2001: A Hacker Odyssey

Two blocks east of Washington Square Park stands the building of Warren Weaver – brutal and imposing, like a fortress. This is where the Department of Computer Science at New York University is located. The industrial-style ventilation system creates a continuous veil of hot air around the building, equally discouraging the bustling entrepreneurs and the wandering idlers. If a visitor manages to overcome this line of defense, they are greeted by the next formidable barrier – the reception desk right at the only entrance.

After the reception desk, the intensity of the atmosphere somewhat lessens. But here too, visitors frequently encounter signs warning of the dangers of unlocked doors and blocked fire exits. They seem to remind us that safety and caution are never too much, even in the calm era that ended on September 11, 2001.

And these signs amusingly contrast with the crowd filling the inner hall. Some of these people truly resemble students from the prestigious New York University. But the majority look more like disheveled regulars at concerts and club performances, as if they emerged into the light during breaks between acts. This colorful crowd filled the building so quickly this morning that the local security guard merely waved and sat down to watch the Rikki Lake show on television, shrugging every time unanticipated visitors approached him with questions about some 'speech.'

Upon entering the auditorium, the visitor sees the very man who inadvertently sent the powerful security system of the building into a frenzy. This is Richard Matthew Stallman, the founder of the GNU project, founder of the Free Software Foundation, recipient of the MacArthur Fellowship in 1990, recipient of the Grace Murray Hopper Award the same year, co-recipient of the Takeda Award for improvements in economic and social life, and simply a hacker from the AI Lab. As the announcement sent out to numerous hacker websites, including the official one, stated, the portal of the GNU project, Stallman arrived in Manhattan, his home ground, to deliver a long-awaited speech in contrast to the campaign launched by Microsoft against the GNU GPL license.

Stallman's speech was dedicated to the past and future of the free software movement. The location was chosen deliberately. A month prior, Microsoft’s Senior Vice President Craig Mundie had made headlines nearby at the university's business school, delivering a speech filled with attacks and accusations against the GNU GPL license. Richard Stallman created this license 16 years ago following an incident with the Xerox laser printer as a means to combat the licenses and agreements that enshrouded the computer industry in opaque veils of secrecy and proprietorship. The essence of the GNU GPL is that it establishes a form of public ownership – what is now referred to as 'the digital commons' – utilizing the legal power of copyright, which is precisely what it is aimed against. The GPL made this form of ownership non-returnable and inalienable – once code is shared with the public, it cannot be reclaimed and appropriated. Derivative works that utilize GPL code must inherit this license. Due to this characteristic, critics of the GNU GPL label it as 'viral', as if it spreads to every program it touches.

‘Comparing it to a virus is too harsh,’ says Stallman, ‘a much better comparison is with flowers: they spread if you actively propagate them.’

If you want to learn more about the GPL license, visit the GNU project website.

For a high-tech economy that increasingly depends on software and becomes more tightly linked to programming standards, the GPL has become a true 'big stick.' Even companies that initially mocked it, calling it 'socialism for software,' have started to recognize the benefits of this license. The Linux kernel, developed by Finnish student Linus Torvalds in 1991, is licensed under the GPL, as are most components of the system: GNU Emacs, GNU Debugger, GNU GCC, and so on. Together, these components form the free operating system GNU/Linux, which is developed and owned by the global community. High-tech giants like IBM, Hewlett-Packard, and Oracle, rather than viewing the ever-growing free software as a threat, are using it as a foundation for their commercial applications and services.

Free software has also become their strategic tool in the protracted war against Microsoft, which has dominated the market for personal computer software since the late 1980s. With the most popular desktop operating system—Windows—Microsoft can incur the largest losses from the spread of the GPL in the industry. Every program that is part of Windows is protected by copyright and EULA-type licensing agreements, resulting in executable files and source codes becoming proprietary, denying users the ability to read and modify the code. If Microsoft wants to use GPL code in its system, it will have to relicense the entire system under the GPL. This would allow Microsoft's competitors to copy its products, enhance them, and sell them, thereby undermining the very foundation of the company's business—keeping users tied to its products.

This is where Microsoft's concern about the widespread adoption of the GPL by the industry originates. This is why Mundie recently lashed out against the GPL and open source in his speech. (Microsoft doesn't even acknowledge the term 'free software,' preferring instead to use the phrase 'open source' in its attacks. This is done to shift public attention away from the free software movement towards greater apoliticality). This is precisely why Richard Stallman decided to publicly object to this speech on campus today.

Twenty years is a significant span for the software industry. Just think: in 1980, when Richard Stallman was cursing the Xerox laser printer in an AI lab, Microsoft was not the global giant of the computer industry; it was a small private startup. IBM hadn't even introduced its first PC, which would later disrupt the low-cost computer market. Many technologies that we now take for granted—such as the internet, satellite television, and 32-bit gaming consoles—didn’t even exist. The same applies to many companies that now 'play in the top corporate league,' like Apple, Amazon, and Dell—they either didn’t exist or were going through tough times. The examples are numerous.

Among those who value development over freedom, the rapid progress in such a short time is often cited as an argument both for and against the GNU GPL. Proponents of the GPL point to the fleeting relevance of computer hardware. To avoid the risk of purchasing outdated products, consumers strive to choose the most promising companies. As a result, the market becomes a battleground where the winner takes all. Proprietary software environments, they argue, lead to monopoly dictatorship and market stagnation. Wealthy and powerful companies suffocate small competitors and innovative startups.

Their opponents assert the exact opposite. They claim that selling software is as risky as producing it, if not riskier. Without the legal assurances provided by proprietary licenses, companies have no motivation to engage in development. This is especially true for 'disruptive software' that creates entirely new markets. Once again, market stagnation reigns and innovation declines. As Mundi noted in his speech, the 'viral' nature of the GPL poses a 'threat' to any company that uses the uniqueness of its software product as a competitive advantage.

This also undermines the very foundation of the independent commercial software sector,
because it effectively makes it impossible to distribute software under the model of
purchasing products, rather than just paying for copies.

The success of both GNU/Linux and Windows over the past 10 years indicates that both sides have valid points. However, Stallman and other advocates of free software believe that this is a secondary issue. They argue that what matters more is not the success of free or proprietary software, but their ethical implications.

Nevertheless, it is crucial for software industry participants to ride the wave. Even powerful manufacturers like Microsoft pay a lot of attention to supporting third-party developers whose applications, professional packages, and games make the Windows platform attractive to consumers. Referencing the tumultuous development of the high-tech market over the past 20 years, not to mention the impressive achievements of his company over the same period, Mundy advised listeners not to be overly impressed by the new trend of free software:

Twenty years of experience have shown that an economic model that
protects intellectual property, and a business model that
compensates for research and development costs, can create
impressive economic benefits and widely distribute them.

In the midst of all these words that were spoken a month ago, Stallman is preparing for his own speech, standing on stage in the auditorium.

The last 20 years have transformed the world of high technology for the better. Richard Stallman has changed just as much during this time, but has it been for the better? Gone is the skinny, clean-shaven hacker who spent all his time in front of his beloved PDP-10. In his place is a portly middle-aged man with long hair and a rabbi's beard, a person who spends all his time corresponding via email, mentoring comrades, and giving speeches like today's. Dressed in a seafoam green T-shirt and polyester pants, Richard resembles a desert hermit who has just emerged from a Salvation Army outpost.

The crowd is filled with followers of Stallman's ideas and tastes. Many have come with laptops and mobile modems to record and transmit Stallman's words to the waiting internet audience. The gender composition of the attendees is highly uneven, with 15 men for every woman, and the women are holding soft toys – penguins, the official mascots of Linux, and plush bears.

Anxiously, Richard steps off the stage, sits down in the front row, and begins typing commands on his laptop. Ten minutes pass, and Stallman doesn't even notice the growing crowd of students, professors, and admirers bustling between the auditorium and the stage.

You can't just start speaking without first going through the decorative rituals of academic formalities, like properly introducing the speaker to the audience. But Stallman looks like he deserves not just one, but both introductions. Mike Yuretsky, co-director of the Advanced Technologies Center at the Business School, takes on the first one.

"One of the university's tasks is to conduct debates and promote the emergence of interesting discussions," Yuretsky begins, "and our seminar today fully aligns with this mission. In my opinion, discussing open source is particularly interesting."

Before Yuretsky can say another word, Stallman stands up straight and waves, like a driver on the side of the road due to a breakdown.

"I deal with free software," Richard says amid the growing laughter of the audience, "open source is a different direction."

Applause drowns out the laughter. The audience is filled with Stallman’s supporters, who are aware of his reputation for demanding precise formulations, as well as the well-known dispute Richard had with proponents of open source in 1998. Many of them were expecting something like this, just as fans of flamboyant stars await their idols' signature antics.

Yuretsky hastily wraps up his introduction and hands the stage over to Edmond Schonberg, a professor at New York University's Computer Science faculty. Schonberg is a programmer and participant in the GNU project, well-acquainted with the landscape of terminological landmines. He skillfully summarizes Stallman’s journey from the perspective of a modern programmer.

Richard is a great example of a person who, by tackling small issues, began to think about a larger one – the problem of source code accessibility, says Schönberg. He developed a coherent philosophy that influenced how we rethink our concepts of software production, intellectual property, and the developer community.

Schönberg welcomes Stallman to applause. He quickly shuts his laptop, steps onto the stage, and presents himself to the audience.

At first, Richard's speech resembles a stand-up performance more than a political speech. "I want to thank Microsoft for giving me such a compelling reason to speak here," he jokes, "in recent weeks, I feel like the author of a book that has been banned somewhere due to arbitrariness."

To bring the uninitiated up to speed, Stallman conducts a brief lesson based on analogies. He compares a computer program to a cooking recipe. Both are useful step-by-step instructions on how to achieve a desired goal and can be easily altered to suit circumstances or personal preferences. "You're not obliged to follow the recipe exactly," Stallman explains, "you can leave out certain ingredients or add mushrooms just because you like mushrooms. Put in less salt because your doctor advised you that – anything really."

The most important thing, according to Stallman, is that programs and recipes are very easy to share. To share a dinner recipe with a guest, all you need is a piece of paper and a couple of minutes. Copying computer programs takes even less – just a couple of mouse clicks and a bit of electricity. In both cases, the giver gains double benefits: strengthens the friendship and increases the chances that the same kindness will be returned.

“Now imagine that all recipes are like a black box,” Richard continues, “you don’t know what ingredients are used, you can’t alter the recipe or share it with a friend. If you do, you would be labeled a pirate and thrown in jail for many years. Such a world would cause immense outrage and rejection among people who love to cook and are used to sharing recipes. But this is exactly the world of proprietary software. A world where public goodwill is forbidden and suppressed.”

Following this introductory analogy, Stallman recounts the story of the Xerox laser printer. Just like the culinary analogy, the printer story is an effective rhetorical device. Similar to a parable, the story of the fateful printer illustrates how quickly everything can change in the world of software. Taking the audience back to a time long before one-click purchases on Amazon, Microsoft systems, and Oracle databases, Richard strives to convey to the audience what it was like to deal with programs that were not yet permanently locked under corporate logos.

Stallman’s narrative is carefully crafted and polished, akin to a closing argument from a district attorney in court. Upon reaching the incident at Carnegie Mellon when a researcher refused to share the source code of a printer driver, Richard pauses.

“He betrayed us,” Stallman declares, “but not only us. Perhaps he betrayed you too.”

As he says the word “you,” Stallman points at an unsuspecting listener in the audience. The listener raises their eyebrows, startled, but Richard is already scanning the crowd for another target among the nervously giggling audience, looking slowly and deliberately. “And I think he probably did it to you as well,” he says, indicating a person in the third row.

The audience is no longer giggling but laughing out loud. Indeed, Richard’s gesture appears somewhat theatrical. Nevertheless, Stallman concludes the story of the Xerox laser printer with the fervor of a true showman. “In fact, he betrayed far more people than are sitting in this audience, not counting those who were born after 1980,” Richard summarizes, eliciting even more laughter, “simply because he betrayed all of humanity.”

Then he reduces the degree of drama by stating: 'He did this by signing a non-disclosure agreement.'

The evolution of Richard Matthew Stallman from a frustrated researcher to a political leader speaks volumes. It reflects his stubborn character and impressive will. It demonstrates his clear worldview and distinct values, which helped him establish the free software movement. His high level of programming expertise has allowed him to create several essential applications and become an iconic figure for many programmers. Thanks to this evolution, the popularity and influence of the GPL continue to grow, and this legal innovation is often cited as Stallman's most significant achievement.

All of this indicates a transformation in the nature of political influence – it is increasingly intertwined with the information technologies and programs that embody it.

Perhaps that's why Stallman's star shines ever brighter, while the stars of many high-tech giants have faded and set. Since the launch of the GNU project in 1984, Stallman and his free software movement were first ignored, then mocked, and subsequently belittled and subjected to waves of criticism. Yet the GNU project managed to overcome all of this, albeit not without challenges and periodic stagnations, and continues to offer relevant software in a market that, by the way, has become significantly more complex over these decades. The philosophy laid down by Stallman as the foundation of GNU is also successfully evolving. In another part of his New York speech on May 29, 2001, Stallman briefly recounted the origin of the acronym:

We, hackers, often come up with amusing and even mischievous names for
our programs because naming programs is one of the joys
of writing them. We also have a tradition
of using recursive acronyms that indicate your
program is somewhat similar to existing applications... I
was searching for a recursive acronym in the form 'Something That's Not
Unix.' I went through all the letters of the alphabet, and none of them formed
a suitable word. I decided to shorten the phrase to three words, resulting in a
three-letter acronym of the form 'Something That's Not Unix.'
I started rummaging through letters and came across the word "GNU." That's the whole story.

Although Richard is a fan of puns, he advises pronouncing the acronym
in English with a clear "g" at the beginning to avoid not only
confusion with the name of the African antelope gnu but also similarity with
the English adjective "new," meaning "new." "We've been working on
the project for a couple of decades now, so it’s not new at all," he jokes
Stallman.

Source: Author's notes to the transcript of Stallman's New York speech "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation" from May 29, 2001.

Understanding the reasons behind this demand and success greatly benefits from studying the speeches and statements of both Richard himself and those around him, who either help him or throw wrenches in the works. Stallman's persona shouldn't be overly complicated. If there is a living example of the old saying "reality is exactly as it appears," it is Stallman.

"I think that if you want to understand Richard Stallman as a person, you need to look at him as a whole rather than analyze him piece by piece," reflects Eben Moglen, counsel for the Free Software Foundation and professor of law at Columbia University. "All these eccentric traits that many people view as artificial and exaggerated are, in fact, sincere expressions of Richard's personality. He was genuinely very disappointed at one point, extremely principled on ethical issues, and rejects any compromises on the main, fundamental problems. That's precisely why Richard did everything he did."

It's not easy to explain how a confrontation with a laser printer escalated into a clash with the wealthiest corporations in the world. To do this, one must thoughtfully study the reasons why software ownership suddenly became so important. One needs to get better acquainted with a person who, like many political leaders of the past, understands how mutable and malleable people's memories can be. It’s important to grasp the significance of the myths and ideological templates that have surrounded Stallman's figure over time. Finally, one must recognize the level of genius Richard possesses as a programmer and why this brilliance sometimes fails in other areas.

If you ask Stallman himself to explain the reasons for his evolution from hacker to leader and evangelist, he will agree with the above. "Stubbornness is my strong point," he says, "most people fail to overcome great difficulties simply because they give up. I never give up."

He also acknowledges blind chance. If it weren't for the story with the Xerox laser printer, if it weren't for a series of personal and ideological clashes that doomed his career at MIT, if it weren't for a handful of other circumstances that coincided with time and place, Stallman’s life, by his own admission, would have been completely different. Thus, Stallman is grateful to fate for guiding him down the path he is on.

"I simply had the necessary skills," Richard says at the end of his speech, summarizing the story of the launch of the GNU project, "no one else could have done this, only I. Therefore, I felt that I was chosen for this mission. I just had to do it. After all, if not me, then who?"

Source: linux.org.ru