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

101–110 of 207 posts

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#101

Post by akvadrako »

willtim wrote: post #58
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…

Sure 'evil' is hyperbole, but he gives many examples in the posted video of control, security and privacy issues. Essentially with proprietary software, there is a fundamental conflict of interest between the proprietor and user.

How is it hyperbole? The devil doesn't usually reign down fire and brimstone; he's in the details.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#102

Post by jrimbault »

reacweb wrote: post #87
legulere wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only freedom of the three freedoms that applies to users (almost nobody is a developer!) is the freedom to redistribute . So it is basically about the freedom to copy someone else's work without compensation.

I think that everybody should be a developer and that programing should be far more easier. Why programming languages are so tricky ?

Because natural language is ambiguous and rocks are dumb.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#103

Post by smithsmith »

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…

> But I see no evil whatsoever in someone making a software tool and selling only the binaries to someone who is happy to use said binaries under the terms the seller and buyer agree upon.

Same thing can be said about slavery. Some very very small minority may be happy being slaves. The rest of the slaves(people who just use binary) just does not know what it means to be being free(the freedom that comes with changing their software they use at will).

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#104

Post by missbit »

Geez. I just realized a problem here.

If he doesn't want to use any commercial software. This includes IntelliJ or other IDEs? Good luck writing software! Then again, the time he saves from not dealing with iOS provisioning might give him a couple extra years to write other software.

Man that interviewer is dumb. Says he is surprised he didn't vote Trump? Eh?

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#105

Post by belorn »

legulere wrote: post #82
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.

The only freedom of the three freedoms that applies to users (almost nobody is a developer!) is the freedom to redistribute . So it is basically about the freedom to copy someone else's work without compensation.

The right to repair movement is in direct opposition with current US copyright law over DRM. The reason is not for "copy someone else's work without compensation".

Karen Sandler and several security researcher want free software freedom in regard to medical devices. They want to verify the code and even out the power balance between those that depend on the code for their life and the producer of it. That too is not about "copy someone else's work without compensation".

Yesterday there was an article that said that voting machines should be open source. The concern people have there is not about "copy someone else's work without compensation".

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#106

Post by number6 »

missbit wrote: post #104

Geez. I just realized a problem here. If he doesn't want to use any commercial software. This includes IntelliJ or other IDEs? Good luck writing software! Then again, the time he saves from not dealing with iOS provisioning might give him a couple extra years to write other software. Man that interviewer is dumb. Says he is surprised he didn't vote Trump? Eh?

Use emacs?

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#107

Post by Joeri »

teekert wrote: post #100
loup-vaillant wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a creator from sharing his software under his own terms? GPL vs BSD all over again. Freedoms conflict. The one "freedom" RMS would restrict is the freedom to restrict the freedom of others (one's users). One has to chose at some point. Since there are more users than creators, the freedom of many users is more important than the freedom of one creator. (Assumin…

This discussion is one level higher, it is about the freedom of the creator to choose a license for his software. GPL is not better than BSD or the other way around, it is about the freedom to choose a license. The freedom to say to a buyer: "Ok, we have a deal under these conditions." The buyer has the freedom to reject the deal. This is the scenario with the most freedom imho. I'm afraid, but correct me if I'm wron…

In RMS world there would be less software so less ways for people to express themselves freely. Photoshop frees a lot of people from the inability to express themselves in the exact way they want.

In RMS world all software woud be GPL licensed, including photoshop. In his view there are other ways software companies can make money than selling licenses, and it is up to their customers to demand them to do that.

It's impractical to be sure, but crazier things have happened given enough time.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#108

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

teekert wrote: post #100
loup-vaillant wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a creator from sharing his software under his own terms? GPL vs BSD all over again. Freedoms conflict. The one "freedom" RMS would restrict is the freedom to restrict the freedom of others (one's users). One has to chose at some point. Since there are more users than creators, the freedom of many users is more important than the freedom of one creator. (Assumin…

This discussion is one level higher, it is about the freedom of the creator to choose a license for his software. GPL is not better than BSD or the other way around, it is about the freedom to choose a license. The freedom to say to a buyer: "Ok, we have a deal under these conditions." The buyer has the freedom to reject the deal. This is the scenario with the most freedom imho. I'm afraid, but correct me if I'm wron…

There are limits on what is enforcable in a contract. Like, you cannot enslave yourself. It is true that that limits freedoms in some sense. But it serves to protect freedoms that society at large deems more important.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#109

Post by cyphar »

nannal wrote: post #88

Kind of funny you're all in here posting youtube links, I didn't know they were GNU friendly and I can only imagine how RMS feels given his zealotry.

You can use youtube-dl[1] to download videos from YouTube (and transcode them to free formats) without runnning their proprietary JavaScript. There's even a free software Android project[2] that lets you stream videos without running their proprietary JavaScript -- and in my opinion it's much better than the proprietary YouTube app.

RMS's concern with YouTube is that they use proprietary JavaScript and they use patented media formats. However, RMS has always made it clear that if you have the ability "at hand" to rip DVDs then purchasing a DVD is not unethical. Both of the pieces of software I mentioned allow you to avoid running proprietary software.

His other concern is that RMS wants people to publish things he appears in in a way that is much easier to access with only free software. The Internet Archive and CCC provide video hosting that is completely free software, with non-patented formats like VP9, and is easy to use. The idea is to make those forms of publishing more widely known about.

[1]: https://github.com/rg3/youtube-dl [2]: https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#110

Post by rglullis »

Joeri wrote: post #107
teekert wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This discussion is one level higher, it is about the freedom of the creator to choose a license for his software. GPL is not better than BSD or the other way around, it is about the freedom to choose a license. The freedom to say to a buyer: "Ok, we have a deal under these conditions." The buyer has the freedom to reject the deal. This is the scenario with the most freedom imho. I'm afraid, but correct me if I'm wron…

In RMS world there would be less software so less ways for people to express themselves freely. Photoshop frees a lot of people from the inability to express themselves in the exact way they want. In RMS world all software woud be GPL licensed, including photoshop. In his view there are other ways software companies can make money than selling licenses, and it is up to their customers to demand them to do that. It's…

In RMS' world Photoshop wouldn't even come to existence.
Post reply on HN