Person Interviewed: Michael Stutz
E-mail: stutz@dsl.org Occupation: Author Book Authored: The Linux Cookbook License Authored: Design Science License (DSL) Personal Web Site: www.dsl.org Interview Date: July 21st, 2002 Interviewer: RAVEN - raven@ravenmatrix.com RAVEN: You're the architect of the Design Science License (DSL), which is a generalized "copyleft" license designed to fit any work. Copyright law gives certain exclusive rights to the author of a work, including the rights to copy, modify and distribute the work (the "reproductive," "adaptative," and "distribution" rights). The idea of "copyleft" is to willfully revoke the exclusivity of those rights under certain terms and conditions, so that anyone can copy and distribute the work or properly attributed derivative works, while all copies remain under the same terms and conditions as the original. What gave you the idea to develop this license? and how successful has it been? Michael Stutz: Some years ago I began to see how copyright law was well out of date -- it had not kept up with the discoveries of modern science. Copyright law was still written in the pre-1945 world where the representation of a 'work' was only a physical object, where it was always set in some tangible form. It had no conception of the 'work' as it could exist on a digital computer, and could be copied exactly, and even modified, without any change at all to the original. That humans would communicate by copying and modifying those forms had not been considered at all. All the old restrictions applied, but the world was different. My interest is not in software but in writing and music and other forms of expression. I began experimenting with applying copyleft to these forms, and after trying different things, including using the GNU GPL on non-software works, I saw that a generalized copyleft was necessary -- we clearly needed a license that was designed for the _work_, not for a _certain type or class_ of work. I did not want to be the one to do it, to have to stop and take the required time and effort, but there was nothing out there that did what I needed. So I had to do it. It has been successful in that it was an experiment, and I am still experimenting. The final results aren't in yet. I don't, however, consider the DSL to be the solution. The effect of any license is only temporary, and will not last for the ages -- a solution is going to come from lawyers who recognize the errors of current copyright law, who are committed to reforming it, and who continue to work on it full time. Clearly this is not just about free software anymore, and we need some kind of 'Free Information Foundation' to work at it. The proper solution is simply beyond the scope of a software organization. But whether this will ever come into being remains to be seen. RAVEN: What is the difference between your DSL (Design Science License) and the GNU FDL (GNU Free Documentation License)? Michael Stutz: The DSL is intended for any kind of work that copyright law recognizes. So use it on a novel, or an audio recording, or a digital photograph. And then anyone could sample from your digital photograph (say) and use it in their DSL'ed newsletter, or make an icon of it for their software program, or even use the data taken from your image file in an audio recording. The GNU FDL has an option in it so that an author can make parts of the work proprietary. I don't like that. The message it gives me is that certain kinds of works are ok to copyleft, while others aren't. That might be the FSF's opinion, I don't know, but it isn't mine. Never in my experience have I found that it is more ok to permit copying and modification on one kind of work or expression while it isn't on another. In fact, what an expression even _is_ depends on how you are looking at it. Certainly there is the author's intention but with the digital computer there are many other ways. And you've got to account for that. Note that I do not endorse libel or defamation, and I do not endorse obscenity -- these issues are outside the scope of the DSL or any copyleft that I know of. The FDL is a license for 'documentation,' however you may want to define that -- certain types of written works. But I'm not sure if you can use the FDL for software program source code, which is very much a written work. And I don't know how you would use with Prof. Donald E. Knuth's WEB system which combines software and its documentation in one written work. It exemplifies the precise direction I did not want to go in. I don't want a hundred different copyleft licenses, all incompatible, for all of the different types or categories of works that can exist. You'll never win. And as soon as you think you have, an artist will say, well my work is neither A nor B. Or it is a combination of both. For copyleft to be maximally effective, you've got to account for all of the different kinds of works right from the beginning. You can't have a multitude of licenses -- the licensing has to be monolithic. My hope for the immediate future is that the FSF, in conjunction with other groups (say, creativecommons.org and eff.org), makes a generalized copyleft that will replace the DSL, the GNU GPL, and all of the other specialized copylefts out there. From there, it is not a far step from changing the law itself -- from recognizing the principles of copyleft as a real solution to the problems of copyright law. And that is the goal. RAVEN: You wrote the book The Linux Cookbook. What gave you the idea to write this book? and how did you get No Starch Press to sign you to write this book? Did they have any objections to publishing the book under your DSL license and having the book available for free on your Web site? Many book publishers are afraid to do this because they are fearful that it will cause them to lose book sales. Michael Stutz: The Linux-based free software system is ideal for people to efficiently get their everyday work done. I know that. And I see how really simple it is, how easy it is to use. I saw that what people needed was an introduction to the "Linux way" of doing things -- it certainly isn't coming through the schools, or through the workplace, or the media. People don't know about the technical aspects of computers, and maybe they don't care to know, so if those three outlets are depicting a certain kind of reality, then they won't know that others exist. So I thought that if I could show people how to get their work done using this powerful and cost-effective software, and explain to them a little in the beginning about this freedom, and what it was all about, then maybe it would have an effect. Yes, there was a lot of resistance from publishers about my intention to copyleft the book. But there is another aspect about the book that hasn't been mentioned very often -- I wanted only Linux and free software to be used in the direct production of the book, so that the book itself could be a physical example of what was possible with free software. And I wanted to do the typesetting myself. I am very particular about typesetting -- I am very into it, it is something that I think about all the time, and some time ago I decided that all of the books I would ever write would be typeset, when published, with Knuth's TeX system. It is the only computer system that to me is as good as (and actually better than) the old 'hot type,' the era of Linotype. The book proposal found interest from several publishers but the copyleft and the typesetting stipulations brought objection every time. Most computer book publishers use proprietary software to typeset their books, and few of them are willing to permit their authors to copyleft the manuscripts. The book publishing industry today suffers from a lack of vision. I don't even think they know what a book even is, literally! The bound paper object is called a "codex," and a _book_ is more than that. Publishers could make so much money with copylefted books. Just as record labels could make a fortune publishing copylefted music. I'd like to show them how. And this book was a first step in doing that -- No Starch Press was willing to try the experiment. It's been a hot seller, and the very reason that's so is because the book is freely available. It's not just available in PDF or HTML formats but the very manuscript is available -- and that has done nothing but increase sales of the bound book. Debian distributes an electronic version of it now, so my book comes right along with the operating system. What better publicity and endorsement could an author ask for? RAVEN: I read on your Web site that you feel that one of the most important philosophical and social issues confronting humanity in the beginning of the 21st century is the sharing of information, and for there to be a free society, any published data ought to be freely shareable -- contrary to current copyright law and assumptions of "intellectual property". I agree with you, and you can see that many other people also agree with the success that Linux and "copyleft" licences like your DSL and the GNU FDL are receiving. The people that are hardest to convince are the people of corporate America. If I was a business man, what would you say to me to make me a believer in Linux and the freedom of data? Michael Stutz: I'm not an evangelist. I'm just a person who is doing what he thinks is right, who is trying to find a way -- experimenting. I do see how record labels and book publishers could make a fortune with copyleft, but I don't know if my words would be convincing enough. So I'd like to show it through application. But I will say that the concept of free information, of copyleft, is about the most American thing that I know. Looking back on our nation's short history we can see that it has been about the struggle for liberty, emancipation. And in the recent past we see a very different shift -- the "corporate America" is not America at all, but it is an international and anti-democratic force intent on keeping democracy from being viable anywhere. The rapid change in the American way of life since the year 1960 is astounding because aside from technological advancement, the changes are all negative. Urban sprawl, shoddy design, mass destruction of cultural and historic resources and structures, loss of character and community, pollution, loss of freedoms for the individual, these are all products of the over industrialization that is happening today in America. I think if copyleft were applied on a mass scale that it would quickly turn around many of these problems. Imagine if architects and urban planners copylefted their designs, the formulas and designs for products were published under copyleft, newspapers put copylefted editions on the web, fashion designers published their patterns under copyleft ... it would make people not just consumers but _producers_ as well. People would begin to have input about their environment. Most Americans go to Wal-Mart or the shopping mall and load up on the bargains that they find there. The goods tend to be shoddy, especially if you compare them with American-made equivalents once available in American family-run stores just 40, 50 years ago. Now look at the labels of today's goods, these things that have familiar "American" logos on them: MADE IN CHINA, they will say. Now what if we expanded on these labels, provided a little more information? MADE IN COMMUNIST CHINA. Well, it's true. But would the American bargain hunters still stand for it? Personally, I think that they just might. But it's hard to tell. We are definitely on the verge of something right now. RAVEN: You have been a Linux user since the early 1990's, and were one of the first journalists to write about Linux and the free software movement in the mainstream press. Do you think that Linux is evolving succesfully? What are your feelings about the the split that occurred between the people like Richard Stallman who use the term Free Software and the other people like Eric S. Raymond that use the term Open Source? Which term do you believe in and use? Michael Stutz: I do use the term "Free Software" but really I am interested in neither term. "Open Source" misses the point because the source code, the programmer's written work, is not just "open" for examination -- it is freely distributable. One can sample from it, and change it. But "Free Software" is not the answer, either -- because this is about much more than software program source code. That is one kind of written work but all published works, written or otherwise, are at issue. The issue is human freedom, not the freedom of software or anything else. So much more important to me than free software or open source is the term "copyleft," which is a strategy that people can use to ensure that everybody gets these freedoms, and that these freedoms are important because it gives people control of their environment in a time when that control is being increasingly taken away from them. When a person has control of his environment relinquished entirely to another party, that is called slavery. RAVEN: IBM is really positioning themselves to become the Linux platform of choice. They are continuing to bring Linux to every platform in their family. Some people feel that by the end of 2003, more Linux users will be running Linux on IBM hardware than on any other vendor's equipment. Do you think there's a chance that IBM may become too powerful in the Linux community and may hijack the Linux platform and add their own proprietary code to Linux? Michael Stutz: Anything's possible. Thinking back to the IBM hardware and software that I am familiar with -- AIX on the RS/6000, the PS/2, the IBM PC series -- I am not so sure that they will make something that I personally would want to use. And their "Peace, Love, Linux" advertising campaign was insipid. Why should I think their engineering will be otherwise? Large organizations tend to be bureaucratic, and graceful design is always the result of human vision -- the two are at odds. The Ford Motor Company, for all its resources and money, has yet to make any innovation as grand or as sweeping as Henry Ford's assembly line and his early production line way of making cars. And I doubt that they ever will. A single designer or small group of them with one in the lead probably has the best chance of making the computer system of the future -- one that really takes things to new levels. But with all the restrictions on industry, on obtaining parts, on manufacturing, can the individual form a company today to do this? Is it still possible? I don't know. I don't have the experience in business to say whether or not this is still within the realm of possibilities for an American citizen today. RAVEN: What Linux distribution do you use and why? Michael Stutz: I use Debian exclusively and have for at least six years. It's not a corporation that has to worry first and foremost about shareholder profits -- they just have to concentrate on engineering the best system that they can, and that is why I like it. We live in an age now where the anti-democratic force of the corporation has infiltrated most aspects of global society. So groups of people forming their own democratic organizations like Debian is a very positive, futuristic thing. I am certain that other distributions of Linux are very good as well. I know a lot of people who use Mandrake and love it. So who knows -- I can see changing distributions if something better comes along. But I'd rather not have to think about it, actually. RAVEN: You're a technology correspondent with Wired News/Reuters. What advice would you give to others who want to become a technology correspondent/journalist like yourself? Michael Stutz: I thankfully haven't worked as a journalist since the 1990s. When I did, I was a free-lancer and Wired News was one of the outlets that printed my work. There is something of a newsman in me and it is good, honest work, but contemporary journalism is not like the old days. Newsrooms are cubicles, papers are business plans. Even in New York the good old journalist bars are all gone. Outside the AP building I was looking for one last year, Lindy's, that had been there for decades and instead I got chased out of a new yuppie restaurant that had been put in its place. So where are the journalists today? They weren't there. There's an excellent story in the current _New York Review of Books_ about this, and it's worth reading: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15581 Back in the mid-90s when I was writing about computers, I just wanted to cover Linux and free software. I didn't use Microsoft products and the idea of having to write about them was very distasteful to me. But no editor at any technology publication had any interest in a free-lancer who refused to write about Microsoft, who just wanted to write about this strange Unix-like operating system that had something to do with the Internet and was not a product of any company. They didn't understand it. Most of them had never even _heard_ of it! And this is the technology press. I am sure that it hasn't changed. In fact, it has probably gotten worse. So the advice I would give to someone who wishes to report the news is that they go at it as an independent. It's the only way to keep your dignity. With the Web, it won't cost much to publish your stories to the world (though I am sure that they are working to change that). And if you are slowly, surely consistent, you will find an audience. There are few indie journalists out there but I will give some examples: Counterpunch - http://counterpunch.org/ Matt Drudge - http://drudgereport.com/ Sam Smith - http://prorev.com/ Larouche Publications - http://www.larouchepub.com/ Indymedia - http://indymedia.org/ RAVEN: Do you make your living solely from your book sales and writing technology articles? or do you do something else in the technology field? Michael Stutz: I don't believe that people should have to worry about "making a living." If everybody did that, there would be no such thing as Linux. There would also be no culture since there would be no artists. We would not have much science because the real scientists and philosophers who devote their lives to their work would be too busy checking their mutual funds. So I just think about what I have got to do, and I do that. Making money has never been an objective. In terms of work for hire, my favorite occupation has been washing dishes. I like restaurant work and have done a lot of that. My ambition is in writing fiction and that is what I work at now. I do live off my book sales and have in the past lived off of my free-lance earnings when I did that. It isn't much. But I live in the USA where if you don't watch TV, don't buy into Hollywood or all the shoddy goods that big business is trying to sell you, you can live cheaply. I mean, I haven't stepped into a McDonald's in a decade. RAVEN: What do you think is the biggest problem that Linux has right now that is stopping it from becoming very successful on the desktop? I think it's the fact that it's still not user friendly enough for the average user to use. What do you think? Do you think that Linux really has a chance to be successful as a desktop OS?, or will it find it's real success on servers and devices such as PDA's? Michael Stutz: I use it exclusively as a desktop OS, and feel that right now it is the best and _easiest_ system for non-technical people to use to get their work done. If there is anything better, I want to see it. Sure, there's room for improvement, and I can think of hundreds of ideas for which there is no software solution to yet on any OS, but I have seen nothing better than Linux for a non-tech person's computer "desktop." And I don't know what 'user friendly' even means. I think it is a propaganda term. A window that pops up and questions my actions and wastes my time is not friendly -- it is demeaning. I don't think that competent people need that. I have a low opinion of computer interface designers -- for the most part I think they are like window dressers when they should be the architects. They concern themselves with the most fleeting aspects of fashion and have all this abstract talk about 'usability' but most of them don't seem to know what a computer _is_, or what it is capable of, or what it should be doing. They're too busy with color schemes and decorating the outside edges, and not getting down and dirty with the basics. So Linux appears to be ideal right now for the 'desktop.' The only reason it hasn't caught on is that the whole computer industry is all locked in by the corporate gangsters -- nobody can manufacture a computer and sell Linux on it at the store, because the deal says you've got to sell it with Microsoft on it. It's all a sham. I've looked at other interfaces and they are pretty rotten -- dumbed down, designed so that the lowest common denominator can pick it up immediately, without any thought or effort. Maybe that sort of thing has a place -- for example, it would be neat to experiment in remote areas of the world where people have little competence with electronic devices, and give out computers with simple displays so they can learn basic concepts of cut and pasting, copying data, etc. But it is not appropriate for daily use in the home or office. Well, I don't know what to say to people who don't want to put any thought or effort into a thing. The writer William S. Burroughs once told me that "happiness is a function of work," and I have spent a lot of time thinking about that. It is true. And maybe the demand in the West for solutions that require no work is part of the root cause for all the widespread unhappiness that is here. The problem for Linux is that hardware development and all industrial development is now very much tied to corporate interests. How many "Linux PCs" are being developed? Where are the systems designed from the very core for free software and open development? I don't see it. Graphics cards, sound cards, all of these components are all designed for other operating systems. So that keeps free software in a 'reactive' mode, reacting toward trends and developments of other systems and the available hardware, and not actively developing new things. This is certainly not true across the board, but it is an important issue. The Unix design is a good one and that is why it has lasted so long -- we've got, on our Linux systems today, tools and techniques that developed from work done in the 1960s. It is a good thing. So thank God for Linux. If I had to use Microsoft Word, I would not use computers to write with. How can it compare to Emacs and the thousand command-line tools? It can't. I'd have to use a typewriter. If I had to typeset books with proprietary software and not TeX, I would use Linotype machines or not do it at all. If only Microsoft were available, I'm telling you, I just would not use a computer. I'm an American, and I prefer freedom. |
|
