From: Stephen McKay
To: muc.lists.freebsd.chat
Date: May 12, 1999
Subject: Richard Stallman came to town

Richard Stallman visited my home town yesterday, and I went along to see
the renowned zealot of free software.   I was expecting to see an imposing
figure with a permanent scowl, the result of being on a first name basis
with the Almighty, but forced constantly to deal with the ignorant masses.

What I saw was a short and hairy, almost unkempt, man who smiled lightly
when I made eye contact.  He was tired, presumably from an unknown number
of previous engagements, and slumped over the desk while waiting for the
room to fill.

About 30 seats were occupied in the small conference room.  Everyone had
tea or coffee and were totally ignoring the unlikely looking Saint Stallman
while catching up with friends who had unexpectedly heard about the event
and conspired to be at the same place at the same time.  I had heard about
it only by accident, and attending had the flavour of being able to finally
watch the rites of some secret society through knowing a friend of a friend.

"Can I start now?", asked Stallman.  The room fell silent.

The organiser, worriedly looking at the wall clock, responded that not all
of the registered guests had arrived.  But after a bit of wrangling with
other supporting staff, and resolving to allow late arrivals to enter, the
event officially commenced.

The organiser began his introduction, a short piece read from written
notes.  A tangled and confusing short piece that was so far off the mark
that Stallman remarked, "Perhaps you should let me tell the story."  Moving
onto more solid ground, the organiser listed some awards that Stallman
had received, his most recent one shared with Linus Torvalds.  After this,
Mr Stallman was permitted to speak.

He spoke calmly, and unhurriedly.  He told of the glory days of MIT, the
times of community and collective effort, the simple and effective results
of sharing software in an open and free manner.  He told of the
difficulties he and his group experienced with proprietary software, even
when coupled with superior hardware.  And he told of the impotent anger
he felt when he found someone who had the software he needed, but refused
to release a copy, for fear of breaking non-disclosure.

During this part of the monologue he mentioned ITS, the "Incompatible
Timesharing System" and a colleague and I lost composure and laughed a
quick bark of a laugh "Ha!" before realising that nobody else had moved
a muscle.

Stallman found it pretty odd as well, and said that laughing was OK, and
that "hacking is about humour too".  I started to wonder what everyone
else was thinking.  Were they still listening to Saint Stallman the
Incredibly Serious, Bearer of GNU the Microsoft-Slaying Sword, and Dweller
in the Wilderness?  How could they maintain this illusion while he found
things in his beard, picked at his finger nails, and had already discarded
his worn sneakers so as to better entangle his legs in the chair?

So, he continued his talk, describing the history of the GNU project, the
GNU manifesto and other things I had heard about before.  But what I had
not heard was the simple logic behind the history, the version without
any mention of "lunatic" or "totally detached from reality".  His story
was basically along the lines of "This and that event happened.  I didn't
like it.  I couldn't see how anybody would like it.  I resolved never to
do that to anyone.  I started a project designed specifically to counteract
these unpleasant events."  Well, that's how I see the creation of the GNU
project, as I heard him describe it.  With enough software in the GNU
world he would never have to put up with malfunctioning proprietary
software, would never have to submit to NDA conditions, and nobody else
would have to either.

There was no whining when he explained why what he thought of as the
GNU/Linux system should be called the GNU/Linux system.  He calmly
described the historical timing, the intent of the GNU group, and the way
the Linux Kernel fit into the last major gap in the GNU system.  Without
GNU in the name, he reasoned, nobody will pay any attention to the GNU
portion, and nobody will consider the philosophy behind it, and the message
would be lost.  He was giving out GNU/Linux Inside stickers after the
talk, he said, and later I collected a few, though I had to admit that I
had no Linux systems, running only FreeBSD, but had been caught up in the
experience, and had to have some anyway.

After describing the recent successes of free software, none of which
should be any surprise to you, the story stopped at the present day, and
then it was question time, and he eagerly opened a block of chocolate
(fruit and nut, I expect), as perhaps a compensation for skipping the
pending evening meal.

While the first intrepid questioner tried to ask a question in a way that
didn't contradict anything Stallman had expressly stated, my brain worked
feverishly.  Had not many people on the FreeBSD lists expressed dire
warnings about the GPL?  What was it I should be asking?

I caught his eye and squeaked out my insightful question:  "What do you
think of FreeBSD?"  Could I have asked a more imprecise question?  Yes,
and you'll get to read that one shortly.

"They are misguided," said Stallman, and I was confused enough by his
answer overlapping my attempts to construct a better question that I can't
report any of his reasoning.  I should have brought a camcorder.

"But", I said, "some of the FreeBSD people think the GPL is evil.  It
restricts commerce."  This was the even lamer question I warned you about.
Was I subconsciously trying to rile the man by using emotive words?  Did
I want to report "Stallman breaths fire and abuses FreeBSD supporter"?
Regardless, he continued with his very gentle rebuttal of the anti-GPL
position, using some stats about the growth of pure GPL commercial
ventures, emphasising the success of companies which do nothing but
support and install GPL software, even, apparently, some in Australia.

Luckily others took the heat, lightly applied though it was, off me and
asked more questions.  The audience was starting to lose its stiffness
and perhaps even its worshipping reverence.  A young buck asked if, just
maybe, that EMACS had become too bloated?  Well, nobody held back then,
and all were laughing and smiling as Stallman explained that he's now
rather careful what he puts into EMACS, and that, really, it's got quite
a lot easier to use for users who don't have the time or inclination to
become EMACS experts.

"Do you ever use vi?", asked another supplicant.  His reply was along the
lines of "In the church of GNU, vi is not a punishment, it is a penance".
I'm not sure if that makes any sense to me, but then, I've never liked
EMACS, and use vi every day.  Can that have anything to do with it?

Calm now, and resolving to ask at least one good question, I asked, "Is
there room for two types of free software, GPL and non-GPL, such as BSD?"

He responded that all free software is good software.  But that he believes
the greater good is served by releasing it under the GPL.  He added that
people should not mistake this with non-GPL being bad.  He emphasised that
to disagree with Stallman does not automatically make you bad, or make
your ideas bad.  He went on to reiterate the moral philosophy that
underlies his position on software freedom, and his intent to promote
cooperating communities of people freely exchanging software and ideas.
That's why, he said, you have to put in the part about not being able to
make software that is free into software that is not free by modifying
part of it.  He had earlier brought up the problem faced by most early
users of X Windows, who got a binary only version from their particular
Unix vendor despite the fact that the base distribution from MIT was free
software.  They were disempowered despite X being "free", but obviously
not "free" enough.

"There is no God", he said as part of another answer, and I swear there
was a collective "Gasp!", a sharp intake of breath.  I was quite surprised
as Australia is not known as a particularly religious place, and I've long
ago given up trying to bait the occasional visiting Mormon bicycle duo,
or upset the composure of Jehovah's Witnesses that wake you at impossibly
early hours on weekends.  Well, actually he said, "Since there are no
Gods, you have to base your moral code on a humanitarian viewpoint and
the value of cooperation with your neighbours, rather than religious
dictates", or a very similar statement.  Yes, definitely plural.  "No
Gods".

"Do you read slashdot?"  "No, I don't.  I don't use the web, or read any
net news.  I don't have the time.  I travel too much, and my laptop rarely
has a good enough connection.  I do everything by email."  Apparently
there are still sites around that will mail you a web page if you mail
the URL to the right address.  Amazing!

Somewhere amongst all this, Stallman explained that the Free Software
Foundation does make money, but they don't give him any.  Way back when
it first got enough money to afford to pay somebody, he had to decide who
to spend it on.  Obviously not on Stallman, because he could convince
Stallman to work for nothing!  And so, he hired somebody else.  As time
progressed and the FSF grew, he decided he would be in a much better moral
position if they didn't even pay his air fares and such.  So he panhandles
his way round the world speaking on free software, eating on other people's
expense accounts, and inviting everyone he sees to write free software
and dump the proprietary stuff.  He claims that the returns from invested
awards and prizes are enough to support a modest standard of living, and
that's all anybody really needs.

Officialdom then officially concluded the official schedule, and some
people left.  The rest of us bounded up to shake hands (both contact and
non-contact hand shaking), and take modest, but not too modest, numbers
of GNU/Linux Inside stickers, and try to say something that would get an
interesting response.

There was an ill defined knot of admirers clustered around Stallman,
pushing pet projects, and asking various questions which I thought had
already been adequately answered by his presentation.  He responded to
every one of them with apparent interest, with care and accuracy, and with
no hint of having to force himself, or any sign of annoyance.  This even
though I discovered he was to talk at another venue in just over an hour,
and wasn't going to have time to eat or rest.

He started to shift from side to side while talking, and this grew into
a sort of dance with some shifty foot work, and then he sort of skipped
around to the back of the group.  After a noticeable time when he did not
return to his designated spot, the group folded inside out and he was at
the centre again, still moving about, perhaps to keep alert, perhaps to
give his limbs some blood.  He never lost track of the discussion while
manoeuvring, though I was definitely thinking about Monty Python, and
whether he'd ever rehearsed for a part.

There was an enormous, possibly bronze, or fake bronze if there is such
a thing, bust of some military looking type in the corner of the room,
and I asked him if he would like a huge bronze statue made of himself.
He didn't seem to think that was very likely, or very sensible.  To cover
for this, I explained my major worry about future software, that hardware
manufacturers might collude to squeeze out free operating systems by not
disclosing the specifications of new hardware, and waiting for all the
old hardware to become obsolete.  I pointed at the obvious villainy of
Intel's I2O project.  He shared some of my concerns and encourages people
to vote against undocumented hardware by not buying it, but dismissed I2O
as obviously being directed against Intel's chip making competitors, and
not directly aimed at us.

Now was the thanking and leaving time, and a number of people thanked and
left in a tidy and orderly manner.  To each he smiled and pronounced
"Happy Hacking!" as they departed.  Then it was my turn to receive the
benediction, and I walked out, somewhat disoriented by the afternoon's
spectacle, and watched the rain for a time while waiting for my taxi.

So, what is this thing called Richard Stallman?  Quirky, yes.  Dedicated,
yes.  How much fun can it be to tell the same story hundreds of times,
and get the same old questions hundreds of times.  Is he arrogant or
paranoid?  No.  Everything he said was warmly said, and said to motivate.
He spreads a message he deeply believes in, and encourages others to
believe just as deeply.

Richard Stallman is not a madman.  He is not the enemy.  He has a simple
and logical story to tell, about individual and collective freedom, and
communities of cooperating individuals.  You might conclude that his dream
can never be fulfilled, but I believe that you should listen to his message,
and consider how you can improve your own life by improving everyone's life.
I respect him, and I respect what he has to say.

Stephen McKay
1999-05-11