
My Talk at Microsoft - thiccly
https://www.stallman.org/articles/microsoft-talk.html
======
Zhyl
>Publicly take back Microsoft's attacks on copyleft made in the 2000s. Ballmer
called the GPL a "cancer". Allchin called it "un-American".

(from the "Suggestions I gave to Microsoft" section)

This is something I agree with. I don't think that Microsoft are likely to
apologise for EEE [1] as that is likely just considered 'business' and part of
the zeitgeist; neither do I think that Microsoft necessarily needs to endorse
or support GPL as they are definitely unlikely to be using it for any products
for the foreseeable.

They should, however, be a bit more repentant about starting a McCarthy-esque
red scare against all things open source. I don't think those things were
appropriate at the time and they really should at the very least be
acknowledged as part of the "Microsoft heart Linux" initiative.

Part of me, though, thinks that Microsoft's recent adventures in Linux have
been more 'Black Friday' than 'Good Friday'.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace%2C_extend%2C_and_extin...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace%2C_extend%2C_and_extinguish)

~~~
dhruvmittal
> They should, however, be a bit more repentant about starting a McCarthy-
> esque red scare against all things open source.

Especially since we're still suffering from it. There are enough project &
program managers who see the words "open source" on an engineering document &
send us back to build or buy some alternative.

~~~
cameronbrown
I can understand their perspective, especially if they're non technical. Much
of the time they see open source as some ragtag community project that has no
real support so they believe in terms of risk, it can seem lower to build or
buy.

~~~
freeone3000
Are they that wrong? What real support does an npm module have?

~~~
isostatic
What support do you get by buying a non-open source module?

~~~
falcolas
A support contract, typically. Few people sell code alone. They sell code plus
a contract to support that code.

Support contracts can be very lucrative.

------
Iv
> Implement an anonymous internet sales platform that doesn't require
> Javascript, using GNU Taler (taler.net).

That seems like a potentially super important project yet it does not have a
wikipedia page. That's abnormal! It was even discussed here in 2017!

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15274110](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15274110)

~~~
AdmiralAsshat
I would've preferred he phrase it something like "using something _like_ GNU
Taler," so that it doesn't look like he's shilling for his own product.

~~~
Iv
GNU Taler is not a product. It is a GNU project. You can use it full-features
for free.

~~~
yebyen
It can be both. This is an important point though, nonetheless, as if you are
looking for a "product" and you choose an open source "project" without
considering what it means, you may have a bad time.

This tweet[1] struck a chord with me when I saw it the other day, I almost
couldn't find it when this thread reminded me:

>> I just don't buy the "many eyes make all bugs shallow" thing. It takes so
much time to build the context to understand wtf some code is doing that the
"many eyes" get whittled down to "very few" very quickly

> This is not just a technical problem, it's a social one too. In practice,
> 99.999% of users of open source software engage with and expect to be
> treated as customers of open source, not as collaborators in a communal
> endeavor to build and maintain it.

To these people, it is a product. For a healthy community, we may need to find
a way to get them to see it as a project. And perhaps not just one (eg. how
many open source projects are in your team's product stack, and how often do
you all think about that?)

[1]:
[https://twitter.com/searls/status/1174955330582695938](https://twitter.com/searls/status/1174955330582695938)

------
nirui
I somehow want to quote this too:

> Direct GitHub to promote correct and clear use of licenses and the best use
> of copyleft (GPL version 3-or-later).

I remember when I was very green, that list of licenses on the GitHub
repository creation page is very very confusing to me. I don't know which is
which and which one I should use, and most importantly, what's the effect of
my choice.

It could be great if GitHub can improve that list a bit to help people to make
wiser choice before a repository is created.

~~~
Smithalicious
I take issue with the "promote ... the best use of copyleft (GPL version 3-or-
later)" here. The GPL is a controversial license by itself, though it's the de
facto copyleft license and reasonable to promote it, but the GPLv3-vs-GPLv2
debate is alive and well and I don't want GitHub to "promote" either of them
as "the best".

~~~
simion314
Were you ever affected by the GPL3 vs GPL2 license? I am just wondering who is
affected(not everybody makes kernels and drivers)

~~~
mikepurvis
Any MacOS user who has to put up with having bash-from-2006 as the default
shell has been affected by GPL2 vs GPL3.

~~~
zeveb
Correction: any MacOS user is affected by _Apple 's_ decision not to update
bash.

~~~
EpicEng
...due to changes in v3 which Apple sees as incompatible with their business
model. That is an effect of v3. By your logic v3 never affects anyone because
there's always a human decision behind whether or not to adopt it or to
integrate software which does.

------
yummybear
> Help make the web usable with Javascript deactivated.

I don't quite understand why that is a goal in itself. If it's due to
accessibility why not ask to "Help make the web more usable for people with
disabilities"? Maybe I'm missing something here.

~~~
duckerude
A lot of non-free software is written in Javascript and runs on webpages. If
you want to avoid using non-free software you have to disable Javascript on
many websites.

Ideally the Javascript would be freed, but making it optional might be a more
feasible goal.

~~~
danShumway
I've always been a bit confused by this take, because the most likely
alternative to having proprietary code in the front-end is to have proprietary
code in the back-end.

It's not clear to me why I shouldn't tolerate closed-source Javascript that I
can nonetheless inspect, archive, and edit on my own machine, but I should
tolerate a closed-source SaaS backend that I can't inspect, archive, or edit.

Of course proprietary software limits freedoms, but does it limit freedom
_more_ than serverside logic? There are equal legal restrictions on both
codebases, but I can't even exercise fair-use freedoms with code that I
literally can't touch.

~~~
rhinoceraptor
Javascript in the browser is practically compiled binary software at this
point. You can't realistically inspect or edit 99% of what you're running
since it's fully minified and obfuscated. And that's even more the case with
WASM.

~~~
danShumway
I'm going to push back on this, at least a bit.

Maybe I'm atypical because I work with Javascript a lot, but I don't think
it's that hard to read minified JS. Modern browsers have a lot of tools to
help with that -- you can set breakpoints on DOM manipulations, you can
autoformat the code so it's not just a jumble of text -- you can even pause
execution and add custom code to functions that can do additional logging or
subvert existing behavior.

And because the industry is at least somewhat focused on minimizing bundle
size, it's pretty uncommon outside of captchas for me to see obfuscated code
-- most of the time, you'll only be dealing with minification.

I don't know how WASM is going to affect this -- I suspect it'll be more
problematic. But I manipulate minified JS all the time. It's a very
'inspectable' language, for lack of a better term.

~~~
coldpie
Documentation, comments, code layout and file structure are all critical
components to any software project. Minimization removes all of that (right?)
and I wouldn't consider it to be in "source form" in the spirit the phrase
intends.

~~~
danShumway
I wouldn't say that I prefer reading minified code over well-formatted code.
Certainly minified code isn't ideal or equivalent to getting access to
original source form. What I'm specifically pushing back against is the idea
that if code is minified, it might as well be running on a server -- that "you
can't realistically inspect or edit 99% of what you're running".

I suspect that's hyperbole; browser inspection tools are really good, and I
regularly inspect and edit minified code. Even outside of the browser, I've
patched and fixed bugs in minified 3rd-party dependencies where I didn't have
access to the source code. It takes a little while to untangle the code, but
it's not hard -- just time consuming.

I don't want to dismiss people who struggle with that, but I also don't think
I'm that special or amazing of a coder. If I can do something, odds are pretty
good that other experienced programmers can too.

------
decoyworker
I'm usually the first to shit on Stallman but I really liked his suggestions
here.

But hypothetically if Microsoft fully implements all of what RMS suggested
would Windows be listed as an approved distro on gnu.org?

[https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-non-gnu-
distros.html](https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-non-gnu-distros.html)

[https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-
guideli...](https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-
guidelines.html)

~~~
Gaelan
They’d have to drop the windows store, no?

~~~
decoyworker
This is a hypothetical. I realize the improbability.

~~~
tutfbhuf
If you could run a completely free (libre) windows, including all pre-
installed software, subsystems ... everything, well then hypothetical yes.

------
Operyl
> Direct GitHub to promote correct and clear use of licenses and the best use
> of copyleft (GPL version 3-or-later).

Ehhhh... I very much like that my source code repository host isn't
consistently nudging me to a specific license, thanks :).

~~~
ryukafalz
Sure, but it should at least differentiate between GPLv3 and GPLv3 or later.
The SPDX license list does this: "GPL-3.0-only" vs "GPL-3.0-or-later". GitHub
does not.

(Also, GitHub already does recommend licenses to some extent; there's a short
list of highlighted ones in the license selection dropdown.)

------
xiaodai
Free software is difficult. I have a family and young kids to feed. I can't
work for FREE. I have open-source packages that are "free", but that's my
hobby or a living. If you get a professorship at a university then you can
flog free software, but it doesn't work for the other 99.99999% of the
population. Sigh. I wish open-soure software is funded like universities.
European Union funds some software, but more should be done. The economy of
free software is a classific economics problems; too many free loaders. We
can't continue to rely on volunteers. The public needs to fund open-source
software, just like how to we fund universities!

~~~
syshum
There are plenty of people that work on OpenSource at corporations.

Linux Kernel is a widely known example, but not the only one.

Further, there are funding models that do not require "donations" to fund
libre software, "Free" does not mean free in cost, it means freedom.

Some options include

1\. Paid Binary Dististrbution

2\. Support Agreements

3\. Priority Features

4\. Customization

5\. Hosting / SaaS

6\. Paid documentation access

7\. Donations / Tips

8\. Normal Invoicing (most people forget You can invoice a company for GPL
software, nothing prevents it. This is often good for Bean Counters)

There are others as well

~~~
soohyung
Open source software isn't necessarily free software.

[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-
point....](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-
point.en.html)

~~~
UserIsUnused
Yes, but that is unrelated to his post, in fact he said precisely that the
"free" is about freedom.

------
Crinus
> And one other suggestion, which I made to a vice president but perhaps not
> in my talk.

>

> Release the source code of Windows under the GNU GPL.

>

> I know that is a stretch, but from what I heard there. it isn't totally
> impossible.

I do not remember who or where exactly it was, but i remember someone
influential from Microsoft that was asked about open sourcing Windows (not
necessarily under GPL) and they also said that it isn't totally impossible.

~~~
meddlepal
I don't know why anyone would think it is impossible, but it would take
significant money and time to do it and it is unclear what benefit there would
be except some small good will gained from developers that care about the FSF
mission.

~~~
wyldfire
I think the benefit is unclear but it's almost certainly not limited to good
will.

There's lots of developers who are working on products targeting Windows today
(for momentum, their customer's requirements, etc). Those devs encounter
Windows bugs and generally workaround them. But if instead they could patch
them and/or provide patches upstream, it would be a huge benefit to them and
likely some benefit to Microsoft as well.

~~~
Crinus
I know one of the first things i'd do if i had the code would be to improve
the practically abandoned MDIClient.

The second would be to bring classic theme back :-P

------
robteix
> There are those who think that Microsoft invited me to speak in the hope of
> seducing me away from the free software cause.

> Others assert that inviting me was opposition research and nothing more.

Honestly, why would Microsoft in 2019 even need to either convince RMS to give
up free software or to research him at all?

~~~
letstrynvm
Because in 2019 msft finds itself making big $$$ from renting servers running
Linux and associated FOSS stack.

------
jccc
> I resisted Steve Jobs's snow job in 1989 or 1990

Could someone illuminate what this was about?

~~~
lemper
something along with objective c's frontend for gcc.

[https://sourceforge.net/p/clisp/clisp/ci/default/tree/doc/Wh...](https://sourceforge.net/p/clisp/clisp/ci/default/tree/doc/Why-
CLISP-is-under-GPL)

------
fortran77
> I am no easy mark for those who want me to change my views.

This is an absolute lie. I know for a fact he has cancelled talks he's agreed
to after being contacted by various factions of activists.

~~~
longcommonname
Canceling a talk doesn't equate to changing a view.

~~~
fortran77
It means he's an easy mark, and doesn't think things through. I lost any
respect I had for him after that, and so did everyone else in the circles I
associate with.

~~~
NullPrefix
Why did he cancel the talk? What were the arguments?

------
shmerl
_> Help fight against copyright on interfaces._

MS infamously supported Oracle in pushing copyrightability of interfaces. Did
they ever announce the reversal of their position?

To his points, I'd add:

* Stop pushing lock-in, and support open interoperable standards.

This has improved in some cases with MS, but in some it remains as bad before
(ActiveSync, DirectX and etc.)

------
jedieaston
Interestingly, this is not the first time that I've heard Microsoft talk about
open-sourcing Windows [0]. The licensing behind many of the components may
make it a distant pipe dream, but since they make most of their money through
their applications (i.e. MSSQL runs on Linux now, the software teams all work
under Azure now), I could see it happening sometime.

[0]: [https://www.wired.com/2015/04/microsoft-open-source-
windows-...](https://www.wired.com/2015/04/microsoft-open-source-windows-
definitely-possible/)

~~~
eloisant
They could open source the Windows kernel, and it wouldn't change anything.

Just like OSX is based on Darwin which is Open Source, and Android is based on
Linux, that doesn't provide any more freedom for users or encourage
interoperability.

~~~
badpun
The users could at least fix the bugs and document the APIs better (via
reading the code) than it's currently done on MSDN. Sounds like free labor for
Microsoft BTW.

------
souterrain
> Help make the web usable with Javascript deactivated.

I agree with RMS here, in that user privacy is aligned closely with user
freedom. I also believe the Internet is losing ground on this point.

------
YeGoblynQueenne
In case anyone else was wondering about when this was published, as I was,
this was published on RMS's site today:

[https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-
oct.html#23_Septe...](https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-
oct.html#23_September_2019_\(Microsoft\))

------
paggle
I hope he got paid well for that talk, it was probably his last paid speaking
engagement.

------
enz
>Release the source code of Windows under the GNU GPL.

>I know that is a stretch, but from what I heard there. it isn't totally
impossible.

Really? Does anyone have more info about that?

~~~
DaiPlusPlus
Depends on who you ask - if the NT kernel were to be made open-source it
wouldn't impact Microsoft's sales of Windows because the kernel is useles
without the userland - and the real value of Windows derives from the userland
Win32 API.

If they mean the entire OS - kernel, userland, shell, the bundled programs
that come with it - no, that won't happen, not least because Microsoft doesn't
own the rights to all of that code: any third-party licensor could put a stop
to that overnight.

------
jamesgeck0
> Help fight against copyright on interfaces.

This one puzzles me. I thought patents were the big threat for UIs? Or is he
talking about copyrighted APIs?

~~~
em-bee
that's about APIs

------
sys_64738
> Release the source code of Windows under the GNU GPL.

Once that occurs then we will all trust Microsoft without reservation. Even
Stallman.

------
srbby
Linked from tfa:
[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft.html)

>we do recognize [Microsoft] as the company that has separated more users from
their freedom than any other

Is this still true in the age of the iPhone?

~~~
jraph
It's probably too vague a claim to prove or disprove. They could amend this
sentence. Different companies have different impacts on software freedom that
I'd be hard-pressed to compare.

However, consider Microsoft Office, which is widely used, and has some network
effects. If a friend uses an iPhone, that does not really impact me (where I
live). In contrast, Microsoft even has impact on people who would consider not
to use their products. I'd also bet that there are far more Microsoft Office
users than iPhone users. Windows also has huge network effects.

I agree with you though. The iPhone is a big offender in that it does not
really allows you to run any code you could otherwise run on it, the only
supported way of installing apps is incompatible with the GPL and Apple
controls what you run on your Apple device (which some people find it's a
feature).

~~~
srbby
Two things that come to my mind from reading your response:

Why are we releasing this document in PDF format? Shouldn’t it be in docx or
XPS?
[https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20110104-00/?p=11...](https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20110104-00/?p=11833)

Why we don’t want you and your Android green bubbles in our iMessage chat
[https://www.fastcompany.com/90391587/why-we-dont-want-you-
an...](https://www.fastcompany.com/90391587/why-we-dont-want-you-and-your-
android-green-bubbles-in-our-imessage-chat)

~~~
jraph
Ah ah, the first link is yet another interesting "it makes sense" post from
Raymond Chen.

The second link is saddening and I know iMessage is a problem in some areas of
the world. Here, people expect that most people don't have an iPhone… and the
problematic messengers are of course Facebook and WhatsApp. At least, here, it
seems that most people understand that you don't want to use them. But you are
still locked out of group discussions. You rely on people who like you to keep
you posted because they want you to be at whatever event is being discussed
there, and you are that one person who is not in the group chat.

------
Maximus9000
Some clunky writing here:

> it isn't totally impossible.

> so we can run them without any nonfree software

Edit: removed my suggestions

~~~
midgetjones
> > it isn't totally impossible.

> how about: "It's totally possible"

That completely changes the meaning.

~~~
Maximus9000
Agreed, my suggestion might be off. Either way, he's got some clunky sentences
there.

