Source files of,,,,, and Contribute:
You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.

rms-2009-05-22-eliberatica.en.xhtml 28KB

  1. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
  2. <html>
  3. <head>
  4. <title>Transcription of Richard M. Stallman's video recording presented at eLiberatica Conference in Bucharest, 2009-05-22 </title>
  5. </head>
  6. <body>
  7. <h1>What means Free Software and why matters, May
  8. 22nd 2009</h1>
  9. <p>
  10. The following is a transcript of a lecture given by Richard
  11. Stallman in Bucharest on May
  12. 22nd 2009. The lecture was given in
  13. English. You may also be interested in
  14. our <a href="">list of
  15. transcripts by Richard Stallman</a>.
  16. </p>
  17. <p>
  18. Richard Stallman launched
  19. the <a href="/documents/gnuproject.html">GNU project</a> in
  20. 1983, and with it the <a href="/documents/freesoftware.html">Free Software</a>
  21. movement. Stallman is the president of FSF - a <a href="">sister
  22. organisation</a> of FSFE.
  23. </p>
  24. <p> Transcription of <a
  25. href="">this presentation</a>
  26. was undertaken by Răzvan Sandu (see also <a href="">his blog</a>). Please support work such as this by <a
  27. href="">joining the Fellowship of FSFE</a>, by <a
  28. href="/help/donate">donating to FSFE</a>, and by encouraging others to do
  29. each.
  30. </p>
  31. <h2 id="tableofcontents">Lecture sections</h2>
  32. <ul>
  33. <li>
  34. <a href="#what-is-free-software?">What is Free Software?</a>
  35. </li>
  36. <li>
  37. <a href="#four-essential-freedoms">Four essential freedoms</a>
  38. </li>
  39. <li>
  40. <a href="#freedom-two">Freedom two</a>
  41. </li>
  42. <li>
  43. <a href="#freedom-zero">Freedom zero</a>
  44. </li>
  45. <li>
  46. <a href="#freedom-one">Freedom one</a>
  47. </li>
  48. <li>
  49. <a href="#freedom-three">Freedom three</a>
  50. </li>
  51. <li>
  52. <a href="#The-four-freedoms-benefit-to-everybody">The four freedoms benefit to everybody</a>
  53. </li>
  54. <li>
  55. <a href="#Software-freedom-is-the-way-to-democracy">Software freedom is the way to democracy</a>
  56. </li>
  57. <li>
  58. <a href="#The-GNU-Project">The GNU-Project</a>
  59. </li>
  60. <li>
  61. <a href="The-name-GNU">The name GNU</a>
  62. </li>
  63. <li>
  64. <a href="Value-freedom">Value Freedom - Teach People to value Freedom</a>
  65. </li>
  66. </ul>
  67. <p>Who controls your computer? Forty years ago people used to be very worried
  68. that computers would take over the world. They were very afraid but now we
  69. know that computers do what people tell them to do - and nothing else. Which
  70. people tell your computer what to do? Is your computer doing what you tell it
  71. to do or is it doing what Microsoft tells it to do? If you're running
  72. Windows, it's Microsoft that really tells your computer what to do. But if
  73. you're using MacOS, then it's Apple that really tells your computer what to
  74. do. Or maybe some of the time it's Adobe that tells your computer what to do.
  75. Or a bunch of other companies that make proprietary software. Because if you
  76. are using proprietary software on your computer, that means the program's
  77. developer controls what it does and you, the user, don't. And that's why it's
  78. vital to use <a href="/freesoftware/freesoftware.html">Free Software</a>,
  79. ”free” as in ”freedom”.</p>
  80. <p>
  81. <span id="what-is-free-software?">
  82. (
  83. <a href="#tableofcontents">go to menu</a>
  84. ) [Section: What is Free Software?]
  85. </span>
  86. </p>
  87. <p>Free Software means software that respects the users' freedom and the
  88. social solidarity of the users' community. So, it's ”free” as in ”freedom”,
  89. not as in price: think of ”free speech”, not ”free beer” if you want to
  90. understand the word ”free” when it appears in the combination ”Free Sofware”.
  91. Free Software respects the user's freedom, but proprietary software keeps the
  92. users divided and helpless. Divided, because they're forbidden to share it;
  93. and helpless, because they don't have the source code, so they can't change
  94. it, they can't even independently check what it's really doing to them – and,
  95. often, it does something rather nasty. However, what I've said is rather
  96. general: software should respect your freedom. What exactly does that mean?
  97. I need to say something more specific. </p>
  98. <p>
  99. <span id="four-essential-freedoms">
  100. (<a href="#tableofcontents">go to menu</a>
  101. ) [Section: Four essential freedoms]
  102. </span>
  103. </p>
  104. <p>A program is Free Software if you, the user, have the four essential
  105. freedoms. </p>
  106. <ul>
  107. <li>Freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program as you wish.</li>
  108. <li>Freedom 1 is the freedom to study the source code and then change it to make the program do what you wish.</li>
  109. <li>Freedom 2 is the freedom to help your neighbour – that's the freedom to make and distribute exact copies of the program to others, when you wish. And</li>
  110. <li>Freedom 3 is the freedom to contribute to your community: that's the freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions, when you wish.</li>
  111. </ul>
  112. <p>If the program gives you all four of the essential freedoms, than it's
  113. Free Software, which means that the social system of its distribution and use
  114. is ethical, because it respects the users' freedom and the users community.
  115. But, if one of these freedoms is missing or insufficient, then the program is
  116. proprietary software, users subjugating software, because the social system
  117. of its distribution and use puts the developer in a position of power over
  118. the users, which means it doesn't respect their freedom: the users of that
  119. program are not fully in control of what it does. Thus, to develop a free
  120. program and make it available to others is a contribution to society – how
  121. much of a contribution, that depends of all the details, but, at least is
  122. being offered to society in an ethical way. But, when a program is
  123. proprietary software, its use is a social problem. If the program has
  124. attractive features, those are the bait for the trap: they attract users to
  125. give up their freedom and become users of this program – and, really, that
  126. shouldn't happen, it shouldn't be done at all. The aim of the Free Software
  127. Movement is to put an end to this social problem: all software should be
  128. free, so that all users can be free.</p>
  129. <p>But why are these four freedoms essential? Why define Free Software this
  130. way? Each of these freedoms is essential for a reason.</p>
  131. <p>
  132. <span id="freedom-two">
  133. (<a href="#tableofcontents">go to menu</a>
  134. ) [Section: Freedom two]
  135. </span>
  136. </p>
  137. <p>Freedom 2, the freedom
  138. to help your neighbour, is essential on fundamental moral grounds, so that
  139. you can lead an upright ethical life, as a good member of your community. If
  140. you use a program that does not give you Freedom no. 2, the freedom to
  141. redistribute exact copies when you wish, then you are in danger of falling
  142. into a moral dilemma:</p>
  143. <p>At any moment, whenever your friend says: ”This program is nice, could I
  144. have a copy?”, at that moment you would face a choice between two evils. One
  145. evil is to give your friend a copy and violate the license of the program;
  146. the other evil is to deny your friend a copy and comply with the license of
  147. the program. If you're in the dilemma, you ought to choose the lesser evil
  148. which is to give your friend a copy and violate the license of the program.
  149. What makes this evil the lesser evil? Well, if you can't avoid doing wrong to
  150. somebody or other, it's better to do wrong to the one who deserves it: the
  151. developer of the program. You see, we can assume that your friend is a good
  152. friend and a good member of your community and normally deserves your
  153. cooperation. By contrast, the developer of this proprietary program has
  154. deliberately attacked the social solidarity of your community. So, if you're
  155. stucked doing wrong either to your friend or the developer, do it to the
  156. developer. But, being the lesser evil, this not mean it's good. It's never a
  157. good thing to make an agreement and break it – not even in cases like this,
  158. where the agreement is inherently evil and keeping it is worse than breaking
  159. it; still, breaking it is not good. And, if you give your friend a copy, what
  160. would she have? She would have an unauthorised copy of a proprietary program
  161. - and that's something rather nasty, almost as nasty as an authorised copy
  162. would be.</p>
  163. <p>So, once you have fully understood this dilemma, what should you really
  164. do? What you should do is make sure you are never in this dilemma. I know of
  165. two ways to do that. One is: don't have any friends. That's the method
  166. implicitly suggested by the proprietary software developers. The other method
  167. is: reject proprietary software! If you don't have the program, you don't
  168. have to worry what you will do if your friend asks for a copy from you. That
  169. is my method. If someone offers me an attractive, convenient program on the
  170. condition I promise not to share with other people, I say ”No”, I say ”My
  171. conscience will not allow me to accept such a condition”. And that's you
  172. should say, too. And you should also reject the propaganda terms that the
  173. proprietary software developers use to demonize the act of cooperation -
  174. terms like ”pirate”. When they compare people who share software with
  175. pirates, what are they really saying? They're saying that helping your
  176. neighbour is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship. Morally speaking,
  177. nothing could be more wrong than that, because attacking ships is very bad,
  178. but helping your friends and your neighbours is good. So, don't call it
  179. ”piracy”. When they call it ”piracy”, say ”No”. When people ask me what do I
  180. think of ”piracy”, I say ”Attacking ships is very bad”. And when they ask me
  181. what I think of ”software piracy” or ”music piracy” I say ”As far as I know,
  182. pirates don't attack using computers or by playing musical instruments badly,
  183. they use arms”. Don't fall into the trap of repeating the enemy's
  184. propaganda.</p>
  185. <p>So, that's the reason for Freedom 2, the freedom to help your neighbour,
  186. the freedom to redistribute exact copies of the program when you wish.</p>
  187. <p>
  188. <span id="freedom-zero">
  189. (<a href="#tableofcontents">go to menu</a>
  190. ) [Section: Freedom zero]
  191. </span>
  192. </p>
  193. <p>Freedom 0, the freedom to run the program as you wish is essential for a
  194. different reason, so you can control your computing. It may be surprising,
  195. but there are proprietary programs that restrict even how people, the
  196. authorised users, use the authorised copies. That's obviously not having
  197. control of your computing! So Freedom 0 is essential, but it's not enough,
  198. because that just means you can either do or not do whatever the code of the
  199. program is set up to permit, and it's the developer who decides that, so the
  200. developer still controls you. Not through the license, but instead through
  201. the code of the program, but it comes to the same thing.</p>
  202. <p>
  203. <span id="freedom-one">
  204. <a href="#tableofcontents">go to menu</a>
  205. ) [Section: Freedom one]
  206. </span>
  207. </p>
  208. <p>In order to
  209. control your computing, you also need Freedom 1, which is the freedom to
  210. study the source code and then change it, to make the program do what you
  211. wish – this way, you decide what your computing is gonna be, instead of
  212. letting the developer decide and impose his decisions on you. Now, if you use
  213. a program without Freedom 1, you can't even tell what it's doing: many of
  214. these programs have malicious features, to do things like spy on the user,
  215. restrict the user, even attack the user. One proprietary program you may of
  216. heard of, that does all three, is called Microsoft Windows: we know of
  217. features to spy on the user, we know of Digital Restrictions Management or
  218. DRM features, designed to restrict users and we know of a backdoor that
  219. enables Microsoft to attack the user; in fact, this backdoor is so gaping
  220. that Microsoft has total control over the user, because Microsoft can
  221. forcibly change the software at any time, without asking the user's
  222. permission. So that user may think he controls his computer, but, really,
  223. Microsoft has total power!</p>
  224. <p>But, please don't think that Microsoft is uniquely evil and only Microsoft
  225. would do this. In fact, MacOS X is pretty much the same: we know of features
  226. to restrict the user - Digital Restrictions Management – and there is a
  227. backdoor which allows Apple to forcibly change the software in any way, at
  228. any time, without asking the user's permission. So it's just as bad, there's
  229. nothing to choose from between them.</p>
  230. <p>And this appears to be the natural endpoint of proprietary software: many
  231. cellphones are set up the same way. There is a company that can change the
  232. software whenever it wishes and the user who supposedly owns the cellphone
  233. has nothing to say about it. What it's happening here is: proprietary
  234. software is a system that gives the developer unjust power over the users.
  235. Now, when someone greedy has unjust power over others, what is he going to do
  236. with this power? He's gonna use it to try to get more power, more and more,
  237. until he has total power. And that's what they've done! Several different
  238. companies, in parallel. So, this is what proprietary software tends to lead
  239. to: total power, not just power that they shouldn't have.</p>
  240. <p>Now, I won't claim that all the developers of proprietary software put in
  241. malicious features: I suppose some do and some don't. But, when a program
  242. doesn't give you Freedom no. 1, there is no way to tell if it has malicious
  243. features - in general. Once in a while we discover some, but, there are many
  244. programs in which we don't know of any malicious features. But maybe they
  245. have them or maybe they don't: we can't identify among all the programs
  246. without Freedom 1, we can't identify any that certainly have no malicious
  247. features – cause there's no way to check! But I presume they are some. The
  248. problem is: you never know if the program you're using is one of them! But,
  249. even, know, we can identify those programs, I can make a statement about them
  250. all: their developers are humans, so they make mistakes. And the code of
  251. those programs has bugs, and a user of a program without Freedom 1 is just as
  252. helpless facing an accidental bug as facing an intentional malicious feature.
  253. If you use a program without Freedom 1, you are a prisoner of the software
  254. you use.</p>
  255. <p>We, the developers of Free Software, are humans too, so we also make
  256. mistakes and the code of our free programs has bugs. But, if you encounter a
  257. bug in our code – or anything you don't like – you are free to change it,
  258. cause we didn't make you a prisoner. We can't be perfect, we can respect your
  259. freedom. Thus, Freedom 1 is essential, but it's not enough, because that's
  260. the freedom to personally study and change the source code. What if you're
  261. one of those millions of users that don't know how to program? Than you can't
  262. study and change the source code yourself; but even for programmers like me,
  263. Freedom 1 is not enough, because there is so much Free Software in the world
  264. that nobody is capable of studying and mastering all the source code and
  265. personally making all the changes that she may want - because that is more
  266. work than any one human being can do.</p>
  267. <p>
  268. <span id="freedom-three">
  269. (<a href="#tableofcontents">go to menu</a>
  270. ) [Section: Freedom three]
  271. </span>
  272. </p>
  273. <p>So the only way we can fully have control of our computing is to do it
  274. working together, cooperating – and for that we need Freedom 3, the freedom
  275. to contribute to your community, the freedom to distribute copies of your
  276. modified versions, when you wish. This allows people to cooperate. Here's an
  277. example: suppose a few people release a free program and a lot of us use it
  278. because we like it, but we wish it has certain additional features; or
  279. someone can start with this version, add some of those features and release
  280. his modified version; and someone else can start with that, add some more
  281. features and release her modified version; and then a few people can start
  282. with that, add the rest of these features and release their modified version;
  283. and then we'll have those features and we'll say ”Thank you for cooperating
  284. to make these improvements”.And thus, when we have all four freedoms, we, the users, are in control of
  285. our own computing lives.</p>
  286. <p>
  287. <span id="The-four-freedoms-benefit-to-everybody">
  288. (<a href="#tableofcontents">go to menu</a>)
  289. [Section : The four freedoms benefit to everybody]
  290. </span>
  291. </p>
  292. <p> Now, all the users get the benefit of the four
  293. freedoms. Every user can directly exercise Freedoms 0 and 2, the freedom to
  294. run the program as you wish and freedom to redistribute exact copies, because
  295. these don't require programming: anybody who can use the program can figure
  296. out how to do these things and they do them. Freedoms 1 and 3, the freedom to
  297. study and change the source code and then optionally distribute copies of
  298. your modified versions, these entail programming, so not everybody knows how
  299. to do them. And so there are people who can't directly exercise these
  300. freedoms. But, when others, the programmers, exercise these freedoms and when
  301. they publish their modified versions, all the rest of us can then install
  302. those modified versions or not, as we prefer. So we all receive the benefits
  303. of living in a society where people have the four freedoms, even when we
  304. don't exercise them directly.</p>
  305. <p>In addition, those who don't know how to program and can't directly
  306. exercise Freedoms 1 and 3, can indirectly take advantage of them. Suppose
  307. that you run a business which uses computers, as most businesses do, but
  308. supppose that you don't know anything about programming, cause your business
  309. is in some other field. Most businesses are not in the software field: they
  310. use computers, but they use them to do other things. Well, if you recognise
  311. that, supposing a program were changed, your business would run more
  312. efficiently and you'd make more money, it would be worth it to you to pay a
  313. programmer to implement that change, if the price is right. So, if it's Free
  314. Software, you can look around for a programmer who's willing to undertake the
  315. changes you want, or some fraction of them, for a price you think it's
  316. suitable. Then you exercise your Freedom no. 2 to give that programmer an
  317. exact copy of the version that you are using. Then that programmer exercises
  318. his Freedom 1, studying the source code of that version and changing it to
  319. implement the changes you wanted. And then, he exercises his Freedom no. 3,
  320. to give you a copy of his modified version. An then, assumming it works, you
  321. pay him for this work.</p>
  322. <p>So, in this scenario, you use the fact that other users have Freedoms 1
  323. and 3, you pay them to exercise those freedoms for you, and so you get the
  324. benefit. An important part of Free Software business works this way, and this
  325. is why Free Software is a tremenduos benefit to all businesses that use
  326. computers: they deserve the four freedoms, just as individuals in their
  327. non-commercial lives deserve the four freedoms, just as every user deserves
  328. the four freedoms.</p>
  329. <p>
  330. <span id="Software-freedom-is-the-way-to-democracy">
  331. (<a href="#tableofcontents">go to menu</a>)
  332. [Section : Software freedom is the way to democracy]
  333. </span>
  334. </p>
  335. <p>And the end, combined result of the four freedoms is democracy. A free
  336. program develops democratically, under the control of its users. Because all
  337. the users can participate as much as they wish in the social decision about
  338. the future of this program, which is simply the sum total of all the
  339. individual decisions that people make about what to do with the program. By
  340. contrast, a proprietary program develops under the dictatorship of its
  341. developer, the autocracy of its developer, who uses that program as an
  342. instrument to impose his power on users who he can then bully, command and
  343. mistreat – and exploit. So, on one hand we have individual freedom, social
  344. solidarity and democracy; on the other, we have a dictatorship. Society must
  345. choose Free Software and reject proprietary software. There is no excuse for
  346. anyone to have the unjust power that proprietary software gives to its
  347. developer. You shouldn't let anyone have that kind of power over you, so you
  348. need to reject proprietary software. But society also should reject it.</p>
  349. <p>The aim of the Free Sofware movement is the liberation of the cyberspace
  350. and all his inhabitants – we should all have freedom!</p>
  351. <p>
  352. <span id="The-GNU-Project">
  353. (<a href="#tableofcontents">go to menu</a>)
  354. [Section : The GNU-Project]
  355. </span>
  356. </p>
  357. <p>This is why, in 1983, I announced the plan to develop the GNU Operating
  358. System. It wasn't just that I've felt like developing an operating system; of
  359. course, I knew any programming project would be fun if I succeded in doing
  360. it, but that's not what it was about – the reason was for freedom. Because,
  361. at the time, it was impossible to use a computer and have freedom. Because a
  362. computer won't run without an operating system and all the operating systems
  363. for the modern computers of the day were proprietary, so there was no way to
  364. buy an new computer and run it and have freedom. You always had to install a
  365. proprietary operating system and that meant giving up your freedom. So, how
  366. can I change that? I didn't think I could change it by organizing a protest
  367. movement, because too few people agreed with me.</p>
  368. <p>So, instead, I had the idea that I could change the situation by
  369. developing another operating system and I stood a chance of succeding at that
  370. because operating system development was my field; and then, being the
  371. author, I could legally make it free, giving all users freedom and then,
  372. everybody will be able to use their computers in freedom with the system I
  373. would write. So, I decided to invite other people to join in the development
  374. to make it Free Software... [sorry]... to get it done sooner and... [I guess
  375. I should take that over]... I decided to invite others to join in the
  376. development to get it finished sooner, I decided to follow the design of Unix
  377. so that it would be a portable system, capable of running on various
  378. different kinds of computers, cause I knew that in five or ten years
  379. computers would be different, I wanted the system to continue to be capable
  380. of running on future computers.And then I decided to make it compatible with Unix, so that the many users
  381. of Unix would find it easy to switch.</p>
  382. <p>
  383. <span id="The-name-GNU">
  384. (<a href="#tableofcontents">go to menu</a>)
  385. [Section : The Name GNU]
  386. </span>
  387. </p>
  388. <p>And then I gave it the name GNU, as a
  389. joke, because GNU it's a recursive acronym: it stands for ”<a
  390. href="/about/basics/gnuproject.html">GNU's Not Unix</a>”. Now, this
  391. follows a custom among certain programmers and community which I
  392. belong to, that when you had to write a new program similar to some existing
  393. program, a humorous way of giving credit to the older program was you could
  394. give your program a name which is a recursive acronym saying that your
  395. program is not the other one. So, I've followed that tradition, especially
  396. since it gave me the opportunity to use the funniest word in the English
  397. language as the name. The reason this word is so full of humour is because,
  398. according to the dictionary, the G is silent and is pronounced ” 'NU ”
  399. (”new”), so any time you wanted to write the word ”GNU”, you can spell it
  400. ”G.N.U” and you've got a joke – maybe not a very good joke, but there are
  401. lots of them. However, when it's the name of our system, please do not follow
  402. the dictionary: if you talk about the ”New” Operating System, you'll get
  403. people confused. You see, we've been working on it for 25 years now, so it's
  404. not new anymore, but it still is GNU. And it will be always be GNU, even if
  405. some people make the mistake of calling it Linux.</p>
  406. <p>But how that strange error get started? Well, what happened was, in 1990,
  407. we had almost all of the system but one important piece was missing, so the
  408. Free Software Foundation hired somebody to write that piece. That piece is
  409. called the kernel: it's the program that allocates the computer's resources
  410. to the other programs that it run. Well, our kernel project took a long time,
  411. it sort of runs but it doesn't works very well, so we don't use it. And
  412. someone else wrote a kernel, in 1991, and it released it under the name
  413. ”Linux”. Initially, it was not Free Software, but in 1992 he changed the
  414. license and he made it Free Software; so, at that point, the combination of
  415. the almost complete GNU system and Linux, this one other program, made a
  416. complete free operating system. And this is what made it possible, for the
  417. first time, to buy a PC and use it in freedom by installing a complete free
  418. operating system – a system which is basically the GNU system but which also
  419. contains this program, Linux. So, if you <a
  420. href="">call it ”GNU/Linux” or
  421. ”GNU+Linux”</a> you give credit to the people who started the development,
  422. as well as to the person who developed the last piece that finished it.</p>
  423. <p>
  424. <span id="Value-freedom">
  425. (<a href="#tableofcontents">go to menu</a>)
  426. [Section : Value Freedom - Teach People to value Freedom]
  427. </span>
  428. </p>
  429. <p>Today, tens of millions of people run the GNU/Linux system, maybe more
  430. than a hundred million. Unfortunately, that's still a small fraction of
  431. computer users and, even worse, most of those people still use some
  432. proprietary programs, so they have not completely attained freedom. Nearly
  433. all of the hundreds of distributions of GNU/Linux contain proprietary
  434. programs or install proprietary programs or stirr users toward proprietary
  435. programs, which means that they're not entirely ethical. So on or
  436. you can find the list of the few GNU/Linux distributions which are
  437. entirely free, which don't recommend the people give up their freedom. If you
  438. value freedom, you need to use one of them; but, above all, if you you value
  439. freedom, you need to teach other people to value freedom. Because if they are
  440. few of us and we try to fight to defend our freedom, our chances of winning
  441. are smaller, but if we teach other people to appreciate freedom also and they
  442. join in, our chances are greater.</p>
  443. <p>This is why I don't participate in advocating Open Source. You see, Open
  444. Source is basically a way of talking about Free Software, but hushing up the
  445. issue of freedom. The people who chose to start saying ”Open Source” in 1998
  446. were the people in the Free Software community that didn't want to raise this
  447. question at all: somehow, it made them feel unconfortable or they thought
  448. they would make other people feel unconfortable or, some of them, wanted to
  449. distribute proprietary software and they didn't want their potential
  450. customers to see any reason to say ”No” to it. So, for their various reasons,
  451. they chose to forget about freedom, they chose to construct a different
  452. discourse but never raise this issue. Well, if people develop Free Software
  453. for those motives, their contribution is still good; but, in the long term,
  454. our future depends above all on what we value. If we value freedom, we will
  455. make an effort to gain freedom and to hold on to our freedom; if we don't
  456. know what freedom means, if we've never even heard the concept, we're not
  457. likely to make that effort. So, I came to the conclusion that there's simply
  458. no use in promoting Open Source, it was a distraction, <a
  459. href="/documents/whyfs.html">because it failed to mention the most
  460. important point</a>.</p>
  461. <p>That's why I give speeches like this, talking about Free Software. I hope
  462. you'll join me in spreading the ideas of Free Software; for more information,
  463. look at <a href=""></a> and <a
  464. href=""></a>. We also have <a
  465. href="/about/fsfnetwork.html">sister organizations</a>, <a
  466. href="/index.html">FSF Europe</a>, which is at, <a
  467. href="">FSF Latin America</a>, which is at
  468. and <a href="">FSF India</a>, which is at
  469. Thank you very much!</p>
  470. </body>
  471. </html>