In this, the first of a two part interview, the Free Software Foundation’s executive director Zoë Kooyman talks about changes at FSF since Richard Stallman stepped down as president about six years ago, the difference between “free software” and “open source,” and the issues that AI brings to the table for freedom-loving tech users.
For over thirty years, the Free Software Foundation was a technical, legal, and community leader, shaping the direction of a sometimes uneasy alliance of developers and advocates that has grown to dominate much of the tech-world. Then, in 2019, the misunderstanding of a poorly-worded commment by the FSF’s president Richard Stallman about the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking scandal led to a rejection of his leadership and caused concern about his past behavior, particularly his treatment of women.
Stallman resigned as president. When he was elected to the FSF board in 2021, an open letter signed by hundreds of community projects and leaders condemned his behavior anew and called for the resignation of the entire FSF board as enablers. Unsurprisingly, the effect on the entire FSF organization was devastating. In the last five years, the FSF has looked like it was about to fade into obscurity,
In 2025, however, the FSF is starting to re-emerge with a new leadership and structure, as well as some changes in philosophy. In this first of two part series, executive director Zoë Kooyman discusses where the FSF is today. In Part 2, she will talk about the sweeping changes of the past six years.
Bruce Byfield: How has Richard Stallman’s cancellation and the fallout from it affected the FSF’s focus, finances and influence? To what extent has the FSF recovered from any of these effects?
Zoë Kooyman: Anything that shifts focus away from our mission of defending software freedom is challenging. It can be deflating to have the focus be shifted away from your priorities like that. The challenges we face in our movement are more complex and difficult than ever — and our ideals are being co-opted more than they have been at any point in the past. The organization has taken a very introspective turn these last years, and this also pulled our attention away somewhat from our core work and free software advocacy, but it was necessary to refocus and set the FSF up as a more resilient and a more thoughtful organization.
Byfield: Can you summarize how the FSF has changed as a result?
Kooyman: The FSF I stepped into is not that different from the one I am currently talking with you about. From the moment I stepped into this movement, I have been welcomed with open arms and with a lot of patience, because there is an immense amount of wisdom in this community that could take a lifetime to absorb, but everyone is ready to teach. Much like most people in the community, the people working for the organization are exceptional people, both in their advocacy, as well as in their day to day actions, and their persistence for the cause.
The challenges we face in our movement are more complex and difficult than ever — and our ideals are being co-opted more than they have been at any point in the past. Our renewed focus and engagement will strengthen us as we continue to bring every conversation back to its core: where does this leave the user’s freedom, and grow our base of dedicated free software advocates who stand fast against Big Tech’s attempts to deny users their freedom?
Byfield: Why did the FSF start working remotely?
Kooyman: This decision was a very natural one, and really it was overdue. The cost of leasing and maintaining offices in Boston has increased dramatically over the years, as it is one of the most expensive office markets in the United States. These last few years, many of the staff had already been remote for a while, and even in different timezones, so they were already used to working in this way. Besides the major effort of actually moving, the transition was smooth. It reduced attention to office infrastructure, as well as personal expenses for staff and costs for the Foundation as well, so we have been able to steer more resources toward our mission.
Byfield: How has the last six years affected the FSF’s ability to promote free software?
Kooyman: It has always been a challenge to make software freedom a kitchen table issue — more than ever in our increasingly software-dependent culture. Large proprietary corporations are using their already existing powers to make user freedom more and more difficult to obtain. It is grassroots campaigns and convincing one person after another that will get us to a more free digital culture.
Byfield: How have the last six years affected the FSF’s ability to address licensing issues?
Kooyman: The team in place now has successfully worked through much of our backlog and is in a good position to take on more violation reports and work on compliance. As license violations seem to be growing, this is a space we need to continue to put much of our resources. Software freedom is not a self-sustaining idea, we need compliance to our licenses to guarantee the philosophy’s existence and that will not happen without continued license enforcement.
Byfield: Does the distinction between free and open source software matter today?
Kooyman: People who use the term “open source” are often just as passionate users and developers of free software as those who use the term “free software,” so we thank them for their work for user freedom, no matter what term they use. Often you’ll find the average individual supporter who uses the term “open source” cares just as much about freedom as the average “free software” supporter.
But in general, and I am sure this is to the frustration of the original “open source” members as well, we’re seeing that term continues to be watered down to a more and more unclear definition. This is an unfortunate but unsurprising state of affairs, as “open source” was coined in the 1990s specifically to draw the focus away from the ethical dimension of “free software.” It’s not uncommon to see a program described as “open source,” even when it is merely source-available, that is, when it quite obviously denies its users freedom.
Part of standing up for software freedom is being clear what it means in every case. Although our term has been around longer than “open source,” the intentions of advocates that opt for the term free software are unmistakable. Free software adheres to the same strict definition it did forty years ago, and the FSF prides ourselves with this. It is our responsibility to hold a firm space on the far end of the spectrum of all possible interpretations and encroachments onto user freedom so that there is always a point of reference, a point of aspiration – and we won’t be moving any time soon.
Now that we are seeing the term being expanded upon into machine learning with several iterations, ranging from “open data,” to “open weights” and “open source artificial intelligence,” we see similar words being used to describe significant conceptual differences that have grave real-life consequences. More importantly, this may result in the first significant gap between the “free software” and “open source” definitions since the term “open source” was coined. It has always been the case (with few exceptions in the past) that despite the focus on different terminology, the two terms described a similar body of licenses and therefore a similar body of programs. We may now have to be even more vigilant in understanding the differences between all the different terms out there as applications described as “free.”
Byfield: What issues are being faced by free software face today?
Kooyman: The issue of software freedom is at the core of so many elements of our daily lives that we have to consider the pervasiveness of software as a whole in our society as the biggest concern. We’re talking about privacy, surveillance, software use in schools, IoT, reliance on centralized systems, hardware obsolescence, obscene amounts of data processing, and we can go on. All of these issues have free software as a prerequisite to them, and require us to be vigilant about making sure that software that affects everyone should be free software — allowing everyone their four freedoms — which ultimately means people can use, study, inspect, test, change, repair, teach, share, etc. All these words are inherent in the four freedoms and they all spell out understanding, education, and progress for society.
Another thing, not technology at all but worth mentioning as a major concern for advocates, is the free software and digital rights funding situation. The organizations that are working for digital rights need financial support, and limiting those funds can have disastrous consequences for our user freedom, but also for technological development. Somewhere around 97% of all software has free software in it, it follows that stymieing free software organizations will negatively impact technological development as well.
Byfield: The founding generation of free software is now past retirement age. Are younger generations stepping up to take their place?
Kooyman: Absolutely. We see younger generations step up in all areas. We see it in our board, our management — as I would like to think I fall into this category as well — but also in our staff, volunteers, event visitors, and community. This is perhaps the movement’s biggest challenge. The people we need to convince now to join our cause so that they can be our leaders tomorrow are all digital natives. This means that they are raised in schools where they are surveilled as a norm, use proprietary software that the school is locked into, and are raised on user interfaces without even understanding that you could control all these aspects of your computing. All this makes it harder for them to stand up for their rights — or even to recognize the level of injustice — but like no other generation before them, know how to use technology in their favor. Once they recognize the injustice, they are extraordinarily strong advocates for digital rights.
Byfield: How will the FSF and free software evolve in the next decade?
We will adapt to threats and developments in the only way possible for the FSF: by analyzing what it means for software freedom. We will continue to learn and listen to our community, our supporters, and our associate members. What ten years from now looks like in technology is unclear, but we must continue our fight to make computer user freedom a kitchen table issue so that we can drive change from the grassroots. It is our objective to work with, and support other digital rights movements and advocates, and help give a platform, infrastructure, and knowledge to people and projects that drive software freedom forward.
Bruce Byfield has been involved in FOSS since 1999. He has published more than 2000 articles, and is the writer of “Designing with LibreOffice,” which is available as a free download here.
Be First to Comment