LeoRuffini

It sounds better in Spanish, as it doesn’t leave any room for ambiguity. “Free” may mean free of charge, when in fact it’s a matter of freedom. Free software is when users are free to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. This can be brought down to four essential freedoms: you can use it for whatever reason; you can access its source code to study how it works and adapt it to your needs; you can distribute copies freely; and you can improve it and make the improvements public so that everyone benefits. It’s a pity you use an Apple… it contains proprietary software that is as harmful as Microsoft’s.

Why should I be worried?

Because it makes you dependent on Apple, as it has absolute control over you and can change your programs at any time when you’re connected to the internet. It also includes functions that limit your freedom, and that’s not right. We should take control of our computers and the only way to do this is through free software, which respects freedom.

I see.

A proprietary program keeps its users in a state of division and powerlessness: division because you cannot share it with others and powerlessness because you don’t have the source code and you can’t change the program. You just have to accept it as it is, as its developer wanted. You can’t even guess what it’s doing to you, because many of them have evil elements for spying on, restricting and even attacking the user.

Did you say attack?

Yes. Your operating system leaves a backdoor open for Apple to do what it wants in it without you being able to defend yourself. And Apple has already shown its inclination to attack its users when they do things that it doesn’t like. Trusting it is madness, just like with Microsoft.

Don’t you think that many of us choose proprietary software because it’s a quicker option for starting work?

Yes. And you’re mad! You don’t value your freedom! Users who renounce their freedom will pay a high price in the long term because Apple can tell them what they can and can’t do. You just say “that’s life” and it seems natural to you that we’re subject to the control of a company without considering what this means for you. And if you look at these restrictions, you don’t see them as a consequence of your bad decision to use proprietary software, but they are. And now the Spanish Ministry of Culture is helping the industry control the public!

How?

By prohibiting and eliminating free exchange on the internet and supporting charges, which should be eliminated because it’s unfair.

Would you like to suggest an alternative?

By replacing it with a state tax. The money collected should be shared directly among musicians depending on their success, although not in a linear proportion to it, but based on a mathematical function, like the cube root. It doesn’t need to be this exactly, but what is important is that if an artist is 1,000 times more successful than another, their income is not 1,000 times, but 10 times greater.

What would we gain with this formula? 

The money would reach a lot of musicians and we would be promoting art more efficiently, which is the only valid aim of copyright; and we would get rid of the SGAE (Spanish Society of Authors Composers and Publishers) and would stop supporting companies that are constantly attacking our freedom. All those who are against exchanging with P2P programs attack society at its core, which is the spirit of helping your fellow man, of sharing. They’ve made themselves the enemies of society because they serve companies: these are their emperor.

So, should books and music also be free?

Works with a practical use for life, such as software, recipes, educational or reference works and character fonts for texts should be. Works of art are not created with a sense of the practical, but to be admired, which is why I don’t feel that they should be free. However, we should all be able to enjoy the right to non-commercially share exact copies of any published works.

Going back to free software. Supposing I want to get rid of all the proprietary programs on my computer.

It’s possible! Delete it and install a GNU/Linux operating system.

But I’m an ordinary user, not an expert.

That’s got nothing to do with it. You’re making an objection just to get round the subject.

No, I just…

It’s not really a problem! There’s no reason why a beginner should install the system themselves. Why go down the difficult route? The easy one’s better, which is going to an installation party organised by a group of users, where there will be experts on hand to help you. I don’t even install GNU/Linux myself, as it’s not what interests me the most. When I need to, I ask someone to help me. As you can see, all you need do is learn how to use it, which is much simpler. And you don’t even need to install it to start using it.

Really?

Start by installing the computer from a CD-ROM that contains the free operating system. If you want to go back to the proprietary system that you’ve always used, remove the disk and start the computer as usual. You can do this as often as you like. And when you’re familiar with the system and it doesn’t take you too long and isn’t too difficult, go to an installation party.

Imagine that a group of programmers have a wonderful idea. Why should they… ?

Just a minute. What do you mean by wonderful? Implementing an ethical program would be good. But doing it under an unfair system is bad, however wonderful that idea may be. They will have to make a moral choice. If they choose the bad route and make it proprietary, the useful functions of the program will act as bait to attract users into the trap of losing their freedom. If they choose the good route, they will implement it as free software respecting the freedom of others and offering something ethical and good to society. It may take them longer to develop it, but it’s better to do a little of something good than a lot of something bad. And if it’s not possible to develop software as free, then it’s best not to do it.

You began working with GNU in 1983. Microsoft launched Windows two years later. Why does Bill Gates’ operating system dominate today, if on top of everything you have to pay for it?

Two reasons. The first is that, as I said earlier, many people do not appreciate their freedom and give it away without realising that they’re losing it. The other reason is social inertia: many institutions continue to move towards using proprietary software. This is changing in some regions of Spain, where schools have migrated to free software.

Is this good news for you?

I hope that other regions follow their example now that we know that it’s not so difficult, all you need is the will to do it. Schools should teach their students not to be dependent on one company. It’s like injecting them with addictive drugs! That’s why we talk about Apple’s and Microsoft’s Education “Ser-Vice”, as they offer almost free copies to schools to generate dependency. In other words, they give you the first shot free because they know that you’ll start paying when you become addicted.

Are you optimistic about the future of free software?

I’m not an optimist by nature, but I know that giving up the fight means defeat. The future? I don’t know what it looks like. It depends on you.

PERFIL

• Leader of the GNU project to develop a free operating system.
• Founder of the Free Software Foundation.
• Honorary Doctor from the University of Glasgow, Vrije Universiteit Bruxelles and the National University of Salta, among others.
• Creator of software components for GNU, such as the Emacs text editor.
• Author of the GNU Public License, the most widely used software license, and inventor of the copyleft concept.
• Promoter of the GNUPedia, considered a direct forerunner to Wikipedia.
• A Harvard University physics graduate (1974).

ENLACES