Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Richard Stallman Explains [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 207 posts

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#71

Post by the_cyber_pass »

icebraining wrote: post #68
teekert wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

""We" should not allow that"... Yeah that sounds like freedom to me. You are free to deal with these companies or not. Whether you agree with these companies and their ways is irrelevant. This is same as not agreeing with another persons' religion, you are free do choose a way to lead your life, don't try to force your way upon others. Others happily share their data with Google and reap the benefits of a very helpfu…

Worrying about free software advocates using the law against others is hilarious. It's like worrying about Walmart cashiers demanding to make more money than software developers.

I see someone hasn't had GPL conflicts in their code base before. There is a reason companies specifically look for them and it's because the FSF and it's communities will make your life hell.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#72

Post by cyphar »

teekert wrote: post #54

Ever since I listened to this episode of the Linux Action Show [0] I can't take RMS serious anymore. He bases everything he believes on one assumption he doesn't dare to argue himself: "Proprietary software is evil." That is it. When you attack his values and stances, he falls back to that sentence. When you argue: But aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a creator from sharing his software under his ow…

You should note that Bryan Lunduke has changed his opinion significantly since that podcast, and he has become a very vocal activist for free software[1]. He's also stopped developing proprietary software, and is actually a board member of the openSUSE project now. A lot of things change after 5 years.

Oh, and they did an episode immediately after that show where they decided to talk about RMS's arguments "behind his back" so-to-speak[2]. Personally that episode is the reason why I stopped watching LAS, because it was clear that their own personal biases were getting in the way of what they were talking about.

Other people have already debated the reasons why user freedom is different to "vendor freedom" (and why the former is more important than the latter). In short, it's the difference between "freedom from being harmed" and "freedom to harm others". Also please remember that vendors are also often users, so user freedom does benefit them as well.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0y0oXU8YNk [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn9WWVmINGg

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#73

Post by ebcode »

lloydde wrote: post #49
Ace17 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But at some point in the food chain, software developers need to put food on the table and send their kids to school. How does that happen if all software is free? Please note "free" has nothing to do with price, but with end-user freedom (to use/study/modify/share). (example answer to your question: custom/internal software).

It actually does have to do with price. All free software is one user away from the possibility (likelihood) it is free as in beer. The parent comment is correct that free software has put magnitudes less food on kids bellies.

>>The parent comment is correct that free software has put magnitudes less food on kids bellies.

uh... citation needed?

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#74

Post by icebraining »

the_cyber_pass wrote: post #71
icebraining wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worrying about free software advocates using the law against others is hilarious. It's like worrying about Walmart cashiers demanding to make more money than software developers.

I see someone hasn't had GPL conflicts in their code base before. There is a reason companies specifically look for them and it's because the FSF and it's communities will make your life hell.

Try using proprietary libraries in your software without complying with their licenses and you'll see what having your life made hell means. GPL license holders barely ever sued anyone, and when they do (like FSF v Cisco), it's usually after years of trying to get them to comply. That they (rightly) complain about your practices is not using the law.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#75

Post by dijit »

ajuc wrote: post #69
teekert wrote: post #54

Ever since I listened to this episode of the Linux Action Show [0] I can't take RMS serious anymore. He bases everything he believes on one assumption he doesn't dare to argue himself: "Proprietary software is evil." That is it. When you attack his values and stances, he falls back to that sentence. When you argue: But aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a creator from sharing his software under his ow…

I think it's similar to third wave feminism. It's a revolution that has already won for most practical purposes, but keeps on fighting. In a world, where almost all software was proprietary, and open source only made sense if you're living in towers of academia - RMS made sense and contributed greatly to society. Nowadays - not so much. It isn't worth it to restrict freedom of creator and force him to write open sour…

Free Software has not "won", in any sense of the imagination.

I am sitting in an office of 500+ Windows machines compared to 2 FreeBSD (and no Linux) machines.

I have to use Outlook otherwise I can't book meetings.

I must use Slack otherwise I can't communicate with my colleagues. (Or, alternatively, Skype For Business, but same issue)

"Free Software" is _not_ winning anywhere that isn't servers. (and they have fierce competition there too).

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#76

Post by [deleted] »

teekert wrote: post #54

Ever since I listened to this episode of the Linux Action Show [0] I can't take RMS serious anymore. He bases everything he believes on one assumption he doesn't dare to argue himself: "Proprietary software is evil." That is it. When you attack his values and stances, he falls back to that sentence. When you argue: But aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a creator from sharing his software under his ow…

[deleted]

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#77

Post by aaronbrethorst »

dijit wrote: post #75
ajuc wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's similar to third wave feminism. It's a revolution that has already won for most practical purposes, but keeps on fighting. In a world, where almost all software was proprietary, and open source only made sense if you're living in towers of academia - RMS made sense and contributed greatly to society. Nowadays - not so much. It isn't worth it to restrict freedom of creator and force him to write open sour…

Free Software has not "won", in any sense of the imagination. I am sitting in an office of 500+ Windows machines compared to 2 FreeBSD (and no Linux) machines. I have to use Outlook otherwise I can't book meetings. I must use Slack otherwise I can't communicate with my colleagues. (Or, alternatively, Skype For Business, but same issue) "Free Software" is _not_ winning anywhere that isn't servers. (and they have fierc…

The most-used operating system in the world has a Linux kernel. But, it might not be in front of you...except when you're checking email, waiting in line, playing Angry Birds, making a photograph, or checking up on Facebook.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#78

Post by ZeroGravitas »

teekert wrote: post #54

Ever since I listened to this episode of the Linux Action Show [0] I can't take RMS serious anymore. He bases everything he believes on one assumption he doesn't dare to argue himself: "Proprietary software is evil." That is it. When you attack his values and stances, he falls back to that sentence. When you argue: But aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a creator from sharing his software under his ow…

"When you argue: But aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a creator from sharing his software under his own terms?"

I hope you're aware that this is the oldest argument in the book.

It literally goes back to Plato and arguments about how you can be free if you're not free to make other people slaves.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#79

Post by madez »

ajuc wrote: post #70
cbenz wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of users is more important than freedom of vendor. That's because users are the society, the citizens, everyone in fact. So defending the freedom of the creator to sharing software under her own terms is way less important than defending the freedom of users.

That depends on the software and market, surely. If there's 5 open source alternatives, is it more important to get 6th for the minimal gain in freedom for the users, or is it more important to let the creator keep his freedom to share it under whichever licence he prefers? What if there's 100 open source alternatives already?

An "alternative" is is not necessarily a factual alternative. I'd said if a solution has many users, the freedom of the users has priority.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#80

Post by oblio »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #77
dijit wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free Software has not "won", in any sense of the imagination. I am sitting in an office of 500+ Windows machines compared to 2 FreeBSD (and no Linux) machines. I have to use Outlook otherwise I can't book meetings. I must use Slack otherwise I can't communicate with my colleagues. (Or, alternatively, Skype For Business, but same issue) "Free Software" is _not_ winning anywhere that isn't servers. (and they have fierc…

The most-used operating system in the world has a Linux kernel. But, it might not be in front of you...except when you're checking email, waiting in line, playing Angry Birds, making a photograph, or checking up on Facebook.

> except when you're checking email, waiting in line, playing Angry Birds, making a photograph, or checking up on Facebook.

You've just proved his point more than you ever wanted.

> checking email

On the (probably) proprietary Mail or Gmail app.

> waiting in line

On the (probably) proprietary app for whichever thing you're staying in line for.

> playing Angry Birds

...

> making a photograph

...

> or checking up on Facebook

...!

Who care if the kernel, heavily modified and buried 100 layers deep is Open Source if all the apps users actually use are proprietary?

Post reply on HN