Richard Stallman: Free software means software that respects the users' freedom. There are four essential freedoms for a user of software, any software: Freedom to run the program, as you wish. Freedom to study the program's source code, and change it so that the program does what you wish. Freedom to make copies and distribute them to others (including publication), when you wish. Freedom to distribute your modified versions (including publication), when you wish.

If a program respects all four of these freedoms, it is free software, meaning that the social system of its distribution is ethical. Software which denies these freedoms is proprietary software; it keeps its users divided and helpless, under the power of the developer. Proprietary software is a social problem, and our goal is to correct that problem.

What promises does free software hold for developing countries? Do you agree that a "software economy" based on the "free software model" will contribute immensely towards erasing the digital divide?
Freedom is just as vital for poor people as it is for wealthy people. Many people in Bangladesh are very poor and don't use computers, so the problem of non-free software does not affect them (they have other problems in their lives). But anyone in Bangladesh who does have a computer is in the same position as an American who has a computer. Both deserve freedom, in this area of life just as in other areas.

The freedoms of free software enable people to redistribute copies widely; they are not required to pay for permission to do so, because they are free to do it. As a result, they can enable people who are barely able to afford computer hardware to make it run, without the need to pay for software as well. But this is a secondary benefit. Freedom is more important than saving an expense.

In your writings and speeches, you have compared "free software" to "free speech." Would you like to explain?
Free software is like free speech in that both are examples of human rights: the word "free" has the same meaning in both expressions.

Both use the same figure of speech: it is not literally your software, or your words, that are free. In both cases, the one who enjoys the freedom is you, a person. Free speech means you can use your voice freely; free software means you can use your computer freely.

A proprietary program is under the sole control of its developer. The developer decides what it will do, and what it will not do. As a result, developers can impose their will on the users. Microsoft is not alone in doing this. It is not uncommon for developers to implement malicious features -- designed to spy on users (spyware), restrict users (Digital Restrictions Management aka DRM), even attack users (back doors). Incompatibility with de-facto or official standards can also be an intentional malicious feature.

Free software develops democratically under the control of its users. Even users that don't know how to change a program can choose which version to run, so they participate in deciding what features to add and what features to remove. Thus, free software does not give anyone power over others, and no one is in a position to impose malicious features.

Free softwares -- GNU/Linux, Apache, Firefox, Wordpress -- are now replacing their proprietary rivals in millions of desktops and servers around the world. What are the strengths that fuel this success?
Two decades of experience have shown that freedom often brings secondary benefits such as making software powerful and reliable. Many users are attracted by this.

Free software is an example of the globalization of human cooperation and knowledge. Many free programs have developers in several continents as well as users in just about every nation. Cooperation and knowledge are good things, so globalizing them makes them better. This helps partly to compensate for the kind of globalization that thousands protest: globalization of evil things such as the power of business.

The southern Indian state of Kerala is in the process of changing over all computers in its 12,500 high schools from Windows to GNU/Linux systems. This was prompted by your recent visit to India. How big a success is this?
The activists of the Free Software Foundation of India have worked for years to build a relationship with the government of Kerala, and with the (then) opposition party which is now in power. My visit provided the occasion to announce a decision which the activists' work had already prepared.

Kerala is the largest jurisdiction which has undertaken such a change. The Spanish state of Extremadura has already migrated completely to GNU/Linux, but Kerala is much more populous, so this is a much bigger success. I am really glad about it. But look at how many states and countries have not yet made this change. That shows how far we have to go before freedom's victory.

In his recent visit to Bangladesh, Bill Gates announced that Microsoft will train over 10,000 teachers and 200,000 students in information technology in Bangladesh. How do you see his recent visits to developing countries aimed at exploring new markets for proprietary softwares from Microsoft?
Free software gives its users freedom, while proprietary software subjugates them. Thus, schools that have computers must make a moral choice: to prepare their students for life in a free society, or train them for lifelong subjugation. Teaching students to use MS Windows is like teaching them to use addictive drugs: it creates a dependency which students will carry with them on finishing school. And you can be sure Microsoft will not offer gratis copies to the companies and institutions they work for after graduation -- only the first dose is gratis.

When schools teach the use of non-free software, they become levers in the hands of the software's developers, levers which they employ to direct all of society deeper under their control.

I could not understand what the Chief Minister of Kerala said when he spoke at our event, since he said it in Malayalam, but I am sure that Kerala's decision comes from recognition that the schools' mission is not served by inculcating dependency on mega-corporations. I hope that Bangladesh makes a similar decision.

How do you, as an activist, see the politics of free software?
I've spent two decades fighting specifically for computer users to have control of their computing. This does not mean I believe those rights are more important than other human rights. I have simply focused on the problem that falls in my field, the software field. It was the problem against which I could make the most headway.

Today as in the past, all human rights are linked: losing one makes it harder to defend the others. Computers in the hands of unscrupulous despots make it possible to monitor and control people as never before. This comes at a time when despotism is advancing all around the world, and gaining its inspiration from a regime in Washington that opposes human rights in general. We need to fight harder to defend all kinds of human rights, and reject government plans to "protect" us by taking them away.