This interview is published under the terms of the free documentation
licence. Details at
(www.gnu.org). Questions by David Larsson. Answers by Tim Lane.
Q: What do you think of the use of the name Linux as a describer for
the entire distributions, although Linux, actually, only is the kernel?
A: Linux is indeed only the kernel, as anyone involved in its
developmennt will testify. I think Richard Stallman has a good point
when he says that changing the name to GNU/Linux recognises the
massive contribution that many people have had to the success
story of the system known as 'linux'. When you actually have a look
at the most popular applications there are thousands of GNU programs
in the operating system that make it do what people want it to do.
Without the GNU contribution there wouldn't be a workable
system. Some have said that the X consortium have made major
contributions to the system as well, and that is certainly true,
however that isn't so much a movement as a system itself. The
important thing to my mind is giving the free software
movement the recognition it deserves (which is exactly what drives it
on in the first place), and giving others the opportunity through
that recognition to add their own contributions to the movement.
Without that recognition, many people just won't know how it all
works. Many people still think that 'Linux' is created by a band of
professional programmers like at Microsoft or Sun.
Q: Why do you think Eric S. Raymond & others started the 'open-source' movement, why didn't he stick with 'free software'?
Q: Why do you think many people abandoned the term 'free software' & went to 'open source' instead?
A: Eric & others have clearly stated that they introduced the name 'Open
Source' following a brainstorm on how to bring the movement of free
software to a wider audience. While it is true that 'free software'
has an image amoung many managers of the bad old days of freeware
(which was software that people thought wasn't good enough to sell as
shareware), using a different name does introduce a kind of fork in
the movement that diverts attention away from the most important
aspects in my opinion, that is the community itself. While there is a
community of many open source developers, the ideals of the free
software movement are sometimes subsumed in the overall drive to
success.
'Free software' has nothing to do with charging money, but
means 'freely available source code' amoung other things. The main
purpose of the movement is to build a community, then to have fun
creating neat programs for all to enjoy. When you look at the
wonderful software currently available under the GPL, I think anyone
must agree that it has been a success. Openoffice.org is one of the
best examples of this. Other free software licences, that are
compatible with the GPL also exist. See the GNU website(www.gnu.org) for full details.
As RMS has said, the 'Open Source' movement isn't the enemy of the
Free Software movement, commercial closed source software is the real
enemy of both of us.
(Q: What is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow?? ;-) )
A:It depends on how much breakfast it had!
(And if it's European or African.[David] ;-) )
Q: What advantages do you think the term 'open source' gives,
and what downsides are there?
A: The downside as I've said is that it draws attention away
from the highest purpose of our movement, wiich is what it can do for
the individual themselves. The importance of the community is
highlighted when you realise that it is this spirit that drives the
movement foreward by providing the motivation that often disappears on
a project done in isolation.
Q: What do you think of the GPL as a copyright-license? What
about the other 'open-source' licenses?
A:I think that today the GPL is the best of the free software
licences. The best thing about it is that it helps to perptuate the
free software movement amoungst developers where others do not. It
makes people think about what they are doing and why they are doing it.
The GPL will probably evolve in the future, it already has, but it will
always contain the purpose of the free software movement which is the
continuation of the community. In itself it provides many more
benefits than pure development does alone. The main one being the
reduction of isolation & loneliness which can be a very powerful thing
to a lone hacker.
Q: What do you think of the term 'hacker' and what do you think
of the false image that media gives of 'hackers' and mixing them up
with 'crackers'?
A: I and many others attempt continually to use the
term 'hacker' in its correct sense of someone addicted to the creative
process inherent in voluntary programming.
However as language is a continually evolving entity despite the
attempts of generations of dictionary writers, we might have a losing
battle on our hands with this one. We will continue to use the term in
its correct meaning to those with a personal interest, the others will
probably carry on using it in the alternative meaning.
David Larsson and Tim Lane, OSD.
Back to The Philosophy of Open Source section