FOR a face to face with Richard Stallman (New York, 1953), the messiah who invented free software and popularized the term copyleft (which promotes copying), it is necessary to do your homework and fill your head with concepts. The inventor of the first alternative to Microsoft (Windows) and Apple (Mac Os) systems has star quirks: he does not travel without an inflatable mattress and gives lectures in socks. His peculiarities go beyond habits. As he admits, he is "half-deaf," and although he speaks Spanish, each syllable must be pronounced loud and clear because he is "equally deaf in all languages." And he gets angry if he doesn't distinguish between concepts like GNU/Linux and Linux. He explains why: "We created [the free operating system] GNU in the eighties, but to run it on a machine we needed the kernel, Linux, an element created by a Finnish student, Linus Torvalds [then, in 1991, aged 21 ] The problem is that people called the whole Linux, and not GNU/Linux."
EP3 plays with an advantage. Stallman appears exhausted after so much talk at Madrid's Medialab-Prado, where he criticized Microsoft and Apple and distanced himself from the Linux community, which, according to him, has departed from the true doctrine by worrying about the code - the instructions that a user follows. computer to run a program - and not for social solidarity.
EP3. His theories are based on freedom and solidarity. What requirements must software meet to be free?
Richard Stallman. It must allow the user to use the program as they wish; study it and adapt it; give the option of helping others by distributing copies and benefiting the community by distributing modified versions. Software that gives these four freedoms is free because its distribution and use systems are ethical. If not, it is exclusive and it is a dictatorship. Microsoft is: it monitors, restricts and attacks. Their programs do evil things…
EP3. As which?
RS They pose a moral dilemma. If a friend asks for a copy of the program, he will have to choose between two evils: offer it and break the license, or refuse it and respect the contract. I know two solutions to the problem: not have friends or reject proprietary software. This last one is my remedy.
EP3. His theory is ideal, but in practice it is flawed. Most users cannot exercise the rights they defend because they do not know how to do so.
RS If someone wants to be a programmer, there is only one way: choose free software and learn to program. It's easier because you can read your code.
EP3. The Free Knowledge Foundation (FKF), which you lead, has dedicated its energy to creating non-proprietary programs. But it has neglected to create a free community capable of programming.
RS At the FKF we are few..., but there are thousands of schools that train programmers. Why should we waste time doing it ourselves? Of course, schools would have to teach free software. Some multinationals impose their proprietary programs by giving copies to institutes to create dependency. It's like drugs. The first dose is free, but when you are addicted you have to pay.
EP3. He has criticized Gmail. Because?
RS Better not to trust your emails to a company. And even less so if it is from the United States.
EP3. Are there alternatives?
RS The FKF has a mail server.
EP3. Can we all open an account?
RS No. But a group can set up its own mail server.
EP3. Knowing the source code is of no use if you don't know how to program.
RS But the user can hire someone to modify a program.
EP3. Isn't it against business?
RS I'm not a communist, I don't want to eliminate the business. But some companies turn the consumer into a prisoner.
EP3. What do you think of the musical crisis?
RS Multinationals deserve to fail, they have bought laws to attack us. I'm not against producing records and selling them if copies can be shared. This does not mean eliminating copyright. My ideas depend on the use that is made of the work. I distinguish three types of creations: those for practical use; those that transmit thought, and those of art and fun. Practices must be free. Software is an example. It's no use admiring its source code. The purpose of a program is to be executed. It's like a recipe. Imagine that one day the State tells chefs: "Starting today, if you copy or change a recipe we will call you pirates and put you in prison." The tendency to copy, change and improve programs is not coincidental. It is a logical consequence.