|
During your stay in Guatemala and as part of the activities of the Congress of Students of Sciences and Systems (COECYS) In his lecture entitled "Copyright versus Community", Richard Stallman carried out a retrospective on issues of intellectual property, patents and the foundations of a movement such as free software.
On more than one occasion he emphasized the ethical and political aspects of this movement where more than something technical, it is intended to privilege the freedom of individuals. He also expressed his opinion regarding the new forms of digital "rebellion", Anonymous included. |
Why do you say that patents are a threat?
-Because a patent –in any field– is a monopoly imposed by the State on the practice of some idea. The patent is a document and describes an idea that no one can use without asking permission.
The problem and the theoretical motive of patents is to encourage the publication of descriptions of ideas, so that they can be used later, when the patent expires. This theoretical idea might be good if it worked, but it doesn't. In the field of software, or perhaps in some fields, because I am not an expert in making physical objects, but I am an expert in making software, a great program can combine thousands of ideas.
If only ten percent of the ideas in the field are proprietary, this means that in this great program there will be hundreds of proprietary ideas, in other words, hundreds of potential lawsuits on the program developer for the code they have written. It is almost impossible to develop software in such an environment.
So computer patents are obstacles to development and with so many patents and with so many ideas in each program, writing a large program is like crossing a minefield. Therefore the system does not serve its purpose. Maybe in another field, I don't know, but not in software. Software patents need to be eliminated in countries that have made the mistake of accepting them. And other countries must avoid that mistake.
And what could be an alternative to organize ...?
- Needless. Computer patents pretend to be the solution to a problem that doesn't exist. They only do wrong. When there were no computer patents in the United States, you did not see any problem that, to correct itself, required computer patents.
One of the criticisms sometimes made of free software in the business environment is that they depend on a community, and sometimes it is a bit anarchic ...
-Yes it is. That is the anarchic aspect of free software. But why does that bother?
Doesn't that make it less effective?
- It may be, but everyone is free.
But then doesn't this weaken it for an enterprise application that needs more stable support?
- Nerd. Is not true. First, support in free software has an advantage over proprietary software, since the latter can be a monopoly. In the latter, only the developer has the source code, therefore only he can correct any problems. But with free software the support is a free market. It's easy to get in if you have the talent.
So for a user who wants good support and is willing to pay for it, he can get better support for his money with free software. With this there is a free support from volunteers, but (which usually) does not guarantee anything. The user can ask and will get an answer, or not, because nobody owes him anything. But you also have the option to pay for support. There are many in the community willing to sell support.
You speak of the freedom that knowing "the code" of a program can provide, but for the end user of any software, this sounds quite foreign ...
- You shouldn't, because you can still be the victim of malicious functionality, and your only defense is to demand that your software be free. The non-programming user does not know how to investigate the source code or change it, so it will not be him who detects something malicious or who corrects it. But the programmers in the community, defending themselves from the malevolent also defend other users.
Why could free software be more effective than restrictive software?
- I'm not saying it. Open source ones can say that. Not me. What I am saying is that it is a mistake to judge programs only according to their practical utility and not according to their ethics, not according to their respect or lack of respect for your freedom. It is that judging programs like this is not valuing their own freedom, and whoever does not value their own freedom has a great probability of losing it soon.
A sensitive issue regarding free software development is how to make it profitable. What do you think would be an option?
- We don't need it to be profitable. Because many begin at this point to try to convince us to accept proprietary programs. But this implies that we renounce freedom. I prefer nothing to a proprietary program.
It is very important to recognize that financing the development of free software, although useful, is not essential, it is not a requirement to live in freedom. Because freedom sometimes demands a sacrifice. Sometimes it demands great sacrifices. But in software, fortunately, it requires only small sacrifices: agreeing to endure a discomfort. Everyone can bear that.
So how do you make money developing free programs?
- There are large companies that finance free software development and there are small free software development companies whose business can be based on developing solutions. A solution for each client. You deliver your solution as free software, and in the process you improve it, extend it, and you can write customer-specific code.
Do you think it is possible to extrapolate or apply the philosophy of free software to other areas such as journalism?
- I dont know. There is a site, Wikinews, that tries to do it and seems to do it more or less well. But what it doesn't do is research. Although it must be recognized that most newspapers today do not do much research either. They have more or less abandoned the investigation. So, [I would rather] give money to an independent investigative journalist. And that many others did too. I think it is necessary. But then, I don't know how much it applies to journalism.
The media are struggling to find a suitable model to distribute and monetize their information. The prevailing news is open to all to read, download and share. But the problem is that the media feel that this is leading to economic ruin ...
-Yes, but what is the use of a medium that requires its users to identify themselves? It's no use to me because I don't have access. On my personal site I put many links to newspaper articles, but only those that are accessible without identifying yourself.
If you need to identify yourself, I can't see it or link. I will never identify myself to read anything or listen to anything. Paying doesn't bother me. If they accepted anonymous payments, and if they delivered the items without digital locks, without unfair contracts, I could pay, I would be willing to pay. How not? I try to convince the media to offer the opportunity to pay anonymously, and without restrictive licenses.
Maybe using a Creative Commons license?
- Also, that would be even better, but I don't demand it. I only demand that it be no worse than the paper newspaper. If you respect my rights less than a paper newspaper, I will never use it.
What do you think of net neutrality?
- It's very important. But those who promote and defend net neutrality are not doing it enough. Because the network should not apply laws to its users technically, because those laws can be unfair.
And of movements like Anonymous?
- What Anonymous does is protest in the streets and in the shops of the network, as others do physically in the streets and shops of the city. Sometimes it is uncomfortable to have protests in the city but when we judge the protests we have to consider why they are protesting and Anonymous often protests against very bad things and harmful to freedom.
Even if they violate private property?
- I do not care much. They also don't do much damage to private property.
No more than when it is physically, let's say.
- Exactly. It is like the protests of occupying a store for an hour. Because Anonymous does not destroy. It occupies, but does not destroy.
How else do you think the free software philosophy can transform society?
–I don't know, because it directly applies to a single issue: the issue of software use in society, and it does not intend to transform other aspects of society. It can facilitate the protection of human rights generally, because we use software in many aspects of life and if we lose our human rights in software it would be more difficult to defend them in other aspects. But it is not transforming life but preventing it from being transformed for the worse. But transforming society is not the goal, protecting freedom is the goal.
Source: El Periódico