David Notik

I came across a fascinating interview with Richard Stallman, the founder of the free software movement. The movement's aim is to give freedom to computer users by replacing proprietary software with restrictive licensing terms with free software. It's very similar to the concept of open source software, where the software is free and its underlying code open to all to mold and enhance, except that Stallman's movement believes proprietary software to be immoral whereas the open source movement does not necessarily. These movements are a vital part of the discussion around software and technology, and indeed have dramatically altered the technology ecosystem, affecting anyone who uses a computer or the Internet.

In Stallman's own words:

The basic idea of the Free Software Movement is that the user of software deserves certain freedoms. There are four essential freedoms, which we label freedoms 0 through 3.

Freedom 0 is the freedom to run the software as you wish. Freedom 1 is the freedom to study and change the source code as you wish. Freedom 2 is the freedom to copy and distribute the software as you wish. And freedom 3 is the freedom to create and distribute modified versions as you wish. With these four freedoms, users have full control of their own computers, and can use their computers to cooperate in a community. Freedoms 0 and 2 directly benefit all users, since all users can exercise them. Freedoms 1 and 3, only programmers can directly exercise, but everyone benefits from them, because everyone can adopt (or not) the changes that programmers make. Thus, free software develops under the control of its users.

Non-free software, by contrast, keeps users divided and helpless. It is distributed in a social scheme designed to divide and subjugate. The developers of non-free software have power over their users, and they use this power to the detriment of users in various ways. It is common for non-free software to contain malicious features, features that exist not because the users want them, but because the developers want to force them on the users. The aim of the free software movement is to escape from non-free software.

This interview really gave me a better understanding of Stallman's philosophy. He alludes to a bigger purpose, making it clear that he believes the system currently prevalent in the world has negative forces, forces that fail to encourage the pursuit of that bigger purpose.

Fascism is a system of government that sucks up to business and has no respect for human rights. So the Bush regime is an example, but there are lots of others. In fact, it seems we are moving towards more fascism globally.

He believes that proprietary software is most often towards the creator's personal success rather than towards this bigger purpose.

I don't have a problem with someone using their talents to become successful, I just don't think the highest calling is success. Things like freedom and the expansion of knowledge are beyond success, beyond the personal. Personal success is not wrong, but it is limited in importance, and once you have enough of it it is a shame to keep striving for that, instead of for truth, beauty, or justice.

He believes the free software movement is correlated with other movements for social change.

If you are against the globalization of business power, you should be for free software.

People who say they are against globalization are really against the globalization of business power. They are not actually against globalization as such, because there are other kinds of globalization, the globalization of cooperation and sharing knowledge, which they are not against. Free software replaces business power with cooperation and the sharing of knowledge.

Globalizing a bad thing makes it worse. Business power is bad, so globalizing it is worse. But globalizing a good thing is usually good. Cooperation and sharing of knowledge are good, and when they happen globally, they are even better.

The kind of globalization there are demonstrations against is the globalization of business power. And free software is a part of that movement. It is the expression of the opposition to domination of software users by software developers.

This is really interesting stuff to me, particularly because I myself am exploring (indeed, supporting) globalization, and am generally for it; I'm very interested in the systems that make things work, and whether they indeed work; and I'm passionate about the future of the world.

I absolutely agree that there are negative forces that stem from the capitalistic system currently at play all over the world, and I am an impassioned believer that technological progress (and hence general progress) is hampered by these negative forces. After all, I believe the greatest challenge facing the whole of technology is getting it all to work together, given the business forces that prevent this. Yet, I wonder if neutralizing these forces should be built into the system itself or left up to the choice, the good will, of mankind. That's a key question in my mind.

I'll leave it there, but it's a constant exploration of course. Read the interview, follow the links, realize that it's all connected. From free software to globalization to the war raging in the Middle East. It's about the push towards a better world, and there certainly isn't one opinion of what that world looks like.

Your thoughts?