Free as in Freedom. Richard Stallman’s Crusade for Free Software

See Evan Leibovitch, “Who’s Afraid of Big Bad Wolves”, ZDNet Tech Update (December 15, 2000).

http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate /stories/main/0Y/A>

3.

For narrative purposes, I have hesitated to go in-depth when describing Stallman’s full definition of software “freedom”. The GNU Project web site lists four fundamental components:

The freedom to run a program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

The freedom to study how a program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1).

The freedom to redistribute copies of a program so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3).

For more information, please visit “The Free Software Definition” at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free- sw.html.

4.

See Eric Raymond, “Shut Up and Show Them the Code”, online essay, (June 28, 1999).

5.

See “Guest Interview: Eric S. Raymond”, Linux.com (May 18, 1999).

http://www.linux.com/interviews/19990518/8/< /p>

Chapter 9 notes

1.

See Hal Abelson, Mike Fischer, and Joanne Costello, “Software and Copyright Law”, updated version (1998).

http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/6805/articles/int-prop/software-copyright.html

2.

See Trn Kit README.

http://www.za.debian.org/doc/trn/trn- readme

3.

See John Gilmore, quoted from email to author.

4.

See Richard Stallman, et al., “GNU General Public License: Version 1”, (February, 1989).

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copying- 1.0.html

5.

See David Betz and Jon Edwards, “Richard Stallman discusses his public-domain [sic] Unix-compatible software system with BYTE editors”, BYTE (July, 1996). (Reprinted on the GNU Project web site: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/byte-interview.html.)

This interview offers an interesting, not to mention candid, glimpse at Stallman’s political attitudes during the earliest days of the GNU Project. It is also helpful in tracing the evolution of Stallman’s rhetoric.

Describing the purpose of the GPL, Stallman says, “I’m trying to change the way people approach knowledge and information in general. I think that to try to own knowledge, to try to control whether people are allowed to use it, or to try to stop other people from sharing it, is sabotage”.

Contrast this with a statement to the author in August 2000: “I urge you not to use the term `intellectual property’ in your thinking. It will lead you to misunderstand things, because that term generalizes about copyrights, patents, and trademarks. And those things are so different in their effects that it is entirely foolish to try to talk about them at once. If you hear somebody saying something about intellectual property, without quotes, then he’s not thinking very clearly and you shouldn’t join”.

6.

The University of California’s “obnoxious advertising clause” would later prove to be a problem. Looking for a less restrictive alternative to the GPL, some hackers used the University of California, replacing “University of California” with the name of their own instution. The result: free software programs that borrowed from dozens of other programs would have to cite dozens of institutions in advertisements. In 1999, after a decade of lobbying on Stallman’s part, the University of California agreed to drop this clause.

See “The BSD License Problem” at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html .

7.

See Michael Tiemann, “Future of Cygnus Solutions: An Entrepreneur’s Account”, Open Sources (O’Reilly & Associates, Inc., 1999): 139.

8.

See Richard Stallman, BYTE (1986).

9.

See “HURD History”.