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So for those reasons, I decided to look for some other alternative.
+What can an operating system developer do that would actually improve
+the situation, make the world a better place?  And I realized that an
+operating system developer was exactly what was needed.  The problem,
+the dilemma, existed for me and for everyone else because all of the
+available operating systems for modern computers were proprietary.
+The free operating systems were for old, obsolete computers, right?
+So for the modern computers &mdash; if you wanted to get a modern
+computer and use it, you were forced into a proprietary operating
+system.  So if an operating system developer wrote another operating
+system, and then said, &ldquo;Everybody come and share this; you're
+welcome to this&rdquo; &mdash; that would give everybody a way out of
+the dilemma, another alternative.  So I realized that there was
+something I could do that would solve the problem.  I had just the
+right skills to be able to do it.  And it was the most useful thing I
+could possibly imagine that I'd be able to do with my life.  And it
+was a problem that no one else was trying to solve.  It was just sort
+of sitting there, getting worse, and nobody was there but me.  So I
+felt, &ldquo;I'm elected.  I have to work on this.  If not me,
+who?&rdquo; So I decided I would develop a free operating system, or
+die trying &hellip; of old age, of course.  
&lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, of course I had to decide what kind of operating system it
+should be.  There are some technical design decisions to be made.  I
+decided to make the system compatible with Unix for a number of
+reasons.  First of all, I had just seen one operating system that I
+really loved become obsolete because it was written for one particular
+kind of computer.  I didn't want that to happen again.  We needed to
+have a portable system.  Well, Unix was a portable system.  So if I
+followed the design of Unix, I had a pretty good chance that I could
+make a system that would also be portable and workable.  And
+furthermore, why &lt;i&gt;[Tape unclear]&lt;/i&gt; be compatible with it in the
+details.  The reason is, users hate incompatible changes.  If I had
+just designed the system in my favorite way &mdash; which I would have
+loved doing, I'm sure &mdash; I would have produced something that was
+incompatible.  You know, the details would be different.  So, if I
+wrote the system, then the users would have said to me, &ldquo;Well,
+this is very nice, but it's incompatible.  It will be too much work to
+switch.  We can't afford that much trouble just to use your system
+instead of Unix, so we'll stay with Unix,&rdquo; they would have
+said.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now, if I wanted to actually create a community where there would
+be people in it, people using this free system, and enjoying the
+benefits of liberty and cooperation, I had to make a system people
+would use, a system that they would find easy to switch to, that would
+not have an obstacle making it fail at the very beginning.  Now,
+making the system upward compatible with Unix actually made all the
+immediate design decisions, because Unix consists of many pieces, and
+they communicate through interfaces that are more or less documented.
+So if you want to be compatible with Unix, you have to replace each
+piece, one by one, with a compatible piece.  So the remaining design
+decisions are inside one piece, and they could be made later by
+whoever decides to write that piece.  They didn't have to be made at
+the outset.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So all we had to do to start work was find a name for the system.
+Now, we hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program,
+because thinking of people being amused by the name is half the fun of
+writing the program.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; And we had a tradition of
+recursive acronyms, to say that the program that you're writing is
+similar to some existing program. You can give it a recursive acronym
+name which says: this one's not the other.  So, for instance, there
+were many Tico text editors in the '60's and '70's, and they were
+generally called something-or-other Tico.  Then one clever hacker
+called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico &mdash; the first recursive
+acronym.  In 1975, I developed the first Emacs text editor, and there
+were many imitations of Emacs, and a lot of them were called
+something-or-other Emacs, but one was called Fine, for Fine Is Not
+Emacs, and there was Sine, for Sine Is Not Emacs, and Eine for Ina Is
+Not Emacs, and MINCE for Mince Is Not Complete
+Emacs.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; That was a stripped down imitation.  And
+then, Eine was almost completely rewritten, and the new version was
+called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially.  
&lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So I looked for a recursive acronym for Something is not Unix.  And
+I tried all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word.
+&lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; Hmm, try another way.  I made a contraction.  
That
+way I could have a three-letter acronym, for Something's not Unix.
+And I tried letters, and I came across the word &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;
+&mdash; the word &ldquo;GNU&rdquo; is the funniest word in the English
+language.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; That was it.  Of course, the reason 
it's
+funny is that according to the dictionary, it's pronounced
+&ldquo;new&rdquo;.  You see?  And so that's why people use it for a
+lot of wordplay.  Let me tell you, this is the name of an animal that
+lives in Africa.  And the African pronunciation had a click sound in
+it.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; Maybe still does.  And so, the European
+colonists, when they got there, they didn't bother learning to say
+this click sound.  So they just left it out, and they wrote a
+&ldquo;G&rdquo; which meant &ldquo;there's another sound that's
+supposed to be here which we are not
+pronouncing.&rdquo; &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; So, tonight I'm leaving for
+South Africa, and I have begged them, I hope they're going to find
+somebody who can teach me to pronounce click sounds, 
&lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;
+so that I'll know how to pronounce GNU the correct way, when it's the
+animal.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is
+&ldquo;guh-NEW&rdquo; &mdash; pronounce the hard &ldquo;G&rdquo;.  If
+you talk about the &ldquo;new&rdquo; operating system, you'll get
+people very confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years
+now, so it is not new any more.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; But it still is,
+and always will be, GNU &mdash; no matter how many people call it
+Linux by mistake.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces
+of GNU.  They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities
+though.  And, at the time, I thought we would write all these pieces,
+and make an entire GNU system, and then we'd say, &ldquo;Come and get
+it&rdquo;, and people would start to use it.  That's not what
+happened.  The first pieces I wrote were just equally good
+replacements, with fewer bugs for some pieces of Unix, but they
+weren't tremendously exciting.  Nobody particularly wanted to get them
+and install them.  But then, in September 1984, I started writing GNU
+Emacs, which was my second implementation of Emacs, and by early 1985,
+it was working.  I could use it for all my editing, which was a big
+relief, because I had no intention of learning to use VI, the Unix
+editor. &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; So, until that time, I did my editing on
+some other machine, and saved the files through the network, so that I
+could test them.  But when GNU Emacs was running well enough for me to
+use it, it was also &mdash; other people wanted to use it too.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So I had to work out the details of distribution.  Of course, I put
+a copy in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people
+who were on the net They could then just pull over a tar file, but a
+lot of programmers then even were not on the net in 1985.  They were
+sending me emails saying &ldquo;How can I get a copy?&rdquo; I had to
+decide what I would answer them.  Well, I could have said, I want to
+spend my time writing more GNU software, not writing tapes, so please
+find a friend who's on the internet and who is willing to download it
+and put it on a tape for you.  And I'm sure people would have found
+some friends, sooner or later, you know.  They would have got copies.
+But I had no job.  In fact, I've never had a job since quitting MIT in
+January 1984.  So, I was looking for some way I could make money
+through my work on free software, and therefore I started a free
+software business.  I announced, &ldquo;Send me $150 dollars, and I'll
+mail you a tape of Emacs.&rdquo; And the orders began dribbling in.
+By the middle of the year they were trickling in.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month.  And, if necessary, I could
+have lived on just that, because I've always lived cheaply. I live
+like a student, basically.  And I like that, because it means that
+money is not telling me what to do.  I can do what I think is
+important for me to do.  It freed me to do what seemed worth doing.
+So make a real effort to avoid getting sucked into all the expensive
+lifestyle habits of typical Americans.  Because if you do that, then
+people with the money will dictate what you do with your life.  You
+won't be able to do what's really important to you.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, &ldquo;What do you
+mean it's free software if it costs $150
+dollars?&rdquo; &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; Well, the reason they asked this 
was
+that they were confused by the multiple meanings of the English word
+&ldquo;free&rdquo;.  One meaning refers to price, and another meaning
+refers to freedom.  When I speak of free software, I'm referring to
+freedom, not price.  So think of free speech, not free
+beer.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many 
years
+of my life to making sure programmers got less money.  That's not my
+goal.  I'm a programmer and I don't mind getting money myself.  I
+won't dedicate my whole life to getting it, but I don't mind getting
+it.  And I'm not &mdash; and therefore, ethics is the same for
+everyone.  I'm not against some other programmer getting money either.
+I don't want prices to be low.  That's not the issue at all.  The
+issue is freedom.  Freedom for everyone who's using software, whether
+that person be a programmer or not.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So at this point I should give you the definition of free software.
+I better get to some real details, you see, because just saying
+&ldquo;I believe in freedom&rdquo; is vacuous.  There's so many
+different freedoms you could believe in, and they conflict with each
+other, so the real political question is: Which are the important
+freedoms, the freedoms that we must make sure everybody has?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And now, I will give my answer to that question for the particular
+area of using software.  A program is free software for you, a
+particular user, if you have the following freedoms:&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;ul&gt;
+&lt;li&gt;First, Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the program for any
+purpose, any way you like.&lt;/li&gt;
+&lt;li&gt;Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
+program to suit your needs.&lt;/li&gt;
+&lt;li&gt;Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
+copies of the program.&lt;/li&gt;
+&lt;li&gt;And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
+publishing an improved version so others can get the benefit of your
+work.&lt;/li&gt;
+&lt;/ul&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software,
+for you &mdash; and that's crucial.  That's why I phrase it that way.
+I'll explain why later, when I talk about the GNU General Public
+License, but right now I'm explaining what free software means, which
+is a more basic question.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, Freedom Zero's pretty obvious.  If you're not even allowed to
+run the program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive
+program.  But as it happens, most programs will at least give you
+Freedom Zero.  And Freedom Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of
+Freedoms One, Two, and Three &mdash; that's the way that copyright law
+works.  So the freedoms that distinguish free software from typical
+software are Freedoms One, Two, and Three, so I'll say more about them
+and why they are important.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
+software to suit your needs.  This could mean fixing bugs.  It could
+mean adding new features.  It could mean porting it to a different
+computer system.  It could mean translating all the error messages
+into Navajo.  Any change you want to make, you should be free to
+make.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now, it's obvious that professional programmers can make use of
+this freedom very effectively, but not just them.  Anybody of
+reasonable intelligence can learn a little programming.  You know,
+there are hard jobs, and there are easy jobs, and most people are not
+going to learn enough to do hard jobs.  But lots of people can learn
+enough to do easy jobs, just the way, you know, 50 years ago, lots and
+lots of American men learned to repair cars, which is what enabled the
+U.S. to have a motorized army in World War II and win.  So, very
+important, having lots of people tinkering.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And if you are a people person, and you really don't want to learn
+technology at all, that probably means that you have a lot of friends,
+and you're good at getting them to owe you favors.  
&lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;
+Some of them are probably programmers.  So you can ask one of your
+programmer friends. &ldquo;Would you please change this for me?  Add
+this feature?&rdquo; So, lots of people can benefit from it.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now, if you don't have this freedom, it causes practical, material
+harm to society.  It makes you a prisoner of your software.  I
+explained what that was like with regard to the laser printer.  You
+know, it worked badly for us, and we couldn't fix it, because we were
+prisoners of our software.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But it also affects people's morale.  You know if the computer is
+constantly frustrating to use, and people are using it, their lives
+are going to be frustrating, and if they're using it in their jobs,
+their jobs are going to be frustrating; they're going to hate their
+jobs.  And you know, people protect themselves from frustration by
+deciding not to care.  So you end up with people whose attitude is,
+&ldquo;Well, I showed up for work today.  That's all I have to do.  If
+I can't make progress, that's not my problem; that's the boss's
+problem.&rdquo; And when this happens, it's bad for those people, and
+it's bad for society as a whole.  That's Freedom One, the freedom to
+help yourself.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
+copies of the program.  Now, for beings that can think and learn,
+sharing useful knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship.  When
+these beings use computers, this act of friendship takes the form of
+sharing software.  Friends share with each other.  Friends help each
+other.  This is the nature of friendship.  And, in fact, this spirit
+of goodwill &mdash; the spirit of helping your neighbor, voluntarily
+&mdash; is society's most important resource.  It makes the difference
+between a livable society and a dog-eat-dog jungle.  Its importance
+has been recognized by the world's major religions for thousands of
+years, and they explicitly try to encourage this attitude.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach
+us this attitude &mdash; the spirit of sharing &mdash; by having us do
+it.  They figured if we did it, we'd learn.  So they said, &ldquo;If
+you bring candy to school, you can't keep it all for yourself; you
+have to share some with the other kids.&rdquo; Teaching us, the
+society was set up to teach, this spirit of cooperation.  And why do
+you have to do that?  Because people are not totally cooperative.
+That's one part of human nature, and there are other parts of human
+nature.  There are lots of parts of human nature.  So, if you want a
+better society, you've got to work to encourage the spirit of sharing.
+You know, it'll never get to be 100%.  That's understandable.  People
+have to take care of themselves too.  But if we make it somewhat
+bigger, we're all better off.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Nowadays, according to the U.S. Government, teachers are supposed
+to do the exact opposite.  &ldquo;Oh, Johnny, you brought software to
+school.  Well, don't share it.  Oh no.  Sharing is wrong.  Sharing
+means you're a pirate.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;What do they mean when they say &ldquo;pirate&rdquo;?  They're
+saying that helping your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking
+a ship.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;What would Buddha or Jesus say about that?  Now, take your favorite
+religious leader.  I don't know, maybe Manson would have said
+something different.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; Who knows what L. Ron 
Hubbard
+would say?  But &hellip;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: 
&lt;i&gt;[Inaudible]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Of course, he's dead.  But 
they don't
+admit that.  What?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: So are the others, also
+dead.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter] [Inaudible]&lt;/i&gt; Charles Manson's also
+dead.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; They're dead, Jesus's dead, Buddha's
+dead&hellip;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Yes, that's true.  
&lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; So
+I guess, in that regard, L. Ron Hubbard is no worse than the
+others.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; Anyway &mdash; 
&lt;i&gt;[Inaudible]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: L. Ron always used free 
software &mdash;
+it freed him from Zanu.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Anyway, so, I think this is 
actually the
+most important reason why software should be free: We can't afford to
+pollute society's most important resource.  It's true that it's not a
+physical resource like clean air and clean water.  It's a
+psycho-social resource, but it's just as real for all that, and it
+makes a tremendous difference to our lives.  You see, the actions we
+take influence the thoughts of other people.  When we go around
+telling people, &ldquo;Don't share with each other&rdquo;, if they
+listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's not a good one.
+That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just
+cause this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes
+waste &mdash; practical, material harm.  If the program has an owner,
+and the owner arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay
+in order to be able to use it, some people are going to say,
+&ldquo;Never mind, I'll do without it.&rdquo; And that's waste,
+deliberately inflicted waste.  And the interesting thing about
+software, of course, is that fewer users doesn't mean you have to make
+less stuff.  You know, if fewer people buy cars, you can make fewer
+cars.  There's a saving there.  There are resources to be allocated,
+or not allocated, into making cars.  So that you can say that having a
+price on a car is a good thing.  It prevents people from diverting
+lots of wasted resources into making cars that aren't really needed.
+But if each additional car used no resources, it wouldn't be doing any
+good saving the making of these cars.  Well, for physical objects, of
+course, like cars, it is always going to take resources to make an
+additional one of them, each additional exemplar.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But for software that's not true.  Anybody can make another copy.
+And it's almost trivial to do it.  It takes no resources, except a
+tiny bit of electricity.  So there's nothing we can save, no resource
+we're going to allocate better by putting this financial disincentive
+on the use of the software.  You often find people taking economic,
+the consequences of economic reasoning, based on premises that don't
+apply to software, and trying to transplant them from other areas of
+life where the premises may apply, and the conclusions may be valid.
+They just take the conclusions and assume that they're valid for
+software too, when the argument is based on nothing, in the case of
+software.  The premises don't work in that case.  It is very important
+to examine how you reach the conclusion, and what premises it depends
+on, to see where it might be valid.  So, that's Freedom Two, the
+freedom to help your neighbor.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
+publishing an improved version of the software.  People used to say to
+me, &ldquo;If the software's free, then nobody will get paid to work
+on it, so why should anybody work on it?&rdquo; Well, of course, they
+were confusing the two meanings of free, so their reasoning was based
+on a misunderstanding.  But, in any case, that was their theory.
+Today, we can compare that theory with empirical fact, and we find
+that hundreds of people are being paid to write free software, and
+over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers.  We get lots of people
+working on free software, for various different motives.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;When I first released GNU Emacs &mdash; the first piece of the GNU
+system that people actually wanted to use &mdash; and when it started
+having users, after a while, I got a message saying, &ldquo;I think I
+saw a bug in the source code, and here's a fix.&rdquo; And I got
+another message, &ldquo;Here's code to add a new feature.&rdquo; And
+another bug fix.  And another new feature.  And another, and another,
+and another, until they were pouring in on me so fast that just making
+use of all this help I was getting was a big job.  Microsoft doesn't
+have this problem.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Eventually, people noted this phenomenon.  You see, in the 1980's a
+lot of us thought that maybe free software wouldn't be as good as the
+non-free software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay
+people.  And, of course, people like me, who value freedom and
+community said, &ldquo;Well, we'll use the free software
+anyway.&rdquo; It's worth making a little sacrifice in some mere
+technical convenience to have freedom.  But what people began to note,
+around 1990 was that our software was actually better.  It was more
+powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary alternatives.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific
+measurement of reliability of software.  Here's what he did.  He took
+several sets of comparable programs that did the same jobs &mdash; the
+exact same jobs &mdash; in different systems.  Because there were
+certain basic Unix-like utilities.  And the jobs that they did, we
+know, was all, more or less, imitating the same thing, or they were
+following the POSIX spec, so they were all the same in terms of what
+jobs they did, but they were maintained by different people, written
+separately.  The code was different.  So they said, OK, we'll take
+these programs and run them with random data, and measure how often
+they crash, or hang.  So they measured it, and the most reliable set
+of programs was the GNU programs.  All the commercial alternatives
+which were proprietary software were less reliable.  So he published
+this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he did the
+same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same result.
+The GNU versions were the most reliable.  People &mdash; you know
+there are cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system,
+because it's so reliable, and reliability is very important to
+them.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Anyway, there's even a group of people who focus on this particular
+benefit as the reason they give, the main reason they give, why users
+should be permitted to do these various things, and to have these
+freedoms.  If you've been listening to me, you've noticed, you've seen
+that I, speaking for the free software movement, I talk about issues
+of ethics, and what kind of a society we want to live in, what makes
+for a good society, as well as practical, material benefits.  They're
+both important.  That's the free software movement.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;That other group of people &mdash; which is called the open source
+movement &mdash; they only cite the practical benefits.  They deny
+that this is an issue of principle.  They deny that people are
+entitled to the freedom to share with their neighbor and to see what
+the program's doing and change it if they don't like it.  They say,
+however, that it's a useful thing to let people do that.  So they go
+to companies and say to them, &ldquo;You know, you might make more
+money if you let people do this.&rdquo; So, what you can see is that
+to some extent, they lead people in a similar direction, but for
+totally different, for fundamentally different, philosophical
+reasons.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Because on the deepest issue of all, you know, on the ethical
+question, the two movements disagree.  You know, in the free software
+movement we say, &ldquo;You're entitled to these freedoms.  People
+shouldn't stop you from doing these things.&rdquo; In the open source
+movement, they say, &ldquo;Yes, they can stop you if you want, but
+we'll try to convince them to deign to let you to do these
+things.&rdquo; Well, they have contributed &mdash; they have convinced
+a certain number of businesses to release substantial pieces of
+software as free software in our community.  So they, the open source
+movement, has contributed substantially to our community.  And so we
+work together on practical projects.  But, philosophically, there's a
+tremendous disagreement.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, the open source movement is the one that gets the
+support of business the most, and so most articles about our work
+describe it as open source, and a lot of people just innocently think
+that we're all part of the open source movement.  So that's why I'm
+mentioning this distinction.  I want you to be aware that the free
+software movement, which brought our community into existence and
+developed the free operating system, is still here &mdash; and that we
+still stand for this ethical philosophy.  I want you to know about
+this, so that you won't mislead someone else unknowingly.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But also, so that you can think about where you stand.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;You know, which movement you support is up to you.  You might agree
+with the free software movements and my views.  You might agree with
+the open source movement.  You might disagree with them both.  You
+decide where you stand on these political issues.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But if you agree with the free software movement &mdash; if you see
+that there's an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled
+and directed by this decision deserve a say in it &mdash; then I hope
+you'll say that you agree with the free software movement, and one way
+you can do that is by using the term free software and just helping
+people know we exist.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, Freedom Three is very important both practically and
+psycho-socially.  If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical
+material harm, because this community development doesn't happen, and
+we don't make powerful, reliable software.  But it also causes
+psycho-social harm, which affects the spirit of scientific cooperation
+&mdash; the idea that we're working together to advance human
+knowledge.  You see, progress in science crucially depends on people
+being able to work together.  And nowadays though, you often find each
+little group of scientists acting like it's a war with each other gang
+of scientists and engineers.  And if they don't share with each other,
+they're all held back.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, those are the three freedoms that distinguish free software
+from typical software.  Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself,
+making changes to suit your own needs.  Freedom Two is the freedom to
+help your neighbor by distributing copies.  And Freedom Three is the
+freedom to help build your community by making changes and publishing
+them for other people to use.  If you have all of these freedoms, the
+program is free software for you.  Now, why do I define it that way in
+terms of a particular user?  Is it free software for
+you?  &lt;i&gt;[Pointing at member of audience.]&lt;/i&gt; Is it free software 
for
+you?  &lt;i&gt;[Pointing at another member of audience.]&lt;/i&gt; Is it free
+software for you?  &lt;i&gt;[Pointing at another member of audience.]&lt;/i&gt;
+Yes?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: Can you explain a bit about the
+difference between Freedom Two and Three?  
&lt;i&gt;[inaudible]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Well, they certainly relate, 
because if
+you don't have freedom to redistribute at all, you certainly don't
+have freedom to distribute a modified version, but they're different
+activities.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: Oh.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Freedom Two is, you know, read 
it, you
+make an exact copy, and hand it to your friends, so now your friend
+can use it.  Or maybe you make exact copies and you sell them to a
+bunch of people, and then they can use it.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Freedom Three is where you make improvements &mdash; or at least
+you think they're improvements, and some other people may agree with
+you.  So that's the difference.  Oh, and by the way, one crucial
+point.  Freedoms One and Three depend on your having access to the
+source code.  Because changing a binary-only program is extremely
+hard.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; Even trivial changes like using four 
digits
+for the date, &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; if you don't have source.  So, for
+compelling, practical reasons, access to the source code is a
+precondition, a requirement, for free software.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, why do I define it in terms of whether it's free software for
+&lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt;?  The reason is that sometimes the same program can be
+free software for some people, and non-free for others.  Now, that
+might seem like a paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example
+to show you how it happens.  A very big example &mdash; maybe the
+biggest ever &mdash; of this problem was the X Window System which was
+developed at MIT and released under a license that made it free
+software.  If you got the MIT version with the MIT license, you had
+Freedoms One, Two, and Three.  It was free software for you.  But
+among those who got copies were various computer manufacturers that
+distributed Unix systems, and they made the necessary changes in X to
+run on their systems.  You know, probably just a few thousand lines
+out of the hundreds of thousands of lines of X.  And, then they
+compiled it, and they put the binaries into their Unix system and
+distributed it under the same non-disclosure agreement as the rest of
+the Unix system.  And then, millions of people got these copies.  They
+had the X Window System, but they had none of these freedoms.  It was
+not free software for &lt;em&gt;them&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, the paradox was that whether X was free software depended on
+where you made the measurement.  If you made the measurement coming
+out of the developers' group, you'd say, &ldquo;I observe all these
+freedoms.  It's free software.&rdquo; If you made the measurements
+among the users you'd say, &ldquo;Hmm, most users don't have these
+freedoms.  It's not free software.&rdquo; Well, the people who
+developed X didn't consider this a problem, because their goal was
+just popularity, ego, essentially.  They wanted a big professional
+success.  They wanted to feel, &ldquo;Ah, lots of people are using our
+software.&rdquo; And that was true.  Lots of people were using their
+software but didn't have freedom.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Well, in the GNU project, if that same thing had happened to GNU
+software, it would have been a failure, because our goal wasn't just
+to be popular; our goal was to give people liberty, and to encourage
+cooperation, to permit people to cooperate.  Remember, never force
+anyone to cooperate with any other person, but make sure that
+everybody's allowed to cooperate, everyone has the freedom to do so,
+if he or she wishes.  If millions of people were running non-free
+versions of GNU, that wouldn't be success at all. The whole thing
+would have been perverted into nothing like the goal.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening.  The method I
+came up with is called &ldquo;copyleft&rdquo;.  It's called copyleft
+because it's sort of like taking copyright and flipping it
+over.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; Legally, copyleft works based on 
copyright.
+We use the existing copyright law, but we use it to achieve a very
+different goal.  Here's what we do.  We say, &ldquo;This program is
+copyrighted.&rdquo; And, of course, by default, that means it's
+prohibited to copy it, or distribute it, or modify it.  But then we
+say, &ldquo;You're authorized to distribute copies of this.  You're
+authorized to modify it.  You're authorized to distribute modified
+versions and extended versions.  Change it any way you
+like.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But there is a condition.  And the condition, of course, is the
+reason why we go to all this trouble, so that we could put the
+condition in.  The condition says: Whenever you distribute anything
+that contains any piece of this program, that whole program must be
+distributed under these same terms, no more and no less.  So you can
+change the program and distribute a modified version, but when you do,
+the people who get that from you must get the same freedom that you
+got from us.  And not just for the parts of it &mdash; the excerpts
+that you copied from our program &mdash; but also for the other parts
+of that program that they got from you.  The whole of that program has
+to be free software for them.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become
+inalienable rights &mdash; a concept from the Declaration of
+Independence.  Rights that we make sure can't be taken away from you.
+And, of course, the specific license that embodies the idea of
+copyleft is the GNU General Public License, a controversial license
+because it actually has the strength to say no to people who would be
+parasites on our community.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of
+freedom.  And they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done,
+and use it to get a head start in distributing a non-free program and
+tempting people to give up their freedom.  And the result would be
+&mdash; you know, if we let people do that &mdash; that we would be
+developing these free programs, and we'd constantly have to compete
+with improved versions of our own programs.  That's no fun.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And, a lot of people also feel &mdash; you know, I'm willing to
+volunteer my time to contribute to the community, but why should I
+volunteer my time to contribute to that company's, to improving that
+company's, proprietary program?  You know, some people might not even
+think that that's evil, but they want to get paid if they're going to
+do that.  I, personally, would rather not do it at all.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But both of these groups of people &mdash; both the ones like me
+who say, &ldquo;I don't want to help that non-free program to get a
+foothold in our community&rdquo; and the ones that say, &ldquo;Sure,
+I'd work for them, but then they better pay me&rdquo; &mdash; both of
+us have a good reason to use the GNU General Public License.  Because
+that says to that company, &ldquo;You can't just take my work, and
+distribute it without the freedom.&rdquo; Whereas, the non-copyleft
+licenses, like the X Windows license, do permit that.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So that is the big division between the two categories of free
+software &mdash; license-wise.  There are the programs that are
+copylefted so that the license defends the freedom of the software for
+every user.  And there are the non-copylefted programs for which
+non-free versions are allowed.  Somebody &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; take those
+programs and strip off the freedom.  You may get that program in a
+non-free version.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And that problem exists today.  There are still non-free versions
+of X Windows being used on our free operating systems.  There is even
+hardware &mdash; which is not really supported &mdash; except by a
+non-free version of X Windows.  And that's a major problem in our
+community.  Nonetheless, I wouldn't say that X Windows is a bad thing,
+you know. I'd say that the developers did not do the best possible
+thing that they could have done.  But they &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt; release a 
lot
+of software that we could all use.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;You know, there's a big difference between less than perfect, and
+evil.  There are many gradations of good and bad.  We have to resist
+the temptation to say, if you didn't do the absolute best possible
+thing, then you're no good.  You know, the people that developed X
+Windows made a big contribution to our community.  But there's
+something better that they could have done.  They could have
+copylefted parts of the program and prevented those freedom-denying
+versions from being distributed by others.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now, the fact that the GNU General Public License defends your
+freedom, uses copyright law to defend your freedom, is, of course, why
+Microsoft is attacking it today.  See, Microsoft would really like to
+be able to take all the code that we wrote and put it into proprietary
+programs, have somebody make some improvements, or even just
+incompatible changes is all they need.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;You know, with Microsoft's marketing clout, they don't need to make
+it better to have their version supplant ours.  They just have to make
+it different and incompatible.  And then, put it on everybody's
+desktop.  So they really don't like the GNU GPL.  Because the GNU GPL
+won't let them do that.  It doesn't allow &ldquo;embrace and
+extend&rdquo;.  It says, if you want to share our code in your
+programs, you can.  But, you've got to share and share alike.  The
+changes that you make we have to be allowed to share.  So, it's a
+two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Many companies &mdash; even big companies like IBM and HP are
+willing to use our software on this basis.  IBM and HP contribute
+substantial improvements to GNU software.  And they develop other free
+software.  But, Microsoft doesn't want to do that, so they give it out
+that businesses just can't deal with the GPL.  Well, if businesses
+don't include IBM, and HP and SUN, then maybe they're
+right.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; More about that later.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;I should finish the historical story.  You see, we set out in 1984
+not just to write some free software but to do something much more
+coherent: to develop an operating system that was entirely free
+software.  So that meant we had to write piece after piece after
+piece.  Of course, we were always looking for shortcuts.  The job was
+so big that people said we'd never be able to finish.  And, I thought
+that there was at least a chance that we'd finish it but, obviously,
+it's worth looking for shortcuts.  So we kept looking around. Is there
+any program that somebody else has written that we could manage to
+adapt, to plug into here, and that way we won't have to write it from
+scratch?  For instance, the X Window system.  It's true it wasn't
+copylefted, but it was free software, so we could use it.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now, I had wanted to put a window system into GNU from day one.  I
+wrote a couple of window systems at MIT before I started GNU.  And so,
+even though Unix had no window system in 1984, I decided that GNU
+would have one.  But, we never ended up writing a GNU window system,
+because X came along.  And I said, Goody!  One big job we don't have
+to do.  We'll use X.  So I basically said, let's take X, and put it
+into the GNU system.  And we'll make the other parts of GNU, you know,
+work with X, when appropriate.  And we found other pieces of software
+that had been written by other people, like the text formatter TeX,
+some library code from Berkeley.  At that time there was Berkeley
+Unix, but it was not free software.  This library code, initially, was
+from a different group at Berkeley, that did research on floating
+point.  And, so, we kept, we fit in these pieces.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;In October 1985, we founded the Free Software Foundation.  So
+please note, the GNU project came first.  The Free Software Foundation
+came after, about almost two years after the announcement of the
+Project.  And the Free Software Foundation is a tax-exempt charity
+that raises funds to promote the freedom to share and change software.
+And in the 1980's, one of the main things we did with our funds was to
+hire people to write parts of GNU.  And essential programs, such as
+the shell and the C library were written this way, as well as parts of
+other programs.  The &lt;code&gt;tar&lt;/code&gt; program, which is absolutely
+essential, although not exciting at all &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; was 
written
+this way.  I believe GNU grep was written this way.  And so, we're
+approaching our goal.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;By 1991, there was just one major piece missing, and that was the
+kernel.  Now, why did I put off the kernel?  Probably because it
+doesn't really matter what order you do the things in, at least
+technically it doesn't.  You've got to do them all anyway.  And partly
+because I'd hoped we'd be able to find a start at a kernel somewhere
+else.  And we did.  We found Mach, which had been developed at
+Carnegie Mellon.  And it wasn't the whole kernel; it was the bottom
+half of the kernel.  So we had to write the top half, but I figured,
+you know, things like the file system, the network code, and so on.
+But running on top of Mach they're running essentially as user
+programs, which ought to make them easier to debug.  You can debug
+with a real source-level debugger running at the same time.  And so, I
+thought that way we'd be able to get these, the higher level parts of
+the kernel, done in a short time.  It didn't work out that way.  These
+asynchronous, multi-threaded processes, sending messages to each other
+turned out to be very hard to debug.  And the Mach-based system that
+we were using to bootstrap with had a terrible debugging environment,
+and it was unreliable, and various problems.  It took us years and
+years to get the GNU kernel to work.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But, fortunately, our community did not have to wait for the GNU
+kernel.  Because in 1991, Linus Torvalds developed another free kernel
+called Linux.  And he used the old-fashioned monolithic design and it
+turns out that he got his working much faster than we got ours
+working.  So maybe that's one of the mistakes that I made: that design
+decision.  Anyway, at first, we didn't know about Linux, because he
+never contacted us to talk about it.  Although he did know about the
+GNU Project.  But he announced it to other people and other places on
+the net.  And so other people then did the work of combining Linux
+with the rest of the GNU system to make a complete free operating
+system.  Essentially, to make the GNU plus Linux combination.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But, they didn't realize that's what they were doing.  You see,
+they said, We have a kernel &mdash; let's look around and see what
+other pieces we can find to put together with the kernel.  So, they
+looked around &mdash; and lo and behold, everything they needed was
+already available.  What good fortune, they said.  
&lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;
+It's all here.  We can find everything we need.  Let's just take all
+these different things and put it together, and have a system.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;They didn't know that most of what they found was pieces of the GNU
+system.  So they didn't realize that they were fitting Linux into the
+gap in the GNU system.  They thought they were taking Linux and making
+a system out of Linux.  So they called it a Linux system.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: 
&lt;i&gt;[Inaudible]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Can't hear you &mdash; 
what?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: 
&lt;i&gt;[Inaudible]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Well, it's just not &mdash; 
you know,
+it's provincial.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: But it's more good fortune 
then finding
+X and Mach?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Right.  The difference is that 
the
+people who developed X and Mach didn't have the goal of making a
+complete free operating system.  We're the only ones who had that.
+And, it was our tremendous work that made the system exist.  We
+actually did a larger part of the system than any other project.  No
+coincidence, because those people &mdash; they wrote useful parts of
+the system.  But they didn't do it because they wanted the system to
+be finished.  They had other reasons.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now the people who developed X &mdash; they thought that designing
+across the network window system would be a good project, and it was.
+And it turned out to help us make a good free operating system.  But
+that's not what they hoped for.  They didn't even think about that.
+It was an accident.  An accidental benefit.  Now, I'm not saying that
+what they did was bad.  They did a large free software project.
+That's a good thing to do.  But they didn't have that ultimate vision.
+The GNU Project is where that vision was.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And, so, we were the ones whose &mdash; every little piece that
+didn't get done by somebody else, we did it.  Because we knew that we
+wouldn't have a complete system without it.  And even if it was
+totally boring and unromantic, like &lt;code&gt;tar&lt;/code&gt;
+or &lt;code&gt;mv&lt;/code&gt;.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; We did it.  Or 
ld, you know
+there's nothing very exciting in &lt;code&gt;ld&lt;/code&gt; &mdash; but I 
wrote
+one.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; And I did make efforts to have it do a 
minimal
+amount of disk I/O so that it would be faster and handle bigger
+programs.  But, you know, I like to do a good job.  I like to improve
+various things about the program while I'm doing it.  But the reason
+that I did it wasn't that I had brilliant ideas for a
+better &lt;code&gt;ld&lt;/code&gt;.  The reason I did it is that we needed one
+that was free.  And we couldn't expect anyone else to do it.  So, we
+had to do it, or find someone to do it.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, although at this point thousands of people in projects have
+contributed to this system, there is one project which is the reason
+that this system exists, and that's the GNU Project.  It 
&lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;
+basically the GNU System, with other things added since then.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, however, the practice of calling the system Linux has been a
+great blow to the GNU Project, because we don't normally get credit
+for what we've done.  I think Linux, the kernel, is a very useful
+piece of free software, and I have only good things to say about it.
+But, well, actually, I can find a few bad things to say about
+it.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; But, basically, I have good things to say 
about
+it.  However, the practice of calling the GNU system, Linux, is just a
+mistake.  I'd like to ask you please to make the small effort
+necessary to call the system GNU/Linux, and that way to help us get a
+share of the credit.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: You need a mascot!  Get 
yourself a
+stuffed animal!  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: We have one.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: You do?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: We have an animal &mdash; a
+gnu.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; Anyway.  So, yes, when you draw a penguin,
+draw a gnu next to it.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; But, let's save the
+questions for the end.  I have more to go through.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, why am I so concerned about this?  You know, why do I think it
+is worth bothering you and perhaps giving you a, perhaps lowering your
+opinion of me, &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; to raise this issue of credit?
+Because, you know, some people when I do this, some people think that
+it's because I want my ego to be fed, right?  Of course, I'm not
+saying &mdash; I'm not asking you to call it &ldquo;Stallmanix,&rdquo;
+right?  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter] [Applause]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to
+get credit.  And there's a very specific reason for that, which is a
+lot more important than anybody getting credit, in and of itself.  You
+see, these days, if you look around in our community most of the
+people talking about it and writing about it don't ever mention GNU,
+and they don't ever mention these goals of freedom &mdash; these
+political and social ideals, either.  Because the place they come from
+is GNU.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;The ideas associated with Linux &mdash; the philosophy is very
+different.  It is basically the apolitical philosophy of Linus
+Torvalds.  So, when people think that the whole system is Linux, they
+tend to think: &ldquo;Oh, it must have been all started by Linux
+Torvalds.  His philosophy must be the one that we should look at
+carefully&rdquo;.  And when they hear about the GNU philosophy, they
+say: &ldquo;Boy, this is so idealistic, this must be awfully
+impractical.  I'm a Linux-user, not a
+GNU-user.&rdquo; &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;What irony!  If they only knew!  If they knew that the system they
+liked &mdash; or, in some cases, love and go wild over &mdash; is our
+idealistic, political philosophy made real.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;They still wouldn't have to agree with us.  But at least they'd see
+a reason to take it seriously, to think about it carefully, to give it
+a chance.  They would see how it relates to their lives.  You know, if
+they realized, &ldquo;I'm using the GNU system. Here's the GNU
+philosophy.  This philosophy is &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; this system that I 
like
+very much exists,&rdquo; they'd at least consider it with a much more
+open mind.  It doesn't mean that everybody will agree.  People think
+different things.  That's OK.  You know, people should make up their
+own minds.  But I want this philosophy to get the benefit of the
+credit for the results it has achieved.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;If you look around in our community, you'll find that almost
+everywhere, the institutions are calling the system Linux.  You know,
+reporters mostly call it Linux.  It's not right, but they do.  The
+companies mostly say it that package the system.  Oh, and most of
+these reporters, when they write articles, they usually don't look at
+it as a political issue, or social issue.  They're usually looking at
+it purely as a business question or what companies are going to
+succeed more or less, which is really a fairly minor question for
+society.  And, if you look at the companies that package the GNU/Linux
+system for people to use, well, most of them call it Linux.  And they
+&lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; add non-free software to it.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;See, the GNU GPL says that if you take code, and some code out of a
+GPL-covered program, and add some more code to make a bigger program,
+that whole program has to be released under the GPL.  But you could
+put other separate programs on the same disk (of either kind, hard
+disk, or CD), and they can have other licenses.  That's considered
+mere aggregation, and, essentially, just distributing two programs to
+somebody at the same time is not something we have any say over.  So,
+in fact, it is not true &mdash; sometimes, I wish it were true &mdash;
+that if a company uses a GPL-covered program in a product that the
+whole product has to be free software.  It's not &mdash; it doesn't go
+to that range &mdash; that scope.  It's the whole program.  If there
+are two separate programs that communicate with each other at arm's
+length &mdash; like by sending messages to each other &mdash; then,
+they're legally separate, in general.  So, these companies, by adding
+non-free software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically
+and politically, a very bad idea.  They're telling the users,
+&ldquo;It is OK to use non-free software.  We're even putting it on
+this as a bonus.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system,
+most of them have a title like &ldquo;Linux-something or other&rdquo;.
+So they're calling the system Linux most of the time.  And they're
+filled with ads for non-free software that you could run on top of the
+GNU/Linux system.  Now those ads have a common message.  They say:
+Non-free Software Is Good For You.  It's So Good That You Might Even
+&lt;em&gt;Pay&lt;/em&gt; To Get It.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And they call these things &ldquo;value-added packages&rdquo;,
+which makes a statement about their values.  They're saying: Value
+practical convenience, not freedom.  And, I don't agree with those
+values, so I call them &ldquo;freedom-subtracted
+packages&rdquo;.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; Because if you have installed a
+free operating system, then you now are living in the free world.  You
+enjoy the benefits of liberty that we worked for so many years to give
+you.  Those packages give you an opportunity to buckle on a chain.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And then if you look at the trade shows &mdash; about the use of
+the, dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call
+themselves &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; shows.  And they're filled with booths
+exhibiting non-free software, essentially putting the seal of approval
+on the non-free software.  So, almost everywhere you look in our
+community, the institutions are endorsing the non-free software,
+totalling negating the idea of freedom that GNU was developed for.
+And the only place that people are likely to come across the idea of
+freedom is in connection with GNU, and in connection with free
+software, the term, free software.  So this is why I ask you: please
+call the system GNU/Linux.  Please make people aware where the system
+came from and why.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Of course, just by using that name, you won't be making an
+explanation of the history.  You can type four extra characters and
+write GNU/Linux; you can say two extra syllables.  But, GNU/Linux is
+fewer syllables than Windows 2000.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; But, you're 
not
+telling them a lot, but you're preparing them, so that when they hear
+about GNU, and what it's all about, they'll see how that connects to
+them and their lives.  And that, indirectly, makes a tremendous
+difference.  So please help us.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;You'll note that Microsoft called the GPL an &ldquo;open source
+license&rdquo;.  They don't want people to be thinking in terms of
+freedom as the issue.  You'll find that they invite people to think in
+a narrow way, as consumers, and, of course, not even think very
+rationally as consumers, if they're going to choose Microsoft
+products.  But they don't want people to think as citizens or
+statesmen.  That's inimical to them.  At least it's inimical to their
+current business model.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now, how does free software&hellip;well, I can tell you about how
+free software relates to our society.  A secondary topic that might be
+of interest to some of you is how free software relates to business.
+Now, in fact, free software is &lt;em&gt;tremendously&lt;/em&gt; useful for
+business.  After all, most businesses in the advanced countries use
+software.  Only a tiny fraction of them develop software.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And free software is tremendously advantageous for any company that
+uses software, because it means that you're in control.  Basically,
+free software means the users are in control of what the program does.
+Either individually, if they care enough to be, or, collectively, when
+they care enough to be.  Whoever cares enough can exert some
+influence.  If you don't care, you don't buy.  Then you use what other
+people prefer.  But, if you do care, then you have some say. With
+proprietary software, you have essentially no say.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;With free software, you can change what you want to change.  And it
+doesn't matter that there are no programmers in your company; that's
+fine.  You know, if you wanted to move the walls in your building, you
+don't have to be a carpentry company. You just have to be able to go
+find a carpenter and say, &ldquo;What will you charge to do this
+job?&rdquo; And if you want to change around the software you use, you
+don't have to be a programming company.  You just have to go to a
+programming company and say, &ldquo;What will you charge to implement
+these features?  And when will you have it done?&rdquo; And if they
+don't do the job, you can go find somebody else.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;There's a free market for support.  So, any business that cares
+about support will find a tremendous advantage in free software.  With
+proprietary software, support is a monopoly, because one company has
+the source code, or maybe a small number of companies that paid a
+gigantic amount of money have the source code, if it's Microsoft's
+shared source program, but, it's very few.  And so, there aren't very
+many possible sources of support for you.  And that means, that unless
+you're a real giant, they don't care about you.  Your company is not
+important enough for them to care if they lose your business, or what
+happens.  Once you're using the program, they figure you're locked in
+to getting the support from them, because to switch to a different
+program is a gigantic job.  So, you end up with things like paying for
+the privilege of reporting a bug.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; And once 
you've
+paid, they tell you, &ldquo;Well, OK, we've noted your bug report.
+And in a few months, you can buy an upgrade, and you can see if we've
+fixed it.&rdquo; &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Support providers for free software can't get away with that.  They
+have to please the customers.  Of course, you can get a lot of good
+support gratis.  You post your problem on the Internet.  You may get
+an answer the next day.  But that's not guaranteed, of course.  If you
+want to be confident, you better make an arrangement with a company
+and pay them.  And this is, of course, one of the ways that free
+software business works.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Another advantage of free software for businesses that use software
+is security and privacy.  And this applies to individuals as well, but
+I brought it up in the context of businesses.  You see, when a program
+is proprietary, you can't even tell what it really does.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;It could have features, deliberately put in that you wouldn't like
+if you knew about them, like it might have a backdoor to let the
+developer get into your machine.  It might snoop on what you do and
+send information back.  This is not unusual.  Some Microsoft software
+did this.  But it's not only Microsoft.  There are other proprietary
+programs that snoop on the user.  And you can't even tell if it does
+this.  And, of course, even assuming that the developer's totally
+honest, every programmer makes mistakes.  There could be bugs that
+affect your security which are nobody's fault.  But the point is: If
+it's not free software, you can't find them. And you can't fix
+them.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Nobody has the time to check the source of every program he runs.
+You're not going to do that.  But with free software there's a large
+community, and there are people in that community who are checking
+things.  And you get the benefit of their checking, because if there's
+an accidental bug, there surely are, from time to time, in any
+program, they might find it and fix it.  And people are much less
+likely to put in a deliberate Trojan horse, or a snooping feature, if
+they think they might get caught.  The proprietary software developers
+figure they won't get caught.  They'll get away with it undetected.
+But a free software developer has to figure that people will look at
+that and see it's there.  So, in our community, we don't feel we can
+get away with ramming a feature down the users' throats that the users
+wouldn't like.  So we know that if the users don't like it, they'll
+make a modified version which doesn't have it.  And then, they'll all
+start using that version.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;In fact, we can all reason enough, we can all figure this out
+enough steps ahead, that we probably won't put in that feature.  After
+all, you're writing a free program; you want people to like your
+version; you don't want to put in a thing that you know a lot of
+people are going to hate, and have another modified version catch on
+instead of yours.  So you just realize that the user is king in the
+world of free software.  In the world of proprietary software, the
+customer is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; king.  Because you are only a customer.  
You
+have no say in the software you use.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;In this respect, free software is a new mechanism for democracy to
+operate.  Professor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions
+as a kind of law.  Whoever gets to write the code that just about
+everybody uses for all intents and purposes is writing the laws that
+run people's lives.  With free software, these laws get written in a
+democratic way.  Not the classical form of democracy &mdash; we don't
+have a big election and say, &ldquo;Everybody vote which way should
+this feature be done.&rdquo; &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; Instead we say,
+basically, those of you who want to work on implementing the feature
+this way, do it.  And if you want to work on implementing the feature
+that way, do it.  And, it gets done one way or the other, you know?
+And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done this way.
+So, in this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by
+simply taking steps in the direction that he wants to go.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And you're free to take as many steps, personally, as you want to
+take.  A business is free to commission as many steps as they find
+useful to take.  And, after you add all these things up, that says
+which direction the software goes.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And it's often very useful to be able to take pieces out of some
+existing program, presumably usually large pieces, of course, and then
+write a certain amount of code of your own, and make a program that
+does exactly what you need, which would have cost you an arm and a leg
+to develop, if you had to write it all from scratch, if you couldn't
+cannibalize large pieces from some existing free software package.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Another thing that results from the fact that the user is king is
+that we tend to be very good about compatibility and standardization.
+Why?  Because users like that.  Users are likely to reject a program
+that has gratuitous incompatibilities in it.  Now, sometimes there's a
+certain group of users which actually have a need for a certain kind
+of incompatibility, and then they'll have it. That's OK.  But when
+users want is to follow a standard, we developers have to follow it,
+and we know that.  And we do it.  By contrast, if you look at
+proprietary software developers, they often find it advantageous to
+deliberately &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; follow a standard, and not because they
+think that they're giving the user an advantage that way, but rather
+because they're imposing on the user, locking the user in.  And you'll
+even find them making changes in their file formats from time to time,
+just to force people to get the newest version.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Archivists are finding a problem now, that files written on
+computers ten years ago often can't be accessed; they were written
+with proprietary software that's essentially lost now.  If it were
+written with free software, then it could be brought up-to-date and
+run.  And those things would not, those records would not be lost,
+would not be inaccessible.  They were even complaining about this on
+NPR recently in citing free software as a solution.  And so, in
+effect, by using a non-free program to store your own data, you are
+putting your head in a noose.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, I've talked about how free software affects most business.  But
+how does it affect that particular narrow area which is software
+business?  Well, the answer is mostly not at all.  And the reason is
+that 90% of the software industry, from what I'm told, is development
+of custom software, software that's not meant to be released at all.
+For custom software, this issue, or the ethical issue of free or
+proprietary, doesn't arise.  You see, the issue is, are you users free
+to change, and redistribute, the software?  If there's only one user,
+and that user owns the rights, there's no problem.  That
+user &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; free to do all these things.  So, in effect, any
+&lt;em&gt;custom&lt;/em&gt; program that was developed by one company for use
+in-house is free software, as long as they have the sense to insist on
+getting the source code and all the rights.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And the issue doesn't really arise for software that goes in a
+watch or a microwave oven or an automobile ignition system.  Because
+those are places where you don't download software to install.  It's
+not a real computer, as far as the user is concerned.  And so, it
+doesn't raise these issues enough for them to be ethically important.
+So, for the most part, the software industry will go along, just as
+it's been going.  And the interesting thing is that since such a large
+fraction of the jobs are in that part of the industry, even if there
+were no possibilities for free software business, the developers of
+free software could all get day jobs writing custom
+software.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; There's so many; the ratio is so 
big.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But, as it happens, there is free software business.  There are
+free software companies, and at the press conference that I'm going to
+have, people from a couple of them will join us.  And, of course,
+there are also companies which are &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; free software
+businesses but do develop useful pieces of free software to release,
+and the free software that they produce is substantial.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now, how do free software businesses work?  Well, some of them sell
+copies.  You know, you're free to copy it but they can still sell
+thousands of copies a month.  And others sell support and various
+kinds of services.  I, personally, for the second half of the '80's, I
+sold free software support services.  Basically I said, for $200 an
+hour, I'll change whatever you want me to change in GNU software that
+I'd written.  And, yes, it was a stiff rate, but if it was a program
+that I was the author of, people would figure that I might get the job
+done in a lot fewer hours.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; And I made a living 
that
+way.  In fact, I'd made more than I'd ever made before.  I also taught
+classes.  And I kept doing that until 1990, when I got a big prize and
+I didn't have to do it any more.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But, 1990 was when the first corporation free software business was
+formed, which was Cygnus Support.  And their business was to do,
+essentially, the same kind of thing that I'd been doing.  I certainly
+could have worked for them, if I had needed to do that.  Since I
+didn't need to, I felt it was good for the movement if I remained
+independent of any one company.  That way, I could say good and bad
+things about the various free software and non-free software
+companies, without a conflict of interest.  I felt that I could serve
+the movement more.  But, if I had needed that to make a living, sure,
+I would have worked for them.  It's an ethical business to be in.  No
+reason I would have felt ashamed to take a job with them.  And that
+company was profitable in its first year.  It was formed with very
+little capital, just the money its three founders had.  And it kept
+growing every year and being profitable every year until they got
+greedy, and looked for outside investors, and then they messed things
+up.  But it was several years of success, before they got greedy.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, this illustrates one of the exciting things about free
+software.  Free software demonstrates that you don't need to raise
+capital to develop free software.  I mean, it's useful;
+it &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; help.  You know, if you do raise some capital, you 
can
+hire people and have them write a bunch of software.  But you can get
+a lot done with a small number of people.  And, in fact, the
+tremendous efficiency of the process of developing free software is
+one of the reasons it's important for the world to switch to free
+software.  And it also belies what Microsoft says when they say the
+GNU GPL is bad, because it makes it harder for them to raise capital
+to develop non-free software and take our free software and put our
+code into their programs that they won't share with us.  Basically, we
+don't need to have them raising capital that way.  We'll get the job
+done anyway.  We are getting the job done.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;People used to say we could never do a complete free operating
+system.  Now we've done that and a tremendous amount more.  And I
+would say that we're about an order of magnitude away from developing
+all the general purpose published software needs of the world.  And
+this is in a world where more than 90% of the users don't use our free
+software yet.  This is in a world where, although in certain areas of
+business, you know, more than half of all the web servers in the world
+are running on GNU/Linux with Apache as the web server.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: &lt;i&gt;[Inaudible]&lt;/i&gt; 
&hellip; What did you
+say before, Linux?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: I said GNU/Linux.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: You did?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Yes, if I'm talking about the 
kernel, I
+call it Linux.  You know, that's it's name.  The kernel was written by
+Linus Torvalds, and we should only call it by the name that he chose,
+out of respect for the author.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Anyway, but in general, in business most users are not using it.
+Most home users are not using our system yet.  So, when they are, we
+should automatically get 10 times as many volunteers and 10 times as
+many customers for the free software businesses that there will be.
+And so that will take us that order of magnitude.  So at this point, I
+am pretty confident that we &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; do the job.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And, this is important, because Microsoft asks us to feel
+desperate.  They say, The only way you can have software to run, the
+only way you can have innovation, is if you give us power.  Let us
+dominate you.  Let us control what you can do with the software you're
+running, so that we can squeeze a lot of money out of you, and use a
+certain fraction of that to develop software, and take the rest as
+profit.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Well, you shouldn't ever feel that desperate.  You shouldn't ever
+feel so desperate that you give up your freedom.  That's very
+dangerous.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Another thing that Microsoft, well, not just Microsoft, people who
+don't support free software generally adopt a value system in which
+the only thing that matters is short-term practical benefits: How much
+money am I going to make this year? What job can I get done today?
+Short-term thinking and narrow thinking.  Their assumption is that it
+is ridiculous to imagine that anybody ever might make a sacrifice for
+the sake of freedom.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Yesterday, a lot of people were making speeches about Americans who
+made sacrifices for the freedom of their compatriots.  Some of them
+made great sacrifices.  They even sacrificed their lives for the kinds
+of freedom that everyone in our country has heard about, at least.
+(At least, in some of the cases; I guess we have to ignore the war in
+Vietnam.)&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;[Editor's note: The day before was &ldquo;Memorial 
Day&rdquo; in
+the USA.  Memorial Day is a day where war heros are
+commemorated.]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But, fortunately, to maintain our freedom in using software,
+doesn't call for big sacrifices. Just tiny, little sacrifices are
+enough, like learning a command-line interface, if we don't have a GUI
+interface program yet.  Like doing the job in this way, because we
+don't have a free software package to do it that way, yet.  Like,
+paying some money to a company that's going to develop a certain free
+software package, so that you can have it in a few years.  Various
+little sacrifices that we can all make.  And, in the long run, even we
+will have benefited from it.  You know, it is really an investment
+more than a sacrifice.  We just have to have enough long-term view to
+realize it's good for us to invest in improving our society, without
+counting the nickels and dimes of who gets how much of the benefit
+from that investment.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, at this point, I'm essentially done.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;I'd like to mention that there's a new approach to free software
+business being proposed by Tony Stanco, which he calls &ldquo;Free
+Developers&rdquo;, which involves a certain business structure which
+hopes eventually to pay out a certain share of the profits to every,
+to all the authors of the free software who've joined the
+organization.  And they're looking at the prospects of getting me some
+rather large government software development contracts in India now,
+because they're going to be using free software as the basis, having
+tremendous cost savings that way.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And so now I guess that I should ask for questions.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: 
&lt;i&gt;[Inaudible]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Could you speak up a bit 
louder please?
+I can't really hear you.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: How could a company like 
Microsoft
+include a free software contract?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Well, actually, Microsoft is 
planning to
+shift a lot of its activity into services.  And what they're planning
+to do is something dirty and dangerous, which is tie the services to
+the programs, one to the next, in a sort of zigzag, you know?  So that
+to use this service, you've got to be using this Microsoft program,
+which is going to mean you need to use this service, to this Microsoft
+program, so it's all tied together.  That's their plan.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now, the interesting thing is that selling those services doesn't
+raise the ethical issue of free software or non-free software.  It
+might be perfectly fine for them to have the business for those
+businesses selling those services over the net to exist.  However,
+what Microsoft is planning to do is to use them to achieve an even
+greater lock, an even greater monopoly, on the software and the
+services, and this was described in an article, I believe in Business
+Week, recently.  And, other people said that it is turning the net
+into the Microsoft Company Town.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And this is relevant because, you know, the trial court in the
+Microsoft antitrust trial recommended breaking up the company,
+Microsoft.  But in a way, that makes no sense &mdash; it wouldn't do
+any good at all &mdash; into the operating part and the applications
+part.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But having seen that article, I now see a useful, effective way to
+split up Microsoft into the services part and the software part, to
+require them to deal with each other only at arm's length, that the
+services must publish their interfaces, so that anybody can write a
+client to talk to those services, and, I guess, that they have to pay
+to get the service. Well, that's OK.  That's a totally different
+issue.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;If Microsoft is split up in this way [&hellip;] services and
+software, they will not be able to use their software to crush
+competition with Microsoft services.  And they won't be able to use
+the services to crush competition with Microsoft software.  And we
+will be able to make the free software, and maybe you people will use
+it to talk to Microsoft services, and we won't mind.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Because, after all, although Microsoft is the proprietary software
+company that has subjugated the most people &mdash; the others have
+subjugated fewer people, it's not for want of
+trying.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; They just haven't succeeded in 
subjugating
+as many people.  So, the problem is not Microsoft and only Microsoft.
+Microsoft is just the biggest example of the problem we're trying to
+solve, which is proprietary software taking away users' freedom to
+cooperate and form an ethical society.  So we shouldn't focus too much
+on Microsoft, you know, even though they did give me the opportunity
+for this platform. That doesn't make them all-important.  They're not
+the be-all and end-all.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: Earlier, you were discussing 
the
+philosophical differences between open source software and free
+software.  How do you feel about the current trend of GNU/Linux
+distributions as they head towards supporting only Intel platforms?
+And the fact that it seems that less and less programmers are
+programming correctly, and making software that will compile anywhere?
+And making software that simply works on Intel systems?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: I don't see an ethical issue 
there.
+Although, in fact, companies that make computers sometimes port the
+GNU/Linux system to it.  HP apparently did this recently.  And, they
+didn't bother paying for a port of Windows, because that would have
+cost too much.  But getting GNU/Linux supported was, I think, five
+engineers for a few months.  It was easily doable.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now, of course, I encourage people to use 
&lt;code&gt;autoconf&lt;/code&gt;,
+which is a GNU package that makes it easier to make your programs
+portable.  I encourage them to do that.  Or when somebody else fixes
+the bug that it didn't compile on that version of the system, and
+sends it to you, you should put it in.  But I don't see that as an
+ethical issue.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: Two comments.  One is: 
Recently, you
+spoke at MIT.  I read the transcript.  And someone asked about
+patents, and you said that &ldquo;patents are a totally different
+issue.  I have no comments on that.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Right.  I actually have a lot 
to say
+about patents, but it takes an hour.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: I wanted to say this: It seems 
to me
+that there is an issue.  I mean, there is a reason that companies call
+both patents and copyrights things like hard property in trying to get
+this concept which is, if they want to use the power of the State to
+create a course of monopoly for themselves.  And so, what's common
+about these things is not that they revolve around the same issues,
+but that motivation is not really the public service issues but the
+motivation of companies to get a monopoly for their private
+interests.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: I understand.  But, well, I 
want to
+respond because there's not too much time.  So I'd like to respond to
+that.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;You're right that that's what they want.  But there's another
+reason why they want to use the term intellectual property.  It's that
+they don't want to encourage people to think carefully about copyright
+issues or patent issues.  Because copyright law and patent law are
+totally different, and the effects of software copyrighted and
+software patents are totally different.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Software patents are a restriction on programmers, prohibiting them
+from writing certain kinds of programs, whereas copyright doesn't do
+that.  With copyright, at least if you wrote it yourself, you're
+allowed to distribute it.  So, it's tremendously important to separate
+these issues.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;They have a little bit in common, at a very low level, and
+everything else is different.  So, please, to encourage clear
+thinking, discuss copyright or discuss patents.  But don't discuss
+intellectual property.  I don't have an opinion on intellectual
+property.  I have opinions on copyrights and patents and software.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: You mentioned at the beginning 
that a
+functional language, like recipes, are computer programs.  There's a
+cross a little bit different than other kinds of language created on.
+This is also causing a problem in the DVD case.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: The issues are partly similar 
but partly
+different, for things that are not functional in nature.  Part of the
+issue transfers but not all of it.  Unfortunately, that's another hour
+speech.  I don't have time to go into it.  But I would say that all
+functional works ought to be free in the same sense as software.  You
+know, textbooks, manuals, dictionaries, and recipes, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: I was just wondering on online
+music. There are similarities and differences created all through.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Right.  I'd say that the 
minimum freedom
+that we should have for any kind of published information is the
+freedom to non-commercially redistribute it, verbatim.  For functional
+works, we need the freedom to commercially publish a modified version,
+because that's tremendously useful to society.  For non-functional
+works, you know, things that are to entertain, or to be aesthetic, or
+to state a certain person's views, you know, perhaps they shouldn't be
+modified.  And, perhaps that means that it's OK, to have copyright
+covering all commercial distribution of them.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Please remember that according to the U.S. Constitution, the
+purpose of copyright is to benefit the public.  It is to modify the
+behavior of certain private parties, so that they will publish more
+books.  And the benefit of this is that society gets to discuss issues
+and learn.  And, you know, we have literature.  We have scientific
+works.  The purpose is encourage that.  Copyrights do not exist for
+the sake of authors, let alone for the sake of publishers.  They exist
+for the sake of readers and all those who benefit from the
+communication of information that happens when people write and others
+read.  And that goal I agree with.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But in the age of the computer networks, the method is no longer
+tenable, because it now requires draconian laws that invade
+everybody's privacy and terrorize everyone.  You know, years in prison
+for sharing with your neighbor.  It wasn't like that in the age of the
+printing press.  Then copyright was an industrial regulation.  It
+restricted publishers.  Now, it's a restriction imposed by the
+publishers on the public.  So, the power relationship is turned around
+180 degrees, even if it's the same law.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: So you can have the same thing 
&mdash;
+but like in making music from other music?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Right.  That is an interesting
+&hellip;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: And unique, new works, you 
know, it's
+still a lot of cooperation.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: It is.  And I think that 
probably
+requires some kind of fair use concept.  Certainly making a few
+seconds of sample and using that in making some musical work,
+obviously that should be fair use.  Even the standard idea of fair use
+includes that, if you think about it.  Whether courts agree, I'm not
+sure, but they should.  That wouldn't be a real change in the system
+as it has existed.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: What do you think about 
publishing
+public information in proprietary formats?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Oh, it shouldn't be.  I mean, 
the
+government should never require citizens to use a non-free program to
+access, to communicate with the government in any way, in either
+direction.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: I have been, what I will now 
say, a
+GNU/Linux user&hellip;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Thank you.  
&lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: &hellip;for the past four 
years.  The one
+thing that has been problematical for me and is something that is
+essential, I think, to all of us, is browsing the web.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Yes.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: One thing that has been 
decidedly a
+weakness in using a GNU/Linux system has been browsing the web,
+because the prevailing tool for that, Netscape&hellip;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: &hellip;is not free 
software.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Let me respond to this.  I want to get to the point, for the sake
+of getting in more.  So, yes.  There has been a terrible tendency for
+people to use Netscape Navigator on their GNU/Linux systems.  And, in
+fact all the commercially packaged systems come with it.  So this is
+an ironic situation: we worked so hard to make a free operating
+system, and now, if you go to the store, and you can find versions of
+GNU/Linux there, most of them are called Linux, and they're not free.
+Oh, well, part of them is.  But then, there's Netscape Navigator, and
+maybe other non-free programs as well.  So, it's very hard to actually
+find a free system, unless you know what you're doing.  Or, of course,
+you can not install Netscape Navigator.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now, in fact, there have been free web browsers for many years.
+There is a free web browser that I used to use called Lynx.  It's a
+free web browser that is non-graphical; it's text-only.  This has a
+tremendous advantage, in you don't see the ads.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]
+[Applause]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But anyway, there is a free graphical project called Mozilla, which
+is now getting to the point where you can use it.  And I occasionally
+use it.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: Konqueror 2.01 has been very 
good.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Oh, OK.  So that's another free
+graphical browser.  So, we're finally solving that problem, I
+guess.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: Can you talk to me about that
+philosophical/ethical division between free software and open source?
+Do you feel that those are irreconcilable? &hellip;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;[Recording switches tapes; end of question and start of 
answer
+is missing]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: &hellip; to a freedom, and 
ethics.  Or
+whether you just say, Well, I hope that you companies will decide it's
+more profitable to let us be allowed to do these things.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But, as I said, in a lot of practical work, it doesn't really
+matter what a person's politics are.  When a person offers to help the
+GNU project, we don't say: &ldquo;You have to agree with our
+politics.&rdquo; We say that in a GNU package, you've got to call the
+system GNU/Linux, and you've got to call it free software.  What you
+say when you're not speaking to the GNU Project, that's up to you.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: The company, IBM, started a 
campaign for
+government agencies, to sell their big new machines, that they used
+Linux as selling point, and say Linux.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Yes, of course, it's really the
+GNU/Linux systems. &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: That's right!  Well, tell the 
top sales
+person.  He doesn't know anything for GNU.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: I have to tell who?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: The top sales person.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Oh yes.  The problem is that 
they've
+already carefully decided what they want to say for reasons of their
+advantage.  And the issue of what is a more accurate, or fair, or
+correct way to describe it is not the primary issue that matters to a
+company like that.  Now, some small companies, yes, there'll be a
+boss.  And if the boss is inclined to think about things like that, he
+might make a decision that way.  Not a giant corporation though. It's
+a shame, you know.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;There's another more important and more substantive issue about
+what IBM is doing.  They're saying that they're putting a billion
+dollars into &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;.  But perhaps, I should also put
+quotes around &ldquo;into&rdquo;, as well, because some of that money
+is paying people to develop free software.  That really is a
+contribution to our community.  But other parts is paying to pay
+people to write proprietary software, or port proprietary software to
+run on top of GNU/Linux, and that is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; a contribution to
+our community.  But IBM is lumping that altogether into this.  Some of
+it might be advertising, which is partly a contribution, even if it's
+partly wrong.  So, it's a complicated situation.  Some of what they're
+doing is contribution and some is not.  And some is sort is somewhat,
+but not exactly.  And you can't just lump it altogether and think,
+Wow!  Whee!  A billion dollars from IBM.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; That's
+oversimplification.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: Can you talk a little bit more 
about the
+thinking that went into the general public license?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Well, here's the &mdash; I'm 
sorry, I'm
+answering his question now. &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SCHONBERG&lt;/strong&gt;: Do you want to reserve some 
time for
+the press conference?  Or do you want to continue here?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Who is here for the press 
conference?
+Not a lot of press.  Oh, three &mdash; OK.  Can you afford if we
+&mdash; if I go on answering everybody's questions for another ten
+minutes or so?  OK.  So, we'll go on answering everybody's
+questions.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, the thinking that went into the GNU GPL?  Part of it was that I
+wanted to protect the freedom of the community against the phenomena
+that I just described with X Windows, which has happened with other
+free programs as well.  In fact, when I was thinking about this issue,
+X Windows was not yet released.  But I had seen this problem happen in
+other free programs.  For instance, TeX.  I wanted to make sure that
+the users would all have freedom.  Otherwise, I realized that I might
+write a program, and maybe a lot of people would use the program, but
+they wouldn't have freedom.  And what's the point of that?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But the other issue I was thinking about was, I wanted to give the
+community a feeling that it was not a doormat, a feeling that it was
+not prey to any parasite who would wander along.  If you don't use
+copyleft, you are essentially saying: &lt;i&gt;[speaking meekly]&lt;/i&gt;
+&ldquo;Take my code.  Do what you want.  I don't say no.&rdquo; So,
+anybody can come along and say: &lt;i&gt;[speaking very firmly]&lt;/i&gt;
+&ldquo;Ah, I want to make a non-free version of this.  I'll just take
+it.&rdquo; And, then, of course, they probably make some improvements,
+those non-free versions might appeal to users, and replace the free
+versions.  And then, what have you accomplished?  You've only made a
+donation to some proprietary software project.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And when people see that that's happening, when people see, other
+people take what I do, and they don't ever give back, it can be
+demoralizing.  And, this is not just speculation.  I had seen that
+happen.  That was part of what happened to wipe out the old community
+that I belonged to the '70's.  Some people started becoming
+uncooperative.  And we assumed that they were profiting thereby.  They
+certainly acted as if they thought they were profiting.  And we
+realized that they can just take off cooperation and not give back.
+And there was nothing we could do about it.  It was very discouraging.
+We, those of us who didn't like the trend, even had a discussion and
+we couldn't come up with any idea for how we could stop it.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, the GPL is designed to stop that.  And it says, Yes, you are
+welcome to join the community and use this code.  You can use it to do
+all sorts of jobs.  But, if you release a modified version, you've got
+to release that to our community, as part of our community, as part of
+the free world.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, in fact, there are still many ways that people can get the
+benefit of our work and not contribute, like you don't have to write
+any software.  Lots of people use GNU/Linux and don't write any
+software.  There's no requirement that you've got to do anything for
+us.  But if you do a certain kind of thing, you've got to contribute
+to it.  So what that means is that our community is not a doormat.
+And I think that that helped give people the strength to feel, Yes, we
+won't just be trampled underfoot by everybody.  We'll stand up to
+this.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: Yes, my question was, 
considering free
+but not copylefted software, since anybody can pick it up and make it
+proprietary, is it not possible also for someone to pick it up and
+make some changes and release the whole thing under the GPL?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Yes, it is possible.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: Then, that would make all 
future copies
+then be GPL'ed.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: From that branch.  But here's 
why we
+don't do that.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: Hmm?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Here's why we don't generally 
do that.
+Let me explain.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: OK, yes.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: We could, if we wanted to, 
take X
+Windows, and make a GPL-covered copy and make changes in that.  But
+there's a much larger group of people working on improving X Windows
+and &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; GPL-ing it.  So, if we did that, we would be 
forking
+from them.  And that's not very nice treatment of them.  And, they
+&lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; a part of our community, contributing to our
+community.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Second, it would backfire against us, because they're doing a lot
+more work on X than we would be.  So, our version would be inferior to
+theirs, and people wouldn't use it, which means, why go to the trouble
+at all?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: Mmm hmm.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: So when a person has written 
some
+improvement to X Windows, what I say that person should do is
+cooperate with the X development team.  Send it to them and let them
+use it their way.  Because they are developing a very important piece
+of free software.  It's good for us to cooperate with them.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: Except, considering X, in 
particular,
+about two years ago, the X Consortium that was far into the non-free
+open source&hellip;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Well, actually it 
&lt;em&gt;wasn't&lt;/em&gt; open
+sourced.  It wasn't open sourced, either.  They may have said it was.
+I can't remember if they said that or not.  But it wasn't open
+source. It was restricted.  You couldn't commercially distribute, I
+think.  Or you couldn't commercially distribute a modified version, or
+something like that.  There was a restriction that's considered
+unacceptable by both the Free Software movement and the Open Source
+movement.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And yes, that's what using a non-copyleft license leaves you open
+to.  In fact, the X Consortium, they had a very rigid policy.  They
+say: If your program if copylefted even a little bit, we won't
+distribute it at all.  We won't put it in our distribution.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, a lot of people were pressured in this way into not
+copylefting.  And the result was that all of their software was wide
+open, later on.  When the same people who had pressured a developer to
+be too all-permissive, then the X people later said, All right, now we
+can put on restrictions, which wasn't very ethical of them.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But, given the situation, would we really want to scrape up the
+resources to maintain an alternate GPL-covered version of X?  And it
+wouldn't make any sense to do that.  There are so many other things we
+need to do.  Let's do them instead.  We can cooperate with the X
+developers.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: Do you have a comment, is the 
GNU a
+trademark?  And is it practical to include it as part of the GNU
+General Public License allowing trademarks?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: We are, actually, applying for 
trademark
+registration on GNU.  But it wouldn't really have anything to do with
+that.  It's a long story to explain why.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: You could require the 
trademark be
+displayed with GPL-covered programs.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: No, I don't think so.  The 
licenses
+cover individual programs.  And when a given program is part of the
+GNU Project, nobody lies about that.  The name of the system as a
+whole is a different issue.  And this is an aside.  It's not worth
+discussing more.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: If there was a button that you 
could
+push and force all companies to free their software, would you press
+it?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Well, I would only use this for
+published software.  You know, I think that people have the right to
+write a program privately and use it.  And that includes companies.
+This is privacy issue.  And it's true, there can be times when it is
+wrong to do that, like if it is tremendously helpful to humanity, and
+you are withholding it from humanity. That is a wrong but that's a
+different kind of wrong.  It's a different issue, although it's in the
+same area.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But yes, I think all published software should be free software.
+And remember, when it's not free software, that's because of
+government intervention.  The government is intervening to make it
+non-free.  The government is creating special legal powers to hand out
+to the owners of the programs, so that they can have the police stop
+us from using the programs in certain ways.  So I would certainly like
+to end that. &lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SCHONBERG&lt;/strong&gt;: Richard's presentation has 
invariably
+generated an enormous amount of intellectual energy.  I would suggest
+that some of it should be directed to using, and possibly writing,
+free software.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;We should close the proceedings shortly.  I want to say that
+Richard has injected into a profession which is known in the general
+public for its terminal apolitical nerditude a level of political and
+moral discussion which is, I think, unprecedented in our profession.
+And we owe him very big for this.  I'd like to note to people that
+there is a break.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;[Applause]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: You are free to leave at any 
time, you
+know. &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; I'm not holding you prisoner 
here.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;[Audience adjourns&hellip;]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;[overlapping conversations&hellip;]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: One final thing.  Our website:
+www.gnu.org&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --&gt;
+&lt;div id="footer"&gt;
+&lt;div class="unprintable"&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+&lt;a href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.
+There are also &lt;a href="/contact/"&gt;other ways to contact&lt;/a&gt;
+the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to &lt;a 
href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+        replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+        We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+        translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+        Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+        to &lt;a href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;
+        &lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+        &lt;p&gt;For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+        our web pages, see &lt;a
+        href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+        README&lt;/a&gt;. --&gt;
+Please see the &lt;a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+README&lt;/a&gt; for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+
+&lt;!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+     files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+     be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US.  Please do NOT change or remove this
+     without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+     Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+     document.  For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+     document was modified, or published.
+     
+     If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+     Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+     years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+     year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+     being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+     
+     There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+     Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014 Richard M. Stallman&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;This page is licensed under a &lt;a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/"&gt;Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --&gt;
+
+&lt;p class="unprintable"&gt;Updated:
+&lt;!-- timestamp start --&gt;
+$Date: 2015/09/15 05:45:26 $
+&lt;!-- timestamp end --&gt;
+&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/body&gt;
+&lt;/html&gt;
+</pre></body></html>

Index: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-en.html
diff -N philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-en.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr-en.html    15 Sep 2015 05:45:26 
-0000      1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,2127 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation</h2>
+
+<blockquote><p>Transcript of
+Richard M. Stallman's speech,
+&ldquo;Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation&rdquo;,
+given at New York University in New York, NY,
+on 29 May 2001</p></blockquote>
+
+<div class="announcement">
+<blockquote><p>A <a href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt">plain
+text</a> version of this transcript and
+a <a href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt">summary</a> of the speech
+are also available.</p></blockquote>
+</div>
+
+<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: I'm Mike Uretsky.  I'm over at the Stern
+School of Business.  I'm also one of the Co-Directors of the Center
+for Advanced Technology.  And, on behalf of all of us in the Computer
+Science Department, I want to welcome you here.  I want to say a few
+comments, before I turn it over to Ed, who is going to introduce the
+speaker.</p>
+
+<p>The role of a university is a place to foster debate and to have
+interesting discussions.  And the role of a major university is to
+have particularly interesting discussions.  And this particular
+presentation, this seminar falls right into that mold.  I find the
+discussion of open source particularly interesting.  In a sense
+&hellip; <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I do free software.  Open source is a
+different movement.  <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: When I first started in the field in the
+'60's, basically software was free.  And we went in cycles.  It became
+free, and then software manufacturers, in the need to expand their
+markets, pushed it in other directions.  A lot of the developments
+that took place with the entry of the PC moved in exactly the same
+kind of a cycle.</p>
+
+<p>There's a very interesting French philosopher, Pierre Levy, who
+talks about movement to this direction and who talks about the move
+into cyberspace as not only relating to technology but also relating
+to social restructuring, to political restructuring, through a change
+in the kinds of relationships that will improve the well-being of
+mankind.  And we're hoping that this debate is a movement in that
+direction, that this debate is something that cuts across a lot of the
+disciplines that normally act as solace within the University.  We're
+looking forward to some very interesting discussions.  Ed?</p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: I'm Ed Schonberg from the Computer
+Science Department at the Courant Institute.  Let me welcome you all
+to this event.  Introducers are usually, and particularly, a useless
+aspect of public presentations, but in this case, actually, they serve
+a useful purpose, as Mike easily demonstrated, because an introducer
+for instance, told him, by making inaccurate comments, can allow him
+to straighten out and correct and <i>[Laughter]</i> sharpen
+considerably the parameters of the debate.</p>
+
+<p>So, let me make the briefest possible introduction to somebody who
+doesn't need one.  Richard is the perfect example of somebody who, by
+acting locally, started thinking globally from problems concerning the
+unavailability of source code for printer drivers at the AI Lab many
+years ago.  He has developed a coherent philosophy that has forced all
+of us to re-examine our ideas of how software is produced, of what
+intellectual property means, and what the software community actually
+represents.  Let me welcome Richard Stallman.  <i>[Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can someone lend me a
+watch?  <i>[Laughter]</i> Thank you.  So, I'd like to thank Microsoft
+for providing me the opportunity to <i>[Laughter]</i> be on this
+platform.  For the past few weeks, I have felt like an author whose
+book was fortuitously banned somewhere.  <i>[Laughter]</i> Except that
+all the articles about it are giving the wrong author's name, because
+Microsoft describes the GNU GPL as an open source license, and most of
+the press coverage followed suit.  Most people, of course just
+innocently don't realize that our work has nothing to do with open
+source, that in fact we did most of it before people even coined the
+term open source.</p>
+
+<p>We are in the free software movement, and I'm going to speak about
+what the free software movement is about, what it means, what we have
+done, and, because this is partly sponsored by a school of business,
+I'll say some things more than I usually do about how free software
+relates to business, and some other areas of social life.</p>
+
+<p>Now, some of you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps
+you cook.  And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably
+use recipes.  And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the
+experience of getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing
+it.  And you've probably also had the experience &mdash; unless you're
+a total neophyte &mdash; of changing a recipe.  You know, it says
+certain things, but you don't have to do exactly that.  You can leave
+out some ingredients.  Add some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms.
+Put in less salt because your doctor said you should cut down on salt
+&mdash; whatever.  You can even make bigger changes according to your
+skill.  And if you've made changes in a recipe, and you cook it for
+your friends, and they like it, one of your friends might say,
+&ldquo;Hey, could I have the recipe?&rdquo; And then, what do you do?
+You could write down your modified version of the recipe and make a
+copy for your friend.  These are the natural things to do with
+functionally useful recipes of any kind.</p>
+
+<p>Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program.  A computer
+program's a lot like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to
+get some result that you want.  So it's just as natural to do those
+same things with computer programs &mdash; hand a copy to your friend.
+Make changes in it because the job it was written to do isn't exactly
+what you want.  It did a great job for somebody else, but your job is
+a different job.  And after you've changed it, that's likely to be
+useful for other people.  Maybe they have a job to do that's like the
+job you do.  So they ask, &ldquo;Hey, can I have a copy?&rdquo; Of
+course, if you're a nice person, you're going to give a copy.  That's
+the way to be a decent person.</p>
+
+<p>So imagine what it would be like if recipes were packaged inside
+black boxes.  You couldn't see what ingredients they're using, let
+alone change them, and imagine if you made a copy for a friend, they
+would call you a pirate and try to put you in prison for years.  That
+world would create tremendous outrage from all the people who are used
+to sharing recipes.  But that is exactly what the world of proprietary
+software is like.  A world in which common decency towards other
+people is prohibited or prevented.</p>
+
+<p>Now, why did I notice this?  I noticed this because I had the good
+fortune in the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who
+shared software.  Now, this community could trace its ancestry
+essentially back to the beginning of computing.  In the 1970's,
+though, it was a bit rare for there to be a community where people
+shared software.  And, in fact, this was sort of an extreme case,
+because in the lab where I worked, the entire operating system was
+software developed by the people in our community, and we'd share any
+of it with anybody.  Anybody was welcome to come and take a look, and
+take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do.  There were no
+copyright notices on these programs.  Cooperation was our way of life.
+And we were secure in that way of life.  We didn't fight for it.  We
+didn't have to fight for it.  We just lived that way.  And, as far as
+we knew, we would just keep on living that way.  So there was free
+software, but there was no free software movement.</p>
+
+<p>But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that
+happened to it.  Ultimately it was wiped out.  Ultimately, the PDP-10
+computer which we used for all our work was discontinued.  And you
+know, our system &mdash; the Incompatible Timesharing System &mdash;
+was written starting in the '60's, so it was written in assembler
+language.  That's what you used to write an operating system in the
+'60's.  So, of course, assembler language is for one particular
+computer architecture; if that gets discontinued, all your work turns
+into dust &mdash; it's useless.  And that's what happened to us.  The
+20 years or so of work of our community turned into dust.</p>
+
+<p>But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me,
+helped me see what to do, helped prepare me to see what to do when
+this happened, because at certain point, Xerox gave the Artificial
+Intelligence Lab, where I worked, a laser printer, and this was a
+really handsome gift, because it was the first time anybody outside
+Xerox had a laser printer.  It was very fast, printed a page a second,
+very fine in many respects, but it was unreliable, because it was
+really a high-speed office copier that had been modified into a
+printer.  And, you know, copiers jam, but there's somebody there to
+fix them.  The printer jammed and nobody saw.  So it stayed jammed for
+a long time.</p>
+
+<p>Well, we had an idea for how to deal with this problem.  Change it
+so that whenever the printer gets a jam, the machine that runs the
+printer can tell our timesharing machine, and tell the users who are
+waiting for printouts, or something like that, you know, tell them, go
+fix the printer.  Because if they only knew it was jammed, of course,
+if you're waiting for a printout and you know that the printer is
+jammed, you don't want to sit and wait forever, you're going to go fix
+it.</p>
+
+<p>But at that point, we were completely stymied, because the software
+that ran that printer was not free software.  It had come with the
+printer, and it was just a binary.  We couldn't have the source code;
+Xerox wouldn't let us have the source code.  So, despite our skill as
+programmers &mdash; after all, we had written our own timesharing
+system &mdash; we were completely helpless to add this feature to the
+printer software.</p>
+
+<p>And we just had to suffer with waiting.  It would take an hour or
+two to get your printout because the machine would be jammed most of
+the time.  And only once in a while &mdash; you'd wait an hour
+figuring &ldquo;I know it's going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and
+go collect my printout,&rdquo; and then you'd see that it had been
+jammed the whole time, and in fact, nobody else had fixed it.  So
+you'd fix it and you'd go wait another half hour.  Then, you'd come
+back, and you'd see it jammed again &mdash; before it got to your
+output.  It would print three minutes and be jammed thirty minutes.
+Frustration up the whazzoo.  But the thing that made it worse was
+knowing that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his own
+selfishness, was blocking us, obstructing us from improving the
+software.  So, of course, we felt some resentment.</p>
+
+<p>And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a
+copy of that software.  So I was visiting there later, so I went to
+his office and I said, &ldquo;Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of
+the printer source code?&rdquo; And he said &ldquo;No, I promised not
+to give you a copy.&rdquo; <i>[Laughter]</i> I was stunned.  I was so
+&mdash; I was angry, and I had no idea how I could do justice to it.
+All I could think of was to turn around on my heel and walk out of his
+room.  Maybe I slammed the door.  <i>[Laughter]</i> And I thought
+about it later on, because I realized that I was seeing not just an
+isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was important and affected
+a lot of people.</p>
+
+<p>This was &mdash; for me &mdash; I was lucky, I only got a taste of
+it, but other people had to live in this all the time.  So I thought
+about it at length.  See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with
+us &mdash; his colleagues at MIT.  He had betrayed us.  But he didn't
+just do it to us.  Chances are he did it to you too.  <i>[Pointing at
+member of audience.]</i>  And I think, mostly likely, he did it to you
+too.  <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]  [Laughter]</i> And
+he probably did it to you as well.  <i>[Pointing to third member of
+audience.]</i> He probably did it to most of the people here in this
+room &mdash; except a few, maybe, who weren't born yet in 1980.
+Because he had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about the
+entire population of the Planet Earth.  He had signed a non-disclosure
+agreement.</p>
+
+<p>Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure
+agreement, and it taught me an important lesson &mdash; a lesson
+that's important because most programmers never learn it.  You see,
+this was my first encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was
+the victim.  I, and my whole lab, were the victims.  And the lesson it
+taught me was that non-disclosure agreements have victims.  They're
+not innocent.  They're not harmless.  Most programmers first encounter
+a non-disclosure agreement when they're invited to sign one.  And
+there's always some temptation &mdash; some goody they're going to get
+if they sign.  So, they make up excuses.  They say, &ldquo;Well, he's
+never going to get a copy no matter what, so why shouldn't I join the
+conspiracy to deprive him?&rdquo; They say, &ldquo;This is the way
+it's always done.  Who am I to go against it?&rdquo; They say,
+&ldquo;If I don't sign this, someone else will.&rdquo; Various excuses
+to gag their consciences.</p>
+
+<p>But when somebody invited me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, my
+conscience was already sensitized.  It remembered how angry I had
+been, when somebody promised not to help me and my whole lab solve our
+problem.  And I couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to
+somebody else who had never done me any harm.  You know, if somebody
+asked me to promise not to share some useful information with a hated
+enemy, I would have said yes.  You know?  If somebody's done something
+bad, he deserves it.  But, strangers &mdash; they haven't done me any
+harm.  How could they deserve that kind of mistreatment?  You can't
+let yourself start treating just anybody and everybody badly.  Then
+you become a predator on society.  So I said, &ldquo;Thank you very
+much for offering me this nice software package.  But I can't accept
+it in good conscience, on the conditions you are demanding, so I will
+do without it.  Thank you so much.&rdquo; And so, I have never
+knowingly signed a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful
+technical information such as software.</p>
+
+<p>Now there are other kinds of information which raise different
+ethical issues.  For instance, there's personal information.  You
+know, if you wanted to talk with me about what was happening between
+you and your boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody &mdash;
+you know, I could keep &mdash; I could agree to keep that a secret for
+you, because that's not generally useful technical information.  At
+least, it's probably not generally useful. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>There is a small chance &mdash; and it's a possibility though
+&mdash; that you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex
+technique, <i>[Laughter]</i> and I would then feel a moral
+duty <i>[Laughter]</i> to pass it onto the rest of humanity, so that
+everyone could get the benefit of it.  So, I'd have to put a proviso
+in that promise, you know?  If it's just details about who wants this,
+and who's angry at whom, and things like that &mdash; soap opera
+&mdash; that I can keep private for you, but something that humanity
+could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't withhold.  You see,
+the purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information
+for humanity to help people live their lives better.  If we promise to
+withhold that information &mdash; if we keep it secret &mdash; then we
+are betraying the mission of our field.  And this, I decided I
+shouldn't do.</p>
+
+<p>But, meanwhile my community had collapsed, and that was collapsing,
+and that left me in a bad situation.  You see, the whole Incompatible
+Timesharing System was obsolete, because the PDP-10 was obsolete, and
+so there was no way that I could continue working as an operating
+system developer the way that I had been doing it.  That depended on
+being part of the community using the community software and improving
+it.  That no longer was a possibility, and that gave me a moral
+dilemma.  What was I going to do?  Because the most obvious
+possibility meant to go against that decision I had made.  The most
+obvious possibility was to adapt myself to the change in the world.
+To accept that things were different, and that I'd just have to give
+up those principles and start signing non-disclosure agreements for
+proprietary operating systems, and most likely writing proprietary
+software as well.  But I realized that that way I could have fun
+coding, and I could make money &mdash; especially if I did it other
+than at MIT &mdash; but at the end, I'd have to look back at my career
+and say, &ldquo;I've spent my life building walls to divide
+people,&rdquo; and I would have been ashamed of my life.</p>
+
+<p>So I looked for another alternative, and there was an obvious one.
+I could leave the software field and do something else.  Now I had no
+other special noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a
+waiter.  <i>[Laughter]</i> Not at a fancy restaurant; they wouldn't
+hire me, <i>[Laughter]</i> but I could be a waiter somewhere.  And
+many programmers, they say to me, &ldquo;The people who hire
+programmers demand this, this and this. If I don't do those things,
+I'll starve.&rdquo; It's literally the word they use.  Well, you know,
+as a waiter, you're not going to starve.  <i>[Laughter]</i> So,
+really, they're in no danger.  But &mdash; and this is important, you
+see &mdash; because sometimes you can justify doing something that
+hurts other people by saying otherwise something worse is going to
+happen to me.  You know, if you were <em>really</em> going to starve,
+you'd be justified in writing proprietary software.  <i>[Laughter]</i>
+If somebody's pointing a gun at you, then I would say, it's
+forgivable.  <i>[Laughter]</i> But, I had found a way that I could
+survive without doing something unethical, so that excuse was not
+available.  So I realized, though, that being a waiter would be no fun
+for me, and it would be wasting my skills as an operating system
+developer.  It would avoid misusing my skills.  Developing proprietary
+software would be misusing my skills.  Encouraging other people to
+live in the world of proprietary software would be misusing my skills.
+So it's better to waste them than misuse them, but it's still not
+really good.</p>
+
+<p>So for those reasons, I decided to look for some other alternative.
+What can an operating system developer do that would actually improve
+the situation, make the world a better place?  And I realized that an
+operating system developer was exactly what was needed.  The problem,
+the dilemma, existed for me and for everyone else because all of the
+available operating systems for modern computers were proprietary.
+The free operating systems were for old, obsolete computers, right?
+So for the modern computers &mdash; if you wanted to get a modern
+computer and use it, you were forced into a proprietary operating
+system.  So if an operating system developer wrote another operating
+system, and then said, &ldquo;Everybody come and share this; you're
+welcome to this&rdquo; &mdash; that would give everybody a way out of
+the dilemma, another alternative.  So I realized that there was
+something I could do that would solve the problem.  I had just the
+right skills to be able to do it.  And it was the most useful thing I
+could possibly imagine that I'd be able to do with my life.  And it
+was a problem that no one else was trying to solve.  It was just sort
+of sitting there, getting worse, and nobody was there but me.  So I
+felt, &ldquo;I'm elected.  I have to work on this.  If not me,
+who?&rdquo; So I decided I would develop a free operating system, or
+die trying &hellip; of old age, of course.  <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>So, of course I had to decide what kind of operating system it
+should be.  There are some technical design decisions to be made.  I
+decided to make the system compatible with Unix for a number of
+reasons.  First of all, I had just seen one operating system that I
+really loved become obsolete because it was written for one particular
+kind of computer.  I didn't want that to happen again.  We needed to
+have a portable system.  Well, Unix was a portable system.  So if I
+followed the design of Unix, I had a pretty good chance that I could
+make a system that would also be portable and workable.  And
+furthermore, why <i>[Tape unclear]</i> be compatible with it in the
+details.  The reason is, users hate incompatible changes.  If I had
+just designed the system in my favorite way &mdash; which I would have
+loved doing, I'm sure &mdash; I would have produced something that was
+incompatible.  You know, the details would be different.  So, if I
+wrote the system, then the users would have said to me, &ldquo;Well,
+this is very nice, but it's incompatible.  It will be too much work to
+switch.  We can't afford that much trouble just to use your system
+instead of Unix, so we'll stay with Unix,&rdquo; they would have
+said.</p>
+
+<p>Now, if I wanted to actually create a community where there would
+be people in it, people using this free system, and enjoying the
+benefits of liberty and cooperation, I had to make a system people
+would use, a system that they would find easy to switch to, that would
+not have an obstacle making it fail at the very beginning.  Now,
+making the system upward compatible with Unix actually made all the
+immediate design decisions, because Unix consists of many pieces, and
+they communicate through interfaces that are more or less documented.
+So if you want to be compatible with Unix, you have to replace each
+piece, one by one, with a compatible piece.  So the remaining design
+decisions are inside one piece, and they could be made later by
+whoever decides to write that piece.  They didn't have to be made at
+the outset.</p>
+
+<p>So all we had to do to start work was find a name for the system.
+Now, we hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program,
+because thinking of people being amused by the name is half the fun of
+writing the program.  <i>[Laughter]</i> And we had a tradition of
+recursive acronyms, to say that the program that you're writing is
+similar to some existing program. You can give it a recursive acronym
+name which says: this one's not the other.  So, for instance, there
+were many Tico text editors in the '60's and '70's, and they were
+generally called something-or-other Tico.  Then one clever hacker
+called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico &mdash; the first recursive
+acronym.  In 1975, I developed the first Emacs text editor, and there
+were many imitations of Emacs, and a lot of them were called
+something-or-other Emacs, but one was called Fine, for Fine Is Not
+Emacs, and there was Sine, for Sine Is Not Emacs, and Eine for Ina Is
+Not Emacs, and MINCE for Mince Is Not Complete
+Emacs.  <i>[Laughter]</i> That was a stripped down imitation.  And
+then, Eine was almost completely rewritten, and the new version was
+called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially.  <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>So I looked for a recursive acronym for Something is not Unix.  And
+I tried all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word.
+<i>[Laughter]</i> Hmm, try another way.  I made a contraction.  That
+way I could have a three-letter acronym, for Something's not Unix.
+And I tried letters, and I came across the word &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;
+&mdash; the word &ldquo;GNU&rdquo; is the funniest word in the English
+language.  <i>[Laughter]</i> That was it.  Of course, the reason it's
+funny is that according to the dictionary, it's pronounced
+&ldquo;new&rdquo;.  You see?  And so that's why people use it for a
+lot of wordplay.  Let me tell you, this is the name of an animal that
+lives in Africa.  And the African pronunciation had a click sound in
+it.  <i>[Laughter]</i> Maybe still does.  And so, the European
+colonists, when they got there, they didn't bother learning to say
+this click sound.  So they just left it out, and they wrote a
+&ldquo;G&rdquo; which meant &ldquo;there's another sound that's
+supposed to be here which we are not
+pronouncing.&rdquo; <i>[Laughter]</i> So, tonight I'm leaving for
+South Africa, and I have begged them, I hope they're going to find
+somebody who can teach me to pronounce click sounds, <i>[Laughter]</i>
+so that I'll know how to pronounce GNU the correct way, when it's the
+animal.</p>
+
+<p>But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is
+&ldquo;guh-NEW&rdquo; &mdash; pronounce the hard &ldquo;G&rdquo;.  If
+you talk about the &ldquo;new&rdquo; operating system, you'll get
+people very confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years
+now, so it is not new any more.  <i>[Laughter]</i> But it still is,
+and always will be, GNU &mdash; no matter how many people call it
+Linux by mistake.  <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces
+of GNU.  They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities
+though.  And, at the time, I thought we would write all these pieces,
+and make an entire GNU system, and then we'd say, &ldquo;Come and get
+it&rdquo;, and people would start to use it.  That's not what
+happened.  The first pieces I wrote were just equally good
+replacements, with fewer bugs for some pieces of Unix, but they
+weren't tremendously exciting.  Nobody particularly wanted to get them
+and install them.  But then, in September 1984, I started writing GNU
+Emacs, which was my second implementation of Emacs, and by early 1985,
+it was working.  I could use it for all my editing, which was a big
+relief, because I had no intention of learning to use VI, the Unix
+editor. <i>[Laughter]</i> So, until that time, I did my editing on
+some other machine, and saved the files through the network, so that I
+could test them.  But when GNU Emacs was running well enough for me to
+use it, it was also &mdash; other people wanted to use it too.</p>
+
+<p>So I had to work out the details of distribution.  Of course, I put
+a copy in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people
+who were on the net They could then just pull over a tar file, but a
+lot of programmers then even were not on the net in 1985.  They were
+sending me emails saying &ldquo;How can I get a copy?&rdquo; I had to
+decide what I would answer them.  Well, I could have said, I want to
+spend my time writing more GNU software, not writing tapes, so please
+find a friend who's on the internet and who is willing to download it
+and put it on a tape for you.  And I'm sure people would have found
+some friends, sooner or later, you know.  They would have got copies.
+But I had no job.  In fact, I've never had a job since quitting MIT in
+January 1984.  So, I was looking for some way I could make money
+through my work on free software, and therefore I started a free
+software business.  I announced, &ldquo;Send me $150 dollars, and I'll
+mail you a tape of Emacs.&rdquo; And the orders began dribbling in.
+By the middle of the year they were trickling in.</p>
+
+<p>I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month.  And, if necessary, I could
+have lived on just that, because I've always lived cheaply. I live
+like a student, basically.  And I like that, because it means that
+money is not telling me what to do.  I can do what I think is
+important for me to do.  It freed me to do what seemed worth doing.
+So make a real effort to avoid getting sucked into all the expensive
+lifestyle habits of typical Americans.  Because if you do that, then
+people with the money will dictate what you do with your life.  You
+won't be able to do what's really important to you.</p>
+
+<p>So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, &ldquo;What do you
+mean it's free software if it costs $150
+dollars?&rdquo; <i>[Laughter]</i> Well, the reason they asked this was
+that they were confused by the multiple meanings of the English word
+&ldquo;free&rdquo;.  One meaning refers to price, and another meaning
+refers to freedom.  When I speak of free software, I'm referring to
+freedom, not price.  So think of free speech, not free
+beer.  <i>[Laughter]</i> Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many years
+of my life to making sure programmers got less money.  That's not my
+goal.  I'm a programmer and I don't mind getting money myself.  I
+won't dedicate my whole life to getting it, but I don't mind getting
+it.  And I'm not &mdash; and therefore, ethics is the same for
+everyone.  I'm not against some other programmer getting money either.
+I don't want prices to be low.  That's not the issue at all.  The
+issue is freedom.  Freedom for everyone who's using software, whether
+that person be a programmer or not.</p>
+
+<p>So at this point I should give you the definition of free software.
+I better get to some real details, you see, because just saying
+&ldquo;I believe in freedom&rdquo; is vacuous.  There's so many
+different freedoms you could believe in, and they conflict with each
+other, so the real political question is: Which are the important
+freedoms, the freedoms that we must make sure everybody has?</p>
+
+<p>And now, I will give my answer to that question for the particular
+area of using software.  A program is free software for you, a
+particular user, if you have the following freedoms:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>First, Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the program for any
+purpose, any way you like.</li>
+<li>Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
+program to suit your needs.</li>
+<li>Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
+copies of the program.</li>
+<li>And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
+publishing an improved version so others can get the benefit of your
+work.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software,
+for you &mdash; and that's crucial.  That's why I phrase it that way.
+I'll explain why later, when I talk about the GNU General Public
+License, but right now I'm explaining what free software means, which
+is a more basic question.</p>
+
+<p>So, Freedom Zero's pretty obvious.  If you're not even allowed to
+run the program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive
+program.  But as it happens, most programs will at least give you
+Freedom Zero.  And Freedom Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of
+Freedoms One, Two, and Three &mdash; that's the way that copyright law
+works.  So the freedoms that distinguish free software from typical
+software are Freedoms One, Two, and Three, so I'll say more about them
+and why they are important.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
+software to suit your needs.  This could mean fixing bugs.  It could
+mean adding new features.  It could mean porting it to a different
+computer system.  It could mean translating all the error messages
+into Navajo.  Any change you want to make, you should be free to
+make.</p>
+
+<p>Now, it's obvious that professional programmers can make use of
+this freedom very effectively, but not just them.  Anybody of
+reasonable intelligence can learn a little programming.  You know,
+there are hard jobs, and there are easy jobs, and most people are not
+going to learn enough to do hard jobs.  But lots of people can learn
+enough to do easy jobs, just the way, you know, 50 years ago, lots and
+lots of American men learned to repair cars, which is what enabled the
+U.S. to have a motorized army in World War II and win.  So, very
+important, having lots of people tinkering.</p>
+
+<p>And if you are a people person, and you really don't want to learn
+technology at all, that probably means that you have a lot of friends,
+and you're good at getting them to owe you favors.  <i>[Laughter]</i>
+Some of them are probably programmers.  So you can ask one of your
+programmer friends. &ldquo;Would you please change this for me?  Add
+this feature?&rdquo; So, lots of people can benefit from it.</p>
+
+<p>Now, if you don't have this freedom, it causes practical, material
+harm to society.  It makes you a prisoner of your software.  I
+explained what that was like with regard to the laser printer.  You
+know, it worked badly for us, and we couldn't fix it, because we were
+prisoners of our software.</p>
+
+<p>But it also affects people's morale.  You know if the computer is
+constantly frustrating to use, and people are using it, their lives
+are going to be frustrating, and if they're using it in their jobs,
+their jobs are going to be frustrating; they're going to hate their
+jobs.  And you know, people protect themselves from frustration by
+deciding not to care.  So you end up with people whose attitude is,
+&ldquo;Well, I showed up for work today.  That's all I have to do.  If
+I can't make progress, that's not my problem; that's the boss's
+problem.&rdquo; And when this happens, it's bad for those people, and
+it's bad for society as a whole.  That's Freedom One, the freedom to
+help yourself.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
+copies of the program.  Now, for beings that can think and learn,
+sharing useful knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship.  When
+these beings use computers, this act of friendship takes the form of
+sharing software.  Friends share with each other.  Friends help each
+other.  This is the nature of friendship.  And, in fact, this spirit
+of goodwill &mdash; the spirit of helping your neighbor, voluntarily
+&mdash; is society's most important resource.  It makes the difference
+between a livable society and a dog-eat-dog jungle.  Its importance
+has been recognized by the world's major religions for thousands of
+years, and they explicitly try to encourage this attitude.</p>
+
+<p>When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach
+us this attitude &mdash; the spirit of sharing &mdash; by having us do
+it.  They figured if we did it, we'd learn.  So they said, &ldquo;If
+you bring candy to school, you can't keep it all for yourself; you
+have to share some with the other kids.&rdquo; Teaching us, the
+society was set up to teach, this spirit of cooperation.  And why do
+you have to do that?  Because people are not totally cooperative.
+That's one part of human nature, and there are other parts of human
+nature.  There are lots of parts of human nature.  So, if you want a
+better society, you've got to work to encourage the spirit of sharing.
+You know, it'll never get to be 100%.  That's understandable.  People
+have to take care of themselves too.  But if we make it somewhat
+bigger, we're all better off.</p>
+
+<p>Nowadays, according to the U.S. Government, teachers are supposed
+to do the exact opposite.  &ldquo;Oh, Johnny, you brought software to
+school.  Well, don't share it.  Oh no.  Sharing is wrong.  Sharing
+means you're a pirate.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>What do they mean when they say &ldquo;pirate&rdquo;?  They're
+saying that helping your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking
+a ship.  <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>What would Buddha or Jesus say about that?  Now, take your favorite
+religious leader.  I don't know, maybe Manson would have said
+something different.  <i>[Laughter]</i> Who knows what L. Ron Hubbard
+would say?  But &hellip;</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Of course, he's dead.  But they don't
+admit that.  What?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: So are the others, also
+dead.  <i>[Laughter] [Inaudible]</i> Charles Manson's also
+dead.  <i>[Laughter]</i> They're dead, Jesus's dead, Buddha's
+dead&hellip;</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, that's true.  <i>[Laughter]</i> So
+I guess, in that regard, L. Ron Hubbard is no worse than the
+others.  <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway &mdash; <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: L. Ron always used free software &mdash;
+it freed him from Zanu.  <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Anyway, so, I think this is actually the
+most important reason why software should be free: We can't afford to
+pollute society's most important resource.  It's true that it's not a
+physical resource like clean air and clean water.  It's a
+psycho-social resource, but it's just as real for all that, and it
+makes a tremendous difference to our lives.  You see, the actions we
+take influence the thoughts of other people.  When we go around
+telling people, &ldquo;Don't share with each other&rdquo;, if they
+listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's not a good one.
+That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor.</p>
+
+<p>Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just
+cause this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes
+waste &mdash; practical, material harm.  If the program has an owner,
+and the owner arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay
+in order to be able to use it, some people are going to say,
+&ldquo;Never mind, I'll do without it.&rdquo; And that's waste,
+deliberately inflicted waste.  And the interesting thing about
+software, of course, is that fewer users doesn't mean you have to make
+less stuff.  You know, if fewer people buy cars, you can make fewer
+cars.  There's a saving there.  There are resources to be allocated,
+or not allocated, into making cars.  So that you can say that having a
+price on a car is a good thing.  It prevents people from diverting
+lots of wasted resources into making cars that aren't really needed.
+But if each additional car used no resources, it wouldn't be doing any
+good saving the making of these cars.  Well, for physical objects, of
+course, like cars, it is always going to take resources to make an
+additional one of them, each additional exemplar.</p>
+
+<p>But for software that's not true.  Anybody can make another copy.
+And it's almost trivial to do it.  It takes no resources, except a
+tiny bit of electricity.  So there's nothing we can save, no resource
+we're going to allocate better by putting this financial disincentive
+on the use of the software.  You often find people taking economic,
+the consequences of economic reasoning, based on premises that don't
+apply to software, and trying to transplant them from other areas of
+life where the premises may apply, and the conclusions may be valid.
+They just take the conclusions and assume that they're valid for
+software too, when the argument is based on nothing, in the case of
+software.  The premises don't work in that case.  It is very important
+to examine how you reach the conclusion, and what premises it depends
+on, to see where it might be valid.  So, that's Freedom Two, the
+freedom to help your neighbor.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
+publishing an improved version of the software.  People used to say to
+me, &ldquo;If the software's free, then nobody will get paid to work
+on it, so why should anybody work on it?&rdquo; Well, of course, they
+were confusing the two meanings of free, so their reasoning was based
+on a misunderstanding.  But, in any case, that was their theory.
+Today, we can compare that theory with empirical fact, and we find
+that hundreds of people are being paid to write free software, and
+over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers.  We get lots of people
+working on free software, for various different motives.</p>
+
+<p>When I first released GNU Emacs &mdash; the first piece of the GNU
+system that people actually wanted to use &mdash; and when it started
+having users, after a while, I got a message saying, &ldquo;I think I
+saw a bug in the source code, and here's a fix.&rdquo; And I got
+another message, &ldquo;Here's code to add a new feature.&rdquo; And
+another bug fix.  And another new feature.  And another, and another,
+and another, until they were pouring in on me so fast that just making
+use of all this help I was getting was a big job.  Microsoft doesn't
+have this problem.  <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>Eventually, people noted this phenomenon.  You see, in the 1980's a
+lot of us thought that maybe free software wouldn't be as good as the
+non-free software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay
+people.  And, of course, people like me, who value freedom and
+community said, &ldquo;Well, we'll use the free software
+anyway.&rdquo; It's worth making a little sacrifice in some mere
+technical convenience to have freedom.  But what people began to note,
+around 1990 was that our software was actually better.  It was more
+powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary alternatives.</p>
+
+<p>In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific
+measurement of reliability of software.  Here's what he did.  He took
+several sets of comparable programs that did the same jobs &mdash; the
+exact same jobs &mdash; in different systems.  Because there were
+certain basic Unix-like utilities.  And the jobs that they did, we
+know, was all, more or less, imitating the same thing, or they were
+following the POSIX spec, so they were all the same in terms of what
+jobs they did, but they were maintained by different people, written
+separately.  The code was different.  So they said, OK, we'll take
+these programs and run them with random data, and measure how often
+they crash, or hang.  So they measured it, and the most reliable set
+of programs was the GNU programs.  All the commercial alternatives
+which were proprietary software were less reliable.  So he published
+this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he did the
+same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same result.
+The GNU versions were the most reliable.  People &mdash; you know
+there are cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system,
+because it's so reliable, and reliability is very important to
+them.</p>
+
+<p>Anyway, there's even a group of people who focus on this particular
+benefit as the reason they give, the main reason they give, why users
+should be permitted to do these various things, and to have these
+freedoms.  If you've been listening to me, you've noticed, you've seen
+that I, speaking for the free software movement, I talk about issues
+of ethics, and what kind of a society we want to live in, what makes
+for a good society, as well as practical, material benefits.  They're
+both important.  That's the free software movement.</p>
+
+<p>That other group of people &mdash; which is called the open source
+movement &mdash; they only cite the practical benefits.  They deny
+that this is an issue of principle.  They deny that people are
+entitled to the freedom to share with their neighbor and to see what
+the program's doing and change it if they don't like it.  They say,
+however, that it's a useful thing to let people do that.  So they go
+to companies and say to them, &ldquo;You know, you might make more
+money if you let people do this.&rdquo; So, what you can see is that
+to some extent, they lead people in a similar direction, but for
+totally different, for fundamentally different, philosophical
+reasons.</p>
+
+<p>Because on the deepest issue of all, you know, on the ethical
+question, the two movements disagree.  You know, in the free software
+movement we say, &ldquo;You're entitled to these freedoms.  People
+shouldn't stop you from doing these things.&rdquo; In the open source
+movement, they say, &ldquo;Yes, they can stop you if you want, but
+we'll try to convince them to deign to let you to do these
+things.&rdquo; Well, they have contributed &mdash; they have convinced
+a certain number of businesses to release substantial pieces of
+software as free software in our community.  So they, the open source
+movement, has contributed substantially to our community.  And so we
+work together on practical projects.  But, philosophically, there's a
+tremendous disagreement.</p>
+
+<p>Unfortunately, the open source movement is the one that gets the
+support of business the most, and so most articles about our work
+describe it as open source, and a lot of people just innocently think
+that we're all part of the open source movement.  So that's why I'm
+mentioning this distinction.  I want you to be aware that the free
+software movement, which brought our community into existence and
+developed the free operating system, is still here &mdash; and that we
+still stand for this ethical philosophy.  I want you to know about
+this, so that you won't mislead someone else unknowingly.</p>
+
+<p>But also, so that you can think about where you stand.</p>
+
+<p>You know, which movement you support is up to you.  You might agree
+with the free software movements and my views.  You might agree with
+the open source movement.  You might disagree with them both.  You
+decide where you stand on these political issues.</p>
+
+<p>But if you agree with the free software movement &mdash; if you see
+that there's an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled
+and directed by this decision deserve a say in it &mdash; then I hope
+you'll say that you agree with the free software movement, and one way
+you can do that is by using the term free software and just helping
+people know we exist.</p>
+
+<p>So, Freedom Three is very important both practically and
+psycho-socially.  If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical
+material harm, because this community development doesn't happen, and
+we don't make powerful, reliable software.  But it also causes
+psycho-social harm, which affects the spirit of scientific cooperation
+&mdash; the idea that we're working together to advance human
+knowledge.  You see, progress in science crucially depends on people
+being able to work together.  And nowadays though, you often find each
+little group of scientists acting like it's a war with each other gang
+of scientists and engineers.  And if they don't share with each other,
+they're all held back.</p>
+
+<p>So, those are the three freedoms that distinguish free software
+from typical software.  Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself,
+making changes to suit your own needs.  Freedom Two is the freedom to
+help your neighbor by distributing copies.  And Freedom Three is the
+freedom to help build your community by making changes and publishing
+them for other people to use.  If you have all of these freedoms, the
+program is free software for you.  Now, why do I define it that way in
+terms of a particular user?  Is it free software for
+you?  <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> Is it free software for
+you?  <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Is it free
+software for you?  <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i>
+Yes?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you explain a bit about the
+difference between Freedom Two and Three?  <i>[inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, they certainly relate, because if
+you don't have freedom to redistribute at all, you certainly don't
+have freedom to distribute a modified version, but they're different
+activities.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Oh.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Freedom Two is, you know, read it, you
+make an exact copy, and hand it to your friends, so now your friend
+can use it.  Or maybe you make exact copies and you sell them to a
+bunch of people, and then they can use it.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom Three is where you make improvements &mdash; or at least
+you think they're improvements, and some other people may agree with
+you.  So that's the difference.  Oh, and by the way, one crucial
+point.  Freedoms One and Three depend on your having access to the
+source code.  Because changing a binary-only program is extremely
+hard.  <i>[Laughter]</i> Even trivial changes like using four digits
+for the date, <i>[Laughter]</i> if you don't have source.  So, for
+compelling, practical reasons, access to the source code is a
+precondition, a requirement, for free software.</p>
+
+<p>So, why do I define it in terms of whether it's free software for
+<em>you</em>?  The reason is that sometimes the same program can be
+free software for some people, and non-free for others.  Now, that
+might seem like a paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example
+to show you how it happens.  A very big example &mdash; maybe the
+biggest ever &mdash; of this problem was the X Window System which was
+developed at MIT and released under a license that made it free
+software.  If you got the MIT version with the MIT license, you had
+Freedoms One, Two, and Three.  It was free software for you.  But
+among those who got copies were various computer manufacturers that
+distributed Unix systems, and they made the necessary changes in X to
+run on their systems.  You know, probably just a few thousand lines
+out of the hundreds of thousands of lines of X.  And, then they
+compiled it, and they put the binaries into their Unix system and
+distributed it under the same non-disclosure agreement as the rest of
+the Unix system.  And then, millions of people got these copies.  They
+had the X Window System, but they had none of these freedoms.  It was
+not free software for <em>them</em>.</p>
+
+<p>So, the paradox was that whether X was free software depended on
+where you made the measurement.  If you made the measurement coming
+out of the developers' group, you'd say, &ldquo;I observe all these
+freedoms.  It's free software.&rdquo; If you made the measurements
+among the users you'd say, &ldquo;Hmm, most users don't have these
+freedoms.  It's not free software.&rdquo; Well, the people who
+developed X didn't consider this a problem, because their goal was
+just popularity, ego, essentially.  They wanted a big professional
+success.  They wanted to feel, &ldquo;Ah, lots of people are using our
+software.&rdquo; And that was true.  Lots of people were using their
+software but didn't have freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Well, in the GNU project, if that same thing had happened to GNU
+software, it would have been a failure, because our goal wasn't just
+to be popular; our goal was to give people liberty, and to encourage
+cooperation, to permit people to cooperate.  Remember, never force
+anyone to cooperate with any other person, but make sure that
+everybody's allowed to cooperate, everyone has the freedom to do so,
+if he or she wishes.  If millions of people were running non-free
+versions of GNU, that wouldn't be success at all. The whole thing
+would have been perverted into nothing like the goal.</p>
+
+<p>So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening.  The method I
+came up with is called &ldquo;copyleft&rdquo;.  It's called copyleft
+because it's sort of like taking copyright and flipping it
+over.  <i>[Laughter]</i> Legally, copyleft works based on copyright.
+We use the existing copyright law, but we use it to achieve a very
+different goal.  Here's what we do.  We say, &ldquo;This program is
+copyrighted.&rdquo; And, of course, by default, that means it's
+prohibited to copy it, or distribute it, or modify it.  But then we
+say, &ldquo;You're authorized to distribute copies of this.  You're
+authorized to modify it.  You're authorized to distribute modified
+versions and extended versions.  Change it any way you
+like.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>But there is a condition.  And the condition, of course, is the
+reason why we go to all this trouble, so that we could put the
+condition in.  The condition says: Whenever you distribute anything
+that contains any piece of this program, that whole program must be
+distributed under these same terms, no more and no less.  So you can
+change the program and distribute a modified version, but when you do,
+the people who get that from you must get the same freedom that you
+got from us.  And not just for the parts of it &mdash; the excerpts
+that you copied from our program &mdash; but also for the other parts
+of that program that they got from you.  The whole of that program has
+to be free software for them.</p>
+
+<p>The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become
+inalienable rights &mdash; a concept from the Declaration of
+Independence.  Rights that we make sure can't be taken away from you.
+And, of course, the specific license that embodies the idea of
+copyleft is the GNU General Public License, a controversial license
+because it actually has the strength to say no to people who would be
+parasites on our community.</p>
+
+<p>There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of
+freedom.  And they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done,
+and use it to get a head start in distributing a non-free program and
+tempting people to give up their freedom.  And the result would be
+&mdash; you know, if we let people do that &mdash; that we would be
+developing these free programs, and we'd constantly have to compete
+with improved versions of our own programs.  That's no fun.</p>
+
+<p>And, a lot of people also feel &mdash; you know, I'm willing to
+volunteer my time to contribute to the community, but why should I
+volunteer my time to contribute to that company's, to improving that
+company's, proprietary program?  You know, some people might not even
+think that that's evil, but they want to get paid if they're going to
+do that.  I, personally, would rather not do it at all.</p>
+
+<p>But both of these groups of people &mdash; both the ones like me
+who say, &ldquo;I don't want to help that non-free program to get a
+foothold in our community&rdquo; and the ones that say, &ldquo;Sure,
+I'd work for them, but then they better pay me&rdquo; &mdash; both of
+us have a good reason to use the GNU General Public License.  Because
+that says to that company, &ldquo;You can't just take my work, and
+distribute it without the freedom.&rdquo; Whereas, the non-copyleft
+licenses, like the X Windows license, do permit that.</p>
+
+<p>So that is the big division between the two categories of free
+software &mdash; license-wise.  There are the programs that are
+copylefted so that the license defends the freedom of the software for
+every user.  And there are the non-copylefted programs for which
+non-free versions are allowed.  Somebody <em>can</em> take those
+programs and strip off the freedom.  You may get that program in a
+non-free version.</p>
+
+<p>And that problem exists today.  There are still non-free versions
+of X Windows being used on our free operating systems.  There is even
+hardware &mdash; which is not really supported &mdash; except by a
+non-free version of X Windows.  And that's a major problem in our
+community.  Nonetheless, I wouldn't say that X Windows is a bad thing,
+you know. I'd say that the developers did not do the best possible
+thing that they could have done.  But they <em>did</em> release a lot
+of software that we could all use.</p>
+
+<p>You know, there's a big difference between less than perfect, and
+evil.  There are many gradations of good and bad.  We have to resist
+the temptation to say, if you didn't do the absolute best possible
+thing, then you're no good.  You know, the people that developed X
+Windows made a big contribution to our community.  But there's
+something better that they could have done.  They could have
+copylefted parts of the program and prevented those freedom-denying
+versions from being distributed by others.</p>
+
+<p>Now, the fact that the GNU General Public License defends your
+freedom, uses copyright law to defend your freedom, is, of course, why
+Microsoft is attacking it today.  See, Microsoft would really like to
+be able to take all the code that we wrote and put it into proprietary
+programs, have somebody make some improvements, or even just
+incompatible changes is all they need.  <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>You know, with Microsoft's marketing clout, they don't need to make
+it better to have their version supplant ours.  They just have to make
+it different and incompatible.  And then, put it on everybody's
+desktop.  So they really don't like the GNU GPL.  Because the GNU GPL
+won't let them do that.  It doesn't allow &ldquo;embrace and
+extend&rdquo;.  It says, if you want to share our code in your
+programs, you can.  But, you've got to share and share alike.  The
+changes that you make we have to be allowed to share.  So, it's a
+two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation.</p>
+
+<p>Many companies &mdash; even big companies like IBM and HP are
+willing to use our software on this basis.  IBM and HP contribute
+substantial improvements to GNU software.  And they develop other free
+software.  But, Microsoft doesn't want to do that, so they give it out
+that businesses just can't deal with the GPL.  Well, if businesses
+don't include IBM, and HP and SUN, then maybe they're
+right.  <i>[Laughter]</i> More about that later.</p>
+
+<p>I should finish the historical story.  You see, we set out in 1984
+not just to write some free software but to do something much more
+coherent: to develop an operating system that was entirely free
+software.  So that meant we had to write piece after piece after
+piece.  Of course, we were always looking for shortcuts.  The job was
+so big that people said we'd never be able to finish.  And, I thought
+that there was at least a chance that we'd finish it but, obviously,
+it's worth looking for shortcuts.  So we kept looking around. Is there
+any program that somebody else has written that we could manage to
+adapt, to plug into here, and that way we won't have to write it from
+scratch?  For instance, the X Window system.  It's true it wasn't
+copylefted, but it was free software, so we could use it.</p>
+
+<p>Now, I had wanted to put a window system into GNU from day one.  I
+wrote a couple of window systems at MIT before I started GNU.  And so,
+even though Unix had no window system in 1984, I decided that GNU
+would have one.  But, we never ended up writing a GNU window system,
+because X came along.  And I said, Goody!  One big job we don't have
+to do.  We'll use X.  So I basically said, let's take X, and put it
+into the GNU system.  And we'll make the other parts of GNU, you know,
+work with X, when appropriate.  And we found other pieces of software
+that had been written by other people, like the text formatter TeX,
+some library code from Berkeley.  At that time there was Berkeley
+Unix, but it was not free software.  This library code, initially, was
+from a different group at Berkeley, that did research on floating
+point.  And, so, we kept, we fit in these pieces.</p>
+
+<p>In October 1985, we founded the Free Software Foundation.  So
+please note, the GNU project came first.  The Free Software Foundation
+came after, about almost two years after the announcement of the
+Project.  And the Free Software Foundation is a tax-exempt charity
+that raises funds to promote the freedom to share and change software.
+And in the 1980's, one of the main things we did with our funds was to
+hire people to write parts of GNU.  And essential programs, such as
+the shell and the C library were written this way, as well as parts of
+other programs.  The <code>tar</code> program, which is absolutely
+essential, although not exciting at all <i>[Laughter]</i> was written
+this way.  I believe GNU grep was written this way.  And so, we're
+approaching our goal.</p>
+
+<p>By 1991, there was just one major piece missing, and that was the
+kernel.  Now, why did I put off the kernel?  Probably because it
+doesn't really matter what order you do the things in, at least
+technically it doesn't.  You've got to do them all anyway.  And partly
+because I'd hoped we'd be able to find a start at a kernel somewhere
+else.  And we did.  We found Mach, which had been developed at
+Carnegie Mellon.  And it wasn't the whole kernel; it was the bottom
+half of the kernel.  So we had to write the top half, but I figured,
+you know, things like the file system, the network code, and so on.
+But running on top of Mach they're running essentially as user
+programs, which ought to make them easier to debug.  You can debug
+with a real source-level debugger running at the same time.  And so, I
+thought that way we'd be able to get these, the higher level parts of
+the kernel, done in a short time.  It didn't work out that way.  These
+asynchronous, multi-threaded processes, sending messages to each other
+turned out to be very hard to debug.  And the Mach-based system that
+we were using to bootstrap with had a terrible debugging environment,
+and it was unreliable, and various problems.  It took us years and
+years to get the GNU kernel to work.</p>
+
+<p>But, fortunately, our community did not have to wait for the GNU
+kernel.  Because in 1991, Linus Torvalds developed another free kernel
+called Linux.  And he used the old-fashioned monolithic design and it
+turns out that he got his working much faster than we got ours
+working.  So maybe that's one of the mistakes that I made: that design
+decision.  Anyway, at first, we didn't know about Linux, because he
+never contacted us to talk about it.  Although he did know about the
+GNU Project.  But he announced it to other people and other places on
+the net.  And so other people then did the work of combining Linux
+with the rest of the GNU system to make a complete free operating
+system.  Essentially, to make the GNU plus Linux combination.</p>
+
+<p>But, they didn't realize that's what they were doing.  You see,
+they said, We have a kernel &mdash; let's look around and see what
+other pieces we can find to put together with the kernel.  So, they
+looked around &mdash; and lo and behold, everything they needed was
+already available.  What good fortune, they said.  <i>[Laughter]</i>
+It's all here.  We can find everything we need.  Let's just take all
+these different things and put it together, and have a system.</p>
+
+<p>They didn't know that most of what they found was pieces of the GNU
+system.  So they didn't realize that they were fitting Linux into the
+gap in the GNU system.  They thought they were taking Linux and making
+a system out of Linux.  So they called it a Linux system.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can't hear you &mdash; what?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, it's just not &mdash; you know,
+it's provincial.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: But it's more good fortune then finding
+X and Mach?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right.  The difference is that the
+people who developed X and Mach didn't have the goal of making a
+complete free operating system.  We're the only ones who had that.
+And, it was our tremendous work that made the system exist.  We
+actually did a larger part of the system than any other project.  No
+coincidence, because those people &mdash; they wrote useful parts of
+the system.  But they didn't do it because they wanted the system to
+be finished.  They had other reasons.</p>
+
+<p>Now the people who developed X &mdash; they thought that designing
+across the network window system would be a good project, and it was.
+And it turned out to help us make a good free operating system.  But
+that's not what they hoped for.  They didn't even think about that.
+It was an accident.  An accidental benefit.  Now, I'm not saying that
+what they did was bad.  They did a large free software project.
+That's a good thing to do.  But they didn't have that ultimate vision.
+The GNU Project is where that vision was.</p>
+
+<p>And, so, we were the ones whose &mdash; every little piece that
+didn't get done by somebody else, we did it.  Because we knew that we
+wouldn't have a complete system without it.  And even if it was
+totally boring and unromantic, like <code>tar</code>
+or <code>mv</code>.  <i>[Laughter]</i> We did it.  Or ld, you know
+there's nothing very exciting in <code>ld</code> &mdash; but I wrote
+one.  <i>[Laughter]</i> And I did make efforts to have it do a minimal
+amount of disk I/O so that it would be faster and handle bigger
+programs.  But, you know, I like to do a good job.  I like to improve
+various things about the program while I'm doing it.  But the reason
+that I did it wasn't that I had brilliant ideas for a
+better <code>ld</code>.  The reason I did it is that we needed one
+that was free.  And we couldn't expect anyone else to do it.  So, we
+had to do it, or find someone to do it.</p>
+
+<p>So, although at this point thousands of people in projects have
+contributed to this system, there is one project which is the reason
+that this system exists, and that's the GNU Project.  It <em>is</em>
+basically the GNU System, with other things added since then.</p>
+
+<p>So, however, the practice of calling the system Linux has been a
+great blow to the GNU Project, because we don't normally get credit
+for what we've done.  I think Linux, the kernel, is a very useful
+piece of free software, and I have only good things to say about it.
+But, well, actually, I can find a few bad things to say about
+it.  <i>[Laughter]</i> But, basically, I have good things to say about
+it.  However, the practice of calling the GNU system, Linux, is just a
+mistake.  I'd like to ask you please to make the small effort
+necessary to call the system GNU/Linux, and that way to help us get a
+share of the credit.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You need a mascot!  Get yourself a
+stuffed animal!  <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have one.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You do?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have an animal &mdash; a
+gnu.  <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway.  So, yes, when you draw a penguin,
+draw a gnu next to it.  <i>[Laughter]</i> But, let's save the
+questions for the end.  I have more to go through.</p>
+
+<p>So, why am I so concerned about this?  You know, why do I think it
+is worth bothering you and perhaps giving you a, perhaps lowering your
+opinion of me, <i>[Laughter]</i> to raise this issue of credit?
+Because, you know, some people when I do this, some people think that
+it's because I want my ego to be fed, right?  Of course, I'm not
+saying &mdash; I'm not asking you to call it &ldquo;Stallmanix,&rdquo;
+right?  <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p>I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to
+get credit.  And there's a very specific reason for that, which is a
+lot more important than anybody getting credit, in and of itself.  You
+see, these days, if you look around in our community most of the
+people talking about it and writing about it don't ever mention GNU,
+and they don't ever mention these goals of freedom &mdash; these
+political and social ideals, either.  Because the place they come from
+is GNU.</p>
+
+<p>The ideas associated with Linux &mdash; the philosophy is very
+different.  It is basically the apolitical philosophy of Linus
+Torvalds.  So, when people think that the whole system is Linux, they
+tend to think: &ldquo;Oh, it must have been all started by Linux
+Torvalds.  His philosophy must be the one that we should look at
+carefully&rdquo;.  And when they hear about the GNU philosophy, they
+say: &ldquo;Boy, this is so idealistic, this must be awfully
+impractical.  I'm a Linux-user, not a
+GNU-user.&rdquo; <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>What irony!  If they only knew!  If they knew that the system they
+liked &mdash; or, in some cases, love and go wild over &mdash; is our
+idealistic, political philosophy made real.</p>
+
+<p>They still wouldn't have to agree with us.  But at least they'd see
+a reason to take it seriously, to think about it carefully, to give it
+a chance.  They would see how it relates to their lives.  You know, if
+they realized, &ldquo;I'm using the GNU system. Here's the GNU
+philosophy.  This philosophy is <em>why</em> this system that I like
+very much exists,&rdquo; they'd at least consider it with a much more
+open mind.  It doesn't mean that everybody will agree.  People think
+different things.  That's OK.  You know, people should make up their
+own minds.  But I want this philosophy to get the benefit of the
+credit for the results it has achieved.</p>
+
+<p>If you look around in our community, you'll find that almost
+everywhere, the institutions are calling the system Linux.  You know,
+reporters mostly call it Linux.  It's not right, but they do.  The
+companies mostly say it that package the system.  Oh, and most of
+these reporters, when they write articles, they usually don't look at
+it as a political issue, or social issue.  They're usually looking at
+it purely as a business question or what companies are going to
+succeed more or less, which is really a fairly minor question for
+society.  And, if you look at the companies that package the GNU/Linux
+system for people to use, well, most of them call it Linux.  And they
+<em>all</em> add non-free software to it.</p>
+
+<p>See, the GNU GPL says that if you take code, and some code out of a
+GPL-covered program, and add some more code to make a bigger program,
+that whole program has to be released under the GPL.  But you could
+put other separate programs on the same disk (of either kind, hard
+disk, or CD), and they can have other licenses.  That's considered
+mere aggregation, and, essentially, just distributing two programs to
+somebody at the same time is not something we have any say over.  So,
+in fact, it is not true &mdash; sometimes, I wish it were true &mdash;
+that if a company uses a GPL-covered program in a product that the
+whole product has to be free software.  It's not &mdash; it doesn't go
+to that range &mdash; that scope.  It's the whole program.  If there
+are two separate programs that communicate with each other at arm's
+length &mdash; like by sending messages to each other &mdash; then,
+they're legally separate, in general.  So, these companies, by adding
+non-free software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically
+and politically, a very bad idea.  They're telling the users,
+&ldquo;It is OK to use non-free software.  We're even putting it on
+this as a bonus.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system,
+most of them have a title like &ldquo;Linux-something or other&rdquo;.
+So they're calling the system Linux most of the time.  And they're
+filled with ads for non-free software that you could run on top of the
+GNU/Linux system.  Now those ads have a common message.  They say:
+Non-free Software Is Good For You.  It's So Good That You Might Even
+<em>Pay</em> To Get It.  <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>And they call these things &ldquo;value-added packages&rdquo;,
+which makes a statement about their values.  They're saying: Value
+practical convenience, not freedom.  And, I don't agree with those
+values, so I call them &ldquo;freedom-subtracted
+packages&rdquo;.  <i>[Laughter]</i> Because if you have installed a
+free operating system, then you now are living in the free world.  You
+enjoy the benefits of liberty that we worked for so many years to give
+you.  Those packages give you an opportunity to buckle on a chain.</p>
+
+<p>And then if you look at the trade shows &mdash; about the use of
+the, dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call
+themselves &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; shows.  And they're filled with booths
+exhibiting non-free software, essentially putting the seal of approval
+on the non-free software.  So, almost everywhere you look in our
+community, the institutions are endorsing the non-free software,
+totalling negating the idea of freedom that GNU was developed for.
+And the only place that people are likely to come across the idea of
+freedom is in connection with GNU, and in connection with free
+software, the term, free software.  So this is why I ask you: please
+call the system GNU/Linux.  Please make people aware where the system
+came from and why.</p>
+
+<p>Of course, just by using that name, you won't be making an
+explanation of the history.  You can type four extra characters and
+write GNU/Linux; you can say two extra syllables.  But, GNU/Linux is
+fewer syllables than Windows 2000.  <i>[Laughter]</i> But, you're not
+telling them a lot, but you're preparing them, so that when they hear
+about GNU, and what it's all about, they'll see how that connects to
+them and their lives.  And that, indirectly, makes a tremendous
+difference.  So please help us.</p>
+
+<p>You'll note that Microsoft called the GPL an &ldquo;open source
+license&rdquo;.  They don't want people to be thinking in terms of
+freedom as the issue.  You'll find that they invite people to think in
+a narrow way, as consumers, and, of course, not even think very
+rationally as consumers, if they're going to choose Microsoft
+products.  But they don't want people to think as citizens or
+statesmen.  That's inimical to them.  At least it's inimical to their
+current business model.</p>
+
+<p>Now, how does free software&hellip;well, I can tell you about how
+free software relates to our society.  A secondary topic that might be
+of interest to some of you is how free software relates to business.
+Now, in fact, free software is <em>tremendously</em> useful for
+business.  After all, most businesses in the advanced countries use
+software.  Only a tiny fraction of them develop software.</p>
+
+<p>And free software is tremendously advantageous for any company that
+uses software, because it means that you're in control.  Basically,
+free software means the users are in control of what the program does.
+Either individually, if they care enough to be, or, collectively, when
+they care enough to be.  Whoever cares enough can exert some
+influence.  If you don't care, you don't buy.  Then you use what other
+people prefer.  But, if you do care, then you have some say. With
+proprietary software, you have essentially no say.</p>
+
+<p>With free software, you can change what you want to change.  And it
+doesn't matter that there are no programmers in your company; that's
+fine.  You know, if you wanted to move the walls in your building, you
+don't have to be a carpentry company. You just have to be able to go
+find a carpenter and say, &ldquo;What will you charge to do this
+job?&rdquo; And if you want to change around the software you use, you
+don't have to be a programming company.  You just have to go to a
+programming company and say, &ldquo;What will you charge to implement
+these features?  And when will you have it done?&rdquo; And if they
+don't do the job, you can go find somebody else.</p>
+
+<p>There's a free market for support.  So, any business that cares
+about support will find a tremendous advantage in free software.  With
+proprietary software, support is a monopoly, because one company has
+the source code, or maybe a small number of companies that paid a
+gigantic amount of money have the source code, if it's Microsoft's
+shared source program, but, it's very few.  And so, there aren't very
+many possible sources of support for you.  And that means, that unless
+you're a real giant, they don't care about you.  Your company is not
+important enough for them to care if they lose your business, or what
+happens.  Once you're using the program, they figure you're locked in
+to getting the support from them, because to switch to a different
+program is a gigantic job.  So, you end up with things like paying for
+the privilege of reporting a bug.  <i>[Laughter]</i> And once you've
+paid, they tell you, &ldquo;Well, OK, we've noted your bug report.
+And in a few months, you can buy an upgrade, and you can see if we've
+fixed it.&rdquo; <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>Support providers for free software can't get away with that.  They
+have to please the customers.  Of course, you can get a lot of good
+support gratis.  You post your problem on the Internet.  You may get
+an answer the next day.  But that's not guaranteed, of course.  If you
+want to be confident, you better make an arrangement with a company
+and pay them.  And this is, of course, one of the ways that free
+software business works.</p>
+
+<p>Another advantage of free software for businesses that use software
+is security and privacy.  And this applies to individuals as well, but
+I brought it up in the context of businesses.  You see, when a program
+is proprietary, you can't even tell what it really does.</p>
+
+<p>It could have features, deliberately put in that you wouldn't like
+if you knew about them, like it might have a backdoor to let the
+developer get into your machine.  It might snoop on what you do and
+send information back.  This is not unusual.  Some Microsoft software
+did this.  But it's not only Microsoft.  There are other proprietary
+programs that snoop on the user.  And you can't even tell if it does
+this.  And, of course, even assuming that the developer's totally
+honest, every programmer makes mistakes.  There could be bugs that
+affect your security which are nobody's fault.  But the point is: If
+it's not free software, you can't find them. And you can't fix
+them.</p>
+
+<p>Nobody has the time to check the source of every program he runs.
+You're not going to do that.  But with free software there's a large
+community, and there are people in that community who are checking
+things.  And you get the benefit of their checking, because if there's
+an accidental bug, there surely are, from time to time, in any
+program, they might find it and fix it.  And people are much less
+likely to put in a deliberate Trojan horse, or a snooping feature, if
+they think they might get caught.  The proprietary software developers
+figure they won't get caught.  They'll get away with it undetected.
+But a free software developer has to figure that people will look at
+that and see it's there.  So, in our community, we don't feel we can
+get away with ramming a feature down the users' throats that the users
+wouldn't like.  So we know that if the users don't like it, they'll
+make a modified version which doesn't have it.  And then, they'll all
+start using that version.</p>
+
+<p>In fact, we can all reason enough, we can all figure this out
+enough steps ahead, that we probably won't put in that feature.  After
+all, you're writing a free program; you want people to like your
+version; you don't want to put in a thing that you know a lot of
+people are going to hate, and have another modified version catch on
+instead of yours.  So you just realize that the user is king in the
+world of free software.  In the world of proprietary software, the
+customer is <em>not</em> king.  Because you are only a customer.  You
+have no say in the software you use.</p>
+
+<p>In this respect, free software is a new mechanism for democracy to
+operate.  Professor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions
+as a kind of law.  Whoever gets to write the code that just about
+everybody uses for all intents and purposes is writing the laws that
+run people's lives.  With free software, these laws get written in a
+democratic way.  Not the classical form of democracy &mdash; we don't
+have a big election and say, &ldquo;Everybody vote which way should
+this feature be done.&rdquo; <i>[Laughter]</i> Instead we say,
+basically, those of you who want to work on implementing the feature
+this way, do it.  And if you want to work on implementing the feature
+that way, do it.  And, it gets done one way or the other, you know?
+And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done this way.
+So, in this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by
+simply taking steps in the direction that he wants to go.</p>
+
+<p>And you're free to take as many steps, personally, as you want to
+take.  A business is free to commission as many steps as they find
+useful to take.  And, after you add all these things up, that says
+which direction the software goes.</p>
+
+<p>And it's often very useful to be able to take pieces out of some
+existing program, presumably usually large pieces, of course, and then
+write a certain amount of code of your own, and make a program that
+does exactly what you need, which would have cost you an arm and a leg
+to develop, if you had to write it all from scratch, if you couldn't
+cannibalize large pieces from some existing free software package.</p>
+
+<p>Another thing that results from the fact that the user is king is
+that we tend to be very good about compatibility and standardization.
+Why?  Because users like that.  Users are likely to reject a program
+that has gratuitous incompatibilities in it.  Now, sometimes there's a
+certain group of users which actually have a need for a certain kind
+of incompatibility, and then they'll have it. That's OK.  But when
+users want is to follow a standard, we developers have to follow it,
+and we know that.  And we do it.  By contrast, if you look at
+proprietary software developers, they often find it advantageous to
+deliberately <em>not</em> follow a standard, and not because they
+think that they're giving the user an advantage that way, but rather
+because they're imposing on the user, locking the user in.  And you'll
+even find them making changes in their file formats from time to time,
+just to force people to get the newest version.</p>
+
+<p>Archivists are finding a problem now, that files written on
+computers ten years ago often can't be accessed; they were written
+with proprietary software that's essentially lost now.  If it were
+written with free software, then it could be brought up-to-date and
+run.  And those things would not, those records would not be lost,
+would not be inaccessible.  They were even complaining about this on
+NPR recently in citing free software as a solution.  And so, in
+effect, by using a non-free program to store your own data, you are
+putting your head in a noose.</p>
+
+<p>So, I've talked about how free software affects most business.  But
+how does it affect that particular narrow area which is software
+business?  Well, the answer is mostly not at all.  And the reason is
+that 90% of the software industry, from what I'm told, is development
+of custom software, software that's not meant to be released at all.
+For custom software, this issue, or the ethical issue of free or
+proprietary, doesn't arise.  You see, the issue is, are you users free
+to change, and redistribute, the software?  If there's only one user,
+and that user owns the rights, there's no problem.  That
+user <em>is</em> free to do all these things.  So, in effect, any
+<em>custom</em> program that was developed by one company for use
+in-house is free software, as long as they have the sense to insist on
+getting the source code and all the rights.</p>
+
+<p>And the issue doesn't really arise for software that goes in a
+watch or a microwave oven or an automobile ignition system.  Because
+those are places where you don't download software to install.  It's
+not a real computer, as far as the user is concerned.  And so, it
+doesn't raise these issues enough for them to be ethically important.
+So, for the most part, the software industry will go along, just as
+it's been going.  And the interesting thing is that since such a large
+fraction of the jobs are in that part of the industry, even if there
+were no possibilities for free software business, the developers of
+free software could all get day jobs writing custom
+software.  <i>[Laughter]</i> There's so many; the ratio is so big.</p>
+
+<p>But, as it happens, there is free software business.  There are
+free software companies, and at the press conference that I'm going to
+have, people from a couple of them will join us.  And, of course,
+there are also companies which are <em>not</em> free software
+businesses but do develop useful pieces of free software to release,
+and the free software that they produce is substantial.</p>
+
+<p>Now, how do free software businesses work?  Well, some of them sell
+copies.  You know, you're free to copy it but they can still sell
+thousands of copies a month.  And others sell support and various
+kinds of services.  I, personally, for the second half of the '80's, I
+sold free software support services.  Basically I said, for $200 an
+hour, I'll change whatever you want me to change in GNU software that
+I'd written.  And, yes, it was a stiff rate, but if it was a program
+that I was the author of, people would figure that I might get the job
+done in a lot fewer hours.  <i>[Laughter]</i> And I made a living that
+way.  In fact, I'd made more than I'd ever made before.  I also taught
+classes.  And I kept doing that until 1990, when I got a big prize and
+I didn't have to do it any more.</p>
+
+<p>But, 1990 was when the first corporation free software business was
+formed, which was Cygnus Support.  And their business was to do,
+essentially, the same kind of thing that I'd been doing.  I certainly
+could have worked for them, if I had needed to do that.  Since I
+didn't need to, I felt it was good for the movement if I remained
+independent of any one company.  That way, I could say good and bad
+things about the various free software and non-free software
+companies, without a conflict of interest.  I felt that I could serve
+the movement more.  But, if I had needed that to make a living, sure,
+I would have worked for them.  It's an ethical business to be in.  No
+reason I would have felt ashamed to take a job with them.  And that
+company was profitable in its first year.  It was formed with very
+little capital, just the money its three founders had.  And it kept
+growing every year and being profitable every year until they got
+greedy, and looked for outside investors, and then they messed things
+up.  But it was several years of success, before they got greedy.</p>
+
+<p>So, this illustrates one of the exciting things about free
+software.  Free software demonstrates that you don't need to raise
+capital to develop free software.  I mean, it's useful;
+it <em>can</em> help.  You know, if you do raise some capital, you can
+hire people and have them write a bunch of software.  But you can get
+a lot done with a small number of people.  And, in fact, the
+tremendous efficiency of the process of developing free software is
+one of the reasons it's important for the world to switch to free
+software.  And it also belies what Microsoft says when they say the
+GNU GPL is bad, because it makes it harder for them to raise capital
+to develop non-free software and take our free software and put our
+code into their programs that they won't share with us.  Basically, we
+don't need to have them raising capital that way.  We'll get the job
+done anyway.  We are getting the job done.</p>
+
+<p>People used to say we could never do a complete free operating
+system.  Now we've done that and a tremendous amount more.  And I
+would say that we're about an order of magnitude away from developing
+all the general purpose published software needs of the world.  And
+this is in a world where more than 90% of the users don't use our free
+software yet.  This is in a world where, although in certain areas of
+business, you know, more than half of all the web servers in the world
+are running on GNU/Linux with Apache as the web server.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i> &hellip; What did you
+say before, Linux?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I said GNU/Linux.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You did?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, if I'm talking about the kernel, I
+call it Linux.  You know, that's it's name.  The kernel was written by
+Linus Torvalds, and we should only call it by the name that he chose,
+out of respect for the author.</p>
+
+<p>Anyway, but in general, in business most users are not using it.
+Most home users are not using our system yet.  So, when they are, we
+should automatically get 10 times as many volunteers and 10 times as
+many customers for the free software businesses that there will be.
+And so that will take us that order of magnitude.  So at this point, I
+am pretty confident that we <em>can</em> do the job.</p>
+
+<p>And, this is important, because Microsoft asks us to feel
+desperate.  They say, The only way you can have software to run, the
+only way you can have innovation, is if you give us power.  Let us
+dominate you.  Let us control what you can do with the software you're
+running, so that we can squeeze a lot of money out of you, and use a
+certain fraction of that to develop software, and take the rest as
+profit.</p>
+
+<p>Well, you shouldn't ever feel that desperate.  You shouldn't ever
+feel so desperate that you give up your freedom.  That's very
+dangerous.</p>
+
+<p>Another thing that Microsoft, well, not just Microsoft, people who
+don't support free software generally adopt a value system in which
+the only thing that matters is short-term practical benefits: How much
+money am I going to make this year? What job can I get done today?
+Short-term thinking and narrow thinking.  Their assumption is that it
+is ridiculous to imagine that anybody ever might make a sacrifice for
+the sake of freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Yesterday, a lot of people were making speeches about Americans who
+made sacrifices for the freedom of their compatriots.  Some of them
+made great sacrifices.  They even sacrificed their lives for the kinds
+of freedom that everyone in our country has heard about, at least.
+(At least, in some of the cases; I guess we have to ignore the war in
+Vietnam.)</p>
+
+<p><i>[Editor's note: The day before was &ldquo;Memorial Day&rdquo; in
+the USA.  Memorial Day is a day where war heros are
+commemorated.]</i></p>
+
+<p>But, fortunately, to maintain our freedom in using software,
+doesn't call for big sacrifices. Just tiny, little sacrifices are
+enough, like learning a command-line interface, if we don't have a GUI
+interface program yet.  Like doing the job in this way, because we
+don't have a free software package to do it that way, yet.  Like,
+paying some money to a company that's going to develop a certain free
+software package, so that you can have it in a few years.  Various
+little sacrifices that we can all make.  And, in the long run, even we
+will have benefited from it.  You know, it is really an investment
+more than a sacrifice.  We just have to have enough long-term view to
+realize it's good for us to invest in improving our society, without
+counting the nickels and dimes of who gets how much of the benefit
+from that investment.</p>
+
+<p>So, at this point, I'm essentially done.</p>
+
+<p>I'd like to mention that there's a new approach to free software
+business being proposed by Tony Stanco, which he calls &ldquo;Free
+Developers&rdquo;, which involves a certain business structure which
+hopes eventually to pay out a certain share of the profits to every,
+to all the authors of the free software who've joined the
+organization.  And they're looking at the prospects of getting me some
+rather large government software development contracts in India now,
+because they're going to be using free software as the basis, having
+tremendous cost savings that way.</p>
+
+<p>And so now I guess that I should ask for questions.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Could you speak up a bit louder please?
+I can't really hear you.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: How could a company like Microsoft
+include a free software contract?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually, Microsoft is planning to
+shift a lot of its activity into services.  And what they're planning
+to do is something dirty and dangerous, which is tie the services to
+the programs, one to the next, in a sort of zigzag, you know?  So that
+to use this service, you've got to be using this Microsoft program,
+which is going to mean you need to use this service, to this Microsoft
+program, so it's all tied together.  That's their plan.</p>
+
+<p>Now, the interesting thing is that selling those services doesn't
+raise the ethical issue of free software or non-free software.  It
+might be perfectly fine for them to have the business for those
+businesses selling those services over the net to exist.  However,
+what Microsoft is planning to do is to use them to achieve an even
+greater lock, an even greater monopoly, on the software and the
+services, and this was described in an article, I believe in Business
+Week, recently.  And, other people said that it is turning the net
+into the Microsoft Company Town.</p>
+
+<p>And this is relevant because, you know, the trial court in the
+Microsoft antitrust trial recommended breaking up the company,
+Microsoft.  But in a way, that makes no sense &mdash; it wouldn't do
+any good at all &mdash; into the operating part and the applications
+part.</p>
+
+<p>But having seen that article, I now see a useful, effective way to
+split up Microsoft into the services part and the software part, to
+require them to deal with each other only at arm's length, that the
+services must publish their interfaces, so that anybody can write a
+client to talk to those services, and, I guess, that they have to pay
+to get the service. Well, that's OK.  That's a totally different
+issue.</p>
+
+<p>If Microsoft is split up in this way [&hellip;] services and
+software, they will not be able to use their software to crush
+competition with Microsoft services.  And they won't be able to use
+the services to crush competition with Microsoft software.  And we
+will be able to make the free software, and maybe you people will use
+it to talk to Microsoft services, and we won't mind.</p>
+
+<p>Because, after all, although Microsoft is the proprietary software
+company that has subjugated the most people &mdash; the others have
+subjugated fewer people, it's not for want of
+trying.  <i>[Laughter]</i> They just haven't succeeded in subjugating
+as many people.  So, the problem is not Microsoft and only Microsoft.
+Microsoft is just the biggest example of the problem we're trying to
+solve, which is proprietary software taking away users' freedom to
+cooperate and form an ethical society.  So we shouldn't focus too much
+on Microsoft, you know, even though they did give me the opportunity
+for this platform. That doesn't make them all-important.  They're not
+the be-all and end-all.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Earlier, you were discussing the
+philosophical differences between open source software and free
+software.  How do you feel about the current trend of GNU/Linux
+distributions as they head towards supporting only Intel platforms?
+And the fact that it seems that less and less programmers are
+programming correctly, and making software that will compile anywhere?
+And making software that simply works on Intel systems?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I don't see an ethical issue there.
+Although, in fact, companies that make computers sometimes port the
+GNU/Linux system to it.  HP apparently did this recently.  And, they
+didn't bother paying for a port of Windows, because that would have
+cost too much.  But getting GNU/Linux supported was, I think, five
+engineers for a few months.  It was easily doable.</p>
+
+<p>Now, of course, I encourage people to use <code>autoconf</code>,
+which is a GNU package that makes it easier to make your programs
+portable.  I encourage them to do that.  Or when somebody else fixes
+the bug that it didn't compile on that version of the system, and
+sends it to you, you should put it in.  But I don't see that as an
+ethical issue.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Two comments.  One is: Recently, you
+spoke at MIT.  I read the transcript.  And someone asked about
+patents, and you said that &ldquo;patents are a totally different
+issue.  I have no comments on that.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right.  I actually have a lot to say
+about patents, but it takes an hour.  <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I wanted to say this: It seems to me
+that there is an issue.  I mean, there is a reason that companies call
+both patents and copyrights things like hard property in trying to get
+this concept which is, if they want to use the power of the State to
+create a course of monopoly for themselves.  And so, what's common
+about these things is not that they revolve around the same issues,
+but that motivation is not really the public service issues but the
+motivation of companies to get a monopoly for their private
+interests.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I understand.  But, well, I want to
+respond because there's not too much time.  So I'd like to respond to
+that.</p>
+
+<p>You're right that that's what they want.  But there's another
+reason why they want to use the term intellectual property.  It's that
+they don't want to encourage people to think carefully about copyright
+issues or patent issues.  Because copyright law and patent law are
+totally different, and the effects of software copyrighted and
+software patents are totally different.</p>
+
+<p>Software patents are a restriction on programmers, prohibiting them
+from writing certain kinds of programs, whereas copyright doesn't do
+that.  With copyright, at least if you wrote it yourself, you're
+allowed to distribute it.  So, it's tremendously important to separate
+these issues.</p>
+
+<p>They have a little bit in common, at a very low level, and
+everything else is different.  So, please, to encourage clear
+thinking, discuss copyright or discuss patents.  But don't discuss
+intellectual property.  I don't have an opinion on intellectual
+property.  I have opinions on copyrights and patents and software.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You mentioned at the beginning that a
+functional language, like recipes, are computer programs.  There's a
+cross a little bit different than other kinds of language created on.
+This is also causing a problem in the DVD case.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: The issues are partly similar but partly
+different, for things that are not functional in nature.  Part of the
+issue transfers but not all of it.  Unfortunately, that's another hour
+speech.  I don't have time to go into it.  But I would say that all
+functional works ought to be free in the same sense as software.  You
+know, textbooks, manuals, dictionaries, and recipes, and so on.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I was just wondering on online
+music. There are similarities and differences created all through.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right.  I'd say that the minimum freedom
+that we should have for any kind of published information is the
+freedom to non-commercially redistribute it, verbatim.  For functional
+works, we need the freedom to commercially publish a modified version,
+because that's tremendously useful to society.  For non-functional
+works, you know, things that are to entertain, or to be aesthetic, or
+to state a certain person's views, you know, perhaps they shouldn't be
+modified.  And, perhaps that means that it's OK, to have copyright
+covering all commercial distribution of them.</p>
+
+<p>Please remember that according to the U.S. Constitution, the
+purpose of copyright is to benefit the public.  It is to modify the
+behavior of certain private parties, so that they will publish more
+books.  And the benefit of this is that society gets to discuss issues
+and learn.  And, you know, we have literature.  We have scientific
+works.  The purpose is encourage that.  Copyrights do not exist for
+the sake of authors, let alone for the sake of publishers.  They exist
+for the sake of readers and all those who benefit from the
+communication of information that happens when people write and others
+read.  And that goal I agree with.</p>
+
+<p>But in the age of the computer networks, the method is no longer
+tenable, because it now requires draconian laws that invade
+everybody's privacy and terrorize everyone.  You know, years in prison
+for sharing with your neighbor.  It wasn't like that in the age of the
+printing press.  Then copyright was an industrial regulation.  It
+restricted publishers.  Now, it's a restriction imposed by the
+publishers on the public.  So, the power relationship is turned around
+180 degrees, even if it's the same law.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: So you can have the same thing &mdash;
+but like in making music from other music?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right.  That is an interesting
+&hellip;</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: And unique, new works, you know, it's
+still a lot of cooperation.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: It is.  And I think that probably
+requires some kind of fair use concept.  Certainly making a few
+seconds of sample and using that in making some musical work,
+obviously that should be fair use.  Even the standard idea of fair use
+includes that, if you think about it.  Whether courts agree, I'm not
+sure, but they should.  That wouldn't be a real change in the system
+as it has existed.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: What do you think about publishing
+public information in proprietary formats?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, it shouldn't be.  I mean, the
+government should never require citizens to use a non-free program to
+access, to communicate with the government in any way, in either
+direction.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I have been, what I will now say, a
+GNU/Linux user&hellip;</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Thank you.  <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: &hellip;for the past four years.  The one
+thing that has been problematical for me and is something that is
+essential, I think, to all of us, is browsing the web.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: One thing that has been decidedly a
+weakness in using a GNU/Linux system has been browsing the web,
+because the prevailing tool for that, Netscape&hellip;</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: &hellip;is not free software.</p>
+
+<p>Let me respond to this.  I want to get to the point, for the sake
+of getting in more.  So, yes.  There has been a terrible tendency for
+people to use Netscape Navigator on their GNU/Linux systems.  And, in
+fact all the commercially packaged systems come with it.  So this is
+an ironic situation: we worked so hard to make a free operating
+system, and now, if you go to the store, and you can find versions of
+GNU/Linux there, most of them are called Linux, and they're not free.
+Oh, well, part of them is.  But then, there's Netscape Navigator, and
+maybe other non-free programs as well.  So, it's very hard to actually
+find a free system, unless you know what you're doing.  Or, of course,
+you can not install Netscape Navigator.</p>
+
+<p>Now, in fact, there have been free web browsers for many years.
+There is a free web browser that I used to use called Lynx.  It's a
+free web browser that is non-graphical; it's text-only.  This has a
+tremendous advantage, in you don't see the ads.  <i>[Laughter]
+[Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p>But anyway, there is a free graphical project called Mozilla, which
+is now getting to the point where you can use it.  And I occasionally
+use it.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 has been very good.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, OK.  So that's another free
+graphical browser.  So, we're finally solving that problem, I
+guess.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk to me about that
+philosophical/ethical division between free software and open source?
+Do you feel that those are irreconcilable? &hellip;</p>
+
+<p><i>[Recording switches tapes; end of question and start of answer
+is missing]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: &hellip; to a freedom, and ethics.  Or
+whether you just say, Well, I hope that you companies will decide it's
+more profitable to let us be allowed to do these things.</p>
+
+<p>But, as I said, in a lot of practical work, it doesn't really
+matter what a person's politics are.  When a person offers to help the
+GNU project, we don't say: &ldquo;You have to agree with our
+politics.&rdquo; We say that in a GNU package, you've got to call the
+system GNU/Linux, and you've got to call it free software.  What you
+say when you're not speaking to the GNU Project, that's up to you.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: The company, IBM, started a campaign for
+government agencies, to sell their big new machines, that they used
+Linux as selling point, and say Linux.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, of course, it's really the
+GNU/Linux systems. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: That's right!  Well, tell the top sales
+person.  He doesn't know anything for GNU.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I have to tell who?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: The top sales person.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh yes.  The problem is that they've
+already carefully decided what they want to say for reasons of their
+advantage.  And the issue of what is a more accurate, or fair, or
+correct way to describe it is not the primary issue that matters to a
+company like that.  Now, some small companies, yes, there'll be a
+boss.  And if the boss is inclined to think about things like that, he
+might make a decision that way.  Not a giant corporation though. It's
+a shame, you know.</p>
+
+<p>There's another more important and more substantive issue about
+what IBM is doing.  They're saying that they're putting a billion
+dollars into &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;.  But perhaps, I should also put
+quotes around &ldquo;into&rdquo;, as well, because some of that money
+is paying people to develop free software.  That really is a
+contribution to our community.  But other parts is paying to pay
+people to write proprietary software, or port proprietary software to
+run on top of GNU/Linux, and that is <em>not</em> a contribution to
+our community.  But IBM is lumping that altogether into this.  Some of
+it might be advertising, which is partly a contribution, even if it's
+partly wrong.  So, it's a complicated situation.  Some of what they're
+doing is contribution and some is not.  And some is sort is somewhat,
+but not exactly.  And you can't just lump it altogether and think,
+Wow!  Whee!  A billion dollars from IBM.  <i>[Laughter]</i> That's
+oversimplification.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk a little bit more about the
+thinking that went into the general public license?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, here's the &mdash; I'm sorry, I'm
+answering his question now. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Do you want to reserve some time for
+the press conference?  Or do you want to continue here?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Who is here for the press conference?
+Not a lot of press.  Oh, three &mdash; OK.  Can you afford if we
+&mdash; if I go on answering everybody's questions for another ten
+minutes or so?  OK.  So, we'll go on answering everybody's
+questions.</p>
+
+<p>So, the thinking that went into the GNU GPL?  Part of it was that I
+wanted to protect the freedom of the community against the phenomena
+that I just described with X Windows, which has happened with other
+free programs as well.  In fact, when I was thinking about this issue,
+X Windows was not yet released.  But I had seen this problem happen in
+other free programs.  For instance, TeX.  I wanted to make sure that
+the users would all have freedom.  Otherwise, I realized that I might
+write a program, and maybe a lot of people would use the program, but
+they wouldn't have freedom.  And what's the point of that?</p>
+
+<p>But the other issue I was thinking about was, I wanted to give the
+community a feeling that it was not a doormat, a feeling that it was
+not prey to any parasite who would wander along.  If you don't use
+copyleft, you are essentially saying: <i>[speaking meekly]</i>
+&ldquo;Take my code.  Do what you want.  I don't say no.&rdquo; So,
+anybody can come along and say: <i>[speaking very firmly]</i>
+&ldquo;Ah, I want to make a non-free version of this.  I'll just take
+it.&rdquo; And, then, of course, they probably make some improvements,
+those non-free versions might appeal to users, and replace the free
+versions.  And then, what have you accomplished?  You've only made a
+donation to some proprietary software project.</p>
+
+<p>And when people see that that's happening, when people see, other
+people take what I do, and they don't ever give back, it can be
+demoralizing.  And, this is not just speculation.  I had seen that
+happen.  That was part of what happened to wipe out the old community
+that I belonged to the '70's.  Some people started becoming
+uncooperative.  And we assumed that they were profiting thereby.  They
+certainly acted as if they thought they were profiting.  And we
+realized that they can just take off cooperation and not give back.
+And there was nothing we could do about it.  It was very discouraging.
+We, those of us who didn't like the trend, even had a discussion and
+we couldn't come up with any idea for how we could stop it.</p>
+
+<p>So, the GPL is designed to stop that.  And it says, Yes, you are
+welcome to join the community and use this code.  You can use it to do
+all sorts of jobs.  But, if you release a modified version, you've got
+to release that to our community, as part of our community, as part of
+the free world.</p>
+
+<p>So, in fact, there are still many ways that people can get the
+benefit of our work and not contribute, like you don't have to write
+any software.  Lots of people use GNU/Linux and don't write any
+software.  There's no requirement that you've got to do anything for
+us.  But if you do a certain kind of thing, you've got to contribute
+to it.  So what that means is that our community is not a doormat.
+And I think that that helped give people the strength to feel, Yes, we
+won't just be trampled underfoot by everybody.  We'll stand up to
+this.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Yes, my question was, considering free
+but not copylefted software, since anybody can pick it up and make it
+proprietary, is it not possible also for someone to pick it up and
+make some changes and release the whole thing under the GPL?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, it is possible.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Then, that would make all future copies
+then be GPL'ed.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: From that branch.  But here's why we
+don't do that.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Hmm?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Here's why we don't generally do that.
+Let me explain.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: OK, yes.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We could, if we wanted to, take X
+Windows, and make a GPL-covered copy and make changes in that.  But
+there's a much larger group of people working on improving X Windows
+and <em>not</em> GPL-ing it.  So, if we did that, we would be forking
+from them.  And that's not very nice treatment of them.  And, they
+<em>are</em> a part of our community, contributing to our
+community.</p>
+
+<p>Second, it would backfire against us, because they're doing a lot
+more work on X than we would be.  So, our version would be inferior to
+theirs, and people wouldn't use it, which means, why go to the trouble
+at all?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Mmm hmm.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: So when a person has written some
+improvement to X Windows, what I say that person should do is
+cooperate with the X development team.  Send it to them and let them
+use it their way.  Because they are developing a very important piece
+of free software.  It's good for us to cooperate with them.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Except, considering X, in particular,
+about two years ago, the X Consortium that was far into the non-free
+open source&hellip;</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually it <em>wasn't</em> open
+sourced.  It wasn't open sourced, either.  They may have said it was.
+I can't remember if they said that or not.  But it wasn't open
+source. It was restricted.  You couldn't commercially distribute, I
+think.  Or you couldn't commercially distribute a modified version, or
+something like that.  There was a restriction that's considered
+unacceptable by both the Free Software movement and the Open Source
+movement.</p>
+
+<p>And yes, that's what using a non-copyleft license leaves you open
+to.  In fact, the X Consortium, they had a very rigid policy.  They
+say: If your program if copylefted even a little bit, we won't
+distribute it at all.  We won't put it in our distribution.</p>
+
+<p>So, a lot of people were pressured in this way into not
+copylefting.  And the result was that all of their software was wide
+open, later on.  When the same people who had pressured a developer to
+be too all-permissive, then the X people later said, All right, now we
+can put on restrictions, which wasn't very ethical of them.</p>
+
+<p>But, given the situation, would we really want to scrape up the
+resources to maintain an alternate GPL-covered version of X?  And it
+wouldn't make any sense to do that.  There are so many other things we
+need to do.  Let's do them instead.  We can cooperate with the X
+developers.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Do you have a comment, is the GNU a
+trademark?  And is it practical to include it as part of the GNU
+General Public License allowing trademarks?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We are, actually, applying for trademark
+registration on GNU.  But it wouldn't really have anything to do with
+that.  It's a long story to explain why.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You could require the trademark be
+displayed with GPL-covered programs.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: No, I don't think so.  The licenses
+cover individual programs.  And when a given program is part of the
+GNU Project, nobody lies about that.  The name of the system as a
+whole is a different issue.  And this is an aside.  It's not worth
+discussing more.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: If there was a button that you could
+push and force all companies to free their software, would you press
+it?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, I would only use this for
+published software.  You know, I think that people have the right to
+write a program privately and use it.  And that includes companies.
+This is privacy issue.  And it's true, there can be times when it is
+wrong to do that, like if it is tremendously helpful to humanity, and
+you are withholding it from humanity. That is a wrong but that's a
+different kind of wrong.  It's a different issue, although it's in the
+same area.</p>
+
+<p>But yes, I think all published software should be free software.
+And remember, when it's not free software, that's because of
+government intervention.  The government is intervening to make it
+non-free.  The government is creating special legal powers to hand out
+to the owners of the programs, so that they can have the police stop
+us from using the programs in certain ways.  So I would certainly like
+to end that. </p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Richard's presentation has invariably
+generated an enormous amount of intellectual energy.  I would suggest
+that some of it should be directed to using, and possibly writing,
+free software.</p>
+
+<p>We should close the proceedings shortly.  I want to say that
+Richard has injected into a profession which is known in the general
+public for its terminal apolitical nerditude a level of political and
+moral discussion which is, I think, unprecedented in our profession.
+And we owe him very big for this.  I'd like to note to people that
+there is a break.</p>
+
+<p><i>[Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: You are free to leave at any time, you
+know. <i>[Laughter]</i> I'm not holding you prisoner here.</p>
+
+<p><i>[Audience adjourns&hellip;]</i></p>
+
+<p><i>[overlapping conversations&hellip;]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: One final thing.  Our website:
+www.gnu.org</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+        replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+        We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+        translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+        Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+        to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>
+        &lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.</p>
+
+        <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+        our web pages, see <a
+        href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+        README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+     files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+     be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US.  Please do NOT change or remove this
+     without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+     Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+     document.  For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+     document was modified, or published.
+     
+     If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+     Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+     years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+     year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+     being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+     
+     There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+     Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright &copy; 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/";>Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2015/09/15 05:45:26 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>

Index: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.po
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.po
diff -N philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.po
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.fr.po 15 Sep 2015 05:45:27 -0000      
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,4469 @@
+# French translation of 
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html
+# Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+# This file is distributed under the same license as the original article.
+# Xavier Dumont, 2005.
+# Thérèse Godefroy <godef.th AT free.fr>, 2012.
+#
+msgid ""
+msgstr ""
+"Project-Id-Version: rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html\n"
+"POT-Creation-Date: 2015-02-20 15:55+0000\n"
+"PO-Revision-Date: 2015-02-20 18:09+0100\n"
+"Last-Translator: Thérèse Godefroy <godef.th AT free.fr>\n"
+"Language-Team: French <address@hidden>\n"
+"Language: fr\n"
+"MIME-Version: 1.0\n"
+"Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n"
+"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n"
+"Plural-Forms:  \n"
+"X-Generator: Gtranslator 2.91.5\n"
+
+#. type: Content of: <title>
+msgid ""
+"Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation - GNU Project - Free Software "
+"Foundation"
+msgstr ""
+"Logiciel libre : liberté et coopération - Projet GNU - Free Software "
+"Foundation"
+
+#. type: Content of: <h2>
+msgid "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation"
+msgstr "Logiciel libre : liberté et coopération"
+
+#. type: Content of: <blockquote><p>
+msgid ""
+"Transcript of Richard M. Stallman's speech, &ldquo;Free Software: Freedom "
+"and Cooperation&rdquo;, given at New York University in New York, NY, on 29 "
+"May 2001"
+msgstr ""
+"Transcription du discours de Richard M. Stallman, « Logiciel libre : 
liberté "
+"et coopération », donné à <cite>New York University</cite> (campus de 
New "
+"York, NY) le 29 mai 2001."
+
+#. type: Content of: <div><blockquote><p>
+msgid ""
+"A <a href=\"/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt\">plain text</a> version 
of "
+"this transcript and a <a 
href=\"/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt\">summary</"
+"a> of the speech are also available."
+msgstr ""
+"Une version <a href=\"/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt\">texte</a> de "
+"cette transcription et un <a href=\"/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt"
+"\">résumé</a> du discours sont aussi disponibles en anglais."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>URETSKY</strong>: I'm Mike Uretsky.  I'm over at the Stern School of "
+"Business.  I'm also one of the Co-Directors of the Center for Advanced "
+"Technology.  And, on behalf of all of us in the Computer Science Department, "
+"I want to welcome you here.  I want to say a few comments, before I turn it "
+"over to Ed, who is going to introduce the speaker."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>URETSKY</strong> : Je suis Mike Uretsky. Je travaille à la "
+"<cite>Stern Business School</cite> (École de commerce Stern). Je suis aussi "
+"l'un des codirecteurs du <cite>Center for Advanced Technology</cite> (Centre "
+"pour la technologie de pointe). Et au nom de tout le département "
+"d'informatique, je veux vous souhaiter la bienvenue. Je voudrais faire "
+"quelques commentaires avant de passer la parole à Ed qui présentera "
+"l'orateur."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"The role of a university is a place to foster debate and to have interesting "
+"discussions.  And the role of a major university is to have particularly "
+"interesting discussions.  And this particular presentation, this seminar "
+"falls right into that mold.  I find the discussion of open source "
+"particularly interesting.  In a sense &hellip; <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Le rôle d'une université est d'être un lieu de débats et de permettre des 
"
+"discussions intéressantes. Et le rôle d'une grande université est d'offrir 
"
+"des discussions particulièrement intéressantes. Cet exposé particulier, ce 
"
+"séminaire, répond parfaitement à cet impératif. Je trouve la discussion 
sur "
+"l'open source particulièrement intéressante. D'une certaine 
manière&hellip; "
+"<i>[rires]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I do free software.  Open source is a different "
+"movement.  <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Je fais du logiciel libre. L'open source, c'est "
+"un autre mouvement <i>[rires et applaudissements]</i>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>URETSKY</strong>: When I first started in the field in the '60's, "
+"basically software was free.  And we went in cycles.  It became free, and "
+"then software manufacturers, in the need to expand their markets, pushed it "
+"in other directions.  A lot of the developments that took place with the "
+"entry of the PC moved in exactly the same kind of a cycle."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>URETSKY</strong> : Quand j'ai commencer à travailler dans ce 
domaine "
+"dans les années 60, en principe les logiciels étaient libres. Puis nous "
+"sommes entrés dans un cycle. Au début ils étaient libres, puis les "
+"fabricants de logiciels, pour étendre leur marché, les ont poussés dans "
+"d'autres directions. Une grande partie du développement qui a eu lieu à "
+"l'arrivée du PC a suivi exactement le même cycle."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"There's a very interesting French philosopher, Pierre Levy, who talks about "
+"movement to this direction and who talks about the move into cyberspace as "
+"not only relating to technology but also relating to social restructuring, "
+"to political restructuring, through a change in the kinds of relationships "
+"that will improve the well-being of mankind.  And we're hoping that this "
+"debate is a movement in that direction, that this debate is something that "
+"cuts across a lot of the disciplines that normally act as solace within the "
+"University.  We're looking forward to some very interesting discussions.  Ed?"
+msgstr ""
+"Il y a un philosophe français très intéressant, Pierre Lévy, qui parle 
d'un "
+"mouvement dans cette direction et parle de l'entrée dans le cyberespace, non 
"
+"seulement en relation avec la technologie, mais aussi avec la "
+"restructuration sociale et politique, à travers un changement des types de "
+"relations qui va améliorer le bien-être de l'humanité. Et nous espérons 
que "
+"ce débat est un pas dans cette direction, que ce débat traverse de "
+"nombreuses disciplines qui travaillent généralement en solo à 
l'université. "
+"Nous espérons donc de très intéressantes discussions. Ed ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: I'm Ed Schonberg from the Computer Science "
+"Department at the Courant Institute.  Let me welcome you all to this event.  "
+"Introducers are usually, and particularly, a useless aspect of public "
+"presentations, but in this case, actually, they serve a useful purpose, as "
+"Mike easily demonstrated, because an introducer for instance, told him, by "
+"making inaccurate comments, can allow him to straighten out and correct and "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> sharpen considerably the parameters of the debate."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong> : Je suis Ed Schonberg du département "
+"d'informatique de l'Institut Courant. Permettez-moi de vous souhaiter la "
+"bienvenue pour cet événement. Les présentateurs sont, en général et en "
+"particulier, un aspect inutile des présentations publiques, mais dans ce "
+"cas, ils servent un but utile comme le propos de Mike vient facilement de le "
+"prouver. Parce qu'un présentateur, par exemple par des commentaires "
+"inappropriés, peut permettre à l'orateur de corriger <i>[rires]</i> et "
+"préciser considérablement les paramètres du débat."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, let me make the briefest possible introduction to somebody who doesn't "
+"need one.  Richard is the perfect example of somebody who, by acting "
+"locally, started thinking globally from problems concerning the "
+"unavailability of source code for printer drivers at the AI Lab many years "
+"ago.  He has developed a coherent philosophy that has forced all of us to re-"
+"examine our ideas of how software is produced, of what intellectual property "
+"means, and what the software community actually represents.  Let me welcome "
+"Richard Stallman.  <i>[Applause]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Aussi permettez-moi de faire la présentation la plus brève possible de "
+"quelqu'un qui n'en a pas besoin. Richard est le parfait exemple de quelqu'un "
+"qui, agissant localement, commença à penser globalement en partant des "
+"problèmes d'inaccessibilité du code source des pilotes d'imprimantes au "
+"Laboratoire d'intelligence artificielle il y a bien des années. Il a "
+"développé une philosophie cohérente qui nous a tous forcés à réexaminer 
nos "
+"idées sur la façon dont le logiciel est produit, sur ce que signifie la "
+"propriété intellectuelle et sur ce que représente la communauté du 
logiciel. "
+"Bienvenue à Richard Stallman <i>[applaudissements]</i>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can someone lend me a watch? <i>[Laughter]</i> "
+"Thank you.  So, I'd like to thank Microsoft for providing me the opportunity "
+"to <i>[Laughter]</i> be on this platform.  For the past few weeks, I have "
+"felt like an author whose book was fortuitously banned somewhere.  <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i> Except that all the articles about it are giving the wrong "
+"author's name, because Microsoft describes the GNU GPL as an open source "
+"license, and most of the press coverage followed suit.  Most people, of "
+"course just innocently don't realize that our work has nothing to do with "
+"open source, that in fact we did most of it before people even coined the "
+"term open source."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> :  Quelqu'un peut-il me prêter une montre ? <i>"
+"[rires]</i> Merci. Bien, je voudrais remercier Microsoft de me donner "
+"l'occasion aujourd'hui <i>[rires]</i> d'être ici. Ces dernières semaines, 
je "
+"me sentais comme un auteur dont le livre a été fortuitement interdit 
quelque "
+"part <i>[rires]</i>. Sauf que tous les articles le concernant mentionnent un "
+"nom d'auteur erroné, parce que Microsoft décrit la GNU GPL comme une 
licence "
+"open source et que la majorité de la couverture de presse a suivi. La "
+"plupart des gens, en toute innocence bien sûr, ne se rendent pas compte que "
+"notre travail n'a rien à voir avec l'open source et qu'en réalité nous en "
+"avons fait la plus grande part avant même que le terme « open source » 
ne "
+"soit inventé."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"We are in the free software movement, and I'm going to speak about what the "
+"free software movement is about, what it means, what we have done, and, "
+"because this is partly sponsored by a school of business, I'll say some "
+"things more than I usually do about how free software relates to business, "
+"and some other areas of social life."
+msgstr ""
+"Nous faisons partie du mouvement du logiciel libre et je vais vous parler de "
+"ce qu'est ce mouvement, de ce qu'il signifie, de ce que nous avons fait, et "
+"puisque nous sommes réunis par une école de commerce, je vous en dirai un "
+"peu plus qu'à l'habitude sur les relations du logiciel libre avec 
l'économie "
+"et avec d'autres champs de la vie en société."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, some of you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps you "
+"cook.  And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably use "
+"recipes.  And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the experience of "
+"getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing it.  And you've "
+"probably also had the experience &mdash; unless you're a total neophyte "
+"&mdash; of changing a recipe.  You know, it says certain things, but you "
+"don't have to do exactly that.  You can leave out some ingredients.  Add "
+"some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms.  Put in less salt because your "
+"doctor said you should cut down on salt &mdash; whatever.  You can even make "
+"bigger changes according to your skill.  And if you've made changes in a "
+"recipe, and you cook it for your friends, and they like it, one of your "
+"friends might say, &ldquo;Hey, could I have the recipe?&rdquo; And then, "
+"what do you do? You could write down your modified version of the recipe and "
+"make a copy for your friend.  These are the natural things to do with "
+"functionally useful recipes of any kind."
+msgstr ""
+"Certains d'entre vous n'écriront peut-être jamais de logiciels mais vous "
+"cuisinez peut-être. Et si vous cuisinez, à moins que vous ne soyez un grand 
"
+"chef, vous utilisez probablement des recettes. Si vous utilisez des "
+"recettes, il vous est probablement déjà arrivé de demander la copie d'une "
+"recette à un ami, qui l'a partagée avec vous. Et il vous est probablement "
+"arrivé – à moins d'être un complet néophyte – de changer cette 
recette. Vous "
+"savez, il y a des choses que l'on n'est pas obligé de faire exactement : "
+"vous pouvez laisser tomber certains ingrédients, ajouter des champignons "
+"parce que vous aimez les champignons, mettre un peu moins de sel parce que "
+"votre médecin vous a recommandé de manger moins salé, que sais-je ? Vous "
+"pouvez même faire des changements plus importants selon vos talents. Si vous 
"
+"avez fait des changements dans une recette et que vos amis l'ont appréciée, 
"
+"l'un d'entre eux vous a peut-être dit : « Dis donc, je pourrais avoir la "
+"recette ? » Et alors, qu'est-ce que vous faites ? Vous mettez par écrit "
+"votre version modifiée et faites une copie pour votre ami. C'est une chose "
+"qu'on fait naturellement avec des recettes de toute sorte."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program.  A computer program's a lot "
+"like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to get some result that "
+"you want.  So it's just as natural to do those same things with computer "
+"programs &mdash; hand a copy to your friend.  Make changes in it because the "
+"job it was written to do isn't exactly what you want.  It did a great job "
+"for somebody else, but your job is a different job.  And after you've "
+"changed it, that's likely to be useful for other people.  Maybe they have a "
+"job to do that's like the job you do.  So they ask, &ldquo;Hey, can I have a "
+"copy?&rdquo; Of course, if you're a nice person, you're going to give a "
+"copy.  That's the way to be a decent person."
+msgstr ""
+"En fait, une recette ressemble beaucoup à un programme informatique. Un "
+"programme informatique est comme une recette : une série d'étapes à mener 
"
+"pour obtenir le résultat que vous attendez. Alors il est tout naturel de "
+"faire la même chose avec un programme : donner une copie à un ami ; 
apporter "
+"des modifications parce que le travail pour lequel il a été écrit n'est 
pas "
+"tout à fait ce que vous voulez. Il a bien fonctionné pour quelqu'un d'autre 
"
+"mais votre travail est différent. Et une fois que vous avez changé le "
+"programme, il est probable qu'il pourra servir à d'autres. Peut-être qu'ils 
"
+"ont à faire un travail comme le vôtre, alors ils vous en demanderont une "
+"copie, et si vous êtes gentil, vous allez la leur donner. C'est comme ça "
+"qu'on doit se comporter."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So imagine what it would be like if recipes were packaged inside black "
+"boxes.  You couldn't see what ingredients they're using, let alone change "
+"them, and imagine if you made a copy for a friend, they would call you a "
+"pirate and try to put you in prison for years.  That world would create "
+"tremendous outrage from all the people who are used to sharing recipes.  But "
+"that is exactly what the world of proprietary software is like.  A world in "
+"which common decency towards other people is prohibited or prevented."
+msgstr ""
+"Alors imaginez que les recettes soient enfermées dans des boîtes noires. "
+"Vous ne pourriez pas savoir les ingrédients qu'elles utilisent, encore moins 
"
+"les changer. Et imaginez, si vous faisiez une copie pour un ami, qu'on vous "
+"traite de pirate et qu'on essaie de vous mettre en prison pour des années. "
+"Ce serait un énorme tollé de la part de tous ceux qui sont habitués à "
+"partager des recettes de cuisine. Mais c'est exactement ce qui se passe dans "
+"le monde du logiciel privateur<a id=\"TransNote1-rev\" href="
+"\"#TransNote1\"><sup>1</sup></a> – un monde dans lequel on empêche et on "
+"interdit un comportement correct envers les autres personnes."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, why did I notice this? I noticed this because I had the good fortune in "
+"the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who shared software.  "
+"Now, this community could trace its ancestry essentially back to the "
+"beginning of computing.  In the 1970's, though, it was a bit rare for there "
+"to be a community where people shared software.  And, in fact, this was sort "
+"of an extreme case, because in the lab where I worked, the entire operating "
+"system was software developed by the people in our community, and we'd share "
+"any of it with anybody.  Anybody was welcome to come and take a look, and "
+"take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do.  There were no copyright "
+"notices on these programs.  Cooperation was our way of life.  And we were "
+"secure in that way of life.  We didn't fight for it.  We didn't have to "
+"fight for it.  We just lived that way.  And, as far as we knew, we would "
+"just keep on living that way.  So there was free software, but there was no "
+"free software movement."
+msgstr ""
+"Maintenant, pourquoi ai-je remarqué cela ? Je l'ai remarqué parce que j'ai 
"
+"eu la bonne fortune dans les années 70 de faire partie d'une communauté "
+"d'informaticiens qui partageaient les logiciels. On pourrait faire remonter "
+"ses racines aux origines de l'informatique, mais dans les années 70 c'était 
"
+"plutôt rare de trouver une communauté où les gens partageaient du 
logiciel. "
+"En fait c'était en quelque sorte un cas extrême parce que, dans le "
+"laboratoire où je travaillais, l'ensemble du système d'exploitation avait "
+"été développé par les gens de cette communauté et nous le partagions 
avec "
+"n'importe qui. Tout un chacun était invité à venir y jeter un œil et à 
en "
+"emporter une copie pour faire ce qu'il voulait avec. Il n'y avait pas d'avis "
+"de copyright sur ces programmes. Et rien ne semblait menacer ce mode de vie. "
+"Ce n'était pas le résultat d'une lutte, c'est comme ça que nous vivions. "
+"Nous pensions que cela continuerait. Il y avait du logiciel libre mais pas "
+"de mouvement du logiciel libre."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that happened "
+"to it.  Ultimately it was wiped out.  Ultimately, the PDP-10 computer which "
+"we used for all our work was discontinued.  And you know, our system &mdash; "
+"the Incompatible Timesharing System &mdash; was written starting in the "
+"'60's, so it was written in assembler language.  That's what you used to "
+"write an operating system in the '60's.  So, of course, assembler language "
+"is for one particular computer architecture; if that gets discontinued, all "
+"your work turns into dust &mdash; it's useless.  And that's what happened to "
+"us.  The 20 years or so of work of our community turned into dust."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais ensuite notre communauté a été détruite par une série de 
calamités. À "
+"la fin elle fut balayée. L'ordinateur PDP-10 que nous utilisions pour tout "
+"notre travail fut abandonné. Notre système d'exploitation, le « système 
à "
+"temps partagé incompatible » <cite>[Incompatible Timesharing 
System]</cite>, "
+"écrit à partir des années 60, était en langage assembleur. C'est ce qu'on 
"
+"utilisait pour écrire les systèmes d'exploitation dans les années 60. "
+"Naturellement, le langage assembleur est spécifique à un type particulier "
+"d'architecture d'ordinateur ; si elle devient obsolète, tout le travail "
+"tombe en poussière. Et c'est ce qui nous est arrivé. Les presque 20 ans de "
+"travail de notre communauté sont tombés en poussière."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me, helped me "
+"see what to do, helped prepare me to see what to do when this happened, "
+"because at certain point, Xerox gave the Artificial Intelligence Lab, where "
+"I worked, a laser printer, and this was a really handsome gift, because it "
+"was the first time anybody outside Xerox had a laser printer.  It was very "
+"fast, printed a page a second, very fine in many respects, but it was "
+"unreliable, because it was really a high-speed office copier that had been "
+"modified into a printer.  And, you know, copiers jam, but there's somebody "
+"there to fix them.  The printer jammed and nobody saw.  So it stayed jammed "
+"for a long time."
+msgstr ""
+"Pourtant, avant que cela n'arrive, une expérience m'a préparé et m'a aidé 
à "
+"voir ce qu'il fallait faire. Un jour, Xerox a donné au Laboratoire "
+"d'intelligence artificielle, où je travaillais, une imprimante laser ; "
+"c'était un beau cadeau car c'était la première fois qu'en dehors de Xerox "
+"quelqu'un possédait une imprimante laser. Elle était très rapide, une page 
à "
+"la seconde, excellente à bien des égards, mais elle n'était pas fiable 
parce "
+"qu'en fait c'était un copieur rapide de bureau qui avait été modifié pour 
"
+"devenir une imprimante. Vous savez, les copieurs font du bourrage de papier "
+"mais il y a sur place quelqu'un pour les débloquer. L'imprimante bourrait "
+"mais personne ne le remarquait aussi restait-t-elle hors service pendant "
+"longtemps."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Well, we had an idea for how to deal with this problem.  Change it so that "
+"whenever the printer gets a jam, the machine that runs the printer can tell "
+"our timesharing machine, and tell the users who are waiting for printouts, "
+"or something like that, you know, tell them, go fix the printer.  Because if "
+"they only knew it was jammed, of course, if you're waiting for a printout "
+"and you know that the printer is jammed, you don't want to sit and wait "
+"forever, you're going to go fix it."
+msgstr ""
+"Nous avions bien une idée pour résoudre ce problème : faire en sorte qu'à
 "
+"chaque bourrage elle avertisse notre machine en temps partagé et les "
+"utilisateurs qui attendaient une sortie d'imprimante. Car bien sûr, si vous "
+"attendez une sortie d'imprimante et que vous savez qu'elle est en panne, "
+"vous n'allez pas rester assis pour l'éternité, vous irez la débloquer."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But at that point, we were completely stymied, because the software that ran "
+"that printer was not free software.  It had come with the printer, and it "
+"was just a binary.  We couldn't have the source code; Xerox wouldn't let us "
+"have the source code.  So, despite our skill as programmers &mdash; after "
+"all, we had written our own timesharing system &mdash; we were completely "
+"helpless to add this feature to the printer software."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais à ce stade, nous étions dans une impasse totale du fait que le pilote "
+"de l'imprimante n'était pas un logiciel libre. Il était livré avec mais "
+"c'était un programme binaire. Nous n'avions pas le code source. Xerox ne "
+"nous avait pas autorisés à l'avoir. Si bien que malgré nos talents "
+"d'informaticiens (nous avions écrit notre propre système d'exploitation en "
+"temps partagé) nous étions complètement démunis pour ajouter cette 
fonction "
+"au pilote d'imprimante."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And we just had to suffer with waiting.  It would take an hour or two to get "
+"your printout because the machine would be jammed most of the time.  And "
+"only once in a while &mdash; you'd wait an hour figuring &ldquo;I know it's "
+"going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and go collect my printout,&rdquo; and "
+"then you'd see that it had been jammed the whole time, and in fact, nobody "
+"else had fixed it.  So you'd fix it and you'd go wait another half hour.  "
+"Then, you'd come back, and you'd see it jammed again &mdash; before it got "
+"to your output.  It would print three minutes and be jammed thirty minutes.  "
+"Frustration up the whazzoo.  But the thing that made it worse was knowing "
+"that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his own selfishness, was "
+"blocking us, obstructing us from improving the software.  So, of course, we "
+"felt some resentment."
+msgstr ""
+"Nous pouvions seulement prendre notre mal en patience ; cela vous prenait "
+"une ou deux heures pour avoir votre impression car la machine était bloquée 
"
+"la plupart du temps. De temps à autre vous attendiez une heure en vous "
+"disant : « Je sais que ça va planter, je vais attendre une heure et aller 
"
+"chercher mon texte. » Et alors vous vous aperceviez que la machine était "
+"restée bloquée pendant tout ce temps-là et que personne d'autre ne l'avait 
"
+"remise en état. Alors vous faisiez le nécessaire et attendiez une 
demi-heure "
+"de plus. Ensuite vous reveniez et vous voyiez qu'elle s'était bloquée de "
+"nouveau – avant même de commencer votre impression. Elle imprimait trois "
+"minutes et se bloquait pendant 30 minutes. Frustration jusque là ! Le pire "
+"était de savoir que nous aurions pu la réparer mais que quelqu'un, par pur "
+"égoÏsme, nous mettait des bâtons dans les roues en nous empêchant "
+"d'améliorer son programme. D'où notre ressentiment, évidemment&hellip;"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a copy of "
+"that software.  So I was visiting there later, so I went to his office and I "
+"said, &ldquo;Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of the printer source "
+"code?&rdquo; And he said &ldquo;No, I promised not to give you a copy."
+"&rdquo; <i>[Laughter]</i> I was stunned.  I was so &mdash; I was angry, and "
+"I had no idea how I could do justice to it.  All I could think of was to "
+"turn around on my heel and walk out of his room.  Maybe I slammed the door.  "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> And I thought about it later on, because I realized that I "
+"was seeing not just an isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was "
+"important and affected a lot of people."
+msgstr ""
+"Et alors j'ai entendu dire que quelqu'un avait une copie de ce programme à "
+"l'université Carnegie-Mellon. En visite là-bas un peu plus tard, je me 
rends "
+"à son bureau et je dis : « Salut, je suis du MIT, pourrais-je avoir une "
+"copie du code source de l'imprimante ? » Et il répond : « Non, j'ai 
promis "
+"de ne pas vous donner de copie » <i>[rires]</i>. J'étais soufflé. 
J'étais "
+"si&hellip; J'étais tellement en colère ! Je ne savais pas quoi faire pour "
+"réparer cette injustice. Tout ce qui m'est venu à l'esprit, c'est de 
tourner "
+"les talons et sortir de son bureau. Peut-être que j'ai claqué la "
+"porte&hellip; <i>[rires]</i> Et j'y ai repensé plus tard parce que j'ai "
+"réalisé que je n'étais pas simplement en face d'un fait isolé mais d'un "
+"phénomène de société qui était important et affectait beaucoup de gens."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"This was &mdash; for me &mdash; I was lucky, I only got a taste of it, but "
+"other people had to live in this all the time.  So I thought about it at "
+"length.  See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with us &mdash; his "
+"colleagues at MIT.  He had betrayed us.  But he didn't just do it to us.  "
+"Chances are he did it to you too.  <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> "
+"And I think, mostly likely, he did it to you too.  <i>[Pointing at another "
+"member of audience.] [Laughter]</i> And he probably did it to you as well.  "
+"<i>[Pointing to third member of audience.]</i> He probably did it to most of "
+"the people here in this room &mdash; except a few, maybe, who weren't born "
+"yet in 1980.  Because he had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about "
+"the entire population of the Planet Earth.  He had signed a non-disclosure "
+"agreement."
+msgstr ""
+"Pour moi par chance, ce n'était qu'un échantillon, mais d'autres gens "
+"étaient obligés de vivre avec ça tout le temps. Et j'y ai repensé plus "
+"longuement. Vous voyez, il avait promis de refuser de coopérer avec nous, "
+"ses collègues du MIT. Il nous avait trahis. Mais il ne l'avait pas fait qu'à
 "
+"nous. Il y a des chances qu'il vous l'ait fait à vous aussi <i>[pointant du "
+"doigt un auditeur]</i>. Et je pense, probablement à vous aussi <i>[pointant "
+"du doigt un autre auditeur – rires]</i> et à vous aussi <i>[pointant du "
+"doigt un troisième auditeur]</i>. Et certainement à une bonne partie de 
ceux "
+"qui sont dans cette salle, à l'exception de quelques-uns, peut-être, qui "
+"n'étaient pas encore nés en 1980. Il avait promis de ne pas coopérer avec "
+"l'ensemble de la population de la planète Terre, ou presque. Il avait signé 
"
+"un accord de non-divulgation."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, "
+"and it taught me an important lesson &mdash; a lesson that's important "
+"because most programmers never learn it.  You see, this was my first "
+"encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was the victim.  I, and my "
+"whole lab, were the victims.  And the lesson it taught me was that non-"
+"disclosure agreements have victims.  They're not innocent.  They're not "
+"harmless.  Most programmers first encounter a non-disclosure agreement when "
+"they're invited to sign one.  And there's always some temptation &mdash; "
+"some goody they're going to get if they sign.  So, they make up excuses.  "
+"They say, &ldquo;Well, he's never going to get a copy no matter what, so why "
+"shouldn't I join the conspiracy to deprive him?&rdquo; They say, &ldquo;This "
+"is the way it's always done.  Who am I to go against it?&rdquo; They say, "
+"&ldquo;If I don't sign this, someone else will.&rdquo; Various excuses to "
+"gag their consciences."
+msgstr ""
+"C'était ma première confrontation avec un accord de non-divulgation et cela 
"
+"m'a appris une importante leçon, une leçon qui est importante parce que la "
+"plupart des programmeurs ne l'apprennent jamais. Vous voyez, c'était ma "
+"première rencontre avec un accord de non-divulgation et j'en étais victime. 
"
+"Moi et tout mon laboratoire, nous en étions victimes. Et la leçon que j'ai "
+"apprise c'est que les accords de non-divulgation font des victimes. Ils ne "
+"sont pas innocents, ils ne sont pas inoffensifs. La plupart des programmeurs "
+"rencontrent un accord de non-divulgation lorsqu'ils sont invités à en 
signer "
+"un et il y a toujours une sorte de tentation, un bonus qu'ils auront s'ils "
+"signent. Alors ils s'inventent des excuses. Ils disent : « De toute 
façon, "
+"il n'aura pas de copie, alors pourquoi ne rejoindrais-je pas la conspiration "
+"pour l'en priver ? » Ils disent : « Ça se fait toujours comme ça, qui 
suis-"
+"je pour m'y opposer ? » Ils disent : « Si je ne signe pas, quelqu'un 
d'autre "
+"le fera. » Diverses excuses pour tromper leur conscience."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But when somebody invited me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, my "
+"conscience was already sensitized.  It remembered how angry I had been, when "
+"somebody promised not to help me and my whole lab solve our problem.  And I "
+"couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to somebody else who had "
+"never done me any harm.  You know, if somebody asked me to promise not to "
+"share some useful information with a hated enemy, I would have said yes.  "
+"You know? If somebody's done something bad, he deserves it.  But, strangers "
+"&mdash; they haven't done me any harm.  How could they deserve that kind of "
+"mistreatment? You can't let yourself start treating just anybody and "
+"everybody badly.  Then you become a predator on society.  So I said, &ldquo;"
+"Thank you very much for offering me this nice software package.  But I can't "
+"accept it in good conscience, on the conditions you are demanding, so I will "
+"do without it.  Thank you so much.&rdquo; And so, I have never knowingly "
+"signed a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful technical information "
+"such as software."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais quand on m'a invité à signer un accord de non-divulgation, ma "
+"conscience était déjà en éveil. Elle se rappelait comme j'étais en 
colère "
+"lorsque quelqu'un avait promis de ne pas m'aider, moi et mon labo, à "
+"résoudre notre problème. Je ne pouvais pas retourner ma veste et faire la "
+"même chose à quelqu'un qui ne m'avait fait aucun mal. Vous savez, si "
+"quelqu'un me demandait de promettre de ne pas partager une information utile "
+"avec un ennemi détesté je le ferais. Si quelqu'un a fait quelque chose de "
+"mal il le mérite. Mais des étrangers&hellip; Ils ne m'ont fait aucun mal. "
+"Comment pourraient-ils mériter un mauvais traitement de ce genre ? On ne "
+"peut pas se permettre de mal se comporter avec tout un chacun, sinon on "
+"devient un prédateur de la société. Alors j'ai dit : « Merci de 
m'offrir ce "
+"beau logiciel, mais je ne peux l'accepter en bonne conscience aux conditions "
+"que vous exigez, donc je vais m'en passer. Merci beaucoup. » Ainsi, je n'ai 
"
+"jamais consciemment signé d'accord de non-divulgation pour de l'information "
+"technique utile comme un programme."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now there are other kinds of information which raise different ethical "
+"issues.  For instance, there's personal information.  You know, if you "
+"wanted to talk with me about what was happening between you and your "
+"boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody &mdash; you know, I could "
+"keep &mdash; I could agree to keep that a secret for you, because that's not "
+"generally useful technical information.  At least, it's probably not "
+"generally useful. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Cela dit, il y a des informations d'autre nature qui posent d'autres "
+"problèmes éthiques. Par exemple, il y a les informations personnelles. Vous 
"
+"savez, si vous voulez me parler de ce qui se passe entre vous et votre petit "
+"ami et que vous me demandez de n'en parler à personne, je peux accepter de "
+"garder le secret pour vous, parce que ce n'est pas une information technique "
+"d'utilité générale. En fait, ce n'est probablement pas d'utilité 
générale <i>"
+"[rires]</i>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"There is a small chance &mdash; and it's a possibility though &mdash; that "
+"you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex technique, <i>[Laughter]</i> "
+"and I would then feel a moral duty <i>[Laughter]</i> to pass it onto the "
+"rest of humanity, so that everyone could get the benefit of it.  So, I'd "
+"have to put a proviso in that promise, you know? If it's just details about "
+"who wants this, and who's angry at whom, and things like that &mdash; soap "
+"opera &mdash; that I can keep private for you, but something that humanity "
+"could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't withhold.  You see, the "
+"purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information for "
+"humanity to help people live their lives better.  If we promise to withhold "
+"that information &mdash; if we keep it secret &mdash; then we are betraying "
+"the mission of our field.  And this, I decided I shouldn't do."
+msgstr ""
+"Il y a une petite chance, c'est possible, que vous puissiez me révéler une "
+"merveilleuse nouvelle technique sexuelle <i>[rires]</i> et je me sentirais "
+"moralement obligé <i>[rires]</i> de la révéler au reste de l'humanité 
pour "
+"que chacun puisse en profiter. Donc je devrais mettre une condition à ma "
+"promesse. Si ce sont juste des détails sur qui veut ceci et qui est en "
+"colère contre untel, des choses comme ça, du feuilleton télé, cela je 
peux "
+"le garder confidentiel&hellip; Mais une connaissance dont l'humanité "
+"tirerait un énorme bénéfice, je ne dois pas la garder pour moi. Vous 
voyez, "
+"le but de la science et de la technologie est de produire de l'information "
+"utile pour l'humanité qui aidera les gens à vivre une vie meilleure. Si 
nous "
+"promettons de cacher cette information, si nous la gardons secrète, nous "
+"trahissons la mission de notre discipline. Et ceci, j'ai décidé de ne pas 
le "
+"faire."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, meanwhile my community had collapsed, and that was collapsing, and that "
+"left me in a bad situation.  You see, the whole Incompatible Timesharing "
+"System was obsolete, because the PDP-10 was obsolete, and so there was no "
+"way that I could continue working as an operating system developer the way "
+"that I had been doing it.  That depended on being part of the community "
+"using the community software and improving it.  That no longer was a "
+"possibility, and that gave me a moral dilemma.  What was I going to do? "
+"Because the most obvious possibility meant to go against that decision I had "
+"made.  The most obvious possibility was to adapt myself to the change in the "
+"world.  To accept that things were different, and that I'd just have to give "
+"up those principles and start signing non-disclosure agreements for "
+"proprietary operating systems, and most likely writing proprietary software "
+"as well.  But I realized that that way I could have fun coding, and I could "
+"make money &mdash; especially if I did it other than at MIT &mdash; but at "
+"the end, I'd have to look back at my career and say, &ldquo;I've spent my "
+"life building walls to divide people,&rdquo; and I would have been ashamed "
+"of my life."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais en attendant, ma communauté s'était effondrée et c'était terrible ; 
"
+"cela me mettait en mauvaise posture. Vous voyez, le système à temps 
partagé "
+"incompatible était obsolète parce que le PDP-10 était obsolète. Donc je 
ne "
+"pouvais plus travailler en tant que développeur de systèmes d'exploitation "
+"comme je l'avais fait. C'était conditionné à mon appartenance à la "
+"communauté qui utilisait ce logiciel pour l'améliorer. Cela n'était plus "
+"possible et cela m'amena à un dilemme moral. Qu'allais-je faire ? Parce que 
"
+"la possibilité la plus évidente impliquait de faire le contraire de ce que "
+"j'avais décidé. La possibilité la plus évidente était de m'adapter au "
+"changement du monde ; accepter le fait que les choses étaient différentes, 
"
+"que je n'avais qu'à abandonner ces principes et commencer à signer des "
+"accords de non-divulgation pour des systèmes d'exploitation privateurs, et "
+"probablement écrire des logiciels privateurs à mon tour. Mais j'ai 
réalisé "
+"que, même si de cette façon j'avais un moyen de m'amuser à coder et de "
+"gagner de l'argent en même temps, surtout si je faisais ça ailleurs qu'au "
+"MIT, à la fin j'aurais dû me retourner sur ma carrière et dire : « J'ai 
"
+"passé ma vie à construire des murs pour diviser les gens. » Et j'aurais 
eu "
+"honte de ma vie."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So I looked for another alternative, and there was an obvious one.  I could "
+"leave the software field and do something else.  Now I had no other special "
+"noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a waiter.  <i>[Laughter]"
+"</i> Not at a fancy restaurant; they wouldn't hire me, <i>[Laughter]</i> but "
+"I could be a waiter somewhere.  And many programmers, they say to me, &ldquo;"
+"The people who hire programmers demand this, this and this. If I don't do "
+"those things, I'll starve.&rdquo; It's literally the word they use.  Well, "
+"you know, as a waiter, you're not going to starve.  <i>[Laughter]</i> So, "
+"really, they're in no danger.  But &mdash; and this is important, you see "
+"&mdash; because sometimes you can justify doing something that hurts other "
+"people by saying otherwise something worse is going to happen to me.  You "
+"know, if you were <em>really</em> going to starve, you'd be justified in "
+"writing proprietary software.  <i>[Laughter]</i> If somebody's pointing a "
+"gun at you, then I would say, it's forgivable.  <i>[Laughter]</i> But, I had "
+"found a way that I could survive without doing something unethical, so that "
+"excuse was not available.  So I realized, though, that being a waiter would "
+"be no fun for me, and it would be wasting my skills as an operating system "
+"developer.  It would avoid misusing my skills.  Developing proprietary "
+"software would be misusing my skills.  Encouraging other people to live in "
+"the world of proprietary software would be misusing my skills.  So it's "
+"better to waste them than misuse them, but it's still not really good."
+msgstr ""
+"Alors j'ai cherché une alternative, et il y en avait une évidente : je "
+"pouvais quitter l'informatique et faire autre chose. Je n'avais aucun autre "
+"talent remarquable mais je suis sûr que j'aurais pu être serveur 
<i>[rires]</"
+"i>. Pas dans un restaurant chic, ils n'auraient pas voulu de moi <i>[rires]</"
+"i>, mais j'aurais pu être serveur quelque part. De nombreux programmeurs me "
+"disent : « Les employeurs exigent ceci, cela, si je ne le fais pas je "
+"mourrai de faim. » C'est le mot exact qu'ils utilisent. Bon, comme serveur "
+"je ne risquais pas de mourir de faim <i>[rires]</i>. En réalité, les "
+"programmeurs ne courent aucun danger. Et c'est important voyez-vous, car "
+"vous pouvez quelquefois vous justifier de faire quelque chose qui blesse "
+"autrui en disant « sinon quelque chose de pire va m'arriver ». Si vous 
êtes "
+"<em>vraiment</em> sur le point de crever de faim, vous pouvez vous justifier "
+"d'écrire du logiciel privateur <i>[rires]</i> ; et si quelqu'un vous menace 
"
+"d'une arme je dirais même que c'est pardonnable <i>[rires]</i>. Mais j'avais 
"
+"trouvé une façon de survivre sans enfreindre mon éthique, aussi cette 
excuse "
+"était-elle irrecevable. Cependant, je réalisais qu'être serveur ne serait "
+"pas drôle pour moi et que ce serait gâcher mes talents de programmeur. Je "
+"devais éviter de mal utiliser mes talents. Écrire des logiciels privateurs "
+"aurait été mal utiliser mes talents. Encourager les autres à vivre dans un 
"
+"monde de logiciels privateurs aurait signifié mal utiliser mes talents. "
+"Aussi valait-il mieux les gâcher que les utiliser à mauvais escient, mais 
ce "
+"n'était toujours pas la bonne solution."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So for those reasons, I decided to look for some other alternative.  What "
+"can an operating system developer do that would actually improve the "
+"situation, make the world a better place? And I realized that an operating "
+"system developer was exactly what was needed.  The problem, the dilemma, "
+"existed for me and for everyone else because all of the available operating "
+"systems for modern computers were proprietary.  The free operating systems "
+"were for old, obsolete computers, right? So for the modern computers &mdash; "
+"if you wanted to get a modern computer and use it, you were forced into a "
+"proprietary operating system.  So if an operating system developer wrote "
+"another operating system, and then said, &ldquo;Everybody come and share "
+"this; you're welcome to this&rdquo; &mdash; that would give everybody a way "
+"out of the dilemma, another alternative.  So I realized that there was "
+"something I could do that would solve the problem.  I had just the right "
+"skills to be able to do it.  And it was the most useful thing I could "
+"possibly imagine that I'd be able to do with my life.  And it was a problem "
+"that no one else was trying to solve.  It was just sort of sitting there, "
+"getting worse, and nobody was there but me.  So I felt, &ldquo;I'm elected.  "
+"I have to work on this.  If not me, who?&rdquo; So I decided I would develop "
+"a free operating system, or die trying &hellip; of old age, of course.  <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"C'est pourquoi j'ai cherché une autre possibilité. Que pouvait faire un "
+"développeur de systèmes d'exploitation pour améliorer la situation, pour "
+"rendre le monde meilleur ? J'ai réalisé qu'un développeur de systèmes "
+"d'exploitation, c'était exactement ce qu'il fallait. Comme tous les autres, "
+"j'étais placé devant un problème, un dilemme, parce que tous les systèmes 
"
+"d'exploitation disponibles pour les ordinateurs modernes étaient privateurs. 
"
+"Les systèmes d'exploitation libres étaient pour de vieux ordinateurs "
+"obsolètes, n'est-ce pas ? Si vous vouliez un ordinateur moderne, vous 
étiez "
+"obligé d'adopter un système d'exploitation privateur. Cependant, si un "
+"développeur écrivait un autre système d'exploitation et disait « Venez 
tous "
+"partager ceci, vous êtes les bienvenus », cela permettrait à chacun de "
+"sortir du dilemme, cela offrirait une alternative. Je me suis alors rendu "
+"compte que je pouvais faire quelque chose qui résoudrait le problème. "
+"J'avais les talents requis, c'était la chose la plus utile que je puisse "
+"faire de ma vie et c'était un problème que personne d'autre n'essayait de "
+"résoudre. J'étais assis là, de plus en plus mal dans ma peau, et j'étais "
+"seul. Alors un sentiment m'a envahi : « Je suis élu. C'est là-dessus que 
je "
+"dois travailler. Si ce n'est pas moi, qui d'autre ? » J'ai donc décidé 
de "
+"développer un système d'exploitation libre ou de mourir&hellip; de "
+"vieillesse, bien sûr <i>[rires]</i>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, of course I had to decide what kind of operating system it should be.  "
+"There are some technical design decisions to be made.  I decided to make the "
+"system compatible with Unix for a number of reasons.  First of all, I had "
+"just seen one operating system that I really loved become obsolete because "
+"it was written for one particular kind of computer.  I didn't want that to "
+"happen again.  We needed to have a portable system.  Well, Unix was a "
+"portable system.  So if I followed the design of Unix, I had a pretty good "
+"chance that I could make a system that would also be portable and workable.  "
+"And furthermore, why <i>[Tape unclear]</i> be compatible with it in the "
+"details.  The reason is, users hate incompatible changes.  If I had just "
+"designed the system in my favorite way &mdash; which I would have loved "
+"doing, I'm sure &mdash; I would have produced something that was "
+"incompatible.  You know, the details would be different.  So, if I wrote the "
+"system, then the users would have said to me, &ldquo;Well, this is very "
+"nice, but it's incompatible.  It will be too much work to switch.  We can't "
+"afford that much trouble just to use your system instead of Unix, so we'll "
+"stay with Unix,&rdquo; they would have said."
+msgstr ""
+"Il fallait évidemment décider quelle sorte de système d'exploitation ce "
+"serait, faire quelques choix techniques. J'ai décidé de rendre le système "
+"compatible avec Unix pour plusieurs raisons. La principale, c'est que je "
+"venais de voir un système que j'adorais devenir obsolète parce qu'il était 
"
+"écrit pour un type particulier d'ordinateur et je ne voulais pas que cela se 
"
+"reproduise. Nous avions besoin d'un système portable. Si je suivais le "
+"schéma d'Unix, j'avais toute chance de faire un système portable et "
+"utilisable. Mieux, [les deux systèmes devaient être] compatibles dans les "
+"moindres détails. Les utilisateurs détestent en effet les changements "
+"incompatibles. Si j'avais conçu le système de la façon que je préfère 
– ce "
+"que j'aurais adoré, j'en suis sûr – j'aurais produit quelque chose "
+"d'incompatible. Les détails auraient été différents. Donc, si j'avais 
conçu "
+"le système ainsi les gens m'auraient dit : « Bon, c'est très joli mais 
c'est "
+"incompatible. Ça nous demandera trop de travail de changer. Nous ne pouvons "
+"nous permettre tant d'efforts pour utiliser votre système à la place 
d'Unix, "
+"alors nous garderons Unix. » Voilà ce qu'ils auraient dit."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, if I wanted to actually create a community where there would be people "
+"in it, people using this free system, and enjoying the benefits of liberty "
+"and cooperation, I had to make a system people would use, a system that they "
+"would find easy to switch to, that would not have an obstacle making it fail "
+"at the very beginning.  Now, making the system upward compatible with Unix "
+"actually made all the immediate design decisions, because Unix consists of "
+"many pieces, and they communicate through interfaces that are more or less "
+"documented.  So if you want to be compatible with Unix, you have to replace "
+"each piece, one by one, with a compatible piece.  So the remaining design "
+"decisions are inside one piece, and they could be made later by whoever "
+"decides to write that piece.  They didn't have to be made at the outset."
+msgstr ""
+"Si je voulais créer une communauté où il y aurait des gens, des gens "
+"utilisant ce nouveau système et bénéficiant de la liberté et de la "
+"coopération, je devais faire un système que les gens utiliseraient, qu'ils "
+"trouveraient facile à adopter, qui ne serait pas en échec dès le départ. "
+"Rendre ce système rétrocompatible avec Unix revenait en fait à prendre les 
"
+"premières décisions concernant la conception du projet, parce qu'Unix "
+"consiste en de nombreux morceaux et qu'ils communiquent à travers des "
+"interfaces plus ou moins documentées. Alors si vous voulez être compatible "
+"avec Unix, il vous faut remplacer chaque morceau, l'un après l'autre, par un 
"
+"morceau compatible. Les décisions concernant la suite sont contenues dans "
+"chacun des morceaux. Elles peuvent donc être prises plus tard par quiconque "
+"décidera de l'écrire. Elles n'ont pas à être prises dès le départ."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So all we had to do to start work was find a name for the system.  Now, we "
+"hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program, because "
+"thinking of people being amused by the name is half the fun of writing the "
+"program.  <i>[Laughter]</i> And we had a tradition of recursive acronyms, to "
+"say that the program that you're writing is similar to some existing "
+"program. You can give it a recursive acronym name which says: this one's not "
+"the other.  So, for instance, there were many Tico text editors in the '60's "
+"and '70's, and they were generally called something-or-other Tico.  Then one "
+"clever hacker called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico &mdash; the first "
+"recursive acronym.  In 1975, I developed the first Emacs text editor, and "
+"there were many imitations of Emacs, and a lot of them were called something-"
+"or-other Emacs, but one was called Fine, for Fine Is Not Emacs, and there "
+"was Sine, for Sine Is Not Emacs, and Eine for Ina Is Not Emacs, and MINCE "
+"for Mince Is Not Complete Emacs.  <i>[Laughter]</i> That was a stripped down "
+"imitation.  And then, Eine was almost completely rewritten, and the new "
+"version was called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially.  <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Tout ce que nous avions à faire pour commencer le travail était de trouver "
+"un nom pour le système. Nous, les hackers, cherchons toujours des noms "
+"drôles ou méchants pour un programme, parce que penser aux gens qui "
+"s'amusent du nom, c'est la moitié du plaisir de l'écriture <i>[rires].</i> "
+"Nous avions aussi une tradition d'acronymes récursifs consistant à dire que 
"
+"le programme créé est similaire à un programme existant. On peut lui 
donner "
+"un nom récursif disant que celui-ci n'est pas celui-là. Par exemple, il y "
+"avait beaucoup d'éditeurs de texte <acronym title=\"Text Editor and 
COrrector"
+"\">TECO</acronym> dans les années 60 et 70 et ils étaient généralement "
+"appelés « quelque-chose-TECO ». À cette époque, un hacker malin appela 
le "
+"sien TINT, pour <cite>Tint Is Not Teco</cite>, le premier acronyme récursif. 
"
+"En 1975, j'ai développé le premier éditeur de texte Emacs et il y eut de "
+"nombreuses imitations. Beaucoup s'appelaient quelque-chose-Emacs, mais l'une "
+"d'elles était nommée FINE<a id=\"TransNote2-rev\" href="
+"\"#TransNote2\"><sup>2</sup></a> pour <cite>Fine is not Emacs</cite>. Puis "
+"il y eut SINE pour <cite>Sine is not Emacs</cite>, et EINE pour <cite>Eine "
+"Is Not Emacs</cite>, et il eut MINCE pour <cite>Mince Is Not Complete Emacs</"
+"cite> <i>[rires]</i>, c'était une imitation incomplète. Ensuite EINE fut "
+"complètement réécrit et la nouvelle version s'appela ZWEI pour <cite>Zwei "
+"Was Eine Initially</cite><a id=\"TransNote3-rev\" href="
+"\"#TransNote3\"><sup>3</sup></a> <i>[rires]</i>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So I looked for a recursive acronym for Something is not Unix.  And I tried "
+"all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word.  <i>[Laughter]</"
+"i> Hmm, try another way.  I made a contraction.  That way I could have a "
+"three-letter acronym, for Something's not Unix.  And I tried letters, and I "
+"came across the word &ldquo;GNU&rdquo; &mdash; the word &ldquo;GNU&rdquo; is "
+"the funniest word in the English language.  <i>[Laughter]</i> That was it.  "
+"Of course, the reason it's funny is that according to the dictionary, it's "
+"pronounced &ldquo;new&rdquo;.  You see? And so that's why people use it for "
+"a lot of wordplay.  Let me tell you, this is the name of an animal that "
+"lives in Africa.  And the African pronunciation had a click sound in it.  <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i> Maybe still does.  And so, the European colonists, when they "
+"got there, they didn't bother learning to say this click sound.  So they "
+"just left it out, and they wrote a &ldquo;G&rdquo; which meant &ldquo;"
+"there's another sound that's supposed to be here which we are not "
+"pronouncing.&rdquo; <i>[Laughter]</i> So, tonight I'm leaving for South "
+"Africa, and I have begged them, I hope they're going to find somebody who "
+"can teach me to pronounce click sounds, <i>[Laughter]</i> so that I'll know "
+"how to pronounce GNU the correct way, when it's the animal."
+msgstr ""
+"J'ai donc cherché un acronyme récursif pour <cite>Something is not Unix</"
+"cite> (quelque chose n'est pas Unix). J'ai essayé les 26 lettres mais aucune 
"
+"ne donnait un mot <i>[rires]</i>. Hum, essayons autre chose. J'ai fait une "
+"contraction. De cette façon, je pouvais avoir un acronyme de trois lettres "
+"pour <cite>Something's Not Unix</cite>. J'ai essayé des lettres et suis "
+"arrivé au mot <cite>GNU</cite> (gnou). C'est le plus drôle de la langue "
+"anglaise <i>[rires]</i>. C'était ça ! Bien sûr, la raison de cette 
drôlerie "
+"vient du fait que, selon le dictionnaire, il doit se prononcer <cite>new</"
+"cite>.<a id=\"TransNote4-rev\" href=\"#TransNote4\"><sup>4</sup></a> Vous "
+"voyez ? C'est pourquoi les gens l'utilisent pour de nombreux jeux de mots. "
+"Laissez-moi vous dire que c'est le nom d'un animal d'Afrique. Et la "
+"prononciation africaine a un clic à l'intérieur <i>[rires]</i>. Les "
+"colonisateurs européens, quand ils arrivèrent là-bas, n'ont pas pris la "
+"peine d'apprendre à prononcer le clic. Alors ils l'ont laissé de côté et 
ont "
+"mis un <em>g</em> qui signifiait : « Il y a un autre son qui est censé 
être "
+"là mais que nous ne prononçons pas. » <i>[rires]</i> Ce soir, je pars 
pour "
+"l'Afrique du Sud et je leur ai demandé de me trouver quelqu'un qui puisse "
+"m'apprendre à prononcer les clics <i>[rires]</i>. Ainsi je saurai prononcer "
+"correctement <cite>GNU</cite> quand il s'agit de l'animal."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is &ldquo;"
+"guh-NEW&rdquo; &mdash; pronounce the hard &ldquo;G&rdquo;.  If you talk "
+"about the &ldquo;new&rdquo; operating system, you'll get people very "
+"confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years now, so it is not "
+"new any more.  <i>[Laughter]</i> But it still is, and always will be, GNU "
+"&mdash; no matter how many people call it Linux by mistake.  <i>[Laughter]</"
+"i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Mais en ce qui concerne le nom de notre système la prononciation correcte "
+"est Gueu-nou, prononcez le <em>g</em> dur. Si vous parlez du <cite>new "
+"operating system</cite><a id=\"TransNote5-rev\" href=\"#TransNote5\"><sup>5</"
+"sup></a>, vous embrouillez l'esprit des gens, parce que cela fait 17 ans que 
"
+"nous travaillons dessus et qu'il n'est plus du tout <cite>new</cite> ! Mais "
+"il est toujours et sera toujours GNU ; peu importe le nombre de gens qui "
+"l'appellent Linux par erreur <i>[rires]</i>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces of GNU.  "
+"They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities though.  And, at "
+"the time, I thought we would write all these pieces, and make an entire GNU "
+"system, and then we'd say, &ldquo;Come and get it&rdquo;, and people would "
+"start to use it.  That's not what happened.  The first pieces I wrote were "
+"just equally good replacements, with fewer bugs for some pieces of Unix, but "
+"they weren't tremendously exciting.  Nobody particularly wanted to get them "
+"and install them.  But then, in September 1984, I started writing GNU Emacs, "
+"which was my second implementation of Emacs, and by early 1985, it was "
+"working.  I could use it for all my editing, which was a big relief, because "
+"I had no intention of learning to use VI, the Unix editor. <i>[Laughter]</i> "
+"So, until that time, I did my editing on some other machine, and saved the "
+"files through the network, so that I could test them.  But when GNU Emacs "
+"was running well enough for me to use it, it was also &mdash; other people "
+"wanted to use it too."
+msgstr ""
+"Ainsi en janvier 84, je quitte mon job au MIT pour commencer à écrire des "
+"morceaux de GNU. Tout de même, ils ont été assez sympa pour me laisser "
+"utiliser leurs installations. À cette époque, je croyais que j'écrirais 
tous "
+"les morceaux du système GNU complet, que je dirais « Venez vous servir ! 
» "
+"et que les gens commenceraient à l'utiliser. Ce n'est pas comme ça que ça "
+"s'est passé. Les premiers morceaux que j'ai écrits étaient tout aussi bons 
"
+"que les originaux, avec moins de bogues, mais ils n'étaient pas terriblement 
"
+"excitants. Personne ne souhaitait particulièrement se les procurer pour les "
+"installer. Mais en septembre 84, j'ai commencé à écrire GNU Emacs, qui 
était "
+"ma seconde implémentation d'Emacs, et début 85 il fonctionnait. Je pouvais 
"
+"l'utiliser pour mon travail d'édition, ce qui était un soulagement car je "
+"n'avais aucune intention d'utiliser VI, l'éditeur d'Unix <i>[rires]</i>. "
+"Avant cela, je faisais ce travail sur une autre machine et je sauvegardais "
+"les fichiers sur le réseau pour pouvoir les tester. Mais quand GNU Emacs a "
+"fonctionné assez bien pour que je puisse l'utiliser, d'autres personnes ont "
+"voulu l'utiliser également."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So I had to work out the details of distribution.  Of course, I put a copy "
+"in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people who were on the "
+"net They could then just pull over a tar file, but a lot of programmers then "
+"even were not on the net in 1985.  They were sending me emails saying &ldquo;"
+"How can I get a copy?&rdquo; I had to decide what I would answer them.  "
+"Well, I could have said, I want to spend my time writing more GNU software, "
+"not writing tapes, so please find a friend who's on the internet and who is "
+"willing to download it and put it on a tape for you.  And I'm sure people "
+"would have found some friends, sooner or later, you know.  They would have "
+"got copies.  But I had no job.  In fact, I've never had a job since quitting "
+"MIT in January 1984.  So, I was looking for some way I could make money "
+"through my work on free software, and therefore I started a free software "
+"business.  I announced, &ldquo;Send me $150 dollars, and I'll mail you a "
+"tape of Emacs.&rdquo; And the orders began dribbling in.  By the middle of "
+"the year they were trickling in."
+msgstr ""
+"J'ai dû travailler les détails de la distribution. Naturellement, j'ai mis "
+"une copie sur le FTP anonyme et c'était bien pour les gens qui étaient sur "
+"le net (ils pouvaient télécharger un fichier tar) mais beaucoup de "
+"programmeurs n'étaient pas sur le net en 85. Ils m'envoyaient des "
+"courriels : « Puis-je en avoir une copie ? » Je devais décider quoi 
leur "
+"répondre. J'aurais pu dire : « Je veux passer mon temps à écrire 
d'autres "
+"logiciels GNU plutôt qu'à enregistrer des bandes ; trouvez-vous un ami 
avec "
+"un accès au net qui vous le téléchargera et vous l'enregistrera sur 
bande. » "
+"Et je suis sûr que les gens auraient trouvé ces amis tôt ou tard, vous "
+"savez. Ils auraient eu des copies. Mais, je n'avais pas de travail. En fait, "
+"je n'ai eu aucune profession depuis mon départ du MIT en 84. Je cherchais "
+"une façon de gagner de l'argent par mon travail sur le logiciel libre et "
+"donc j'ai fondé une entreprise de logiciel libre. J'ai annoncé : « 
Envoyez-"
+"moi 150 dollars et je vous posterai une bande d'Emacs. » Les commandes ont 
"
+"commencé à tomber et vers le milieu de l'année il en pleuvait 
régulièrement."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month.  And, if necessary, I could have lived "
+"on just that, because I've always lived cheaply. I live like a student, "
+"basically.  And I like that, because it means that money is not telling me "
+"what to do.  I can do what I think is important for me to do.  It freed me "
+"to do what seemed worth doing.  So make a real effort to avoid getting "
+"sucked into all the expensive lifestyle habits of typical Americans.  "
+"Because if you do that, then people with the money will dictate what you do "
+"with your life.  You won't be able to do what's really important to you."
+msgstr ""
+"Je recevais 8 à 10 commandes par mois. J'aurais pu au besoin en vivre, parce 
"
+"que j'ai toujours vécu simplement. En gros, je vis comme un étudiant. Et "
+"j'aime ça car cela signifie que l'argent ne me dicte pas ce que je dois "
+"faire ; je peux faire ce qui me paraît important. Cela m'a libéré pour 
faire "
+"ce qui semble en valoir la peine. Alors faites un effort pour éviter d'être 
"
+"englués dans les habitudes dispendieuses de l'<cite>American way of life</"
+"cite>, parce qu'autrement ceux qui possèdent l'argent vous dicteront quoi "
+"faire de votre vie et vous ne pourrez pas faire ce qui est réellement "
+"important pour vous."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, &ldquo;What do you mean it's "
+"free software if it costs $150 dollars?&rdquo; <i>[Laughter]</i> Well, the "
+"reason they asked this was that they were confused by the multiple meanings "
+"of the English word &ldquo;free&rdquo;.  One meaning refers to price, and "
+"another meaning refers to freedom.  When I speak of free software, I'm "
+"referring to freedom, not price.  So think of free speech, not free beer.  "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many years of my life to "
+"making sure programmers got less money.  That's not my goal.  I'm a "
+"programmer and I don't mind getting money myself.  I won't dedicate my whole "
+"life to getting it, but I don't mind getting it.  And I'm not &mdash; and "
+"therefore, ethics is the same for everyone.  I'm not against some other "
+"programmer getting money either.  I don't want prices to be low.  That's not "
+"the issue at all.  The issue is freedom.  Freedom for everyone who's using "
+"software, whether that person be a programmer or not."
+msgstr ""
+"Tout allait bien, mais les gens me disaient : « Qu'entendez vous par "
+"<cite>free software</cite> si cela coûte 150 dollars ? » <i>[rires]</i> 
La "
+"raison de cette question était la confusion induite par l'ambiguïté du mot 
"
+"anglais <cite>free</cite>. Une des significations se réfère au prix et une "
+"autre se réfère à la liberté. Quand je parle de logiciel libre, je me 
réfère "
+"à la liberté et non au prix. Pensez à « libre expression » <cite>[free 
"
+"speech]</cite>, pas à « bière gratuite » <cite>[free beer]</cite><a id="
+"\"TransNote6-rev\" href=\"#TransNote6\"><sup>6</sup></a> <i>[rires]</i>. En "
+"tout cas je n'aurais pas passé autant d'années de ma vie pour faire gagner "
+"moins d'argent aux programmeurs. Ce n'est pas mon but. Je suis moi-même "
+"programmeur et je ne m'offusque pas de gagner de l'argent. Je ne passerais "
+"pas ma vie à en gagner mais je ne refuse pas d'en gagner. Et je ne suis pas 
–"
+" l'éthique est la même pour tous – je ne suis pas contre le fait qu'un 
autre "
+"programmeur en gagne. Je ne veux pas faire baisser les prix, ce n'est pas du "
+"tout le problème. L'enjeu, c'est la liberté, la liberté de chaque personne 
"
+"qui utilise un logiciel, qu'elle sache programmer ou non."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So at this point I should give you the definition of free software.  I "
+"better get to some real details, you see, because just saying &ldquo;I "
+"believe in freedom&rdquo; is vacuous.  There's so many different freedoms "
+"you could believe in, and they conflict with each other, so the real "
+"political question is: Which are the important freedoms, the freedoms that "
+"we must make sure everybody has?"
+msgstr ""
+"À ce stade je dois vous donner une définition de ce qu'est le logiciel "
+"libre. Je préfère aller au concret car dire simplement « Je crois en la "
+"liberté » est vide de sens. Il y a tant de libertés différentes en "
+"lesquelles croire, et qui sont en conflit l'une avec l'autre, que la vraie "
+"question politique est : « Quelles sont les libertés importantes, celles "
+"dont on doit s'assurer que tout le monde les possède ? »"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And now, I will give my answer to that question for the particular area of "
+"using software.  A program is free software for you, a particular user, if "
+"you have the following freedoms:"
+msgstr ""
+"Maintenant je vais vous donner ma réponse dans ce domaine particulier qu'est 
"
+"l'usage du logiciel.  Un programme est libre pour vous, utilisateur "
+"particulier, si vous bénéficiez des libertés suivantes :"
+
+#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
+msgid ""
+"First, Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the program for any purpose, any "
+"way you like."
+msgstr ""
+"d'abord, la liberté 0 : la liberté d'utiliser un logiciel pour n'importe "
+"quel usage, à votre convenance ;"
+
+#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the program to suit "
+"your needs."
+msgstr ""
+"la liberté 1 : la liberté de vous aider vous-même en modifiant le 
programme "
+"pour répondre à vos besoins ;"
+
+#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing copies of "
+"the program."
+msgstr ""
+"la liberté 2 : celle d'aider votre prochain en distribuant des copies du "
+"programme ;"
+
+#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
+msgid ""
+"And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by publishing "
+"an improved version so others can get the benefit of your work."
+msgstr ""
+"et la liberté 3 : celle d'aider à bâtir votre communauté en publiant 
une "
+"version améliorée pour que les autres puissent bénéficier de votre 
travail."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software, for you "
+"&mdash; and that's crucial.  That's why I phrase it that way.  I'll explain "
+"why later, when I talk about the GNU General Public License, but right now "
+"I'm explaining what free software means, which is a more basic question."
+msgstr ""
+"Si vous avez toutes ces libertés, le programme est un logiciel libre&hellip; 
"
+"<em>pour vous</em>, et c'est crucial, c'est pourquoi je le formule de cette "
+"façon. J'expliquerai pourquoi plus tard quand je parlerai de la licence "
+"publique générale GNU, mais pour le moment j'en suis à une question plus "
+"basique, la définition du logiciel libre."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, Freedom Zero's pretty obvious.  If you're not even allowed to run the "
+"program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive program.  But as it "
+"happens, most programs will at least give you Freedom Zero.  And Freedom "
+"Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of Freedoms One, Two, and Three "
+"&mdash; that's the way that copyright law works.  So the freedoms that "
+"distinguish free software from typical software are Freedoms One, Two, and "
+"Three, so I'll say more about them and why they are important."
+msgstr ""
+"La liberté 0 est assez évidente. Si vous n'êtes même pas autorisé à 
faire "
+"fonctionner le programme comme vous le souhaitez, c'est un programme "
+"sacrément restrictif ! La plupart des programmes vous donnent la liberté 
0 "
+"et la liberté 0 découle, juridiquement, des libertés 1, 2 et 3 ; c'est 
de "
+"cette façon que fonctionne le droit du copyright. Ainsi les libertés qui "
+"distinguent le logiciel libre du logiciel ordinaire sont les libertés 1, 2 "
+"et 3 ; je vais donc en parler plus en détail et je dirai en quoi elles 
sont "
+"importantes."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the software to suit "
+"your needs.  This could mean fixing bugs.  It could mean adding new "
+"features.  It could mean porting it to a different computer system.  It "
+"could mean translating all the error messages into Navajo.  Any change you "
+"want to make, you should be free to make."
+msgstr ""
+"La liberté 1 est celle de modifier le logiciel pour l'adapter à vos 
besoins. "
+"Cela peut signifier corriger des bogues. Cela peut signifier ajouter de "
+"nouvelles fonctionnalités. Cela peut signifier porter le logiciel sur un "
+"autre système informatique. Cela peut signifier traduire tous les messages "
+"d'erreur en navajo. Vous devez pouvoir apporter toutes les modifications que "
+"vous voulez, librement."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, it's obvious that professional programmers can make use of this freedom "
+"very effectively, but not just them.  Anybody of reasonable intelligence can "
+"learn a little programming.  You know, there are hard jobs, and there are "
+"easy jobs, and most people are not going to learn enough to do hard jobs.  "
+"But lots of people can learn enough to do easy jobs, just the way, you know, "
+"50 years ago, lots and lots of American men learned to repair cars, which is "
+"what enabled the U.S. to have a motorized army in World War II and win.  So, "
+"very important, having lots of people tinkering."
+msgstr ""
+"Il est évident que les programmeurs professionnels peuvent utiliser cette "
+"liberté de façon très effective, mais ils ne sont pas les seuls. N'importe 
"
+"quelle personne d'intelligence normale peut apprendre un peu de "
+"programmation. Vous savez, il y a des travaux difficiles et des travaux "
+"faciles. Tout le monde n'apprend pas suffisamment pour faire les travaux "
+"difficiles, mais beaucoup peuvent apprendre assez pour faire des travaux "
+"faciles, de la même façon qu'il y a 50 ans, beaucoup, vraiment beaucoup "
+"d'Américains apprenaient à réparer une voiture, ce qui a permis aux 
États-"
+"Unis d'avoir une armée motorisée pendant la seconde guerre mondiale et de "
+"gagner. Alors, chose très importante, avoir beaucoup de bricoleurs."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And if you are a people person, and you really don't want to learn "
+"technology at all, that probably means that you have a lot of friends, and "
+"you're good at getting them to owe you favors.  <i>[Laughter]</i> Some of "
+"them are probably programmers.  So you can ask one of your programmer "
+"friends. &ldquo;Would you please change this for me? Add this feature?"
+"&rdquo; So, lots of people can benefit from it."
+msgstr ""
+"Et si vous refusez d'apprendre la technologie, cela veut dire que vous avez "
+"probablement beaucoup d'amis et que vous êtes doué dans l'art de les 
obliger "
+"à vous rendre service <i>[rires]</i>. Certains d'entre eux sont probablement 
"
+"informaticiens. Alors vous pouvez demander à l'un de vos amis "
+"informaticiens : « Pourrais-tu changer ceci pour moi ? Ajouter cette "
+"fonction ? » Beaucoup de gens peuvent donc bénéficier de la liberté 1."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, if you don't have this freedom, it causes practical, material harm to "
+"society.  It makes you a prisoner of your software.  I explained what that "
+"was like with regard to the laser printer.  You know, it worked badly for "
+"us, and we couldn't fix it, because we were prisoners of our software."
+msgstr ""
+"Si vous n'avez pas cette liberté, cela cause un préjudice pratique, 
matériel "
+"à la société ; cela fait de vous un prisonnier de votre logiciel. J'ai "
+"expliqué comment c'était dans le cas de l'imprimante laser. Vous savez, 
elle "
+"marchait mal et nous ne pouvions la réparer parce que nous étions "
+"prisonniers de notre logiciel."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But it also affects people's morale.  You know if the computer is constantly "
+"frustrating to use, and people are using it, their lives are going to be "
+"frustrating, and if they're using it in their jobs, their jobs are going to "
+"be frustrating; they're going to hate their jobs.  And you know, people "
+"protect themselves from frustration by deciding not to care.  So you end up "
+"with people whose attitude is, &ldquo;Well, I showed up for work today.  "
+"That's all I have to do.  If I can't make progress, that's not my problem; "
+"that's the boss's problem.&rdquo; And when this happens, it's bad for those "
+"people, and it's bad for society as a whole.  That's Freedom One, the "
+"freedom to help yourself."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais cela affecte aussi le moral des gens. Si l'ordinateur est constamment "
+"frustrant et qu'ils l'utilisent, leur vies vont devenir frustrantes. Et "
+"s'ils l'utilisent dans leur métier, leur métier va devenir frustrant ; ils 
"
+"vont détester leur métier. Vous savez, les gens se protègent de la "
+"frustration en décidant de s'en moquer. Ils en arrivent à dire : « Bon, 
j'ai "
+"fait acte de présence au boulot, c'est tout ce que j'ai à faire. Si je ne "
+"peux pas progresser ce n'est pas mon affaire, c'est l'affaire du patron. » "
+"Et quand ça arrive, c'est mauvais pour eux et c'est mauvais pour la 
société "
+"toute entière. C'est la liberté 1, la liberté de s'aider soi-même."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing copies of "
+"the program.  Now, for beings that can think and learn, sharing useful "
+"knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship.  When these beings use "
+"computers, this act of friendship takes the form of sharing software.  "
+"Friends share with each other.  Friends help each other.  This is the nature "
+"of friendship.  And, in fact, this spirit of goodwill &mdash; the spirit of "
+"helping your neighbor, voluntarily &mdash; is society's most important "
+"resource.  It makes the difference between a livable society and a dog-eat-"
+"dog jungle.  Its importance has been recognized by the world's major "
+"religions for thousands of years, and they explicitly try to encourage this "
+"attitude."
+msgstr ""
+"La liberté 2 est celle d'aider votre prochain en distribuant des copies du "
+"programme. Pour des êtres qui pensent et qui s'instruisent, partager un "
+"savoir utile est un acte fondamental d'amitié. Quand ces êtres utilisent 
des "
+"ordinateurs, cet acte d'amitié prend la forme d'un partage de logiciel. Les "
+"amis partagent entre eux, les amis s'aident mutuellement. C'est la nature de "
+"l'amitié. Et de fait, l'esprit d'entraide – la disposition à vouloir 
aider "
+"son prochain volontairement – est la ressource la plus importante de la "
+"société. Elle fait la différence entre une société vivable et une jungle 
où "
+"chacun s'entredévore. Cette importance a été reconnue par les grandes "
+"religions du monde depuis des milliers d'années et elles essaient "
+"explicitement d'encourager cette attitude."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach us this "
+"attitude &mdash; the spirit of sharing &mdash; by having us do it.  They "
+"figured if we did it, we'd learn.  So they said, &ldquo;If you bring candy "
+"to school, you can't keep it all for yourself; you have to share some with "
+"the other kids.&rdquo; Teaching us, the society was set up to teach, this "
+"spirit of cooperation.  And why do you have to do that? Because people are "
+"not totally cooperative.  That's one part of human nature, and there are "
+"other parts of human nature.  There are lots of parts of human nature.  So, "
+"if you want a better society, you've got to work to encourage the spirit of "
+"sharing.  You know, it'll never get to be 100%.  That's understandable.  "
+"People have to take care of themselves too.  But if we make it somewhat "
+"bigger, we're all better off."
+msgstr ""
+"Quand j'allais à la maternelle, les institutrices essayaient de nous "
+"apprendre cette attitude, l'esprit de partage, en nous la faisant pratiquer. "
+"Elles pensaient qu'on apprend en faisant. Alors elles disaient : « Si tu "
+"apportes des bonbons à l'école, tu ne peux pas tout garder pour toi, tu 
dois "
+"les partager avec les autres enfants. » En nous éduquant, la société a 
fait "
+"en sorte de nous apprendre cet esprit de coopération. Et pourquoi faut-il "
+"faire cela ? Parce que les gens ne sont pas totalement coopératifs. C'est 
un "
+"aspect de la nature humaine mais il y en a d'autres. Il y en a beaucoup. "
+"Alors, si vous voulez une société meilleure, vous devez travailler à "
+"encourager l'esprit de partage. Vous savez, ce ne sera jamais à 100%. Ça se 
"
+"comprend, les gens doivent aussi prendre soin d'eux-mêmes. Mais si nous le "
+"rendons plus fort, nous nous en porterons tous mieux."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Nowadays, according to the U.S. Government, teachers are supposed to do the "
+"exact opposite.  &ldquo;Oh, Johnny, you brought software to school.  Well, "
+"don't share it.  Oh no.  Sharing is wrong.  Sharing means you're a pirate."
+"&rdquo;"
+msgstr ""
+"De nos jours, selon le gouvernement des États-Unis, les enseignants sont "
+"censés faire exactement le contraire. « Oh Johnny, tu as apporté un "
+"programme à l'école ! Eh bien, ne le partage pas. Oh non ! Le partage 
c'est "
+"mal ; le partage, ça veut dire que tu es un pirate. »"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"What do they mean when they say &ldquo;pirate&rdquo;? They're saying that "
+"helping your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship.  <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Qu'entendent-ils par le mot « pirate » ? Qu'aider son voisin est "
+"l'équivalent moral d'une attaque de bateau <i>[rires]</i>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"What would Buddha or Jesus say about that? Now, take your favorite religious "
+"leader.  I don't know, maybe Manson would have said something different.  <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i> Who knows what L. Ron Hubbard would say? But &hellip;"
+msgstr ""
+"Que diraient Jésus et Bouddha à ce sujet ? Prenez vos chefs religieux "
+"favoris. Je ne sais pas, peut-être Manson aurait dit quelque chose de "
+"différent <i>[rires]</i>. Qui sait ce que L. Ron Hubbard aurait dit, "
+"mais&hellip;"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i>"
+msgstr "<strong>QUESTION</strong> : <i>[inaudible]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Of course, he's dead.  But they don't admit "
+"that.  What?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Bien sûr, il est mort. Mais il ne l'admettent "
+"pas. Quoi ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: So are the others, also dead.  <i>[Laughter] "
+"[Inaudible]</i> Charles Manson's also dead.  <i>[Laughter]</i> They're dead, "
+"Jesus's dead, Buddha's dead&hellip;"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Les autres aussi sont morts.. <i>[rires]</i>. "
+"Charles Manson aussi est mort <i>[rires]</i>. Ils sont morts, Jésus est "
+"mort, Bouddha est mort&hellip;"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, that's true.  <i>[Laughter]</i> So I guess, "
+"in that regard, L. Ron Hubbard is no worse than the others.  <i>[Laughter]</"
+"i> Anyway &mdash; <i>[Inaudible]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Oui, c'est vrai <i>[rires]</i>. De ce point de "
+"vue Ron Hubbard n'est pas pire que les autres <i>[rires]</i>. De toute "
+"façon&hellip; <i>[inaudible]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: L. Ron always used free software &mdash; it freed "
+"him from Zanu.  <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : L. Ron utilisait du logiciel libre ; ça l'a "
+"libéré de Zanu <i>[rires]</i>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Anyway, so, I think this is actually the most "
+"important reason why software should be free: We can't afford to pollute "
+"society's most important resource.  It's true that it's not a physical "
+"resource like clean air and clean water.  It's a psycho-social resource, but "
+"it's just as real for all that, and it makes a tremendous difference to our "
+"lives.  You see, the actions we take influence the thoughts of other "
+"people.  When we go around telling people, &ldquo;Don't share with each "
+"other&rdquo;, if they listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's "
+"not a good one.  That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Bon, quoi qu'il en soit, je pense que c'est "
+"vraiment la raison la plus importante pour laquelle les logiciels doivent "
+"être libres. Nous ne pouvons nous permettre de polluer la ressource la plus "
+"importante de la société. C'est vrai que ce n'est pas une ressource 
physique "
+"comme l'air propre et l'eau propre. C'est une ressource psychosociale, mais "
+"c'est tout aussi réel et cela fait une formidable différence pour nos vies. 
 "
+"Les actions que nous menons influencent les pensées des autres. Quand nous "
+"clamons alentour « Ne partagez pas avec les autres ! », s'ils nous 
entendent "
+"nous avons eu un effet sur la société, et pas un bon effet.  C'est la "
+"liberté 2, celle d'aider son voisin."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just cause "
+"this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes waste &mdash; "
+"practical, material harm.  If the program has an owner, and the owner "
+"arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay in order to be able "
+"to use it, some people are going to say, &ldquo;Never mind, I'll do without "
+"it.&rdquo; And that's waste, deliberately inflicted waste.  And the "
+"interesting thing about software, of course, is that fewer users doesn't "
+"mean you have to make less stuff.  You know, if fewer people buy cars, you "
+"can make fewer cars.  There's a saving there.  There are resources to be "
+"allocated, or not allocated, into making cars.  So that you can say that "
+"having a price on a car is a good thing.  It prevents people from diverting "
+"lots of wasted resources into making cars that aren't really needed.  But if "
+"each additional car used no resources, it wouldn't be doing any good saving "
+"the making of these cars.  Well, for physical objects, of course, like cars, "
+"it is always going to take resources to make an additional one of them, each "
+"additional exemplar."
+msgstr ""
+"Oh, j'oubliais, si vous n'avez pas cette liberté, cela ne cause pas "
+"seulement un préjudice à cette ressource psychosociale, c'est du gâchis 
– un "
+"préjudice pratique, matériel. Si le programme a un propriétaire et que le "
+"propriétaire s'arrange pour que chaque utilisateur doive payer pour s'en "
+"servir, certaines personnes diront : « Pas d'importance, je m'en 
passerai. » "
+"Et c'est du gâchis, du gâchis délibéré. Ce qui est intéressant avec les 
"
+"logiciels c'est que ce n'est pas parce que vous avez moins d'utilisateurs "
+"que vous devez en produire moins. Si moins de gens achètent des voitures, "
+"vous fabriquerez moins de voitures. Là il y a une économie. Il y a des "
+"ressources à allouer ou non à la fabrication des voitures. Aussi vous 
pouvez "
+"dire qu'avoir un prix pour une voiture est une bonne chose. Cela évite que "
+"les gens ne gaspillent leurs ressources dans l'achat de voitures dont ils "
+"n'ont pas vraiment besoin. Mais si fabriquer une voiture supplémentaire "
+"n'utilisait aucune ressource, on n'aurait aucun intérêt à économiser sur 
la "
+"fabrication des voitures. Ainsi, pour les objets physiques, comme les "
+"voitures, il faudra toujours des ressources pour en faire un de plus – 
pour "
+"chaque exemplaire supplémentaire."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But for software that's not true.  Anybody can make another copy.  And it's "
+"almost trivial to do it.  It takes no resources, except a tiny bit of "
+"electricity.  So there's nothing we can save, no resource we're going to "
+"allocate better by putting this financial disincentive on the use of the "
+"software.  You often find people taking economic, the consequences of "
+"economic reasoning, based on premises that don't apply to software, and "
+"trying to transplant them from other areas of life where the premises may "
+"apply, and the conclusions may be valid.  They just take the conclusions and "
+"assume that they're valid for software too, when the argument is based on "
+"nothing, in the case of software.  The premises don't work in that case.  It "
+"is very important to examine how you reach the conclusion, and what premises "
+"it depends on, to see where it might be valid.  So, that's Freedom Two, the "
+"freedom to help your neighbor."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais pour les logiciels ce n'est pas vrai. N'importe qui peut en faire une "
+"copie, et c'est presque banal de le faire. Cela ne consomme aucune ressource "
+"sauf un tout petit peu d'électricité. Il n'y a rien à économiser ; 
aucune "
+"ressource ne serait mieux utilisée si nous appliquions cette désincitation "
+"financière à l'usage du logiciel. Vous trouvez souvent des gens qui 
prennent "
+"les conséquences d'un raisonnement économique valable pour les autres "
+"activités et prétendent les transposer au logiciel – où les prémisses 
de ce "
+"raisonnement ne s'appliquent pas – tout en supposant que les résultats "
+"resteront valables, bien que l'argument n'ait aucune base dans le domaine du "
+"logiciel. Les prémisses ne marchent pas dans ce cas-là. C'est très 
important "
+"de voir comment on arrive à une conclusion et de quelles prémisses elle "
+"dépend pour voir si elle est valide. Donc, liberté 2, la liberté d'aider 
son "
+"voisin."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by publishing an "
+"improved version of the software.  People used to say to me, &ldquo;If the "
+"software's free, then nobody will get paid to work on it, so why should "
+"anybody work on it?&rdquo; Well, of course, they were confusing the two "
+"meanings of free, so their reasoning was based on a misunderstanding.  But, "
+"in any case, that was their theory.  Today, we can compare that theory with "
+"empirical fact, and we find that hundreds of people are being paid to write "
+"free software, and over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers.  We get lots of "
+"people working on free software, for various different motives."
+msgstr ""
+"La liberté 3 est celle d'aider à bâtir votre communauté en publiant une "
+"version améliorée du logiciel. Au début les gens me disaient souvent : 
« Si "
+"le logiciel est gratuit, personne ne sera payé, alors pourquoi "
+"travailler ? » Naturellement, ils confondaient les deux significations de "
+"<cite>free</cite>, donc leur raisonnement était basé sur un malentendu. "
+"Aujourd'hui nous pouvons comparer cette théorie avec les faits empiriques et 
"
+"constater que des centaines de gens sont payés pour faire du logiciel libre "
+"et que plus de 100 000 le font bénévolement. Il y a plein de gens qui font 
"
+"des logiciels libres pour différentes raisons."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"When I first released GNU Emacs &mdash; the first piece of the GNU system "
+"that people actually wanted to use &mdash; and when it started having users, "
+"after a while, I got a message saying, &ldquo;I think I saw a bug in the "
+"source code, and here's a fix.&rdquo; And I got another message, &ldquo;"
+"Here's code to add a new feature.&rdquo; And another bug fix.  And another "
+"new feature.  And another, and another, and another, until they were pouring "
+"in on me so fast that just making use of all this help I was getting was a "
+"big job.  Microsoft doesn't have this problem.  <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Quand j'ai publié le premier GNU Emacs – le premier morceau de GNU que 
les "
+"gens ont réellement voulu utiliser – et qu'il a commencé à avoir des "
+"utilisateurs, après un certain temps j'ai eu un message disant : « Je 
pense "
+"que j'ai vu un bogue dans le code source et voici une solution. » Et j'ai 
eu "
+"un autre message : « Voici du code pour ajouter une nouvelle fonction. » 
Et "
+"une nouvelle correction, et une nouvelle fonction. Et une autre, et une "
+"autre, jusqu'à ce qu'elles se déversent sur moi si vite qu'utiliser toute "
+"cette aide devenait un gros travail. Microsoft n'a pas ce problème 
<i>[rires]"
+"</i>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Eventually, people noted this phenomenon.  You see, in the 1980's a lot of "
+"us thought that maybe free software wouldn't be as good as the non-free "
+"software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay people.  And, of "
+"course, people like me, who value freedom and community said, &ldquo;Well, "
+"we'll use the free software anyway.&rdquo; It's worth making a little "
+"sacrifice in some mere technical convenience to have freedom.  But what "
+"people began to note, around 1990 was that our software was actually "
+"better.  It was more powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary "
+"alternatives."
+msgstr ""
+"En fin de compte, des gens ont remarqué ce phénomène. Vous voyez, dans les 
"
+"années 80, beaucoup parmi nous pensaient que le logiciel libre ne serait "
+"peut-être pas aussi bon que le non libre parce que nous n'aurions pas assez "
+"d'argent pour payer des gens. Et bien sûr, les gens qui comme moi accordent "
+"de la valeur à la communauté et à la liberté ont dit : « Nous 
utiliserons "
+"des logiciels libres tout de même. » Cela vaut le coup de faire un petit "
+"sacrifice au niveau de la simple commodité technique pour avoir la liberté. 
"
+"Mais ce que les gens ont constaté vers 1990, c'est que nos logiciels 
étaient "
+"en fait meilleurs, qu'ils étaient plus puissants et plus fiables que les "
+"alternatives privatrices."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific measurement of "
+"reliability of software.  Here's what he did.  He took several sets of "
+"comparable programs that did the same jobs &mdash; the exact same jobs "
+"&mdash; in different systems.  Because there were certain basic Unix-like "
+"utilities.  And the jobs that they did, we know, was all, more or less, "
+"imitating the same thing, or they were following the POSIX spec, so they "
+"were all the same in terms of what jobs they did, but they were maintained "
+"by different people, written separately.  The code was different.  So they "
+"said, OK, we'll take these programs and run them with random data, and "
+"measure how often they crash, or hang.  So they measured it, and the most "
+"reliable set of programs was the GNU programs.  All the commercial "
+"alternatives which were proprietary software were less reliable.  So he "
+"published this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he did "
+"the same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same result.  "
+"The GNU versions were the most reliable.  People &mdash; you know there are "
+"cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system, because it's so "
+"reliable, and reliability is very important to them."
+msgstr ""
+"Au début des années 90 quelqu'un a trouvé un moyen de mesurer "
+"scientifiquement la fiabilité d'un logiciel. Voilà ce qu'il a fait. Il a "
+"pris plusieurs logiciels qui faisaient les mêmes tâches, exactement les "
+"mêmes tâches, sur différents systèmes. Parce qu'il y a certains 
utilitaires "
+"de base sur tous les systèmes Unix. Et les tâches qu'ils effectuent, nous 
le "
+"savons, se ressemblent beaucoup, ou bien elles suivent les spécifications "
+"POSIX. Les logiciels étaient donc tous les mêmes en termes de tâche "
+"effectuée, mais ils étaient écrits et maintenus par des gens différents, 
et "
+"développés séparément ; leur code était différent. Le chercheur a 
décidé "
+"d'introduire des données aléatoires dans ces programmes et de mesurer quand 
"
+"ils plantaient ou se bloquaient. Il a fait les mesures, et les programmes "
+"les plus fiables étaient les programmes GNU. Toutes les alternatives "
+"privatrices étaient moins fiables. Alors il a publié ça et l'a dit à tous 
"
+"les développeurs, et quelques années plus tard il a fait la même 
expérience "
+"avec les dernières versions et a obtenu le même résultat : les versions 
GNU "
+"étaient les plus fiables. Vous savez, il y a des cliniques pour le cancer et 
"
+"des services d'urgence <cite>[911]</cite> qui utilisent le système GNU parce 
"
+"qu'il est très fiable et que la fiabilité est très importante pour eux."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Anyway, there's even a group of people who focus on this particular benefit "
+"as the reason they give, the main reason they give, why users should be "
+"permitted to do these various things, and to have these freedoms.  If you've "
+"been listening to me, you've noticed, you've seen that I, speaking for the "
+"free software movement, I talk about issues of ethics, and what kind of a "
+"society we want to live in, what makes for a good society, as well as "
+"practical, material benefits.  They're both important.  That's the free "
+"software movement."
+msgstr ""
+"Quoi qu'il en soit, il y a même un groupe de gens qui se concentrent sur cet 
"
+"avantage particulier et en font la raison la plus importante pour que les "
+"utilisateurs puissent faire ces diverses choses et avoir ces libertés. Si "
+"vous m'avez écouté, vous aurez noté, vous aurez vu que lorsque je parle du 
"
+"mouvement du logiciel libre, je parle d'enjeux éthiques et du type de "
+"société où nous voulons vivre, de ce qui fait une bonne société, autant 
que "
+"des avantages matériels. Les deux sont importants. C'est cela le mouvement "
+"du logiciel libre."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"That other group of people &mdash; which is called the open source movement "
+"&mdash; they only cite the practical benefits.  They deny that this is an "
+"issue of principle.  They deny that people are entitled to the freedom to "
+"share with their neighbor and to see what the program's doing and change it "
+"if they don't like it.  They say, however, that it's a useful thing to let "
+"people do that.  So they go to companies and say to them, &ldquo;You know, "
+"you might make more money if you let people do this.&rdquo; So, what you can "
+"see is that to some extent, they lead people in a similar direction, but for "
+"totally different, for fundamentally different, philosophical reasons."
+msgstr ""
+"Cet autre groupe de gens, qui est appelé mouvement open source, ne parle que 
"
+"d'avantages pratiques. Ils refusent d'en faire une question de principe. Ils "
+"ne considèrent pas comme un droit que les gens aient la liberté de partager 
"
+"avec leur prochain, de voir ce que le programme fait et de le modifier s'il "
+"ne leur plaît pas. Ils disent cependant que c'est utile que les gens aient "
+"ces droits. Alors ils vont voir des entreprises et leur disent : « Vous "
+"savez, vous pourriez gagner plus d'argent si vous laissiez les gens faire "
+"tout ça. » Ainsi vous voyez que, jusqu'à un certain point, ils mènent 
les "
+"gens dans la même direction, mais pour des raisons philosophiques "
+"complètement, fondamentalement différentes."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Because on the deepest issue of all, you know, on the ethical question, the "
+"two movements disagree.  You know, in the free software movement we say, "
+"&ldquo;You're entitled to these freedoms.  People shouldn't stop you from "
+"doing these things.&rdquo; In the open source movement, they say, &ldquo;"
+"Yes, they can stop you if you want, but we'll try to convince them to deign "
+"to let you to do these things.&rdquo; Well, they have contributed &mdash; "
+"they have convinced a certain number of businesses to release substantial "
+"pieces of software as free software in our community.  So they, the open "
+"source movement, has contributed substantially to our community.  And so we "
+"work together on practical projects.  But, philosophically, there's a "
+"tremendous disagreement."
+msgstr ""
+"Parce que sur l'enjeu de fond, l'enjeu éthique, les deux mouvements ne sont "
+"pas d'accord. Dans le mouvement du logiciel libre on dit : « Vous avez 
droit "
+"à ces libertés ; personne ne doit vous empêcher de faire ces choses. » 
Dans "
+"le mouvement open source on dit : « Oui, on peut vous les interdire mais "
+"nous allons essayer de les convaincre de daigner vous les laisser faire. » "
+"D'accord, ils ont apporté leur contribution, ils ont convaincu un certain "
+"nombre d'entreprises d'apporter des logiciels importants à la communauté du 
"
+"libre. Le mouvement open source a donc contribué à notre communauté de "
+"manière considérable. Nous travaillons ensemble sur des projets pratiques, "
+"mais philosophiquement il y a un désaccord énorme."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Unfortunately, the open source movement is the one that gets the support of "
+"business the most, and so most articles about our work describe it as open "
+"source, and a lot of people just innocently think that we're all part of the "
+"open source movement.  So that's why I'm mentioning this distinction.  I "
+"want you to be aware that the free software movement, which brought our "
+"community into existence and developed the free operating system, is still "
+"here &mdash; and that we still stand for this ethical philosophy.  I want "
+"you to know about this, so that you won't mislead someone else unknowingly."
+msgstr ""
+"Malheureusement, c'est le mouvement open source qui reçoit le plus d'aide de 
"
+"l'industrie. Beaucoup d'articles sur notre travail le décrivent comme open "
+"source et beaucoup de gens pensent innocemment que nous faisons tous partie "
+"du mouvement open source. C'est pour cela que je mentionne cette "
+"distinction, je veux que vous soyez conscients que le mouvement du logiciel "
+"libre, qui a amené notre communauté à l'existence et développé le 
système "
+"d'exploitation libre, est toujours là, et que nous défendons toujours cette 
"
+"philosophie éthique. Je tiens à ce que vous le sachiez pour éviter que 
vous "
+"ne désinformiez quelqu'un d'autre sans vous en apercevoir."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "But also, so that you can think about where you stand."
+msgstr "Mais c'est aussi pour que vous puissiez vous situer."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"You know, which movement you support is up to you.  You might agree with the "
+"free software movements and my views.  You might agree with the open source "
+"movement.  You might disagree with them both.  You decide where you stand on "
+"these political issues."
+msgstr ""
+"Vous savez, c'est à vous de voir quel mouvement vous soutenez. Vous serez "
+"peut-être d'accord avec le mouvement du logiciel libre et avec mes vues. "
+"Vous serez peut-être d'accord avec le mouvement open source. Vous serez 
peut-"
+"être en désaccord avec les deux. C'est à vous de décider quelle est votre 
"
+"position sur ces enjeux politiques."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But if you agree with the free software movement &mdash; if you see that "
+"there's an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled and "
+"directed by this decision deserve a say in it &mdash; then I hope you'll say "
+"that you agree with the free software movement, and one way you can do that "
+"is by using the term free software and just helping people know we exist."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais si vous êtes d'accord avec le mouvement du logiciel libre – si vous "
+"voyez qu'il y a là un enjeu, que les gens dont les vies sont contrôlées et 
"
+"dirigées par cette décision ont aussi leur mot à dire – alors j'espère 
que "
+"vous exprimerez votre accord avec le mouvement du logiciel libre. Une façon "
+"de le faire est d'utiliser le terme « logiciel libre », ne serait-ce que "
+"pour aider les gens à savoir qu'il existe."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, Freedom Three is very important both practically and psycho-socially.  "
+"If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical material harm, because "
+"this community development doesn't happen, and we don't make powerful, "
+"reliable software.  But it also causes psycho-social harm, which affects the "
+"spirit of scientific cooperation &mdash; the idea that we're working "
+"together to advance human knowledge.  You see, progress in science crucially "
+"depends on people being able to work together.  And nowadays though, you "
+"often find each little group of scientists acting like it's a war with each "
+"other gang of scientists and engineers.  And if they don't share with each "
+"other, they're all held back."
+msgstr ""
+"La liberté 3 est donc très importante pratiquement et sur le plan "
+"psychosocial. Si vous n'avez pas cette liberté, cela cause un préjudice "
+"pratique et matériel parce que la communauté ne se développe pas et que 
nous "
+"ne pouvons pas faire de logiciels puissants et fiables. Mais cela cause "
+"aussi un préjudice psychosocial qui affecte l'esprit de coopération "
+"scientifique – l'idée que nous travaillons ensemble à l'avancement du 
savoir "
+"humain. Vous savez, le progrès scientifique dépend de façon cruciale de la 
"
+"capacité des gens à travailler ensemble. Et pourtant, même de nos jours, "
+"vous voyez souvent chaque petit groupe de scientifiques agir comme s'il "
+"était en guerre avec chacun des autres gangs de scientifiques et "
+"d'ingénieurs. Et s'ils ne partagent pas les uns avec les autres, c'est un "
+"frein pour tous."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, those are the three freedoms that distinguish free software from typical "
+"software.  Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself, making changes to "
+"suit your own needs.  Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by "
+"distributing copies.  And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your "
+"community by making changes and publishing them for other people to use.  If "
+"you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software for you.  Now, "
+"why do I define it that way in terms of a particular user? Is it free "
+"software for you? <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> Is it free "
+"software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Is it "
+"free software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Yes?"
+msgstr ""
+"Nous venons de voir les trois libertés qui distinguent le logiciel libre du "
+"logiciel ordinaire. La Liberté 1 est celle de s'aider soi même, d'apporter 
"
+"des changements en fonction de ses besoins propres. La liberté 2 est celle "
+"d'aider son prochain en distribuant des copies. Et la liberté 3 est la "
+"liberté d'aider à construire sa communauté en apportant des modifications 
et "
+"en les publiant à l'usage des autres. Si vous avez toutes ces libertés, ce "
+"logiciel est libre pour vous. Maintenant pourquoi est-ce que je définis cela 
"
+"en terme d'utilisateur particulier ? Est ce que c'est du logiciel libre pour 
"
+"vous (<i>en désignant un membre du public</i>) ? Est-ce que c'est du "
+"logiciel libre pour vous (<i>en désignant un autre membre du public</i>) ? 
"
+"Est-ce que c'est du logiciel libre pour vous (<i>en désignant encore un "
+"autre membre du public</i>) ? Oui ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you explain a bit about the difference "
+"between Freedom Two and Three? <i>[inaudible]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Pouvez-vous expliquer un peu la différence 
entre "
+"les libertés 2 et 3 ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, they certainly relate, because if you don't "
+"have freedom to redistribute at all, you certainly don't have freedom to "
+"distribute a modified version, but they're different activities."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Eh bien, elles sont certainement liées. Parce "
+"que si vous n'avez pas la liberté de redistribuer vous avez encore moins la "
+"liberté de distribuer une version modifiée. Mais ce sont des activités "
+"différentes."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Oh."
+msgstr "<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Oh."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Freedom Two is, you know, read it, you make an "
+"exact copy, and hand it to your friends, so now your friend can use it.  Or "
+"maybe you make exact copies and you sell them to a bunch of people, and then "
+"they can use it."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : La liberté 2 c'est, vous le savez, lisez-le, 
que "
+"vous pouvez faire une copie exacte et la donner à vos amis de sorte que vos "
+"amis puissent l'utiliser. Ou bien vous faites des copies exactes et vous les "
+"vendez à tout un tas de gens pour qu'ils puissent les utiliser."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom Three is where you make improvements &mdash; or at least you think "
+"they're improvements, and some other people may agree with you.  So that's "
+"the difference.  Oh, and by the way, one crucial point.  Freedoms One and "
+"Three depend on your having access to the source code.  Because changing a "
+"binary-only program is extremely hard.  <i>[Laughter]</i> Even trivial "
+"changes like using four digits for the date, <i>[Laughter]</i> if you don't "
+"have source.  So, for compelling, practical reasons, access to the source "
+"code is a precondition, a requirement, for free software."
+msgstr ""
+"La liberté 3, c'est quand vous apportez des améliorations ou du moins 
quand "
+"vous pensez que c'est des améliorations et que d'autres personnes sont "
+"d'accord avec vous. Voilà, c'est cela la différence. Oh, j'oubliais un 
point "
+"essentiel. Les libertés 1 et 3 dépendent de l'accès au code source. Parce 
"
+"que modifier un programme binaire c'est extrêmement difficile <i>[rires]</i> 
"
+"– même des changements très insignifiants comme d'utiliser quatre 
chiffres "
+"pour la date <i>[rires]</i>, si vous n'avez pas le source. Aussi pour des "
+"raisons pratiques l'accès au code source est une condition préalable, un "
+"prérequis du logiciel libre."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, why do I define it in terms of whether it's free software for <em>you</"
+"em>? The reason is that sometimes the same program can be free software for "
+"some people, and non-free for others.  Now, that might seem like a "
+"paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example to show you how it "
+"happens.  A very big example &mdash; maybe the biggest ever &mdash; of this "
+"problem was the X Window System which was developed at MIT and released "
+"under a license that made it free software.  If you got the MIT version with "
+"the MIT license, you had Freedoms One, Two, and Three.  It was free software "
+"for you.  But among those who got copies were various computer manufacturers "
+"that distributed Unix systems, and they made the necessary changes in X to "
+"run on their systems.  You know, probably just a few thousand lines out of "
+"the hundreds of thousands of lines of X.  And, then they compiled it, and "
+"they put the binaries into their Unix system and distributed it under the "
+"same non-disclosure agreement as the rest of the Unix system.  And then, "
+"millions of people got these copies.  They had the X Window System, but they "
+"had none of these freedoms.  It was not free software for <em>them</em>."
+msgstr ""
+"Pourquoi définir le logiciel libre comme logiciel libre <em>pour vous</em> 
? "
+"La raison en est que le même programme peut être libre pour certaines "
+"personnes et non libres pour d'autres. Cela pourrait sembler paradoxal, mais "
+"laissez-moi vous donnez un exemple de cette situation. Un très grand "
+"exemple, peut-être le plus grand exemple de ce problème, est le système "
+"X Window qui a été développé au MIT et publié sous une licence qui en a 
fait "
+"un logiciel libre. Si vous aviez la version MIT avec la licence MIT, vous "
+"aviez les libertés 1, 2 et 3. C'était du logiciel libre pour vous.  Mais "
+"parmi ceux qui avaient des copies, il y avait divers fabricants "
+"d'ordinateurs qui distribuaient des systèmes Unix. Ils ont fait les "
+"changements nécessaires pour que X fonctionne sur leurs systèmes ; vous "
+"savez, probablement quelques centaines de lignes sur les centaines de "
+"milliers de lignes de X. Ensuite ils l'ont compilé, ils ont placé les "
+"binaires dans leur système Unix et ils ont distribué le tout avec la même "
+"clause de non-divulgation. Alors des milliers de gens ont eu ces copies. Ils "
+"avaient le système X Window mais aucune de ces libertés. Ce n'était pas 
du "
+"logiciel libre <em>pour eux</em>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, the paradox was that whether X was free software depended on where you "
+"made the measurement.  If you made the measurement coming out of the "
+"developers' group, you'd say, &ldquo;I observe all these freedoms.  It's "
+"free software.&rdquo; If you made the measurements among the users you'd "
+"say, &ldquo;Hmm, most users don't have these freedoms.  It's not free "
+"software.&rdquo; Well, the people who developed X didn't consider this a "
+"problem, because their goal was just popularity, ego, essentially.  They "
+"wanted a big professional success.  They wanted to feel, &ldquo;Ah, lots of "
+"people are using our software.&rdquo; And that was true.  Lots of people "
+"were using their software but didn't have freedom."
+msgstr ""
+"Il y avait donc un paradoxe : qu'X soit libre ou non dépendait de l'endroit 
"
+"où l'on faisait la mesure. Si vous faisiez la mesure à la sortie du groupe "
+"de développeurs, vous disiez : « J'ai observé toutes ces libertés, 
c'est du "
+"logiciel libre. » Si vous faisiez la mesure parmi les utilisateurs, vous "
+"disiez : « Hum, la plupart des utilisateurs n'ont pas ces libertés, ce 
n'est "
+"pas du logiciel libre. » Les gens qui développaient X n'y voyaient aucun "
+"problème car leur principal souci était essentiellement la popularité, "
+"l'ego. Ils voulaient un grand succès professionnel. Ils voulaient pouvoir se 
"
+"dire : « Aah, un tas de gens utilisent nos logiciels ! » Et c'était 
vrai, un "
+"tas de gens utilisaient leurs logiciels, mais ils n'avaient pas la liberté."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Well, in the GNU project, if that same thing had happened to GNU software, "
+"it would have been a failure, because our goal wasn't just to be popular; "
+"our goal was to give people liberty, and to encourage cooperation, to permit "
+"people to cooperate.  Remember, never force anyone to cooperate with any "
+"other person, but make sure that everybody's allowed to cooperate, everyone "
+"has the freedom to do so, if he or she wishes.  If millions of people were "
+"running non-free versions of GNU, that wouldn't be success at all. The whole "
+"thing would have been perverted into nothing like the goal."
+msgstr ""
+"Au projet GNU en revanche, ce serait un échec si la même chose arrivait à 
un "
+"logiciel GNU, car notre but n'est pas simplement d'être populaires. Notre "
+"but est de donner aux gens la liberté, d'encourager la coopération et de "
+"permettre aux gens de coopérer. Souvenez-vous, ne forcez jamais personne à "
+"coopérer mais faites en sorte que chacun(e) ait la permission de coopérer, "
+"que chacun(e) ait la liberté de le faire si il ou elle le souhaite. Si des "
+"millions de personnes utilisaient des versions non libres de GNU, ce ne "
+"serait pas du tout un succès, l'ensemble aurait été perverti et détourné 
de "
+"son but."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening.  The method I came up "
+"with is called &ldquo;copyleft&rdquo;.  It's called copyleft because it's "
+"sort of like taking copyright and flipping it over.  <i>[Laughter]</i> "
+"Legally, copyleft works based on copyright.  We use the existing copyright "
+"law, but we use it to achieve a very different goal.  Here's what we do.  We "
+"say, &ldquo;This program is copyrighted.&rdquo; And, of course, by default, "
+"that means it's prohibited to copy it, or distribute it, or modify it.  But "
+"then we say, &ldquo;You're authorized to distribute copies of this.  You're "
+"authorized to modify it.  You're authorized to distribute modified versions "
+"and extended versions.  Change it any way you like.&rdquo;"
+msgstr ""
+"J'ai donc cherché un moyen d'empêcher que cela n'arrive. La méthode que 
j'ai "
+"trouvée est appelée « copyleft ». Ça s'appelle copyleft car c'est un 
peu "
+"comme prendre un copyright et le retourner <i>[rires]</i>. Juridiquement le "
+"copyleft fonctionne sur la base du copyright. Nous utilisons le droit du "
+"copyright tel qu'il existe, mais nous l'utilisons pour atteindre un but très 
"
+"différent. Voici ce que nous faisons. Nous disons : « Ce programme est 
sous "
+"copyright. » Et bien sûr, par défaut, cela signifie qu'il est interdit de 
le "
+"copier, de le distribuer et de le modifier. Mais alors nous disons : « 
Vous "
+"êtes autorisé à en distribuer des copies. Vous êtes autorisé à le 
modifier. "
+"Vous êtes autorisé à en distribuer des copies modifiées et étendues. 
Changez-"
+"le comme vous le souhaitez. »"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But there is a condition.  And the condition, of course, is the reason why "
+"we go to all this trouble, so that we could put the condition in.  The "
+"condition says: Whenever you distribute anything that contains any piece of "
+"this program, that whole program must be distributed under these same terms, "
+"no more and no less.  So you can change the program and distribute a "
+"modified version, but when you do, the people who get that from you must get "
+"the same freedom that you got from us.  And not just for the parts of it "
+"&mdash; the excerpts that you copied from our program &mdash; but also for "
+"the other parts of that program that they got from you.  The whole of that "
+"program has to be free software for them."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais il y a une condition. Cette condition est évidemment la raison pour "
+"laquelle nous nous sommes donnés tout ce mal – pour pouvoir l'introduire. 
"
+"Cette condition dit : « Chaque fois que vous distribuez quelque chose qui "
+"contient un morceau de ce programme, vous devez distribuer le tout aux mêmes 
"
+"conditions, ni plus, ni moins. Vous pouvez donc modifier le programme et le "
+"distribuer, mais les gens qui l'auront reçu de vous bénéficieront de toute 
"
+"la liberté que vous avez reçue de nous. Pas seulement pour certaines 
parties "
+"de ce programme – les extraits que vous avez pris – mais aussi pour 
tous les "
+"autres morceaux du programme qu'ils ont reçu de vous. L'intégralité de ce "
+"programme doit être libre pour eux. »"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become inalienable "
+"rights &mdash; a concept from the Declaration of Independence.  Rights that "
+"we make sure can't be taken away from you.  And, of course, the specific "
+"license that embodies the idea of copyleft is the GNU General Public "
+"License, a controversial license because it actually has the strength to say "
+"no to people who would be parasites on our community."
+msgstr ""
+"Les libertés de redistribuer et de modifier le programme deviennent des "
+"droits inaliénables – un concept hérité de la Déclaration 
d'indépendance<a "
+"id=\"TransNote7-rev\" href=\"#TransNote7\"><sup>7</sup></a> ; des droits "
+"dont nous nous assurons qu'ils ne peuvent vous être retirés. Et bien sûr 
la "
+"licence spécifique qui incarne l'idée du copyleft est la « licence 
publique "
+"générale GNU » (GNU <acronym title=\"General Public License\">GPL</"
+"acronym>), une licence controversée car elle a la force de dire non à ceux "
+"qui voudraient parasiter notre communauté."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of freedom.  And "
+"they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done, and use it to get a "
+"head start in distributing a non-free program and tempting people to give up "
+"their freedom.  And the result would be &mdash; you know, if we let people "
+"do that &mdash; that we would be developing these free programs, and we'd "
+"constantly have to compete with improved versions of our own programs.  "
+"That's no fun."
+msgstr ""
+"Il y a beaucoup de gens qui n'apprécient pas nos idéaux de liberté. Ils "
+"seraient très contents de prendre le travail que nous avons fait, d'en faire 
"
+"une base pour la distribution de logiciel non libre et d'inciter les gens à "
+"abandonner leur liberté. Le résultat, si nous les laissions faire, serait "
+"que nous ne développerions des programmes libres que pour être constamment "
+"concurrencés par des versions améliorées de nos propres programmes. Ça ne 
"
+"serait pas drôle."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And, a lot of people also feel &mdash; you know, I'm willing to volunteer my "
+"time to contribute to the community, but why should I volunteer my time to "
+"contribute to that company's, to improving that company's, proprietary "
+"program? You know, some people might not even think that that's evil, but "
+"they want to get paid if they're going to do that.  I, personally, would "
+"rather not do it at all."
+msgstr ""
+"Et beaucoup de gens penseraient : « Je suis volontaire pour donner de mon "
+"temps afin de contribuer à ma communauté, mais pourquoi contribuer à un "
+"programme privateur de telle ou telle société ? » Vous savez, certaines "
+"personnes ne trouvent pas ça forcément mal, mais elles veulent être "
+"rétribuées si elles le font. Moi, je préférerais ne pas le faire du tout."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But both of these groups of people &mdash; both the ones like me who say, "
+"&ldquo;I don't want to help that non-free program to get a foothold in our "
+"community&rdquo; and the ones that say, &ldquo;Sure, I'd work for them, but "
+"then they better pay me&rdquo; &mdash; both of us have a good reason to use "
+"the GNU General Public License.  Because that says to that company, &ldquo;"
+"You can't just take my work, and distribute it without the freedom.&rdquo; "
+"Whereas, the non-copyleft licenses, like the X Windows license, do permit "
+"that."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais les deux groupes de gens – ceux qui comme moi disent « Je ne veux 
pas "
+"aider un programme non libre à prendre pied dans notre communauté » et 
ceux "
+"qui pensent « Je veux bien améliorer un programme non libre, mais ils ont "
+"intérêt à me payer » – ont une bonne raison d'utiliser la licence 
GPL. Parce "
+"que cela dit à ces sociétés « Vous ne pouvez pas juste prendre mon 
travail "
+"et le redistribuer sans la liberté », ce que permettent les licences sans "
+"copyleft comme la licence de X Windows.<a id=\"TransNote8-rev\" href="
+"\"#TransNote8\"><sup>8</sup></a>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So that is the big division between the two categories of free software "
+"&mdash; license-wise.  There are the programs that are copylefted so that "
+"the license defends the freedom of the software for every user.  And there "
+"are the non-copylefted programs for which non-free versions are allowed.  "
+"Somebody <em>can</em> take those programs and strip off the freedom.  You "
+"may get that program in a non-free version."
+msgstr ""
+"C'est ça la grande distinction entre les deux catégories de logiciel libre 
; "
+"elle porte sur la licence. Il y a les programmes placés sous copyleft afin "
+"que la licence défende la liberté du logiciel pour chaque utilisateur, et 
il "
+"y a les programmes sans copyleft, pour lesquels des versions non libres sont "
+"permises. Quelqu'un <em>a la possibilité</em> de prendre ces programmes et "
+"d'en ôter la liberté ; on peut donc les obtenir dans une version non 
libre."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And that problem exists today.  There are still non-free versions of X "
+"Windows being used on our free operating systems.  There is even hardware "
+"&mdash; which is not really supported &mdash; except by a non-free version "
+"of X Windows.  And that's a major problem in our community.  Nonetheless, I "
+"wouldn't say that X Windows is a bad thing, you know. I'd say that the "
+"developers did not do the best possible thing that they could have done.  "
+"But they <em>did</em> release a lot of software that we could all use."
+msgstr ""
+"Et ce problème persiste. Il existe encore des versions non libres de "
+"X Windows qui sont utilisées sur nos systèmes d'exploitation libres. Il y 
a "
+"même des matériels qui ne sont gérés que par des versions non libres et "
+"c'est un problème majeur dans notre communauté. Cependant, je ne dirais pas 
"
+"que X Windows soit une mauvaise chose ; je dirais que les développeurs 
n'ont "
+"pas fait du mieux qu'il pouvaient, mais ils ont <em>effectivement</em> "
+"publié une grande quantité de logiciel que nous pouvons tous utiliser."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"You know, there's a big difference between less than perfect, and evil.  "
+"There are many gradations of good and bad.  We have to resist the temptation "
+"to say, if you didn't do the absolute best possible thing, then you're no "
+"good.  You know, the people that developed X Windows made a big contribution "
+"to our community.  But there's something better that they could have done.  "
+"They could have copylefted parts of the program and prevented those freedom-"
+"denying versions from being distributed by others."
+msgstr ""
+"Il y a une grande différence entre imparfait et mauvais, vous savez. Il y a "
+"de nombreux degrés entre le bien et le mal. Nous devons résister à la "
+"tentation de dire : « Si vous n'avez pas fait absolument du mieux 
possible, "
+"vous ne valez rien. » Les gens qui ont développé X Windows ont fait une "
+"grande contribution à notre communauté, mais ils auraient pu mieux faire. "
+"Ils auraient pu mettre des morceaux du programme sous copyleft et cela "
+"aurait empêché ces versions non libres d'être distribuées par d'autres."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, the fact that the GNU General Public License defends your freedom, uses "
+"copyright law to defend your freedom, is, of course, why Microsoft is "
+"attacking it today.  See, Microsoft would really like to be able to take all "
+"the code that we wrote and put it into proprietary programs, have somebody "
+"make some improvements, or even just incompatible changes is all they need.  "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Cela dit, le fait que la GPL défende votre liberté – utilise le droit du 
"
+"copyright pour défendre cette liberté – est la raison pour laquelle "
+"Microsoft l'attaque aujourd'hui. Voyez, Microsoft voudrait vraiment prendre "
+"tout ce code que nous avons écrit et le mettre dans des programmes "
+"privateurs. Faire ajouter quelques améliorations ou simplement des "
+"changements incompatibles par quelqu'un, cela suffirait. <i>[rires]</i>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"You know, with Microsoft's marketing clout, they don't need to make it "
+"better to have their version supplant ours.  They just have to make it "
+"different and incompatible.  And then, put it on everybody's desktop.  So "
+"they really don't like the GNU GPL.  Because the GNU GPL won't let them do "
+"that.  It doesn't allow &ldquo;embrace and extend&rdquo;.  It says, if you "
+"want to share our code in your programs, you can.  But, you've got to share "
+"and share alike.  The changes that you make we have to be allowed to share.  "
+"So, it's a two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation."
+msgstr ""
+"Vous savez, avec leur puissance marketing, les gens de chez Microsoft n'ont "
+"pas vraiment besoin de faire une version meilleure pour nous supplanter. Ils "
+"ont juste besoin de la rendre différente et incompatible, et ensuite de la "
+"mettre sur le bureau de tout le monde. Donc ils n'aiment pas du tout la GPL, "
+"parce que la GNU GPL ne leur permet pas de le faire. Elle n'autorise pas la "
+"stratégie de la pieuvre <cite>[embrace and extend]</cite>. Elle dit : « 
Si "
+"vous voulez vous servir de notre code dans vos programmes, vous pouvez, mais "
+"vous devrez aussi partager, et partager à l'identique. Les changements que "
+"vous avez faits devront pouvoir être partagés. » C'est une coopération 
dans "
+"les deux sens, une vraie coopération."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Many companies &mdash; even big companies like IBM and HP are willing to use "
+"our software on this basis.  IBM and HP contribute substantial improvements "
+"to GNU software.  And they develop other free software.  But, Microsoft "
+"doesn't want to do that, so they give it out that businesses just can't deal "
+"with the GPL.  Well, if businesses don't include IBM, and HP and SUN, then "
+"maybe they're right.  <i>[Laughter]</i> More about that later."
+msgstr ""
+"Beaucoup d'entreprises, même de grosses sociétés comme IBM et HP, sont "
+"d'accord pour utiliser nos logiciels dans cet esprit. IBM et HP contribuent "
+"à de substantielles améliorations des logiciels GNU et développent 
d'autres "
+"logiciels libres. Mais Microsoft ne veut pas de ça. Ils prétendent que le "
+"business est incompatible avec la GPL. Eh bien, si le business n'inclut pas "
+"IBM, et HP, et SUN, peut-être qu'ils ont raison <i>[rires]</i>. J'en dirai "
+"plus ultérieurement sur le sujet."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"I should finish the historical story.  You see, we set out in 1984 not just "
+"to write some free software but to do something much more coherent: to "
+"develop an operating system that was entirely free software.  So that meant "
+"we had to write piece after piece after piece.  Of course, we were always "
+"looking for shortcuts.  The job was so big that people said we'd never be "
+"able to finish.  And, I thought that there was at least a chance that we'd "
+"finish it but, obviously, it's worth looking for shortcuts.  So we kept "
+"looking around. Is there any program that somebody else has written that we "
+"could manage to adapt, to plug into here, and that way we won't have to "
+"write it from scratch? For instance, the X Window system.  It's true it "
+"wasn't copylefted, but it was free software, so we could use it."
+msgstr ""
+"Je dois d'abord terminer l'exposé historique. En 1984 nous avons entrepris, "
+"non seulement d'écrire du logiciel libre, mais de faire quelque chose de "
+"plus cohérent : développer un système d'exploitation libre qui ne 
comprenne "
+"que des logiciels libres. Cela signifiait que nous devions l'écrire morceau "
+"par morceau. Bien sûr, nous cherchions en permanence des raccourcis. 
C'était "
+"un tel travail que les gens disaient que nous ne pourrions pas y arriver. Je "
+"pensais qu'il y avait tout de même une chance mais que ça valait la peine "
+"d'essayer des raccourcis. Alors nous avons continué à chercher. Y a-t-il un 
"
+"programme déjà écrit que nous pouvons adapter et intégrer, de sorte qu'il 
"
+"n'ait pas à être réécrit en entier ? Par exemple le système X Window. 
C'est "
+"vrai qu'il n'était pas sous copyleft, mais il était libre et donc nous "
+"pouvions l'utiliser."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, I had wanted to put a window system into GNU from day one.  I wrote a "
+"couple of window systems at MIT before I started GNU.  And so, even though "
+"Unix had no window system in 1984, I decided that GNU would have one.  But, "
+"we never ended up writing a GNU window system, because X came along.  And I "
+"said, Goody! One big job we don't have to do.  We'll use X.  So I basically "
+"said, let's take X, and put it into the GNU system.  And we'll make the "
+"other parts of GNU, you know, work with X, when appropriate.  And we found "
+"other pieces of software that had been written by other people, like the "
+"text formatter TeX, some library code from Berkeley.  At that time there was "
+"Berkeley Unix, but it was not free software.  This library code, initially, "
+"was from a different group at Berkeley, that did research on floating "
+"point.  And, so, we kept, we fit in these pieces."
+msgstr ""
+"En fait j'ai toujours voulu inclure un système de fenêtrage. J'en avais "
+"écrit deux quand j'étais au MIT, avant de commencer GNU. C'est pourquoi, "
+"bien qu'en 1984 Unix n'ait pas été doté d'un système de fenêtrage, j'ai "
+"décidé que GNU en aurait un. Mais nous n'avons jamais eu l'occasion de "
+"l'écrire car X Window est arrivé et j'ai dit : « Super ! Un gros 
travail que "
+"nous n'aurons pas à faire. Utilisons X et nous ferons marcher les autres "
+"morceaux de GNU avec X le moment venu. » Nous avons aussi trouvé d'autres "
+"logiciels qui avaient été écrits par d'autres personnes, comme le 
formateur "
+"de texte TeX et une bibliothèque provenant de Berkeley. En ce temps-là il y 
"
+"avait l'Unix de Berkeley, mais ce n'était pas un logiciel libre. Cette "
+"bibliothèque venait d'un autre groupe de Berkeley, qui faisait des "
+"recherches sur la virgule flottante. Nous avons donc agencé ces morceaux."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"In October 1985, we founded the Free Software Foundation.  So please note, "
+"the GNU project came first.  The Free Software Foundation came after, about "
+"almost two years after the announcement of the Project.  And the Free "
+"Software Foundation is a tax-exempt charity that raises funds to promote the "
+"freedom to share and change software.  And in the 1980's, one of the main "
+"things we did with our funds was to hire people to write parts of GNU.  And "
+"essential programs, such as the shell and the C library were written this "
+"way, as well as parts of other programs.  The <code>tar</code> program, "
+"which is absolutely essential, although not exciting at all <i>[Laughter]</"
+"i> was written this way.  I believe GNU grep was written this way.  And so, "
+"we're approaching our goal."
+msgstr ""
+"En octobre 85, nous avons fondé la <cite>Free Software Foundation</cite> "
+"(Fondation pour le logiciel libre). Veuillez donc noter que le projet GNU "
+"est venu avant. La FSF est venue après, presque deux ans après l'annonce du 
"
+"projet. La FSF est une fondation à but non lucratif qui lève des fonds pour 
"
+"promouvoir la liberté de partager et modifier les logiciels. Dans les "
+"années 80, une des choses principales que nous avons faites avec nos fonds "
+"fut de recruter des gens pour écrire des morceaux de GNU. Des programmes "
+"essentiels comme le shell et la bibliothèque C ont été écrits comme cela, 
"
+"ainsi que des parties d'autres programmes. Le programme <code>tar</code>, "
+"qui est absolument essentiel bien que pas du tout passionnant, fut écrit "
+"comme ça <i>[rires]</i>. Je crois que GNU grep a été écrit comme ça "
+"également. Si bien que nous approchions du but."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"By 1991, there was just one major piece missing, and that was the kernel.  "
+"Now, why did I put off the kernel? Probably because it doesn't really matter "
+"what order you do the things in, at least technically it doesn't.  You've "
+"got to do them all anyway.  And partly because I'd hoped we'd be able to "
+"find a start at a kernel somewhere else.  And we did.  We found Mach, which "
+"had been developed at Carnegie Mellon.  And it wasn't the whole kernel; it "
+"was the bottom half of the kernel.  So we had to write the top half, but I "
+"figured, you know, things like the file system, the network code, and so "
+"on.  But running on top of Mach they're running essentially as user "
+"programs, which ought to make them easier to debug.  You can debug with a "
+"real source-level debugger running at the same time.  And so, I thought that "
+"way we'd be able to get these, the higher level parts of the kernel, done in "
+"a short time.  It didn't work out that way.  These asynchronous, multi-"
+"threaded processes, sending messages to each other turned out to be very "
+"hard to debug.  And the Mach-based system that we were using to bootstrap "
+"with had a terrible debugging environment, and it was unreliable, and "
+"various problems.  It took us years and years to get the GNU kernel to work."
+msgstr ""
+"Vers 1991, il ne manquait plus qu'un morceau essentiel, le noyau. Pourquoi "
+"ai-je tardé à m'occuper du noyau ? Probablement parce que l'ordre dans "
+"lequel vous mettez les choses n'a pas d'importance, du moins techniquement. "
+"Il faut tout faire de toute façon. Et aussi parce que nous pensions trouver "
+"un début de noyau ailleurs. C'est ce qui s'est passé. Nous avons trouvé 
Mach "
+"qui avait été développé à Carnegie-Mellon. Ce n'était pas le noyau 
complet "
+"mais sa moitié inférieure, son socle. Il nous fallait écrire la partie "
+"supérieure, des choses comme le système de fichiers, le code réseau, etc. "
+"Fonctionnant au-dessus de Mach comme programmes utilisateur, ils étaient en "
+"principe plus faciles à déboguer. On pouvait utiliser un vrai débogueur de 
"
+"code source qui s'exécutait en même temps. Je pensais qu'ainsi nous serions 
"
+"capables de faire cette partie supérieure en peu de temps. Mais cela n'a pas 
"
+"marché comme prévu. Ces processus asynchrones et 
<cite>multi-threads</cite>, "
+"s'envoyant des messages les uns aux autres, se sont révélés très 
difficiles "
+"à déboguer et le système basé sur Mach, sur lequel nous démarrions, "
+"possédait un environnement de débogage calamiteux. Il n'était pas fiable 
et "
+"avait divers problèmes. Cela nous a pris des années et des années pour 
faire "
+"fonctionner le noyau GNU."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, fortunately, our community did not have to wait for the GNU kernel.  "
+"Because in 1991, Linus Torvalds developed another free kernel called Linux.  "
+"And he used the old-fashioned monolithic design and it turns out that he got "
+"his working much faster than we got ours working.  So maybe that's one of "
+"the mistakes that I made: that design decision.  Anyway, at first, we didn't "
+"know about Linux, because he never contacted us to talk about it.  Although "
+"he did know about the GNU Project.  But he announced it to other people and "
+"other places on the net.  And so other people then did the work of combining "
+"Linux with the rest of the GNU system to make a complete free operating "
+"system.  Essentially, to make the GNU plus Linux combination."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais heureusement notre communauté n'a pas eu à attendre le noyau GNU, 
parce "
+"qu'en 1991 Linus Torvalds développa un autre noyau libre appelé Linux. Il "
+"utilisait le vieux schéma du noyau monolithique et il se trouve qu'il "
+"réussit à le faire marcher beaucoup plus vite que nous le nôtre. C'est "
+"probablement une erreur que j'ai faite, le choix de cette architecture. De "
+"toute façon, au début on ne savait rien de Linux car il ne nous a jamais "
+"contacté pour en parler bien qu'il ait été au courant du projet GNU. Mais 
il "
+"l'a annoncé à d'autres gens et à d'autres endroits sur le net. Alors "
+"d'autres gens ont fait le travail de combiner Linux avec le reste du système 
"
+"GNU pour en faire un système d'exploitation libre complet ; essentiellement 
"
+"pour faire la combinaison GNU plus Linux."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, they didn't realize that's what they were doing.  You see, they said, "
+"We have a kernel &mdash; let's look around and see what other pieces we can "
+"find to put together with the kernel.  So, they looked around &mdash; and lo "
+"and behold, everything they needed was already available.  What good "
+"fortune, they said.  <i>[Laughter]</i> It's all here.  We can find "
+"everything we need.  Let's just take all these different things and put it "
+"together, and have a system."
+msgstr ""
+"Toutefois ils l'ont fait sans s'en rendre compte. « Vous voyez, » 
disaient-"
+"ils, « nous avons un noyau. Allons à la recherche de morceaux qui puissent 
"
+"s'assembler avec lui. » Alors ils ont regardé partout, et surprise&hellip; 
"
+"tout ce dont ils avaient besoin était disponible ! « Quelle bonne 
fortune, » "
+"dirent-ils, <i>[rires]</i> « tout est là. Il y a tout ce dont nous avons "
+"besoin. Prenons simplement tous ces morceaux et mettons-les ensemble, ainsi "
+"nous aurons un système complet. »"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"They didn't know that most of what they found was pieces of the GNU system.  "
+"So they didn't realize that they were fitting Linux into the gap in the GNU "
+"system.  They thought they were taking Linux and making a system out of "
+"Linux.  So they called it a Linux system."
+msgstr ""
+"Ils ne savaient pas que la plus grande partie de ce qu'ils trouvaient, "
+"c'était des morceaux du système GNU. Ils n'ont pas compris qu'ils 
plaçaient "
+"Linux dans le dernier trou du système GNU. Ils pensaient qu'ils prenaient "
+"Linux et qu'ils en faisaient un système. Alors ils l'ont appelé « 
système "
+"Linux »."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can't hear you &mdash; what?"
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Vous entends pas&hellip; Quoi ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, it's just not &mdash; you know, it's "
+"provincial."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Bien je crois que ce n'est pas vraiment&hellip; "
+"C'est provincial, vous savez."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: But it's more good fortune then finding X and "
+"Mach?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Mais c'est plus une bonne fortune que de trouver 
"
+"X et Mach ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right.  The difference is that the people who "
+"developed X and Mach didn't have the goal of making a complete free "
+"operating system.  We're the only ones who had that.  And, it was our "
+"tremendous work that made the system exist.  We actually did a larger part "
+"of the system than any other project.  No coincidence, because those people "
+"&mdash; they wrote useful parts of the system.  But they didn't do it "
+"because they wanted the system to be finished.  They had other reasons."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Exact. La différence, c'est que les gens qui 
ont "
+"développé X et Mach n'avaient pas pour but de faire un système "
+"d'exploitation libre complet. Nous étions les seuls à avoir ce but et c'est 
"
+"notre travail acharné qui a fait que le système existe. Nous avons en "
+"réalité fait plus de travail que n'importe quel autre projet. Ce n'est pas "
+"une coïncidence car ces gens&hellip; ils ont écrit des parties utiles du "
+"système, mais ne l'ont pas fait parce qu'ils voulaient finir le système. 
Ils "
+"avaient d'autres raisons."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now the people who developed X &mdash; they thought that designing across "
+"the network window system would be a good project, and it was.  And it "
+"turned out to help us make a good free operating system.  But that's not "
+"what they hoped for.  They didn't even think about that.  It was an "
+"accident.  An accidental benefit.  Now, I'm not saying that what they did "
+"was bad.  They did a large free software project.  That's a good thing to "
+"do.  But they didn't have that ultimate vision.  The GNU Project is where "
+"that vision was."
+msgstr ""
+"Les gens qui ont développé X pensaient que de mettre au point un système 
de "
+"fenêtrage sur le réseau serait une bonne chose, et ça l'était.  Et il se "
+"trouve que cela nous a aidé à faire un bon système d'exploitation libre. "
+"Mais ils n'y pensaient même pas ; c'était un accident, un bonus fortuit. 
Je "
+"ne dis pas que ce qu'ils ont fait était mauvais, ils ont fait un grand "
+"projet libre. C'est une bonne chose, mais ils n'avaient pas la vision "
+"ultime. C'est le projet GNU qui avait cette vision."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And, so, we were the ones whose &mdash; every little piece that didn't get "
+"done by somebody else, we did it.  Because we knew that we wouldn't have a "
+"complete system without it.  And even if it was totally boring and "
+"unromantic, like <code>tar</code> or <code>mv</code>.  <i>[Laughter]</i> We "
+"did it.  Or ld, you know there's nothing very exciting in <code>ld</code> "
+"&mdash; but I wrote one.  <i>[Laughter]</i> And I did make efforts to have "
+"it do a minimal amount of disk I/O so that it would be faster and handle "
+"bigger programs.  But, you know, I like to do a good job.  I like to improve "
+"various things about the program while I'm doing it.  But the reason that I "
+"did it wasn't that I had brilliant ideas for a better <code>ld</code>.  The "
+"reason I did it is that we needed one that was free.  And we couldn't expect "
+"anyone else to do it.  So, we had to do it, or find someone to do it."
+msgstr ""
+"Et donc, nous sommes ceux&hellip; tous les morceaux qui n'ont pas été faits 
"
+"par d'autres, nous les avons faits. Sinon nous n'aurions pas eu un système "
+"complet. Même quand ils étaient parfaitement fastidieux et pas du tout "
+"romantiques comme <code>tar</code> ou <code>mv</code> <i>[rires]</i>, nous "
+"les avons fait. Ou <code>ld</code> ; vous savez, il n'y a rien de très "
+"passionnant dans <code>ld</code>, mais j'en ai fait un <i>[rires]</i>, et je "
+"me suis donné du mal pour qu'il utilise un minimum d'entrées-sorties sur "
+"disque afin qu'il soit plus rapide et qu'il gère de plus gros programmes. "
+"Vous voyez, j'aime bien faire du bon boulot, j'aime bien améliorer "
+"différentes choses du programme pendant que je le réalise. Mais la raison "
+"pour laquelle je l'ai fait n'est pas que j'avais des idées brillantes pour "
+"un meilleur <code>ld</code>. La raison était que j'avais besoin d'un "
+"<code>ld</code> qui soit libre. Et nous ne pouvions attendre de personne "
+"d'autre qu'il le fasse. Il nous fallait donc le faire ou trouver quelqu'un "
+"pour le faire."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, although at this point thousands of people in projects have contributed "
+"to this system, there is one project which is the reason that this system "
+"exists, and that's the GNU Project.  It <em>is</em> basically the GNU "
+"System, with other things added since then."
+msgstr ""
+"Aussi, bien qu'à ce stade des milliers de gens impliqués dans différents "
+"projets aient contribué à ce système, il doit son existence à un seul "
+"projet, qui est le projet GNU. <em>C'est</em> fondamentalement le système "
+"GNU, avec d'autres choses ajoutées par la suite."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, however, the practice of calling the system Linux has been a great blow "
+"to the GNU Project, because we don't normally get credit for what we've "
+"done.  I think Linux, the kernel, is a very useful piece of free software, "
+"and I have only good things to say about it.  But, well, actually, I can "
+"find a few bad things to say about it.  <i>[Laughter]</i> But, basically, I "
+"have good things to say about it.  However, the practice of calling the GNU "
+"system, Linux, is just a mistake.  I'd like to ask you please to make the "
+"small effort necessary to call the system GNU/Linux, and that way to help us "
+"get a share of the credit."
+msgstr ""
+"Quoi qu'il en soit, le fait d'appeler ce système Linux a fait du mal au "
+"projet GNU car d'habitude nous ne sommes pas reconnus pour le travail que "
+"nous avons fait. Je pense que Linux, le noyau, est un logiciel libre très "
+"utile et je n'ai que de bonnes choses à en dire. Bon, en fait, je pourrais "
+"trouver un peu de mal à en dire <i>[rires]</i>, mais pour l'essentiel j'en "
+"dis du bien. Toutefois, appeler le système GNU « Linux » est juste une "
+"erreur. Je vous demanderai de faire le petit effort nécessaire pour appeler "
+"ce système « GNU/Linux », et de cette façon nous aider à en partager 
le "
+"crédit."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You need a mascot! Get yourself a stuffed animal! "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Vous avez besoin d'une mascotte ! Trouvez-vous "
+"un animal en peluche ! <i>[rires]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have one."
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Nous en avons un."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You do?"
+msgstr "<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Ah bon ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have an animal &mdash; a gnu.  <i>[Laughter]</"
+"i> Anyway.  So, yes, when you draw a penguin, draw a gnu next to it.  <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i> But, let's save the questions for the end.  I have more to go "
+"through."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Nous avons un animal : un gnou <i>[rires]</i>. "
+"Alors, oui, lorsque vous dessinez un manchot, dessinez un gnou à côté <i>"
+"[rires]</i>. Mais gardons les questions pour la fin. Je dois encore avancer."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, why am I so concerned about this? You know, why do I think it is worth "
+"bothering you and perhaps giving you a, perhaps lowering your opinion of me, "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> to raise this issue of credit? Because, you know, some "
+"people when I do this, some people think that it's because I want my ego to "
+"be fed, right? Of course, I'm not saying &mdash; I'm not asking you to call "
+"it &ldquo;Stallmanix,&rdquo; right? <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Pourquoi est-ce que je me préoccupe tant de cela ? Pourquoi est-ce que je "
+"pense que cela vaut la peine de vous ennuyer et peut-être de vous donner une 
"
+"piètre opinion de moi-même <i>[rires]</i> pour poser le problème de la "
+"reconnaissance ? Parce que certaines personnes, quand je parle de ça, "
+"certaines personnes pensent que je le fais pour nourrir mon ego. Bien sûr, "
+"je ne vous demande pas de l'appeler « Stallmanix », n'est ce pas ? 
<i>[rires "
+"et applaudissements]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to get "
+"credit.  And there's a very specific reason for that, which is a lot more "
+"important than anybody getting credit, in and of itself.  You see, these "
+"days, if you look around in our community most of the people talking about "
+"it and writing about it don't ever mention GNU, and they don't ever mention "
+"these goals of freedom &mdash; these political and social ideals, either.  "
+"Because the place they come from is GNU."
+msgstr ""
+"Je vous demande de l'appeler GNU parce que je veux que le projet GNU en ait "
+"le crédit. Il y a une raison très particulière, beaucoup plus importante 
que "
+"le simple fait d'être reconnu. Vous voyez, de nos jours – regardez autour 
de "
+"vous dans notre communauté – la plupart des gens qui en parlent ou 
écrivent "
+"à son sujet ne mentionnent même pas GNU, ni ses objectifs de liberté, ni "
+"d'ailleurs ses idéaux politiques et sociétaux. Parce que c'est de GNU que "
+"tout cela provient."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"The ideas associated with Linux &mdash; the philosophy is very different.  "
+"It is basically the apolitical philosophy of Linus Torvalds.  So, when "
+"people think that the whole system is Linux, they tend to think: &ldquo;Oh, "
+"it must have been all started by Linux Torvalds.  His philosophy must be the "
+"one that we should look at carefully&rdquo;.  And when they hear about the "
+"GNU philosophy, they say: &ldquo;Boy, this is so idealistic, this must be "
+"awfully impractical.  I'm a Linux-user, not a GNU-user.&rdquo; <i>[Laughter]"
+"</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Les idées associées à Linux&hellip; leur philosophie est très 
différente. "
+"C'est fondamentalement la philosophie apolitique de Linus Torvalds. Ainsi "
+"quand les gens pensent que l'ensemble du système est Linux, ils tendent à "
+"penser : « Oh, c'est Linus Torvalds qui a dû mettre tout ça en route. 
C'est "
+"sa philosophie que nous devons examiner attentivement. » Et quand ils "
+"entendent parler de la philosophie GNU ils disent : « Mon Dieu, que c'est "
+"idéaliste ! Cela semble bien peu réaliste. Je suis un utilisateur de 
Linux, "
+"pas de GNU. » <i>[rires]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"What irony! If they only knew! If they knew that the system they liked "
+"&mdash; or, in some cases, love and go wild over &mdash; is our idealistic, "
+"political philosophy made real."
+msgstr ""
+"Quelle ironie ! Si seulement ils savaient ! S'ils savaient que le système "
+"qu'ils apprécient et dans certains cas aiment à la folie, c'est notre "
+"philosophie politique idéaliste devenue réalité."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"They still wouldn't have to agree with us.  But at least they'd see a reason "
+"to take it seriously, to think about it carefully, to give it a chance.  "
+"They would see how it relates to their lives.  You know, if they realized, "
+"&ldquo;I'm using the GNU system. Here's the GNU philosophy.  This philosophy "
+"is <em>why</em> this system that I like very much exists,&rdquo; they'd at "
+"least consider it with a much more open mind.  It doesn't mean that "
+"everybody will agree.  People think different things.  That's OK.  You know, "
+"people should make up their own minds.  But I want this philosophy to get "
+"the benefit of the credit for the results it has achieved."
+msgstr ""
+"Ce n'est pas qu'ils devraient être d'accord avec nous, mais au moins ils "
+"verraient une raison de la prendre un peu au sérieux, de l'examiner "
+"attentivement, de lui donner une chance. Ils verraient comme c'est lié à "
+"leur vie. Vous savez, s'ils se disaient « J'utilise le système GNU, voici 
la "
+"philosophie GNU, c'est <em>grâce à cette philosophie</em> que le système 
que "
+"j'apprécie existe », ils la considéreraient avec un esprit beaucoup plus "
+"ouvert. Ça ne veut pas dire que tout le monde serait d'accord. Chacun a ses "
+"idées. C'est bien, Les gens doivent se faire leur propre opinion. Mais je "
+"veux que cette philosophie soit créditée des résultats qu'elle a obtenus."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"If you look around in our community, you'll find that almost everywhere, the "
+"institutions are calling the system Linux.  You know, reporters mostly call "
+"it Linux.  It's not right, but they do.  The companies mostly say it that "
+"package the system.  Oh, and most of these reporters, when they write "
+"articles, they usually don't look at it as a political issue, or social "
+"issue.  They're usually looking at it purely as a business question or what "
+"companies are going to succeed more or less, which is really a fairly minor "
+"question for society.  And, if you look at the companies that package the "
+"GNU/Linux system for people to use, well, most of them call it Linux.  And "
+"they <em>all</em> add non-free software to it."
+msgstr ""
+"Si vous regardez autour de vous dans notre communauté, vous verrez que "
+"presque partout les institutions appellent notre système Linux. Les "
+"journalistes l'appellent le plus souvent Linux. Ce n'est pas juste mais ils "
+"le font. Les entreprises qui mettent le système sous forme de paquets "
+"installables le font la plupart du temps. La plupart de ces journalistes, "
+"quand ils écrivent des articles, ne l'envisagent pas comme un sujet "
+"politique ni un sujet de société. Ils l'envisagent habituellement du point "
+"de vue économique ou s'intéressent au succès plus ou moins grand des "
+"entreprises, ce qui est une question mineure pour la société. Et si vous "
+"regardez les entreprises qui empaquettent le système GNU/Linux pour les "
+"utilisateurs, la plupart d'entre elles l'appellent Linux et elles y ajoutent "
+"<em>toutes</em> des logiciels non libres."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"See, the GNU GPL says that if you take code, and some code out of a GPL-"
+"covered program, and add some more code to make a bigger program, that whole "
+"program has to be released under the GPL.  But you could put other separate "
+"programs on the same disk (of either kind, hard disk, or CD), and they can "
+"have other licenses.  That's considered mere aggregation, and, essentially, "
+"just distributing two programs to somebody at the same time is not something "
+"we have any say over.  So, in fact, it is not true &mdash; sometimes, I wish "
+"it were true &mdash; that if a company uses a GPL-covered program in a "
+"product that the whole product has to be free software.  It's not &mdash; it "
+"doesn't go to that range &mdash; that scope.  It's the whole program.  If "
+"there are two separate programs that communicate with each other at arm's "
+"length &mdash; like by sending messages to each other &mdash; then, they're "
+"legally separate, in general.  So, these companies, by adding non-free "
+"software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically and "
+"politically, a very bad idea.  They're telling the users, &ldquo;It is OK to "
+"use non-free software.  We're even putting it on this as a bonus.&rdquo;"
+msgstr ""
+"Voyez, la GNU GPL stipule que si vous prenez du code d'un programme sous GPL "
+"et que vous lui ajoutez du code pour en faire un programme plus grand, "
+"l'ensemble de ce programme devra être publié sous GPL. Mais vous pourriez "
+"mettre d'autres programmes séparés sur le même disque (soit disque dur, 
soit "
+"CD) et ils pourraient être sous d'autres licences ; c'est considéré comme 
"
+"une simple agrégation. Pour l'essentiel, nous n'avons rien à redire  au 
fait "
+"de simplement distribuer deux programmes à quelqu'un en même temps. Donc, 
en "
+"fait ce n'est pas vrai – j'aimerais quelquefois que ça soit vrai – que 
si "
+"une entreprise utilise un programme sous GPL dans un produit, l'ensemble du "
+"produit doive être du logiciel libre. Ça ne va pas jusque là. Il s'agit de 
"
+"l'ensemble du <em>programme</em>. S'il y a deux programmes séparés qui "
+"communiquent l'un avec l'autre à bout de bras, par exemple en s'envoyant des 
"
+"messages, ils sont en général juridiquement séparés. Ainsi ces 
entreprises, "
+"en ajoutant des logiciels non libres au système, donnent aux utilisateurs "
+"une très mauvaise idée, philosophiquement et politiquement. Elles disent 
aux "
+"utilisateurs : « C'est bien d'utiliser des logiciels non libres. Nous les "
+"ajoutons même en prime. »"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system, most of "
+"them have a title like &ldquo;Linux-something or other&rdquo;.  So they're "
+"calling the system Linux most of the time.  And they're filled with ads for "
+"non-free software that you could run on top of the GNU/Linux system.  Now "
+"those ads have a common message.  They say: Non-free Software Is Good For "
+"You.  It's So Good That You Might Even <em>Pay</em> To Get It.  <i>[Laughter]"
+"</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Si vous regardez les magazines sur l'utilisation du système GNU/Linux, la "
+"plupart ont un titre comme « Linux ceci » ou « Linux cela ». Ainsi la 
"
+"plupart du temps, ils appellent le système « Linux ». Et ils sont 
remplis de "
+"publicités pour des programmes non libres que vous pouvez faire fonctionner "
+"sur le système GNU/Linux. Ces publicités ont un message commun : « Le "
+"logiciel non libre est bon pour vous, tellement bon que vous pourriez même "
+"<em>payer</em> pour l'avoir. » <i>[rires]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And they call these things &ldquo;value-added packages&rdquo;, which makes a "
+"statement about their values.  They're saying: Value practical convenience, "
+"not freedom.  And, I don't agree with those values, so I call them &ldquo;"
+"freedom-subtracted packages&rdquo;.  <i>[Laughter]</i> Because if you have "
+"installed a free operating system, then you now are living in the free "
+"world.  You enjoy the benefits of liberty that we worked for so many years "
+"to give you.  Those packages give you an opportunity to buckle on a chain."
+msgstr ""
+"Ils donnent à ces choses le nom de « paquets à valeur ajoutée », ce 
qui en "
+"dit long sur leurs valeurs. Ils disent : « Accordez de la valeur au côté 
"
+"pratique, pas à la liberté. » Je n'adhère pas à ces valeurs, aussi je 
les "
+"appelle « paquets à liberté soustraite » <i>[rires]</i>. Parce que si 
vous "
+"avez installé un système d'exploitation libre, vous vivez maintenant dans 
le "
+"monde du libre. Vous bénéficiez de la liberté que nous avons travaillé "
+"pendant tant d'années à vous donner. Ces paquets vous donnent l'occasion de 
"
+"vous attacher à une chaîne."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And then if you look at the trade shows &mdash; about the use of the, "
+"dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call themselves "
+"&ldquo;Linux&rdquo; shows.  And they're filled with booths exhibiting non-"
+"free software, essentially putting the seal of approval on the non-free "
+"software.  So, almost everywhere you look in our community, the institutions "
+"are endorsing the non-free software, totalling negating the idea of freedom "
+"that GNU was developed for.  And the only place that people are likely to "
+"come across the idea of freedom is in connection with GNU, and in connection "
+"with free software, the term, free software.  So this is why I ask you: "
+"please call the system GNU/Linux.  Please make people aware where the system "
+"came from and why."
+msgstr ""
+"Si vous regardez les expositions commerciales autour du système GNU/Linux, "
+"elles s'appellent toutes « Linux »-expo. Et elles sont remplies de stands 
"
+"exposant des logiciels non libres, donnant le sceau de l'approbation à du "
+"logiciel non libre. Ainsi, où que vous regardiez dans notre communauté, à "
+"peu de choses près, les institutions renforcent le logiciel non libre, niant 
"
+"totalement l'idée de liberté pour laquelle GNU a été développé. La 
seule "
+"occasion qu'ont les gens de rencontrer l'idée de liberté est la référence 
à "
+"GNU et l'utilisation du terme « logiciel libre ». C'est pourquoi je vous "
+"demande d'appeler le système « GNU/Linux ». S'il vous plaît, faites 
prendre "
+"conscience aux gens de l'origine et de la raison d'être du système."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Of course, just by using that name, you won't be making an explanation of "
+"the history.  You can type four extra characters and write GNU/Linux; you "
+"can say two extra syllables.  But, GNU/Linux is fewer syllables than Windows "
+"2000.  <i>[Laughter]</i> But, you're not telling them a lot, but you're "
+"preparing them, so that when they hear about GNU, and what it's all about, "
+"they'll see how that connects to them and their lives.  And that, "
+"indirectly, makes a tremendous difference.  So please help us."
+msgstr ""
+"Bien sûr, en utilisant simplement ce nom vous ne donnerez pas une "
+"explication historique. Vous pouvez taper quatre lettres supplémentaires et "
+"écrire « GNU/Linux ». Vous pouvez dire deux syllabes de plus. GNU/Linux, 
"
+"c'est moins de syllabes que Windows 2000 <i>[rires]</i>. Vous n'en dites pas 
"
+"vraiment beaucoup mais vous les préparez pour le jour où ils entendront "
+"parler de GNU et de ce qu'il représente. Ils verront alors comment ça se "
+"rattache à leur vie. Et cela, indirectement, fait une différence énorme. "
+"Alors s'il vous plaît, aidez-nous."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"You'll note that Microsoft called the GPL an &ldquo;open source "
+"license&rdquo;.  They don't want people to be thinking in terms of freedom "
+"as the issue.  You'll find that they invite people to think in a narrow way, "
+"as consumers, and, of course, not even think very rationally as consumers, "
+"if they're going to choose Microsoft products.  But they don't want people "
+"to think as citizens or statesmen.  That's inimical to them.  At least it's "
+"inimical to their current business model."
+msgstr ""
+"Vous noterez que Microsoft qualifie la GPL de « licence open source ». 
Ils "
+"ne veulent pas que les gens pensent en termes de liberté. Ils incitent les "
+"gens à penser étroitement, en tant que consommateurs (et en plus pas très "
+"rationnels, comme consommateurs, s'ils choisissent les produits Microsoft). "
+"Mais ils ne veulent pas que les gens pensent en tant que citoyens ou hommes "
+"d'État. Ça leur est défavorable, du moins c'est défavorable à leur 
modèle "
+"économique actuel."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, how does free software&hellip;well, I can tell you about how free "
+"software relates to our society.  A secondary topic that might be of "
+"interest to some of you is how free software relates to business.  Now, in "
+"fact, free software is <em>tremendously</em> useful for business.  After "
+"all, most businesses in the advanced countries use software.  Only a tiny "
+"fraction of them develop software."
+msgstr ""
+"Je peux vous expliquer comment le logiciel libre est lié à notre société. 
Un "
+"sujet secondaire, qui pourrait intéresser certains d'entre vous, c'est son "
+"rapport à l'économie. En réalité, le logiciel libre est 
<em>extrêmement</em> "
+"utile à l'économie. Après tout, la plupart des entreprises utilisent du "
+"logiciel dans les pays avancés mais seule une minuscule fraction en "
+"développe."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And free software is tremendously advantageous for any company that uses "
+"software, because it means that you're in control.  Basically, free software "
+"means the users are in control of what the program does.  Either "
+"individually, if they care enough to be, or, collectively, when they care "
+"enough to be.  Whoever cares enough can exert some influence.  If you don't "
+"care, you don't buy.  Then you use what other people prefer.  But, if you do "
+"care, then you have some say. With proprietary software, you have "
+"essentially no say."
+msgstr ""
+"Le logiciel libre offre un avantage considérable à toute entreprise qui "
+"utilise des logiciels car cela veut dire que c'est elle qui en a le "
+"contrôle. En gros, un logiciel est libre si l'utilisateur a le contrôle de "
+"ce que fait le programme, soit individuellement soit collectivement, à "
+"condition de s'y intéresser suffisamment. N'importe quelle personne qui s'y "
+"intéresse peut exercer quelque influence. Si cela ne vous intéresse pas, "
+"vous n'achetez pas, alors vous utilisez ce que d'autres préfèrent. Mais si "
+"vous vous y intéressez, alors vous avez votre mot à dire. Avec les 
logiciels "
+"privateurs, pour l'essentiel, vous n'avez rien à dire. "
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"With free software, you can change what you want to change.  And it doesn't "
+"matter that there are no programmers in your company; that's fine.  You "
+"know, if you wanted to move the walls in your building, you don't have to be "
+"a carpentry company. You just have to be able to go find a carpenter and "
+"say, &ldquo;What will you charge to do this job?&rdquo; And if you want to "
+"change around the software you use, you don't have to be a programming "
+"company.  You just have to go to a programming company and say, &ldquo;What "
+"will you charge to implement these features? And when will you have it done?"
+"&rdquo; And if they don't do the job, you can go find somebody else."
+msgstr ""
+"Avec le logiciel libre vous pouvez modifier ce que vous voulez. Et peu "
+"importe qu'il n'y ait pas de programmeur dans votre entreprise, ça marche "
+"quand même. Vous savez, si vous voulez bouger les cloisons de votre "
+"appartement, vous n'avez pas besoin d'être une entreprise de maçonnerie, "
+"vous n'avez qu'à trouver un maçon et lui demander « Combien prenez-vous 
pour "
+"faire ce travail ? » Et si vous voulez changer les logiciels que vous "
+"utilisez vous n'avez pas besoin d'être une entreprise d'informatique, il "
+"vous suffit d'aller dans une entreprise d'informatique et de leur dire : "
+"« Combien demandez-vous pour mettre en œuvre ces fonctionnalités ? Et 
pour "
+"quand pouvez-vous le faire ? » Et si la réponse ne vous convient pas, 
vous "
+"allez voir quelqu'un d'autre."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"There's a free market for support.  So, any business that cares about "
+"support will find a tremendous advantage in free software.  With proprietary "
+"software, support is a monopoly, because one company has the source code, or "
+"maybe a small number of companies that paid a gigantic amount of money have "
+"the source code, if it's Microsoft's shared source program, but, it's very "
+"few.  And so, there aren't very many possible sources of support for you.  "
+"And that means, that unless you're a real giant, they don't care about you.  "
+"Your company is not important enough for them to care if they lose your "
+"business, or what happens.  Once you're using the program, they figure "
+"you're locked in to getting the support from them, because to switch to a "
+"different program is a gigantic job.  So, you end up with things like paying "
+"for the privilege of reporting a bug.  <i>[Laughter]</i> And once you've "
+"paid, they tell you, &ldquo;Well, OK, we've noted your bug report.  And in a "
+"few months, you can buy an upgrade, and you can see if we've fixed it."
+"&rdquo; <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Il y a un marché libre pour le service. Alors une entreprise qui 
s'intéresse "
+"au service trouvera un avantage énorme dans le logiciel libre. Dans le "
+"logiciel privateur, le service est un monopole. Parce qu'une seule société "
+"possède le code source, ou peut-être quelques sociétés qui ont payé des "
+"sommes faramineuses, si c'est un <cite>shared source</cite> de Microsoft. "
+"Mais elles sont très peu nombreuses. Par conséquent vous n'avez pas mille "
+"prestataires de service à votre disposition. Cela veut dire, sauf si vous "
+"êtes un géant, qu'ils n'en ont rien à faire de vous. Votre entreprise 
n'est "
+"pas assez importante pour qu'ils tiennent à vous avoir comme client. Une "
+"fois que vous utilisez le programme, vous êtes obligé de passer par eux 
pour "
+"l'assistance, parce que migrer vers un autre logiciel est un travail énorme. 
"
+"Alors vous finissez par payer pour avoir le privilège de signaler un bogue "
+"<i>[rires]</i>. Et une fois que vous avez payé ils vous disent : « OK, 
nous "
+"avons noté le bogue. Dans quelques mois vous pourrez acheter une mise à 
jour "
+"et vous verrez si nous l'avons réparé. » <i>[rires]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Support providers for free software can't get away with that.  They have to "
+"please the customers.  Of course, you can get a lot of good support gratis.  "
+"You post your problem on the Internet.  You may get an answer the next day.  "
+"But that's not guaranteed, of course.  If you want to be confident, you "
+"better make an arrangement with a company and pay them.  And this is, of "
+"course, one of the ways that free software business works."
+msgstr ""
+"Les sociétés de service dans le logiciel libre ne peuvent pas s'en tirer "
+"comme ça. Elles doivent satisfaire les consommateurs. Bien sûr vous pouvez "
+"avoir beaucoup d'assistance gratis. Vous posez votre problème sur Internet "
+"et vous pouvez recevoir une réponse le lendemain. Mais ça n'est bien sûr 
pas "
+"garanti. Si vous voulez être sûr, vous avez intérêt à conclure un accord 
"
+"avec une société et à la payer. Et c'est naturellement l'une des façons 
dont "
+"l'économie du logiciel libre fonctionne."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Another advantage of free software for businesses that use software is "
+"security and privacy.  And this applies to individuals as well, but I "
+"brought it up in the context of businesses.  You see, when a program is "
+"proprietary, you can't even tell what it really does."
+msgstr ""
+"Un des autres avantages du logiciel libre pour les entreprises, c'est la "
+"sécurité et la protection de la vie privée (cela s'applique aussi aux "
+"particuliers, mais je me suis placé dans le contexte des entreprises). Quand 
"
+"un programme est privateur, vous voyez, on ne peut pas dire ce qu'il fait "
+"vraiment."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"It could have features, deliberately put in that you wouldn't like if you "
+"knew about them, like it might have a backdoor to let the developer get into "
+"your machine.  It might snoop on what you do and send information back.  "
+"This is not unusual.  Some Microsoft software did this.  But it's not only "
+"Microsoft.  There are other proprietary programs that snoop on the user.  "
+"And you can't even tell if it does this.  And, of course, even assuming that "
+"the developer's totally honest, every programmer makes mistakes.  There "
+"could be bugs that affect your security which are nobody's fault.  But the "
+"point is: If it's not free software, you can't find them. And you can't fix "
+"them."
+msgstr ""
+"Il pourrait avoir des fonctionnalités, implantées délibérément, que vous 
"
+"n'aimeriez pas si vous étiez au courant de leur existence. Par exemple il "
+"pourrait avoir une « porte dérobée » <cite>[backdoor]</cite> pour 
laisser le "
+"développeur rentrer dans votre machine. Elle pourrait vous espionner et lui "
+"renvoyer des informations. Ce n'est pas inhabituel. Certains programmes de "
+"Microsoft le faisaient, mais pas seulement ceux de Microsoft. Il y a "
+"d'autres programmes privateurs qui espionnent l'utilisateur et vous ne "
+"pouvez même pas le savoir. Et, bien sûr, à supposer même que le 
développeur "
+"soit parfaitement honnête, tout programmeur peut commettre des erreurs. Il "
+"pourrait y avoir des bogues qui affectent votre sécurité, ce qui n'est la "
+"faute de personne. Mais le point important est que si ce n'est pas du "
+"logiciel libre, vous ne pouvez pas trouver les erreurs ni les réparer."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Nobody has the time to check the source of every program he runs.  You're "
+"not going to do that.  But with free software there's a large community, and "
+"there are people in that community who are checking things.  And you get the "
+"benefit of their checking, because if there's an accidental bug, there "
+"surely are, from time to time, in any program, they might find it and fix "
+"it.  And people are much less likely to put in a deliberate Trojan horse, or "
+"a snooping feature, if they think they might get caught.  The proprietary "
+"software developers figure they won't get caught.  They'll get away with it "
+"undetected.  But a free software developer has to figure that people will "
+"look at that and see it's there.  So, in our community, we don't feel we can "
+"get away with ramming a feature down the users' throats that the users "
+"wouldn't like.  So we know that if the users don't like it, they'll make a "
+"modified version which doesn't have it.  And then, they'll all start using "
+"that version."
+msgstr ""
+"Personne n'a le temps de vérifier le code source de chaque programme qu'il "
+"utilise. Ce n'est pas vous qui allez le faire. Mais, avec les logiciels "
+"libres il y a une grande communauté. Dans cette communauté il y a des gens "
+"qui vérifient et vous bénéficiez de leurs vérifications, parce que s'il y 
a "
+"un bogue accidentel (et il y en a de temps en temps dans n'importe quel "
+"programme), ils pourront le trouver et le corriger. Il est donc peu probable "
+"que quelqu'un place délibérément un cheval de Troie ou une fonction "
+"d'espionnage dans le programme s'il pense qu'il peut être découvert. Les "
+"développeurs de logiciel privateur pensent qu'ils ne seront pas pris, que "
+"cela passera sans être détecté. Mais un développeur du libre devra se 
dire "
+"que les gens rechercheront ce genre de chose et le trouveront. De même, dans 
"
+"notre communauté nous ne pouvons pas faire avaler aux utilisateurs une "
+"fonction qu'ils n'aimeraient pas, car nous savons que s'ils ne l'aiment pas "
+"ils feront une version modifiée sans cette fonction, puis ils se mettront "
+"tous à utiliser la version modifiée."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"In fact, we can all reason enough, we can all figure this out enough steps "
+"ahead, that we probably won't put in that feature.  After all, you're "
+"writing a free program; you want people to like your version; you don't want "
+"to put in a thing that you know a lot of people are going to hate, and have "
+"another modified version catch on instead of yours.  So you just realize "
+"that the user is king in the world of free software.  In the world of "
+"proprietary software, the customer is <em>not</em> king.  Because you are "
+"only a customer.  You have no say in the software you use."
+msgstr ""
+"En fait nous sommes tous capables de réfléchir et de nous projeter "
+"suffisamment pour ne pas introduire cette fonction. Après tout, si vous "
+"écrivez un programme libre, vous voulez que les gens apprécient votre "
+"version. Vous ne voulez pas y mettre quelque chose que les gens vont "
+"détester et voir une version modifiée prendre le dessus. Vous comprenez que 
"
+"l'utilisateur est roi, dans le monde du libre. Dans le monde privateur par "
+"contre, l'utilisateur <em>n'est pas</em> roi. Il n'est qu'un consommateur, "
+"il n'a pas son mot à dire sur le logiciel qu'il utilise."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"In this respect, free software is a new mechanism for democracy to operate.  "
+"Professor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions as a kind of "
+"law.  Whoever gets to write the code that just about everybody uses for all "
+"intents and purposes is writing the laws that run people's lives.  With free "
+"software, these laws get written in a democratic way.  Not the classical "
+"form of democracy &mdash; we don't have a big election and say, &ldquo;"
+"Everybody vote which way should this feature be done.&rdquo; <i>[Laughter]</"
+"i> Instead we say, basically, those of you who want to work on implementing "
+"the feature this way, do it.  And if you want to work on implementing the "
+"feature that way, do it.  And, it gets done one way or the other, you know? "
+"And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done this way.  So, "
+"in this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by simply taking "
+"steps in the direction that he wants to go."
+msgstr ""
+"De ce point de vue, le logiciel libre est un nouveau mécanisme 
démocratique. "
+"Le professeur Lessig, qui est maintenant à Stanford, a remarqué que le code 
"
+"fonctionne comme une sorte de loi. Celui qui écrit un code dont presque tout 
"
+"le monde se sert à toutes fins utiles écrit les lois qui régissent la vie "
+"des gens. Avec le logiciel libre, ces lois sont écrites d'une façon "
+"démocratique. Pas comme la démocratie traditionnelle – il n'y a pas de 
grand "
+"référendum où l'on demande : « Comment voulez-vous implémenter cette "
+"nouvelle fonctionnalité ? » <i>[rires]</i> À la place nous disons : « 
Que "
+"ceux qui veulent travailler à mettre en œuvre telle fonctionnalité, de 
telle "
+"façon, le fassent ; et si vous voulez le faire autrement, allez-y. » Et 
cela "
+"se fait d'une manière ou d'une autre. Si beaucoup de gens veulent le faire "
+"de cette façon, c'est comme cela que ça se fait. Ainsi, tout le monde "
+"contribue à la décision de la société simplement en avançant dans la "
+"direction où l'on veut aller."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And you're free to take as many steps, personally, as you want to take.  A "
+"business is free to commission as many steps as they find useful to take.  "
+"And, after you add all these things up, that says which direction the "
+"software goes."
+msgstr ""
+"Et vous êtes, personnellement, libre d'aller aussi loin que vous voulez. Une 
"
+"entreprise est libre d'avancer dans une direction autant qu'elle le veut.  "
+"Après, vous additionnez toutes ces choses et cela donne la direction où va "
+"le logiciel."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And it's often very useful to be able to take pieces out of some existing "
+"program, presumably usually large pieces, of course, and then write a "
+"certain amount of code of your own, and make a program that does exactly "
+"what you need, which would have cost you an arm and a leg to develop, if you "
+"had to write it all from scratch, if you couldn't cannibalize large pieces "
+"from some existing free software package."
+msgstr ""
+"C'est souvent très utile de pouvoir prendre des morceaux d'un programme "
+"existant, de gros morceaux la plupart du temps, et ensuite d'écrire une "
+"certaine quantité de code de votre cru pour créer un programme qui fasse "
+"exactement ce dont vous avez besoin, et qui vous aurait coûté les yeux de 
la "
+"tête à développer vous-même de zéro si vous n'aviez pu cannibaliser de 
gros "
+"morceaux d'un programme libre existant."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Another thing that results from the fact that the user is king is that we "
+"tend to be very good about compatibility and standardization.  Why? Because "
+"users like that.  Users are likely to reject a program that has gratuitous "
+"incompatibilities in it.  Now, sometimes there's a certain group of users "
+"which actually have a need for a certain kind of incompatibility, and then "
+"they'll have it. That's OK.  But when users want is to follow a standard, we "
+"developers have to follow it, and we know that.  And we do it.  By contrast, "
+"if you look at proprietary software developers, they often find it "
+"advantageous to deliberately <em>not</em> follow a standard, and not because "
+"they think that they're giving the user an advantage that way, but rather "
+"because they're imposing on the user, locking the user in.  And you'll even "
+"find them making changes in their file formats from time to time, just to "
+"force people to get the newest version."
+msgstr ""
+"Un autre résultat de la puissance de l'utilisateur, c'est que nous tendons à
 "
+"être bons en matière de normalisation et de compatibilité. Pourquoi ? 
Parce "
+"que les utilisateurs aiment ça ! Les utilisateurs rejetteront "
+"vraisemblablement un programme qui est délibérément incompatible avec les "
+"autres. Cela dit, certains groupes d'utilisateurs ont besoin d'une certaine "
+"incompatibilité, et ils l'obtiennent ; c'est très bien. Mais quand le "
+"souhait des utilisateurs est de respecter une norme, nous les développeurs "
+"devons la respecter. Nous le savons et nous le faisons. Par contre, si vous "
+"regardez les développeurs de logiciel privateur, ils trouvent souvent "
+"avantage à <em>ne pas</em> respecter de norme, délibérément – pas 
parce "
+"qu'ils pensent que cela bénéficiera à l'utilisateur, mais plutôt pour "
+"s'imposer à lui, pour l'enfermer. Vous en trouverez même qui modifient 
leurs "
+"formats de fichiers de temps à autre, juste pour obliger les utilisateurs à 
"
+"se procurer la dernière version."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Archivists are finding a problem now, that files written on computers ten "
+"years ago often can't be accessed; they were written with proprietary "
+"software that's essentially lost now.  If it were written with free "
+"software, then it could be brought up-to-date and run.  And those things "
+"would not, those records would not be lost, would not be inaccessible.  They "
+"were even complaining about this on NPR recently in citing free software as "
+"a solution.  And so, in effect, by using a non-free program to store your "
+"own data, you are putting your head in a noose."
+msgstr ""
+"Les archivistes ont un problème actuellement parce que des fichiers écrits "
+"sur ordinateur il y a des années ne sont plus accessibles. Ils ont été "
+"écrits avec des programmes privateurs qui sont maintenant perdus, ou tout "
+"comme. S'ils avaient été écrits avec des logiciels libres, ces programmes "
+"pourraient être mis à jour et fonctionner. Et ces choses, ces archives, ne "
+"seraient plus inaccessibles. Il y a eu des gens pour s'en plaindre sur NPR<a "
+"id=\"TransNote9-rev\" href=\"#TransNote9\"><sup>9</sup></a> récemment et "
+"pour citer le logiciel libre comme solution. Donc en réalité, en utilisant "
+"un logiciel privateur pour stocker vos données, vous mettez la tête dans un 
"
+"nœud coulant."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, I've talked about how free software affects most business.  But how does "
+"it affect that particular narrow area which is software business? Well, the "
+"answer is mostly not at all.  And the reason is that 90% of the software "
+"industry, from what I'm told, is development of custom software, software "
+"that's not meant to be released at all.  For custom software, this issue, or "
+"the ethical issue of free or proprietary, doesn't arise.  You see, the issue "
+"is, are you users free to change, and redistribute, the software? If there's "
+"only one user, and that user owns the rights, there's no problem.  That user "
+"<em>is</em> free to do all these things.  So, in effect, any <em>custom</em> "
+"program that was developed by one company for use in-house is free software, "
+"as long as they have the sense to insist on getting the source code and all "
+"the rights."
+msgstr ""
+"J'ai donc parlé de la façon dont le logiciel libre affecte la majeure 
partie "
+"de l'économie. Mais comment affecte-t-il le domaine plus particulier de "
+"l'industrie du logiciel ? Eh bien, la réponse est : pratiquement pas. Et 
la "
+"raison, c'est que 90% de l'industrie du logiciel (d'après ce que j'entends "
+"dire) développe du logiciel sur mesure, du logiciel qui n'est pas destiné à
 "
+"la diffusion. Pour le logiciel sur mesure, la question éthique, libre ou "
+"privateur, ne se pose pas. Vous voyez, la question est de savoir si, en tant "
+"qu'utilisateur, vous pouvez modifier et redistribuer le logiciel. S'il n'y a "
+"qu'un utilisateur et qu'il a ces droits, il n'y a pas de problème. Cet "
+"utilisateur <em>est libre</em> de faire tout ça. Par conséquent un 
programme "
+"<em>sur mesure</em> qui a été développé par une entreprise pour usage "
+"interne est un logiciel libre, du moins s'ils ont assez de bon sens pour "
+"réclamer le code source avec tous les droits."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And the issue doesn't really arise for software that goes in a watch or a "
+"microwave oven or an automobile ignition system.  Because those are places "
+"where you don't download software to install.  It's not a real computer, as "
+"far as the user is concerned.  And so, it doesn't raise these issues enough "
+"for them to be ethically important.  So, for the most part, the software "
+"industry will go along, just as it's been going.  And the interesting thing "
+"is that since such a large fraction of the jobs are in that part of the "
+"industry, even if there were no possibilities for free software business, "
+"the developers of free software could all get day jobs writing custom "
+"software.  <i>[Laughter]</i> There's so many; the ratio is so big."
+msgstr ""
+"Cet enjeu n'existe pas pour un logiciel embarqué dans une montre ou un four "
+"à microonde, ou dans le système d'allumage d'une voiture, parce que ce ne "
+"sont pas des endroits où l'on télécharge des logiciels pour les installer. 
"
+"Du point de vue de l'utilisateur, ce ne sont pas de vrais ordinateurs. Les "
+"questions éthiques ne les concernent pas suffisamment pour qu'ils soient un "
+"enjeu important. Donc, pour l'essentiel, l'industrie du logiciel continuera "
+"comme auparavant. Ce qui est intéressant c'est que, la plupart des emplois "
+"étant dans cette fraction de l'industrie, même s'il n'était pas possible "
+"d'avoir une économie du libre les développeurs de logiciel libre pourraient 
"
+"quand même trouver un emploi dans le sur mesure <i>[rires]</i>. Il y en a "
+"tellement, une si grande proportion !"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, as it happens, there is free software business.  There are free "
+"software companies, and at the press conference that I'm going to have, "
+"people from a couple of them will join us.  And, of course, there are also "
+"companies which are <em>not</em> free software businesses but do develop "
+"useful pieces of free software to release, and the free software that they "
+"produce is substantial."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais il se trouve qu'il existe une industrie du logiciel libre. Il y a des "
+"entreprises de logiciel libre. À la conférence de presse que je vais faire, 
"
+"des représentants de quelques unes d'entre elles vont se joindre à nous. Et 
"
+"naturellement, il y a des sociétés qui <em>ne sont pas</em> des entreprises 
"
+"de logiciel libre mais qui néanmoins développent et publient des logiciels "
+"libres très utiles en quantité considérable."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, how do free software businesses work? Well, some of them sell copies.  "
+"You know, you're free to copy it but they can still sell thousands of copies "
+"a month.  And others sell support and various kinds of services.  I, "
+"personally, for the second half of the '80's, I sold free software support "
+"services.  Basically I said, for $200 an hour, I'll change whatever you want "
+"me to change in GNU software that I'd written.  And, yes, it was a stiff "
+"rate, but if it was a program that I was the author of, people would figure "
+"that I might get the job done in a lot fewer hours.  <i>[Laughter]</i> And I "
+"made a living that way.  In fact, I'd made more than I'd ever made before.  "
+"I also taught classes.  And I kept doing that until 1990, when I got a big "
+"prize and I didn't have to do it any more."
+msgstr ""
+"Comment travaille l'industrie du libre ? Eh bien, certains vendent des "
+"copies. On est libre de copier un programme mais ils arrivent quand même à "
+"vendre des centaines d'exemplaires par mois. Et d'autres vendent de "
+"l'assistance et des services variés. Personnellement dans les années 80, "
+"j'ai vendu de l'assistance sur les logiciels libres. En gros, pour 200 $ de "
+"l'heure je changeais ce que vous vouliez dans les programmes GNU que j'avais "
+"écrits. Oui, c'était un tarif élevé, mais c'était pour des programmes 
que "
+"j'avais écrits et les gens pensaient que j'y passerais moins de temps <i>"
+"[rires]</i>. Et j'ai gagné ma vie avec ça. En fait, j'ai gagné plus que "
+"jamais auparavant. J'ai aussi enseigné. J'ai continué jusqu'en 1990 où 
j'ai "
+"obtenu une récompense importante ; alors je n'ai plus eu à le faire."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, 1990 was when the first corporation free software business was formed, "
+"which was Cygnus Support.  And their business was to do, essentially, the "
+"same kind of thing that I'd been doing.  I certainly could have worked for "
+"them, if I had needed to do that.  Since I didn't need to, I felt it was "
+"good for the movement if I remained independent of any one company.  That "
+"way, I could say good and bad things about the various free software and non-"
+"free software companies, without a conflict of interest.  I felt that I "
+"could serve the movement more.  But, if I had needed that to make a living, "
+"sure, I would have worked for them.  It's an ethical business to be in.  No "
+"reason I would have felt ashamed to take a job with them.  And that company "
+"was profitable in its first year.  It was formed with very little capital, "
+"just the money its three founders had.  And it kept growing every year and "
+"being profitable every year until they got greedy, and looked for outside "
+"investors, and then they messed things up.  But it was several years of "
+"success, before they got greedy."
+msgstr ""
+"C'est en 1990 que la première entreprise de logiciel libre a été formée, "
+"<cite>Cygnus Support</cite>. Leur travail était essentiellement le même que 
"
+"le mien. J'aurais certainement pu travailler pour eux si j'en avais eu "
+"besoin. Comme ce n'était pas le cas, j'ai pensé qu'il était bon pour le "
+"mouvement que je reste indépendant. De cette façon je pouvais dire du bien "
+"et du mal des différentes entreprises de logiciel, libre ou non, sans "
+"conflit d'intérêt. Je pensais que cela servirait mieux le mouvement. Mais 
si "
+"j'avais dû en vivre j'aurais travaillé pour eux. C'est un travail éthique, 
"
+"il n'y aurait eu aucune raison d'en avoir honte. Et cette société a été "
+"rentable dès la première année. Elle a été fondée avec très peu de 
capital, "
+"juste l'argent de ses trois fondateurs. Elle a grossi chaque année et est "
+"restée rentable jusqu'à ce qu'ils soient trop cupides et cherchent des "
+"investisseurs extérieurs ; alors ils se sont plantés. Mais elle a eu "
+"plusieurs années de succès avant qu'ils ne soient trop gourmands."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, this illustrates one of the exciting things about free software.  Free "
+"software demonstrates that you don't need to raise capital to develop free "
+"software.  I mean, it's useful; it <em>can</em> help.  You know, if you do "
+"raise some capital, you can hire people and have them write a bunch of "
+"software.  But you can get a lot done with a small number of people.  And, "
+"in fact, the tremendous efficiency of the process of developing free "
+"software is one of the reasons it's important for the world to switch to "
+"free software.  And it also belies what Microsoft says when they say the GNU "
+"GPL is bad, because it makes it harder for them to raise capital to develop "
+"non-free software and take our free software and put our code into their "
+"programs that they won't share with us.  Basically, we don't need to have "
+"them raising capital that way.  We'll get the job done anyway.  We are "
+"getting the job done."
+msgstr ""
+"Cela illustre une des choses intéressantes sur le logiciel libre : on n'a "
+"pas besoin de lever du capital pour le développer. J'admets que c'est utile, 
"
+"que cela <em>peut</em> aider ; si vous levez du capital, vous pouvez "
+"recruter des gens et leur faire écrire un tas de logiciel. Mais vous pouvez "
+"faire beaucoup avec peu de gens. Et en fait, la formidable efficacité du "
+"processus de développement du logiciel libre est une des raisons pour "
+"lesquelles il est important que le monde passe au libre. De plus, cela "
+"démentit ce que dit Microsoft quand ils prétendent que la GNU GPL est "
+"mauvaise parce qu'elle leur rend difficile l'appel au capital pour "
+"développer du logiciel non libre – prendre notre logiciel libre puis 
mettre "
+"notre code dans leurs programmes qu'ils ne partageront pas avec nous. En "
+"réalité nous n'avons pas besoin qu'ils lèvent du capital de cette 
manière. "
+"Nous ferons le travail de toute façon. Nous sommes en train de le faire."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"People used to say we could never do a complete free operating system.  Now "
+"we've done that and a tremendous amount more.  And I would say that we're "
+"about an order of magnitude away from developing all the general purpose "
+"published software needs of the world.  And this is in a world where more "
+"than 90% of the users don't use our free software yet.  This is in a world "
+"where, although in certain areas of business, you know, more than half of "
+"all the web servers in the world are running on GNU/Linux with Apache as the "
+"web server."
+msgstr ""
+"Les gens disaient que nous ne pourrions jamais faire un système "
+"d'exploitation libre complet. Maintenant nous l'avons fait, et beaucoup plus "
+"encore. Je dirais que nous sommes à peu près à un ordre de grandeur de "
+"couvrir l'ensemble des besoins de la planète en développement de logiciels "
+"publiés d'usage courant, et ceci dans un monde où 90% des utilisateurs ne 
se "
+"servent pas encore de nos logiciels libres ; ceci dans un monde où – 
bien "
+"que ce soit dans certains secteurs de l'économie – plus de la moitié des 
"
+"serveurs web tournent sous GNU/Linux avec Apache."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i> &hellip; What did you say "
+"before, Linux?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : <i>[inaudible]</i> Qu'avez vous dit avant Linux 
?"
+"&hellip;"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I said GNU/Linux."
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : J'ai dit GNU/Linux."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You did?"
+msgstr "<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Ah bon ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, if I'm talking about the kernel, I call it "
+"Linux.  You know, that's it's name.  The kernel was written by Linus "
+"Torvalds, and we should only call it by the name that he chose, out of "
+"respect for the author."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Oui, si je parle du noyau je dis Linux. Comme "
+"vous savez, c'est son nom. Le noyau a été écrit par Linus Torvalds et nous 
"
+"devons l'appeler du nom qu'il a choisi, par respect pour l'auteur."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Anyway, but in general, in business most users are not using it.  Most home "
+"users are not using our system yet.  So, when they are, we should "
+"automatically get 10 times as many volunteers and 10 times as many customers "
+"for the free software businesses that there will be.  And so that will take "
+"us that order of magnitude.  So at this point, I am pretty confident that we "
+"<em>can</em> do the job."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais la plupart des utilisateurs professionnels ne s'en servent 
généralement "
+"pas et la plupart des particuliers n'utilisent pas encore notre système. "
+"Lorsqu'ils l'utiliseront, nous devrions avoir automatiquement dix fois plus "
+"de bénévoles et dix fois plus de clients pour l'industrie du logiciel libre 
"
+"qui existera alors. Ainsi nous obtiendrons cette croissance d'un ordre de "
+"grandeur. Au point où nous en sommes, je suis très confiant dans le fait 
que "
+"nous <em>pouvons</em> y arriver."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And, this is important, because Microsoft asks us to feel desperate.  They "
+"say, The only way you can have software to run, the only way you can have "
+"innovation, is if you give us power.  Let us dominate you.  Let us control "
+"what you can do with the software you're running, so that we can squeeze a "
+"lot of money out of you, and use a certain fraction of that to develop "
+"software, and take the rest as profit."
+msgstr ""
+"C'est très important, parce que Microsoft nous demande de céder au "
+"désespoir. Ils disent : « La seule façon d'avoir des logiciels à faire "
+"fonctionner, la seule façon d'avoir des innovations, c'est de nous donner le 
"
+"pouvoir. Laissez-nous vous dominer. Laissez-nous contrôler ce que vous "
+"pouvez faire avec les programmes que vous utilisez de façon à pouvoir vous "
+"soutirer beaucoup d'argent, utiliser une certaine fraction de cet argent "
+"pour développer et garder le reste comme profit. »"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Well, you shouldn't ever feel that desperate.  You shouldn't ever feel so "
+"desperate that you give up your freedom.  That's very dangerous."
+msgstr ""
+"Eh bien nous ne devons pas être aussi désespérés. Il ne faut pas être "
+"désespéré au point d'abandonner sa liberté. C'est très dangereux."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Another thing that Microsoft, well, not just Microsoft, people who don't "
+"support free software generally adopt a value system in which the only thing "
+"that matters is short-term practical benefits: How much money am I going to "
+"make this year? What job can I get done today? Short-term thinking and "
+"narrow thinking.  Their assumption is that it is ridiculous to imagine that "
+"anybody ever might make a sacrifice for the sake of freedom."
+msgstr ""
+"Un autre problème, c'est que Microsoft&hellip; en fait pas seulement "
+"Microsoft, les gens qui n'encouragent pas le logiciel libre adoptent en "
+"général un système de valeurs où seuls comptent les bénéfices à court "
+"terme : « Combien d'argent gagnerons-nous cette année ? Quel travail 
puis-je "
+"faire aujourd'hui ? » Pensée à court terme et pensée étroite. Ils 
estiment "
+"ridicule d'imaginer que quiconque puisse jamais faire un sacrifice pour la "
+"liberté."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Yesterday, a lot of people were making speeches about Americans who made "
+"sacrifices for the freedom of their compatriots.  Some of them made great "
+"sacrifices.  They even sacrificed their lives for the kinds of freedom that "
+"everyone in our country has heard about, at least.  (At least, in some of "
+"the cases; I guess we have to ignore the war in Vietnam.)"
+msgstr ""
+"Pas plus tard qu'hier, beaucoup de gens faisaient des discours sur les "
+"Américains qui ont fait des sacrifices pour la liberté de leurs "
+"compatriotes, de grands sacrifices pour certains. Ils ont été jusqu'à "
+"sacrifier leur vie pour ces liberté dont tout le monde dans notre pays a au "
+"moins entendu parler (du moins dans certains cas ; je suppose qu'il faut "
+"oublier la guerre du Vietnam)."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<i>[Editor's note: The day before was &ldquo;Memorial Day&rdquo; in the "
+"USA.  Memorial Day is a day where war heros are commemorated.]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<i>[Note de l'éditeur : la veille, c'était le Memorial Day aux 
États-Unis, "
+"le jour où l'on commémore les héros des guerres.]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, fortunately, to maintain our freedom in using software, doesn't call "
+"for big sacrifices. Just tiny, little sacrifices are enough, like learning a "
+"command-line interface, if we don't have a GUI interface program yet.  Like "
+"doing the job in this way, because we don't have a free software package to "
+"do it that way, yet.  Like, paying some money to a company that's going to "
+"develop a certain free software package, so that you can have it in a few "
+"years.  Various little sacrifices that we can all make.  And, in the long "
+"run, even we will have benefited from it.  You know, it is really an "
+"investment more than a sacrifice.  We just have to have enough long-term "
+"view to realize it's good for us to invest in improving our society, without "
+"counting the nickels and dimes of who gets how much of the benefit from that "
+"investment."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais heureusement, garder notre liberté dans l'utilisation des logiciels "
+"n'exige pas de grands sacrifices. Juste de petits sacrifices minuscules, "
+"comme apprendre à utiliser la ligne de commande si l'on n'a pas encore "
+"d'interface graphique. Comme faire le travail de cette façon-ci parce qu'on "
+"n'a pas encore de logiciel libre pour le faire de cette façon-là. Comme "
+"payer une société pour développer tel logiciel libre pour que nous 
puissions "
+"en disposer dans quelques années. Divers petits sacrifices que nous pouvons "
+"tous faire. Et dans le long terme, nous en tirerons même avantage ! En "
+"réalité c'est plus un investissement qu'un sacrifice. Il nous faut 
seulement "
+"voir assez loin pour réaliser qu'il est bon de travailler à l'amélioration 
"
+"de la société, sans compter les centimes et les francs du retour sur "
+"investissement ni se préoccuper de qui en bénéficie."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "So, at this point, I'm essentially done."
+msgstr "Maintenant j'ai à peu près fini."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"I'd like to mention that there's a new approach to free software business "
+"being proposed by Tony Stanco, which he calls &ldquo;Free Developers&rdquo;, "
+"which involves a certain business structure which hopes eventually to pay "
+"out a certain share of the profits to every, to all the authors of the free "
+"software who've joined the organization.  And they're looking at the "
+"prospects of getting me some rather large government software development "
+"contracts in India now, because they're going to be using free software as "
+"the basis, having tremendous cost savings that way."
+msgstr ""
+"Je voudrais mentionner qu'il existe une autre approche de l'économie du "
+"logiciel libre qui a été proposée par Tony Stanco et qu'il appelle "
+"<cite>Free Developers</cite> (les développeurs libres). Elle implique une "
+"certaine structure économique qui espère un jour verser un certaine partie "
+"de ses profits à chacun des auteurs de logiciels libres qui auront rejoint "
+"cette organisation. Et ils espèrent m'obtenir de grands contrats publics de "
+"développement logiciel en Inde, parce qu'ils vont utiliser des logiciels "
+"libres là-bas, ce qui leur fera faire des économies de coût 
considérables."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "And so now I guess that I should ask for questions."
+msgstr "Je vais donc maintenant passer aux questions."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Could you speak up a bit louder please? I can't "
+"really hear you."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Pourriez-vous parler plus fort s'il vous plaît 
? "
+"Je ne peux vraiment pas vous entendre."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: How could a company like Microsoft include a free "
+"software contract?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Comment une société comme Microsoft pourrait-"
+"elle inclure un contrat pour du logiciel libre ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually, Microsoft is planning to shift a "
+"lot of its activity into services.  And what they're planning to do is "
+"something dirty and dangerous, which is tie the services to the programs, "
+"one to the next, in a sort of zigzag, you know? So that to use this service, "
+"you've got to be using this Microsoft program, which is going to mean you "
+"need to use this service, to this Microsoft program, so it's all tied "
+"together.  That's their plan."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Eh bien en réalité, Microsoft prévoit de "
+"transformer beaucoup de ses activités en services. Et ce qu'ils nous "
+"préparent, c'est un sale coup et c'est dangereux. En effet ils veulent "
+"associer les services aux programmes, dans une sorte de zig-zag, vous "
+"voyez ? Si bien que pour utiliser tel service, vous devrez utiliser tel "
+"programme Microsoft, ce qui veut dire que vous aurez besoin d'utiliser ce "
+"service dédié pour faire tourner le programme Microsoft ; ainsi tout est "
+"lié. Voilà leur projet."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, the interesting thing is that selling those services doesn't raise the "
+"ethical issue of free software or non-free software.  It might be perfectly "
+"fine for them to have the business for those businesses selling those "
+"services over the net to exist.  However, what Microsoft is planning to do "
+"is to use them to achieve an even greater lock, an even greater monopoly, on "
+"the software and the services, and this was described in an article, I "
+"believe in Business Week, recently.  And, other people said that it is "
+"turning the net into the Microsoft Company Town."
+msgstr ""
+"Ce qu'il y a d'intéressant, c'est que vendre ces services n'engage pas la "
+"question éthique du logiciel libre ou non libre. Ça pourrait être très 
bien "
+"de proposer cette activité aux entreprises qui vendent leurs services sur le 
"
+"net. Mais ce qu'ils essaient d'obtenir avec ce système, c'est un "
+"verrouillage encore plus fort, un renforcement de leur monopole sur les "
+"logiciels et les services. Cela a été décrit récemment dans un article, 
de "
+"<cite>Business Week</cite>, je crois. Et d'autre ont dit que cela allait "
+"transformer le net en « Microsoft-Ville »."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And this is relevant because, you know, the trial court in the Microsoft "
+"antitrust trial recommended breaking up the company, Microsoft.  But in a "
+"way, that makes no sense &mdash; it wouldn't do any good at all &mdash; into "
+"the operating part and the applications part."
+msgstr ""
+"C'est pertinent car, vous le savez, au procès antitrust contre Microsoft le "
+"tribunal a recommandé de couper la société en deux – mais d'une 
certaine "
+"manière cela n'a pas de sens, cela ne donnerait rien de bon du tout – une 
"
+"partie système d'exploitation et une partie applications."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But having seen that article, I now see a useful, effective way to split up "
+"Microsoft into the services part and the software part, to require them to "
+"deal with each other only at arm's length, that the services must publish "
+"their interfaces, so that anybody can write a client to talk to those "
+"services, and, I guess, that they have to pay to get the service. Well, "
+"that's OK.  That's a totally different issue."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais ayant lu cet article, je vois une autre façon, efficace celle-là, de "
+"diviser Microsoft. On mettrait d'un côté les services et de l'autre le "
+"logiciel et on les obligerait à garder leurs distances. La division services 
"
+"devrait publier ses interfaces afin que n'importe qui puisse écrire un "
+"programme client pour ces services. Je suppose qu'on devrait payer pour ces "
+"services. Rien à dire contre ça, il s'agit d'un problème tout à fait "
+"différent."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"If Microsoft is split up in this way [&hellip;] services and software, they "
+"will not be able to use their software to crush competition with Microsoft "
+"services.  And they won't be able to use the services to crush competition "
+"with Microsoft software.  And we will be able to make the free software, and "
+"maybe you people will use it to talk to Microsoft services, and we won't "
+"mind."
+msgstr ""
+"Si Microsoft est divisée en deux de cette façon [&hellip;] services et "
+"logiciel, ils ne pourront pas utiliser leurs logiciels pour écraser la "
+"concurrence avec leurs services et ils ne pourront pas utiliser les services "
+"pour écraser la concurrence avec les logiciels Microsoft. Ainsi nous "
+"pourrons faire des logiciels libres, que vous autres utiliserez peut-être "
+"pour accéder aux services de Microsoft sans que nous y trouvions à redire."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Because, after all, although Microsoft is the proprietary software company "
+"that has subjugated the most people &mdash; the others have subjugated fewer "
+"people, it's not for want of trying.  <i>[Laughter]</i> They just haven't "
+"succeeded in subjugating as many people.  So, the problem is not Microsoft "
+"and only Microsoft.  Microsoft is just the biggest example of the problem "
+"we're trying to solve, which is proprietary software taking away users' "
+"freedom to cooperate and form an ethical society.  So we shouldn't focus too "
+"much on Microsoft, you know, even though they did give me the opportunity "
+"for this platform. That doesn't make them all-important.  They're not the be-"
+"all and end-all."
+msgstr ""
+"Parce qu'après tout, bien que Microsoft soit la société de logiciel "
+"privateur qui a sous sa coupe le plus de monde, si les autres n'en ont pas "
+"autant ce n'est pas faute d'avoir essayé <i>[rires]</i>. Simplement ils "
+"n'ont pas si bien réussi. Donc le problème n'est pas Microsoft et 
uniquement "
+"Microsoft. Microsoft est seulement le plus grand exemple du problème que "
+"nous voulons résoudre, à savoir que le logiciel privateur éloigne les "
+"utilisateurs de la liberté de coopérer et de former une société éthique. 
"
+"Aussi ne faut-il pas trop se focaliser sur Microsoft. Vous savez, bien "
+"qu'ils m'aient donné l'occasion d'être ici, ça ne les rend pas plus "
+"importants. Ils ne sont pas l'alpha et l'oméga."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Earlier, you were discussing the philosophical "
+"differences between open source software and free software.  How do you feel "
+"about the current trend of GNU/Linux distributions as they head towards "
+"supporting only Intel platforms? And the fact that it seems that less and "
+"less programmers are programming correctly, and making software that will "
+"compile anywhere? And making software that simply works on Intel systems?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Plus tôt, vous avez expliqué les différences "
+"entre le logiciel open source et le logiciel libre. Que pensez-vous de la "
+"tendance actuelle des distributions GNU/Linux à se limiter à la plateforme "
+"Intel ? Et du fait que, semble-t-il, de moins en moins de programmeurs "
+"programment correctement et font des logiciels qui compilent partout ? Et "
+"font des logiciels qui fonctionnent seulement sur les systèmes Intel ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I don't see an ethical issue there.  Although, in "
+"fact, companies that make computers sometimes port the GNU/Linux system to "
+"it.  HP apparently did this recently.  And, they didn't bother paying for a "
+"port of Windows, because that would have cost too much.  But getting GNU/"
+"Linux supported was, I think, five engineers for a few months.  It was "
+"easily doable."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Je ne vois pas là d'enjeu éthique, bien qu'en "
+"fait les sociétés qui fabriquent des ordinateurs réalisent parfois des "
+"portages de GNU/Linux. HP semble avoir fait cela récemment. Ils n'ont pas "
+"cherché à porter Windows car cela aurait coûté trop cher, mais adapter 
GNU/"
+"Linux était l'affaire de cinq ingénieurs pendant quelques mois, je crois. "
+"C'était tout à fait faisable."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, of course, I encourage people to use <code>autoconf</code>, which is a "
+"GNU package that makes it easier to make your programs portable.  I "
+"encourage them to do that.  Or when somebody else fixes the bug that it "
+"didn't compile on that version of the system, and sends it to you, you "
+"should put it in.  But I don't see that as an ethical issue."
+msgstr ""
+"Maintenant, bien sûr, j'encourage les gens à utiliser 
<code>autoconf</code>, "
+"un logiciel GNU qui vous aide à rendre vos programmes portables. Je les y "
+"encourage. Ou bien si quelqu'un corrige le bogue qui empêche de compiler sur 
"
+"cette version du système et vous envoie le correctif, vous devriez "
+"l'incorporer. Mais je ne vois pas là d'enjeu éthique."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Two comments.  One is: Recently, you spoke at "
+"MIT.  I read the transcript.  And someone asked about patents, and you said "
+"that &ldquo;patents are a totally different issue.  I have no comments on "
+"that.&rdquo;"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Deux commentaires. Primo : récemment vous avez 
"
+"parlé au MIT. J'ai lu la transcription. Quelqu'un vous a interpellé sur les 
"
+"brevets et vous avez dit : « Les brevets sont un tout autre problème ; 
je "
+"n'ai pas de commentaire là-dessus. »"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right.  I actually have a lot to say about "
+"patents, but it takes an hour.  <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Exact. En réalité j'ai beaucoup à dire sur 
les "
+"brevets. Ça prendrait une heure <i>[rires]</i>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: I wanted to say this: It seems to me that there "
+"is an issue.  I mean, there is a reason that companies call both patents and "
+"copyrights things like hard property in trying to get this concept which is, "
+"if they want to use the power of the State to create a course of monopoly "
+"for themselves.  And so, what's common about these things is not that they "
+"revolve around the same issues, but that motivation is not really the public "
+"service issues but the motivation of companies to get a monopoly for their "
+"private interests."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Je voulais dire ceci. Il me semble qu'il y a un "
+"problème. Il y a une raison pour que les entreprises appellent les brevets "
+"et le copyright quelque chose comme de la « propriété concrète ». 
Elles "
+"veulent utiliser le pouvoir de l'État pour leur assurer un monopole. Ce "
+"qu'il y a de commun n'est pas que ces sujets tournent autour des mêmes "
+"enjeux, mais que la motivation des entreprises à leur égard ne soit pas "
+"vraiment le service public, mais plutôt l'intérêt privé des sociétés 
dans "
+"l'obtention d'un monopole."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I understand.  But, well, I want to respond "
+"because there's not too much time.  So I'd like to respond to that."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Je comprends. Mais bon, il ne reste pas beaucoup 
"
+"de temps, alors tant qu'à faire je voudrais répondre à ça."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"You're right that that's what they want.  But there's another reason why "
+"they want to use the term intellectual property.  It's that they don't want "
+"to encourage people to think carefully about copyright issues or patent "
+"issues.  Because copyright law and patent law are totally different, and the "
+"effects of software copyrighted and software patents are totally different."
+msgstr ""
+"Vous avez raison de dire que c'est ce qu'elles veulent. Mais il y a une "
+"autre raison pour qu'elles veuillent utiliser le terme « propriété "
+"intellectuelle », c'est qu'elles ne veulent pas que les gens 
réfléchissent "
+"convenablement sur les questions du copyright ou sur les questions des "
+"brevets. Parce que le droit du copyright n'est pas du tout le même que le "
+"droit des brevets. Leurs effets sur le logiciel sont totalement différents."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Software patents are a restriction on programmers, prohibiting them from "
+"writing certain kinds of programs, whereas copyright doesn't do that.  With "
+"copyright, at least if you wrote it yourself, you're allowed to distribute "
+"it.  So, it's tremendously important to separate these issues."
+msgstr ""
+"Les brevets logiciels sont des restrictions pour les programmeurs qui leur "
+"interdisent d'écrire certaines sortes de programmes, tandis que le copyright 
"
+"ne fait pas cela. Avec le copyright, du moins si vous les avez écrits vous-"
+"même, vous pouvez les distribuer. Donc il est terriblement important de "
+"séparer ces deux questions."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"They have a little bit in common, at a very low level, and everything else "
+"is different.  So, please, to encourage clear thinking, discuss copyright or "
+"discuss patents.  But don't discuss intellectual property.  I don't have an "
+"opinion on intellectual property.  I have opinions on copyrights and patents "
+"and software."
+msgstr ""
+"Elles ont un petit quelque chose en commun à un très bas niveau et tout le "
+"reste est différent. Alors, s'il vous plaît, pour rendre la discussion plus 
"
+"claire, discutez du copyright ou discutez des brevets mais ne parlez pas de "
+"« propriété intellectuelle ». J'ai des opinions sur le copyright, et 
sur les "
+"brevets, et sur le logiciel."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You mentioned at the beginning that a functional "
+"language, like recipes, are computer programs.  There's a cross a little bit "
+"different than other kinds of language created on.  This is also causing a "
+"problem in the DVD case."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Vous avez mentionné au début les travaux "
+"fonctionnels, comme les recettes et les programmes d'ordinateurs. C'est "
+"évidemment un peu différent des autres sortes de travaux créatifs. Ceci 
pose "
+"aussi problème dans le cas des DVD.<a id=\"TransNote10-rev\" href="
+"\"#TransNote10\"><sup>10</sup></a>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: The issues are partly similar but partly "
+"different, for things that are not functional in nature.  Part of the issue "
+"transfers but not all of it.  Unfortunately, that's another hour speech.  I "
+"don't have time to go into it.  But I would say that all functional works "
+"ought to be free in the same sense as software.  You know, textbooks, "
+"manuals, dictionaries, and recipes, and so on."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Les problèmes sont en partie similaires, mais "
+"aussi en partie différents, pour des choses qui ne sont pas de nature "
+"fonctionnelle. Une partie est commune aux deux, mais pas tout. "
+"Malheureusement, il faudrait une heure de plus pour en parler. Je n'ai pas "
+"le temps de rentrer dans les détails, mais je dirais que les œuvres "
+"fonctionnelles devraient être libres dans le même sens que les logiciels. "
+"Vous savez, les cours, les manuels, les dictionnaires, les recettes, etc."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: I was just wondering on online music. There are "
+"similarities and differences created all through."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Je m'interrogeais sur la musique en ligne. Il y "
+"a des similarités et des différences à travers toute la création."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right.  I'd say that the minimum freedom that we "
+"should have for any kind of published information is the freedom to non-"
+"commercially redistribute it, verbatim.  For functional works, we need the "
+"freedom to commercially publish a modified version, because that's "
+"tremendously useful to society.  For non-functional works, you know, things "
+"that are to entertain, or to be aesthetic, or to state a certain person's "
+"views, you know, perhaps they shouldn't be modified.  And, perhaps that "
+"means that it's OK, to have copyright covering all commercial distribution "
+"of them."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Exact. Je dirais que la liberté minimum, celle "
+"dont nous devons disposer pour toute information publiée, est le droit de la 
"
+"redistribuer non commercialement, sous forme de copie intégrale. Pour les "
+"œuvres fonctionnelles, nous avons besoin de la liberté d'en redistribuer "
+"commercialement des versions modifiées, parce que c'est extrêmement utile à
 "
+"la société. Quant aux œuvres non fonctionnelles, vous savez, les choses "
+"destinées à être divertissantes ou esthétiques, ou à refléter les vues 
d'une "
+"personne, peut-être qu'elles ne doivent pas être modifiés. Et cela veut 
peut-"
+"être dire que c'est justifié d'avoir un copyright qui couvre toute "
+"distribution commerciale."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Please remember that according to the U.S. Constitution, the purpose of "
+"copyright is to benefit the public.  It is to modify the behavior of certain "
+"private parties, so that they will publish more books.  And the benefit of "
+"this is that society gets to discuss issues and learn.  And, you know, we "
+"have literature.  We have scientific works.  The purpose is encourage that.  "
+"Copyrights do not exist for the sake of authors, let alone for the sake of "
+"publishers.  They exist for the sake of readers and all those who benefit "
+"from the communication of information that happens when people write and "
+"others read.  And that goal I agree with."
+msgstr ""
+"Rappelez-vous que selon la Constitution des États-Unis, la raison d'être du 
"
+"copyright est de bénéficier au public, de modifier la conduite de certaines 
"
+"entités privées pour qu'elles publient plus de livres. Le bénéfice, c'est 
"
+"que le public se mette à discuter des différentes questions et à "
+"s'instruire. Ainsi nous avons la littérature, nous avons les écrits "
+"scientifiques. Le but est d'encourager cela. Le copyright n'a pas été 
créé "
+"pour les auteurs ni les éditeurs, mais pour les lecteurs et tous ceux qui "
+"bénéficient de la transmission d'information qui se produit quand des gens "
+"écrivent et d'autres lisent. Et cet objectif, je l'approuve !"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But in the age of the computer networks, the method is no longer tenable, "
+"because it now requires draconian laws that invade everybody's privacy and "
+"terrorize everyone.  You know, years in prison for sharing with your "
+"neighbor.  It wasn't like that in the age of the printing press.  Then "
+"copyright was an industrial regulation.  It restricted publishers.  Now, "
+"it's a restriction imposed by the publishers on the public.  So, the power "
+"relationship is turned around 180 degrees, even if it's the same law."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais à l'âge des réseaux informatiques la méthode n'est plus appropriée, 
"
+"parce qu'elle exige des lois draconiennes qui envahissent l'intimité de "
+"chacun et terrorisent tout le monde. Vous savez, des années de prison pour "
+"avoir partagé avec son voisin. Ce n'était pas la même chose du temps de la 
"
+"presse à imprimer. Le copyright était alors une réglementation 
industrielle "
+"qui s'appliquait aux éditeurs. Maintenant, c'est une restriction imposée 
par "
+"les éditeurs au public. Ainsi la relation de pouvoir a viré à 180°, bien 
que "
+"ce soit la même loi."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: So you can have the same thing &mdash; but like "
+"in making music from other music?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Ainsi on peut avoir la même chose – comme "
+"lorsqu'on fait de la musique à partir d'une autre musique ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right.  That is an interesting &hellip;"
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Exact. C'est intéressant&hellip;"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: And unique, new works, you know, it's still a lot "
+"of cooperation."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Et unique. De nouvelles œuvres, c'est encore "
+"beaucoup de coopération."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: It is.  And I think that probably requires some "
+"kind of fair use concept.  Certainly making a few seconds of sample and "
+"using that in making some musical work, obviously that should be fair use.  "
+"Even the standard idea of fair use includes that, if you think about it.  "
+"Whether courts agree, I'm not sure, but they should.  That wouldn't be a "
+"real change in the system as it has existed."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Tout à fait. Et je suppose que cela demande une 
"
+"sorte de concept d'« usage raisonnable » <cite>[fair use]</cite>.<a id="
+"\"TransNote11-rev\" href=\"#TransNote11\"><sup>11</sup></a> Certainement "
+"faire un sample de quelques secondes et l'utiliser pour faire une œuvre "
+"musicale, ce doit être un usage raisonnable. Même l'idée ordinaire d'usage 
"
+"raisonnable renferme cela, si vous y réfléchissez. Je ne sais pas si les "
+"tribunaux seraient d'accord mais ils le devraient. Ce ne serait pas un vrai "
+"changement du système tel qu'il existe."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: What do you think about publishing public "
+"information in proprietary formats?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Que pensez-vous de la publication des données "
+"publiques dans des formats privateurs ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, it shouldn't be.  I mean, the government "
+"should never require citizens to use a non-free program to access, to "
+"communicate with the government in any way, in either direction."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Oh, c'est à proscrire. L'État ne doit jamais "
+"exiger des citoyens qu'ils utilisent un programme non libre pour accéder aux 
"
+"services publics ou pour communiquer avec eux, que ce soit en émission ou en 
"
+"réception, quel qu'en soit le moyen."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: I have been, what I will now say, a GNU/Linux "
+"user&hellip;"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Je suis, comment diriez-vous, un utilisateur de "
+"GNU/Linux&hellip;"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Thank you.  <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Merci <i>[rires]</i>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: &hellip;for the past four years.  The one thing "
+"that has been problematical for me and is something that is essential, I "
+"think, to all of us, is browsing the web."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : &hellip; depuis quatre ans. La seule chose qui "
+"m'ait parue problématique et qui est quelque chose d'essentiel, je crois, "
+"pour nous tous, c'est de surfer sur le web."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes."
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Oui."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: One thing that has been decidedly a weakness in "
+"using a GNU/Linux system has been browsing the web, because the prevailing "
+"tool for that, Netscape&hellip;"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Une chose qui est décidément une faiblesse de "
+"GNU/Linux est la navigation sur le web, parce que le principal outil pour "
+"cela, Netscape&hellip;"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: &hellip;is not free software."
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : &hellip; n'est pas un logiciel libre."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Let me respond to this.  I want to get to the point, for the sake of getting "
+"in more.  So, yes.  There has been a terrible tendency for people to use "
+"Netscape Navigator on their GNU/Linux systems.  And, in fact all the "
+"commercially packaged systems come with it.  So this is an ironic situation: "
+"we worked so hard to make a free operating system, and now, if you go to the "
+"store, and you can find versions of GNU/Linux there, most of them are called "
+"Linux, and they're not free.  Oh, well, part of them is.  But then, there's "
+"Netscape Navigator, and maybe other non-free programs as well.  So, it's "
+"very hard to actually find a free system, unless you know what you're "
+"doing.  Or, of course, you can not install Netscape Navigator."
+msgstr ""
+"Laissez moi répondre à cela. Je veux mettre les choses au point. Donc oui, "
+"il y a une tendance déplorable chez les utilisateurs de GNU/Linux à 
utiliser "
+"Netscape Navigator sur leur système GNU/Linux. Et en fait les distributions "
+"commerciales viennent avec. Voilà bien une situation ironique : nous avons "
+"travaillé dur pour faire un système d'exploitation libre, et maintenant, si 
"
+"vous allez dans un magasin, vous pouvez trouver des versions de GNU/Linux "
+"(la plupart d'entre elles appelées Linux) qui ne sont pas libres, du moins "
+"en partie. Il y a Netscape Navigator et peut-être d'autres logiciels non "
+"libres. Donc il est très difficile de trouver un système libre, sauf si 
vous "
+"savez ce que vous faites. Ou bien naturellement vous pouvez ne pas installer "
+"Netscape Navigator."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, in fact, there have been free web browsers for many years.  There is a "
+"free web browser that I used to use called Lynx.  It's a free web browser "
+"that is non-graphical; it's text-only.  This has a tremendous advantage, in "
+"you don't see the ads.  <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Cela dit, il y a des navigateurs libres depuis de nombreuses années. Il y en 
"
+"a un que j'utilise et qui s'appelle Lynx. Il n'est pas graphique, il est en "
+"mode texte. Il a l'extraordinaire avantage de ne pas afficher les publicités 
"
+"<i>[rires et applaudissements]</i>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But anyway, there is a free graphical project called Mozilla, which is now "
+"getting to the point where you can use it.  And I occasionally use it."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais de toute façon il y a un projet libre de navigateur graphique appelé "
+"Mozilla, qui est pratiquement au point. Et je l'utilise à l'occasion."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 has been very good."
+msgstr "<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Konqueror 2.01 est très bon aussi."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, OK.  So that's another free graphical "
+"browser.  So, we're finally solving that problem, I guess."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Très bien. Voila donc un autre navigateur "
+"graphique libre. Donc nous sommes finalement en train de résoudre ce "
+"problème, je suppose."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk to me about that philosophical/"
+"ethical division between free software and open source? Do you feel that "
+"those are irreconcilable? &hellip;"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Pouvez-vous me parler de la différence "
+"philosophique ou éthique entre le logiciel libre et l'open source ? Pensez-"
+"vous que les deux soient irréconciliables ? [&hellip;]"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<i>[Recording switches tapes; end of question and start of answer is missing]"
+"</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<i>[la fin de la question et le début de la réponse ont sauté au 
changement "
+"de cassette.]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: &hellip; to a freedom, and ethics.  Or whether "
+"you just say, Well, I hope that you companies will decide it's more "
+"profitable to let us be allowed to do these things."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : [&hellip;] à une liberté et à une éthique, 
ou "
+"bien si on dit seulement : « Eh bien, j'espère que vous, les entreprises, 
 "
+"déciderez qu'il est plus profitable de nous autoriser à faire tout ça. »"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, as I said, in a lot of practical work, it doesn't really matter what a "
+"person's politics are.  When a person offers to help the GNU project, we "
+"don't say: &ldquo;You have to agree with our politics.&rdquo; We say that in "
+"a GNU package, you've got to call the system GNU/Linux, and you've got to "
+"call it free software.  What you say when you're not speaking to the GNU "
+"Project, that's up to you."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais comme je le disais, dans une grande partie du travail concret, les "
+"opinions de chacun ne comptent pas. Quand une personne offre son aide au "
+"projet GNU, nous ne lui disons pas : « Vous devez être d'accord avec 
notre "
+"politique. » Nous disons que dans un paquet GNU il faut appeler le système 
"
+"« GNU/Linux » et le paquet lui-même « logiciel libre ». Ce que vous 
dites à "
+"l'extérieur du projet GNU, ça vous regarde."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: The company, IBM, started a campaign for "
+"government agencies, to sell their big new machines, that they used Linux as "
+"selling point, and say Linux."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : IBM a commencé une campagne adressée aux "
+"services de l'État pour vendre leurs nouvelles grosses machines en utilisant 
"
+"Linux comme argument de vente, en disant « Linux »."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, of course, it's really the GNU/Linux "
+"systems. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Oui, bien sûr c'est en réalité le système 
GNU/"
+"Linux <i>[rires]</i>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: That's right! Well, tell the top sales person.  "
+"He doesn't know anything for GNU."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : C'est vrai. Eh bien le responsable des ventes, "
+"il n'y connaît rien à GNU."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I have to tell who?"
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Je dois le dire à qui ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: The top sales person."
+msgstr "<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Au responsable des ventes."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh yes.  The problem is that they've already "
+"carefully decided what they want to say for reasons of their advantage.  And "
+"the issue of what is a more accurate, or fair, or correct way to describe it "
+"is not the primary issue that matters to a company like that.  Now, some "
+"small companies, yes, there'll be a boss.  And if the boss is inclined to "
+"think about things like that, he might make a decision that way.  Not a "
+"giant corporation though. It's a shame, you know."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Oh oui. Le problème c'est qu'ils ont déjà "
+"préparé soigneusement ce qu'ils voulaient mettre en avant comme arguments 
de "
+"vente. Et la question de savoir ce qu'est une description précise, juste ou "
+"correcte n'est pas primordiale pour une société comme celle-là. Dans une "
+"petite entreprise, oui, il y a un patron. Si le patron est enclin à "
+"réfléchir sur ce genre de choses, il peut prendre une décision de cette "
+"façon. Mais pas une société géante. C'est dommage, vous savez."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"There's another more important and more substantive issue about what IBM is "
+"doing.  They're saying that they're putting a billion dollars into &ldquo;"
+"Linux&rdquo;.  But perhaps, I should also put quotes around &ldquo;"
+"into&rdquo;, as well, because some of that money is paying people to develop "
+"free software.  That really is a contribution to our community.  But other "
+"parts is paying to pay people to write proprietary software, or port "
+"proprietary software to run on top of GNU/Linux, and that is <em>not</em> a "
+"contribution to our community.  But IBM is lumping that altogether into "
+"this.  Some of it might be advertising, which is partly a contribution, even "
+"if it's partly wrong.  So, it's a complicated situation.  Some of what "
+"they're doing is contribution and some is not.  And some is sort is "
+"somewhat, but not exactly.  And you can't just lump it altogether and think, "
+"Wow! Whee! A billion dollars from IBM.  <i>[Laughter]</i> That's "
+"oversimplification."
+msgstr ""
+"Il y a un autre question plus tangible à propos de ce que fait IBM. Ils "
+"disent qu'ils mettent un milliard de dollars dans « Linux ». Mais 
peut-être "
+"faut-il aussi mettre « dans » entre guillemets. Parce qu'une partie de 
cet "
+"argent sert à payer des gens pour faire des logiciels libres ; c'est "
+"réellement une contribution à notre communauté. Mais une autre partie sert 
à "
+"créer du logiciel privateur ou à porter des logiciels privateurs vers GNU/"
+"Linux et ce n'est <em>pas</em> une contribution à notre communauté. "
+"Cependant IBM mélange tout ça. Il pourrait y avoir une part de publicité, "
+"qui est une contribution même si elle est en partie fausse. Donc c'est une "
+"situation compliquée. Une partie de ce qu'ils font est une contribution, une 
"
+"autre non et une troisième est entre les deux. On ne peut pas mélanger tout 
"
+"ça et penser « Ouah ! Un milliard de dollars d'IBM ! » <i>[rires]</i> 
C'est "
+"simplifier à outrance !"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk a little bit more about the thinking "
+"that went into the general public license?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Pouvez-vous en dire plus sur la pensée qui 
sous-"
+"tend la licence GNU GPL ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, here's the &mdash; I'm sorry, I'm answering "
+"his question now. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Bon, voici le&hellip; Je suis désolé, je suis en 
"
+"train de répondre à sa question <i>[rires]</i>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Do you want to reserve some time for the press "
+"conference? Or do you want to continue here?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Voulez-vous réserver du temps pour la 
conférence "
+"de presse ? Ou souhaitez-vous continuer ici ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Who is here for the press conference? Not a lot "
+"of press.  Oh, three &mdash; OK.  Can you afford if we &mdash; if I go on "
+"answering everybody's questions for another ten minutes or so? OK.  So, "
+"we'll go on answering everybody's questions."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Qui est ici pour la conférence de presse ? Pas "
+"beaucoup de journalistes. Oh, trois&hellip; OK. Est-ce que cela vous dérange 
"
+"si nous&hellip; si je continue à répondre aux questions pendant encore dix "
+"minutes ? Parfait. Donc nous continuons à répondre aux questions de tout 
le "
+"monde."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, the thinking that went into the GNU GPL? Part of it was that I wanted to "
+"protect the freedom of the community against the phenomena that I just "
+"described with X Windows, which has happened with other free programs as "
+"well.  In fact, when I was thinking about this issue, X Windows was not yet "
+"released.  But I had seen this problem happen in other free programs.  For "
+"instance, TeX.  I wanted to make sure that the users would all have "
+"freedom.  Otherwise, I realized that I might write a program, and maybe a "
+"lot of people would use the program, but they wouldn't have freedom.  And "
+"what's the point of that?"
+msgstr ""
+"La pensée qui sous-tend la licence GNU GPL ? C'est en partie que je voulais 
"
+"protéger la liberté de la communauté des phénomènes que j'ai décrits à 
"
+"propos de X Windows et qui se sont produits avec d'autres logiciels libres. "
+"En fait, quand j'ai pensé à cette question, X Windows n'était pas encore "
+"sorti mais j'avais vu le problème se poser avec d'autres programmes libres, "
+"par exemple TeX. Je voulais être sûr que les utilisateurs auraient tous la "
+"liberté. Je me suis rendu compte que, sinon, je pourrais écrire un 
programme "
+"que peut-être beaucoup de gens utiliseraient, mais qu'ils n'auraient pas la "
+"liberté. Alors à quoi bon ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But the other issue I was thinking about was, I wanted to give the community "
+"a feeling that it was not a doormat, a feeling that it was not prey to any "
+"parasite who would wander along.  If you don't use copyleft, you are "
+"essentially saying: <i>[speaking meekly]</i> &ldquo;Take my code.  Do what "
+"you want.  I don't say no.&rdquo; So, anybody can come along and say: <i>"
+"[speaking very firmly]</i> &ldquo;Ah, I want to make a non-free version of "
+"this.  I'll just take it.&rdquo; And, then, of course, they probably make "
+"some improvements, those non-free versions might appeal to users, and "
+"replace the free versions.  And then, what have you accomplished? You've "
+"only made a donation to some proprietary software project."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais l'autre raison, c'est que je voulais donner le sentiment à la "
+"communauté qu'elle n'était pas un paillasson, le sentiment qu'elle ne 
serait "
+"pas la proie du premier parasite venu. Si vous n'utilisez pas le copyleft, "
+"vous dites en substance : <i>[voix mièvre]</i> « Prenez mon code. Faites 
ce "
+"que vous voulez. Je ne dis pas non. » Alors n'importe qui peut arriver en "
+"disant : <i>[voix très ferme]</i> « Aah ! je veux en faire une version 
non "
+"libre. Je le prends. » Puis il va très probablement faire quelques "
+"améliorations. Ces versions non libres intéresseront les utilisateurs et "
+"remplaceront les versions libres. Au final, qu'est-ce que vous aurez "
+"accompli ? Vous aurez simplement fait une donation à un projet de logiciel "
+"privateur."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And when people see that that's happening, when people see, other people "
+"take what I do, and they don't ever give back, it can be demoralizing.  And, "
+"this is not just speculation.  I had seen that happen.  That was part of "
+"what happened to wipe out the old community that I belonged to the '70's.  "
+"Some people started becoming uncooperative.  And we assumed that they were "
+"profiting thereby.  They certainly acted as if they thought they were "
+"profiting.  And we realized that they can just take off cooperation and not "
+"give back.  And there was nothing we could do about it.  It was very "
+"discouraging.  We, those of us who didn't like the trend, even had a "
+"discussion and we couldn't come up with any idea for how we could stop it."
+msgstr ""
+"Et quand les gens verront ce qui s'est produit, quand des gens verront que "
+"les autres prennent et ne donnent jamais, ça peut les démoraliser. Ce n'est 
"
+"pas pure spéculation, je l'ai constaté. Cela a participé à la disparition 
de "
+"l'ancienne communauté dont je faisait partie dans les années 70.  
Certaines "
+"personnes sont devenues non coopératives et nous avons supposé qu'elles en "
+"tiraient profit. En tout cas elles agissaient comme si elles pensaient "
+"qu'elles en tiraient profit. Et nous nous sommes rendu compte qu'on pouvait "
+"coopérer à sens unique : prendre sans rien donner en retour. Nous ne "
+"pouvions rien y faire, c'était très décourageant. Nous qui ne suivions pas 
"
+"la tendance, nous en avons discuté et ne sommes pas arrivés à trouver une "
+"idée pour arrêter ça."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, the GPL is designed to stop that.  And it says, Yes, you are welcome to "
+"join the community and use this code.  You can use it to do all sorts of "
+"jobs.  But, if you release a modified version, you've got to release that to "
+"our community, as part of our community, as part of the free world."
+msgstr ""
+"Donc la GPL est conçue pour éviter cela. Elle dit : « Vous êtes invité 
à "
+"vous joindre à la communauté et à utiliser ce code. Vous pouvez l'utiliser 
"
+"de toutes les façons possibles, mais si vous publiez une version modifiée, "
+"vous devez la publier pour notre communauté, comme participation à notre "
+"communauté, au monde du libre. »"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, in fact, there are still many ways that people can get the benefit of "
+"our work and not contribute, like you don't have to write any software.  "
+"Lots of people use GNU/Linux and don't write any software.  There's no "
+"requirement that you've got to do anything for us.  But if you do a certain "
+"kind of thing, you've got to contribute to it.  So what that means is that "
+"our community is not a doormat.  And I think that that helped give people "
+"the strength to feel, Yes, we won't just be trampled underfoot by "
+"everybody.  We'll stand up to this."
+msgstr ""
+"En fait, il reste bien des façons pour les gens de profiter de notre travail 
"
+"sans y contribuer, comme ne pas écrire de logiciels. Bien des gens utilisent 
"
+"GNU/Linux et n'écrivent pas de logiciels. Il n'y a aucune obligation à 
faire "
+"quelque chose pour nous, mais si vous faites certaines choses vous devez "
+"contribuer. Ça signifie que notre communauté n'est pas un paillasson. Et je 
"
+"pense que cela donne aux gens un sentiment de force : « Oui, nous ne 
serons "
+"pas piétinés par n'importe qui. Nous tiendrons. »"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Yes, my question was, considering free but not "
+"copylefted software, since anybody can pick it up and make it proprietary, "
+"is it not possible also for someone to pick it up and make some changes and "
+"release the whole thing under the GPL?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Oui, ma question portait sur le logiciel libre, "
+"mais sans copyleft. Puisque tout le monde peut le prendre et en faire du "
+"logiciel privateur, n'est-il pas également possible de le prendre, de faire "
+"quelques modifications et de le placer sous GPL ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, it is possible."
+msgstr "<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Oui, c'est possible."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Then, that would make all future copies then be "
+"GPL'ed."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Ça placerait toutes les copies futures sous 
GPL."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: From that branch.  But here's why we don't do "
+"that."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : À partir de cette branche. Mais voici pourquoi "
+"nous ne le faisons pas."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Hmm?"
+msgstr "<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Hein ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Here's why we don't generally do that.  Let me "
+"explain."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Nous ne faisons pas cela généralement. 
Laissez-"
+"moi vous expliquer pourquoi."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: OK, yes."
+msgstr "<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Oui d'accord."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We could, if we wanted to, take X Windows, and "
+"make a GPL-covered copy and make changes in that.  But there's a much larger "
+"group of people working on improving X Windows and <em>not</em> GPL-ing it.  "
+"So, if we did that, we would be forking from them.  And that's not very nice "
+"treatment of them.  And, they <em>are</em> a part of our community, "
+"contributing to our community."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Nous pourrions si nous le voulions prendre "
+"X Windows, faire une copie sous GPL et faire des modifications. Mais il y a "
+"un groupe beaucoup plus important de gens qui travaillent à son 
amélioration "
+"et qui ne veulent <em>pas</em> le placer sous GPL. Si nous faisions cela "
+"nous créerions une branche, et ce n'est pas très sympa vis-à-vis d'eux. 
Ils "
+"<em>font partie</em> de notre communauté ; ils contribuent à notre "
+"communauté."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Second, it would backfire against us, because they're doing a lot more work "
+"on X than we would be.  So, our version would be inferior to theirs, and "
+"people wouldn't use it, which means, why go to the trouble at all?"
+msgstr ""
+"Deuxièmement, cela se retournerait contre nous, parce qu'ils ont fait "
+"beaucoup plus de travail sur X que nous n'en ferions. Notre version serait "
+"inférieure à la leur et les gens ne l'utiliseraient pas, alors à quoi bon 
?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Mmm hmm."
+msgstr "<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Mmm hmm."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: So when a person has written some improvement to "
+"X Windows, what I say that person should do is cooperate with the X "
+"development team.  Send it to them and let them use it their way.  Because "
+"they are developing a very important piece of free software.  It's good for "
+"us to cooperate with them."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Alors quand une personne apporte une "
+"amélioration à X, je dis à cette personne : coopérez avec l'équipe de "
+"développement de X Windows. Envoyez-leur votre travail et laissez-les s'en "
+"servir, parce qu'ils développent un logiciel libre très important. C'est 
bon "
+"pour nous de coopérer avec eux."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Except, considering X, in particular, about two "
+"years ago, the X Consortium that was far into the non-free open "
+"source&hellip;"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Sauf que, si on considère X en particulier, il 
y "
+"a deux ans le Consortium X qui était allé très loin dans l'open source non 
"
+"libre&hellip;"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually it <em>wasn't</em> open sourced.  "
+"It wasn't open sourced, either.  They may have said it was.  I can't "
+"remember if they said that or not.  But it wasn't open source. It was "
+"restricted.  You couldn't commercially distribute, I think.  Or you couldn't "
+"commercially distribute a modified version, or something like that.  There "
+"was a restriction that's considered unacceptable by both the Free Software "
+"movement and the Open Source movement."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : En fait ce <em>n'était pas</em> vraiment open "
+"source. Ils ont peut-être dit que ça l'était, je ne peux pas me rappeler "
+"s'ils l'ont dit ou non. Mais ce n'était pas open source, Il y avait des "
+"restrictions. On ne pouvait pas distribuer commercialement, je crois. Ou on "
+"ne pouvait pas distribuer commercialement une version modifiée, ou quelque "
+"chose comme ça. Il y avait une restriction considérée comme inacceptable à
 "
+"la fois par la Free Software Foundation et par le mouvement Open Source."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And yes, that's what using a non-copyleft license leaves you open to.  In "
+"fact, the X Consortium, they had a very rigid policy.  They say: If your "
+"program if copylefted even a little bit, we won't distribute it at all.  We "
+"won't put it in our distribution."
+msgstr ""
+"Oui, c'est à cela que mène l'utilisation d'une licence sans copyleft. En "
+"fait, le consortium X avait une politique très rigide. Ils disaient : « 
Si "
+"votre programme est sous copyleft, nous ne le distribuerons pas du tout. "
+"Nous ne le mettrons pas dans notre distribution. »"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, a lot of people were pressured in this way into not copylefting.  And "
+"the result was that all of their software was wide open, later on.  When the "
+"same people who had pressured a developer to be too all-permissive, then the "
+"X people later said, All right, now we can put on restrictions, which wasn't "
+"very ethical of them."
+msgstr ""
+"Alors un grand nombre de personnes ont été poussées à ne pas utiliser le "
+"copyleft. Le résultat, c'est que tous leurs logiciels étaient grands "
+"ouverts. Puis après avoir demandé aux gens d'être trop permissifs, ils ont 
"
+"dit : « Maintenant nous pouvons mettre des restrictions. » Ce n'était 
pas "
+"très éthique de leur part."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, given the situation, would we really want to scrape up the resources to "
+"maintain an alternate GPL-covered version of X? And it wouldn't make any "
+"sense to do that.  There are so many other things we need to do.  Let's do "
+"them instead.  We can cooperate with the X developers."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais, la situation étant ce qu'elle est, allons-nous gaspiller des "
+"ressources pour maintenir une version GPL de X ? Ça n'aurait aucun sens. Il 
"
+"y a tant d'autres choses à faire. Laissons-les faire plutôt. Nous pouvons "
+"coopérer avec les développeurs de X."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Do you have a comment, is the GNU a trademark? "
+"And is it practical to include it as part of the GNU General Public License "
+"allowing trademarks?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Avez-vous un commentaire, GNU est-il une marque "
+"déposée ? Et est-ce faisable de l'inclure dans une partie de la licence "
+"publique générale GNU autorisant les marques ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We are, actually, applying for trademark "
+"registration on GNU.  But it wouldn't really have anything to do with that.  "
+"It's a long story to explain why."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Nous cherchons effectivement à déposer GNU 
comme "
+"marque, mais cela n'aurait rien à voir avec la GPL ; c'est une longue "
+"histoire d'expliquer pourquoi."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: You could require the trademark be displayed with "
+"GPL-covered programs."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : Vous pourriez exiger que la marque déposée 
soit "
+"affichée dans les programmes sous GPL."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: No, I don't think so.  The licenses cover "
+"individual programs.  And when a given program is part of the GNU Project, "
+"nobody lies about that.  The name of the system as a whole is a different "
+"issue.  And this is an aside.  It's not worth discussing more."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Non, je ne pense pas. Les licences ne couvrent "
+"que les programmes individuels, et quand un programme fait partie du projet "
+"GNU personne ne cherche à le cacher. Mais le nom du système dans son "
+"ensemble, c'est une autre question. C'est un à-côté, cela ne vaut pas la "
+"peine d'en discuter plus longtemps."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: If there was a button that you could push and "
+"force all companies to free their software, would you press it?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong> : S'il y avait un bouton qui forçait toutes les "
+"sociétés à libérer leurs logiciels, l'utiliseriez-vous ?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, I would only use this for published "
+"software.  You know, I think that people have the right to write a program "
+"privately and use it.  And that includes companies.  This is privacy issue.  "
+"And it's true, there can be times when it is wrong to do that, like if it is "
+"tremendously helpful to humanity, and you are withholding it from humanity. "
+"That is a wrong but that's a different kind of wrong.  It's a different "
+"issue, although it's in the same area."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Je ne l'utiliserais que pour les logiciels "
+"publiés. Vous savez, je pense que les gens ont le droit d'écrire des "
+"logiciels privés et de les utiliser, et cela inclut les entreprises. C'est "
+"une question de vie privée. Il peut y avoir des moments, c'est vrai, où il "
+"est mal de garder par devers soi quelque chose de très utile à l'humanité. 
"
+"Mais c'est une autre sorte de préjudice, même si cela concerne le même "
+"secteur."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But yes, I think all published software should be free software.  And "
+"remember, when it's not free software, that's because of government "
+"intervention.  The government is intervening to make it non-free.  The "
+"government is creating special legal powers to hand out to the owners of the "
+"programs, so that they can have the police stop us from using the programs "
+"in certain ways.  So I would certainly like to end that."
+msgstr ""
+"Mais oui, je pense que tout logiciel publié doit être libre. Et rappelez-"
+"vous, quand ce n'est pas un logiciel libre, c'est à cause de l'intervention "
+"du gouvernement. Le gouvernement intervient pour faire du non libre. Il crée 
"
+"des pouvoirs juridiques particuliers qu'il délègue aux propriétaires de "
+"programmes, de sorte qu'ils puissent se servir de la police pour nous "
+"empêcher d'utiliser les programmes de certaines façons. Je voudrais mettre "
+"un terme à cela, c'est certain."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Richard's presentation has invariably generated "
+"an enormous amount of intellectual energy.  I would suggest that some of it "
+"should be directed to using, and possibly writing, free software."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong> : Les interventions de Richard génèrent "
+"invariablement une quantité énorme d'énergie intellectuelle. Je suggère "
+"qu'une partie soit consacrée à utiliser des logiciels libres, et peut-être 
à "
+"en écrire."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"We should close the proceedings shortly.  I want to say that Richard has "
+"injected into a profession which is known in the general public for its "
+"terminal apolitical nerditude a level of political and moral discussion "
+"which is, I think, unprecedented in our profession.  And we owe him very big "
+"for this.  I'd like to note to people that there is a break."
+msgstr ""
+"Nous allons bientôt nous interrompre. Je voulais dire que Richard a injecté 
"
+"dans la profession, qui est connue dans le public pour son attitude "
+"apolitique, un niveau de discussion morale et politique sans précédent. Et "
+"nous lui devons beaucoup pour cela. Je voudrais signaler au public qu'il y a "
+"maintenant une pause."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<i>[Applause]</i>"
+msgstr "<i>[applaudissements]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: You are free to leave at any time, you know. <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i> I'm not holding you prisoner here."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong> : Vous êtes libres de sortir quand vous voulez 
<i>"
+"[rires]</i>. Je ne vous retiens pas prisonniers ici, vous savez."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<i>[Audience adjourns&hellip;]</i>"
+msgstr "<i>[Le public sort&hellip;]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<i>[overlapping conversations&hellip;]</i>"
+msgstr "<i>[Conversations diffuses&hellip;]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: One final thing.  Our website: www.gnu.org"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Un dernier mot, notre site web : www.gnu.org."
+
+#. TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes.
+#. type: Content of: <div>
+msgid "*GNUN-SLOT: TRANSLATOR'S NOTES*"
+msgstr ""
+"<hr /><b>Notes de traduction</b><ol>\n"
+"<li id=\"TransNote1\"><cite>Proprietary software</cite> se traduit souvent "
+"par « logiciel propriétaire ». « Privateur » est un néologisme 
inventé par "
+"RMS pour exprimer la notion que les logiciels propriétaires privent "
+"l'utilisateur de ses libertés. <a href=\"#TransNote1-rev\" class="
+"\"nounderline\">&#8593;</a></li>\n"
+"<li id=\"TransNote2\">Traduction : Bien ! <a 
href=\"#TransNote2-rev\">&#8593;"
+"</a></li>\n"
+"<li id=\"TransNote3\">Zwei était Eine à l'origine. <a 
href=\"#TransNote3-rev"
+"\" class=\"nounderline\">&#8593;</a></li>\n"
+"<li id=\"TransNote4\">Prononcer « nou » ; traduction : nouveau. <a 
href="
+"\"#TransNote4-rev\" class=\"nounderline\">&#8593;</a></li>\n"
+"<li id=\"TransNote5\">Nouveau système d'exploitation. <a 
href=\"#TransNote5-"
+"rev\" class=\"nounderline\">&#8593;</a></li>\n"
+"<li id=\"TransNote6\">Le mot français « libre » n'a pas cette 
ambiguïté car "
+"« entrée libre » est à peu près le seul cas où l'on peut lui donner 
le sens "
+"de « gratuit ». On constate malgré tout que le logiciel libre est 
souvent "
+"assimilé (par erreur) à du logiciel gratuit. <a href=\"#TransNote6-rev\" "
+"class=\"nounderline\">&#8593;</a></li>\n"
+"<li id=\"TransNote7\">Déclaration d'indépendance <em>américaine</em>. <a "
+"href=\"#TransNote7-rev\" class=\"nounderline\">&#8593;</a></li>\n"
+"<li id=\"TransNote8\">« X Windows » est une abréviation de « système 
X "
+"Window ». Cela n'a rien à voir avec un système d'exploitation privateur 
bien "
+"connu. <a href=\"#TransNote8-rev\" class=\"nounderline\">&#8593;</a></li>\n"
+"<li id=\"TransNote9\">Anciennement <cite>National Public Radio</cite> : "
+"fédération de radios locales non commerciales, produisant des programmes "
+"culturels ou d'actualité diffusés sur tout le territoire des États-Unis. 
<a "
+"href=\"#TransNote9-rev\" class=\"nounderline\">&#8593;</a></li>\n"
+"<li id=\"TransNote10\">L'enregistrement de ce paragraphe était probablement "
+"difficile à comprendre, ce qui a donné une transcription à peu près "
+"intraduisible. Nous en avons fait une interprétation très libre. <a href="
+"\"#TransNote10-rev\" class=\"nounderline\">&#8593;</a></li>\n"
+"<li id=\"TransNote11\">Un concept juridique propre au copyright "
+"américain. <a href=\"#TransNote11-rev\" class=\"nounderline\">&#8593;</a></"
+"li>\n"
+"</ol>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <div><div><p>
+msgid ""
+"Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to <a 
href=\"mailto:address@hidden";
+"\">&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.  There are also <a href=\"/contact/\">other 
ways "
+"to contact</a> the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions "
+"can be sent to <a href=\"mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden"
+"org&gt;</a>."
+msgstr ""
+"Veuillez envoyer les requêtes concernant la FSF et GNU à <a href=\"mailto:";
+"address@hidden">&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>. Il existe aussi <a 
href=\"/contact/"
+"\">d'autres moyens de contacter</a> la FSF. Les liens orphelins et autres "
+"corrections ou suggestions peuvent être signalés à <a href=\"mailto:";
+"address@hidden">&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>."
+
+#.  TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+#.         replace it with the translation of these two:
+#.         We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+#.         translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+#.         Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+#.         to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>
+#.         &lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.</p>
+#.         <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+#.         our web pages, see <a
+#.         href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+#.         README</a>. 
+#. type: Content of: <div><div><p>
+msgid ""
+"Please see the <a href=\"/server/standards/README.translations.html"
+"\">Translations README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting "
+"translations of this article."
+msgstr ""
+"Nous faisons le maximum pour proposer des traductions fidèles et de bonne "
+"qualité, mais nous ne sommes pas parfaits. Merci d'adresser vos commentaires 
"
+"sur cette page, ainsi que vos suggestions d'ordre général sur les "
+"traductions, à <a href=\"mailto:address@hidden";> &lt;web-"
+"address@hidden&gt;</a>.</p>\n"
+"<p>Pour tout renseignement sur la coordination et la soumission des "
+"traductions de nos pages web, reportez-vous au <a href=\"/server/standards/"
+"README.translations.html\">guide de traduction</a>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <div><p>
+msgid "Copyright &copy; 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman"
+msgstr "Copyright &copy; 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman"
+
+#. type: Content of: <div><p>
+msgid ""
+"This page is licensed under a <a rel=\"license\" href=\"http://";
+"creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/\">Creative Commons Attribution-"
+"NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>."
+msgstr ""
+"Cette page peut être utilisée suivant les conditions de la licence <a rel="
+"\"license\" href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/deed.fr";
+"\">Creative Commons attribution de paternité, pas de modification, 3.0 
États-"
+"Unis (CC BY-ND 3.0 US)</a>."
+
+#. TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.
+#. type: Content of: <div><div>
+msgid "*GNUN-SLOT: TRANSLATOR'S CREDITS*"
+msgstr ""
+"Traduction : Xavier Dumont.<br />Révision : <a href=\"mailto:trad-gnu&#64;";
+"april.org\">trad-gnu&#64;april.org</a>"
+
+#.  timestamp start 
+#. type: Content of: <div><p>
+msgid "Updated:"
+msgstr "Dernière mise à jour :"

Index: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-diff.html
diff -N philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-diff.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-diff.html  15 Sep 2015 05:45:27 
-0000      1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,2144 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 --&gt;
+&lt;title&gt;Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation&lt;/title&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist" 
--&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --&gt;
+&lt;h2&gt;Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation&lt;/h2&gt;
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;p style="text-align: center;"&gt;
+Transcript of&lt;br /&gt;</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;Transcript 
of</em></ins></span>
+Richard M. Stallman's <span class="removed"><del><strong>speech,&lt;br /&gt;
+&lt;em&gt;&ldquo;Free</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>speech,
+&ldquo;Free</em></ins></span> Software: Freedom and <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>Cooperation&rdquo;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br 
/&gt;</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Cooperation&rdquo;,
+given at</em></ins></span> New York University in New York, <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>New York&lt;br /&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>NY,</em></ins></span>
+on 29 May <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>2001&lt;/p&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>2001&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;</em></ins></span>
+
+&lt;div class="announcement"&gt;
+&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;a 
href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt"&gt;plain
+text&lt;/a&gt; version of this transcript and
+a &lt;a href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt"&gt;summary&lt;/a&gt; of 
the speech
+are also available.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;URETSKY&lt;/strong&gt;: I'm Mike Uretsky.  I'm over at 
the Stern
+School of Business.  I'm also one of the Co-Directors of the Center
+for Advanced Technology.  And, on behalf of all of us in the Computer
+Science Department, I want to welcome you here.  I want to say a few
+comments, before I turn it over to Ed, who is going to introduce the
+speaker.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;The role of a university is a place to foster debate and to have
+interesting discussions.  And the role of a major university is to
+have particularly interesting discussions.  And this particular
+presentation, this seminar falls right into that mold.  I find the
+discussion of open source particularly interesting.  In a sense
+&hellip; &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: I do free software.  Open 
source is a
+different movement.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter] [Applause]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;URETSKY&lt;/strong&gt;: When I first started in the 
field in the
+'60's, basically software was free.  And we went in cycles.  It became
+free, and then software manufacturers, in the need to expand their
+markets, pushed it in other directions.  A lot of the developments
+that took place with the entry of the PC moved in exactly the same
+kind of a cycle.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;There's a very interesting French philosopher, Pierre Levy, who
+talks about movement to this direction and who talks about the move
+into cyberspace as not only relating to technology but also relating
+to social restructuring, to political restructuring, through a change
+in the kinds of relationships that will improve the well-being of
+mankind.  And we're hoping that this debate is a movement in that
+direction, that this debate is something that cuts across a lot of the
+disciplines that normally act as solace within the University.  We're
+looking forward to some very interesting discussions.  Ed?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SCHONBERG&lt;/strong&gt;: I'm Ed Schonberg from the 
Computer
+Science Department at the Courant Institute.  Let me welcome you all
+to this event.  Introducers are usually, and particularly, a useless
+aspect of public presentations, but in this case, actually, they serve
+a useful purpose, as Mike easily demonstrated, because an introducer
+for instance, told him, by making inaccurate comments, can allow him
+to straighten out and correct and &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; sharpen
+considerably the parameters of the debate.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, let me make the briefest possible introduction to somebody who
+doesn't need one.  Richard is the perfect example of somebody who, by
+acting locally, started thinking globally from problems concerning the
+unavailability of source code for printer drivers at the AI Lab many
+years ago.  He has developed a coherent philosophy that has forced all
+of us to re-examine our ideas of how software is produced, of what
+intellectual property means, and what the software community actually
+represents.  Let me welcome Richard Stallman.  
&lt;i&gt;[Applause]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Can someone lend me a
+watch?  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; Thank you.  So, I'd like to thank 
Microsoft
+for providing me the opportunity to &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; be on this
+platform.  For the past few weeks, I have felt like an author whose
+book was fortuitously banned somewhere.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; Except 
that
+all the articles about it are giving the wrong author's name, because
+Microsoft describes the GNU GPL as an open source license, and most of
+the press coverage followed suit.  Most people, of course just
+innocently don't realize that our work has nothing to do with open
+source, that in fact we did most of it before people even coined the
+term open source.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;We are in the free software movement, and I'm going to speak about
+what the free software movement is about, what it means, what we have
+done, and, because this is partly sponsored by a school of business,
+I'll say some things more than I usually do about how free software
+relates to business, and some other areas of social life.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now, some of you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps
+you cook.  And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably
+use recipes.  And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the
+experience of getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing
+it.  And you've probably also had the experience &mdash; unless you're
+a total neophyte &mdash; of changing a recipe.  You know, it says
+certain things, but you don't have to do exactly that.  You can leave
+out some ingredients.  Add some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms.
+Put in less salt because your doctor said you should cut down on salt
+&mdash; whatever.  You can even make bigger changes according to your
+skill.  And if you've made changes in a recipe, and you cook it for
+your friends, and they like it, one of your friends might say,
+&ldquo;Hey, could I have the recipe?&rdquo; And then, what do you do?
+You could write down your modified version of the recipe and make a
+copy for your friend.  These are the natural things to do with
+functionally useful recipes of any kind.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program.  A computer
+program's a lot like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to
+get some result that you want.  So it's just as natural to do those
+same things with computer programs &mdash; hand a copy to your friend.
+Make changes in it because the job it was written to do isn't exactly
+what you want.  It did a great job for somebody else, but your job is
+a different job.  And after you've changed it, that's likely to be
+useful for other people.  Maybe they have a job to do that's like the
+job you do.  So they ask, &ldquo;Hey, can I have a copy?&rdquo; Of
+course, if you're a nice person, you're going to give a copy.  That's
+the way to be a decent person.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So imagine what it would be like if recipes were packaged inside
+black boxes.  You couldn't see what ingredients they're using, let
+alone change them, and imagine if you made a copy for a friend, they
+would call you a pirate and try to put you in prison for years.  That
+world would create tremendous outrage from all the people who are used
+to sharing recipes.  But that is exactly what the world of proprietary
+software is like.  A world in which common decency towards other
+people is prohibited or prevented.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now, why did I notice this?  I noticed this because I had the good
+fortune in the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who
+shared software.  Now, this community could trace its ancestry
+essentially back to the beginning of computing.  In the 1970's,
+though, it was a bit rare for there to be a community where people
+shared software.  And, in fact, this was sort of an extreme case,
+because in the lab where I worked, the entire operating system was
+software developed by the people in our community, and we'd share any
+of it with anybody.  Anybody was welcome to come and take a look, and
+take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do.  There were no
+copyright notices on these programs.  Cooperation was our way of life.
+And we were secure in that way of life.  We didn't fight for it.  We
+didn't have to fight for it.  We just lived that way.  And, as far as
+we knew, we would just keep on living that way.  So there was free
+software, but there was no free software movement.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that
+happened to it.  Ultimately it was wiped out.  Ultimately, the PDP-10
+computer which we used for all our work was discontinued.  And you
+know, our system &mdash; the Incompatible Timesharing System &mdash;
+was written starting in the '60's, so it was written in assembler
+language.  That's what you used to write an operating system in the
+'60's.  So, of course, assembler language is for one particular
+computer architecture; if that gets discontinued, all your work turns
+into dust &mdash; it's useless.  And that's what happened to us.  The
+20 years or so of work of our community turned into dust.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me,
+helped me see what to do, helped prepare me to see what to do when
+this happened, because at certain point, Xerox gave the Artificial
+Intelligence Lab, where I worked, a laser printer, and this was a
+really handsome gift, because it was the first time anybody outside
+Xerox had a laser printer.  It was very fast, printed a page a second,
+very fine in many respects, but it was unreliable, because it was
+really a high-speed office copier that had been modified into a
+printer.  And, you know, copiers jam, but there's somebody there to
+fix them.  The printer jammed and nobody saw.  So it stayed jammed for
+a long time.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Well, we had an idea for how to deal with this problem.  Change it
+so that whenever the printer gets a jam, the machine that runs the
+printer can tell our timesharing machine, and tell the users who are
+waiting for printouts, or something like that, you know, tell them, go
+fix the printer.  Because if they only knew it was jammed, of course,
+if you're waiting for a printout and you know that the printer is
+jammed, you don't want to sit and wait forever, you're going to go fix
+it.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But at that point, we were completely stymied, because the software
+that ran that printer was not free software.  It had come with the
+printer, and it was just a binary.  We couldn't have the source code;
+Xerox wouldn't let us have the source code.  So, despite our skill as
+programmers &mdash; after all, we had written our own timesharing
+system &mdash; we were completely helpless to add this feature to the
+printer software.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And we just had to suffer with waiting.  It would take an hour or
+two to get your printout because the machine would be jammed most of
+the time.  And only once in a while &mdash; you'd wait an hour
+figuring &ldquo;I know it's going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and
+go collect my printout,&rdquo; and then you'd see that it had been
+jammed the whole time, and in fact, nobody else had fixed it.  So
+you'd fix it and you'd go wait another half hour.  Then, you'd come
+back, and you'd see it jammed again &mdash; before it got to your
+output.  It would print three minutes and be jammed thirty minutes.
+Frustration up the whazzoo.  But the thing that made it worse was
+knowing that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his own
+selfishness, was blocking us, obstructing us from improving the
+software.  So, of course, we felt some resentment.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a
+copy of that software.  So I was visiting there later, so I went to
+his office and I said, &ldquo;Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of
+the printer source code?&rdquo; And he said &ldquo;No, I promised not
+to give you a copy.&rdquo; &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; I was stunned.  I was 
so
+&mdash; I was angry, and I had no idea how I could do justice to it.
+All I could think of was to turn around on my heel and walk out of his
+room.  Maybe I slammed the door.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; And I thought
+about it later on, because I realized that I was seeing not just an
+isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was important and affected
+a lot of people.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;This was &mdash; for me &mdash; I was lucky, I only got a taste of
+it, but other people had to live in this all the time.  So I thought
+about it at length.  See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with
+us &mdash; his colleagues at MIT.  He had betrayed us.  But he didn't
+just do it to us.  Chances are he did it to you too.  &lt;i&gt;[Pointing at
+member of audience.]&lt;/i&gt;  And I think, mostly likely, he did it to you
+too.  &lt;i&gt;[Pointing at another member of audience.]  [Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; 
And
+he probably did it to you as well.  &lt;i&gt;[Pointing to third member of
+audience.]&lt;/i&gt; He probably did it to most of the people here in this
+room &mdash; except a few, maybe, who weren't born yet in 1980.
+Because he had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about the
+entire population of the Planet Earth.  He had signed a non-disclosure
+agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure
+agreement, and it taught me an important lesson &mdash; a lesson
+that's important because most programmers never learn it.  You see,
+this was my first encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was
+the victim.  I, and my whole lab, were the victims.  And the lesson it
+taught me was that non-disclosure agreements have victims.  They're
+not innocent.  They're not harmless.  Most programmers first encounter
+a non-disclosure agreement when they're invited to sign one.  And
+there's always some temptation &mdash; some goody they're going to get
+if they sign.  So, they make up excuses.  They say, &ldquo;Well, he's
+never going to get a copy no matter what, so why shouldn't I join the
+conspiracy to deprive him?&rdquo; They say, &ldquo;This is the way
+it's always done.  Who am I to go against it?&rdquo; They say,
+&ldquo;If I don't sign this, someone else will.&rdquo; Various excuses
+to gag their consciences.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But when somebody invited me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, my
+conscience was already sensitized.  It remembered how angry I had
+been, when somebody promised not to help me and my whole lab solve our
+problem.  And I couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to
+somebody else who had never done me any harm.  You know, if somebody
+asked me to promise not to share some useful information with a hated
+enemy, I would have said yes.  You know?  If somebody's done something
+bad, he deserves it.  But, strangers &mdash; they haven't done me any
+harm.  How could they deserve that kind of mistreatment?  You can't
+let yourself start treating just anybody and everybody badly.  Then
+you become a predator on society.  So I said, &ldquo;Thank you very
+much for offering me this nice software package.  But I can't accept
+it in good conscience, on the conditions you are demanding, so I will
+do without it.  Thank you so much.&rdquo; And so, I have never
+knowingly signed a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful
+technical information such as software.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now there are other kinds of information which raise different
+ethical issues.  For instance, there's personal information.  You
+know, if you wanted to talk with me about what was happening between
+you and your boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody &mdash;
+you know, I could keep &mdash; I could agree to keep that a secret for
+you, because that's not generally useful technical information.  At
+least, it's probably not generally useful. 
&lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;There is a small chance &mdash; and it's a possibility though
+&mdash; that you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex
+technique, &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; and I would then feel a moral
+duty &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; to pass it onto the rest of humanity, so 
that
+everyone could get the benefit of it.  So, I'd have to put a proviso
+in that promise, you know?  If it's just details about who wants this,
+and who's angry at whom, and things like that &mdash; soap opera
+&mdash; that I can keep private for you, but something that humanity
+could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't withhold.  You see,
+the purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information
+for humanity to help people live their lives better.  If we promise to
+withhold that information &mdash; if we keep it secret &mdash; then we
+are betraying the mission of our field.  And this, I decided I
+shouldn't do.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But, meanwhile my community had collapsed, and that was collapsing,
+and that left me in a bad situation.  You see, the whole Incompatible
+Timesharing System was obsolete, because the PDP-10 was obsolete, and
+so there was no way that I could continue working as an operating
+system developer the way that I had been doing it.  That depended on
+being part of the community using the community software and improving
+it.  That no longer was a possibility, and that gave me a moral
+dilemma.  What was I going to do?  Because the most obvious
+possibility meant to go against that decision I had made.  The most
+obvious possibility was to adapt myself to the change in the world.
+To accept that things were different, and that I'd just have to give
+up those principles and start signing non-disclosure agreements for
+proprietary operating systems, and most likely writing proprietary
+software as well.  But I realized that that way I could have fun
+coding, and I could make money &mdash; especially if I did it other
+than at MIT &mdash; but at the end, I'd have to look back at my career
+and say, &ldquo;I've spent my life building walls to divide
+people,&rdquo; and I would have been ashamed of my life.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So I looked for another alternative, and there was an obvious one.
+I could leave the software field and do something else.  Now I had no
+other special noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a
+waiter.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; Not at a fancy restaurant; they wouldn't
+hire me, &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; but I could be a waiter somewhere.  And
+many programmers, they say to me, &ldquo;The people who hire
+programmers demand this, this and this. If I don't do those things,
+I'll starve.&rdquo; It's literally the word they use.  Well, you know,
+as a waiter, you're not going to starve.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; So,
+really, they're in no danger.  But &mdash; and this is important, you
+see &mdash; because sometimes you can justify doing something that
+hurts other people by saying otherwise something worse is going to
+happen to me.  You know, if you were &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; going to 
starve,
+you'd be justified in writing proprietary software.  
&lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;
+If somebody's pointing a gun at you, then I would say, it's
+forgivable.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; But, I had found a way that I could
+survive without doing something unethical, so that excuse was not
+available.  So I realized, though, that being a waiter would be no fun
+for me, and it would be wasting my skills as an operating system
+developer.  It would avoid misusing my skills.  Developing proprietary
+software would be misusing my skills.  Encouraging other people to
+live in the world of proprietary software would be misusing my skills.
+So it's better to waste them than misuse them, but it's still not
+really good.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So for those reasons, I decided to look for some other alternative.
+What can an operating system developer do that would actually improve
+the situation, make the world a better place?  And I realized that an
+operating system developer was exactly what was needed.  The problem,
+the dilemma, existed for me and for everyone else because all of the
+available operating systems for modern computers were proprietary.
+The free operating systems were for old, obsolete computers, right?
+So for the modern computers &mdash; if you wanted to get a modern
+computer and use it, you were forced into a proprietary operating
+system.  So if an operating system developer wrote another operating
+system, and then said, &ldquo;Everybody come and share this; you're
+welcome to this&rdquo; &mdash; that would give everybody a way out of
+the dilemma, another alternative.  So I realized that there was
+something I could do that would solve the problem.  I had just the
+right skills to be able to do it.  And it was the most useful thing I
+could possibly imagine that I'd be able to do with my life.  And it
+was a problem that no one else was trying to solve.  It was just sort
+of sitting there, getting worse, and nobody was there but me.  So I
+felt, &ldquo;I'm elected.  I have to work on this.  If not me,
+who?&rdquo; So I decided I would develop a free operating system, or
+die trying &hellip; of old age, of course.  
&lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, of course I had to decide what kind of operating system it
+should be.  There are some technical design decisions to be made.  I
+decided to make the system compatible with Unix for a number of
+reasons.  First of all, I had just seen one operating system that I
+really loved become obsolete because it was written for one particular
+kind of computer.  I didn't want that to happen again.  We needed to
+have a portable system.  Well, Unix was a portable system.  So if I
+followed the design of Unix, I had a pretty good chance that I could
+make a system that would also be portable and workable.  And
+furthermore, why &lt;i&gt;[Tape unclear]&lt;/i&gt; be compatible with it in the
+details.  The reason is, users hate incompatible changes.  If I had
+just designed the system in my favorite way &mdash; which I would have
+loved doing, I'm sure &mdash; I would have produced something that was
+incompatible.  You know, the details would be different.  So, if I
+wrote the system, then the users would have said to me, &ldquo;Well,
+this is very nice, but it's incompatible.  It will be too much work to
+switch.  We can't afford that much trouble just to use your system
+instead of Unix, so we'll stay with Unix,&rdquo; they would have
+said.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now, if I wanted to actually create a community where there would
+be people in it, people using this free system, and enjoying the
+benefits of liberty and cooperation, I had to make a system people
+would use, a system that they would find easy to switch to, that would
+not have an obstacle making it fail at the very beginning.  Now,
+making the system upward compatible with Unix actually made all the
+immediate design decisions, because Unix consists of many pieces, and
+they communicate through interfaces that are more or less documented.
+So if you want to be compatible with Unix, you have to replace each
+piece, one by one, with a compatible piece.  So the remaining design
+decisions are inside one piece, and they could be made later by
+whoever decides to write that piece.  They didn't have to be made at
+the outset.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So all we had to do to start work was find a name for the system.
+Now, we hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program,
+because thinking of people being amused by the name is half the fun of
+writing the program.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; And we had a tradition of
+recursive acronyms, to say that the program that you're writing is
+similar to some existing program. You can give it a recursive acronym
+name which says: this one's not the other.  So, for instance, there
+were many Tico text editors in the '60's and '70's, and they were
+generally called something-or-other Tico.  Then one clever hacker
+called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico &mdash; the first recursive
+acronym.  In 1975, I developed the first Emacs text editor, and there
+were many imitations of Emacs, and a lot of them were called
+something-or-other Emacs, but one was called Fine, for Fine Is Not
+Emacs, and there was Sine, for Sine Is Not Emacs, and Eine for Ina Is
+Not Emacs, and MINCE for Mince Is Not Complete
+Emacs.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; That was a stripped down imitation.  And
+then, Eine was almost completely rewritten, and the new version was
+called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially.  
&lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So I looked for a recursive acronym for Something is not Unix.  And
+I tried all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word.
+&lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; Hmm, try another way.  I made a contraction.  
That
+way I could have a three-letter acronym, for Something's not Unix.
+And I tried letters, and I came across the word &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;
+&mdash; the word &ldquo;GNU&rdquo; is the funniest word in the English
+language.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; That was it.  Of course, the reason 
it's
+funny is that according to the dictionary, it's pronounced
+&ldquo;new&rdquo;.  You see?  And so that's why people use it for a
+lot of wordplay.  Let me tell you, this is the name of an animal that
+lives in Africa.  And the African pronunciation had a click sound in
+it.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; Maybe still does.  And so, the European
+colonists, when they got there, they didn't bother learning to say
+this click sound.  So they just left it out, and they wrote a
+&ldquo;G&rdquo; which meant &ldquo;there's another sound that's
+supposed to be here which we are not
+pronouncing.&rdquo; &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; So, tonight I'm leaving for
+South Africa, and I have begged them, I hope they're going to find
+somebody who can teach me to pronounce click sounds, 
&lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;
+so that I'll know how to pronounce GNU the correct way, when it's the
+animal.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is
+&ldquo;guh-NEW&rdquo; &mdash; pronounce the hard &ldquo;G&rdquo;.  If
+you talk about the &ldquo;new&rdquo; operating system, you'll get
+people very confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years
+now, so it is not new any more.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; But it still is,
+and always will be, GNU &mdash; no matter how many people call it
+Linux by mistake.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces
+of GNU.  They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities
+though.  And, at the time, I thought we would write all these pieces,
+and make an entire GNU system, and then we'd say, &ldquo;Come and get
+it&rdquo;, and people would start to use it.  That's not what
+happened.  The first pieces I wrote were just equally good
+replacements, with fewer bugs for some pieces of Unix, but they
+weren't tremendously exciting.  Nobody particularly wanted to get them
+and install them.  But then, in September 1984, I started writing GNU
+Emacs, which was my second implementation of Emacs, and by early 1985,
+it was working.  I could use it for all my editing, which was a big
+relief, because I had no intention of learning to use VI, the Unix
+editor. &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; So, until that time, I did my editing on
+some other machine, and saved the files through the network, so that I
+could test them.  But when GNU Emacs was running well enough for me to
+use it, it was also &mdash; other people wanted to use it too.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So I had to work out the details of distribution.  Of course, I put
+a copy in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people
+who were on the net They could then just pull over a tar file, but a
+lot of programmers then even were not on the net in 1985.  They were
+sending me emails saying &ldquo;How can I get a copy?&rdquo; I had to
+decide what I would answer them.  Well, I could have said, I want to
+spend my time writing more GNU software, not writing tapes, so please
+find a friend who's on the internet and who is willing to download it
+and put it on a tape for you.  And I'm sure people would have found
+some friends, sooner or later, you know.  They would have got copies.
+But I had no job.  In fact, I've never had a job since quitting MIT in
+January 1984.  So, I was looking for some way I could make money
+through my work on free software, and therefore I started a free
+software business.  I announced, &ldquo;Send me $150 dollars, and I'll
+mail you a tape of Emacs.&rdquo; And the orders began dribbling in.
+By the middle of the year they were trickling in.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month.  And, if necessary, I could
+have lived on just that, because I've always lived cheaply. I live
+like a student, basically.  And I like that, because it means that
+money is not telling me what to do.  I can do what I think is
+important for me to do.  It freed me to do what seemed worth doing.
+So make a real effort to avoid getting sucked into all the expensive
+lifestyle habits of typical Americans.  Because if you do that, then
+people with the money will dictate what you do with your life.  You
+won't be able to do what's really important to you.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, &ldquo;What do you
+mean it's free software if it costs $150
+dollars?&rdquo; &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; Well, the reason they asked this 
was
+that they were confused by the multiple meanings of the English word
+&ldquo;free&rdquo;.  One meaning refers to price, and another meaning
+refers to freedom.  When I speak of free software, I'm referring to
+freedom, not price.  So think of free speech, not free
+beer.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many 
years
+of my life to making sure programmers got less money.  That's not my
+goal.  I'm a programmer and I don't mind getting money myself.  I
+won't dedicate my whole life to getting it, but I don't mind getting
+it.  And I'm not &mdash; and therefore, ethics is the same for
+everyone.  I'm not against some other programmer getting money either.
+I don't want prices to be low.  That's not the issue at all.  The
+issue is freedom.  Freedom for everyone who's using software, whether
+that person be a programmer or not.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So at this point I should give you the definition of free software.
+I better get to some real details, you see, because just saying
+&ldquo;I believe in freedom&rdquo; is vacuous.  There's so many
+different freedoms you could believe in, and they conflict with each
+other, so the real political question is: Which are the important
+freedoms, the freedoms that we must make sure everybody has?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And now, I will give my answer to that question for the particular
+area of using software.  A program is free software for you, a
+particular user, if you have the following freedoms:&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;ul&gt;
+&lt;li&gt;First, Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the program for any
+purpose, any way you like.&lt;/li&gt;
+&lt;li&gt;Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
+program to suit your needs.&lt;/li&gt;
+&lt;li&gt;Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
+copies of the program.&lt;/li&gt;
+&lt;li&gt;And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
+publishing an improved version so others can get the benefit of your
+work.&lt;/li&gt;
+&lt;/ul&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software,
+for you &mdash; and that's crucial.  That's why I phrase it that way.
+I'll explain why later, when I talk about the GNU General Public
+License, but right now I'm explaining what free software means, which
+is a more basic question.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, Freedom Zero's pretty obvious.  If you're not even allowed to
+run the program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive
+program.  But as it happens, most programs will at least give you
+Freedom Zero.  And Freedom Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of
+Freedoms One, Two, and Three &mdash; that's the way that copyright law
+works.  So the freedoms that distinguish free software from typical
+software are Freedoms One, Two, and Three, so I'll say more about them
+and why they are important.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
+software to suit your needs.  This could mean fixing bugs.  It could
+mean adding new features.  It could mean porting it to a different
+computer system.  It could mean translating all the error messages
+into Navajo.  Any change you want to make, you should be free to
+make.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now, it's obvious that professional programmers can make use of
+this freedom very effectively, but not just them.  Anybody of
+reasonable intelligence can learn a little programming.  You know,
+there are hard jobs, and there are easy jobs, and most people are not
+going to learn enough to do hard jobs.  But lots of people can learn
+enough to do easy jobs, just the way, you know, 50 years ago, lots and
+lots of American men learned to repair cars, which is what enabled the
+U.S. to have a motorized army in World War II and win.  So, very
+important, having lots of people tinkering.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And if you are a people person, and you really don't want to learn
+technology at all, that probably means that you have a lot of friends,
+and you're good at getting them to owe you favors.  
&lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;
+Some of them are probably programmers.  So you can ask one of your
+programmer friends. &ldquo;Would you please change this for me?  Add
+this feature?&rdquo; So, lots of people can benefit from it.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now, if you don't have this freedom, it causes practical, material
+harm to society.  It makes you a prisoner of your software.  I
+explained what that was like with regard to the laser printer.  You
+know, it worked badly for us, and we couldn't fix it, because we were
+prisoners of our software.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But it also affects people's morale.  You know if the computer is
+constantly frustrating to use, and people are using it, their lives
+are going to be frustrating, and if they're using it in their jobs,
+their jobs are going to be frustrating; they're going to hate their
+jobs.  And you know, people protect themselves from frustration by
+deciding not to care.  So you end up with people whose attitude is,
+&ldquo;Well, I showed up for work today.  That's all I have to do.  If
+I can't make progress, that's not my problem; that's the boss's
+problem.&rdquo; And when this happens, it's bad for those people, and
+it's bad for society as a whole.  That's Freedom One, the freedom to
+help yourself.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
+copies of the program.  Now, for beings that can think and learn,
+sharing useful knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship.  When
+these beings use computers, this act of friendship takes the form of
+sharing software.  Friends share with each other.  Friends help each
+other.  This is the nature of friendship.  And, in fact, this spirit
+of goodwill &mdash; the spirit of helping your neighbor, voluntarily
+&mdash; is society's most important resource.  It makes the difference
+between a livable society and a dog-eat-dog jungle.  Its importance
+has been recognized by the world's major religions for thousands of
+years, and they explicitly try to encourage this attitude.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach
+us this attitude &mdash; the spirit of sharing &mdash; by having us do
+it.  They figured if we did it, we'd learn.  So they said, &ldquo;If
+you bring candy to school, you can't keep it all for yourself; you
+have to share some with the other kids.&rdquo; Teaching us, the
+society was set up to teach, this spirit of cooperation.  And why do
+you have to do that?  Because people are not totally cooperative.
+That's one part of human nature, and there are other parts of human
+nature.  There are lots of parts of human nature.  So, if you want a
+better society, you've got to work to encourage the spirit of sharing.
+You know, it'll never get to be 100%.  That's understandable.  People
+have to take care of themselves too.  But if we make it somewhat
+bigger, we're all better off.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Nowadays, according to the U.S. Government, teachers are supposed
+to do the exact opposite.  &ldquo;Oh, Johnny, you brought software to
+school.  Well, don't share it.  Oh no.  Sharing is wrong.  Sharing
+means you're a pirate.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;What do they mean when they say &ldquo;pirate&rdquo;?  They're
+saying that helping your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking
+a ship.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;What would Buddha or Jesus say about that?  Now, take your favorite
+religious leader.  I don't know, maybe Manson would have said
+something different.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; Who knows what L. Ron 
Hubbard
+would say?  But &hellip;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: 
&lt;i&gt;[Inaudible]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Of course, he's dead.  But 
they don't
+admit that.  What?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: So are the others, also
+dead.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter] [Inaudible]&lt;/i&gt; Charles Manson's also
+dead.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; They're dead, Jesus's dead, Buddha's
+dead&hellip;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Yes, that's true.  
&lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; So
+I guess, in that regard, L. Ron Hubbard is no worse than the
+others.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; Anyway &mdash; 
&lt;i&gt;[Inaudible]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: L. Ron always used free 
software &mdash;
+it freed him from Zanu.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Anyway, so, I think this is 
actually the
+most important reason why software should be free: We can't afford to
+pollute society's most important resource.  It's true that it's not a
+physical resource like clean air and clean water.  It's a
+psycho-social resource, but it's just as real for all that, and it
+makes a tremendous difference to our lives.  You see, the actions we
+take influence the thoughts of other people.  When we go around
+telling people, &ldquo;Don't share with each other&rdquo;, if they
+listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's not a good one.
+That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just
+cause this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes
+waste &mdash; practical, material harm.  If the program has an owner,
+and the owner arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay
+in order to be able to use it, some people are going to say,
+&ldquo;Never mind, I'll do without it.&rdquo; And that's waste,
+deliberately inflicted waste.  And the interesting thing about
+software, of course, is that fewer users doesn't mean you have to make
+less stuff.  You know, if fewer people buy cars, you can make fewer
+cars.  There's a saving there.  There are resources to be allocated,
+or not allocated, into making cars.  So that you can say that having a
+price on a car is a good thing.  It prevents people from diverting
+lots of wasted resources into making cars that aren't really needed.
+But if each additional car used no resources, it wouldn't be doing any
+good saving the making of these cars.  Well, for physical objects, of
+course, like cars, it is always going to take resources to make an
+additional one of them, each additional exemplar.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But for software that's not true.  Anybody can make another copy.
+And it's almost trivial to do it.  It takes no resources, except a
+tiny bit of electricity.  So there's nothing we can save, no resource
+we're going to allocate better by putting this financial disincentive
+on the use of the software.  You often find people taking economic,
+the consequences of economic reasoning, based on premises that don't
+apply to software, and trying to transplant them from other areas of
+life where the premises may apply, and the conclusions may be valid.
+They just take the conclusions and assume that they're valid for
+software too, when the argument is based on nothing, in the case of
+software.  The premises don't work in that case.  It is very important
+to examine how you reach the conclusion, and what premises it depends
+on, to see where it might be valid.  So, that's Freedom Two, the
+freedom to help your neighbor.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
+publishing an improved version of the software.  People used to say to
+me, &ldquo;If the software's free, then nobody will get paid to work
+on it, so why should anybody work on it?&rdquo; Well, of course, they
+were confusing the two meanings of free, so their reasoning was based
+on a misunderstanding.  But, in any case, that was their theory.
+Today, we can compare that theory with empirical fact, and we find
+that hundreds of people are being paid to write free software, and
+over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers.  We get lots of people
+working on free software, for various different motives.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;When I first released GNU Emacs &mdash; the first piece of the GNU
+system that people actually wanted to use &mdash; and when it started
+having users, after a while, I got a message saying, &ldquo;I think I
+saw a bug in the source code, and here's a fix.&rdquo; And I got
+another message, &ldquo;Here's code to add a new feature.&rdquo; And
+another bug fix.  And another new feature.  And another, and another,
+and another, until they were pouring in on me so fast that just making
+use of all this help I was getting was a big job.  Microsoft doesn't
+have this problem.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Eventually, people noted this phenomenon.  You see, in the 1980's a
+lot of us thought that maybe free software wouldn't be as good as the
+non-free software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay
+people.  And, of course, people like me, who value freedom and
+community said, &ldquo;Well, we'll use the free software
+anyway.&rdquo; It's worth making a little sacrifice in some mere
+technical convenience to have freedom.  But what people began to note,
+around 1990 was that our software was actually better.  It was more
+powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary alternatives.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific
+measurement of reliability of software.  Here's what he did.  He took
+several sets of comparable programs that did the same jobs &mdash; the
+exact same jobs &mdash; in different systems.  Because there were
+certain basic Unix-like utilities.  And the jobs that they did, we
+know, was all, more or less, imitating the same thing, or they were
+following the POSIX spec, so they were all the same in terms of what
+jobs they did, but they were maintained by different people, written
+separately.  The code was different.  So they said, OK, we'll take
+these programs and run them with random data, and measure how often
+they crash, or hang.  So they measured it, and the most reliable set
+of programs was the GNU programs.  All the commercial alternatives
+which were proprietary software were less reliable.  So he published
+this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he did the
+same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same result.
+The GNU versions were the most reliable.  People &mdash; you know
+there are cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system,
+because it's so reliable, and reliability is very important to
+them.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Anyway, there's even a group of people who focus on this particular
+benefit as the reason they give, the main reason they give, why users
+should be permitted to do these various things, and to have these
+freedoms.  If you've been listening to me, you've noticed, you've seen
+that I, speaking for the free software movement, I talk about issues
+of ethics, and what kind of a society we want to live in, what makes
+for a good society, as well as practical, material benefits.  They're
+both important.  That's the free software movement.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;That other group of people &mdash; which is called the open source
+movement &mdash; they only cite the practical benefits.  They deny
+that this is an issue of principle.  They deny that people are
+entitled to the freedom to share with their neighbor and to see what
+the program's doing and change it if they don't like it.  They say,
+however, that it's a useful thing to let people do that.  So they go
+to companies and say to them, &ldquo;You know, you might make more
+money if you let people do this.&rdquo; So, what you can see is that
+to some extent, they lead people in a similar direction, but for
+totally different, for fundamentally different, philosophical
+reasons.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Because on the deepest issue of all, you know, on the ethical
+question, the two movements disagree.  You know, in the free software
+movement we say, &ldquo;You're entitled to these freedoms.  People
+shouldn't stop you from doing these things.&rdquo; In the open source
+movement, they say, &ldquo;Yes, they can stop you if you want, but
+we'll try to convince them to deign to let you to do these
+things.&rdquo; Well, they have contributed &mdash; they have convinced
+a certain number of businesses to release substantial pieces of
+software as free software in our community.  So they, the open source
+movement, has contributed substantially to our community.  And so we
+work together on practical projects.  But, philosophically, there's a
+tremendous disagreement.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, the open source movement is the one that gets the
+support of business the most, and so most articles about our work
+describe it as open source, and a lot of people just innocently think
+that we're all part of the open source movement.  So that's why I'm
+mentioning this distinction.  I want you to be aware that the free
+software movement, which brought our community into existence and
+developed the free operating system, is still here &mdash; and that we
+still stand for this ethical philosophy.  I want you to know about
+this, so that you won't mislead someone else unknowingly.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But also, so that you can think about where you stand.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;You know, which movement you support is up to you.  You might agree
+with the free software movements and my views.  You might agree with
+the open source movement.  You might disagree with them both.  You
+decide where you stand on these political issues.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But if you agree with the free software movement &mdash; if you see
+that there's an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled
+and directed by this decision deserve a say in it &mdash; then I hope
+you'll say that you agree with the free software movement, and one way
+you can do that is by using the term free software and just helping
+people know we exist.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, Freedom Three is very important both practically and
+psycho-socially.  If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical
+material harm, because this community development doesn't happen, and
+we don't make powerful, reliable software.  But it also causes
+psycho-social harm, which affects the spirit of scientific cooperation
+&mdash; the idea that we're working together to advance human
+knowledge.  You see, progress in science crucially depends on people
+being able to work together.  And nowadays though, you often find each
+little group of scientists acting like it's a war with each other gang
+of scientists and engineers.  And if they don't share with each other,
+they're all held back.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, those are the three freedoms that distinguish free software
+from typical software.  Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself,
+making changes to suit your own needs.  Freedom Two is the freedom to
+help your neighbor by distributing copies.  And Freedom Three is the
+freedom to help build your community by making changes and publishing
+them for other people to use.  If you have all of these freedoms, the
+program is free software for you.  Now, why do I define it that way in
+terms of a particular user?  Is it free software for
+you?  &lt;i&gt;[Pointing at member of audience.]&lt;/i&gt; Is it free software 
for
+you?  &lt;i&gt;[Pointing at another member of audience.]&lt;/i&gt; Is it free
+software for you?  &lt;i&gt;[Pointing at another member of audience.]&lt;/i&gt;
+Yes?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: Can you explain a bit about the
+difference between Freedom Two and Three?  
&lt;i&gt;[inaudible]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Well, they certainly relate, 
because if
+you don't have freedom to redistribute at all, you certainly don't
+have freedom to distribute a modified version, but they're different
+activities.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: Oh.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Freedom Two is, you know, read 
it, you
+make an exact copy, and hand it to your friends, so now your friend
+can use it.  Or maybe you make exact copies and you sell them to a
+bunch of people, and then they can use it.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Freedom Three is where you make improvements &mdash; or at least
+you think they're improvements, and some other people may agree with
+you.  So that's the difference.  Oh, and by the way, one crucial
+point.  Freedoms One and Three depend on your having access to the
+source code.  Because changing a binary-only program is extremely
+hard.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; Even trivial changes like using four 
digits
+for the date, &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; if you don't have source.  So, for
+compelling, practical reasons, access to the source code is a
+precondition, a requirement, for free software.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, why do I define it in terms of whether it's free software for
+&lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt;?  The reason is that sometimes the same program can be
+free software for some people, and non-free for others.  Now, that
+might seem like a paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example
+to show you how it happens.  A very big example &mdash; maybe the
+biggest ever &mdash; of this problem was the X Window System which was
+developed at MIT and released under a license that made it free
+software.  If you got the MIT version with the MIT license, you had
+Freedoms One, Two, and Three.  It was free software for you.  But
+among those who got copies were various computer manufacturers that
+distributed Unix systems, and they made the necessary changes in X to
+run on their systems.  You know, probably just a few thousand lines
+out of the hundreds of thousands of lines of X.  And, then they
+compiled it, and they put the binaries into their Unix system and
+distributed it under the same non-disclosure agreement as the rest of
+the Unix system.  And then, millions of people got these copies.  They
+had the X Window System, but they had none of these freedoms.  It was
+not free software for &lt;em&gt;them&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, the paradox was that whether X was free software depended on
+where you made the measurement.  If you made the measurement coming
+out of the developers' group, you'd say, &ldquo;I observe all these
+freedoms.  It's free software.&rdquo; If you made the measurements
+among the users you'd say, &ldquo;Hmm, most users don't have these
+freedoms.  It's not free software.&rdquo; Well, the people who
+developed X didn't consider this a problem, because their goal was
+just popularity, ego, essentially.  They wanted a big professional
+success.  They wanted to feel, &ldquo;Ah, lots of people are using our
+software.&rdquo; And that was true.  Lots of people were using their
+software but didn't have freedom.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Well, in the GNU project, if that same thing had happened to GNU
+software, it would have been a failure, because our goal wasn't just
+to be popular; our goal was to give people liberty, and to encourage
+cooperation, to permit people to cooperate.  Remember, never force
+anyone to cooperate with any other person, but make sure that
+everybody's allowed to cooperate, everyone has the freedom to do so,
+if he or she wishes.  If millions of people were running non-free
+versions of GNU, that wouldn't be success at all. The whole thing
+would have been perverted into nothing like the goal.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening.  The method I
+came up with is called &ldquo;copyleft&rdquo;.  It's called copyleft
+because it's sort of like taking copyright and flipping it
+over.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; Legally, copyleft works based on 
copyright.
+We use the existing copyright law, but we use it to achieve a very
+different goal.  Here's what we do.  We say, &ldquo;This program is
+copyrighted.&rdquo; And, of course, by default, that means it's
+prohibited to copy it, or distribute it, or modify it.  But then we
+say, &ldquo;You're authorized to distribute copies of this.  You're
+authorized to modify it.  You're authorized to distribute modified
+versions and extended versions.  Change it any way you
+like.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But there is a condition.  And the condition, of course, is the
+reason why we go to all this trouble, so that we could put the
+condition in.  The condition says: Whenever you distribute anything
+that contains any piece of this program, that whole program must be
+distributed under these same terms, no more and no less.  So you can
+change the program and distribute a modified version, but when you do,
+the people who get that from you must get the same freedom that you
+got from us.  And not just for the parts of it &mdash; the excerpts
+that you copied from our program &mdash; but also for the other parts
+of that program that they got from you.  The whole of that program has
+to be free software for them.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become
+inalienable rights &mdash; a concept from the Declaration of
+Independence.  Rights that we make sure can't be taken away from you.
+And, of course, the specific license that embodies the idea of
+copyleft is the GNU General Public License, a controversial license
+because it actually has the strength to say no to people who would be
+parasites on our community.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of
+freedom.  And they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done,
+and use it to get a head start in distributing a non-free program and
+tempting people to give up their freedom.  And the result would be
+&mdash; you know, if we let people do that &mdash; that we would be
+developing these free programs, and we'd constantly have to compete
+with improved versions of our own programs.  That's no fun.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And, a lot of people also feel &mdash; you know, I'm willing to
+volunteer my time to contribute to the community, but why should I
+volunteer my time to contribute to that company's, to improving that
+company's, proprietary program?  You know, some people might not even
+think that that's evil, but they want to get paid if they're going to
+do that.  I, personally, would rather not do it at all.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But both of these groups of people &mdash; both the ones like me
+who say, &ldquo;I don't want to help that non-free program to get a
+foothold in our community&rdquo; and the ones that say, &ldquo;Sure,
+I'd work for them, but then they better pay me&rdquo; &mdash; both of
+us have a good reason to use the GNU General Public License.  Because
+that says to that company, &ldquo;You can't just take my work, and
+distribute it without the freedom.&rdquo; Whereas, the non-copyleft
+licenses, like the X Windows license, do permit that.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So that is the big division between the two categories of free
+software &mdash; license-wise.  There are the programs that are
+copylefted so that the license defends the freedom of the software for
+every user.  And there are the non-copylefted programs for which
+non-free versions are allowed.  Somebody &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; take those
+programs and strip off the freedom.  You may get that program in a
+non-free version.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And that problem exists today.  There are still non-free versions
+of X Windows being used on our free operating systems.  There is even
+hardware &mdash; which is not really supported &mdash; except by a
+non-free version of X Windows.  And that's a major problem in our
+community.  Nonetheless, I wouldn't say that X Windows is a bad thing,
+you know. I'd say that the developers did not do the best possible
+thing that they could have done.  But they &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt; release a 
lot
+of software that we could all use.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;You know, there's a big difference between less than perfect, and
+evil.  There are many gradations of good and bad.  We have to resist
+the temptation to say, if you didn't do the absolute best possible
+thing, then you're no good.  You know, the people that developed X
+Windows made a big contribution to our community.  But there's
+something better that they could have done.  They could have
+copylefted parts of the program and prevented those freedom-denying
+versions from being distributed by others.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now, the fact that the GNU General Public License defends your
+freedom, uses copyright law to defend your freedom, is, of course, why
+Microsoft is attacking it today.  See, Microsoft would really like to
+be able to take all the code that we wrote and put it into proprietary
+programs, have somebody make some improvements, or even just
+incompatible changes is all they need.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;You know, with Microsoft's marketing clout, they don't need to make
+it better to have their version supplant ours.  They just have to make
+it different and incompatible.  And then, put it on everybody's
+desktop.  So they really don't like the GNU GPL.  Because the GNU GPL
+won't let them do that.  It doesn't allow &ldquo;embrace and
+extend&rdquo;.  It says, if you want to share our code in your
+programs, you can.  But, you've got to share and share alike.  The
+changes that you make we have to be allowed to share.  So, it's a
+two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Many companies &mdash; even big companies like IBM and HP are
+willing to use our software on this basis.  IBM and HP contribute
+substantial improvements to GNU software.  And they develop other free
+software.  But, Microsoft doesn't want to do that, so they give it out
+that businesses just can't deal with the GPL.  Well, if businesses
+don't include IBM, and HP and SUN, then maybe they're
+right.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; More about that later.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;I should finish the historical story.  You see, we set out in 1984
+not just to write some free software but to do something much more
+coherent: to develop an operating system that was entirely free
+software.  So that meant we had to write piece after piece after
+piece.  Of course, we were always looking for shortcuts.  The job was
+so big that people said we'd never be able to finish.  And, I thought
+that there was at least a chance that we'd finish it but, obviously,
+it's worth looking for shortcuts.  So we kept looking around. Is there
+any program that somebody else has written that we could manage to
+adapt, to plug into here, and that way we won't have to write it from
+scratch?  For instance, the X Window system.  It's true it wasn't
+copylefted, but it was free software, so we could use it.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now, I had wanted to put a window system into GNU from day one.  I
+wrote a couple of window systems at MIT before I started GNU.  And so,
+even though Unix had no window system in 1984, I decided that GNU
+would have one.  But, we never ended up writing a GNU window system,
+because X came along.  And I said, Goody!  One big job we don't have
+to do.  We'll use X.  So I basically said, let's take X, and put it
+into the GNU system.  And we'll make the other parts of GNU, you know,
+work with X, when appropriate.  And we found other pieces of software
+that had been written by other people, like the text formatter TeX,
+some library code from Berkeley.  At that time there was Berkeley
+Unix, but it was not free software.  This library code, initially, was
+from a different group at Berkeley, that did research on floating
+point.  And, so, we kept, we fit in these pieces.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;In October 1985, we founded the Free Software Foundation.  So
+please note, the GNU project came first.  The Free Software Foundation
+came after, about almost two years after the announcement of the
+Project.  And the Free Software Foundation is a tax-exempt charity
+that raises funds to promote the freedom to share and change software.
+And in the 1980's, one of the main things we did with our funds was to
+hire people to write parts of GNU.  And essential programs, such as
+the shell and the C library were written this way, as well as parts of
+other programs.  The &lt;code&gt;tar&lt;/code&gt; program, which is absolutely
+essential, although not exciting at all &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; was 
written
+this way.  I believe GNU grep was written this way.  And so, we're
+approaching our goal.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;By 1991, there was just one major piece missing, and that was the
+kernel.  Now, why did I put off the kernel?  Probably because it
+doesn't really matter what order you do the things in, at least
+technically it doesn't.  You've got to do them all anyway.  And partly
+because I'd hoped we'd be able to find a start at a kernel somewhere
+else.  And we did.  We found Mach, which had been developed at
+Carnegie Mellon.  And it wasn't the whole kernel; it was the bottom
+half of the kernel.  So we had to write the top half, but I figured,
+you know, things like the file system, the network code, and so on.
+But running on top of Mach they're running essentially as user
+programs, which ought to make them easier to debug.  You can debug
+with a real source-level debugger running at the same time.  And so, I
+thought that way we'd be able to get these, the higher level parts of
+the kernel, done in a short time.  It didn't work out that way.  These
+asynchronous, multi-threaded processes, sending messages to each other
+turned out to be very hard to debug.  And the Mach-based system that
+we were using to bootstrap with had a terrible debugging environment,
+and it was unreliable, and various problems.  It took us years and
+years to get the GNU kernel to work.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But, fortunately, our community did not have to wait for the GNU
+kernel.  Because in 1991, Linus Torvalds developed another free kernel
+called Linux.  And he used the old-fashioned monolithic design and it
+turns out that he got his working much faster than we got ours
+working.  So maybe that's one of the mistakes that I made: that design
+decision.  Anyway, at first, we didn't know about Linux, because he
+never contacted us to talk about it.  Although he did know about the
+GNU Project.  But he announced it to other people and other places on
+the net.  And so other people then did the work of combining Linux
+with the rest of the GNU system to make a complete free operating
+system.  Essentially, to make the GNU plus Linux combination.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But, they didn't realize that's what they were doing.  You see,
+they said, We have a kernel &mdash; let's look around and see what
+other pieces we can find to put together with the kernel.  So, they
+looked around &mdash; and lo and behold, everything they needed was
+already available.  What good fortune, they said.  
&lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;
+It's all here.  We can find everything we need.  Let's just take all
+these different things and put it together, and have a system.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;They didn't know that most of what they found was pieces of the GNU
+system.  So they didn't realize that they were fitting Linux into the
+gap in the GNU system.  They thought they were taking Linux and making
+a system out of Linux.  So they called it a Linux system.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: 
&lt;i&gt;[Inaudible]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Can't hear you &mdash; 
what?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: 
&lt;i&gt;[Inaudible]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Well, it's just not &mdash; 
you know,
+it's provincial.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: But it's more good fortune 
then finding
+X and Mach?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Right.  The difference is that 
the
+people who developed X and Mach didn't have the goal of making a
+complete free operating system.  We're the only ones who had that.
+And, it was our tremendous work that made the system exist.  We
+actually did a larger part of the system than any other project.  No
+coincidence, because those people &mdash; they wrote useful parts of
+the system.  But they didn't do it because they wanted the system to
+be finished.  They had other reasons.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now the people who developed X &mdash; they thought that designing
+across the network window system would be a good project, and it was.
+And it turned out to help us make a good free operating system.  But
+that's not what they hoped for.  They didn't even think about that.
+It was an accident.  An accidental benefit.  Now, I'm not saying that
+what they did was bad.  They did a large free software project.
+That's a good thing to do.  But they didn't have that ultimate vision.
+The GNU Project is where that vision was.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And, so, we were the ones whose &mdash; every little piece that
+didn't get done by somebody else, we did it.  Because we knew that we
+wouldn't have a complete system without it.  And even if it was
+totally boring and unromantic, like &lt;code&gt;tar&lt;/code&gt;
+or &lt;code&gt;mv&lt;/code&gt;.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; We did it.  Or 
ld, you know
+there's nothing very exciting in &lt;code&gt;ld&lt;/code&gt; &mdash; but I 
wrote
+one.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; And I did make efforts to have it do a 
minimal
+amount of disk I/O so that it would be faster and handle bigger
+programs.  But, you know, I like to do a good job.  I like to improve
+various things about the program while I'm doing it.  But the reason
+that I did it wasn't that I had brilliant ideas for a
+better &lt;code&gt;ld&lt;/code&gt;.  The reason I did it is that we needed one
+that was free.  And we couldn't expect anyone else to do it.  So, we
+had to do it, or find someone to do it.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, although at this point thousands of people in projects have
+contributed to this system, there is one project which is the reason
+that this system exists, and that's the GNU Project.  It 
&lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;
+basically the GNU System, with other things added since then.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, however, the practice of calling the system Linux has been a
+great blow to the GNU Project, because we don't normally get credit
+for what we've done.  I think Linux, the kernel, is a very useful
+piece of free software, and I have only good things to say about it.
+But, well, actually, I can find a few bad things to say about
+it.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; But, basically, I have good things to say 
about
+it.  However, the practice of calling the GNU system, Linux, is just a
+mistake.  I'd like to ask you please to make the small effort
+necessary to call the system GNU/Linux, and that way to help us get a
+share of the credit.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: You need a mascot!  Get 
yourself a
+stuffed animal!  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: We have one.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: You do?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: We have an animal &mdash; a
+gnu.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; Anyway.  So, yes, when you draw a penguin,
+draw a gnu next to it.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; But, let's save the
+questions for the end.  I have more to go through.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, why am I so concerned about this?  You know, why do I think it
+is worth bothering you and perhaps giving you a, perhaps lowering your
+opinion of me, &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; to raise this issue of credit?
+Because, you know, some people when I do this, some people think that
+it's because I want my ego to be fed, right?  Of course, I'm not
+saying &mdash; I'm not asking you to call it &ldquo;Stallmanix,&rdquo;
+right?  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter] [Applause]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to
+get credit.  And there's a very specific reason for that, which is a
+lot more important than anybody getting credit, in and of itself.  You
+see, these days, if you look around in our community most of the
+people talking about it and writing about it don't ever mention GNU,
+and they don't ever mention these goals of freedom &mdash; these
+political and social ideals, either.  Because the place they come from
+is GNU.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;The ideas associated with Linux &mdash; the philosophy is very
+different.  It is basically the apolitical philosophy of Linus
+Torvalds.  So, when people think that the whole system is Linux, they
+tend to think: &ldquo;Oh, it must have been all started by Linux
+Torvalds.  His philosophy must be the one that we should look at
+carefully&rdquo;.  And when they hear about the GNU philosophy, they
+say: &ldquo;Boy, this is so idealistic, this must be awfully
+impractical.  I'm a Linux-user, not a
+GNU-user.&rdquo; &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;What irony!  If they only knew!  If they knew that the system they
+liked &mdash; or, in some cases, love and go wild over &mdash; is our
+idealistic, political philosophy made real.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;They still wouldn't have to agree with us.  But at least they'd see
+a reason to take it seriously, to think about it carefully, to give it
+a chance.  They would see how it relates to their lives.  You know, if
+they realized, &ldquo;I'm using the GNU system. Here's the GNU
+philosophy.  This philosophy is &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; this system that I 
like
+very much exists,&rdquo; they'd at least consider it with a much more
+open mind.  It doesn't mean that everybody will agree.  People think
+different things.  That's OK.  You know, people should make up their
+own minds.  But I want this philosophy to get the benefit of the
+credit for the results it has achieved.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;If you look around in our community, you'll find that almost
+everywhere, the institutions are calling the system Linux.  You know,
+reporters mostly call it Linux.  It's not right, but they do.  The
+companies mostly say it that package the system.  Oh, and most of
+these reporters, when they write articles, they usually don't look at
+it as a political issue, or social issue.  They're usually looking at
+it purely as a business question or what companies are going to
+succeed more or less, which is really a fairly minor question for
+society.  And, if you look at the companies that package the GNU/Linux
+system for people to use, well, most of them call it Linux.  And they
+&lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; add non-free software to it.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;See, the GNU GPL says that if you take code, and some code out of a
+GPL-covered program, and add some more code to make a bigger program,
+that whole program has to be released under the GPL.  But you could
+put other separate programs on the same disk (of either kind, hard
+disk, or CD), and they can have other licenses.  That's considered
+mere aggregation, and, essentially, just distributing two programs to
+somebody at the same time is not something we have any say over.  So,
+in fact, it is not true &mdash; sometimes, I wish it were true &mdash;
+that if a company uses a GPL-covered program in a product that the
+whole product has to be free software.  It's not &mdash; it doesn't go
+to that range &mdash; that scope.  It's the whole program.  If there
+are two separate programs that communicate with each other at arm's
+length &mdash; like by sending messages to each other &mdash; then,
+they're legally separate, in general.  So, these companies, by adding
+non-free software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically
+and politically, a very bad idea.  They're telling the users,
+&ldquo;It is OK to use non-free software.  We're even putting it on
+this as a bonus.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system,
+most of them have a title like &ldquo;Linux-something or other&rdquo;.
+So they're calling the system Linux most of the time.  And they're
+filled with ads for non-free software that you could run on top of the
+GNU/Linux system.  Now those ads have a common message.  They say:
+Non-free Software Is Good For You.  It's So Good That You Might Even
+&lt;em&gt;Pay&lt;/em&gt; To Get It.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And they call these things &ldquo;value-added packages&rdquo;,
+which makes a statement about their values.  They're saying: Value
+practical convenience, not freedom.  And, I don't agree with those
+values, so I call them &ldquo;freedom-subtracted
+packages&rdquo;.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; Because if you have installed a
+free operating system, then you now are living in the free world.  You
+enjoy the benefits of liberty that we worked for so many years to give
+you.  Those packages give you an opportunity to buckle on a chain.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And then if you look at the trade shows &mdash; about the use of
+the, dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call
+themselves &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; shows.  And they're filled with booths
+exhibiting non-free software, essentially putting the seal of approval
+on the non-free software.  So, almost everywhere you look in our
+community, the institutions are endorsing the non-free software,
+totalling negating the idea of freedom that GNU was developed for.
+And the only place that people are likely to come across the idea of
+freedom is in connection with GNU, and in connection with free
+software, the term, free software.  So this is why I ask you: please
+call the system GNU/Linux.  Please make people aware where the system
+came from and why.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Of course, just by using that name, you won't be making an
+explanation of the history.  You can type four extra characters and
+write GNU/Linux; you can say two extra syllables.  But, GNU/Linux is
+fewer syllables than Windows 2000.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; But, you're 
not
+telling them a lot, but you're preparing them, so that when they hear
+about GNU, and what it's all about, they'll see how that connects to
+them and their lives.  And that, indirectly, makes a tremendous
+difference.  So please help us.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;You'll note that Microsoft called the GPL an &ldquo;open source
+license&rdquo;.  They don't want people to be thinking in terms of
+freedom as the issue.  You'll find that they invite people to think in
+a narrow way, as consumers, and, of course, not even think very
+rationally as consumers, if they're going to choose Microsoft
+products.  But they don't want people to think as citizens or
+statesmen.  That's inimical to them.  At least it's inimical to their
+current business model.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now, how does free software&hellip;well, I can tell you about how
+free software relates to our society.  A secondary topic that might be
+of interest to some of you is how free software relates to business.
+Now, in fact, free software is &lt;em&gt;tremendously&lt;/em&gt; useful for
+business.  After all, most businesses in the advanced countries use
+software.  Only a tiny fraction of them develop software.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And free software is tremendously advantageous for any company that
+uses software, because it means that you're in control.  Basically,
+free software means the users are in control of what the program does.
+Either individually, if they care enough to be, or, collectively, when
+they care enough to be.  Whoever cares enough can exert some
+influence.  If you don't care, you don't buy.  Then you use what other
+people prefer.  But, if you do care, then you have some say. With
+proprietary software, you have essentially no say.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;With free software, you can change what you want to change.  And it
+doesn't matter that there are no programmers in your company; that's
+fine.  You know, if you wanted to move the walls in your building, you
+don't have to be a carpentry company. You just have to be able to go
+find a carpenter and say, &ldquo;What will you charge to do this
+job?&rdquo; And if you want to change around the software you use, you
+don't have to be a programming company.  You just have to go to a
+programming company and say, &ldquo;What will you charge to implement
+these features?  And when will you have it done?&rdquo; And if they
+don't do the job, you can go find somebody else.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;There's a free market for support.  So, any business that cares
+about support will find a tremendous advantage in free software.  With
+proprietary software, support is a monopoly, because one company has
+the source code, or maybe a small number of companies that paid a
+gigantic amount of money have the source code, if it's Microsoft's
+shared source program, but, it's very few.  And so, there aren't very
+many possible sources of support for you.  And that means, that unless
+you're a real giant, they don't care about you.  Your company is not
+important enough for them to care if they lose your business, or what
+happens.  Once you're using the program, they figure you're locked in
+to getting the support from them, because to switch to a different
+program is a gigantic job.  So, you end up with things like paying for
+the privilege of reporting a bug.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; And once 
you've
+paid, they tell you, &ldquo;Well, OK, we've noted your bug report.
+And in a few months, you can buy an upgrade, and you can see if we've
+fixed it.&rdquo; &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Support providers for free software can't get away with that.  They
+have to please the customers.  Of course, you can get a lot of good
+support gratis.  You post your problem on the Internet.  You may get
+an answer the next day.  But that's not guaranteed, of course.  If you
+want to be confident, you better make an arrangement with a company
+and pay them.  And this is, of course, one of the ways that free
+software business works.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Another advantage of free software for businesses that use software
+is security and privacy.  And this applies to individuals as well, but
+I brought it up in the context of businesses.  You see, when a program
+is proprietary, you can't even tell what it really does.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;It could have features, deliberately put in that you wouldn't like
+if you knew about them, like it might have a backdoor to let the
+developer get into your machine.  It might snoop on what you do and
+send information back.  This is not unusual.  Some Microsoft software
+did this.  But it's not only Microsoft.  There are other proprietary
+programs that snoop on the user.  And you can't even tell if it does
+this.  And, of course, even assuming that the developer's totally
+honest, every programmer makes mistakes.  There could be bugs that
+affect your security which are nobody's fault.  But the point is: If
+it's not free software, you can't find them. And you can't fix
+them.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Nobody has the time to check the source of every program he runs.
+You're not going to do that.  But with free software there's a large
+community, and there are people in that community who are checking
+things.  And you get the benefit of their checking, because if there's
+an accidental bug, there surely are, from time to time, in any
+program, they might find it and fix it.  And people are much less
+likely to put in a deliberate Trojan horse, or a snooping feature, if
+they think they might get caught.  The proprietary software developers
+figure they won't get caught.  They'll get away with it undetected.
+But a free software developer has to figure that people will look at
+that and see it's there.  So, in our community, we don't feel we can
+get away with ramming a feature down the users' throats that the users
+wouldn't like.  So we know that if the users don't like it, they'll
+make a modified version which doesn't have it.  And then, they'll all
+start using that version.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;In fact, we can all reason enough, we can all figure this out
+enough steps ahead, that we probably won't put in that feature.  After
+all, you're writing a free program; you want people to like your
+version; you don't want to put in a thing that you know a lot of
+people are going to hate, and have another modified version catch on
+instead of yours.  So you just realize that the user is king in the
+world of free software.  In the world of proprietary software, the
+customer is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; king.  Because you are only a customer.  
You
+have no say in the software you use.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;In this respect, free software is a new mechanism for democracy to
+operate.  Professor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions
+as a kind of law.  Whoever gets to write the code that just about
+everybody uses for all intents and purposes is writing the laws that
+run people's lives.  With free software, these laws get written in a
+democratic way.  Not the classical form of democracy &mdash; we don't
+have a big election and say, &ldquo;Everybody vote which way should
+this feature be done.&rdquo; &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; Instead we say,
+basically, those of you who want to work on implementing the feature
+this way, do it.  And if you want to work on implementing the feature
+that way, do it.  And, it gets done one way or the other, you know?
+And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done this way.
+So, in this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by
+simply taking steps in the direction that he wants to go.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And you're free to take as many steps, personally, as you want to
+take.  A business is free to commission as many steps as they find
+useful to take.  And, after you add all these things up, that says
+which direction the software goes.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And it's often very useful to be able to take pieces out of some
+existing program, presumably usually large pieces, of course, and then
+write a certain amount of code of your own, and make a program that
+does exactly what you need, which would have cost you an arm and a leg
+to develop, if you had to write it all from scratch, if you couldn't
+cannibalize large pieces from some existing free software package.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Another thing that results from the fact that the user is king is
+that we tend to be very good about compatibility and standardization.
+Why?  Because users like that.  Users are likely to reject a program
+that has gratuitous incompatibilities in it.  Now, sometimes there's a
+certain group of users which actually have a need for a certain kind
+of incompatibility, and then they'll have it. That's OK.  But when
+users want is to follow a standard, we developers have to follow it,
+and we know that.  And we do it.  By contrast, if you look at
+proprietary software developers, they often find it advantageous to
+deliberately &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; follow a standard, and not because they
+think that they're giving the user an advantage that way, but rather
+because they're imposing on the user, locking the user in.  And you'll
+even find them making changes in their file formats from time to time,
+just to force people to get the newest version.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Archivists are finding a problem now, that files written on
+computers ten years ago often can't be accessed; they were written
+with proprietary software that's essentially lost now.  If it were
+written with free software, then it could be brought up-to-date and
+run.  And those things would not, those records would not be lost,
+would not be inaccessible.  They were even complaining about this on
+NPR recently in citing free software as a solution.  And so, in
+effect, by using a non-free program to store your own data, you are
+putting your head in a noose.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, I've talked about how free software affects most business.  But
+how does it affect that particular narrow area which is software
+business?  Well, the answer is mostly not at all.  And the reason is
+that 90% of the software industry, from what I'm told, is development
+of custom software, software that's not meant to be released at all.
+For custom software, this issue, or the ethical issue of free or
+proprietary, doesn't arise.  You see, the issue is, are you users free
+to change, and redistribute, the software?  If there's only one user,
+and that user owns the rights, there's no problem.  That
+user &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; free to do all these things.  So, in effect, any
+&lt;em&gt;custom&lt;/em&gt; program that was developed by one company for use
+in-house is free software, as long as they have the sense to insist on
+getting the source code and all the rights.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And the issue doesn't really arise for software that goes in a
+watch or a microwave oven or an automobile ignition system.  Because
+those are places where you don't download software to install.  It's
+not a real computer, as far as the user is concerned.  And so, it
+doesn't raise these issues enough for them to be ethically important.
+So, for the most part, the software industry will go along, just as
+it's been going.  And the interesting thing is that since such a large
+fraction of the jobs are in that part of the industry, even if there
+were no possibilities for free software business, the developers of
+free software could all get day jobs writing custom
+software.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; There's so many; the ratio is so 
big.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But, as it happens, there is free software business.  There are
+free software companies, and at the press conference that I'm going to
+have, people from a couple of them will join us.  And, of course,
+there are also companies which are &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; free software
+businesses but do develop useful pieces of free software to release,
+and the free software that they produce is substantial.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now, how do free software businesses work?  Well, some of them sell
+copies.  You know, you're free to copy it but they can still sell
+thousands of copies a month.  And others sell support and various
+kinds of services.  I, personally, for the second half of the '80's, I
+sold free software support services.  Basically I said, for $200 an
+hour, I'll change whatever you want me to change in GNU software that
+I'd written.  And, yes, it was a stiff rate, but if it was a program
+that I was the author of, people would figure that I might get the job
+done in a lot fewer hours.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; And I made a living 
that
+way.  In fact, I'd made more than I'd ever made before.  I also taught
+classes.  And I kept doing that until 1990, when I got a big prize and
+I didn't have to do it any more.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But, 1990 was when the first corporation free software business was
+formed, which was Cygnus Support.  And their business was to do,
+essentially, the same kind of thing that I'd been doing.  I certainly
+could have worked for them, if I had needed to do that.  Since I
+didn't need to, I felt it was good for the movement if I remained
+independent of any one company.  That way, I could say good and bad
+things about the various free software and non-free software
+companies, without a conflict of interest.  I felt that I could serve
+the movement more.  But, if I had needed that to make a living, sure,
+I would have worked for them.  It's an ethical business to be in.  No
+reason I would have felt ashamed to take a job with them.  And that
+company was profitable in its first year.  It was formed with very
+little capital, just the money its three founders had.  And it kept
+growing every year and being profitable every year until they got
+greedy, and looked for outside investors, and then they messed things
+up.  But it was several years of success, before they got greedy.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, this illustrates one of the exciting things about free
+software.  Free software demonstrates that you don't need to raise
+capital to develop free software.  I mean, it's useful;
+it &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; help.  You know, if you do raise some capital, you 
can
+hire people and have them write a bunch of software.  But you can get
+a lot done with a small number of people.  And, in fact, the
+tremendous efficiency of the process of developing free software is
+one of the reasons it's important for the world to switch to free
+software.  And it also belies what Microsoft says when they say the
+GNU GPL is bad, because it makes it harder for them to raise capital
+to develop non-free software and take our free software and put our
+code into their programs that they won't share with us.  Basically, we
+don't need to have them raising capital that way.  We'll get the job
+done anyway.  We are getting the job done.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;People used to say we could never do a complete free operating
+system.  Now we've done that and a tremendous amount more.  And I
+would say that we're about an order of magnitude away from developing
+all the general purpose published software needs of the world.  And
+this is in a world where more than 90% of the users don't use our free
+software yet.  This is in a world where, although in certain areas of
+business, you know, more than half of all the web servers in the world
+are running on GNU/Linux with Apache as the web server.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: &lt;i&gt;[Inaudible]&lt;/i&gt; 
&hellip; What did you
+say before, Linux?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: I said GNU/Linux.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: You did?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Yes, if I'm talking about the 
kernel, I
+call it Linux.  You know, that's it's name.  The kernel was written by
+Linus Torvalds, and we should only call it by the name that he chose,
+out of respect for the author.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Anyway, but in general, in business most users are not using it.
+Most home users are not using our system yet.  So, when they are, we
+should automatically get 10 times as many volunteers and 10 times as
+many customers for the free software businesses that there will be.
+And so that will take us that order of magnitude.  So at this point, I
+am pretty confident that we &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; do the job.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And, this is important, because Microsoft asks us to feel
+desperate.  They say, The only way you can have software to run, the
+only way you can have innovation, is if you give us power.  Let us
+dominate you.  Let us control what you can do with the software you're
+running, so that we can squeeze a lot of money out of you, and use a
+certain fraction of that to develop software, and take the rest as
+profit.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Well, you shouldn't ever feel that desperate.  You shouldn't ever
+feel so desperate that you give up your freedom.  That's very
+dangerous.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Another thing that Microsoft, well, not just Microsoft, people who
+don't support free software generally adopt a value system in which
+the only thing that matters is short-term practical benefits: How much
+money am I going to make this year? What job can I get done today?
+Short-term thinking and narrow thinking.  Their assumption is that it
+is ridiculous to imagine that anybody ever might make a sacrifice for
+the sake of freedom.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Yesterday, a lot of people were making speeches about Americans who
+made sacrifices for the freedom of their compatriots.  Some of them
+made great sacrifices.  They even sacrificed their lives for the kinds
+of freedom that everyone in our country has heard about, at least.
+(At least, in some of the cases; I guess we have to ignore the war in
+Vietnam.)&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;[Editor's note: The day before was &ldquo;Memorial 
Day&rdquo; in
+the USA.  Memorial Day is a day where war heros are
+commemorated.]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But, fortunately, to maintain our freedom in using software,
+doesn't call for big sacrifices. Just tiny, little sacrifices are
+enough, like learning a command-line interface, if we don't have a GUI
+interface program yet.  Like doing the job in this way, because we
+don't have a free software package to do it that way, yet.  Like,
+paying some money to a company that's going to develop a certain free
+software package, so that you can have it in a few years.  Various
+little sacrifices that we can all make.  And, in the long run, even we
+will have benefited from it.  You know, it is really an investment
+more than a sacrifice.  We just have to have enough long-term view to
+realize it's good for us to invest in improving our society, without
+counting the nickels and dimes of who gets how much of the benefit
+from that investment.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, at this point, I'm essentially done.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;I'd like to mention that there's a new approach to free software
+business being proposed by Tony Stanco, which he calls &ldquo;Free
+Developers&rdquo;, which involves a certain business structure which
+hopes eventually to pay out a certain share of the profits to every,
+to all the authors of the free software who've joined the
+organization.  And they're looking at the prospects of getting me some
+rather large government software development contracts in India now,
+because they're going to be using free software as the basis, having
+tremendous cost savings that way.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And so now I guess that I should ask for questions.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: 
&lt;i&gt;[Inaudible]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Could you speak up a bit 
louder please?
+I can't really hear you.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: How could a company like 
Microsoft
+include a free software contract?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Well, actually, Microsoft is 
planning to
+shift a lot of its activity into services.  And what they're planning
+to do is something dirty and dangerous, which is tie the services to
+the programs, one to the next, in a sort of zigzag, you know?  So that
+to use this service, you've got to be using this Microsoft program,
+which is going to mean you need to use this service, to this Microsoft
+program, so it's all tied together.  That's their plan.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now, the interesting thing is that selling those services doesn't
+raise the ethical issue of free software or non-free software.  It
+might be perfectly fine for them to have the business for those
+businesses selling those services over the net to exist.  However,
+what Microsoft is planning to do is to use them to achieve an even
+greater lock, an even greater monopoly, on the software and the
+services, and this was described in an article, I believe in Business
+Week, recently.  And, other people said that it is turning the net
+into the Microsoft Company Town.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And this is relevant because, you know, the trial court in the
+Microsoft antitrust trial recommended breaking up the company,
+Microsoft.  But in a way, that makes no sense &mdash; it wouldn't do
+any good at all &mdash; into the operating part and the applications
+part.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But having seen that article, I now see a useful, effective way to
+split up Microsoft into the services part and the software part, to
+require them to deal with each other only at arm's length, that the
+services must publish their interfaces, so that anybody can write a
+client to talk to those services, and, I guess, that they have to pay
+to get the service. Well, that's OK.  That's a totally different
+issue.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;If Microsoft is split up in this way [&hellip;] services and
+software, they will not be able to use their software to crush
+competition with Microsoft services.  And they won't be able to use
+the services to crush competition with Microsoft software.  And we
+will be able to make the free software, and maybe you people will use
+it to talk to Microsoft services, and we won't mind.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Because, after all, although Microsoft is the proprietary software
+company that has subjugated the most people &mdash; the others have
+subjugated fewer people, it's not for want of
+trying.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; They just haven't succeeded in 
subjugating
+as many people.  So, the problem is not Microsoft and only Microsoft.
+Microsoft is just the biggest example of the problem we're trying to
+solve, which is proprietary software taking away users' freedom to
+cooperate and form an ethical society.  So we shouldn't focus too much
+on Microsoft, you know, even though they did give me the opportunity
+for this platform. That doesn't make them all-important.  They're not
+the be-all and end-all.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: Earlier, you were discussing 
the
+philosophical differences between open source software and free
+software.  How do you feel about the current trend of GNU/Linux
+distributions as they head towards supporting only Intel platforms?
+And the fact that it seems that less and less programmers are
+programming correctly, and making software that will compile anywhere?
+And making software that simply works on Intel systems?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: I don't see an ethical issue 
there.
+Although, in fact, companies that make computers sometimes port the
+GNU/Linux system to it.  HP apparently did this recently.  And, they
+didn't bother paying for a port of Windows, because that would have
+cost too much.  But getting GNU/Linux supported was, I think, five
+engineers for a few months.  It was easily doable.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now, of course, I encourage people to use 
&lt;code&gt;autoconf&lt;/code&gt;,
+which is a GNU package that makes it easier to make your programs
+portable.  I encourage them to do that.  Or when somebody else fixes
+the bug that it didn't compile on that version of the system, and
+sends it to you, you should put it in.  But I don't see that as an
+ethical issue.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: Two comments.  One is: 
Recently, you
+spoke at MIT.  I read the transcript.  And someone asked about
+patents, and you said that &ldquo;patents are a totally different
+issue.  I have no comments on that.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Right.  I actually have a lot 
to say
+about patents, but it takes an hour.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: I wanted to say this: It seems 
to me
+that there is an issue.  I mean, there is a reason that companies call
+both patents and copyrights things like hard property in trying to get
+this concept which is, if they want to use the power of the State to
+create a course of monopoly for themselves.  And so, what's common
+about these things is not that they revolve around the same issues,
+but that motivation is not really the public service issues but the
+motivation of companies to get a monopoly for their private
+interests.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: I understand.  But, well, I 
want to
+respond because there's not too much time.  So I'd like to respond to
+that.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;You're right that that's what they want.  But there's another
+reason why they want to use the term intellectual property.  It's that
+they don't want to encourage people to think carefully about copyright
+issues or patent issues.  Because copyright law and patent law are
+totally different, and the effects of software copyrighted and
+software patents are totally different.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Software patents are a restriction on programmers, prohibiting them
+from writing certain kinds of programs, whereas copyright doesn't do
+that.  With copyright, at least if you wrote it yourself, you're
+allowed to distribute it.  So, it's tremendously important to separate
+these issues.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;They have a little bit in common, at a very low level, and
+everything else is different.  So, please, to encourage clear
+thinking, discuss copyright or discuss patents.  But don't discuss
+intellectual property.  I don't have an opinion on intellectual
+property.  I have opinions on copyrights and patents and software.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: You mentioned at the beginning 
that a
+functional language, like recipes, are computer programs.  There's a
+cross a little bit different than other kinds of language created on.
+This is also causing a problem in the DVD case.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: The issues are partly similar 
but partly
+different, for things that are not functional in nature.  Part of the
+issue transfers but not all of it.  Unfortunately, that's another hour
+speech.  I don't have time to go into it.  But I would say that all
+functional works ought to be free in the same sense as software.  You
+know, textbooks, manuals, dictionaries, and recipes, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: I was just wondering on online
+music. There are similarities and differences created all through.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Right.  I'd say that the 
minimum freedom
+that we should have for any kind of published information is the
+freedom to non-commercially redistribute it, verbatim.  For functional
+works, we need the freedom to commercially publish a modified version,
+because that's tremendously useful to society.  For non-functional
+works, you know, things that are to entertain, or to be aesthetic, or
+to state a certain person's views, you know, perhaps they shouldn't be
+modified.  And, perhaps that means that it's OK, to have copyright
+covering all commercial distribution of them.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Please remember that according to the U.S. Constitution, the
+purpose of copyright is to benefit the public.  It is to modify the
+behavior of certain private parties, so that they will publish more
+books.  And the benefit of this is that society gets to discuss issues
+and learn.  And, you know, we have literature.  We have scientific
+works.  The purpose is encourage that.  Copyrights do not exist for
+the sake of authors, let alone for the sake of publishers.  They exist
+for the sake of readers and all those who benefit from the
+communication of information that happens when people write and others
+read.  And that goal I agree with.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But in the age of the computer networks, the method is no longer
+tenable, because it now requires draconian laws that invade
+everybody's privacy and terrorize everyone.  You know, years in prison
+for sharing with your neighbor.  It wasn't like that in the age of the
+printing press.  Then copyright was an industrial regulation.  It
+restricted publishers.  Now, it's a restriction imposed by the
+publishers on the public.  So, the power relationship is turned around
+180 degrees, even if it's the same law.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: So you can have the same thing 
&mdash;
+but like in making music from other music?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Right.  That is an interesting
+&hellip;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: And unique, new works, you 
know, it's
+still a lot of cooperation.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: It is.  And I think that 
probably
+requires some kind of fair use concept.  Certainly making a few
+seconds of sample and using that in making some musical work,
+obviously that should be fair use.  Even the standard idea of fair use
+includes that, if you think about it.  Whether courts agree, I'm not
+sure, but they should.  That wouldn't be a real change in the system
+as it has existed.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: What do you think about 
publishing
+public information in proprietary formats?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Oh, it shouldn't be.  I mean, 
the
+government should never require citizens to use a non-free program to
+access, to communicate with the government in any way, in either
+direction.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: I have been, what I will now 
say, a
+GNU/Linux user&hellip;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Thank you.  
&lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: &hellip;for the past four 
years.  The one
+thing that has been problematical for me and is something that is
+essential, I think, to all of us, is browsing the web.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Yes.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: One thing that has been 
decidedly a
+weakness in using a GNU/Linux system has been browsing the web,
+because the prevailing tool for that, Netscape&hellip;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: &hellip;is not free 
software.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Let me respond to this.  I want to get to the point, for the sake
+of getting in more.  So, yes.  There has been a terrible tendency for
+people to use Netscape Navigator on their GNU/Linux systems.  And, in
+fact all the commercially packaged systems come with it.  So this is
+an ironic situation: we worked so hard to make a free operating
+system, and now, if you go to the store, and you can find versions of
+GNU/Linux there, most of them are called Linux, and they're not free.
+Oh, well, part of them is.  But then, there's Netscape Navigator, and
+maybe other non-free programs as well.  So, it's very hard to actually
+find a free system, unless you know what you're doing.  Or, of course,
+you can not install Netscape Navigator.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Now, in fact, there have been free web browsers for many years.
+There is a free web browser that I used to use called Lynx.  It's a
+free web browser that is non-graphical; it's text-only.  This has a
+tremendous advantage, in you don't see the ads.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]
+[Applause]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But anyway, there is a free graphical project called Mozilla, which
+is now getting to the point where you can use it.  And I occasionally
+use it.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: Konqueror 2.01 has been very 
good.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Oh, OK.  So that's another free
+graphical browser.  So, we're finally solving that problem, I
+guess.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: Can you talk to me about that
+philosophical/ethical division between free software and open source?
+Do you feel that those are irreconcilable? &hellip;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;[Recording switches tapes; end of question and start of 
answer
+is missing]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: &hellip; to a freedom, and 
ethics.  Or
+whether you just say, Well, I hope that you companies will decide it's
+more profitable to let us be allowed to do these things.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But, as I said, in a lot of practical work, it doesn't really
+matter what a person's politics are.  When a person offers to help the
+GNU project, we don't say: &ldquo;You have to agree with our
+politics.&rdquo; We say that in a GNU package, you've got to call the
+system GNU/Linux, and you've got to call it free software.  What you
+say when you're not speaking to the GNU Project, that's up to you.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: The company, IBM, started a 
campaign for
+government agencies, to sell their big new machines, that they used
+Linux as selling point, and say Linux.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Yes, of course, it's really the
+GNU/Linux systems. &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: That's right!  Well, tell the 
top sales
+person.  He doesn't know anything for GNU.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: I have to tell who?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: The top sales person.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Oh yes.  The problem is that 
they've
+already carefully decided what they want to say for reasons of their
+advantage.  And the issue of what is a more accurate, or fair, or
+correct way to describe it is not the primary issue that matters to a
+company like that.  Now, some small companies, yes, there'll be a
+boss.  And if the boss is inclined to think about things like that, he
+might make a decision that way.  Not a giant corporation though. It's
+a shame, you know.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;There's another more important and more substantive issue about
+what IBM is doing.  They're saying that they're putting a billion
+dollars into &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;.  But perhaps, I should also put
+quotes around &ldquo;into&rdquo;, as well, because some of that money
+is paying people to develop free software.  That really is a
+contribution to our community.  But other parts is paying to pay
+people to write proprietary software, or port proprietary software to
+run on top of GNU/Linux, and that is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; a contribution to
+our community.  But IBM is lumping that altogether into this.  Some of
+it might be advertising, which is partly a contribution, even if it's
+partly wrong.  So, it's a complicated situation.  Some of what they're
+doing is contribution and some is not.  And some is sort is somewhat,
+but not exactly.  And you can't just lump it altogether and think,
+Wow!  Whee!  A billion dollars from IBM.  &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; That's
+oversimplification.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: Can you talk a little bit more 
about the
+thinking that went into the general public license?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Well, here's the &mdash; I'm 
sorry, I'm
+answering his question now. &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SCHONBERG&lt;/strong&gt;: Do you want to reserve some 
time for
+the press conference?  Or do you want to continue here?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Who is here for the press 
conference?
+Not a lot of press.  Oh, three &mdash; OK.  Can you afford if we
+&mdash; if I go on answering everybody's questions for another ten
+minutes or so?  OK.  So, we'll go on answering everybody's
+questions.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, the thinking that went into the GNU GPL?  Part of it was that I
+wanted to protect the freedom of the community against the phenomena
+that I just described with X Windows, which has happened with other
+free programs as well.  In fact, when I was thinking about this issue,
+X Windows was not yet released.  But I had seen this problem happen in
+other free programs.  For instance, TeX.  I wanted to make sure that
+the users would all have freedom.  Otherwise, I realized that I might
+write a program, and maybe a lot of people would use the program, but
+they wouldn't have freedom.  And what's the point of that?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But the other issue I was thinking about was, I wanted to give the
+community a feeling that it was not a doormat, a feeling that it was
+not prey to any parasite who would wander along.  If you don't use
+copyleft, you are essentially saying: &lt;i&gt;[speaking meekly]&lt;/i&gt;
+&ldquo;Take my code.  Do what you want.  I don't say no.&rdquo; So,
+anybody can come along and say: &lt;i&gt;[speaking very firmly]&lt;/i&gt;
+&ldquo;Ah, I want to make a non-free version of this.  I'll just take
+it.&rdquo; And, then, of course, they probably make some improvements,
+those non-free versions might appeal to users, and replace the free
+versions.  And then, what have you accomplished?  You've only made a
+donation to some proprietary software project.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And when people see that that's happening, when people see, other
+people take what I do, and they don't ever give back, it can be
+demoralizing.  And, this is not just speculation.  I had seen that
+happen.  That was part of what happened to wipe out the old community
+that I belonged to the '70's.  Some people started becoming
+uncooperative.  And we assumed that they were profiting thereby.  They
+certainly acted as if they thought they were profiting.  And we
+realized that they can just take off cooperation and not give back.
+And there was nothing we could do about it.  It was very discouraging.
+We, those of us who didn't like the trend, even had a discussion and
+we couldn't come up with any idea for how we could stop it.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, the GPL is designed to stop that.  And it says, Yes, you are
+welcome to join the community and use this code.  You can use it to do
+all sorts of jobs.  But, if you release a modified version, you've got
+to release that to our community, as part of our community, as part of
+the free world.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, in fact, there are still many ways that people can get the
+benefit of our work and not contribute, like you don't have to write
+any software.  Lots of people use GNU/Linux and don't write any
+software.  There's no requirement that you've got to do anything for
+us.  But if you do a certain kind of thing, you've got to contribute
+to it.  So what that means is that our community is not a doormat.
+And I think that that helped give people the strength to feel, Yes, we
+won't just be trampled underfoot by everybody.  We'll stand up to
+this.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: Yes, my question was, 
considering free
+but not copylefted software, since anybody can pick it up and make it
+proprietary, is it not possible also for someone to pick it up and
+make some changes and release the whole thing under the GPL?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Yes, it is possible.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: Then, that would make all 
future copies
+then be GPL'ed.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: From that branch.  But here's 
why we
+don't do that.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: Hmm?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Here's why we don't generally 
do that.
+Let me explain.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: OK, yes.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: We could, if we wanted to, 
take X
+Windows, and make a GPL-covered copy and make changes in that.  But
+there's a much larger group of people working on improving X Windows
+and &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; GPL-ing it.  So, if we did that, we would be 
forking
+from them.  And that's not very nice treatment of them.  And, they
+&lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; a part of our community, contributing to our
+community.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Second, it would backfire against us, because they're doing a lot
+more work on X than we would be.  So, our version would be inferior to
+theirs, and people wouldn't use it, which means, why go to the trouble
+at all?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: Mmm hmm.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: So when a person has written 
some
+improvement to X Windows, what I say that person should do is
+cooperate with the X development team.  Send it to them and let them
+use it their way.  Because they are developing a very important piece
+of free software.  It's good for us to cooperate with them.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: Except, considering X, in 
particular,
+about two years ago, the X Consortium that was far into the non-free
+open source&hellip;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Well, actually it 
&lt;em&gt;wasn't&lt;/em&gt; open
+sourced.  It wasn't open sourced, either.  They may have said it was.
+I can't remember if they said that or not.  But it wasn't open
+source. It was restricted.  You couldn't commercially distribute, I
+think.  Or you couldn't commercially distribute a modified version, or
+something like that.  There was a restriction that's considered
+unacceptable by both the Free Software movement and the Open Source
+movement.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;And yes, that's what using a non-copyleft license leaves you open
+to.  In fact, the X Consortium, they had a very rigid policy.  They
+say: If your program if copylefted even a little bit, we won't
+distribute it at all.  We won't put it in our distribution.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;So, a lot of people were pressured in this way into not
+copylefting.  And the result was that all of their software was wide
+open, later on.  When the same people who had pressured a developer to
+be too all-permissive, then the X people later said, All right, now we
+can put on restrictions, which wasn't very ethical of them.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But, given the situation, would we really want to scrape up the
+resources to maintain an alternate GPL-covered version of X?  And it
+wouldn't make any sense to do that.  There are so many other things we
+need to do.  Let's do them instead.  We can cooperate with the X
+developers.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: Do you have a comment, is the 
GNU a
+trademark?  And is it practical to include it as part of the GNU
+General Public License allowing trademarks?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: We are, actually, applying for 
trademark
+registration on GNU.  But it wouldn't really have anything to do with
+that.  It's a long story to explain why.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: You could require the 
trademark be
+displayed with GPL-covered programs.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: No, I don't think so.  The 
licenses
+cover individual programs.  And when a given program is part of the
+GNU Project, nobody lies about that.  The name of the system as a
+whole is a different issue.  And this is an aside.  It's not worth
+discussing more.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;QUESTION&lt;/strong&gt;: If there was a button that you 
could
+push and force all companies to free their software, would you press
+it?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: Well, I would only use this for
+published software.  You know, I think that people have the right to
+write a program privately and use it.  And that includes companies.
+This is privacy issue.  And it's true, there can be times when it is
+wrong to do that, like if it is tremendously helpful to humanity, and
+you are withholding it from humanity. That is a wrong but that's a
+different kind of wrong.  It's a different issue, although it's in the
+same area.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But yes, I think all published software should be free software.
+And remember, when it's not free software, that's because of
+government intervention.  The government is intervening to make it
+non-free.  The government is creating special legal powers to hand out
+to the owners of the programs, so that they can have the police stop
+us from using the programs in certain ways.  So I would certainly like
+to end that. &lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SCHONBERG&lt;/strong&gt;: Richard's presentation has 
invariably
+generated an enormous amount of intellectual energy.  I would suggest
+that some of it should be directed to using, and possibly writing,
+free software.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;We should close the proceedings shortly.  I want to say that
+Richard has injected into a profession which is known in the general
+public for its terminal apolitical nerditude a level of political and
+moral discussion which is, I think, unprecedented in our profession.
+And we owe him very big for this.  I'd like to note to people that
+there is a break.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;[Applause]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: You are free to leave at any 
time, you
+know. &lt;i&gt;[Laughter]&lt;/i&gt; I'm not holding you prisoner 
here.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;[Audience adjourns&hellip;]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;[overlapping conversations&hellip;]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/strong&gt;: One final thing.  Our website:
+www.gnu.org&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --&gt;
+&lt;div id="footer"&gt;
+&lt;div class="unprintable"&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+&lt;a href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.
+There are also &lt;a href="/contact/"&gt;other ways to contact&lt;/a&gt;
+the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to &lt;a 
href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+        replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+        We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+        translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+        Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+        to &lt;a href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;
+        &lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+        &lt;p&gt;For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+        our web pages, see &lt;a
+        href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+        README&lt;/a&gt;. --&gt;
+Please see the &lt;a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+README&lt;/a&gt; for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+
+&lt;!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+     files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+     be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US.  Please do NOT change or remove this
+     without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+     Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+     document.  For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+     document was modified, or published.
+     
+     If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+     Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+     years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+     year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+     being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+     
+     There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+     Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; 2001, 2005, 2006, <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>2014</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>2014, 2015</em></ins></span> Richard M. 
Stallman&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;This page is licensed under a &lt;a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/"&gt;Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --&gt;
+
+&lt;p class="unprintable"&gt;Updated:
+&lt;!-- timestamp start --&gt;
+$Date: 2015/09/15 05:45:27 $
+&lt;!-- timestamp end --&gt;
+&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/body&gt;
+&lt;/html&gt;
+</pre></body></html>

Index: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-en.html
diff -N philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-en.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl-en.html    15 Sep 2015 05:45:27 
-0000      1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,2127 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation</h2>
+
+<blockquote><p>Transcript of
+Richard M. Stallman's speech,
+&ldquo;Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation&rdquo;,
+given at New York University in New York, NY,
+on 29 May 2001</p></blockquote>
+
+<div class="announcement">
+<blockquote><p>A <a href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt">plain
+text</a> version of this transcript and
+a <a href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt">summary</a> of the speech
+are also available.</p></blockquote>
+</div>
+
+<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: I'm Mike Uretsky.  I'm over at the Stern
+School of Business.  I'm also one of the Co-Directors of the Center
+for Advanced Technology.  And, on behalf of all of us in the Computer
+Science Department, I want to welcome you here.  I want to say a few
+comments, before I turn it over to Ed, who is going to introduce the
+speaker.</p>
+
+<p>The role of a university is a place to foster debate and to have
+interesting discussions.  And the role of a major university is to
+have particularly interesting discussions.  And this particular
+presentation, this seminar falls right into that mold.  I find the
+discussion of open source particularly interesting.  In a sense
+&hellip; <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I do free software.  Open source is a
+different movement.  <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: When I first started in the field in the
+'60's, basically software was free.  And we went in cycles.  It became
+free, and then software manufacturers, in the need to expand their
+markets, pushed it in other directions.  A lot of the developments
+that took place with the entry of the PC moved in exactly the same
+kind of a cycle.</p>
+
+<p>There's a very interesting French philosopher, Pierre Levy, who
+talks about movement to this direction and who talks about the move
+into cyberspace as not only relating to technology but also relating
+to social restructuring, to political restructuring, through a change
+in the kinds of relationships that will improve the well-being of
+mankind.  And we're hoping that this debate is a movement in that
+direction, that this debate is something that cuts across a lot of the
+disciplines that normally act as solace within the University.  We're
+looking forward to some very interesting discussions.  Ed?</p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: I'm Ed Schonberg from the Computer
+Science Department at the Courant Institute.  Let me welcome you all
+to this event.  Introducers are usually, and particularly, a useless
+aspect of public presentations, but in this case, actually, they serve
+a useful purpose, as Mike easily demonstrated, because an introducer
+for instance, told him, by making inaccurate comments, can allow him
+to straighten out and correct and <i>[Laughter]</i> sharpen
+considerably the parameters of the debate.</p>
+
+<p>So, let me make the briefest possible introduction to somebody who
+doesn't need one.  Richard is the perfect example of somebody who, by
+acting locally, started thinking globally from problems concerning the
+unavailability of source code for printer drivers at the AI Lab many
+years ago.  He has developed a coherent philosophy that has forced all
+of us to re-examine our ideas of how software is produced, of what
+intellectual property means, and what the software community actually
+represents.  Let me welcome Richard Stallman.  <i>[Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can someone lend me a
+watch?  <i>[Laughter]</i> Thank you.  So, I'd like to thank Microsoft
+for providing me the opportunity to <i>[Laughter]</i> be on this
+platform.  For the past few weeks, I have felt like an author whose
+book was fortuitously banned somewhere.  <i>[Laughter]</i> Except that
+all the articles about it are giving the wrong author's name, because
+Microsoft describes the GNU GPL as an open source license, and most of
+the press coverage followed suit.  Most people, of course just
+innocently don't realize that our work has nothing to do with open
+source, that in fact we did most of it before people even coined the
+term open source.</p>
+
+<p>We are in the free software movement, and I'm going to speak about
+what the free software movement is about, what it means, what we have
+done, and, because this is partly sponsored by a school of business,
+I'll say some things more than I usually do about how free software
+relates to business, and some other areas of social life.</p>
+
+<p>Now, some of you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps
+you cook.  And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably
+use recipes.  And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the
+experience of getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing
+it.  And you've probably also had the experience &mdash; unless you're
+a total neophyte &mdash; of changing a recipe.  You know, it says
+certain things, but you don't have to do exactly that.  You can leave
+out some ingredients.  Add some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms.
+Put in less salt because your doctor said you should cut down on salt
+&mdash; whatever.  You can even make bigger changes according to your
+skill.  And if you've made changes in a recipe, and you cook it for
+your friends, and they like it, one of your friends might say,
+&ldquo;Hey, could I have the recipe?&rdquo; And then, what do you do?
+You could write down your modified version of the recipe and make a
+copy for your friend.  These are the natural things to do with
+functionally useful recipes of any kind.</p>
+
+<p>Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program.  A computer
+program's a lot like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to
+get some result that you want.  So it's just as natural to do those
+same things with computer programs &mdash; hand a copy to your friend.
+Make changes in it because the job it was written to do isn't exactly
+what you want.  It did a great job for somebody else, but your job is
+a different job.  And after you've changed it, that's likely to be
+useful for other people.  Maybe they have a job to do that's like the
+job you do.  So they ask, &ldquo;Hey, can I have a copy?&rdquo; Of
+course, if you're a nice person, you're going to give a copy.  That's
+the way to be a decent person.</p>
+
+<p>So imagine what it would be like if recipes were packaged inside
+black boxes.  You couldn't see what ingredients they're using, let
+alone change them, and imagine if you made a copy for a friend, they
+would call you a pirate and try to put you in prison for years.  That
+world would create tremendous outrage from all the people who are used
+to sharing recipes.  But that is exactly what the world of proprietary
+software is like.  A world in which common decency towards other
+people is prohibited or prevented.</p>
+
+<p>Now, why did I notice this?  I noticed this because I had the good
+fortune in the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who
+shared software.  Now, this community could trace its ancestry
+essentially back to the beginning of computing.  In the 1970's,
+though, it was a bit rare for there to be a community where people
+shared software.  And, in fact, this was sort of an extreme case,
+because in the lab where I worked, the entire operating system was
+software developed by the people in our community, and we'd share any
+of it with anybody.  Anybody was welcome to come and take a look, and
+take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do.  There were no
+copyright notices on these programs.  Cooperation was our way of life.
+And we were secure in that way of life.  We didn't fight for it.  We
+didn't have to fight for it.  We just lived that way.  And, as far as
+we knew, we would just keep on living that way.  So there was free
+software, but there was no free software movement.</p>
+
+<p>But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that
+happened to it.  Ultimately it was wiped out.  Ultimately, the PDP-10
+computer which we used for all our work was discontinued.  And you
+know, our system &mdash; the Incompatible Timesharing System &mdash;
+was written starting in the '60's, so it was written in assembler
+language.  That's what you used to write an operating system in the
+'60's.  So, of course, assembler language is for one particular
+computer architecture; if that gets discontinued, all your work turns
+into dust &mdash; it's useless.  And that's what happened to us.  The
+20 years or so of work of our community turned into dust.</p>
+
+<p>But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me,
+helped me see what to do, helped prepare me to see what to do when
+this happened, because at certain point, Xerox gave the Artificial
+Intelligence Lab, where I worked, a laser printer, and this was a
+really handsome gift, because it was the first time anybody outside
+Xerox had a laser printer.  It was very fast, printed a page a second,
+very fine in many respects, but it was unreliable, because it was
+really a high-speed office copier that had been modified into a
+printer.  And, you know, copiers jam, but there's somebody there to
+fix them.  The printer jammed and nobody saw.  So it stayed jammed for
+a long time.</p>
+
+<p>Well, we had an idea for how to deal with this problem.  Change it
+so that whenever the printer gets a jam, the machine that runs the
+printer can tell our timesharing machine, and tell the users who are
+waiting for printouts, or something like that, you know, tell them, go
+fix the printer.  Because if they only knew it was jammed, of course,
+if you're waiting for a printout and you know that the printer is
+jammed, you don't want to sit and wait forever, you're going to go fix
+it.</p>
+
+<p>But at that point, we were completely stymied, because the software
+that ran that printer was not free software.  It had come with the
+printer, and it was just a binary.  We couldn't have the source code;
+Xerox wouldn't let us have the source code.  So, despite our skill as
+programmers &mdash; after all, we had written our own timesharing
+system &mdash; we were completely helpless to add this feature to the
+printer software.</p>
+
+<p>And we just had to suffer with waiting.  It would take an hour or
+two to get your printout because the machine would be jammed most of
+the time.  And only once in a while &mdash; you'd wait an hour
+figuring &ldquo;I know it's going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and
+go collect my printout,&rdquo; and then you'd see that it had been
+jammed the whole time, and in fact, nobody else had fixed it.  So
+you'd fix it and you'd go wait another half hour.  Then, you'd come
+back, and you'd see it jammed again &mdash; before it got to your
+output.  It would print three minutes and be jammed thirty minutes.
+Frustration up the whazzoo.  But the thing that made it worse was
+knowing that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his own
+selfishness, was blocking us, obstructing us from improving the
+software.  So, of course, we felt some resentment.</p>
+
+<p>And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a
+copy of that software.  So I was visiting there later, so I went to
+his office and I said, &ldquo;Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of
+the printer source code?&rdquo; And he said &ldquo;No, I promised not
+to give you a copy.&rdquo; <i>[Laughter]</i> I was stunned.  I was so
+&mdash; I was angry, and I had no idea how I could do justice to it.
+All I could think of was to turn around on my heel and walk out of his
+room.  Maybe I slammed the door.  <i>[Laughter]</i> And I thought
+about it later on, because I realized that I was seeing not just an
+isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was important and affected
+a lot of people.</p>
+
+<p>This was &mdash; for me &mdash; I was lucky, I only got a taste of
+it, but other people had to live in this all the time.  So I thought
+about it at length.  See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with
+us &mdash; his colleagues at MIT.  He had betrayed us.  But he didn't
+just do it to us.  Chances are he did it to you too.  <i>[Pointing at
+member of audience.]</i>  And I think, mostly likely, he did it to you
+too.  <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]  [Laughter]</i> And
+he probably did it to you as well.  <i>[Pointing to third member of
+audience.]</i> He probably did it to most of the people here in this
+room &mdash; except a few, maybe, who weren't born yet in 1980.
+Because he had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about the
+entire population of the Planet Earth.  He had signed a non-disclosure
+agreement.</p>
+
+<p>Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure
+agreement, and it taught me an important lesson &mdash; a lesson
+that's important because most programmers never learn it.  You see,
+this was my first encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was
+the victim.  I, and my whole lab, were the victims.  And the lesson it
+taught me was that non-disclosure agreements have victims.  They're
+not innocent.  They're not harmless.  Most programmers first encounter
+a non-disclosure agreement when they're invited to sign one.  And
+there's always some temptation &mdash; some goody they're going to get
+if they sign.  So, they make up excuses.  They say, &ldquo;Well, he's
+never going to get a copy no matter what, so why shouldn't I join the
+conspiracy to deprive him?&rdquo; They say, &ldquo;This is the way
+it's always done.  Who am I to go against it?&rdquo; They say,
+&ldquo;If I don't sign this, someone else will.&rdquo; Various excuses
+to gag their consciences.</p>
+
+<p>But when somebody invited me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, my
+conscience was already sensitized.  It remembered how angry I had
+been, when somebody promised not to help me and my whole lab solve our
+problem.  And I couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to
+somebody else who had never done me any harm.  You know, if somebody
+asked me to promise not to share some useful information with a hated
+enemy, I would have said yes.  You know?  If somebody's done something
+bad, he deserves it.  But, strangers &mdash; they haven't done me any
+harm.  How could they deserve that kind of mistreatment?  You can't
+let yourself start treating just anybody and everybody badly.  Then
+you become a predator on society.  So I said, &ldquo;Thank you very
+much for offering me this nice software package.  But I can't accept
+it in good conscience, on the conditions you are demanding, so I will
+do without it.  Thank you so much.&rdquo; And so, I have never
+knowingly signed a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful
+technical information such as software.</p>
+
+<p>Now there are other kinds of information which raise different
+ethical issues.  For instance, there's personal information.  You
+know, if you wanted to talk with me about what was happening between
+you and your boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody &mdash;
+you know, I could keep &mdash; I could agree to keep that a secret for
+you, because that's not generally useful technical information.  At
+least, it's probably not generally useful. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>There is a small chance &mdash; and it's a possibility though
+&mdash; that you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex
+technique, <i>[Laughter]</i> and I would then feel a moral
+duty <i>[Laughter]</i> to pass it onto the rest of humanity, so that
+everyone could get the benefit of it.  So, I'd have to put a proviso
+in that promise, you know?  If it's just details about who wants this,
+and who's angry at whom, and things like that &mdash; soap opera
+&mdash; that I can keep private for you, but something that humanity
+could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't withhold.  You see,
+the purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information
+for humanity to help people live their lives better.  If we promise to
+withhold that information &mdash; if we keep it secret &mdash; then we
+are betraying the mission of our field.  And this, I decided I
+shouldn't do.</p>
+
+<p>But, meanwhile my community had collapsed, and that was collapsing,
+and that left me in a bad situation.  You see, the whole Incompatible
+Timesharing System was obsolete, because the PDP-10 was obsolete, and
+so there was no way that I could continue working as an operating
+system developer the way that I had been doing it.  That depended on
+being part of the community using the community software and improving
+it.  That no longer was a possibility, and that gave me a moral
+dilemma.  What was I going to do?  Because the most obvious
+possibility meant to go against that decision I had made.  The most
+obvious possibility was to adapt myself to the change in the world.
+To accept that things were different, and that I'd just have to give
+up those principles and start signing non-disclosure agreements for
+proprietary operating systems, and most likely writing proprietary
+software as well.  But I realized that that way I could have fun
+coding, and I could make money &mdash; especially if I did it other
+than at MIT &mdash; but at the end, I'd have to look back at my career
+and say, &ldquo;I've spent my life building walls to divide
+people,&rdquo; and I would have been ashamed of my life.</p>
+
+<p>So I looked for another alternative, and there was an obvious one.
+I could leave the software field and do something else.  Now I had no
+other special noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a
+waiter.  <i>[Laughter]</i> Not at a fancy restaurant; they wouldn't
+hire me, <i>[Laughter]</i> but I could be a waiter somewhere.  And
+many programmers, they say to me, &ldquo;The people who hire
+programmers demand this, this and this. If I don't do those things,
+I'll starve.&rdquo; It's literally the word they use.  Well, you know,
+as a waiter, you're not going to starve.  <i>[Laughter]</i> So,
+really, they're in no danger.  But &mdash; and this is important, you
+see &mdash; because sometimes you can justify doing something that
+hurts other people by saying otherwise something worse is going to
+happen to me.  You know, if you were <em>really</em> going to starve,
+you'd be justified in writing proprietary software.  <i>[Laughter]</i>
+If somebody's pointing a gun at you, then I would say, it's
+forgivable.  <i>[Laughter]</i> But, I had found a way that I could
+survive without doing something unethical, so that excuse was not
+available.  So I realized, though, that being a waiter would be no fun
+for me, and it would be wasting my skills as an operating system
+developer.  It would avoid misusing my skills.  Developing proprietary
+software would be misusing my skills.  Encouraging other people to
+live in the world of proprietary software would be misusing my skills.
+So it's better to waste them than misuse them, but it's still not
+really good.</p>
+
+<p>So for those reasons, I decided to look for some other alternative.
+What can an operating system developer do that would actually improve
+the situation, make the world a better place?  And I realized that an
+operating system developer was exactly what was needed.  The problem,
+the dilemma, existed for me and for everyone else because all of the
+available operating systems for modern computers were proprietary.
+The free operating systems were for old, obsolete computers, right?
+So for the modern computers &mdash; if you wanted to get a modern
+computer and use it, you were forced into a proprietary operating
+system.  So if an operating system developer wrote another operating
+system, and then said, &ldquo;Everybody come and share this; you're
+welcome to this&rdquo; &mdash; that would give everybody a way out of
+the dilemma, another alternative.  So I realized that there was
+something I could do that would solve the problem.  I had just the
+right skills to be able to do it.  And it was the most useful thing I
+could possibly imagine that I'd be able to do with my life.  And it
+was a problem that no one else was trying to solve.  It was just sort
+of sitting there, getting worse, and nobody was there but me.  So I
+felt, &ldquo;I'm elected.  I have to work on this.  If not me,
+who?&rdquo; So I decided I would develop a free operating system, or
+die trying &hellip; of old age, of course.  <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>So, of course I had to decide what kind of operating system it
+should be.  There are some technical design decisions to be made.  I
+decided to make the system compatible with Unix for a number of
+reasons.  First of all, I had just seen one operating system that I
+really loved become obsolete because it was written for one particular
+kind of computer.  I didn't want that to happen again.  We needed to
+have a portable system.  Well, Unix was a portable system.  So if I
+followed the design of Unix, I had a pretty good chance that I could
+make a system that would also be portable and workable.  And
+furthermore, why <i>[Tape unclear]</i> be compatible with it in the
+details.  The reason is, users hate incompatible changes.  If I had
+just designed the system in my favorite way &mdash; which I would have
+loved doing, I'm sure &mdash; I would have produced something that was
+incompatible.  You know, the details would be different.  So, if I
+wrote the system, then the users would have said to me, &ldquo;Well,
+this is very nice, but it's incompatible.  It will be too much work to
+switch.  We can't afford that much trouble just to use your system
+instead of Unix, so we'll stay with Unix,&rdquo; they would have
+said.</p>
+
+<p>Now, if I wanted to actually create a community where there would
+be people in it, people using this free system, and enjoying the
+benefits of liberty and cooperation, I had to make a system people
+would use, a system that they would find easy to switch to, that would
+not have an obstacle making it fail at the very beginning.  Now,
+making the system upward compatible with Unix actually made all the
+immediate design decisions, because Unix consists of many pieces, and
+they communicate through interfaces that are more or less documented.
+So if you want to be compatible with Unix, you have to replace each
+piece, one by one, with a compatible piece.  So the remaining design
+decisions are inside one piece, and they could be made later by
+whoever decides to write that piece.  They didn't have to be made at
+the outset.</p>
+
+<p>So all we had to do to start work was find a name for the system.
+Now, we hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program,
+because thinking of people being amused by the name is half the fun of
+writing the program.  <i>[Laughter]</i> And we had a tradition of
+recursive acronyms, to say that the program that you're writing is
+similar to some existing program. You can give it a recursive acronym
+name which says: this one's not the other.  So, for instance, there
+were many Tico text editors in the '60's and '70's, and they were
+generally called something-or-other Tico.  Then one clever hacker
+called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico &mdash; the first recursive
+acronym.  In 1975, I developed the first Emacs text editor, and there
+were many imitations of Emacs, and a lot of them were called
+something-or-other Emacs, but one was called Fine, for Fine Is Not
+Emacs, and there was Sine, for Sine Is Not Emacs, and Eine for Ina Is
+Not Emacs, and MINCE for Mince Is Not Complete
+Emacs.  <i>[Laughter]</i> That was a stripped down imitation.  And
+then, Eine was almost completely rewritten, and the new version was
+called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially.  <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>So I looked for a recursive acronym for Something is not Unix.  And
+I tried all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word.
+<i>[Laughter]</i> Hmm, try another way.  I made a contraction.  That
+way I could have a three-letter acronym, for Something's not Unix.
+And I tried letters, and I came across the word &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;
+&mdash; the word &ldquo;GNU&rdquo; is the funniest word in the English
+language.  <i>[Laughter]</i> That was it.  Of course, the reason it's
+funny is that according to the dictionary, it's pronounced
+&ldquo;new&rdquo;.  You see?  And so that's why people use it for a
+lot of wordplay.  Let me tell you, this is the name of an animal that
+lives in Africa.  And the African pronunciation had a click sound in
+it.  <i>[Laughter]</i> Maybe still does.  And so, the European
+colonists, when they got there, they didn't bother learning to say
+this click sound.  So they just left it out, and they wrote a
+&ldquo;G&rdquo; which meant &ldquo;there's another sound that's
+supposed to be here which we are not
+pronouncing.&rdquo; <i>[Laughter]</i> So, tonight I'm leaving for
+South Africa, and I have begged them, I hope they're going to find
+somebody who can teach me to pronounce click sounds, <i>[Laughter]</i>
+so that I'll know how to pronounce GNU the correct way, when it's the
+animal.</p>
+
+<p>But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is
+&ldquo;guh-NEW&rdquo; &mdash; pronounce the hard &ldquo;G&rdquo;.  If
+you talk about the &ldquo;new&rdquo; operating system, you'll get
+people very confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years
+now, so it is not new any more.  <i>[Laughter]</i> But it still is,
+and always will be, GNU &mdash; no matter how many people call it
+Linux by mistake.  <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces
+of GNU.  They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities
+though.  And, at the time, I thought we would write all these pieces,
+and make an entire GNU system, and then we'd say, &ldquo;Come and get
+it&rdquo;, and people would start to use it.  That's not what
+happened.  The first pieces I wrote were just equally good
+replacements, with fewer bugs for some pieces of Unix, but they
+weren't tremendously exciting.  Nobody particularly wanted to get them
+and install them.  But then, in September 1984, I started writing GNU
+Emacs, which was my second implementation of Emacs, and by early 1985,
+it was working.  I could use it for all my editing, which was a big
+relief, because I had no intention of learning to use VI, the Unix
+editor. <i>[Laughter]</i> So, until that time, I did my editing on
+some other machine, and saved the files through the network, so that I
+could test them.  But when GNU Emacs was running well enough for me to
+use it, it was also &mdash; other people wanted to use it too.</p>
+
+<p>So I had to work out the details of distribution.  Of course, I put
+a copy in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people
+who were on the net They could then just pull over a tar file, but a
+lot of programmers then even were not on the net in 1985.  They were
+sending me emails saying &ldquo;How can I get a copy?&rdquo; I had to
+decide what I would answer them.  Well, I could have said, I want to
+spend my time writing more GNU software, not writing tapes, so please
+find a friend who's on the internet and who is willing to download it
+and put it on a tape for you.  And I'm sure people would have found
+some friends, sooner or later, you know.  They would have got copies.
+But I had no job.  In fact, I've never had a job since quitting MIT in
+January 1984.  So, I was looking for some way I could make money
+through my work on free software, and therefore I started a free
+software business.  I announced, &ldquo;Send me $150 dollars, and I'll
+mail you a tape of Emacs.&rdquo; And the orders began dribbling in.
+By the middle of the year they were trickling in.</p>
+
+<p>I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month.  And, if necessary, I could
+have lived on just that, because I've always lived cheaply. I live
+like a student, basically.  And I like that, because it means that
+money is not telling me what to do.  I can do what I think is
+important for me to do.  It freed me to do what seemed worth doing.
+So make a real effort to avoid getting sucked into all the expensive
+lifestyle habits of typical Americans.  Because if you do that, then
+people with the money will dictate what you do with your life.  You
+won't be able to do what's really important to you.</p>
+
+<p>So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, &ldquo;What do you
+mean it's free software if it costs $150
+dollars?&rdquo; <i>[Laughter]</i> Well, the reason they asked this was
+that they were confused by the multiple meanings of the English word
+&ldquo;free&rdquo;.  One meaning refers to price, and another meaning
+refers to freedom.  When I speak of free software, I'm referring to
+freedom, not price.  So think of free speech, not free
+beer.  <i>[Laughter]</i> Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many years
+of my life to making sure programmers got less money.  That's not my
+goal.  I'm a programmer and I don't mind getting money myself.  I
+won't dedicate my whole life to getting it, but I don't mind getting
+it.  And I'm not &mdash; and therefore, ethics is the same for
+everyone.  I'm not against some other programmer getting money either.
+I don't want prices to be low.  That's not the issue at all.  The
+issue is freedom.  Freedom for everyone who's using software, whether
+that person be a programmer or not.</p>
+
+<p>So at this point I should give you the definition of free software.
+I better get to some real details, you see, because just saying
+&ldquo;I believe in freedom&rdquo; is vacuous.  There's so many
+different freedoms you could believe in, and they conflict with each
+other, so the real political question is: Which are the important
+freedoms, the freedoms that we must make sure everybody has?</p>
+
+<p>And now, I will give my answer to that question for the particular
+area of using software.  A program is free software for you, a
+particular user, if you have the following freedoms:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>First, Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the program for any
+purpose, any way you like.</li>
+<li>Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
+program to suit your needs.</li>
+<li>Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
+copies of the program.</li>
+<li>And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
+publishing an improved version so others can get the benefit of your
+work.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software,
+for you &mdash; and that's crucial.  That's why I phrase it that way.
+I'll explain why later, when I talk about the GNU General Public
+License, but right now I'm explaining what free software means, which
+is a more basic question.</p>
+
+<p>So, Freedom Zero's pretty obvious.  If you're not even allowed to
+run the program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive
+program.  But as it happens, most programs will at least give you
+Freedom Zero.  And Freedom Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of
+Freedoms One, Two, and Three &mdash; that's the way that copyright law
+works.  So the freedoms that distinguish free software from typical
+software are Freedoms One, Two, and Three, so I'll say more about them
+and why they are important.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the
+software to suit your needs.  This could mean fixing bugs.  It could
+mean adding new features.  It could mean porting it to a different
+computer system.  It could mean translating all the error messages
+into Navajo.  Any change you want to make, you should be free to
+make.</p>
+
+<p>Now, it's obvious that professional programmers can make use of
+this freedom very effectively, but not just them.  Anybody of
+reasonable intelligence can learn a little programming.  You know,
+there are hard jobs, and there are easy jobs, and most people are not
+going to learn enough to do hard jobs.  But lots of people can learn
+enough to do easy jobs, just the way, you know, 50 years ago, lots and
+lots of American men learned to repair cars, which is what enabled the
+U.S. to have a motorized army in World War II and win.  So, very
+important, having lots of people tinkering.</p>
+
+<p>And if you are a people person, and you really don't want to learn
+technology at all, that probably means that you have a lot of friends,
+and you're good at getting them to owe you favors.  <i>[Laughter]</i>
+Some of them are probably programmers.  So you can ask one of your
+programmer friends. &ldquo;Would you please change this for me?  Add
+this feature?&rdquo; So, lots of people can benefit from it.</p>
+
+<p>Now, if you don't have this freedom, it causes practical, material
+harm to society.  It makes you a prisoner of your software.  I
+explained what that was like with regard to the laser printer.  You
+know, it worked badly for us, and we couldn't fix it, because we were
+prisoners of our software.</p>
+
+<p>But it also affects people's morale.  You know if the computer is
+constantly frustrating to use, and people are using it, their lives
+are going to be frustrating, and if they're using it in their jobs,
+their jobs are going to be frustrating; they're going to hate their
+jobs.  And you know, people protect themselves from frustration by
+deciding not to care.  So you end up with people whose attitude is,
+&ldquo;Well, I showed up for work today.  That's all I have to do.  If
+I can't make progress, that's not my problem; that's the boss's
+problem.&rdquo; And when this happens, it's bad for those people, and
+it's bad for society as a whole.  That's Freedom One, the freedom to
+help yourself.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing
+copies of the program.  Now, for beings that can think and learn,
+sharing useful knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship.  When
+these beings use computers, this act of friendship takes the form of
+sharing software.  Friends share with each other.  Friends help each
+other.  This is the nature of friendship.  And, in fact, this spirit
+of goodwill &mdash; the spirit of helping your neighbor, voluntarily
+&mdash; is society's most important resource.  It makes the difference
+between a livable society and a dog-eat-dog jungle.  Its importance
+has been recognized by the world's major religions for thousands of
+years, and they explicitly try to encourage this attitude.</p>
+
+<p>When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach
+us this attitude &mdash; the spirit of sharing &mdash; by having us do
+it.  They figured if we did it, we'd learn.  So they said, &ldquo;If
+you bring candy to school, you can't keep it all for yourself; you
+have to share some with the other kids.&rdquo; Teaching us, the
+society was set up to teach, this spirit of cooperation.  And why do
+you have to do that?  Because people are not totally cooperative.
+That's one part of human nature, and there are other parts of human
+nature.  There are lots of parts of human nature.  So, if you want a
+better society, you've got to work to encourage the spirit of sharing.
+You know, it'll never get to be 100%.  That's understandable.  People
+have to take care of themselves too.  But if we make it somewhat
+bigger, we're all better off.</p>
+
+<p>Nowadays, according to the U.S. Government, teachers are supposed
+to do the exact opposite.  &ldquo;Oh, Johnny, you brought software to
+school.  Well, don't share it.  Oh no.  Sharing is wrong.  Sharing
+means you're a pirate.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>What do they mean when they say &ldquo;pirate&rdquo;?  They're
+saying that helping your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking
+a ship.  <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>What would Buddha or Jesus say about that?  Now, take your favorite
+religious leader.  I don't know, maybe Manson would have said
+something different.  <i>[Laughter]</i> Who knows what L. Ron Hubbard
+would say?  But &hellip;</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Of course, he's dead.  But they don't
+admit that.  What?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: So are the others, also
+dead.  <i>[Laughter] [Inaudible]</i> Charles Manson's also
+dead.  <i>[Laughter]</i> They're dead, Jesus's dead, Buddha's
+dead&hellip;</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, that's true.  <i>[Laughter]</i> So
+I guess, in that regard, L. Ron Hubbard is no worse than the
+others.  <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway &mdash; <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: L. Ron always used free software &mdash;
+it freed him from Zanu.  <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Anyway, so, I think this is actually the
+most important reason why software should be free: We can't afford to
+pollute society's most important resource.  It's true that it's not a
+physical resource like clean air and clean water.  It's a
+psycho-social resource, but it's just as real for all that, and it
+makes a tremendous difference to our lives.  You see, the actions we
+take influence the thoughts of other people.  When we go around
+telling people, &ldquo;Don't share with each other&rdquo;, if they
+listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's not a good one.
+That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor.</p>
+
+<p>Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just
+cause this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes
+waste &mdash; practical, material harm.  If the program has an owner,
+and the owner arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay
+in order to be able to use it, some people are going to say,
+&ldquo;Never mind, I'll do without it.&rdquo; And that's waste,
+deliberately inflicted waste.  And the interesting thing about
+software, of course, is that fewer users doesn't mean you have to make
+less stuff.  You know, if fewer people buy cars, you can make fewer
+cars.  There's a saving there.  There are resources to be allocated,
+or not allocated, into making cars.  So that you can say that having a
+price on a car is a good thing.  It prevents people from diverting
+lots of wasted resources into making cars that aren't really needed.
+But if each additional car used no resources, it wouldn't be doing any
+good saving the making of these cars.  Well, for physical objects, of
+course, like cars, it is always going to take resources to make an
+additional one of them, each additional exemplar.</p>
+
+<p>But for software that's not true.  Anybody can make another copy.
+And it's almost trivial to do it.  It takes no resources, except a
+tiny bit of electricity.  So there's nothing we can save, no resource
+we're going to allocate better by putting this financial disincentive
+on the use of the software.  You often find people taking economic,
+the consequences of economic reasoning, based on premises that don't
+apply to software, and trying to transplant them from other areas of
+life where the premises may apply, and the conclusions may be valid.
+They just take the conclusions and assume that they're valid for
+software too, when the argument is based on nothing, in the case of
+software.  The premises don't work in that case.  It is very important
+to examine how you reach the conclusion, and what premises it depends
+on, to see where it might be valid.  So, that's Freedom Two, the
+freedom to help your neighbor.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by
+publishing an improved version of the software.  People used to say to
+me, &ldquo;If the software's free, then nobody will get paid to work
+on it, so why should anybody work on it?&rdquo; Well, of course, they
+were confusing the two meanings of free, so their reasoning was based
+on a misunderstanding.  But, in any case, that was their theory.
+Today, we can compare that theory with empirical fact, and we find
+that hundreds of people are being paid to write free software, and
+over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers.  We get lots of people
+working on free software, for various different motives.</p>
+
+<p>When I first released GNU Emacs &mdash; the first piece of the GNU
+system that people actually wanted to use &mdash; and when it started
+having users, after a while, I got a message saying, &ldquo;I think I
+saw a bug in the source code, and here's a fix.&rdquo; And I got
+another message, &ldquo;Here's code to add a new feature.&rdquo; And
+another bug fix.  And another new feature.  And another, and another,
+and another, until they were pouring in on me so fast that just making
+use of all this help I was getting was a big job.  Microsoft doesn't
+have this problem.  <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>Eventually, people noted this phenomenon.  You see, in the 1980's a
+lot of us thought that maybe free software wouldn't be as good as the
+non-free software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay
+people.  And, of course, people like me, who value freedom and
+community said, &ldquo;Well, we'll use the free software
+anyway.&rdquo; It's worth making a little sacrifice in some mere
+technical convenience to have freedom.  But what people began to note,
+around 1990 was that our software was actually better.  It was more
+powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary alternatives.</p>
+
+<p>In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific
+measurement of reliability of software.  Here's what he did.  He took
+several sets of comparable programs that did the same jobs &mdash; the
+exact same jobs &mdash; in different systems.  Because there were
+certain basic Unix-like utilities.  And the jobs that they did, we
+know, was all, more or less, imitating the same thing, or they were
+following the POSIX spec, so they were all the same in terms of what
+jobs they did, but they were maintained by different people, written
+separately.  The code was different.  So they said, OK, we'll take
+these programs and run them with random data, and measure how often
+they crash, or hang.  So they measured it, and the most reliable set
+of programs was the GNU programs.  All the commercial alternatives
+which were proprietary software were less reliable.  So he published
+this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he did the
+same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same result.
+The GNU versions were the most reliable.  People &mdash; you know
+there are cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system,
+because it's so reliable, and reliability is very important to
+them.</p>
+
+<p>Anyway, there's even a group of people who focus on this particular
+benefit as the reason they give, the main reason they give, why users
+should be permitted to do these various things, and to have these
+freedoms.  If you've been listening to me, you've noticed, you've seen
+that I, speaking for the free software movement, I talk about issues
+of ethics, and what kind of a society we want to live in, what makes
+for a good society, as well as practical, material benefits.  They're
+both important.  That's the free software movement.</p>
+
+<p>That other group of people &mdash; which is called the open source
+movement &mdash; they only cite the practical benefits.  They deny
+that this is an issue of principle.  They deny that people are
+entitled to the freedom to share with their neighbor and to see what
+the program's doing and change it if they don't like it.  They say,
+however, that it's a useful thing to let people do that.  So they go
+to companies and say to them, &ldquo;You know, you might make more
+money if you let people do this.&rdquo; So, what you can see is that
+to some extent, they lead people in a similar direction, but for
+totally different, for fundamentally different, philosophical
+reasons.</p>
+
+<p>Because on the deepest issue of all, you know, on the ethical
+question, the two movements disagree.  You know, in the free software
+movement we say, &ldquo;You're entitled to these freedoms.  People
+shouldn't stop you from doing these things.&rdquo; In the open source
+movement, they say, &ldquo;Yes, they can stop you if you want, but
+we'll try to convince them to deign to let you to do these
+things.&rdquo; Well, they have contributed &mdash; they have convinced
+a certain number of businesses to release substantial pieces of
+software as free software in our community.  So they, the open source
+movement, has contributed substantially to our community.  And so we
+work together on practical projects.  But, philosophically, there's a
+tremendous disagreement.</p>
+
+<p>Unfortunately, the open source movement is the one that gets the
+support of business the most, and so most articles about our work
+describe it as open source, and a lot of people just innocently think
+that we're all part of the open source movement.  So that's why I'm
+mentioning this distinction.  I want you to be aware that the free
+software movement, which brought our community into existence and
+developed the free operating system, is still here &mdash; and that we
+still stand for this ethical philosophy.  I want you to know about
+this, so that you won't mislead someone else unknowingly.</p>
+
+<p>But also, so that you can think about where you stand.</p>
+
+<p>You know, which movement you support is up to you.  You might agree
+with the free software movements and my views.  You might agree with
+the open source movement.  You might disagree with them both.  You
+decide where you stand on these political issues.</p>
+
+<p>But if you agree with the free software movement &mdash; if you see
+that there's an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled
+and directed by this decision deserve a say in it &mdash; then I hope
+you'll say that you agree with the free software movement, and one way
+you can do that is by using the term free software and just helping
+people know we exist.</p>
+
+<p>So, Freedom Three is very important both practically and
+psycho-socially.  If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical
+material harm, because this community development doesn't happen, and
+we don't make powerful, reliable software.  But it also causes
+psycho-social harm, which affects the spirit of scientific cooperation
+&mdash; the idea that we're working together to advance human
+knowledge.  You see, progress in science crucially depends on people
+being able to work together.  And nowadays though, you often find each
+little group of scientists acting like it's a war with each other gang
+of scientists and engineers.  And if they don't share with each other,
+they're all held back.</p>
+
+<p>So, those are the three freedoms that distinguish free software
+from typical software.  Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself,
+making changes to suit your own needs.  Freedom Two is the freedom to
+help your neighbor by distributing copies.  And Freedom Three is the
+freedom to help build your community by making changes and publishing
+them for other people to use.  If you have all of these freedoms, the
+program is free software for you.  Now, why do I define it that way in
+terms of a particular user?  Is it free software for
+you?  <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> Is it free software for
+you?  <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Is it free
+software for you?  <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i>
+Yes?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you explain a bit about the
+difference between Freedom Two and Three?  <i>[inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, they certainly relate, because if
+you don't have freedom to redistribute at all, you certainly don't
+have freedom to distribute a modified version, but they're different
+activities.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Oh.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Freedom Two is, you know, read it, you
+make an exact copy, and hand it to your friends, so now your friend
+can use it.  Or maybe you make exact copies and you sell them to a
+bunch of people, and then they can use it.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom Three is where you make improvements &mdash; or at least
+you think they're improvements, and some other people may agree with
+you.  So that's the difference.  Oh, and by the way, one crucial
+point.  Freedoms One and Three depend on your having access to the
+source code.  Because changing a binary-only program is extremely
+hard.  <i>[Laughter]</i> Even trivial changes like using four digits
+for the date, <i>[Laughter]</i> if you don't have source.  So, for
+compelling, practical reasons, access to the source code is a
+precondition, a requirement, for free software.</p>
+
+<p>So, why do I define it in terms of whether it's free software for
+<em>you</em>?  The reason is that sometimes the same program can be
+free software for some people, and non-free for others.  Now, that
+might seem like a paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example
+to show you how it happens.  A very big example &mdash; maybe the
+biggest ever &mdash; of this problem was the X Window System which was
+developed at MIT and released under a license that made it free
+software.  If you got the MIT version with the MIT license, you had
+Freedoms One, Two, and Three.  It was free software for you.  But
+among those who got copies were various computer manufacturers that
+distributed Unix systems, and they made the necessary changes in X to
+run on their systems.  You know, probably just a few thousand lines
+out of the hundreds of thousands of lines of X.  And, then they
+compiled it, and they put the binaries into their Unix system and
+distributed it under the same non-disclosure agreement as the rest of
+the Unix system.  And then, millions of people got these copies.  They
+had the X Window System, but they had none of these freedoms.  It was
+not free software for <em>them</em>.</p>
+
+<p>So, the paradox was that whether X was free software depended on
+where you made the measurement.  If you made the measurement coming
+out of the developers' group, you'd say, &ldquo;I observe all these
+freedoms.  It's free software.&rdquo; If you made the measurements
+among the users you'd say, &ldquo;Hmm, most users don't have these
+freedoms.  It's not free software.&rdquo; Well, the people who
+developed X didn't consider this a problem, because their goal was
+just popularity, ego, essentially.  They wanted a big professional
+success.  They wanted to feel, &ldquo;Ah, lots of people are using our
+software.&rdquo; And that was true.  Lots of people were using their
+software but didn't have freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Well, in the GNU project, if that same thing had happened to GNU
+software, it would have been a failure, because our goal wasn't just
+to be popular; our goal was to give people liberty, and to encourage
+cooperation, to permit people to cooperate.  Remember, never force
+anyone to cooperate with any other person, but make sure that
+everybody's allowed to cooperate, everyone has the freedom to do so,
+if he or she wishes.  If millions of people were running non-free
+versions of GNU, that wouldn't be success at all. The whole thing
+would have been perverted into nothing like the goal.</p>
+
+<p>So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening.  The method I
+came up with is called &ldquo;copyleft&rdquo;.  It's called copyleft
+because it's sort of like taking copyright and flipping it
+over.  <i>[Laughter]</i> Legally, copyleft works based on copyright.
+We use the existing copyright law, but we use it to achieve a very
+different goal.  Here's what we do.  We say, &ldquo;This program is
+copyrighted.&rdquo; And, of course, by default, that means it's
+prohibited to copy it, or distribute it, or modify it.  But then we
+say, &ldquo;You're authorized to distribute copies of this.  You're
+authorized to modify it.  You're authorized to distribute modified
+versions and extended versions.  Change it any way you
+like.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>But there is a condition.  And the condition, of course, is the
+reason why we go to all this trouble, so that we could put the
+condition in.  The condition says: Whenever you distribute anything
+that contains any piece of this program, that whole program must be
+distributed under these same terms, no more and no less.  So you can
+change the program and distribute a modified version, but when you do,
+the people who get that from you must get the same freedom that you
+got from us.  And not just for the parts of it &mdash; the excerpts
+that you copied from our program &mdash; but also for the other parts
+of that program that they got from you.  The whole of that program has
+to be free software for them.</p>
+
+<p>The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become
+inalienable rights &mdash; a concept from the Declaration of
+Independence.  Rights that we make sure can't be taken away from you.
+And, of course, the specific license that embodies the idea of
+copyleft is the GNU General Public License, a controversial license
+because it actually has the strength to say no to people who would be
+parasites on our community.</p>
+
+<p>There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of
+freedom.  And they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done,
+and use it to get a head start in distributing a non-free program and
+tempting people to give up their freedom.  And the result would be
+&mdash; you know, if we let people do that &mdash; that we would be
+developing these free programs, and we'd constantly have to compete
+with improved versions of our own programs.  That's no fun.</p>
+
+<p>And, a lot of people also feel &mdash; you know, I'm willing to
+volunteer my time to contribute to the community, but why should I
+volunteer my time to contribute to that company's, to improving that
+company's, proprietary program?  You know, some people might not even
+think that that's evil, but they want to get paid if they're going to
+do that.  I, personally, would rather not do it at all.</p>
+
+<p>But both of these groups of people &mdash; both the ones like me
+who say, &ldquo;I don't want to help that non-free program to get a
+foothold in our community&rdquo; and the ones that say, &ldquo;Sure,
+I'd work for them, but then they better pay me&rdquo; &mdash; both of
+us have a good reason to use the GNU General Public License.  Because
+that says to that company, &ldquo;You can't just take my work, and
+distribute it without the freedom.&rdquo; Whereas, the non-copyleft
+licenses, like the X Windows license, do permit that.</p>
+
+<p>So that is the big division between the two categories of free
+software &mdash; license-wise.  There are the programs that are
+copylefted so that the license defends the freedom of the software for
+every user.  And there are the non-copylefted programs for which
+non-free versions are allowed.  Somebody <em>can</em> take those
+programs and strip off the freedom.  You may get that program in a
+non-free version.</p>
+
+<p>And that problem exists today.  There are still non-free versions
+of X Windows being used on our free operating systems.  There is even
+hardware &mdash; which is not really supported &mdash; except by a
+non-free version of X Windows.  And that's a major problem in our
+community.  Nonetheless, I wouldn't say that X Windows is a bad thing,
+you know. I'd say that the developers did not do the best possible
+thing that they could have done.  But they <em>did</em> release a lot
+of software that we could all use.</p>
+
+<p>You know, there's a big difference between less than perfect, and
+evil.  There are many gradations of good and bad.  We have to resist
+the temptation to say, if you didn't do the absolute best possible
+thing, then you're no good.  You know, the people that developed X
+Windows made a big contribution to our community.  But there's
+something better that they could have done.  They could have
+copylefted parts of the program and prevented those freedom-denying
+versions from being distributed by others.</p>
+
+<p>Now, the fact that the GNU General Public License defends your
+freedom, uses copyright law to defend your freedom, is, of course, why
+Microsoft is attacking it today.  See, Microsoft would really like to
+be able to take all the code that we wrote and put it into proprietary
+programs, have somebody make some improvements, or even just
+incompatible changes is all they need.  <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>You know, with Microsoft's marketing clout, they don't need to make
+it better to have their version supplant ours.  They just have to make
+it different and incompatible.  And then, put it on everybody's
+desktop.  So they really don't like the GNU GPL.  Because the GNU GPL
+won't let them do that.  It doesn't allow &ldquo;embrace and
+extend&rdquo;.  It says, if you want to share our code in your
+programs, you can.  But, you've got to share and share alike.  The
+changes that you make we have to be allowed to share.  So, it's a
+two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation.</p>
+
+<p>Many companies &mdash; even big companies like IBM and HP are
+willing to use our software on this basis.  IBM and HP contribute
+substantial improvements to GNU software.  And they develop other free
+software.  But, Microsoft doesn't want to do that, so they give it out
+that businesses just can't deal with the GPL.  Well, if businesses
+don't include IBM, and HP and SUN, then maybe they're
+right.  <i>[Laughter]</i> More about that later.</p>
+
+<p>I should finish the historical story.  You see, we set out in 1984
+not just to write some free software but to do something much more
+coherent: to develop an operating system that was entirely free
+software.  So that meant we had to write piece after piece after
+piece.  Of course, we were always looking for shortcuts.  The job was
+so big that people said we'd never be able to finish.  And, I thought
+that there was at least a chance that we'd finish it but, obviously,
+it's worth looking for shortcuts.  So we kept looking around. Is there
+any program that somebody else has written that we could manage to
+adapt, to plug into here, and that way we won't have to write it from
+scratch?  For instance, the X Window system.  It's true it wasn't
+copylefted, but it was free software, so we could use it.</p>
+
+<p>Now, I had wanted to put a window system into GNU from day one.  I
+wrote a couple of window systems at MIT before I started GNU.  And so,
+even though Unix had no window system in 1984, I decided that GNU
+would have one.  But, we never ended up writing a GNU window system,
+because X came along.  And I said, Goody!  One big job we don't have
+to do.  We'll use X.  So I basically said, let's take X, and put it
+into the GNU system.  And we'll make the other parts of GNU, you know,
+work with X, when appropriate.  And we found other pieces of software
+that had been written by other people, like the text formatter TeX,
+some library code from Berkeley.  At that time there was Berkeley
+Unix, but it was not free software.  This library code, initially, was
+from a different group at Berkeley, that did research on floating
+point.  And, so, we kept, we fit in these pieces.</p>
+
+<p>In October 1985, we founded the Free Software Foundation.  So
+please note, the GNU project came first.  The Free Software Foundation
+came after, about almost two years after the announcement of the
+Project.  And the Free Software Foundation is a tax-exempt charity
+that raises funds to promote the freedom to share and change software.
+And in the 1980's, one of the main things we did with our funds was to
+hire people to write parts of GNU.  And essential programs, such as
+the shell and the C library were written this way, as well as parts of
+other programs.  The <code>tar</code> program, which is absolutely
+essential, although not exciting at all <i>[Laughter]</i> was written
+this way.  I believe GNU grep was written this way.  And so, we're
+approaching our goal.</p>
+
+<p>By 1991, there was just one major piece missing, and that was the
+kernel.  Now, why did I put off the kernel?  Probably because it
+doesn't really matter what order you do the things in, at least
+technically it doesn't.  You've got to do them all anyway.  And partly
+because I'd hoped we'd be able to find a start at a kernel somewhere
+else.  And we did.  We found Mach, which had been developed at
+Carnegie Mellon.  And it wasn't the whole kernel; it was the bottom
+half of the kernel.  So we had to write the top half, but I figured,
+you know, things like the file system, the network code, and so on.
+But running on top of Mach they're running essentially as user
+programs, which ought to make them easier to debug.  You can debug
+with a real source-level debugger running at the same time.  And so, I
+thought that way we'd be able to get these, the higher level parts of
+the kernel, done in a short time.  It didn't work out that way.  These
+asynchronous, multi-threaded processes, sending messages to each other
+turned out to be very hard to debug.  And the Mach-based system that
+we were using to bootstrap with had a terrible debugging environment,
+and it was unreliable, and various problems.  It took us years and
+years to get the GNU kernel to work.</p>
+
+<p>But, fortunately, our community did not have to wait for the GNU
+kernel.  Because in 1991, Linus Torvalds developed another free kernel
+called Linux.  And he used the old-fashioned monolithic design and it
+turns out that he got his working much faster than we got ours
+working.  So maybe that's one of the mistakes that I made: that design
+decision.  Anyway, at first, we didn't know about Linux, because he
+never contacted us to talk about it.  Although he did know about the
+GNU Project.  But he announced it to other people and other places on
+the net.  And so other people then did the work of combining Linux
+with the rest of the GNU system to make a complete free operating
+system.  Essentially, to make the GNU plus Linux combination.</p>
+
+<p>But, they didn't realize that's what they were doing.  You see,
+they said, We have a kernel &mdash; let's look around and see what
+other pieces we can find to put together with the kernel.  So, they
+looked around &mdash; and lo and behold, everything they needed was
+already available.  What good fortune, they said.  <i>[Laughter]</i>
+It's all here.  We can find everything we need.  Let's just take all
+these different things and put it together, and have a system.</p>
+
+<p>They didn't know that most of what they found was pieces of the GNU
+system.  So they didn't realize that they were fitting Linux into the
+gap in the GNU system.  They thought they were taking Linux and making
+a system out of Linux.  So they called it a Linux system.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can't hear you &mdash; what?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, it's just not &mdash; you know,
+it's provincial.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: But it's more good fortune then finding
+X and Mach?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right.  The difference is that the
+people who developed X and Mach didn't have the goal of making a
+complete free operating system.  We're the only ones who had that.
+And, it was our tremendous work that made the system exist.  We
+actually did a larger part of the system than any other project.  No
+coincidence, because those people &mdash; they wrote useful parts of
+the system.  But they didn't do it because they wanted the system to
+be finished.  They had other reasons.</p>
+
+<p>Now the people who developed X &mdash; they thought that designing
+across the network window system would be a good project, and it was.
+And it turned out to help us make a good free operating system.  But
+that's not what they hoped for.  They didn't even think about that.
+It was an accident.  An accidental benefit.  Now, I'm not saying that
+what they did was bad.  They did a large free software project.
+That's a good thing to do.  But they didn't have that ultimate vision.
+The GNU Project is where that vision was.</p>
+
+<p>And, so, we were the ones whose &mdash; every little piece that
+didn't get done by somebody else, we did it.  Because we knew that we
+wouldn't have a complete system without it.  And even if it was
+totally boring and unromantic, like <code>tar</code>
+or <code>mv</code>.  <i>[Laughter]</i> We did it.  Or ld, you know
+there's nothing very exciting in <code>ld</code> &mdash; but I wrote
+one.  <i>[Laughter]</i> And I did make efforts to have it do a minimal
+amount of disk I/O so that it would be faster and handle bigger
+programs.  But, you know, I like to do a good job.  I like to improve
+various things about the program while I'm doing it.  But the reason
+that I did it wasn't that I had brilliant ideas for a
+better <code>ld</code>.  The reason I did it is that we needed one
+that was free.  And we couldn't expect anyone else to do it.  So, we
+had to do it, or find someone to do it.</p>
+
+<p>So, although at this point thousands of people in projects have
+contributed to this system, there is one project which is the reason
+that this system exists, and that's the GNU Project.  It <em>is</em>
+basically the GNU System, with other things added since then.</p>
+
+<p>So, however, the practice of calling the system Linux has been a
+great blow to the GNU Project, because we don't normally get credit
+for what we've done.  I think Linux, the kernel, is a very useful
+piece of free software, and I have only good things to say about it.
+But, well, actually, I can find a few bad things to say about
+it.  <i>[Laughter]</i> But, basically, I have good things to say about
+it.  However, the practice of calling the GNU system, Linux, is just a
+mistake.  I'd like to ask you please to make the small effort
+necessary to call the system GNU/Linux, and that way to help us get a
+share of the credit.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You need a mascot!  Get yourself a
+stuffed animal!  <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have one.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You do?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have an animal &mdash; a
+gnu.  <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway.  So, yes, when you draw a penguin,
+draw a gnu next to it.  <i>[Laughter]</i> But, let's save the
+questions for the end.  I have more to go through.</p>
+
+<p>So, why am I so concerned about this?  You know, why do I think it
+is worth bothering you and perhaps giving you a, perhaps lowering your
+opinion of me, <i>[Laughter]</i> to raise this issue of credit?
+Because, you know, some people when I do this, some people think that
+it's because I want my ego to be fed, right?  Of course, I'm not
+saying &mdash; I'm not asking you to call it &ldquo;Stallmanix,&rdquo;
+right?  <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p>I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to
+get credit.  And there's a very specific reason for that, which is a
+lot more important than anybody getting credit, in and of itself.  You
+see, these days, if you look around in our community most of the
+people talking about it and writing about it don't ever mention GNU,
+and they don't ever mention these goals of freedom &mdash; these
+political and social ideals, either.  Because the place they come from
+is GNU.</p>
+
+<p>The ideas associated with Linux &mdash; the philosophy is very
+different.  It is basically the apolitical philosophy of Linus
+Torvalds.  So, when people think that the whole system is Linux, they
+tend to think: &ldquo;Oh, it must have been all started by Linux
+Torvalds.  His philosophy must be the one that we should look at
+carefully&rdquo;.  And when they hear about the GNU philosophy, they
+say: &ldquo;Boy, this is so idealistic, this must be awfully
+impractical.  I'm a Linux-user, not a
+GNU-user.&rdquo; <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>What irony!  If they only knew!  If they knew that the system they
+liked &mdash; or, in some cases, love and go wild over &mdash; is our
+idealistic, political philosophy made real.</p>
+
+<p>They still wouldn't have to agree with us.  But at least they'd see
+a reason to take it seriously, to think about it carefully, to give it
+a chance.  They would see how it relates to their lives.  You know, if
+they realized, &ldquo;I'm using the GNU system. Here's the GNU
+philosophy.  This philosophy is <em>why</em> this system that I like
+very much exists,&rdquo; they'd at least consider it with a much more
+open mind.  It doesn't mean that everybody will agree.  People think
+different things.  That's OK.  You know, people should make up their
+own minds.  But I want this philosophy to get the benefit of the
+credit for the results it has achieved.</p>
+
+<p>If you look around in our community, you'll find that almost
+everywhere, the institutions are calling the system Linux.  You know,
+reporters mostly call it Linux.  It's not right, but they do.  The
+companies mostly say it that package the system.  Oh, and most of
+these reporters, when they write articles, they usually don't look at
+it as a political issue, or social issue.  They're usually looking at
+it purely as a business question or what companies are going to
+succeed more or less, which is really a fairly minor question for
+society.  And, if you look at the companies that package the GNU/Linux
+system for people to use, well, most of them call it Linux.  And they
+<em>all</em> add non-free software to it.</p>
+
+<p>See, the GNU GPL says that if you take code, and some code out of a
+GPL-covered program, and add some more code to make a bigger program,
+that whole program has to be released under the GPL.  But you could
+put other separate programs on the same disk (of either kind, hard
+disk, or CD), and they can have other licenses.  That's considered
+mere aggregation, and, essentially, just distributing two programs to
+somebody at the same time is not something we have any say over.  So,
+in fact, it is not true &mdash; sometimes, I wish it were true &mdash;
+that if a company uses a GPL-covered program in a product that the
+whole product has to be free software.  It's not &mdash; it doesn't go
+to that range &mdash; that scope.  It's the whole program.  If there
+are two separate programs that communicate with each other at arm's
+length &mdash; like by sending messages to each other &mdash; then,
+they're legally separate, in general.  So, these companies, by adding
+non-free software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically
+and politically, a very bad idea.  They're telling the users,
+&ldquo;It is OK to use non-free software.  We're even putting it on
+this as a bonus.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system,
+most of them have a title like &ldquo;Linux-something or other&rdquo;.
+So they're calling the system Linux most of the time.  And they're
+filled with ads for non-free software that you could run on top of the
+GNU/Linux system.  Now those ads have a common message.  They say:
+Non-free Software Is Good For You.  It's So Good That You Might Even
+<em>Pay</em> To Get It.  <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>And they call these things &ldquo;value-added packages&rdquo;,
+which makes a statement about their values.  They're saying: Value
+practical convenience, not freedom.  And, I don't agree with those
+values, so I call them &ldquo;freedom-subtracted
+packages&rdquo;.  <i>[Laughter]</i> Because if you have installed a
+free operating system, then you now are living in the free world.  You
+enjoy the benefits of liberty that we worked for so many years to give
+you.  Those packages give you an opportunity to buckle on a chain.</p>
+
+<p>And then if you look at the trade shows &mdash; about the use of
+the, dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call
+themselves &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; shows.  And they're filled with booths
+exhibiting non-free software, essentially putting the seal of approval
+on the non-free software.  So, almost everywhere you look in our
+community, the institutions are endorsing the non-free software,
+totalling negating the idea of freedom that GNU was developed for.
+And the only place that people are likely to come across the idea of
+freedom is in connection with GNU, and in connection with free
+software, the term, free software.  So this is why I ask you: please
+call the system GNU/Linux.  Please make people aware where the system
+came from and why.</p>
+
+<p>Of course, just by using that name, you won't be making an
+explanation of the history.  You can type four extra characters and
+write GNU/Linux; you can say two extra syllables.  But, GNU/Linux is
+fewer syllables than Windows 2000.  <i>[Laughter]</i> But, you're not
+telling them a lot, but you're preparing them, so that when they hear
+about GNU, and what it's all about, they'll see how that connects to
+them and their lives.  And that, indirectly, makes a tremendous
+difference.  So please help us.</p>
+
+<p>You'll note that Microsoft called the GPL an &ldquo;open source
+license&rdquo;.  They don't want people to be thinking in terms of
+freedom as the issue.  You'll find that they invite people to think in
+a narrow way, as consumers, and, of course, not even think very
+rationally as consumers, if they're going to choose Microsoft
+products.  But they don't want people to think as citizens or
+statesmen.  That's inimical to them.  At least it's inimical to their
+current business model.</p>
+
+<p>Now, how does free software&hellip;well, I can tell you about how
+free software relates to our society.  A secondary topic that might be
+of interest to some of you is how free software relates to business.
+Now, in fact, free software is <em>tremendously</em> useful for
+business.  After all, most businesses in the advanced countries use
+software.  Only a tiny fraction of them develop software.</p>
+
+<p>And free software is tremendously advantageous for any company that
+uses software, because it means that you're in control.  Basically,
+free software means the users are in control of what the program does.
+Either individually, if they care enough to be, or, collectively, when
+they care enough to be.  Whoever cares enough can exert some
+influence.  If you don't care, you don't buy.  Then you use what other
+people prefer.  But, if you do care, then you have some say. With
+proprietary software, you have essentially no say.</p>
+
+<p>With free software, you can change what you want to change.  And it
+doesn't matter that there are no programmers in your company; that's
+fine.  You know, if you wanted to move the walls in your building, you
+don't have to be a carpentry company. You just have to be able to go
+find a carpenter and say, &ldquo;What will you charge to do this
+job?&rdquo; And if you want to change around the software you use, you
+don't have to be a programming company.  You just have to go to a
+programming company and say, &ldquo;What will you charge to implement
+these features?  And when will you have it done?&rdquo; And if they
+don't do the job, you can go find somebody else.</p>
+
+<p>There's a free market for support.  So, any business that cares
+about support will find a tremendous advantage in free software.  With
+proprietary software, support is a monopoly, because one company has
+the source code, or maybe a small number of companies that paid a
+gigantic amount of money have the source code, if it's Microsoft's
+shared source program, but, it's very few.  And so, there aren't very
+many possible sources of support for you.  And that means, that unless
+you're a real giant, they don't care about you.  Your company is not
+important enough for them to care if they lose your business, or what
+happens.  Once you're using the program, they figure you're locked in
+to getting the support from them, because to switch to a different
+program is a gigantic job.  So, you end up with things like paying for
+the privilege of reporting a bug.  <i>[Laughter]</i> And once you've
+paid, they tell you, &ldquo;Well, OK, we've noted your bug report.
+And in a few months, you can buy an upgrade, and you can see if we've
+fixed it.&rdquo; <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p>Support providers for free software can't get away with that.  They
+have to please the customers.  Of course, you can get a lot of good
+support gratis.  You post your problem on the Internet.  You may get
+an answer the next day.  But that's not guaranteed, of course.  If you
+want to be confident, you better make an arrangement with a company
+and pay them.  And this is, of course, one of the ways that free
+software business works.</p>
+
+<p>Another advantage of free software for businesses that use software
+is security and privacy.  And this applies to individuals as well, but
+I brought it up in the context of businesses.  You see, when a program
+is proprietary, you can't even tell what it really does.</p>
+
+<p>It could have features, deliberately put in that you wouldn't like
+if you knew about them, like it might have a backdoor to let the
+developer get into your machine.  It might snoop on what you do and
+send information back.  This is not unusual.  Some Microsoft software
+did this.  But it's not only Microsoft.  There are other proprietary
+programs that snoop on the user.  And you can't even tell if it does
+this.  And, of course, even assuming that the developer's totally
+honest, every programmer makes mistakes.  There could be bugs that
+affect your security which are nobody's fault.  But the point is: If
+it's not free software, you can't find them. And you can't fix
+them.</p>
+
+<p>Nobody has the time to check the source of every program he runs.
+You're not going to do that.  But with free software there's a large
+community, and there are people in that community who are checking
+things.  And you get the benefit of their checking, because if there's
+an accidental bug, there surely are, from time to time, in any
+program, they might find it and fix it.  And people are much less
+likely to put in a deliberate Trojan horse, or a snooping feature, if
+they think they might get caught.  The proprietary software developers
+figure they won't get caught.  They'll get away with it undetected.
+But a free software developer has to figure that people will look at
+that and see it's there.  So, in our community, we don't feel we can
+get away with ramming a feature down the users' throats that the users
+wouldn't like.  So we know that if the users don't like it, they'll
+make a modified version which doesn't have it.  And then, they'll all
+start using that version.</p>
+
+<p>In fact, we can all reason enough, we can all figure this out
+enough steps ahead, that we probably won't put in that feature.  After
+all, you're writing a free program; you want people to like your
+version; you don't want to put in a thing that you know a lot of
+people are going to hate, and have another modified version catch on
+instead of yours.  So you just realize that the user is king in the
+world of free software.  In the world of proprietary software, the
+customer is <em>not</em> king.  Because you are only a customer.  You
+have no say in the software you use.</p>
+
+<p>In this respect, free software is a new mechanism for democracy to
+operate.  Professor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions
+as a kind of law.  Whoever gets to write the code that just about
+everybody uses for all intents and purposes is writing the laws that
+run people's lives.  With free software, these laws get written in a
+democratic way.  Not the classical form of democracy &mdash; we don't
+have a big election and say, &ldquo;Everybody vote which way should
+this feature be done.&rdquo; <i>[Laughter]</i> Instead we say,
+basically, those of you who want to work on implementing the feature
+this way, do it.  And if you want to work on implementing the feature
+that way, do it.  And, it gets done one way or the other, you know?
+And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done this way.
+So, in this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by
+simply taking steps in the direction that he wants to go.</p>
+
+<p>And you're free to take as many steps, personally, as you want to
+take.  A business is free to commission as many steps as they find
+useful to take.  And, after you add all these things up, that says
+which direction the software goes.</p>
+
+<p>And it's often very useful to be able to take pieces out of some
+existing program, presumably usually large pieces, of course, and then
+write a certain amount of code of your own, and make a program that
+does exactly what you need, which would have cost you an arm and a leg
+to develop, if you had to write it all from scratch, if you couldn't
+cannibalize large pieces from some existing free software package.</p>
+
+<p>Another thing that results from the fact that the user is king is
+that we tend to be very good about compatibility and standardization.
+Why?  Because users like that.  Users are likely to reject a program
+that has gratuitous incompatibilities in it.  Now, sometimes there's a
+certain group of users which actually have a need for a certain kind
+of incompatibility, and then they'll have it. That's OK.  But when
+users want is to follow a standard, we developers have to follow it,
+and we know that.  And we do it.  By contrast, if you look at
+proprietary software developers, they often find it advantageous to
+deliberately <em>not</em> follow a standard, and not because they
+think that they're giving the user an advantage that way, but rather
+because they're imposing on the user, locking the user in.  And you'll
+even find them making changes in their file formats from time to time,
+just to force people to get the newest version.</p>
+
+<p>Archivists are finding a problem now, that files written on
+computers ten years ago often can't be accessed; they were written
+with proprietary software that's essentially lost now.  If it were
+written with free software, then it could be brought up-to-date and
+run.  And those things would not, those records would not be lost,
+would not be inaccessible.  They were even complaining about this on
+NPR recently in citing free software as a solution.  And so, in
+effect, by using a non-free program to store your own data, you are
+putting your head in a noose.</p>
+
+<p>So, I've talked about how free software affects most business.  But
+how does it affect that particular narrow area which is software
+business?  Well, the answer is mostly not at all.  And the reason is
+that 90% of the software industry, from what I'm told, is development
+of custom software, software that's not meant to be released at all.
+For custom software, this issue, or the ethical issue of free or
+proprietary, doesn't arise.  You see, the issue is, are you users free
+to change, and redistribute, the software?  If there's only one user,
+and that user owns the rights, there's no problem.  That
+user <em>is</em> free to do all these things.  So, in effect, any
+<em>custom</em> program that was developed by one company for use
+in-house is free software, as long as they have the sense to insist on
+getting the source code and all the rights.</p>
+
+<p>And the issue doesn't really arise for software that goes in a
+watch or a microwave oven or an automobile ignition system.  Because
+those are places where you don't download software to install.  It's
+not a real computer, as far as the user is concerned.  And so, it
+doesn't raise these issues enough for them to be ethically important.
+So, for the most part, the software industry will go along, just as
+it's been going.  And the interesting thing is that since such a large
+fraction of the jobs are in that part of the industry, even if there
+were no possibilities for free software business, the developers of
+free software could all get day jobs writing custom
+software.  <i>[Laughter]</i> There's so many; the ratio is so big.</p>
+
+<p>But, as it happens, there is free software business.  There are
+free software companies, and at the press conference that I'm going to
+have, people from a couple of them will join us.  And, of course,
+there are also companies which are <em>not</em> free software
+businesses but do develop useful pieces of free software to release,
+and the free software that they produce is substantial.</p>
+
+<p>Now, how do free software businesses work?  Well, some of them sell
+copies.  You know, you're free to copy it but they can still sell
+thousands of copies a month.  And others sell support and various
+kinds of services.  I, personally, for the second half of the '80's, I
+sold free software support services.  Basically I said, for $200 an
+hour, I'll change whatever you want me to change in GNU software that
+I'd written.  And, yes, it was a stiff rate, but if it was a program
+that I was the author of, people would figure that I might get the job
+done in a lot fewer hours.  <i>[Laughter]</i> And I made a living that
+way.  In fact, I'd made more than I'd ever made before.  I also taught
+classes.  And I kept doing that until 1990, when I got a big prize and
+I didn't have to do it any more.</p>
+
+<p>But, 1990 was when the first corporation free software business was
+formed, which was Cygnus Support.  And their business was to do,
+essentially, the same kind of thing that I'd been doing.  I certainly
+could have worked for them, if I had needed to do that.  Since I
+didn't need to, I felt it was good for the movement if I remained
+independent of any one company.  That way, I could say good and bad
+things about the various free software and non-free software
+companies, without a conflict of interest.  I felt that I could serve
+the movement more.  But, if I had needed that to make a living, sure,
+I would have worked for them.  It's an ethical business to be in.  No
+reason I would have felt ashamed to take a job with them.  And that
+company was profitable in its first year.  It was formed with very
+little capital, just the money its three founders had.  And it kept
+growing every year and being profitable every year until they got
+greedy, and looked for outside investors, and then they messed things
+up.  But it was several years of success, before they got greedy.</p>
+
+<p>So, this illustrates one of the exciting things about free
+software.  Free software demonstrates that you don't need to raise
+capital to develop free software.  I mean, it's useful;
+it <em>can</em> help.  You know, if you do raise some capital, you can
+hire people and have them write a bunch of software.  But you can get
+a lot done with a small number of people.  And, in fact, the
+tremendous efficiency of the process of developing free software is
+one of the reasons it's important for the world to switch to free
+software.  And it also belies what Microsoft says when they say the
+GNU GPL is bad, because it makes it harder for them to raise capital
+to develop non-free software and take our free software and put our
+code into their programs that they won't share with us.  Basically, we
+don't need to have them raising capital that way.  We'll get the job
+done anyway.  We are getting the job done.</p>
+
+<p>People used to say we could never do a complete free operating
+system.  Now we've done that and a tremendous amount more.  And I
+would say that we're about an order of magnitude away from developing
+all the general purpose published software needs of the world.  And
+this is in a world where more than 90% of the users don't use our free
+software yet.  This is in a world where, although in certain areas of
+business, you know, more than half of all the web servers in the world
+are running on GNU/Linux with Apache as the web server.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i> &hellip; What did you
+say before, Linux?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I said GNU/Linux.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You did?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, if I'm talking about the kernel, I
+call it Linux.  You know, that's it's name.  The kernel was written by
+Linus Torvalds, and we should only call it by the name that he chose,
+out of respect for the author.</p>
+
+<p>Anyway, but in general, in business most users are not using it.
+Most home users are not using our system yet.  So, when they are, we
+should automatically get 10 times as many volunteers and 10 times as
+many customers for the free software businesses that there will be.
+And so that will take us that order of magnitude.  So at this point, I
+am pretty confident that we <em>can</em> do the job.</p>
+
+<p>And, this is important, because Microsoft asks us to feel
+desperate.  They say, The only way you can have software to run, the
+only way you can have innovation, is if you give us power.  Let us
+dominate you.  Let us control what you can do with the software you're
+running, so that we can squeeze a lot of money out of you, and use a
+certain fraction of that to develop software, and take the rest as
+profit.</p>
+
+<p>Well, you shouldn't ever feel that desperate.  You shouldn't ever
+feel so desperate that you give up your freedom.  That's very
+dangerous.</p>
+
+<p>Another thing that Microsoft, well, not just Microsoft, people who
+don't support free software generally adopt a value system in which
+the only thing that matters is short-term practical benefits: How much
+money am I going to make this year? What job can I get done today?
+Short-term thinking and narrow thinking.  Their assumption is that it
+is ridiculous to imagine that anybody ever might make a sacrifice for
+the sake of freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Yesterday, a lot of people were making speeches about Americans who
+made sacrifices for the freedom of their compatriots.  Some of them
+made great sacrifices.  They even sacrificed their lives for the kinds
+of freedom that everyone in our country has heard about, at least.
+(At least, in some of the cases; I guess we have to ignore the war in
+Vietnam.)</p>
+
+<p><i>[Editor's note: The day before was &ldquo;Memorial Day&rdquo; in
+the USA.  Memorial Day is a day where war heros are
+commemorated.]</i></p>
+
+<p>But, fortunately, to maintain our freedom in using software,
+doesn't call for big sacrifices. Just tiny, little sacrifices are
+enough, like learning a command-line interface, if we don't have a GUI
+interface program yet.  Like doing the job in this way, because we
+don't have a free software package to do it that way, yet.  Like,
+paying some money to a company that's going to develop a certain free
+software package, so that you can have it in a few years.  Various
+little sacrifices that we can all make.  And, in the long run, even we
+will have benefited from it.  You know, it is really an investment
+more than a sacrifice.  We just have to have enough long-term view to
+realize it's good for us to invest in improving our society, without
+counting the nickels and dimes of who gets how much of the benefit
+from that investment.</p>
+
+<p>So, at this point, I'm essentially done.</p>
+
+<p>I'd like to mention that there's a new approach to free software
+business being proposed by Tony Stanco, which he calls &ldquo;Free
+Developers&rdquo;, which involves a certain business structure which
+hopes eventually to pay out a certain share of the profits to every,
+to all the authors of the free software who've joined the
+organization.  And they're looking at the prospects of getting me some
+rather large government software development contracts in India now,
+because they're going to be using free software as the basis, having
+tremendous cost savings that way.</p>
+
+<p>And so now I guess that I should ask for questions.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Could you speak up a bit louder please?
+I can't really hear you.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: How could a company like Microsoft
+include a free software contract?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually, Microsoft is planning to
+shift a lot of its activity into services.  And what they're planning
+to do is something dirty and dangerous, which is tie the services to
+the programs, one to the next, in a sort of zigzag, you know?  So that
+to use this service, you've got to be using this Microsoft program,
+which is going to mean you need to use this service, to this Microsoft
+program, so it's all tied together.  That's their plan.</p>
+
+<p>Now, the interesting thing is that selling those services doesn't
+raise the ethical issue of free software or non-free software.  It
+might be perfectly fine for them to have the business for those
+businesses selling those services over the net to exist.  However,
+what Microsoft is planning to do is to use them to achieve an even
+greater lock, an even greater monopoly, on the software and the
+services, and this was described in an article, I believe in Business
+Week, recently.  And, other people said that it is turning the net
+into the Microsoft Company Town.</p>
+
+<p>And this is relevant because, you know, the trial court in the
+Microsoft antitrust trial recommended breaking up the company,
+Microsoft.  But in a way, that makes no sense &mdash; it wouldn't do
+any good at all &mdash; into the operating part and the applications
+part.</p>
+
+<p>But having seen that article, I now see a useful, effective way to
+split up Microsoft into the services part and the software part, to
+require them to deal with each other only at arm's length, that the
+services must publish their interfaces, so that anybody can write a
+client to talk to those services, and, I guess, that they have to pay
+to get the service. Well, that's OK.  That's a totally different
+issue.</p>
+
+<p>If Microsoft is split up in this way [&hellip;] services and
+software, they will not be able to use their software to crush
+competition with Microsoft services.  And they won't be able to use
+the services to crush competition with Microsoft software.  And we
+will be able to make the free software, and maybe you people will use
+it to talk to Microsoft services, and we won't mind.</p>
+
+<p>Because, after all, although Microsoft is the proprietary software
+company that has subjugated the most people &mdash; the others have
+subjugated fewer people, it's not for want of
+trying.  <i>[Laughter]</i> They just haven't succeeded in subjugating
+as many people.  So, the problem is not Microsoft and only Microsoft.
+Microsoft is just the biggest example of the problem we're trying to
+solve, which is proprietary software taking away users' freedom to
+cooperate and form an ethical society.  So we shouldn't focus too much
+on Microsoft, you know, even though they did give me the opportunity
+for this platform. That doesn't make them all-important.  They're not
+the be-all and end-all.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Earlier, you were discussing the
+philosophical differences between open source software and free
+software.  How do you feel about the current trend of GNU/Linux
+distributions as they head towards supporting only Intel platforms?
+And the fact that it seems that less and less programmers are
+programming correctly, and making software that will compile anywhere?
+And making software that simply works on Intel systems?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I don't see an ethical issue there.
+Although, in fact, companies that make computers sometimes port the
+GNU/Linux system to it.  HP apparently did this recently.  And, they
+didn't bother paying for a port of Windows, because that would have
+cost too much.  But getting GNU/Linux supported was, I think, five
+engineers for a few months.  It was easily doable.</p>
+
+<p>Now, of course, I encourage people to use <code>autoconf</code>,
+which is a GNU package that makes it easier to make your programs
+portable.  I encourage them to do that.  Or when somebody else fixes
+the bug that it didn't compile on that version of the system, and
+sends it to you, you should put it in.  But I don't see that as an
+ethical issue.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Two comments.  One is: Recently, you
+spoke at MIT.  I read the transcript.  And someone asked about
+patents, and you said that &ldquo;patents are a totally different
+issue.  I have no comments on that.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right.  I actually have a lot to say
+about patents, but it takes an hour.  <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I wanted to say this: It seems to me
+that there is an issue.  I mean, there is a reason that companies call
+both patents and copyrights things like hard property in trying to get
+this concept which is, if they want to use the power of the State to
+create a course of monopoly for themselves.  And so, what's common
+about these things is not that they revolve around the same issues,
+but that motivation is not really the public service issues but the
+motivation of companies to get a monopoly for their private
+interests.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I understand.  But, well, I want to
+respond because there's not too much time.  So I'd like to respond to
+that.</p>
+
+<p>You're right that that's what they want.  But there's another
+reason why they want to use the term intellectual property.  It's that
+they don't want to encourage people to think carefully about copyright
+issues or patent issues.  Because copyright law and patent law are
+totally different, and the effects of software copyrighted and
+software patents are totally different.</p>
+
+<p>Software patents are a restriction on programmers, prohibiting them
+from writing certain kinds of programs, whereas copyright doesn't do
+that.  With copyright, at least if you wrote it yourself, you're
+allowed to distribute it.  So, it's tremendously important to separate
+these issues.</p>
+
+<p>They have a little bit in common, at a very low level, and
+everything else is different.  So, please, to encourage clear
+thinking, discuss copyright or discuss patents.  But don't discuss
+intellectual property.  I don't have an opinion on intellectual
+property.  I have opinions on copyrights and patents and software.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You mentioned at the beginning that a
+functional language, like recipes, are computer programs.  There's a
+cross a little bit different than other kinds of language created on.
+This is also causing a problem in the DVD case.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: The issues are partly similar but partly
+different, for things that are not functional in nature.  Part of the
+issue transfers but not all of it.  Unfortunately, that's another hour
+speech.  I don't have time to go into it.  But I would say that all
+functional works ought to be free in the same sense as software.  You
+know, textbooks, manuals, dictionaries, and recipes, and so on.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I was just wondering on online
+music. There are similarities and differences created all through.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right.  I'd say that the minimum freedom
+that we should have for any kind of published information is the
+freedom to non-commercially redistribute it, verbatim.  For functional
+works, we need the freedom to commercially publish a modified version,
+because that's tremendously useful to society.  For non-functional
+works, you know, things that are to entertain, or to be aesthetic, or
+to state a certain person's views, you know, perhaps they shouldn't be
+modified.  And, perhaps that means that it's OK, to have copyright
+covering all commercial distribution of them.</p>
+
+<p>Please remember that according to the U.S. Constitution, the
+purpose of copyright is to benefit the public.  It is to modify the
+behavior of certain private parties, so that they will publish more
+books.  And the benefit of this is that society gets to discuss issues
+and learn.  And, you know, we have literature.  We have scientific
+works.  The purpose is encourage that.  Copyrights do not exist for
+the sake of authors, let alone for the sake of publishers.  They exist
+for the sake of readers and all those who benefit from the
+communication of information that happens when people write and others
+read.  And that goal I agree with.</p>
+
+<p>But in the age of the computer networks, the method is no longer
+tenable, because it now requires draconian laws that invade
+everybody's privacy and terrorize everyone.  You know, years in prison
+for sharing with your neighbor.  It wasn't like that in the age of the
+printing press.  Then copyright was an industrial regulation.  It
+restricted publishers.  Now, it's a restriction imposed by the
+publishers on the public.  So, the power relationship is turned around
+180 degrees, even if it's the same law.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: So you can have the same thing &mdash;
+but like in making music from other music?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right.  That is an interesting
+&hellip;</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: And unique, new works, you know, it's
+still a lot of cooperation.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: It is.  And I think that probably
+requires some kind of fair use concept.  Certainly making a few
+seconds of sample and using that in making some musical work,
+obviously that should be fair use.  Even the standard idea of fair use
+includes that, if you think about it.  Whether courts agree, I'm not
+sure, but they should.  That wouldn't be a real change in the system
+as it has existed.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: What do you think about publishing
+public information in proprietary formats?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, it shouldn't be.  I mean, the
+government should never require citizens to use a non-free program to
+access, to communicate with the government in any way, in either
+direction.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I have been, what I will now say, a
+GNU/Linux user&hellip;</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Thank you.  <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: &hellip;for the past four years.  The one
+thing that has been problematical for me and is something that is
+essential, I think, to all of us, is browsing the web.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: One thing that has been decidedly a
+weakness in using a GNU/Linux system has been browsing the web,
+because the prevailing tool for that, Netscape&hellip;</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: &hellip;is not free software.</p>
+
+<p>Let me respond to this.  I want to get to the point, for the sake
+of getting in more.  So, yes.  There has been a terrible tendency for
+people to use Netscape Navigator on their GNU/Linux systems.  And, in
+fact all the commercially packaged systems come with it.  So this is
+an ironic situation: we worked so hard to make a free operating
+system, and now, if you go to the store, and you can find versions of
+GNU/Linux there, most of them are called Linux, and they're not free.
+Oh, well, part of them is.  But then, there's Netscape Navigator, and
+maybe other non-free programs as well.  So, it's very hard to actually
+find a free system, unless you know what you're doing.  Or, of course,
+you can not install Netscape Navigator.</p>
+
+<p>Now, in fact, there have been free web browsers for many years.
+There is a free web browser that I used to use called Lynx.  It's a
+free web browser that is non-graphical; it's text-only.  This has a
+tremendous advantage, in you don't see the ads.  <i>[Laughter]
+[Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p>But anyway, there is a free graphical project called Mozilla, which
+is now getting to the point where you can use it.  And I occasionally
+use it.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 has been very good.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, OK.  So that's another free
+graphical browser.  So, we're finally solving that problem, I
+guess.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk to me about that
+philosophical/ethical division between free software and open source?
+Do you feel that those are irreconcilable? &hellip;</p>
+
+<p><i>[Recording switches tapes; end of question and start of answer
+is missing]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: &hellip; to a freedom, and ethics.  Or
+whether you just say, Well, I hope that you companies will decide it's
+more profitable to let us be allowed to do these things.</p>
+
+<p>But, as I said, in a lot of practical work, it doesn't really
+matter what a person's politics are.  When a person offers to help the
+GNU project, we don't say: &ldquo;You have to agree with our
+politics.&rdquo; We say that in a GNU package, you've got to call the
+system GNU/Linux, and you've got to call it free software.  What you
+say when you're not speaking to the GNU Project, that's up to you.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: The company, IBM, started a campaign for
+government agencies, to sell their big new machines, that they used
+Linux as selling point, and say Linux.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, of course, it's really the
+GNU/Linux systems. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: That's right!  Well, tell the top sales
+person.  He doesn't know anything for GNU.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I have to tell who?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: The top sales person.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh yes.  The problem is that they've
+already carefully decided what they want to say for reasons of their
+advantage.  And the issue of what is a more accurate, or fair, or
+correct way to describe it is not the primary issue that matters to a
+company like that.  Now, some small companies, yes, there'll be a
+boss.  And if the boss is inclined to think about things like that, he
+might make a decision that way.  Not a giant corporation though. It's
+a shame, you know.</p>
+
+<p>There's another more important and more substantive issue about
+what IBM is doing.  They're saying that they're putting a billion
+dollars into &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;.  But perhaps, I should also put
+quotes around &ldquo;into&rdquo;, as well, because some of that money
+is paying people to develop free software.  That really is a
+contribution to our community.  But other parts is paying to pay
+people to write proprietary software, or port proprietary software to
+run on top of GNU/Linux, and that is <em>not</em> a contribution to
+our community.  But IBM is lumping that altogether into this.  Some of
+it might be advertising, which is partly a contribution, even if it's
+partly wrong.  So, it's a complicated situation.  Some of what they're
+doing is contribution and some is not.  And some is sort is somewhat,
+but not exactly.  And you can't just lump it altogether and think,
+Wow!  Whee!  A billion dollars from IBM.  <i>[Laughter]</i> That's
+oversimplification.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk a little bit more about the
+thinking that went into the general public license?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, here's the &mdash; I'm sorry, I'm
+answering his question now. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Do you want to reserve some time for
+the press conference?  Or do you want to continue here?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Who is here for the press conference?
+Not a lot of press.  Oh, three &mdash; OK.  Can you afford if we
+&mdash; if I go on answering everybody's questions for another ten
+minutes or so?  OK.  So, we'll go on answering everybody's
+questions.</p>
+
+<p>So, the thinking that went into the GNU GPL?  Part of it was that I
+wanted to protect the freedom of the community against the phenomena
+that I just described with X Windows, which has happened with other
+free programs as well.  In fact, when I was thinking about this issue,
+X Windows was not yet released.  But I had seen this problem happen in
+other free programs.  For instance, TeX.  I wanted to make sure that
+the users would all have freedom.  Otherwise, I realized that I might
+write a program, and maybe a lot of people would use the program, but
+they wouldn't have freedom.  And what's the point of that?</p>
+
+<p>But the other issue I was thinking about was, I wanted to give the
+community a feeling that it was not a doormat, a feeling that it was
+not prey to any parasite who would wander along.  If you don't use
+copyleft, you are essentially saying: <i>[speaking meekly]</i>
+&ldquo;Take my code.  Do what you want.  I don't say no.&rdquo; So,
+anybody can come along and say: <i>[speaking very firmly]</i>
+&ldquo;Ah, I want to make a non-free version of this.  I'll just take
+it.&rdquo; And, then, of course, they probably make some improvements,
+those non-free versions might appeal to users, and replace the free
+versions.  And then, what have you accomplished?  You've only made a
+donation to some proprietary software project.</p>
+
+<p>And when people see that that's happening, when people see, other
+people take what I do, and they don't ever give back, it can be
+demoralizing.  And, this is not just speculation.  I had seen that
+happen.  That was part of what happened to wipe out the old community
+that I belonged to the '70's.  Some people started becoming
+uncooperative.  And we assumed that they were profiting thereby.  They
+certainly acted as if they thought they were profiting.  And we
+realized that they can just take off cooperation and not give back.
+And there was nothing we could do about it.  It was very discouraging.
+We, those of us who didn't like the trend, even had a discussion and
+we couldn't come up with any idea for how we could stop it.</p>
+
+<p>So, the GPL is designed to stop that.  And it says, Yes, you are
+welcome to join the community and use this code.  You can use it to do
+all sorts of jobs.  But, if you release a modified version, you've got
+to release that to our community, as part of our community, as part of
+the free world.</p>
+
+<p>So, in fact, there are still many ways that people can get the
+benefit of our work and not contribute, like you don't have to write
+any software.  Lots of people use GNU/Linux and don't write any
+software.  There's no requirement that you've got to do anything for
+us.  But if you do a certain kind of thing, you've got to contribute
+to it.  So what that means is that our community is not a doormat.
+And I think that that helped give people the strength to feel, Yes, we
+won't just be trampled underfoot by everybody.  We'll stand up to
+this.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Yes, my question was, considering free
+but not copylefted software, since anybody can pick it up and make it
+proprietary, is it not possible also for someone to pick it up and
+make some changes and release the whole thing under the GPL?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, it is possible.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Then, that would make all future copies
+then be GPL'ed.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: From that branch.  But here's why we
+don't do that.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Hmm?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Here's why we don't generally do that.
+Let me explain.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: OK, yes.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We could, if we wanted to, take X
+Windows, and make a GPL-covered copy and make changes in that.  But
+there's a much larger group of people working on improving X Windows
+and <em>not</em> GPL-ing it.  So, if we did that, we would be forking
+from them.  And that's not very nice treatment of them.  And, they
+<em>are</em> a part of our community, contributing to our
+community.</p>
+
+<p>Second, it would backfire against us, because they're doing a lot
+more work on X than we would be.  So, our version would be inferior to
+theirs, and people wouldn't use it, which means, why go to the trouble
+at all?</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Mmm hmm.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: So when a person has written some
+improvement to X Windows, what I say that person should do is
+cooperate with the X development team.  Send it to them and let them
+use it their way.  Because they are developing a very important piece
+of free software.  It's good for us to cooperate with them.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Except, considering X, in particular,
+about two years ago, the X Consortium that was far into the non-free
+open source&hellip;</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually it <em>wasn't</em> open
+sourced.  It wasn't open sourced, either.  They may have said it was.
+I can't remember if they said that or not.  But it wasn't open
+source. It was restricted.  You couldn't commercially distribute, I
+think.  Or you couldn't commercially distribute a modified version, or
+something like that.  There was a restriction that's considered
+unacceptable by both the Free Software movement and the Open Source
+movement.</p>
+
+<p>And yes, that's what using a non-copyleft license leaves you open
+to.  In fact, the X Consortium, they had a very rigid policy.  They
+say: If your program if copylefted even a little bit, we won't
+distribute it at all.  We won't put it in our distribution.</p>
+
+<p>So, a lot of people were pressured in this way into not
+copylefting.  And the result was that all of their software was wide
+open, later on.  When the same people who had pressured a developer to
+be too all-permissive, then the X people later said, All right, now we
+can put on restrictions, which wasn't very ethical of them.</p>
+
+<p>But, given the situation, would we really want to scrape up the
+resources to maintain an alternate GPL-covered version of X?  And it
+wouldn't make any sense to do that.  There are so many other things we
+need to do.  Let's do them instead.  We can cooperate with the X
+developers.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Do you have a comment, is the GNU a
+trademark?  And is it practical to include it as part of the GNU
+General Public License allowing trademarks?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We are, actually, applying for trademark
+registration on GNU.  But it wouldn't really have anything to do with
+that.  It's a long story to explain why.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You could require the trademark be
+displayed with GPL-covered programs.</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: No, I don't think so.  The licenses
+cover individual programs.  And when a given program is part of the
+GNU Project, nobody lies about that.  The name of the system as a
+whole is a different issue.  And this is an aside.  It's not worth
+discussing more.</p>
+
+<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: If there was a button that you could
+push and force all companies to free their software, would you press
+it?</p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, I would only use this for
+published software.  You know, I think that people have the right to
+write a program privately and use it.  And that includes companies.
+This is privacy issue.  And it's true, there can be times when it is
+wrong to do that, like if it is tremendously helpful to humanity, and
+you are withholding it from humanity. That is a wrong but that's a
+different kind of wrong.  It's a different issue, although it's in the
+same area.</p>
+
+<p>But yes, I think all published software should be free software.
+And remember, when it's not free software, that's because of
+government intervention.  The government is intervening to make it
+non-free.  The government is creating special legal powers to hand out
+to the owners of the programs, so that they can have the police stop
+us from using the programs in certain ways.  So I would certainly like
+to end that. </p>
+
+<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Richard's presentation has invariably
+generated an enormous amount of intellectual energy.  I would suggest
+that some of it should be directed to using, and possibly writing,
+free software.</p>
+
+<p>We should close the proceedings shortly.  I want to say that
+Richard has injected into a profession which is known in the general
+public for its terminal apolitical nerditude a level of political and
+moral discussion which is, I think, unprecedented in our profession.
+And we owe him very big for this.  I'd like to note to people that
+there is a break.</p>
+
+<p><i>[Applause]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: You are free to leave at any time, you
+know. <i>[Laughter]</i> I'm not holding you prisoner here.</p>
+
+<p><i>[Audience adjourns&hellip;]</i></p>
+
+<p><i>[overlapping conversations&hellip;]</i></p>
+
+<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: One final thing.  Our website:
+www.gnu.org</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+        replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+        We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+        translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+        Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+        to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>
+        &lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.</p>
+
+        <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+        our web pages, see <a
+        href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+        README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+     files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+     be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US.  Please do NOT change or remove this
+     without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+     Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+     document.  For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+     document was modified, or published.
+     
+     If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+     Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+     years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+     year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+     being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+     
+     There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+     Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright &copy; 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015 Richard M. Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/";>Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2015/09/15 05:45:27 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>

Index: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.po
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.po
diff -N philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.po
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.pl.po 15 Sep 2015 05:45:27 -0000      
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,4586 @@
+# Polish translation of 
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html
+# Copyright (C) 2005, 2011, 2014, 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+# This file is distributed under the same license as the gnu.org article.
+# Radosław Moszczyński, 2005.
+# Jan Owoc <jsowoc AT gmail.com>, 2011, 2014, 2015.
+msgid ""
+msgstr ""
+"Project-Id-Version: rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html\n"
+"POT-Creation-Date: 2015-02-20 15:55+0000\n"
+"PO-Revision-Date: 2015-02-21 11:38-0600\n"
+"Last-Translator: Jan Owoc <jsowoc AT gmail.com>\n"
+"Language-Team: Polish <address@hidden>\n"
+"Language: pl\n"
+"MIME-Version: 1.0\n"
+"Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n"
+"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n"
+"Plural-Forms: nplurals=3; plural=(n==1 ? 0 : n%10>=2 && n%10<=4 && (n%100<10 "
+"|| n%100>=20) ? 1 : 2);\n"
+"X-Generator: Virtaal 0.7.0\n"
+
+#. type: Content of: <title>
+msgid ""
+"Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation - GNU Project - Free Software "
+"Foundation"
+msgstr ""
+"Wolne oprogramowanie: wolność i&nbsp;współpraca - Projekt GNU - Fundacja "
+"wolnego oprogramowania (FSF)"
+
+#. type: Content of: <h2>
+msgid "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation"
+msgstr "Wolne oprogramowanie: wolność i&nbsp;współpraca"
+
+#. type: Content of: <blockquote><p>
+msgid ""
+"Transcript of Richard M. Stallman's speech, &ldquo;Free Software: Freedom "
+"and Cooperation&rdquo;, given at New York University in New York, NY, on 29 "
+"May 2001"
+msgstr ""
+"Transcrypcja przemównienia Richarda M. Stallmana p.t. &bdquo;Wolne "
+"oprogramowanie: wolność i&nbsp;współpraca&rdquo; wygłoszonego 
na&nbsp;New "
+"York University w&nbsp;Nowym Jorku, NY, 29. maja 2001 r."
+
+#. type: Content of: <div><blockquote><p>
+msgid ""
+"A <a href=\"/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt\">plain text</a> version 
of "
+"this transcript and a <a 
href=\"/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt\">summary</"
+"a> of the speech are also available."
+msgstr ""
+"Także dostępne jako <a 
href=\"/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt\">czysty "
+"tekst</a> [<em>po&nbsp;angielski</em>] oraz&nbsp;<a href=\"/philosophy/rms-"
+"nyu-2001-summary.txt\">streszczenie</a>."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>URETSKY</strong>: I'm Mike Uretsky.  I'm over at the Stern School of "
+"Business.  I'm also one of the Co-Directors of the Center for Advanced "
+"Technology.  And, on behalf of all of us in the Computer Science Department, "
+"I want to welcome you here.  I want to say a few comments, before I turn it "
+"over to Ed, who is going to introduce the speaker."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>URETSKY</strong>: Nazywam się Mike Uretsky. Jestem pracownikiem "
+"Wydziału Działalności Handlowej [Stern School of Business]. Jestem także "
+"jednym z&nbsp;dyrektorów Centrum Zaawansowanych Technologii [Center for "
+"Advanced Technology]. Chciałbym wszystkich przywitać w&nbsp;imieniu "
+"pracowników Wydziału Informatyki [Computer Science Department]. Pozwólcie, 
"
+"że&nbsp;powiem jeszcze kilka słów zanim przekażę głos Edowi, który "
+"przedstawi naszego gościa."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"The role of a university is a place to foster debate and to have interesting "
+"discussions.  And the role of a major university is to have particularly "
+"interesting discussions.  And this particular presentation, this seminar "
+"falls right into that mold.  I find the discussion of open source "
+"particularly interesting.  In a sense &hellip; <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Uniwersytet powinien być miejscem sprzyjającym debatom, w&nbsp;którym "
+"odbywają się ciekawe dyskusje. Natomiast&nbsp;na wiodącym uniwersytecie "
+"powinny odbywać się dyskusje szczególnie ciekawe. Do&nbsp;tej kategorii "
+"idealnie pasuje dzisiejsze seminarium. Dla mnie dyskusja poruszająca temat "
+"oprogramowania open source [ang. o otwartych źródłach] jest szczególnie "
+"interesująca. W&nbsp;pewnym sensie&hellip; <i>[śmiech]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I do free software.  Open source is a different "
+"movement.  <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Ja się zajmuję wolnym oprogramowaniem. "
+"Oprogramowanie open source to osobny ruch. <i>[śmiech] [aplauz]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>URETSKY</strong>: When I first started in the field in the '60's, "
+"basically software was free.  And we went in cycles.  It became free, and "
+"then software manufacturers, in the need to expand their markets, pushed it "
+"in other directions.  A lot of the developments that took place with the "
+"entry of the PC moved in exactly the same kind of a cycle."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>URETSKY</strong>: Kiedy w&nbsp;latach 60. zaczynałem pracę w&nbsp;"
+"tej dziedzinie, oprogramowanie było w&nbsp;zasadzie wolne. Ale&nbsp;wszystko 
"
+"się odwróciło. Stało się wolne, a&nbsp;potem producenci oprogramowania, "
+"którzy chcieli rozszerzyć swoje rynki zbytu, popchnęli je w&nbsp;innych "
+"kierunkach. Wiele rzeczy, które pojawiły się wraz z&nbsp;architekturą PC, 
"
+"przeszło przez podobny cykl."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"There's a very interesting French philosopher, Pierre Levy, who talks about "
+"movement to this direction and who talks about the move into cyberspace as "
+"not only relating to technology but also relating to social restructuring, "
+"to political restructuring, through a change in the kinds of relationships "
+"that will improve the well-being of mankind.  And we're hoping that this "
+"debate is a movement in that direction, that this debate is something that "
+"cuts across a lot of the disciplines that normally act as solace within the "
+"University.  We're looking forward to some very interesting discussions.  Ed?"
+msgstr ""
+"Jest pewien bardzo interesujący francuski filozof, Pierre Levy, który pisze 
"
+"o ruchu w&nbsp;tym kierunku. Pisze także o wkraczaniu do&nbsp;"
+"cyberprzestrzeni jako czymś związanym nie tylko z&nbsp;technologią, 
ale&nbsp;"
+"również reorganizacją struktury społecznej i&nbsp;politycznej, będącej "
+"wynikiem zmiany typów relacji, które doprowadzą do&nbsp;poprawy stanu "
+"ludzkości. Mamy nadzieję, że&nbsp;ta debata to ruch w&nbsp;tymże 
kierunku, "
+"że&nbsp;rozmywa ona granice pomiędzy wieloma dziedzinami, które zwykle "
+"funkcjonują na&nbsp;Uniwersytecie osobno. Mamy nadzieję, że&nbsp;dyskusje "
+"będą bardzo interesujące. Ed?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: I'm Ed Schonberg from the Computer Science "
+"Department at the Courant Institute.  Let me welcome you all to this event.  "
+"Introducers are usually, and particularly, a useless aspect of public "
+"presentations, but in this case, actually, they serve a useful purpose, as "
+"Mike easily demonstrated, because an introducer for instance, told him, by "
+"making inaccurate comments, can allow him to straighten out and correct and "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> sharpen considerably the parameters of the debate."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Nazywam się Ed Schonberg i&nbsp;pracuję 
na&nbsp;"
+"Wydziale Informatyki Instytutu Courant [Courant Institute]. Witam wszystkich "
+"przybyłych. Zapowiadacze to zazwyczaj, i&nbsp;w szczególności, 
niepotrzebny "
+"aspekt publicznych wystąpień, jednak&nbsp;w tym przypadku mają użyteczne "
+"zastosowanie, co pokazał Mike czyniąc nieścisłe uwagi. Pozwolił on 
mówcy "
+"dodać sprostowanie <i>[śmiech]</i> i&nbsp;znacznie wyostrzyć wstępne "
+"założenia debaty."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, let me make the briefest possible introduction to somebody who doesn't "
+"need one.  Richard is the perfect example of somebody who, by acting "
+"locally, started thinking globally from problems concerning the "
+"unavailability of source code for printer drivers at the AI Lab many years "
+"ago.  He has developed a coherent philosophy that has forced all of us to re-"
+"examine our ideas of how software is produced, of what intellectual property "
+"means, and what the software community actually represents.  Let me welcome "
+"Richard Stallman.  <i>[Applause]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Pozwólcie więc, że&nbsp;w jak najkrótszy sposób przedstawię osobę, 
która "
+"przedstawiania nie wymaga. Richard to doskonały przykład kogoś, kto "
+"działając lokalnie zaczął myśleć globalnie, poczynając 
od&nbsp;problemów "
+"związanych z&nbsp;niedostępnością kodu źródłowego sterowników 
drukarki "
+"w&nbsp;Laboratorium Sztucznej Inteligencji na&nbsp;MIT [AI Lab] wiele lat "
+"temu. Stworzył on spójną filozofię, która zmusiła nas wszystkich 
do&nbsp;"
+"ponownego przemyślenia kwestii produkcji oprogramowania, znaczenia 
własności "
+"intelektualnej i&nbsp;tego, co reprezentuje sobą środowisko programistów. "
+"Przywitajmy Richarda Stallmana. <i>[aplauz]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can someone lend me a watch? <i>[Laughter]</i> "
+"Thank you.  So, I'd like to thank Microsoft for providing me the opportunity "
+"to <i>[Laughter]</i> be on this platform.  For the past few weeks, I have "
+"felt like an author whose book was fortuitously banned somewhere.  <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i> Except that all the articles about it are giving the wrong "
+"author's name, because Microsoft describes the GNU GPL as an open source "
+"license, and most of the press coverage followed suit.  Most people, of "
+"course just innocently don't realize that our work has nothing to do with "
+"open source, that in fact we did most of it before people even coined the "
+"term open source."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Czy&nbsp;ktoś mógłby pożyczyć mi zegarek? <i>"
+"[śmiech]</i> Dziękuję. No więc, chciałbym podziękować firmie Microsoft 
"
+"za&nbsp;stworzenie mi okazji do&nbsp;<i>[śmiech]</i> przemawiania z&nbsp;"
+"tego miejsca. Od&nbsp;kilku tygodni czuję się jak autor książki, która "
+"szczęśliwie została gdzieś zakazana. <i>[śmiech]</i> Tylko 
że&nbsp;wszystkie "
+"artykuły na&nbsp;jej temat zawierają nazwisko niewłaściwego autora, 
bo&nbsp;"
+"Microsoft określa GPL jako licencję typu open source, a&nbsp;większość 
prasy "
+"podąża ich śladem. Większość ludzi, oczywiście bez&nbsp;złych 
intencji, nie "
+"zdaje sobie sprawy, że&nbsp;nasze działania nie mają nic wspólnego 
z&nbsp;"
+"ruchem open source, oraz&nbsp;że zajmowaliśmy się tymi sprawami na&nbsp;"
+"długo zanim nawet utarł się termin open source."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"We are in the free software movement, and I'm going to speak about what the "
+"free software movement is about, what it means, what we have done, and, "
+"because this is partly sponsored by a school of business, I'll say some "
+"things more than I usually do about how free software relates to business, "
+"and some other areas of social life."
+msgstr ""
+"Jesteśmy częścią ruchu wolnego oprogramowania, a&nbsp;ja zamierzam "
+"opowiedzieć, co ten ruch ma na&nbsp;celu, jakie ma znaczenie, co dotychczas "
+"zrobiliśmy oraz, ponieważ&nbsp;to wszystko jest po&nbsp;części 
sponsorowane "
+"przez wydział handlowy, opowiem trochę więcej niż zwykle o stosunku 
wolnego "
+"oprogramowania do&nbsp;biznesu i&nbsp;kilku innych obszarów życia "
+"społecznego."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, some of you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps you "
+"cook.  And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably use "
+"recipes.  And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the experience of "
+"getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing it.  And you've "
+"probably also had the experience &mdash; unless you're a total neophyte "
+"&mdash; of changing a recipe.  You know, it says certain things, but you "
+"don't have to do exactly that.  You can leave out some ingredients.  Add "
+"some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms.  Put in less salt because your "
+"doctor said you should cut down on salt &mdash; whatever.  You can even make "
+"bigger changes according to your skill.  And if you've made changes in a "
+"recipe, and you cook it for your friends, and they like it, one of your "
+"friends might say, &ldquo;Hey, could I have the recipe?&rdquo; And then, "
+"what do you do? You could write down your modified version of the recipe and "
+"make a copy for your friend.  These are the natural things to do with "
+"functionally useful recipes of any kind."
+msgstr ""
+"Dobrze, niektórzy z&nbsp;was mogą nigdy nie napisać żadnego programu, "
+"ale&nbsp;być może gotujecie. Jako kucharze zapewne korzystacie z&nbsp;"
+"przepisów, chyba że&nbsp;jesteście naprawdę świetni. A&nbsp;jeśli "
+"korzystacie z&nbsp;przepisów, to pewnie kiedyś dostaliście kopię jednego "
+"z&nbsp;nich od&nbsp;znajomego. Zdarzyło się też zapewne, jeśli tylko nie "
+"jesteście zupełnymi nowicjuszami, że&nbsp;zmieniliście jakiś przepis. No 
"
+"wiecie, przepis zawiera pewne wskazówki, ale&nbsp;nie musicie się ich "
+"dokładnie trzymać. Możecie opuścić kilka składników. Dodać trochę 
grzybów, "
+"bo&nbsp;lubicie grzyby. Zmniejszyć ilość soli, bo&nbsp;lekarz kazał wam "
+"mniej solić&nbsp;&ndash; cokolwiek. Jeśli macie odpowiednie umiejętności, 
"
+"możecie nawet wprowadzać większe zmiany. A&nbsp;kiedy już zmieniliście "
+"przepis i&nbsp;przygotowaliście danie dla swoich znajomych, a&nbsp;im to "
+"smakowało, jeden z&nbsp;nich może powiedzieć: &bdquo;Hej, mogę dostać "
+"przepis?&rdquo;. I&nbsp;co wtedy zrobicie? Możecie zapisać swoją "
+"zmodyfikowaną wersję na&nbsp;kartce i&nbsp;skopiować ją dla znajomego. To 
"
+"naturalne postępowanie w&nbsp;przypadku jakiegokolwiek użytecznego 
przepisu."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program.  A computer program's a lot "
+"like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to get some result that "
+"you want.  So it's just as natural to do those same things with computer "
+"programs &mdash; hand a copy to your friend.  Make changes in it because the "
+"job it was written to do isn't exactly what you want.  It did a great job "
+"for somebody else, but your job is a different job.  And after you've "
+"changed it, that's likely to be useful for other people.  Maybe they have a "
+"job to do that's like the job you do.  So they ask, &ldquo;Hey, can I have a "
+"copy?&rdquo; Of course, if you're a nice person, you're going to give a "
+"copy.  That's the way to be a decent person."
+msgstr ""
+"Przepisy są bardzo podobne do&nbsp;programów komputerowych. Programy "
+"komputerowe są bardzo podobne do&nbsp;przepisów: sekwencja kroków, 
których "
+"podjęcie prowadzi do&nbsp;jakiegoś pożądanego rezultatu. Więc&nbsp;tak 
samo "
+"naturalne jest takie postępowanie w&nbsp;przypadku programu "
+"komputerowego&nbsp;&ndash; rozdawanie kopii przyjaciołom. Wprowadzanie "
+"do&nbsp;niego zmian, bo&nbsp;cel, dla jakiego został stworzony, nie jest "
+"dokładnie tym, co wam jest potrzebne. Mógł być bardzo pomocny przy "
+"wykonywaniu czyjegoś zadania, ale&nbsp;wasze jest inne. A&nbsp;jak już go "
+"zmienicie, to prawdopodobnie będzie on użyteczny dla innych. Może mają 
pracę "
+"do&nbsp;wykonania podobną do&nbsp;waszej. Więc&nbsp;spytają się: 
&bdquo;Hej, "
+"czy&nbsp;mogę dostać kopię?&rdquo; Jeśli jesteście mili, to oczywiście 
im ją "
+"dacie. Tak robią przyzwoite osoby."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So imagine what it would be like if recipes were packaged inside black "
+"boxes.  You couldn't see what ingredients they're using, let alone change "
+"them, and imagine if you made a copy for a friend, they would call you a "
+"pirate and try to put you in prison for years.  That world would create "
+"tremendous outrage from all the people who are used to sharing recipes.  But "
+"that is exactly what the world of proprietary software is like.  A world in "
+"which common decency towards other people is prohibited or prevented."
+msgstr ""
+"Więc&nbsp;wyobraźcie sobie, co by było, gdyby przepisy były pakowane 
do&nbsp;"
+"czarnych skrzynek. Nie wiedzielibyście, jakie są w&nbsp;nich zawarte "
+"składniki, nie mówiąc już nawet o wprowadzaniu zmian i&nbsp;wyobraźcie "
+"sobie, że&nbsp;jeśli wykonalibyście kopię dla przyjaciela, nazwaliby was "
+"piratami i&nbsp;próbowali wsadzić na&nbsp;parę lat do&nbsp;więzienia. 
Taki "
+"świat wywołałby wielkie oburzenie u&nbsp;ludzi przyzwyczajonych do&nbsp;"
+"dzielenia się przepisami. Ale&nbsp;tak właśnie wygląda świat objętego "
+"restrykcyjnymi licencjami oprogramowania. W&nbsp;tym świecie zwyczajna "
+"przyzwoitość wobec innych ludzi jest zabroniona lub&nbsp;zwalczana."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, why did I notice this? I noticed this because I had the good fortune in "
+"the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who shared software.  "
+"Now, this community could trace its ancestry essentially back to the "
+"beginning of computing.  In the 1970's, though, it was a bit rare for there "
+"to be a community where people shared software.  And, in fact, this was sort "
+"of an extreme case, because in the lab where I worked, the entire operating "
+"system was software developed by the people in our community, and we'd share "
+"any of it with anybody.  Anybody was welcome to come and take a look, and "
+"take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do.  There were no copyright "
+"notices on these programs.  Cooperation was our way of life.  And we were "
+"secure in that way of life.  We didn't fight for it.  We didn't have to "
+"fight for it.  We just lived that way.  And, as far as we knew, we would "
+"just keep on living that way.  So there was free software, but there was no "
+"free software movement."
+msgstr ""
+"Dlaczego to zauważyłem? Zauważyłem to, ponieważ&nbsp;w latach 70. 
miałem "
+"szczęście należeć do&nbsp;społeczności programistów, którzy dzielili 
się "
+"oprogramowaniem. Społeczność ta miała korzenie w&nbsp;samych początkach "
+"informatyki. Jednak&nbsp;w latach 70. było czymś odrobinę niezwykłym, "
+"że&nbsp;istniała społeczność, w&nbsp;obrębie której ludzie dzielili 
się "
+"programami. I&nbsp;był to tak naprawdę rodzaj skrajnego przypadku, "
+"ponieważ&nbsp;w laboratorium, w&nbsp;którym pracowałem, cały system "
+"operacyjny składał się z&nbsp;oprogramowania napisanego przez naszą "
+"społeczność i&nbsp;dzieliliśmy się ze wszystkimi każdą jego częścią
. Każdy "
+"mógł wpaść i&nbsp;popatrzeć, wziąć sobie kopię i&nbsp;zrobić 
z&nbsp;nią "
+"cokolwiek chciał. Na&nbsp;tych programach nie było informacji o prawach "
+"autorskich. Współpraca była naszym sposobem na&nbsp;życie. Żyjąc tak "
+"czuliśmy się bezpieczni. Nie walczyliśmy o to. Nie musieliśmy o to 
walczyć. "
+"Po&nbsp;prostu żyliśmy w&nbsp;ten sposób. I&nbsp;chcieliśmy żyć tak 
dalej. "
+"Istniało więc&nbsp;wolne oprogramowanie, ale&nbsp;nie istniał ruch wolnego 
"
+"oprogramowania."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that happened "
+"to it.  Ultimately it was wiped out.  Ultimately, the PDP-10 computer which "
+"we used for all our work was discontinued.  And you know, our system &mdash; "
+"the Incompatible Timesharing System &mdash; was written starting in the "
+"'60's, so it was written in assembler language.  That's what you used to "
+"write an operating system in the '60's.  So, of course, assembler language "
+"is for one particular computer architecture; if that gets discontinued, all "
+"your work turns into dust &mdash; it's useless.  And that's what happened to "
+"us.  The 20 years or so of work of our community turned into dust."
+msgstr ""
+"Jednak&nbsp;potem nasza społeczność została zniszczona przez serię "
+"nieszczęść, które ją dotknęły. W&nbsp;końcu przestała istnieć. 
W&nbsp;końcu "
+"produkcja PDP-10, czyli&nbsp;komputera, którego używaliśmy do&nbsp;całej "
+"pracy, została zawieszona. Wiecie, nasz system&nbsp;&ndash; ITS "
+"[Incompatible Timesharing System, Niezgodny System z&nbsp;Podziałem Czasu]"
+"&nbsp;&ndash; zaczął być tworzony w&nbsp;latach 60., więc&nbsp;był 
napisany "
+"w&nbsp;asemblerze. Tak pisało się systemy operacyjne w&nbsp;latach 60. Jak "
+"wiadomo asembler jest przypisany do&nbsp;konkretnej architektury; gdy "
+"wychodzi ona z&nbsp;produkcji, cała praca idzie na&nbsp;marne&nbsp;&ndash; "
+"staje się bezużyteczna. Właśnie to nam się przydarzyło. Około 20 lat 
pracy "
+"naszej społeczności poszło na&nbsp;marne."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me, helped me "
+"see what to do, helped prepare me to see what to do when this happened, "
+"because at certain point, Xerox gave the Artificial Intelligence Lab, where "
+"I worked, a laser printer, and this was a really handsome gift, because it "
+"was the first time anybody outside Xerox had a laser printer.  It was very "
+"fast, printed a page a second, very fine in many respects, but it was "
+"unreliable, because it was really a high-speed office copier that had been "
+"modified into a printer.  And, you know, copiers jam, but there's somebody "
+"there to fix them.  The printer jammed and nobody saw.  So it stayed jammed "
+"for a long time."
+msgstr ""
+"Jednak&nbsp;zanim się to stało, przydarzyło mi się coś, co mnie "
+"przygotowało, pomogło mi zrozumieć, co trzeba zrobić, pomogło mi 
przygotować "
+"się do&nbsp;zrozumienia co zrobić, gdy to się stało, 
ponieważ&nbsp;pewnego "
+"razu Xerox podarował Laboratorium Sztucznej Inteligencji, gdzie pracowałem, 
"
+"laserową drukarkę i&nbsp;był to naprawdę niezły prezent, bo&nbsp;po raz "
+"pierwszy ktokolwiek poza Xeroksem miał dostęp do&nbsp;laserowej drukarki. "
+"Była bardzo szybka, wydruk strony zajmował jej sekundę, pod&nbsp;wieloma "
+"względami była bardzo dobra, ale&nbsp;zawodna, bo&nbsp;tak naprawdę była 
to "
+"szybka kopiarka biurowa, którą zamieniono w&nbsp;drukarkę. Jak wiecie, "
+"kopiarki się zacinają, ale&nbsp;zawsze znajdzie się przy nich ktoś, kto 
je "
+"naprawi. Drukarka zacinała się i&nbsp;nikt tego nie widział. 
Więc&nbsp;stała "
+"zacięta przez długi czas."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Well, we had an idea for how to deal with this problem.  Change it so that "
+"whenever the printer gets a jam, the machine that runs the printer can tell "
+"our timesharing machine, and tell the users who are waiting for printouts, "
+"or something like that, you know, tell them, go fix the printer.  Because if "
+"they only knew it was jammed, of course, if you're waiting for a printout "
+"and you know that the printer is jammed, you don't want to sit and wait "
+"forever, you're going to go fix it."
+msgstr ""
+"Mieliśmy pomysł jak rozwiązać ten problem. Wprowadzić zmiany, żeby 
za&nbsp;"
+"każdym razem, kiedy drukarka się zacięła, komputer, który ją 
obsługiwał "
+"informował naszą maszynę z&nbsp;podziałem czasu i&nbsp;informował "
+"użytkowników czekających na&nbsp;wydruk, albo&nbsp;coś w&nbsp;tym stylu, 
no "
+"wiecie&nbsp;&ndash; &bdquo;Idź napraw drukarkę&rdquo;. Bo&nbsp;gdyby tylko "
+"wiedzieli, że&nbsp;drukarka się zacięła, oczywiste jest, że&nbsp;jeśli "
+"czekasz na&nbsp;wydruk i&nbsp;wiesz, że&nbsp;drukarka się zacięła, to nie 
"
+"siedzisz i&nbsp;nie czekasz do&nbsp;końca świata, tylko idziesz i&nbsp;ją "
+"naprawiasz."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But at that point, we were completely stymied, because the software that ran "
+"that printer was not free software.  It had come with the printer, and it "
+"was just a binary.  We couldn't have the source code; Xerox wouldn't let us "
+"have the source code.  So, despite our skill as programmers &mdash; after "
+"all, we had written our own timesharing system &mdash; we were completely "
+"helpless to add this feature to the printer software."
+msgstr ""
+"Jednak&nbsp;wtedy nie mogliśmy zupełnie nic zrobić, ponieważ&nbsp;"
+"oprogramowanie obsługujące drukarkę nie było wolne. Dostaliśmy je razem "
+"z&nbsp;drukarką i&nbsp;był to po&nbsp;prostu plik binarny. Nie dano nam 
kodu "
+"źródłowego&nbsp;&ndash; Xerox nie chciał się na&nbsp;to zgodzić. Tak 
więc, "
+"mimo naszych umiejętności programistycznych&nbsp;&ndash; jakby nie patrzeć 
"
+"napisaliśmy własny system z&nbsp;podziałem czasu&nbsp;&ndash; nie 
mogliśmy "
+"w&nbsp;żaden sposób dodać tej funkcji do&nbsp;oprogramowania drukarki."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And we just had to suffer with waiting.  It would take an hour or two to get "
+"your printout because the machine would be jammed most of the time.  And "
+"only once in a while &mdash; you'd wait an hour figuring &ldquo;I know it's "
+"going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and go collect my printout,&rdquo; and "
+"then you'd see that it had been jammed the whole time, and in fact, nobody "
+"else had fixed it.  So you'd fix it and you'd go wait another half hour.  "
+"Then, you'd come back, and you'd see it jammed again &mdash; before it got "
+"to your output.  It would print three minutes and be jammed thirty minutes.  "
+"Frustration up the whazzoo.  But the thing that made it worse was knowing "
+"that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his own selfishness, was "
+"blocking us, obstructing us from improving the software.  So, of course, we "
+"felt some resentment."
+msgstr ""
+"Jedyne, co nam pozostawało, to ścierpieć czekanie. Wydruk zajmował 
od&nbsp;"
+"jednej do&nbsp;dwóch godzin, ponieważ&nbsp;przez większość czasu 
drukarka "
+"była zacięta. I&nbsp;tylko czasami&nbsp;&ndash; czekało się godzinę 
myśląc: "
+"&bdquo;Na pewno będzie zacięta. Poczekam godzinę i&nbsp;wtedy odbiorę "
+"wydruk&rdquo;, a&nbsp;potem okazywało się, że&nbsp;była zacięta przez 
cały "
+"ten czas i&nbsp;że nikt inny jej nie naprawił. Więc&nbsp;naprawiało się 
ją "
+"i&nbsp;czekało kolejne pół godziny. Potem się wracało, a&nbsp;ona znów 
się "
+"zacięła&nbsp;&ndash; zanim zaczęła drukować twój dokument. Drukowała 
przez "
+"trzy minuty, a&nbsp;stała zacięta przez trzydzieści. Frustracja sięgała "
+"sufitu. Ale&nbsp;gorsze było to, że&nbsp;wiedzieliśmy, że&nbsp;możemy ją
 "
+"naprawić, jednak&nbsp;ktoś inny, z&nbsp;powodu swojego egoizmu, nie 
pozwalał "
+"nam, blokował możliwość ulepszenia oprogramowania. Więc&nbsp;oczywiście 
"
+"trochę żywiliśmy do&nbsp;nich urazę."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a copy of "
+"that software.  So I was visiting there later, so I went to his office and I "
+"said, &ldquo;Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of the printer source "
+"code?&rdquo; And he said &ldquo;No, I promised not to give you a copy."
+"&rdquo; <i>[Laughter]</i> I was stunned.  I was so &mdash; I was angry, and "
+"I had no idea how I could do justice to it.  All I could think of was to "
+"turn around on my heel and walk out of his room.  Maybe I slammed the door.  "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> And I thought about it later on, because I realized that I "
+"was seeing not just an isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was "
+"important and affected a lot of people."
+msgstr ""
+"I&nbsp;wtedy dowiedziałem się, że&nbsp;ktoś na&nbsp;uniwersytecie 
Carnegie "
+"Mellon [Carnegie Mellon University] ma kopię tego oprogramowania. Byłem tam 
"
+"jakiś czas później, więc&nbsp;poszedłem do&nbsp;jego biura 
i&nbsp;spytałem: "
+"&bdquo;Cześć, jestem z&nbsp;MIT. Czy&nbsp;mógłbym dostać kopię kodu "
+"źródłowego oprogramowania drukarki?&rdquo; a&nbsp;on na&nbsp;to: 
&bdquo;Nie, "
+"obiecałem nie dawać ci kopii&rdquo;. <i>[śmiech]</i> Stałem osłupiały. 
Byłem "
+"taki&nbsp;&ndash; byłem wściekły i&nbsp;nie wiedziałem jak mogę 
zaradzić "
+"sytuacji. Jedyne co przyszło mi do&nbsp;głowy, to obrócić się 
na&nbsp;pięcie "
+"i&nbsp;wyjść z&nbsp;jego biura. Być może trzasnąłem drzwiami. 
<i>[śmiech]</"
+"i> A&nbsp;potem o tym myślałem, ponieważ&nbsp;zdałem sobie sprawę, 
że&nbsp;"
+"nie miałem do&nbsp;czynienia z&nbsp;jednym draniem, ale&nbsp;ze społecznym "
+"zjawiskiem, które miało duże znaczenie i&nbsp;dotykało bardzo wielu 
ludzi."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"This was &mdash; for me &mdash; I was lucky, I only got a taste of it, but "
+"other people had to live in this all the time.  So I thought about it at "
+"length.  See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with us &mdash; his "
+"colleagues at MIT.  He had betrayed us.  But he didn't just do it to us.  "
+"Chances are he did it to you too.  <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> "
+"And I think, mostly likely, he did it to you too.  <i>[Pointing at another "
+"member of audience.] [Laughter]</i> And he probably did it to you as well.  "
+"<i>[Pointing to third member of audience.]</i> He probably did it to most of "
+"the people here in this room &mdash; except a few, maybe, who weren't born "
+"yet in 1980.  Because he had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about "
+"the entire population of the Planet Earth.  He had signed a non-disclosure "
+"agreement."
+msgstr ""
+"Było to&nbsp;&ndash; dla mnie&nbsp;&ndash; miałem szczęście, dostałem 
tylko "
+"przedsmak, a&nbsp;inni musieli z&nbsp;tym żyć przez cały czas. Więc&nbsp;"
+"długo na&nbsp;ten temat myślałem. a&nbsp;więc on obiecał odmówić 
współpracy "
+"z&nbsp;nami&nbsp;&ndash; swoimi kolegami z&nbsp;MIT. Zdradził nas. Ale&nbsp;"
+"nie tylko nas. Prawdopodobnie zdradził też ciebie. <i>[wskazuje palcem "
+"któregoś ze słuchaczy]</i> Wydaje mi się, że&nbsp;zapewne zdradził też 
"
+"ciebie. <i>[wskazuje palcem innego słuchacza] [śmiech]</i> I&nbsp;ciebie "
+"pewno też zdradził. <i>[wskazuje trzeciego słuchacza]</i> Prawdopodobnie "
+"zdradził większość ludzi w&nbsp;tym pomieszczeniu&nbsp;&ndash; za&nbsp;"
+"wyjątkiem może kilku, którzy w&nbsp;1980 jeszcze się nie urodzili. 
Bo&nbsp;"
+"on obiecał odmówić współpracy w&nbsp;zasadzie z&nbsp;całą populacją 
planety "
+"Ziemia. Podpisał umowę o poufności."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, "
+"and it taught me an important lesson &mdash; a lesson that's important "
+"because most programmers never learn it.  You see, this was my first "
+"encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was the victim.  I, and my "
+"whole lab, were the victims.  And the lesson it taught me was that non-"
+"disclosure agreements have victims.  They're not innocent.  They're not "
+"harmless.  Most programmers first encounter a non-disclosure agreement when "
+"they're invited to sign one.  And there's always some temptation &mdash; "
+"some goody they're going to get if they sign.  So, they make up excuses.  "
+"They say, &ldquo;Well, he's never going to get a copy no matter what, so why "
+"shouldn't I join the conspiracy to deprive him?&rdquo; They say, &ldquo;This "
+"is the way it's always done.  Who am I to go against it?&rdquo; They say, "
+"&ldquo;If I don't sign this, someone else will.&rdquo; Various excuses to "
+"gag their consciences."
+msgstr ""
+"To był mój pierwszy, bezpośredni kontakt z&nbsp;umową o poufności 
i&nbsp;"
+"nauczył mnie on pewnej ważnej rzeczy&nbsp;&ndash; ważnej, 
bo&nbsp;większość "
+"programistów nigdy się jej nie uczy. Był to mój pierwszy kontakt z&nbsp;"
+"umową o poufności i&nbsp;ja byłem ofiarą. Ja i&nbsp;całe moje 
laboratorium "
+"byliśmy ofiarami. a&nbsp;rzecz, której się nauczyłem, to że&nbsp;umowy o 
"
+"poufności mają swoje ofiary. Nie są niewinne. Nie są nieszkodliwe. 
Większość "
+"programistów po&nbsp;raz pierwszy się z&nbsp;nimi styka, gdy mają taką 
umowę "
+"podpisać. I&nbsp;zawsze istnieje jakaś pokusa&nbsp;&ndash; jakaś nagroda, "
+"którą dostaną, jeśli podpiszą. Więc&nbsp;wymyślają wymówki. Mówią: 
&bdquo;No "
+"cóż, on i&nbsp;tak nigdy nie dostanie kopii, choćby nie wiem co, 
więc&nbsp;"
+"czemu nie miałbym przyłączyć się do&nbsp;spisku chcącego odmówić mu 
do&nbsp;"
+"niej dostępu?&rdquo;. Mówią: &bdquo;Zawsze się to tak robi. Kim ja 
jestem, "
+"żeby się temu sprzeciwiać?&rdquo;. Mówią: &bdquo;Jeśli ja tego nie 
podpiszę, "
+"ktoś inny to zrobi&rdquo;. Przeróżne wymówki, aby&nbsp;uciszyć swoje "
+"sumienie."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But when somebody invited me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, my "
+"conscience was already sensitized.  It remembered how angry I had been, when "
+"somebody promised not to help me and my whole lab solve our problem.  And I "
+"couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to somebody else who had "
+"never done me any harm.  You know, if somebody asked me to promise not to "
+"share some useful information with a hated enemy, I would have said yes.  "
+"You know? If somebody's done something bad, he deserves it.  But, strangers "
+"&mdash; they haven't done me any harm.  How could they deserve that kind of "
+"mistreatment? You can't let yourself start treating just anybody and "
+"everybody badly.  Then you become a predator on society.  So I said, &ldquo;"
+"Thank you very much for offering me this nice software package.  But I can't "
+"accept it in good conscience, on the conditions you are demanding, so I will "
+"do without it.  Thank you so much.&rdquo; And so, I have never knowingly "
+"signed a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful technical information "
+"such as software."
+msgstr ""
+"Lecz&nbsp;kiedy ktoś poprosił mnie o podpisanie umowy o poufności, moje "
+"sumienie było już wyczulone. Pamiętało jaki byłem wściekły, kiedy 
ktoś "
+"obiecał, że&nbsp;nie pomoże mi i&nbsp;mojemu laboratorium rozwiązać 
naszego "
+"problemu. I&nbsp;nie mogłem obrócić się i&nbsp;zrobić dokładnie tego 
samego "
+"komuś innemu, kto nigdy nie zrobił mi niczego złego. Wiecie, gdyby ktoś "
+"poprosił mnie, żebym obiecał, że&nbsp;nie podzielę się pewnymi 
użytecznymi "
+"informacjami ze znienawidzonym wrogiem, to zgodziłbym się. Rozumiecie? 
Jeśli "
+"ktoś zrobił coś złego, to na&nbsp;to zasługuje. Ale&nbsp;nieznajomi — 
nie "
+"zrobili mi niczego złego. W&nbsp;jaki sposób mieliby sobie zasłużyć 
na&nbsp;"
+"takie podłe traktowanie? Nie można sobie pozwolić na&nbsp;traktowanie "
+"po&nbsp;prostu wszystkich bez&nbsp;wyjątku źle. Zaczyna się wtedy 
żerować "
+"na&nbsp;społeczeństwie. Powiedziałem więc: &bdquo;Dziękuję bardzo 
za&nbsp;"
+"zaoferowanie mi tego wspaniałego pakietu oprogramowania. Jednak&nbsp;nie "
+"mogę go przyjąć w&nbsp;dobrej wierze na&nbsp;warunkach, których się "
+"domagacie, więc&nbsp;poradzę sobie bez&nbsp;niego. Dziękuję 
bardzo&rdquo;. "
+"I&nbsp;w taki sposób nigdy świadomie nie podpisałem umowy o poufności "
+"dotyczącej powszechnie użytecznych informacji technicznych, takich jak "
+"oprogramowanie."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now there are other kinds of information which raise different ethical "
+"issues.  For instance, there's personal information.  You know, if you "
+"wanted to talk with me about what was happening between you and your "
+"boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody &mdash; you know, I could "
+"keep &mdash; I could agree to keep that a secret for you, because that's not "
+"generally useful technical information.  At least, it's probably not "
+"generally useful. <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Istnieją inne rodzaje informacji, które budzą inne etyczne pytania. Są "
+"na&nbsp;przykład informacje osobiste. No wiecie, gdyby jakaś dziewczyna "
+"chciała porozmawiać ze mną o tym, co działo się między nią a&nbsp;jej "
+"chłopakiem i&nbsp;poprosiła mnie o utrzymanie tego w&nbsp;tajemnicy&nbsp;"
+"&ndash; to wiecie, mógłbym to utrzymać&nbsp;&ndash; mógłbym zgodzić 
się tego "
+"nie ujawniać, ponieważ&nbsp;nie jest to powszechnie użyteczna informacja "
+"techniczna. W&nbsp;każdym bądź&nbsp;razie prawdopodobnie nie powszechnie "
+"użyteczna. <i>[śmiech]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"There is a small chance &mdash; and it's a possibility though &mdash; that "
+"you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex technique, <i>[Laughter]</i> "
+"and I would then feel a moral duty <i>[Laughter]</i> to pass it onto the "
+"rest of humanity, so that everyone could get the benefit of it.  So, I'd "
+"have to put a proviso in that promise, you know? If it's just details about "
+"who wants this, and who's angry at whom, and things like that &mdash; soap "
+"opera &mdash; that I can keep private for you, but something that humanity "
+"could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't withhold.  You see, the "
+"purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information for "
+"humanity to help people live their lives better.  If we promise to withhold "
+"that information &mdash; if we keep it secret &mdash; then we are betraying "
+"the mission of our field.  And this, I decided I shouldn't do."
+msgstr ""
+"Istnieje mała szansa&nbsp;&ndash; ale&nbsp;to tylko 
możliwość&nbsp;&ndash; "
+"że&nbsp;mogłaby wyjawić mi jakąś nową, wspaniałą technikę seksualną 
<i>"
+"[śmiech]</i>, a&nbsp;wtedy czułbym moralne zobowiązanie <i>[śmiech]</i> "
+"podzielić się nią z&nbsp;resztą ludzkości, tak aby&nbsp;wszyscy mogli 
z&nbsp;"
+"niej skorzystać. Więc&nbsp;musiałbym w&nbsp;tej obietnicy zawrzeć "
+"zastrzeżenie, prawda? Jeśli byłyby to tylko szczegółowe wiadomości, kto 
tego "
+"chce, a&nbsp;kto jest zły na&nbsp;kogo, i&nbsp;tak dalej&nbsp;&ndash; "
+"brazylijski serial&nbsp;&ndash; to mogę to utrzymać w&nbsp;tajemnicy, "
+"ale&nbsp;wiedzy, na&nbsp;której mogłaby bardzo skorzystać ludzkość nie 
mogę "
+"zatrzymać dla siebie. Zadaniem nauki i&nbsp;technologii jest dawanie "
+"ludzkości użytecznych informacji, dzięki którym polepsza się życie 
ludzi. "
+"Jeśli obiecujemy zatrzymać takie informacje dla siebie&nbsp;&ndash; jeśli "
+"trzymamy je w&nbsp;tajemnicy&nbsp;&ndash; to zdradzamy ideały naszej "
+"dziedziny. A&nbsp;czegoś takiego postanowiłem nie robić."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, meanwhile my community had collapsed, and that was collapsing, and that "
+"left me in a bad situation.  You see, the whole Incompatible Timesharing "
+"System was obsolete, because the PDP-10 was obsolete, and so there was no "
+"way that I could continue working as an operating system developer the way "
+"that I had been doing it.  That depended on being part of the community "
+"using the community software and improving it.  That no longer was a "
+"possibility, and that gave me a moral dilemma.  What was I going to do? "
+"Because the most obvious possibility meant to go against that decision I had "
+"made.  The most obvious possibility was to adapt myself to the change in the "
+"world.  To accept that things were different, and that I'd just have to give "
+"up those principles and start signing non-disclosure agreements for "
+"proprietary operating systems, and most likely writing proprietary software "
+"as well.  But I realized that that way I could have fun coding, and I could "
+"make money &mdash; especially if I did it other than at MIT &mdash; but at "
+"the end, I'd have to look back at my career and say, &ldquo;I've spent my "
+"life building walls to divide people,&rdquo; and I would have been ashamed "
+"of my life."
+msgstr ""
+"Tymczasem rozpadła się moja społeczność, a&nbsp;to było załamujące 
i&nbsp;"
+"postawiło mnie w&nbsp;złej sytuacji. Cały ITS był przestarzały, "
+"ponieważ&nbsp;PDP-10 było przestarzałe, więc&nbsp;nie było żadnego 
sposobu, "
+"abym mógł kontynuować pracę programisty systemowego tak jak dotychczas. "
+"Polegała ona na&nbsp;byciu częścią społeczności, korzystaniu ze 
stworzonego "
+"przez nią oprogramowania i&nbsp;ulepszaniu go. Nie było więcej takiej "
+"możliwości i&nbsp;stanąłem przed moralnym dylematem. Co miałem robić? "
+"Bo&nbsp;najbardziej oczywista możliwość oznaczała zaprzeczenie podjętej "
+"przeze mnie decyzji. Najbardziej oczywistą możliwością było dostosowanie 
się "
+"do&nbsp;zmian, jakie zaszły w&nbsp;świecie. Zaakceptowanie, że&nbsp;sprawy 
"
+"przedstawiały się inaczej i&nbsp;że muszę po&nbsp;prostu porzucić swoje "
+"zasady, i&nbsp;zacząć podpisywać umowy o poufności dotyczące systemów "
+"operacyjnych objętych restrykcyjnymi licencjami, oraz&nbsp;"
+"najprawdopodobniej pisać oprogramowanie o zamkniętych źródłach. Zdałem 
sobie "
+"sprawę, że&nbsp;w ten sposób mógłbym miło spędzać czas programując 
i&nbsp;"
+"zarabiać pieniądze&nbsp;&ndash; szczególnie, gdybym pracował poza 
MIT&nbsp;"
+"&ndash; ale&nbsp;potem musiałbym spojrzeć wstecz na&nbsp;swoją drogę "
+"zawodową i&nbsp;powiedzieć: &bdquo;Spędziłem życie budując mury dzielą
ce "
+"ludzi&rdquo; i&nbsp;wstydziłbym się swojego życia."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So I looked for another alternative, and there was an obvious one.  I could "
+"leave the software field and do something else.  Now I had no other special "
+"noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a waiter.  <i>[Laughter]"
+"</i> Not at a fancy restaurant; they wouldn't hire me, <i>[Laughter]</i> but "
+"I could be a waiter somewhere.  And many programmers, they say to me, &ldquo;"
+"The people who hire programmers demand this, this and this. If I don't do "
+"those things, I'll starve.&rdquo; It's literally the word they use.  Well, "
+"you know, as a waiter, you're not going to starve.  <i>[Laughter]</i> So, "
+"really, they're in no danger.  But &mdash; and this is important, you see "
+"&mdash; because sometimes you can justify doing something that hurts other "
+"people by saying otherwise something worse is going to happen to me.  You "
+"know, if you were <em>really</em> going to starve, you'd be justified in "
+"writing proprietary software.  <i>[Laughter]</i> If somebody's pointing a "
+"gun at you, then I would say, it's forgivable.  <i>[Laughter]</i> But, I had "
+"found a way that I could survive without doing something unethical, so that "
+"excuse was not available.  So I realized, though, that being a waiter would "
+"be no fun for me, and it would be wasting my skills as an operating system "
+"developer.  It would avoid misusing my skills.  Developing proprietary "
+"software would be misusing my skills.  Encouraging other people to live in "
+"the world of proprietary software would be misusing my skills.  So it's "
+"better to waste them than misuse them, but it's still not really good."
+msgstr ""
+"Szukałem więc&nbsp;innej możliwości&nbsp;&ndash; istniała jedna 
oczywista. "
+"Mogłem odejść z&nbsp;branży programistycznej i&nbsp;zająć się czymś 
innym. "
+"Nie miałem żadnych innych wartych uwagi umiejętności, ale&nbsp;na pewno "
+"mogłem zostać kelnerem. <i>[śmiech]</i> Nie w&nbsp;drogiej restauracji, "
+"w&nbsp;takiej by mnie nie zatrudnili <i>[śmiech]</i>, ale&nbsp;gdzieś tam "
+"mogłem być kelnerem. Wielu programistów mówi mi: &bdquo;Ludzie 
zatrudniający "
+"programistów wymagają tego, tego i&nbsp;tego. Jeśli nie będę tego 
robił, to "
+"będę głodował.&rdquo; Dokładnie tego słowa używają. No cóż, pracują
c jako "
+"kelner nie będziesz głodował. <i>[śmiech]</i> Naprawdę nie ma się czego 
"
+"obawiać. Jednak&nbsp;&ndash; i&nbsp;to jest ważne&nbsp;&ndash; bo&nbsp;"
+"czasami można usprawiedliwiać robienie czegoś, co szkodzi innym, twierdzą
c, "
+"że&nbsp;coś gorszego spotka nas. Gdybyście <em>naprawdę</em> mieli 
głodować, "
+"to bylibyście usprawiedliwieni pisząc oprogramowanie objęte restrykcyjnymi 
"
+"licencjami. <i>[śmiech]</i> Jeśli ktoś celowałby do&nbsp;was z&nbsp;"
+"pistoletu, to można by wam to wybaczyć. <i>[śmiech]</i> Jednak&nbsp;"
+"znalazłem sposób, aby&nbsp;przeżyć nie robiąc czegoś nieetycznego, 
więc&nbsp;"
+"ta wymówka była na&nbsp;nic. Zdałem sobie sprawę, że&nbsp;bycie kelnerem 
nie "
+"sprawiałoby mi przyjemności i&nbsp;marnowałbym swoje umiejętności "
+"programisty systemowego. Nie powodowałoby to niewłaściwego wykorzystania "
+"moich umiejętności. Pisanie oprogramowania objętego restrykcyjnymi "
+"licencjami byłoby niewłaściwym ich wykorzystaniem. Zachęcanie innych 
do&nbsp;"
+"życia w&nbsp;świecie takiego oprogramowania byłoby niewłaściwym ich "
+"wykorzystaniem. Lepiej jest je marnować niż wykorzystywać niewłaściwie, "
+"ale&nbsp;i ta droga nie jest naprawdę dobra."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So for those reasons, I decided to look for some other alternative.  What "
+"can an operating system developer do that would actually improve the "
+"situation, make the world a better place? And I realized that an operating "
+"system developer was exactly what was needed.  The problem, the dilemma, "
+"existed for me and for everyone else because all of the available operating "
+"systems for modern computers were proprietary.  The free operating systems "
+"were for old, obsolete computers, right? So for the modern computers &mdash; "
+"if you wanted to get a modern computer and use it, you were forced into a "
+"proprietary operating system.  So if an operating system developer wrote "
+"another operating system, and then said, &ldquo;Everybody come and share "
+"this; you're welcome to this&rdquo; &mdash; that would give everybody a way "
+"out of the dilemma, another alternative.  So I realized that there was "
+"something I could do that would solve the problem.  I had just the right "
+"skills to be able to do it.  And it was the most useful thing I could "
+"possibly imagine that I'd be able to do with my life.  And it was a problem "
+"that no one else was trying to solve.  It was just sort of sitting there, "
+"getting worse, and nobody was there but me.  So I felt, &ldquo;I'm elected.  "
+"I have to work on this.  If not me, who?&rdquo; So I decided I would develop "
+"a free operating system, or die trying &hellip; of old age, of course.  <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Z&nbsp;tych powodów postanowiłem poszukać innej możliwości. Co może 
zrobić "
+"programista systemowy, aby&nbsp;rzeczywiście poprawić sytuację, uczynić "
+"świat lepszym? i&nbsp;zdałem sobie sprawę, że&nbsp;programista systemowy 
był "
+"właśnie kimś, kto był potrzebny. Ten problem, dylemat miałem ja i&nbsp;"
+"wszyscy pozostali, ponieważ&nbsp;wszystkie dostępne systemy operacyjne dla "
+"nowych komputerów były objęte restrykcyjnymi licencjami. Wolne systemy "
+"operacyjne były przeznaczone dla starych, przestarzałych komputerów, 
prawda? "
+"Więc&nbsp;w przypadku nowych komputerów&nbsp;&ndash; jeśli chcieliście 
kupić "
+"i&nbsp;korzystać z&nbsp;nowego komputera, to byliście zmuszeni używać "
+"niewolnego systemu operacyjnego. Więc&nbsp;jeśli jakiś programista 
systemowy "
+"napisałby inny system operacyjny, a&nbsp;potem powiedział: &bdquo;Niech 
się "
+"wszyscy tym dzielą&nbsp;&ndash; zachęcam was do&nbsp;tego&rdquo;, to "
+"pozwoliłoby wszystkim uniknąć tego dylematu, dałoby jeszcze jedną 
możliwość. "
+"Zdałem sobie więc&nbsp;sprawę, że&nbsp;było coś, co mogłem zrobić, 
żeby "
+"rozwiązać mój problem. Miałem dokładnie te umiejętności, które były 
do&nbsp;"
+"tego potrzebne. I&nbsp;była to najbardziej użyteczna rzecz, którą mogłem 
"
+"zrobić ze swoim życiem, jaka przyszła mi do&nbsp;głowy. I&nbsp;był to "
+"problem, którego nikt inny nie próbował rozwiązać. On sobie 
po&nbsp;prostu "
+"był, stawał się coraz większy i&nbsp;nikt oprócz mnie nie zwracał 
na&nbsp;"
+"niego uwagi. Pomyślałem więc&nbsp;sobie: &bdquo;Zostałem wybrany. Muszę "
+"nad&nbsp;tym pracować. Jeśli nie ja, to kto?&rdquo; Tak więc&nbsp;"
+"postanowiłem, że&nbsp;stworzę wolny system operacyjny, albo&nbsp;umrę "
+"próbując&hellip; ze starości, oczywiście. <i>[śmiech]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, of course I had to decide what kind of operating system it should be.  "
+"There are some technical design decisions to be made.  I decided to make the "
+"system compatible with Unix for a number of reasons.  First of all, I had "
+"just seen one operating system that I really loved become obsolete because "
+"it was written for one particular kind of computer.  I didn't want that to "
+"happen again.  We needed to have a portable system.  Well, Unix was a "
+"portable system.  So if I followed the design of Unix, I had a pretty good "
+"chance that I could make a system that would also be portable and workable.  "
+"And furthermore, why <i>[Tape unclear]</i> be compatible with it in the "
+"details.  The reason is, users hate incompatible changes.  If I had just "
+"designed the system in my favorite way &mdash; which I would have loved "
+"doing, I'm sure &mdash; I would have produced something that was "
+"incompatible.  You know, the details would be different.  So, if I wrote the "
+"system, then the users would have said to me, &ldquo;Well, this is very "
+"nice, but it's incompatible.  It will be too much work to switch.  We can't "
+"afford that much trouble just to use your system instead of Unix, so we'll "
+"stay with Unix,&rdquo; they would have said."
+msgstr ""
+"Musiałem oczywiście zdecydować, jakiego rodzaju miał to być system. 
Trzeba "
+"podjąć pewne decyzje projektowe. Z&nbsp;kilku powodów postanowiłem, 
że&nbsp;"
+"mój system będzie zgodny z&nbsp;Uniksem. Po&nbsp;pierwsze, dopiero co "
+"patrzyłem jak system operacyjny, który kochałem, stawał się 
przestarzały, "
+"bo&nbsp;został stworzony dla jednego rodzaju komputera. Nie chciałem, "
+"aby&nbsp;to się powtórzyło. Potrzebny był przenośny system. Cóż, Unix 
był "
+"przenośnym systemem. Więc&nbsp;jeśli naśladowałbym budowę Uniksa, to 
miałem "
+"spore szanse, że&nbsp;stworzę system, który również będzie przenośny 
i&nbsp;"
+"możliwy do&nbsp;napisania. Ponadto, dlaczego <i>[zakłócenia 
na&nbsp;taśmie]</"
+"i> być z&nbsp;nim zgodny w&nbsp;szczegółach. Powód jest taki, że&nbsp;"
+"użytkownicy nie znoszą niezgodnych zmian. Jeśli po&nbsp;prostu "
+"zaprojektowałbym system w&nbsp;mój ulubiony sposób&nbsp;&ndash; co "
+"sprawiałoby mi mnóstwo przyjemności, jestem tego pewien&nbsp;&ndash; to "
+"stworzyłbym coś niezgodnego. No wiecie, szczegóły byłyby inne. 
Więc&nbsp;"
+"jeśli napisałbym ten system, użytkownicy powiedzieliby mi: &bdquo;No tak, "
+"jest bardzo fajny, ale&nbsp;niezgodny. Przestawienie się na&nbsp;niego "
+"będzie wymagało zbyt wiele pracy. Nie możemy sobie pozwolić na&nbsp;tyle "
+"pracy tylko po&nbsp;to, aby&nbsp;korzystać z&nbsp;twojego systemu zamiast "
+"z&nbsp;Uniksa, więc&nbsp;pozostaniemy przy Uniksie&rdquo;&nbsp;&ndash; tak "
+"by powiedzieli."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, if I wanted to actually create a community where there would be people "
+"in it, people using this free system, and enjoying the benefits of liberty "
+"and cooperation, I had to make a system people would use, a system that they "
+"would find easy to switch to, that would not have an obstacle making it fail "
+"at the very beginning.  Now, making the system upward compatible with Unix "
+"actually made all the immediate design decisions, because Unix consists of "
+"many pieces, and they communicate through interfaces that are more or less "
+"documented.  So if you want to be compatible with Unix, you have to replace "
+"each piece, one by one, with a compatible piece.  So the remaining design "
+"decisions are inside one piece, and they could be made later by whoever "
+"decides to write that piece.  They didn't have to be made at the outset."
+msgstr ""
+"Jeśli chciałem stworzyć społeczność, do&nbsp;której należeliby 
ludzie, "
+"ludzie korzystający z&nbsp;tego wolnego systemu i&nbsp;czerpiący korzyści "
+"z&nbsp;wolności oraz&nbsp;współpracy, to musiałem stworzyć system, 
którego "
+"ludzie by używali, system, na&nbsp;który łatwo byłoby się przestawić, 
który "
+"nie zawierałby przeszkody, z&nbsp;powodu której stałby się porażką 
na&nbsp;"
+"samym początku. Fakt, że&nbsp;system miał być zgodny w&nbsp;górę 
z&nbsp;"
+"Uniksem automatycznie podjął najpilniejsze decyzje projektowe, 
ponieważ&nbsp;"
+"Unix składa się z&nbsp;wielu kawałków, które komunikują się 
za&nbsp;pomocą "
+"w&nbsp;jakimś stopniu udokumentowanych interfejsów. Jeśli 
więc&nbsp;chcesz "
+"być zgodny z&nbsp;Uniksem, to musisz zastąpić każdy kawałek, jeden 
po&nbsp;"
+"drugim, innym zgodnym kawałkiem. Pozostałe decyzje projektowe dotyczą "
+"więc&nbsp;tylko poszczególnych kawałków i&nbsp;mogą zostać podjęte 
przez "
+"dowolną osobę, która zdecyduje się je napisać. Nie trzeba ich 
podejmować "
+"na&nbsp;samym początku."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So all we had to do to start work was find a name for the system.  Now, we "
+"hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program, because "
+"thinking of people being amused by the name is half the fun of writing the "
+"program.  <i>[Laughter]</i> And we had a tradition of recursive acronyms, to "
+"say that the program that you're writing is similar to some existing "
+"program. You can give it a recursive acronym name which says: this one's not "
+"the other.  So, for instance, there were many Tico text editors in the '60's "
+"and '70's, and they were generally called something-or-other Tico.  Then one "
+"clever hacker called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico &mdash; the first "
+"recursive acronym.  In 1975, I developed the first Emacs text editor, and "
+"there were many imitations of Emacs, and a lot of them were called something-"
+"or-other Emacs, but one was called Fine, for Fine Is Not Emacs, and there "
+"was Sine, for Sine Is Not Emacs, and Eine for Ina Is Not Emacs, and MINCE "
+"for Mince Is Not Complete Emacs.  <i>[Laughter]</i> That was a stripped down "
+"imitation.  And then, Eine was almost completely rewritten, and the new "
+"version was called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially.  <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Tak więc&nbsp;wszystko co pozostało wtedy do&nbsp;zrobienia przed "
+"rozpoczęciem pracy to wymyślenie nazwy. My hakerzy zawsze staramy się "
+"wymyślić dla programu jakąś śmieszną lub&nbsp;dwuznaczną nazwę, 
bo&nbsp;"
+"myśl, że&nbsp;ludziom będzie się podobać nazwa stanowi połowę radości 
z&nbsp;"
+"napisania programu. <i>[śmiech]</i> Mieliśmy tradycję rekursywnych "
+"akronimów, które wskazywały, że&nbsp;program, który właśnie piszesz 
jest "
+"podobny do&nbsp;jakiegoś już istniejącego. Możesz nadać mu nazwę 
w&nbsp;"
+"postaci rekursywnego akronimu, który mówi: ten program nie jest tym innym. "
+"Na&nbsp;przykład w&nbsp;latach 60. i&nbsp;70. istniało wiele edytorów Tico 
"
+"i&nbsp;w zasadzie wszystkie nazywały się jakieś-tam Tico. Aż jakiś 
bystry "
+"haker nazwał swoją wersję Tint, bo&nbsp;&bdquo;TInt to Nie Tico&rdquo; "
+"[<em>Tint Is Not Tico</em>]&nbsp;&ndash; był to pierwszy rekursywny akronim. 
"
+"W&nbsp;roku 1975 stworzyłem pierwszy edytor tekstu Emacs, powstało wiele "
+"jego imitacji i&nbsp;większość z&nbsp;nich nazywała się jakiś-tam 
Emacs, "
+"jednak&nbsp;jedna miała nazwę Fine, ponieważ&nbsp;&bdquo;FIne to Nie "
+"Emacs&rdquo; [<em>Fine Is Not Emacs</em>], był też Sine, 
bo&nbsp;&bdquo;SIne "
+"to Nie Emacs&rdquo; [<em>Sine Is Not Emacs</em>] oraz&nbsp;Eine, bo&nbsp;"
+"&bdquo;Ina to Nie Emacs&rdquo; [<em>Ina Is Not Emacs</em>], aż wreszcie "
+"MINCE, bo&nbsp;&bdquo;MINCe to niekompletny Emacs&rdquo; [<em>Mince Is Not "
+"Complete Emacs</em>]. <i>[śmiech]</i> Była to okrojona imitacja. Potem Eine 
"
+"został napisany prawie zupełnie od&nbsp;nowa, a&nbsp;nowa wersja została "
+"nazwana Zwei, bo&nbsp;„ZWei na&nbsp;początku nazywało się EIne” 
[<em>Zwei "
+"Was Eine Initially</em>]. <i>[śmiech]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So I looked for a recursive acronym for Something is not Unix.  And I tried "
+"all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word.  <i>[Laughter]</"
+"i> Hmm, try another way.  I made a contraction.  That way I could have a "
+"three-letter acronym, for Something's not Unix.  And I tried letters, and I "
+"came across the word &ldquo;GNU&rdquo; &mdash; the word &ldquo;GNU&rdquo; is "
+"the funniest word in the English language.  <i>[Laughter]</i> That was it.  "
+"Of course, the reason it's funny is that according to the dictionary, it's "
+"pronounced &ldquo;new&rdquo;.  You see? And so that's why people use it for "
+"a lot of wordplay.  Let me tell you, this is the name of an animal that "
+"lives in Africa.  And the African pronunciation had a click sound in it.  <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i> Maybe still does.  And so, the European colonists, when they "
+"got there, they didn't bother learning to say this click sound.  So they "
+"just left it out, and they wrote a &ldquo;G&rdquo; which meant &ldquo;"
+"there's another sound that's supposed to be here which we are not "
+"pronouncing.&rdquo; <i>[Laughter]</i> So, tonight I'm leaving for South "
+"Africa, and I have begged them, I hope they're going to find somebody who "
+"can teach me to pronounce click sounds, <i>[Laughter]</i> so that I'll know "
+"how to pronounce GNU the correct way, when it's the animal."
+msgstr ""
+"Szukałem więc&nbsp;rekursywnego akronimu na&nbsp;&bdquo;Coś to nie "
+"Unix&rdquo;. Wypróbowałem wszystkie 26 liter i&nbsp;odkryłem, 
że&nbsp;żadna "
+"z&nbsp;nich nie jest słowem. <i>[śmiech]</i> Hmm, spróbujmy inaczej. "
+"Stworzyłem formę skróconą. W&nbsp;ten sposób mogłem wymyślić 
trzyliterowy "
+"akronim na&nbsp;&bdquo;Coś to nie Unix&rdquo;. Próbowałem z&nbsp;literami "
+"i&nbsp;natrafiłem na&nbsp;słowo &bdquo;GNU&rdquo;&nbsp;&ndash; &bdquo;"
+"GNU&rdquo; to najzabawniejsze słowo w&nbsp;języku angielskim. 
<i>[śmiech]</"
+"i> To było to. Oczywiście, powód dla którego jest to zabawne jest taki, "
+"że&nbsp;według słownika czyta się je tak samo jak &bdquo;new&rdquo; "
+"[<em>ang. nowe</em>]. Rozumiecie? Dlatego&nbsp;właśnie ludzie korzystają "
+"z&nbsp;niego w&nbsp;różnych żartach językowych. Wyjaśnię, że&nbsp;jest 
to "
+"nazwa zwierzęcia żyjącego w&nbsp;Afryce. Afrykańska wymowa zawierała 
w&nbsp;"
+"sobie mlask [<em>fon. rodzaj głoski</em>]. <i>[śmiech]</i> Może nadal tak "
+"jest. Gdy dotarli tam europejscy kolonizatorzy, to nie trudzili się uczeniem 
"
+"tego dźwięku. Po&nbsp;prostu go omijali i&nbsp;pisali &bdquo;G&rdquo;, 
które "
+"oznaczało &bdquo;istnieje pewien dźwięk, który powinien tu być i&nbsp;"
+"którego nie wymawiamy&rdquo;. <i>[śmiech]</i> Dziś wieczorem lecę 
do&nbsp;"
+"RPA i&nbsp;błagałem ich, mam nadzieję, że&nbsp;znajdą kogoś, kto nauczy 
mnie "
+"wymawiać mlaski, <i>[śmiech]</i> żebym wiedział jak prawidłowo wymawiać 
GNU, "
+"gdy odnosi się do&nbsp;zwierzęcia."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is &ldquo;"
+"guh-NEW&rdquo; &mdash; pronounce the hard &ldquo;G&rdquo;.  If you talk "
+"about the &ldquo;new&rdquo; operating system, you'll get people very "
+"confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years now, so it is not "
+"new any more.  <i>[Laughter]</i> But it still is, and always will be, GNU "
+"&mdash; no matter how many people call it Linux by mistake.  <i>[Laughter]</"
+"i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Jednak&nbsp;gdy chodzi o nazwę naszego systemu, prawidłowa wymowa to 
&bdquo;"
+"g-NU&rdquo;&nbsp;&ndash; wymawiamy &bdquo;G&rdquo;. Jeśli mówicie o &bdquo;"
+"nowym&rdquo; [<em>am. ang. /NU/</em>] systemie operacyjnym, to ludzie nie "
+"będą wiedzieli o co chodzi, bo&nbsp;pracujemy nad&nbsp;nim od&nbsp;17 lat, "
+"więc&nbsp;nie jest już nowy. <i>[śmiech]</i> Ale&nbsp;cały czas jest to, "
+"i&nbsp;zawsze będzie, GNU&nbsp;&ndash; nieważne ilu ludzi nazwie go przez "
+"pomyłkę Linuksem. <i>[śmiech]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces of GNU.  "
+"They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities though.  And, at "
+"the time, I thought we would write all these pieces, and make an entire GNU "
+"system, and then we'd say, &ldquo;Come and get it&rdquo;, and people would "
+"start to use it.  That's not what happened.  The first pieces I wrote were "
+"just equally good replacements, with fewer bugs for some pieces of Unix, but "
+"they weren't tremendously exciting.  Nobody particularly wanted to get them "
+"and install them.  But then, in September 1984, I started writing GNU Emacs, "
+"which was my second implementation of Emacs, and by early 1985, it was "
+"working.  I could use it for all my editing, which was a big relief, because "
+"I had no intention of learning to use VI, the Unix editor. <i>[Laughter]</i> "
+"So, until that time, I did my editing on some other machine, and saved the "
+"files through the network, so that I could test them.  But when GNU Emacs "
+"was running well enough for me to use it, it was also &mdash; other people "
+"wanted to use it too."
+msgstr ""
+"Tak więc&nbsp;w styczniu 1984 odszedłem z&nbsp;MIT, żeby zacząć pisać "
+"kawałki GNU. MIT było jednak&nbsp;na tyle miłe, że&nbsp;mogłem 
korzystać "
+"z&nbsp;ich sprzętu. Myślałem wtedy, że&nbsp;napiszemy wszystkie te 
kawałki "
+"i&nbsp;stworzymy cały system GNU, a&nbsp;potem powiemy: &bdquo;Chodźcie "
+"i&nbsp;go sobie weźcie&rdquo;, a&nbsp;ludzie zaczną go używać. Tak się 
nie "
+"stało. Pierwsze kawałki, które napisałem, były tak samo dobre jak 
uniksowe "
+"oryginały, które miały zastąpić, w&nbsp;niektórych przypadkach z&nbsp;"
+"mniejszą ilością błędów, ale&nbsp;nie były zbyt ekscytujące. Nikt 
specjalnie "
+"nie chciał ich zdobyć i&nbsp;zainstalować. Ale&nbsp;potem, we wrześniu 
1984, "
+"zacząłem pisać GNU Emacs, który był moją drugą implementacją Emacsa, 
a&nbsp;"
+"na początku roku 1985 zaczął on działać. Mogłem go używać 
do&nbsp;wszystkich "
+"zadań wymagających edycji tekstu, co było dużą ulgą, bo&nbsp;nie 
miałem "
+"zamiaru uczyć się VI, Uniksowego edytora. <em>[śmiech]</em> Do&nbsp;tego "
+"czasu edycję tekstu wykonywałem na&nbsp;jakimś innym komputerze i&nbsp;"
+"zapisywałem pliki przez sieć, aby&nbsp;móc je przetestować. 
Lecz&nbsp;potem "
+"GNU Emacs działał wystarczająco dobrze, bym mógł go używać, 
ponadto&nbsp;"
+"&ndash; inni ludzie też chcieli go używać."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So I had to work out the details of distribution.  Of course, I put a copy "
+"in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people who were on the "
+"net They could then just pull over a tar file, but a lot of programmers then "
+"even were not on the net in 1985.  They were sending me emails saying &ldquo;"
+"How can I get a copy?&rdquo; I had to decide what I would answer them.  "
+"Well, I could have said, I want to spend my time writing more GNU software, "
+"not writing tapes, so please find a friend who's on the internet and who is "
+"willing to download it and put it on a tape for you.  And I'm sure people "
+"would have found some friends, sooner or later, you know.  They would have "
+"got copies.  But I had no job.  In fact, I've never had a job since quitting "
+"MIT in January 1984.  So, I was looking for some way I could make money "
+"through my work on free software, and therefore I started a free software "
+"business.  I announced, &ldquo;Send me $150 dollars, and I'll mail you a "
+"tape of Emacs.&rdquo; And the orders began dribbling in.  By the middle of "
+"the year they were trickling in."
+msgstr ""
+"Więc&nbsp;musiałem wymyślić sposób dystrybucji. Umieściłem oczywiście 
kopię "
+"w&nbsp;katalogu na&nbsp;anonimowym serwerze FTP i&nbsp;było to wystarczają
ce "
+"dla ludzi korzystających z&nbsp;sieci. Mogli po&nbsp;prostu ściągnąć 
plik "
+"tar, ale&nbsp;wtedy, w&nbsp;1985, wielu programistów nie miało nawet 
dostępu "
+"do&nbsp;sieci. Pisali do&nbsp;mnie emaile z&nbsp;pytaniem: &bdquo;W jaki "
+"sposób mogę zdobyć kopię?&rdquo;. Musiałem zdecydować, co im odpowiem. 
Cóż, "
+"mogłem powiedzieć, że&nbsp;chcę spędzać czas na&nbsp;pisaniu większej 
ilości "
+"oprogramowania GNU, a&nbsp;nie zapisywaniu taśm, więc&nbsp;znajdźcie "
+"znajomych, którzy mają dostęp do&nbsp;sieci i&nbsp;będą chcieli ścią
gnąć "
+"kopię, oraz&nbsp;nagrać ją dla was na&nbsp;taśmie. Jestem pewien, 
że&nbsp;"
+"prędzej czy&nbsp;później ludzie znaleźliby sobie takich znajomych. 
Zdobyliby "
+"kopie. Ale&nbsp;ja nie miałem pracy. Tak naprawdę to nigdy nie miałem 
pracy "
+"od&nbsp;kiedy opuściłem MIT w&nbsp;styczniu 1984. Szukałem więc&nbsp;"
+"jakiegoś sposobu na&nbsp;zarabianie poprzez&nbsp;pisanie wolnego "
+"oprogramowania i&nbsp;dlatego założyłem firmę zajmującą się wolnym "
+"oprogramowaniem. Ogłaszałem: &bdquo;Prześlijcie mi 150$, a&nbsp;ja wam 
wyślę "
+"taśmę z&nbsp;Emacsem&rdquo;. No i&nbsp;zaczęły skapywać pierwsze 
zamówienia. "
+"W&nbsp;połowie roku skapywało ich już coraz więcej."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month.  And, if necessary, I could have lived "
+"on just that, because I've always lived cheaply. I live like a student, "
+"basically.  And I like that, because it means that money is not telling me "
+"what to do.  I can do what I think is important for me to do.  It freed me "
+"to do what seemed worth doing.  So make a real effort to avoid getting "
+"sucked into all the expensive lifestyle habits of typical Americans.  "
+"Because if you do that, then people with the money will dictate what you do "
+"with your life.  You won't be able to do what's really important to you."
+msgstr ""
+"Otrzymywałem od&nbsp;8 do&nbsp;10 zamówień na&nbsp;miesiąc. Jeśli było 
to "
+"konieczne, to mogłem wyżyć wyłącznie z&nbsp;tego, bo&nbsp;zawsze żyłem 
"
+"oszczędnie. Ogólnie rzecz biorąc żyję jak student. I&nbsp;lubię to, 
bo&nbsp;"
+"pieniądze nie mówią mi, co mam robić. Mogę robić to, co uważam 
za&nbsp;ważne "
+"dla mnie. Dało mi to wolność do&nbsp;robienia tego, co wydawało się 
warte "
+"zrobienia. Więc&nbsp;naprawdę postarajcie się uniknąć wciągnięcia we "
+"wszystkie drogie nawyki życiowe typowych Amerykanów. Bo&nbsp;jeśli się to 
"
+"stanie, ludzie z&nbsp;pieniędzmi będą wam mówić, co macie zrobić ze 
swoim "
+"życiem. Nie będziecie mogli robić tego, co dla was naprawdę ważne."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, &ldquo;What do you mean it's "
+"free software if it costs $150 dollars?&rdquo; <i>[Laughter]</i> Well, the "
+"reason they asked this was that they were confused by the multiple meanings "
+"of the English word &ldquo;free&rdquo;.  One meaning refers to price, and "
+"another meaning refers to freedom.  When I speak of free software, I'm "
+"referring to freedom, not price.  So think of free speech, not free beer.  "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i> Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many years of my life to "
+"making sure programmers got less money.  That's not my goal.  I'm a "
+"programmer and I don't mind getting money myself.  I won't dedicate my whole "
+"life to getting it, but I don't mind getting it.  And I'm not &mdash; and "
+"therefore, ethics is the same for everyone.  I'm not against some other "
+"programmer getting money either.  I don't want prices to be low.  That's not "
+"the issue at all.  The issue is freedom.  Freedom for everyone who's using "
+"software, whether that person be a programmer or not."
+msgstr ""
+"Więc&nbsp;było OK, ale&nbsp;ludzie pytali mnie: &bdquo;Co to 
za&nbsp;darmowe "
+"[<em>ang. free oznacza darmowe lub&nbsp;wolne</em>] oprogramowanie, które "
+"kosztuje 150$?&rdquo; <i>[śmiech]</i> Cóż, pytali dlatego, że&nbsp;"
+"angielskie słowo &bdquo;free&rdquo; ma wiele znaczeń. Jedno z&nbsp;nich "
+"odnosi się do&nbsp;ceny, a&nbsp;drugie do&nbsp;wolności. Gdy mówię o 
&bdquo;"
+"free software&rdquo;, mam na&nbsp;myśli wolność, a&nbsp;nie cenę. 
Myślcie o "
+"wolności słowa, a&nbsp;nie darmowym piwie. <i>[śmiech]</i> Nie 
poświęciłbym "
+"tylu lat mojego życia na&nbsp;staranie się, by programiści zarabiali mniej 
"
+"pieniędzy. To nie jest mój cel. Jestem programistą i&nbsp;nie mam nic "
+"przeciwko zarabianiu pieniędzy. Nie poświęcę na&nbsp;to całego życia, "
+"ale&nbsp;nie mam nic przeciwko zarabianiu. I&nbsp;nie jestem&nbsp;&ndash; "
+"i&nbsp;dlatego, etyka jest dla wszystkich taka sama. Nie mam również nic "
+"przeciwko, żeby jakiś inny programista zarabiał pieniądze. Nie chcę, by 
ceny "
+"były niskie. To wcale nie o to chodzi. Chodzi o wolność. Wolność dla "
+"wszystkich użytkowników oprogramowania, czy&nbsp;są programistami, 
czy&nbsp;"
+"też nie."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So at this point I should give you the definition of free software.  I "
+"better get to some real details, you see, because just saying &ldquo;I "
+"believe in freedom&rdquo; is vacuous.  There's so many different freedoms "
+"you could believe in, and they conflict with each other, so the real "
+"political question is: Which are the important freedoms, the freedoms that "
+"we must make sure everybody has?"
+msgstr ""
+"Teraz powinienem podać wam definicję wolnego oprogramowania. Lepiej 
przejdę "
+"do&nbsp;konkretów, bo&nbsp;samo mówienie &bdquo;wierzę 
w&nbsp;wolność&rdquo; "
+"jest puste. Jest tyle wolności, w&nbsp;które można wierzyć i&nbsp;są one 
ze "
+"sobą sprzeczne, więc&nbsp;prawdziwe polityczne pytanie brzmi: &bdquo;Jakie "
+"są ważne wolności&nbsp;&ndash; wolności, które powinniśmy wszystkim 
zapewnić?"
+"&rdquo;"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And now, I will give my answer to that question for the particular area of "
+"using software.  A program is free software for you, a particular user, if "
+"you have the following freedoms:"
+msgstr ""
+"Podam wam teraz moją odpowiedź na&nbsp;to pytanie z&nbsp;punktu widzenia "
+"korzystania z&nbsp;programów komputerowych. Programy są dla was, 
konkretnych "
+"użytkowników, wolnym oprogramowaniem, jeśli macie następujące wolności:"
+
+#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
+msgid ""
+"First, Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the program for any purpose, any "
+"way you like."
+msgstr ""
+"Po&nbsp;pierwsze, Wolność 0, czyli&nbsp;wolność do&nbsp;wykorzystywania "
+"programu do&nbsp;dowolnego celu i&nbsp;w dowolny sposób."
+
+#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the program to suit "
+"your needs."
+msgstr ""
+"Wolność 1 to wolność pozwalająca na&nbsp;ułatwianie sobie życia przez "
+"wprowadzanie zmian do&nbsp;programu, aby&nbsp;dostosować go do&nbsp;swoich "
+"potrzeb."
+
+#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing copies of "
+"the program."
+msgstr ""
+"Wolność 2 to wolność do&nbsp;pomagania swoim bliźnim przez dystrybucję 
kopii "
+"programu."
+
+#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
+msgid ""
+"And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by publishing "
+"an improved version so others can get the benefit of your work."
+msgstr ""
+"Natomiast&nbsp;Wolność 3 pozwala na&nbsp;wspieranie rozwoju własnej "
+"społeczności poprzez&nbsp;publikowanie ulepszonych wersji, tak 
aby&nbsp;inni "
+"mogli skorzystać z&nbsp;waszej pracy."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software, for you "
+"&mdash; and that's crucial.  That's why I phrase it that way.  I'll explain "
+"why later, when I talk about the GNU General Public License, but right now "
+"I'm explaining what free software means, which is a more basic question."
+msgstr ""
+"Jeśli macie wszystkie te wolności, to program jest wolnym oprogramowaniem, "
+"dla was&nbsp;&ndash; i&nbsp;to jest ważne. Dlatego&nbsp;w taki sposób "
+"ułożyłem zdanie. Wyjaśnię później dlaczego, gdy będę mówił o GPL, 
teraz "
+"wyjaśniam co to jest wolne oprogramowanie, a&nbsp;to jest bardziej "
+"podstawową kwestią."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, Freedom Zero's pretty obvious.  If you're not even allowed to run the "
+"program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive program.  But as it "
+"happens, most programs will at least give you Freedom Zero.  And Freedom "
+"Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of Freedoms One, Two, and Three "
+"&mdash; that's the way that copyright law works.  So the freedoms that "
+"distinguish free software from typical software are Freedoms One, Two, and "
+"Three, so I'll say more about them and why they are important."
+msgstr ""
+"Wolność 0 jest dość oczywista. Jeśli nie możecie nawet korzystać 
z&nbsp;"
+"programu w&nbsp;dowolny sposób, to jest on cholernie restrykcyjny. "
+"Jednak&nbsp;w praktyce większość programów daje wam przynajmniej 
Wolność 0. "
+"A&nbsp;Wolność 0 wynika, w&nbsp;prawniczym sensie, z&nbsp;Wolności 1, 2 "
+"oraz&nbsp;3&nbsp;&ndash; w&nbsp;taki sposób działa prawo autorskie. Tak "
+"więc&nbsp;wolności odróżniające wolne programy od&nbsp;typowych to 
Wolności "
+"1, 2 i&nbsp;3, dlatego&nbsp;powiem o nich więcej i&nbsp;wyjaśnię, dlaczego 
"
+"są ważne."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the software to suit "
+"your needs.  This could mean fixing bugs.  It could mean adding new "
+"features.  It could mean porting it to a different computer system.  It "
+"could mean translating all the error messages into Navajo.  Any change you "
+"want to make, you should be free to make."
+msgstr ""
+"Wolność 1 to wolność pozwalająca na&nbsp;ułatwienie sobie życia przez "
+"wprowadzanie zmian do&nbsp;programu, aby&nbsp;dostosować go do&nbsp;swoich "
+"potrzeb. Może to oznaczać naprawianie błędów. Może to oznaczać 
dodawanie "
+"nowych funkcjonalności. Może to oznaczać przeniesienie go na&nbsp;inną "
+"platformę. Może oznaczać przetłumaczenie wszystkich komunikatów 
błędów "
+"na&nbsp;język Indian Navajo. Powinniście móc wprowadzić każdą zmianę, "
+"na&nbsp;którą macie ochotę."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, it's obvious that professional programmers can make use of this freedom "
+"very effectively, but not just them.  Anybody of reasonable intelligence can "
+"learn a little programming.  You know, there are hard jobs, and there are "
+"easy jobs, and most people are not going to learn enough to do hard jobs.  "
+"But lots of people can learn enough to do easy jobs, just the way, you know, "
+"50 years ago, lots and lots of American men learned to repair cars, which is "
+"what enabled the U.S. to have a motorized army in World War II and win.  So, "
+"very important, having lots of people tinkering."
+msgstr ""
+"Oczywiste jest, że&nbsp;zawodowi programiści mogą bardzo efektywnie "
+"wykorzystywać tę wolność, ale&nbsp;nie tylko oni. Każda przeciętnie "
+"inteligentna osoba może nauczyć się trochę programować. No wiecie, są 
trudne "
+"zadania i&nbsp;łatwe zadania, większość ludzi nie nauczy się wystarczają
co "
+"dużo, żeby sprostać tym trudnym. Ale&nbsp;mnóstwo ludzi może się 
nauczyć "
+"wystarczająco dużo, aby&nbsp;wykonywać proste zadania, tak samo jak 50 lat 
"
+"temu tysiące Amerykanów nauczyło się naprawiać samochody, co pozwoliło 
USA "
+"mieć w&nbsp;czasie II wojny światowej zmotoryzowaną armię i&nbsp;wygrać. 
"
+"Więc&nbsp;bardzo ważne jest, aby&nbsp;wiele osób przy tym dłubało."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And if you are a people person, and you really don't want to learn "
+"technology at all, that probably means that you have a lot of friends, and "
+"you're good at getting them to owe you favors.  <i>[Laughter]</i> Some of "
+"them are probably programmers.  So you can ask one of your programmer "
+"friends. &ldquo;Would you please change this for me? Add this feature?"
+"&rdquo; So, lots of people can benefit from it."
+msgstr ""
+"A&nbsp;jeśli wolicie towarzystwo ludzi i&nbsp;naprawdę nie chcecie niczego "
+"się nauczyć o technologii, to pewno znaczy, że&nbsp;macie mnóstwo 
przyjaciół "
+"i&nbsp;jesteście nieźli w&nbsp;doprowadzaniu do&nbsp;sytuacji, w&nbsp;"
+"których są oni wam winni przysługę. <i>[śmiech]</i> Niektórzy 
z&nbsp;nich to "
+"być może programiści. Możecie więc&nbsp;poprosić jednego z&nbsp;waszych 
"
+"przyjaciół programistów: &bdquo;Czy mógłbyś to dla mnie zmienić? 
Dodać tę "
+"funkcję?&rdquo; Tak więc&nbsp;może na&nbsp;tym skorzystać mnóstwo ludzi."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, if you don't have this freedom, it causes practical, material harm to "
+"society.  It makes you a prisoner of your software.  I explained what that "
+"was like with regard to the laser printer.  You know, it worked badly for "
+"us, and we couldn't fix it, because we were prisoners of our software."
+msgstr ""
+"Gdy nie macie tej wolności, skutkiem jest namacalna, materialna szkoda dla "
+"społeczeństwa. Czyni was to więźniami własnego oprogramowania. 
Wyjaśniałem "
+"już jakie to uczucie na&nbsp;przykładzie drukarki laserowej. Pracowała 
źle "
+"i&nbsp;nie mogliśmy jej naprawić, bo&nbsp;byliśmy więźniami naszego "
+"oprogramowania."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But it also affects people's morale.  You know if the computer is constantly "
+"frustrating to use, and people are using it, their lives are going to be "
+"frustrating, and if they're using it in their jobs, their jobs are going to "
+"be frustrating; they're going to hate their jobs.  And you know, people "
+"protect themselves from frustration by deciding not to care.  So you end up "
+"with people whose attitude is, &ldquo;Well, I showed up for work today.  "
+"That's all I have to do.  If I can't make progress, that's not my problem; "
+"that's the boss's problem.&rdquo; And when this happens, it's bad for those "
+"people, and it's bad for society as a whole.  That's Freedom One, the "
+"freedom to help yourself."
+msgstr ""
+"Ale&nbsp;dotyczy to także ludzkiego morale. Jeśli korzystanie z&nbsp;"
+"komputera budzi frustrację, a&nbsp;ludzie z&nbsp;niego korzystają, to ich "
+"życie stanie się frustrujące, a&nbsp;jeśli korzystają z&nbsp;niego 
w&nbsp;"
+"pracy, to ich praca stanie się frustrująca — zaczną nienawidzić swojej "
+"pracy. Ludzie chronią się przed frustracją mając wszystko w&nbsp;nosie. 
Ich "
+"podejście zaczyna się sprowadzać do: &bdquo;No tak, przyszedłem dziś 
do&nbsp;"
+"pracy. To wszystko, co muszę zrobić. Jeśli nie robię żadnych postępów, 
to "
+"nie mój problem; to problem szefa&rdquo;. Taka sytuacja jest zła dla tych "
+"ludzi i&nbsp;dla całości społeczeństwa. To była Wolność 1, wolność "
+"pozwalająca na&nbsp;ułatwianie sobie życia."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing copies of "
+"the program.  Now, for beings that can think and learn, sharing useful "
+"knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship.  When these beings use "
+"computers, this act of friendship takes the form of sharing software.  "
+"Friends share with each other.  Friends help each other.  This is the nature "
+"of friendship.  And, in fact, this spirit of goodwill &mdash; the spirit of "
+"helping your neighbor, voluntarily &mdash; is society's most important "
+"resource.  It makes the difference between a livable society and a dog-eat-"
+"dog jungle.  Its importance has been recognized by the world's major "
+"religions for thousands of years, and they explicitly try to encourage this "
+"attitude."
+msgstr ""
+"Wolność 2 to wolność do&nbsp;pomagania swoim bliźnim przez dystrybucję 
kopii "
+"programu. Dla istot zdolnych do&nbsp;myślenia i&nbsp;nauki dzielenie się "
+"użyteczną wiedzą jest fundamentalnym przejawem przyjaźni. Gdy te istoty "
+"korzystają z&nbsp;komputerów, ten przejaw przyjaźni przyjmuje formę "
+"dzielenia się oprogramowaniem. Przyjaciele się dzielą. Przyjaciele sobie "
+"pomagają. Taka jest natura przyjaźni. Tak naprawdę ten duch dobrej 
woli&nbsp;"
+"&ndash; duch pomagania bliźnim bez&nbsp;przymusu&nbsp;&ndash; stanowi "
+"najważniejsze dobro społeczeństwa. Stanowi on o różnicy pomiędzy "
+"społeczeństwem, w&nbsp;którym da się żyć, a&nbsp;dżunglą, 
w&nbsp;której "
+"wszyscy pożerają się nawzajem. Jego wagę dostrzegają od&nbsp;tysięcy 
lat "
+"największe religie świata i&nbsp;wprost starają się popierać taką 
postawę."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach us this "
+"attitude &mdash; the spirit of sharing &mdash; by having us do it.  They "
+"figured if we did it, we'd learn.  So they said, &ldquo;If you bring candy "
+"to school, you can't keep it all for yourself; you have to share some with "
+"the other kids.&rdquo; Teaching us, the society was set up to teach, this "
+"spirit of cooperation.  And why do you have to do that? Because people are "
+"not totally cooperative.  That's one part of human nature, and there are "
+"other parts of human nature.  There are lots of parts of human nature.  So, "
+"if you want a better society, you've got to work to encourage the spirit of "
+"sharing.  You know, it'll never get to be 100%.  That's understandable.  "
+"People have to take care of themselves too.  But if we make it somewhat "
+"bigger, we're all better off."
+msgstr ""
+"Gdy chodziłem do&nbsp;przedszkola, nasi opiekunowie starali się nas 
nauczyć "
+"takiej postawy&nbsp;&ndash; ducha dzielenia się&nbsp;&ndash; każąc nam 
się "
+"dzielić. Doszli do&nbsp;wniosku, że&nbsp;jak będziemy tak robić, to się 
tego "
+"nauczymy. Więc&nbsp;mówili nam: &bdquo;Jeśli przyniesiecie do&nbsp;szkoły 
"
+"cukierki, nie możecie po&nbsp;prostu zatrzymać wszystkich dla siebie, "
+"musicie częścią podzielić się z&nbsp;innymi dziećmi&rdquo;. Uczyli nas, 
"
+"społeczeństwo zostało powołane do&nbsp;uczenia, takiego ducha 
współpracy. "
+"Dlaczego trzeba robić takie rzeczy? Bo&nbsp;ludzie nie są w&nbsp;pełni "
+"współpracujący. To jedna część ludzkiej natury i&nbsp;są inne jej 
części. "
+"Jest wiele części ludzkiej natury. Więc&nbsp;jeśli chcecie mieć lepsze "
+"społeczeństwo, musicie pracować na&nbsp;rzecz ducha dzielenia się. To 
nigdy "
+"nie będzie 100%. To zrozumiałe. Ludzie muszą zadbać też o samych siebie. 
"
+"Ale&nbsp;jeśli choć&nbsp;trochę go wzmocnimy, to wszyscy na&nbsp;tym "
+"skorzystamy."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Nowadays, according to the U.S. Government, teachers are supposed to do the "
+"exact opposite.  &ldquo;Oh, Johnny, you brought software to school.  Well, "
+"don't share it.  Oh no.  Sharing is wrong.  Sharing means you're a pirate."
+"&rdquo;"
+msgstr ""
+"Obecnie, według rządu USA, nauczyciele mają robić coś zupełnie 
odwrotnego. "
+"&bdquo;O, Johnny, przyniosłeś do&nbsp;szkoły program. No cóż, nie dziel 
się "
+"nim z&nbsp;nikim. O, nie. Dzielenie się jest złe. Dzielenie się czyni cię 
"
+"piratem&rdquo;."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"What do they mean when they say &ldquo;pirate&rdquo;? They're saying that "
+"helping your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship.  <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Co mają na&nbsp;myśli, gdy mówią „pirat”? Mają na&nbsp;myśli, 
że&nbsp;"
+"pomaganie bliźnim jest moralnie równoważne z&nbsp;atakowaniem statku. <i>"
+"[śmiech]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"What would Buddha or Jesus say about that? Now, take your favorite religious "
+"leader.  I don't know, maybe Manson would have said something different.  <i>"
+"[Laughter]</i> Who knows what L. Ron Hubbard would say? But &hellip;"
+msgstr ""
+"Co by na&nbsp;to powiedzieli Budda lub&nbsp;Jezus? Wybierzcie sobie "
+"ulubionego przywódcę religijnego. Nie wiem, może Manson powiedziałby coś 
"
+"innego. <i>[śmiech]</i> Kto wie co powiedziałby L. Ron Hubbard? Ale&hellip;"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i>"
+msgstr "<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: <i>[niewyraźne]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Of course, he's dead.  But they don't admit "
+"that.  What?"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oczywiście, on nie żyje. Ale&nbsp;oni tego nie "
+"uznają. Słucham?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: So are the others, also dead.  <i>[Laughter] "
+"[Inaudible]</i> Charles Manson's also dead.  <i>[Laughter]</i> They're dead, "
+"Jesus's dead, Buddha's dead&hellip;"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Inni tak samo, również nie żyją. <i>[śmiech] "
+"[niewyraźne]</i> Charles Manson też nie żyje. <i>[śmiech]</i> Nie żyją, 
"
+"Jezus nie żyje, Budda nie żyje&hellip;"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, that's true.  <i>[Laughter]</i> So I guess, "
+"in that regard, L. Ron Hubbard is no worse than the others.  <i>[Laughter]</"
+"i> Anyway &mdash; <i>[Inaudible]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tak, to prawda. <i>[śmiech]</i> No to chyba, "
+"patrząc na&nbsp;to z&nbsp;tej strony, L. Ron Hubbard nie jest gorszy niż "
+"pozostali. <i>[śmiech]</i> Tak czy&nbsp;inaczej&nbsp;&ndash; 
<i>[niewyraźne]"
+"</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: L. Ron always used free software &mdash; it freed "
+"him from Zanu.  <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: L. Ron zawsze używał wolnego oprogramowania — "
+"wyzwoliło go od&nbsp;Zanu. <i>[śmiech]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Anyway, so, I think this is actually the most "
+"important reason why software should be free: We can't afford to pollute "
+"society's most important resource.  It's true that it's not a physical "
+"resource like clean air and clean water.  It's a psycho-social resource, but "
+"it's just as real for all that, and it makes a tremendous difference to our "
+"lives.  You see, the actions we take influence the thoughts of other "
+"people.  When we go around telling people, &ldquo;Don't share with each "
+"other&rdquo;, if they listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's "
+"not a good one.  That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Tak czy&nbsp;inaczej, uważam, że&nbsp;tak "
+"naprawdę to jest najważniejszy powód, dla którego oprogramowanie powinno 
być "
+"wolne: nie możemy sobie pozwolić na&nbsp;zatruwanie najważniejszego dobra "
+"posiadanego przez społeczeństwo. Oczywiście nie jest to dobro materialne, "
+"takie jak czyste powietrze i&nbsp;czysta woda. Jest to dobro "
+"psychospołeczne, ale&nbsp;równie rzeczywiste i&nbsp;ma wielkie znaczenie 
dla "
+"życia nas wszystkich. Działania, jakie podejmujemy, mają wpływ 
na&nbsp;myśli "
+"innych ludzi. Jeśli chodzimy i&nbsp;mówimy wszystkim dookoła: &bdquo;Nie "
+"dzielcie się niczym ze sobą&rdquo;, to jeśli nas posłuchają, będziemy 
mieli "
+"wpływ na&nbsp;społeczeństwo, i&nbsp;to niedobry. To była Wolność 2, 
wolność "
+"do&nbsp;pomagania swoim bliźnim."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just cause "
+"this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes waste &mdash; "
+"practical, material harm.  If the program has an owner, and the owner "
+"arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay in order to be able "
+"to use it, some people are going to say, &ldquo;Never mind, I'll do without "
+"it.&rdquo; And that's waste, deliberately inflicted waste.  And the "
+"interesting thing about software, of course, is that fewer users doesn't "
+"mean you have to make less stuff.  You know, if fewer people buy cars, you "
+"can make fewer cars.  There's a saving there.  There are resources to be "
+"allocated, or not allocated, into making cars.  So that you can say that "
+"having a price on a car is a good thing.  It prevents people from diverting "
+"lots of wasted resources into making cars that aren't really needed.  But if "
+"each additional car used no resources, it wouldn't be doing any good saving "
+"the making of these cars.  Well, for physical objects, of course, like cars, "
+"it is always going to take resources to make an additional one of them, each "
+"additional exemplar."
+msgstr ""
+"A&nbsp;tak przy okazji, brak tej wolności nie wywołuje tylko wspomnianej "
+"szkody dla psychospołecznych dóbr społeczeństwa, ale&nbsp;również "
+"marnotrawstwo, czyli&nbsp;szkodę praktyczną, materialną. Jeśli program ma 
"
+"właściciela, a&nbsp;ten ustawi wszystko w&nbsp;taki sposób, żeby każdy "
+"musiał płacić za&nbsp;używanie programu, to niektórzy powiedzą: &bdquo;"
+"Nieważne, poradzę sobie bez&nbsp;tego&rdquo;. A&nbsp;to jest marnotrawstwo, 
"
+"spowodowane z&nbsp;premedytacją marnotrawstwo. Interesujące 
w&nbsp;przypadku "
+"oprogramowania jest oczywiście to, że&nbsp;mniejsza ilość użytkowników 
nie "
+"oznacza konieczności zmniejszenia produkcji. No wiecie, jeśli mniejsza 
ilość "
+"ludzi kupuje samochody, to można produkować ich mniej. Oznacza to "
+"oszczędności. Istnieją dobra, które można przeznaczyć 
na&nbsp;produkcję "
+"samochodów lub&nbsp;nie. Można więc&nbsp;powiedzieć, że&nbsp;to dobrze 
by "
+"samochody miały ceny. Uniemożliwia to ludziom wykorzystywanie wielkich "
+"ilości marnowanych dóbr na&nbsp;produkcję samochodów, których nikt tak "
+"naprawdę nie potrzebuje. Ale&nbsp;jeśli każdy kolejny samochód nie 
wymagałby "
+"żadnych dóbr, to powstrzymywanie się przed ich produkcją nie dawałoby "
+"niczego pożytecznego. Oczywiście, w&nbsp;przypadku rzeczy materialnych, "
+"takich jak samochody, wykonanie kolejnego egzemplarza zawsze będzie "
+"pochłaniać dodatkowe dobra."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But for software that's not true.  Anybody can make another copy.  And it's "
+"almost trivial to do it.  It takes no resources, except a tiny bit of "
+"electricity.  So there's nothing we can save, no resource we're going to "
+"allocate better by putting this financial disincentive on the use of the "
+"software.  You often find people taking economic, the consequences of "
+"economic reasoning, based on premises that don't apply to software, and "
+"trying to transplant them from other areas of life where the premises may "
+"apply, and the conclusions may be valid.  They just take the conclusions and "
+"assume that they're valid for software too, when the argument is based on "
+"nothing, in the case of software.  The premises don't work in that case.  It "
+"is very important to examine how you reach the conclusion, and what premises "
+"it depends on, to see where it might be valid.  So, that's Freedom Two, the "
+"freedom to help your neighbor."
+msgstr ""
+"Jednak&nbsp;w przypadku oprogramowania nie jest to prawdą. Każdy może "
+"wykonać nową kopię. A&nbsp;zrobienie tego jest zadaniem niemal trywialnym. 
"
+"Nie wymaga to żadnych dóbr prócz odrobiny elektryczności. Więc&nbsp;nie 
ma "
+"tu czego oszczędzać, nie ma żadnego dobra, które można by wykorzystać 
lepiej "
+"poprzez&nbsp;ustanowienie tego finansowego czynnika zniechęcającego 
do&nbsp;"
+"korzystania z&nbsp;programów. Ludzie często biorą ekonomiczne, wyniki "
+"ekonomicznego rozumowania oparte na&nbsp;przesłankach nijak mających się "
+"do&nbsp;oprogramowania i&nbsp;próbują przenieść je z&nbsp;innych dziedzin 
"
+"życia, dla których te przesłanki mogą być prawdziwe, a&nbsp;wnioski "
+"prawidłowe. Po&nbsp;prostu biorą te wnioski i&nbsp;zakładają, że&nbsp;są
 "
+"prawdziwe także dla oprogramowania, tymczasem całe rozumowanie w&nbsp;"
+"przypadku oprogramowania jest oparte na&nbsp;niczym. Przesłanki nie "
+"działają. To bardzo ważne, by zwracać uwagę, w&nbsp;jaki sposób 
dochodzi się "
+"do&nbsp;wniosków, w&nbsp;oparciu o jakie przesłanki, aby&nbsp;zrozumieć "
+"kiedy mogą być one prawidłowe. Była to więc&nbsp;Wolność 2, wolność 
do&nbsp;"
+"pomagania swoim bliźnim."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by publishing an "
+"improved version of the software.  People used to say to me, &ldquo;If the "
+"software's free, then nobody will get paid to work on it, so why should "
+"anybody work on it?&rdquo; Well, of course, they were confusing the two "
+"meanings of free, so their reasoning was based on a misunderstanding.  But, "
+"in any case, that was their theory.  Today, we can compare that theory with "
+"empirical fact, and we find that hundreds of people are being paid to write "
+"free software, and over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers.  We get lots of "
+"people working on free software, for various different motives."
+msgstr ""
+"Wolność 3 pozwala na&nbsp;wspieranie rozwoju własnej społeczności "
+"poprzez&nbsp;publikowanie ulepszonych wersji programów. Ludzie mówili mi: "
+"&bdquo;Jeśli oprogramowanie będzie darmowe [<em>free</em>], to nikt 
za&nbsp;"
+"pracę nad&nbsp;nim nie będzie dostawać pieniędzy, więc&nbsp;dlaczego "
+"ktokolwiek miałby to robić?&rdquo;. Oczywiście nie rozróżniali oni 
dwóch "
+"znaczeń słowa &bdquo;free&rdquo; [<em>ang. darmowy, wolny</em>], 
więc&nbsp;"
+"ich rozumowanie było oparte na&nbsp;nieporozumieniu. Ale&nbsp;tak czy&nbsp;"
+"inaczej, taka była ich teoria. Dzisiaj możemy porównać tę teorię 
z&nbsp;"
+"empirią i&nbsp;okazuje się, że&nbsp;setkom ludzi płaci się 
za&nbsp;pracę "
+"nad&nbsp;wolnym oprogramowaniem, a&nbsp;ponad 100.000 robi to jako "
+"wolontariusze. Mnóstwo ludzi pracuje nad&nbsp;wolnym oprogramowaniem, 
z&nbsp;"
+"różnych powodów."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"When I first released GNU Emacs &mdash; the first piece of the GNU system "
+"that people actually wanted to use &mdash; and when it started having users, "
+"after a while, I got a message saying, &ldquo;I think I saw a bug in the "
+"source code, and here's a fix.&rdquo; And I got another message, &ldquo;"
+"Here's code to add a new feature.&rdquo; And another bug fix.  And another "
+"new feature.  And another, and another, and another, until they were pouring "
+"in on me so fast that just making use of all this help I was getting was a "
+"big job.  Microsoft doesn't have this problem.  <i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Gdy po&nbsp;raz pierwszy wydałem edytor GNU Emacs&nbsp;&ndash; pierwszy "
+"kawałek systemu GNU, którego ludzie rzeczywiście chcieli 
używać&nbsp;&ndash; "
+"i&nbsp;gdy pojawili się użytkownicy, to po&nbsp;niedługim czasie 
otrzymałem "
+"wiadomość: &bdquo;Wydaje mi się, że&nbsp;znalazłem błąd w&nbsp;kodzie "
+"źródłowym, a&nbsp;oto poprawka&rdquo;. Dostałem także kolejną 
wiadomość: "
+"&bdquo;Oto kod dodający nową funkcję&rdquo;. I&nbsp;kolejna poprawka 
do&nbsp;"
+"błędu. I&nbsp;kolejna nowa funkcja. I&nbsp;kolejna, i&nbsp;kolejna, i&nbsp;"
+"kolejna, aż zaczęły napływać do&nbsp;mnie tak szybko, że&nbsp;samo ich "
+"wykorzystywanie stało się ciężką pracą. Microsoft nie ma tego problemu. 
<i>"
+"[śmiech]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Eventually, people noted this phenomenon.  You see, in the 1980's a lot of "
+"us thought that maybe free software wouldn't be as good as the non-free "
+"software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay people.  And, of "
+"course, people like me, who value freedom and community said, &ldquo;Well, "
+"we'll use the free software anyway.&rdquo; It's worth making a little "
+"sacrifice in some mere technical convenience to have freedom.  But what "
+"people began to note, around 1990 was that our software was actually "
+"better.  It was more powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary "
+"alternatives."
+msgstr ""
+"W&nbsp;końcu ludzie dostrzegli ten fenomen. Wiecie, w&nbsp;latach 80. wielu "
+"z&nbsp;nas myślało, że&nbsp;być może wolne oprogramowanie nie będzie 
tak "
+"dobre jak niewolne, bo&nbsp;nie będziemy mieli tak samo dużo pieniędzy "
+"na&nbsp;płacenie ludziom. Oczywiście, osoby takie jak ja, które cenią "
+"wolność i&nbsp;wartości społeczne, mówiły: &bdquo;Cóż, i&nbsp;tak 
będziemy "
+"korzystać z&nbsp;wolnego oprogramowania&rdquo;. Warto jest poświęcić 
trochę "
+"niezbyt istotnej technicznej wygody dla wolności. Ale&nbsp;to, co ludzie "
+"zaczęli dostrzegać około roku 1990, to był fakt, że&nbsp;nasze "
+"oprogramowanie jest tak naprawdę lepsze. Było potężniejsze 
i&nbsp;bardziej "
+"niezawodne od&nbsp;alternatywnych programów objętych restrykcyjnymi "
+"licencjami."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific measurement of "
+"reliability of software.  Here's what he did.  He took several sets of "
+"comparable programs that did the same jobs &mdash; the exact same jobs "
+"&mdash; in different systems.  Because there were certain basic Unix-like "
+"utilities.  And the jobs that they did, we know, was all, more or less, "
+"imitating the same thing, or they were following the POSIX spec, so they "
+"were all the same in terms of what jobs they did, but they were maintained "
+"by different people, written separately.  The code was different.  So they "
+"said, OK, we'll take these programs and run them with random data, and "
+"measure how often they crash, or hang.  So they measured it, and the most "
+"reliable set of programs was the GNU programs.  All the commercial "
+"alternatives which were proprietary software were less reliable.  So he "
+"published this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he did "
+"the same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same result.  "
+"The GNU versions were the most reliable.  People &mdash; you know there are "
+"cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system, because it's so "
+"reliable, and reliability is very important to them."
+msgstr ""
+"Na&nbsp;początku lat 90. ktoś wymyślił jak przeprowadzać naukowe pomiary 
"
+"niezawodności oprogramowania. Oto co zrobił. Wziął parę zbiorów "
+"porównywalnych programów, które wykonywały te same zadania&nbsp;&ndash; "
+"dokładnie te same zadania&nbsp;&ndash; w&nbsp;różnych systemach. "
+"Ponieważ&nbsp;istniały pewne podstawowe uniksowe narzędzia. 
A&nbsp;zadania, "
+"które wykonywały, no wiecie, to było wszystko, mniej więcej, imitowanie 
tej "
+"samej rzeczy, albo&nbsp;były zgodne ze standardami POSIX, więc&nbsp;były "
+"takie same w&nbsp;zakresie wykonywanych zadań, ale&nbsp;były utrzymywane "
+"przez innych ludzi i&nbsp;osobno napisane. Kod był inny. Więc&nbsp;oni "
+"powiedzieli, OK, weźmiemy te programy i&nbsp;załadujemy do&nbsp;nich losowe 
"
+"dane, i&nbsp;zmierzymy jak często będą się wywalać albo&nbsp;zawieszać. 
No "
+"więc&nbsp;to zmierzyli i&nbsp;najbardziej niezawodnym zbiorem programów "
+"okazały się programy GNU. Wszystkie komercyjne odpowiedniki objęte "
+"restrykcyjnymi licencjami były bardziej zawodne. Więc&nbsp;on to 
opublikował "
+"i&nbsp;przedstawił wszystkim programistom, i&nbsp;parę lat później 
wykonał "
+"ten sam eksperyment z&nbsp;najnowszymi wersjami, i&nbsp;wyniki były takie "
+"same. Wersje GNU były najbardziej niezawodne. Ludzie&nbsp;&ndash; wiecie, "
+"istnieją kliniki onkologiczne oraz&nbsp;stacje pogotowia ratunkowego, które 
"
+"korzystają z&nbsp;systemu GNU, bo&nbsp;jest taki niezawodny, a&nbsp;"
+"niezawodność jest dla nich bardzo ważna."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Anyway, there's even a group of people who focus on this particular benefit "
+"as the reason they give, the main reason they give, why users should be "
+"permitted to do these various things, and to have these freedoms.  If you've "
+"been listening to me, you've noticed, you've seen that I, speaking for the "
+"free software movement, I talk about issues of ethics, and what kind of a "
+"society we want to live in, what makes for a good society, as well as "
+"practical, material benefits.  They're both important.  That's the free "
+"software movement."
+msgstr ""
+"W&nbsp;każdym bądź&nbsp;razie, jest nawet grupa ludzi, którzy skupiają 
się "
+"na&nbsp;tej konkretnej korzyści podając powód, główny powód, dla 
którego "
+"użytkownicy powinni móc robić wszystkie te rzeczy i&nbsp;mieć te 
wolności. "
+"Jeśli mnie słuchaliście, to zauważyliście, widzieliście, że&nbsp;ja, 
mówiąc "
+"w&nbsp;imieniu ruchu wolnego oprogramowania, opowiadam o kwestiach etycznych "
+"i&nbsp;o społeczeństwie, w&nbsp;którym chcemy mieszkać, o tym, co tworzy "
+"dobre społeczeństwo, a&nbsp;także o praktycznych, materialnych 
korzyściach. "
+"Obie te rzeczy są ważne. Oto ruch wolnego oprogramowania."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"That other group of people &mdash; which is called the open source movement "
+"&mdash; they only cite the practical benefits.  They deny that this is an "
+"issue of principle.  They deny that people are entitled to the freedom to "
+"share with their neighbor and to see what the program's doing and change it "
+"if they don't like it.  They say, however, that it's a useful thing to let "
+"people do that.  So they go to companies and say to them, &ldquo;You know, "
+"you might make more money if you let people do this.&rdquo; So, what you can "
+"see is that to some extent, they lead people in a similar direction, but for "
+"totally different, for fundamentally different, philosophical reasons."
+msgstr ""
+"Ta druga grupa ludzi&nbsp;&ndash; nazywająca się ruchem open source "
+"[<em>open source movement, ruch na&nbsp;rzecz oprogramowania o otwartych "
+"źródłach</em>]&nbsp;&ndash; oni mówią tylko o praktycznych korzyściach. 
"
+"Zaprzeczają, jakoby była to kwestia zasad. Zaprzeczają, że&nbsp;ludziom "
+"należy się wolność dzielenia się z&nbsp;bliźnimi i&nbsp;sprawdzania, co 
"
+"robią programy, oraz&nbsp;zmieniania tego, jeśli im się nie podoba. Mówią
 "
+"oni jednak, że&nbsp;zezwalanie na&nbsp;to jest użyteczne. Więc&nbsp;chodzą
 "
+"po&nbsp;firmach i&nbsp;mówią: &bdquo;Wiecie, prawdopodobnie możecie 
zarabiać "
+"więcej pieniędzy, jeśli pozwolicie ludziom to robić&rdquo;. Więc, jak "
+"widzicie, do&nbsp;pewnego stopnia prowadzą oni ludzi w&nbsp;tym samym "
+"kierunku, ale&nbsp;z zupełnie innych, w&nbsp;podstawowym stopniu innych, "
+"przesłanek filozoficznych."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Because on the deepest issue of all, you know, on the ethical question, the "
+"two movements disagree.  You know, in the free software movement we say, "
+"&ldquo;You're entitled to these freedoms.  People shouldn't stop you from "
+"doing these things.&rdquo; In the open source movement, they say, &ldquo;"
+"Yes, they can stop you if you want, but we'll try to convince them to deign "
+"to let you to do these things.&rdquo; Well, they have contributed &mdash; "
+"they have convinced a certain number of businesses to release substantial "
+"pieces of software as free software in our community.  So they, the open "
+"source movement, has contributed substantially to our community.  And so we "
+"work together on practical projects.  But, philosophically, there's a "
+"tremendous disagreement."
+msgstr ""
+"Ponieważ&nbsp;w najgłębszej spośród wszystkich kwestii, kwestii 
etycznej, "
+"oba ruchy nie zgadzają się ze sobą. My z&nbsp;ruchu wolnego oprogramowania 
"
+"mówimy: &bdquo;Należą wam się te wolności. Nikt nie powinien was "
+"powstrzymywać przed robieniem tych rzeczy&rdquo;. Ruch open source mówi: "
+"&bdquo;Tak, mogą was powstrzymać, jeśli chcecie, ale&nbsp;postaramy się 
ich "
+"przekonać, aby&nbsp;raczyli pozwolić wam robić te rzeczy&rdquo;. Cóż, 
oni "
+"wnieśli wkład&nbsp;&ndash; przekonali pewną ilość firm 
do&nbsp;wypuszczenia "
+"znaczących kawałków oprogramowania w&nbsp;postaci wolnych programów, 
na&nbsp;"
+"rzecz naszej społeczności. Więc&nbsp;oni, czyli&nbsp;ruch open source, "
+"wnieśli znaczny wkład do&nbsp;naszej społeczności. Tak 
więc&nbsp;pracujemy "
+"razem nad&nbsp;projektami praktycznymi. Jednak&nbsp;pod względem "
+"filozoficznym bardzo się nie zgadzamy."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Unfortunately, the open source movement is the one that gets the support of "
+"business the most, and so most articles about our work describe it as open "
+"source, and a lot of people just innocently think that we're all part of the "
+"open source movement.  So that's why I'm mentioning this distinction.  I "
+"want you to be aware that the free software movement, which brought our "
+"community into existence and developed the free operating system, is still "
+"here &mdash; and that we still stand for this ethical philosophy.  I want "
+"you to know about this, so that you won't mislead someone else unknowingly."
+msgstr ""
+"Niestety, to ruch open source dostaje największe wsparcie od&nbsp;firm, "
+"więc&nbsp;większość artykułów dotyczących naszej pracy opisuje ją 
jako open "
+"source i&nbsp;mnóstwo ludzi, bez&nbsp;złych intencji, myśli, 
że&nbsp;wszyscy "
+"jesteśmy częścią ruchu open source. Dlatego&nbsp;właśnie mówię o tej "
+"różnicy. Chcę, abyście zdawali sobie sprawę, że&nbsp;ruch wolnego "
+"oprogramowania, który powołał naszą społeczność do&nbsp;życia i&nbsp;"
+"stworzył wolny system operacyjny, nadal istnieje&nbsp;&ndash; i&nbsp;cały "
+"czas głosimy tę etyczną filozofię. Chcę, żebyście to wiedzieli, 
aby&nbsp;"
+"bezwiednie nie wprowadzać innych w&nbsp;błąd."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "But also, so that you can think about where you stand."
+msgstr ""
+"Ale&nbsp;także dlatego, żebyście mogli pomyśleć o tym, gdzie sami 
należycie."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"You know, which movement you support is up to you.  You might agree with the "
+"free software movements and my views.  You might agree with the open source "
+"movement.  You might disagree with them both.  You decide where you stand on "
+"these political issues."
+msgstr ""
+"No wiecie, to, który ruch popieracie, to wasza sprawa. Możecie się 
zgadzać "
+"z&nbsp;ruchami wolnego oprogramowania i&nbsp;moimi poglądami. Możecie się "
+"zgadzać z&nbsp;ruchem open source. Możecie się z&nbsp;oboma nie zgadzać. 
To "
+"wy decydujecie o waszej postawie wobec tych politycznych kwestii."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But if you agree with the free software movement &mdash; if you see that "
+"there's an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled and "
+"directed by this decision deserve a say in it &mdash; then I hope you'll say "
+"that you agree with the free software movement, and one way you can do that "
+"is by using the term free software and just helping people know we exist."
+msgstr ""
+"Ale&nbsp;jeśli zgadzacie się z&nbsp;ruchem wolnego oprogramowania&nbsp;"
+"&ndash; jeśli rozumiecie, że&nbsp;chodzi tu o to, aby&nbsp;ludzie, których 
"
+"życie jest kontrolowane i&nbsp;kierowane przez tę decyzję, mieli coś 
w&nbsp;"
+"jej sprawie do&nbsp;powiedzenia&nbsp;&ndash; to mam nadzieję, że&nbsp;"
+"powiecie, iż zgadzacie się z&nbsp;ruchem wolnego oprogramowania, a&nbsp;"
+"jedną z&nbsp;rzeczy, które możecie zrobić, aby&nbsp;to pokazać, jest "
+"używanie terminu wolne oprogramowanie i&nbsp;po prostu zwracanie uwagi ludzi 
"
+"na&nbsp;to, że&nbsp;istniejemy."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, Freedom Three is very important both practically and psycho-socially.  "
+"If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical material harm, because "
+"this community development doesn't happen, and we don't make powerful, "
+"reliable software.  But it also causes psycho-social harm, which affects the "
+"spirit of scientific cooperation &mdash; the idea that we're working "
+"together to advance human knowledge.  You see, progress in science crucially "
+"depends on people being able to work together.  And nowadays though, you "
+"often find each little group of scientists acting like it's a war with each "
+"other gang of scientists and engineers.  And if they don't share with each "
+"other, they're all held back."
+msgstr ""
+"Tak więc&nbsp;Wolność 3 jest bardzo ważna zarówno pod&nbsp;względem "
+"praktycznym, jak i&nbsp;psychospołecznym. Jeśli nie macie tej wolności, "
+"powoduje to praktyczne, materialne szkody, bo&nbsp;nie następuje wspomniany "
+"rozwój społeczności i&nbsp;nie tworzymy potężnego, niezawodnego "
+"oprogramowania. Ale&nbsp;powoduje również szkody psychospołeczne, które 
mają "
+"wpływ na&nbsp;ducha naukowej współpracy&nbsp;&ndash; ideę, która mówi, "
+"że&nbsp;pracujemy razem na&nbsp;rzecz rozwoju ludzkiej wiedzy. Zrozumcie, "
+"postęp naukowy zależy głównie od&nbsp;tego, że&nbsp;ludzie mogą razem "
+"pracować. Tymczasem w&nbsp;dzisiejszych czasach widzi się poszczególne 
małe "
+"grupy naukowców, które zachowują się jakby to była wojna ze wszystkimi "
+"innymi bandami naukowców i&nbsp;inżynierów. A&nbsp;jeśli oni nie będą 
się ze "
+"sobą dzielić, to nie będą czynić postępów."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, those are the three freedoms that distinguish free software from typical "
+"software.  Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself, making changes to "
+"suit your own needs.  Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by "
+"distributing copies.  And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your "
+"community by making changes and publishing them for other people to use.  If "
+"you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software for you.  Now, "
+"why do I define it that way in terms of a particular user? Is it free "
+"software for you? <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> Is it free "
+"software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Is it "
+"free software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Yes?"
+msgstr ""
+"To są trzy wolności, które odróżniają wolne oprogramowanie 
od&nbsp;typowych "
+"programów. Wolność 1 to wolność pozwalająca na&nbsp;ułatwianie sobie 
życia "
+"przez wprowadzanie zmian do&nbsp;programu, aby&nbsp;dostosować go do&nbsp;"
+"swoich potrzeb. Wolność 2 to wolność do&nbsp;pomagania swoim bliźnim 
przez "
+"dystrybucję kopii. Natomiast&nbsp;Wolność 3 pozwala na&nbsp;wspieranie "
+"rozwoju własnej społeczności poprzez&nbsp;wprowadzanie zmian i&nbsp;"
+"publikowanie ich, tak aby&nbsp;inni mogli z&nbsp;nich skorzystać. Jeśli "
+"macie wszystkie te wolności, to ten program jest dla was wolnym "
+"oprogramowaniem. Dlaczego definiuję to w&nbsp;ten sposób, z&nbsp;punktu "
+"widzenia konkretnego użytkownika? Czy&nbsp;to jest wolne oprogramowanie dla "
+"ciebie? <i>[wskazuje któregoś ze słuchaczy]</i> Czy&nbsp;to jest wolne "
+"oprogramowanie dla ciebie? <i>[wskazuje innego słuchacza]</i> Tak?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you explain a bit about the difference "
+"between Freedom Two and Three? <i>[inaudible]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Czy&nbsp;możesz krótko wyjaśnić różnicę 
pomiędzy "
+"Wolnościami 2 i&nbsp;3? <i>[niewyraźne]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, they certainly relate, because if you don't "
+"have freedom to redistribute at all, you certainly don't have freedom to "
+"distribute a modified version, but they're different activities."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Cóż, z&nbsp;pewnością są ze sobą powiązane, 
"
+"bo&nbsp;jeśli w&nbsp;ogóle nie masz wolności do&nbsp;redystrybucji, to "
+"z&nbsp;pewnością nie masz wolności do&nbsp;dystrybucji zmodyfikowanych "
+"wersji, ale&nbsp;to osobne rzeczy."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid "<strong>QUESTION</strong>: Oh."
+msgstr "<strong>PYTANIE</strong>: Aha."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Freedom Two is, you know, read it, you make an "
+"exact copy, and hand it to your friends, so now your friend can use it.  Or "
+"maybe you make exact copies and you sell them to a bunch of people, and then "
+"they can use it."
+msgstr ""
+"<strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Wolność 2 to, no wiecie, skupcie się, robicie "
+"identyczną kopię i&nbsp;rozdajecie ją znajomym, a&nbsp;oni mogą 
z&nbsp;niej "
+"korzystać. Albo&nbsp;robicie identyczne kopie i&nbsp;sprzedajecie je paru "
+"osobom, a&nbsp;wtedy oni mogą z&nbsp;nich korzystać."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Freedom Three is where you make improvements &mdash; or at least you think "
+"they're improvements, and some other people may agree with you.  So that's "
+"the difference.  Oh, and by the way, one crucial point.  Freedoms One and "
+"Three depend on your having access to the source code.  Because changing a "
+"binary-only program is extremely hard.  <i>[Laughter]</i> Even trivial "
+"changes like using four digits for the date, <i>[Laughter]</i> if you don't "
+"have source.  So, for compelling, practical reasons, access to the source "
+"code is a precondition, a requirement, for free software."
+msgstr ""
+"W&nbsp;Wolności 3 chodzi o wprowadzanie ulepszeń&nbsp;&ndash; a&nbsp;"
+"przynajmniej wy sądzicie, że&nbsp;są to ulepszenia, a&nbsp;inni mogą się 
"
+"z&nbsp;wami zgodzić. Więc&nbsp;tu leży różnica. A&nbsp;tak przy okazji, "
+"jedna ważna uwaga. Wolności 1 i&nbsp;3 zależą od&nbsp;dostępności kodu "
+"źródłowego. Bo&nbsp;modyfikacja programu dostępnego tylko w&nbsp;formie "
+"binarnej jest niezwykle trudna. <i>[śmiech]</i> Nawet małe modyfikacje, "
+"takie jak korzystanie z&nbsp;czterocyfrowej daty, <i>[śmiech]</i> jeśli nie 
"
+"macie źródeł. Tak więc&nbsp;z istotnych, praktycznych powodów, 
dostępność "
+"kodu źródłowego jest koniecznym warunkiem, wymaganiem wolnego 
oprogramowania."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, why do I define it in terms of whether it's free software for <em>you</"
+"em>? The reason is that sometimes the same program can be free software for "
+"some people, and non-free for others.  Now, that might seem like a "
+"paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example to show you how it "
+"happens.  A very big example &mdash; maybe the biggest ever &mdash; of this "
+"problem was the X Window System which was developed at MIT and released "
+"under a license that made it free software.  If you got the MIT version with "
+"the MIT license, you had Freedoms One, Two, and Three.  It was free software "
+"for you.  But among those who got copies were various computer manufacturers "
+"that distributed Unix systems, and they made the necessary changes in X to "
+"run on their systems.  You know, probably just a few thousand lines out of "
+"the hundreds of thousands of lines of X.  And, then they compiled it, and "
+"they put the binaries into their Unix system and distributed it under the "
+"same non-disclosure agreement as the rest of the Unix system.  And then, "
+"millions of people got these copies.  They had the X Window System, but they "
+"had none of these freedoms.  It was not free software for <em>them</em>."
+msgstr ""
+"Dlaczego więc&nbsp;definiuje to pod&nbsp;kątem tego, czy&nbsp;jest wolnym "
+"oprogramowaniem <em>dla was</em>? Dlatego, że&nbsp;czasami ten sam program "
+"może być wolnym oprogramowaniem dla niektórych ludzi, a&nbsp;niewolnym dla 
"
+"innych. Może to wyglądać na&nbsp;paradoks, więc&nbsp;pozwólcie mi podać 
"
+"przykład, który pokaże wam, na&nbsp;czym to polega. Bardzo dużym "
+"przykładem&nbsp;&ndash; może największym w&nbsp;historii&nbsp;&ndash; tego 
"
+"problemu był system okien X opracowany na&nbsp;MIT i&nbsp;wydany na&nbsp;"
+"licencji, która czyniła go wolnym oprogramowaniem. Jeśli mieliście 
wersję "
+"MIT wydaną na&nbsp;licencji MIT, to mieliście Wolności 1, 2 i&nbsp;3. 
Było "
+"to dla was wolne oprogramowanie. Ale&nbsp;pośród tych, którzy otrzymali "
+"kopie, znajdowali się różni producenci komputerów, którzy dostarczali "
+"systemy uniksowe i&nbsp;dokonywali oni zmian koniecznych do&nbsp;tego, "
+"aby&nbsp;X działał na&nbsp;ich systemach. Jakieś parę tysięcy linii 
spośród "
+"setek tysięcy składających się na&nbsp;X. Potem to kompilowali, 
dokładali "
+"binaria do&nbsp;swojego systemu Unix i&nbsp;rozprowadzali pod&nbsp;taką samą
 "
+"restrykcyjną licencją jak resztę systemu. Potem takie kopie dostało 
miliony "
+"ludzi. Mieli system okien X, ale&nbsp;nie mieli żadnej z&nbsp;tych 
wolności. "
+"<em>Dla nich</em> to nie było wolne oprogramowanie."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, the paradox was that whether X was free software depended on where you "
+"made the measurement.  If you made the measurement coming out of the "
+"developers' group, you'd say, &ldquo;I observe all these freedoms.  It's "
+"free software.&rdquo; If you made the measurements among the users you'd "
+"say, &ldquo;Hmm, most users don't have these freedoms.  It's not free "
+"software.&rdquo; Well, the people who developed X didn't consider this a "
+"problem, because their goal was just popularity, ego, essentially.  They "
+"wanted a big professional success.  They wanted to feel, &ldquo;Ah, lots of "
+"people are using our software.&rdquo; And that was true.  Lots of people "
+"were using their software but didn't have freedom."
+msgstr ""
+"Tak więc&nbsp;paradoks polegał na&nbsp;tym, że&nbsp;to czy&nbsp;X było "
+"wolnym oprogramowaniem zależało od&nbsp;punktu widzenia. Jeśli ktoś 
patrzył "
+"z&nbsp;punktu widzenia grupy programistów, to powiedziałby: &bdquo;"
+"Respektuję wszystkie te wolności. To wolne oprogramowanie&bdquo;. Jeśli "
+"patrzył z&nbsp;punktu widzenia użytkowników, powiedziałby: &bdquo;Hmm, "
+"większość użytkowników nie ma tych wolności. To nie jest wolne "
+"oprogramowanie&rdquo;. Cóż, programiści X nie uważali tego 
za&nbsp;problem, "
+"bo&nbsp;ich celem w&nbsp;gruncie rzeczy była popularność, zaspokojenie "
+"swojego ego. Chcieli osiągnąć duży sukces w&nbsp;branży. Chcieli mieć "
+"poczucie, że: &bdquo;Taaak, mnóstwo ludzi korzysta z&nbsp;naszego "
+"oprogramowania&rdquo;. I&nbsp;była to prawda. Mnóstwo ludzi korzystało "
+"z&nbsp;ich oprogramowania, ale&nbsp;nie miało wolności."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Well, in the GNU project, if that same thing had happened to GNU software, "
+"it would have been a failure, because our goal wasn't just to be popular; "
+"our goal was to give people liberty, and to encourage cooperation, to permit "
+"people to cooperate.  Remember, never force anyone to cooperate with any "
+"other person, but make sure that everybody's allowed to cooperate, everyone "
+"has the freedom to do so, if he or she wishes.  If millions of people were "
+"running non-free versions of GNU, that wouldn't be success at all. The whole "
+"thing would have been perverted into nothing like the goal."
+msgstr ""
+"W&nbsp;przypadku projektu GNU, jeśli to samo przydarzyłoby się "
+"oprogramowaniu GNU, to byłaby to porażka, bo&nbsp;naszym celem nie było "
+"wyłącznie zdobycie popularności; naszym celem było przekazanie ludziom "
+"wolności i&nbsp;zachęcanie ich do&nbsp;współdziałania, pozwolenie im 
na&nbsp;"
+"współdziałanie. Pamiętajcie, nigdy nie zmuszajcie nikogo 
do&nbsp;współpracy "
+"z&nbsp;kimś innym, ale&nbsp;zadbajcie o to, aby&nbsp;wszyscy mogli ze sobą "
+"wspólnie działać, żeby każdy miał do&nbsp;tego wolność, jeśli tylko 
tego "
+"chce. Jeśli miliony ludzi korzystałoby z&nbsp;niewolnych wersji GNU, to "
+"wcale nie byłby sukces. Cały projekt zostałby przewrotnie przekształcony "
+"w&nbsp;coś zupełnie odmiennego od&nbsp;pierwotnego celu."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening.  The method I came up "
+"with is called &ldquo;copyleft&rdquo;.  It's called copyleft because it's "
+"sort of like taking copyright and flipping it over.  <i>[Laughter]</i> "
+"Legally, copyleft works based on copyright.  We use the existing copyright "
+"law, but we use it to achieve a very different goal.  Here's what we do.  We "
+"say, &ldquo;This program is copyrighted.&rdquo; And, of course, by default, "
+"that means it's prohibited to copy it, or distribute it, or modify it.  But "
+"then we say, &ldquo;You're authorized to distribute copies of this.  You're "
+"authorized to modify it.  You're authorized to distribute modified versions "
+"and extended versions.  Change it any way you like.&rdquo;"
+msgstr ""
+"Więc&nbsp;szukałem sposobu, aby&nbsp;temu zapobiec. Metoda, którą "
+"wymyśliłem, nazywa się &bdquo;copyleft&rdquo;. Nazywa się &bdquo;"
+"copyleft&rdquo;, bo&nbsp;to tak jakby wziąć prawo autorskie [<em>ang. "
+"copyright</em>] i&nbsp;wywrócić je na&nbsp;drugą stronę. <i>[śmiech]</i> 
"
+"Z&nbsp;prawnego punktu widzenia copyleft działa w&nbsp;oparciu o prawo "
+"autorskie. Wykorzystujemy istniejące prawo autorskie, ale&nbsp;do "
+"osiągnięcia zupełnie odmiennego celu. Oto co robimy. Mówimy: &bdquo;Ten "
+"program jest objęty prawem autorskim&rdquo;. Oczywiście domyślnie oznacza "
+"to, że&nbsp;nie wolno go kopiować, rozpowszechniać, ani&nbsp;modyfikować. 
"
+"Ale&nbsp;potem mówimy: &bdquo;Wolno wam rozpowszechniać jego kopie. Wolno "
+"wam go modyfikować. Wolno wam rozpowszechniać wersje zmodyfikowane i&nbsp;"
+"poszerzone. Zmieniać go jak tylko się wam podoba&rdquo;."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But there is a condition.  And the condition, of course, is the reason why "
+"we go to all this trouble, so that we could put the condition in.  The "
+"condition says: Whenever you distribute anything that contains any piece of "
+"this program, that whole program must be distributed under these same terms, "
+"no more and no less.  So you can change the program and distribute a "
+"modified version, but when you do, the people who get that from you must get "
+"the same freedom that you got from us.  And not just for the parts of it "
+"&mdash; the excerpts that you copied from our program &mdash; but also for "
+"the other parts of that program that they got from you.  The whole of that "
+"program has to be free software for them."
+msgstr ""
+"Jest jednak&nbsp;pewien warunek. I&nbsp;jest on, oczywiście, powodem, dla "
+"którego to wszystko robimy, aby&nbsp;móc go tam wstawić. Warunek mówi: "
+"rozpowszechniając kiedykolwiek coś zawierającego jakikolwiek kawałek tego 
"
+"programu, musicie rozpowszechniać całość na&nbsp;tych samych zasadach, "
+"ni&nbsp;mniej, ni&nbsp;więcej. Możecie więc&nbsp;zmienić program i&nbsp;"
+"rozpowszechniać jego zmodyfikowaną wersję, ale&nbsp;gdy to robicie, ludzie 
"
+"otrzymujący od&nbsp;was program muszą dostać taką samą wolność, jaką 
wy "
+"dostaliście od&nbsp;nas. I&nbsp;nie tylko wobec części 
programu&nbsp;&ndash; "
+"tych, które skopiowaliście od&nbsp;nas&nbsp;&ndash; ale&nbsp;także wobec "
+"reszty, którą od&nbsp;was dostali. Całość programu musi być dla nich 
wolnym "
+"oprogramowaniem."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become inalienable "
+"rights &mdash; a concept from the Declaration of Independence.  Rights that "
+"we make sure can't be taken away from you.  And, of course, the specific "
+"license that embodies the idea of copyleft is the GNU General Public "
+"License, a controversial license because it actually has the strength to say "
+"no to people who would be parasites on our community."
+msgstr ""
+"Wolności do&nbsp;modyfikowania i&nbsp;rozpowszechniania tego programu stają 
"
+"się niezbywalnymi prawami&nbsp;&ndash; co jest koncepcją z&nbsp;Deklaracji "
+"Niepodległości. Prawami, wobec których dbamy o to, aby&nbsp;nikt ich wam 
nie "
+"odebrał. Oczywiście, konkretna licencja, która realizuje ideę copyleft to 
"
+"GNU GPL, kontrowersyjna licencja, ponieważ&nbsp;rzeczywiście posiada 
siłę, "
+"aby&nbsp;powiedzieć &bdquo;nie&rdquo; ludziom, którzy byliby pasożytami "
+"żerującymi na&nbsp;naszej społeczności."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of freedom.  And "
+"they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done, and use it to get a "
+"head start in distributing a non-free program and tempting people to give up "
+"their freedom.  And the result would be &mdash; you know, if we let people "
+"do that &mdash; that we would be developing these free programs, and we'd "
+"constantly have to compete with improved versions of our own programs.  "
+"That's no fun."
+msgstr ""
+"Jest mnóstwo ludzi, którzy nie doceniają ideałów wolności. Chętnie 
wzięliby "
+"rezultaty naszej pracy i&nbsp;wykorzystali je do&nbsp;uzyskania przewagi "
+"w&nbsp;rozpowszechnianiu niewolnego oprogramowania oraz&nbsp;zachęcaniu "
+"ludzi do&nbsp;wyzbycia się własnej wolności. A&nbsp;rezultatem 
byłoby&nbsp;"
+"&ndash; no wiecie, jeśli na&nbsp;to ludziom pozwolimy&nbsp;&ndash; że&nbsp;"
+"rozwijalibyśmy te wolne programy i&nbsp;cały czas musielibyśmy konkurować 
"
+"z&nbsp;ulepszonymi wersjami naszego własnego oprogramowania. A&nbsp;to nie "
+"jest fajne."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And, a lot of people also feel &mdash; you know, I'm willing to volunteer my "
+"time to contribute to the community, but why should I volunteer my time to "
+"contribute to that company's, to improving that company's, proprietary "
+"program? You know, some people might not even think that that's evil, but "
+"they want to get paid if they're going to do that.  I, personally, would "
+"rather not do it at all."
+msgstr ""
+"I&nbsp;mnóstwo ludzi również ma poczucie&nbsp;&ndash; no wiecie, chcę "
+"bez&nbsp;przymusu poświęcić mój czas, aby&nbsp;wnieść wkład do&nbsp;"
+"społeczności, ale&nbsp;dlaczego miałbym go poświęcać, aby&nbsp;wnieść 
wkład "
+"na&nbsp;rzecz tamtej firmy, na&nbsp;rzecz ulepszania jej objętego "
+"restrykcyjną licencją programu? Wiecie, niektórzy mogą nawet sądzić, 
że&nbsp;"
+"to nic złego, ale&nbsp;chcą, żeby im za&nbsp;to zapłacono. Osobiście "
+"wolałbym wcale tego nie robić."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"But both of these groups of people &mdash; both the ones like me who say, "
+"&ldquo;I don't want to help that non-free program to get a foothold in our "
+"community&rdquo; and the ones that say, &ldquo;Sure, I'd work for them, but "
+"then they better pay me&rdquo; &mdash; both of us have a good reason to use "
+"the GNU General Public License.  Because that says to that company, &ldquo;"
+"You can't just take my work, and distribute it without the freedom.&rdquo; "
+"Whereas, the non-copyleft licenses, like the X Windows license, do permit "
+"that."
+msgstr ""
+"Jednak&nbsp;obie te grupy&nbsp;&ndash; zarówno tacy jak ja, którzy mówią: 
"
+"&bdquo;Nie chcę pomagać temu objętemu restrykcyjną licencją programowi "
+"rozpowszechnić się w&nbsp;społeczeństwie&rdquo; oraz&nbsp;ci, którzy 
mówią: "
+"&bdquo;Pewnie, mogę dla nich pracować, ale&nbsp;lepiej żeby mi "
+"zapłacili&rdquo;&nbsp;&ndash; obie grupy mają dobry powód, aby&nbsp;"
+"korzystać z&nbsp;GNU GPL. Bo&nbsp;mówi ona firmie: &bdquo;Nie możecie "
+"po&nbsp;prostu wziąć sobie wyników mojej pracy i&nbsp;rozpowszechniać ich 
"
+"bez&nbsp;wolności&rdquo;. Tymczasem licencje niezawierające copyleft, takie 
"
+"jak licencja systemu X, umożliwiają to."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"So that is the big division between the two categories of free software "
+"&mdash; license-wise.  There are the programs that are copylefted so that "
+"the license defends the freedom of the software for every user.  And there "
+"are the non-copylefted programs for which non-free versions are allowed.  "
+"Somebody <em>can</em> take those programs and strip off the freedom.  You "
+"may get that program in a non-free version."
+msgstr ""
+"Więc&nbsp;to jest wielka różnica pomiędzy dwoma kategoriami wolnego "
+"oprogramowania — pod&nbsp;względem licencji. Są programy objęte przez "
+"copyleft, w&nbsp;przypadku których licencja chroni wolności oprogramowania "
+"dla każdego użytkownika. I&nbsp;są programy nie objęte przez copyleft, "
+"w&nbsp;przypadku których dozwolone są wersje niewolne. Ktoś <em>może</em> 
"
+"wziąć te programy i&nbsp;odrzeć je z&nbsp;wolności. Możecie dostać taki 
"
+"program w&nbsp;wersji niewolnej."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"And that problem exists today.  There are still non-free versions of X "
+"Windows being used on our free operating systems.  There is even hardware "
+"&mdash; which is not really supported &mdash; except by a non-free version "
+"of X Windows.  And that's a major problem in our community.  Nonetheless, I "
+"wouldn't say that X Windows is a bad thing, you know. I'd say that the "
+"developers did not do the best possible thing that they could have done.  "
+"But they <em>did</em> release a lot of software that we could all use."
+msgstr ""
+"A&nbsp;ten problem obecnie istnieje. Nadal istnieją niewolne wersje systemu "
+"X wykorzystywane w&nbsp;naszych wolnych systemach operacyjnych. Jest nawet "
+"sprzęt, który nie jest tak naprawdę obsługiwany za&nbsp;wyjątkiem 
niewolnych "
+"wersji X. To dla naszej społeczności ogromny problem. Tak czy&nbsp;inaczej "
+"nie powiedziałbym, że&nbsp;system X to coś złego. Powiedziałbym, 
że&nbsp;"
+"jego autorzy nie zrobili najlepszej z&nbsp;możliwych rzeczy. Ale&nbsp;"
+"<em>wydali</em> wiele programów, które wszyscy mogliśmy wykorzystać."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"You know, there's a big difference between less than perfect, and evil.  "
+"There are many gradations of good and bad.  We have to resist the temptation "
+"to say, if you didn't do the absolute best possible thing, then you're no "
+"good.  You know, the people that developed X Windows made a big contribution "
+"to our community.  But there's something better that they could have done.  "
+"They could have copylefted parts of the program and prevented those freedom-"
+"denying versions from being distributed by others."
+msgstr ""
+"Wiecie, jest duża różnica pomiędzy niedoskonałością i&nbsp;złem. Jest 
wiele "
+"odcieni dobrego i&nbsp;złego. Musimy oprzeć się pokusie mówienia, 
że&nbsp;"
+"jeśli nie zrobiłeś absolutnie najlepszej z&nbsp;możliwych rzeczy, to nie "
+"zrobiłeś niczego dobrego. No wiecie, autorzy systemu X wnieśli duży 
wkład "
+"do&nbsp;naszej społeczności. Ale&nbsp;mogli zrobić coś lepszego. Mogli 
objąć "
+"części programu licencją typu copyleft i&nbsp;zapobiec rozpowszechnianiu "
+"przez innych wersji odrzucających wolność."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Now, the fact that the GNU General Public License defends your freedom, uses "
+"copyright law to defend your freedom, is, of course, why Microsoft is "
+"attacking it today.  See, Microsoft would really like to be able to take all "
+"the code that we wrote and put it into proprietary programs, have somebody "
+"make some improvements, or even just incompatible changes is all they need.  "
+"<i>[Laughter]</i>"
+msgstr ""
+"Fakt, że&nbsp;GNU GPL broni waszej wolności, używa prawa autorskiego, 
żeby "
+"jej bronić, to oczywiście powód, dla którego Microsoft ją obecnie 
atakuje. "
+"Bo&nbsp;Microsoft naprawdę chciałby móc wziąć cały kod, który 
napisaliśmy "
+"i&nbsp;wsadzić go do&nbsp;objętych restrykcyjnymi licencjami programów, "
+"zlecić komuś wykonanie paru ulepszeń, albo&nbsp;nawet niezgodnych 
zmian&nbsp;"
+"&ndash; to wszystko, czego potrzebują. <i>[śmiech]</i>"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"You know, with Microsoft's marketing clout, they don't need to make it "
+"better to have their version supplant ours.  They just have to make it "
+"different and incompatible.  And then, put it on everybody's desktop.  So "
+"they really don't like the GNU GPL.  Because the GNU GPL won't let them do "
+"that.  It doesn't allow &ldquo;embrace and extend&rdquo;.  It says, if you "
+"want to share our code in your programs, you can.  But, you've got to share "
+"and share alike.  The changes that you make we have to be allowed to share.  "
+"So, it's a two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation."
+msgstr ""
+"Dzięki przewadze marketingowej Microsoft nie musi tych programów ulepszać, 
"
+"żeby ich wersje wyparły nasze. Muszą tylko sprawić, aby&nbsp;były inne "
+"i&nbsp;niezgodne. A&nbsp;potem wrzucić to wszystkim na&nbsp;komputery. Tak "
+"więc&nbsp;oni naprawdę nie lubią GNU GPL. Bo&nbsp;GNU GPL nie pozwala im "
+"tego zrobić. Nie pozwala na&nbsp;&bdquo;przyjęcie 
i&nbsp;rozszerzenie&rdquo; "
+"[<em>ang. &bdquo;embrace, extend (and extinguish)&rdquo;&nbsp;&ndash; "
+"taktyka Microsoftu</em>]. Mówi ona, że&nbsp;jeśli chcecie wykorzystać 
w&nbsp;"
+"swoich programach nasz kod, to możecie to zrobić. Ale&nbsp;musicie się "
+"również dzielić, dzielić w&nbsp;taki sam sposób. Musicie pozwolić nam "
+"na&nbsp;dzielenie się zmianami, które wprowadzicie. Jest to więc&nbsp;"
+"dwukierunkowa współpraca, czyli&nbsp;prawdziwa współpraca."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Many companies &mdash; even big companies like IBM and HP are willing to use "
+"our software on this basis.  IBM and HP contribute substantial improvements "
+"to GNU software.  And they develop other free software.  But, Microsoft "
+"doesn't want to do that, so they give it out that businesses just can't deal "
+"with the GPL.  Well, if businesses don't include IBM, and HP and SUN, then "
+"maybe they're right.  <i>[Laughter]</i> More about that later."
+msgstr ""
+"Wiele firm&nbsp;&ndash; nawet dużych, takich jak IBM i&nbsp;HP, jest "
+"skłonnych korzystać z&nbsp;naszych programów na&nbsp;tych zasadach. IBM "
+"i&nbsp;HP wnoszą do&nbsp;oprogramowania GNU ważne ulepszenia. I&nbsp;tworzą
 "
+"inne wolne oprogramowanie. Jednak&nbsp;Microsoft nie chce tego robić, "
+"więc&nbsp;ogłasza, że&nbsp;dla firm GPL jest po&nbsp;prostu nie do&nbsp;"
+"przyjęcia. No tak, jeśli do&nbsp;firm nie zaliczałyby się IBM, HP i&nbsp;"
+"Sun, to może mieliby rację. <i>[śmiech]</i> Więcej na&nbsp;ten temat 
później."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"I should finish the historical story.  You see, we set out in 1984 not just "
+"to write some free software but to do something much more coherent: to "
+"develop an operating system that was entirely free software.  So that meant "
+"we had to write piece after piece after piece.  Of course, we were always "
+"looking for shortcuts.  The job was so big that people said we'd never be "
+"able to finish.  And, I thought that there was at least a chance that we'd "
+"finish it but, obviously, it's worth looking for shortcuts.  So we kept "
+"looking around. Is there any program that somebody else has written that we "
+"could manage to adapt, to plug into here, and that way we won't have to "
+"write it from scratch? For instance, the X Window system.  It's true it "
+"wasn't copylefted, but it was free software, so we could use it."
+msgstr ""
+"Powinienem dokończyć opowieść historyczną. W&nbsp;1984 zaczynaliśmy "
+"działalność nie tylko po&nbsp;to, aby&nbsp;napisać trochę wolnego "
+"oprogramowania, ale&nbsp;żeby zrobić coś dużo bardziej spójnego: 
stworzyć "
+"składający się wyłącznie z&nbsp;wolnego oprogramowania system 
operacyjny. "
+"Oznaczało to, że&nbsp;musieliśmy pisać kawałek za&nbsp;kawałkiem. 
Oczywiście "
+"zawsze szukaliśmy dróg na&nbsp;skróty. Praca do&nbsp;wykonania była tak "
+"wielka, że&nbsp;ludzie twierdzili, iż nigdy nam się nie uda jej 
skończyć. Ja "
+"uważałem, że&nbsp;istnieje co najmniej mała szansa, że&nbsp;uda nam się 
"
+"doprowadzić to do&nbsp;końca, ale&nbsp;oczywiście warto jest szukać dróg 
"
+"na&nbsp;skróty. Więc&nbsp;ciągle rozglądaliśmy się dookoła. 
Czy&nbsp;jest "
+"jakiś program, który napisał ktoś inny i&nbsp;który dalibyśmy radę "
+"dostosować, wetknąć tutaj, aby&nbsp;nie trzeba było pisać go 
od&nbsp;nowa