Frases de Richard Stallman

Sobre las diferencias entre software libre y software de código abierto.
Fuente: Por qué el código abierto pierde el punto de vista del Software Libre http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.es.html

Sin fuentes
21 de noviembre de 2007, entrevista con el periodista Andrés Lomeña, Ecuador.

Sin fuentes

Sin fuentes
Declaración hecha durante su encuentro con los periodistas antes de comenzar su participación en la jornada «El movimiento del software libre y el sistema operativo GNU/Linux», organizado por Caja Mediterráneo (CAM) en el espacio CAMon de Alicante.

Fuente: ENTREVISTA AL PADRE DE GNU. Stallman: "La única manera de ser libre es rechazar los programas propietarios" https://www.elmundo.es/navegante/2004/04/27/entrevistas/1083074999.html

Sin fuentes
1999, tras recibir el Premio Linus Torvalds en LinuxWorld.

Sin fuentes
Dicho luego de la conferencia de software libre a finales de 2007 en la UNAM.

Sin fuentes

En una conferencia en la Escuela Politécnica Superior de Ingeniería de Gijón.
Fuente: El Comercio http://www.elcomerciodigital.com/pg060304/prensa/noticias/Sociedad/200603/04/GIJ-SOC-140.html

Internet meme commonly attributed to Stallman made by an unknown source.
Misattributed

1980s, GNU Manifesto (1985)

"You broke the Internet. We're making ourselves a GNU one." (August 2013) https://gnunet.org/internetistschuld (around 02:16)
2010s
Contexto: Programming is programming. If you get good at programming, it doesn't matter which language you learned it in, because you'll be able to do programming in any language. The hard part of programming is the same regardless of the language. And if you have a talent for that, and you learned it here, you can take it over there. Oh, one thing: if you want to get a picture of a programming at its most powerful, you should learn Lisp or Scheme because they are more elegant and powerful than other languages.

Free Software and Beyond: Human Rights in the Use of Software", address at Goeteborg, Sweden (16 May 2007)
2000s
Contexto: To have the choice between proprietary software packages, is being able to choose your master. Freedom means not having a master. And in the area of computing, freedom means not using proprietary software.

1980s, GNU Manifesto (1985)
Contexto: I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to divide the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share with others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this way. I cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a software license agreement. For years I worked within the Artificial Intelligence Lab to resist such tendencies and other inhospitalities, but eventually they had gone too far: I could not remain in an institution where such things are done for me against my will.
So that I can continue to use computers without dishonor, I have decided to put together a sufficient body of free software so that I will be able to get along without any software that is not free. I have resigned from the AI lab to deny MIT any legal excuse to prevent me from giving GNU away.

First reaction to reports of the first commercial "spam" email, sent by DEC salesman, Gary Thuerk (8 May 1978), as quoted in "Reaction to the DEC Spam of 1978" http://www.templetons.com/brad/spamreact.html#msg<!-- also only partially quoted in "Damn Spam", by Michael Specter, in The New Yorker (6 August 2007) http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/08/06/damn-spam -->
1970s
Contexto: I didn't receive the DEC message, but I can't imagine I would have been bothered if I have. I get tons of uninteresting mail, and system announcements about babies born, etc. At least a demo MIGHT have been interesting. … The amount of harm done by any of the cited "unfair" things the net has been used for is clearly very small. And if they have found any people any jobs, clearly they have done good. If I had a job to offer, I would offer it to my friends first. Is this "evil"? … Would a dating service for people on the net be "frowned upon" by DCA? I hope not. But even if it is, don't let that stop you from notifying me via net mail if you start one.

Why Schools Should Exclusively Use Free Software (2003) http://www.gnu.org/education/edu-schools.html
2000s
Contexto: Free software permits students to learn how software works. Some students, on reaching their teens, want to learn everything there is to know about their computer and its software. They are intensely curious to read the source code of the programs that they use every day. To learn to write good code, students need to read lots of code and write lots of code. They need to read and understand real programs that people really use. Only free software permits this.
Proprietary software rejects their thirst for knowledge: it says, “The knowledge you want is a secret — learning is forbidden!” Free software encourages everyone to learn. The free software community rejects the “priesthood of technology”, which keeps the general public in ignorance of how technology works; we encourage students of any age and situation to read the source code and learn as much as they want to know. Schools that use free software will enable gifted programming students to advance.

MEME 2.04, an interview with David S. Bennahum (1996) http://memex.org/meme2-04.html
1990s
Contexto: In 1971 when I joined the staff of the MIT Artificial Intelligence lab, all of us who helped develop the operating system software, we called ourselves hackers. We were not breaking any laws, at least not in doing the hacking we were paid to do. We were developing software and we were having fun. Hacking refers to the spirit of fun in which we were developing software. The hacker ethic refers to the feelings of right and wrong, to the ethical ideas this community of people had — that knowledge should be shared with other people who can benefit from it, and that important resources should be utilized rather than wasted. Back in those days computers were quite scarce, and one thing about our computer was it would execute about a third-of-a-million instructions every second, and it would do so whether there was any need to do so or not. If no one used these instructions, they would be wasted. So to have an administrator say, "well you people can use a computer and all the rest of you can't," means that if none of those officially authorized people wanted to use the machine that second, it would go to waste. For many hours every morning it would mostly go to waste. So we decided that was a shame. Anyone should be able to use it who could make use of it, rather than just throwing it away. In general we did not tolerate bureaucratic obstructionism. We felt, "this computer is here, it was bought by the public, it is here to advance human knowledge and do whatever is constructive and useful." So we felt it was better to let anyone at all use it — to learn about programming, or do any other kind of work other than commercial activity.