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

131–140 of 207 posts

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#131

Post by craigsmansion »

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…

> Photoshop frees a lot of people from the inability to express themselves in the exact way they want.

It's not quite as binary.

Creative urges and most other human endeavours do not exist in a vacuum.

If you are at a friend's house--say a fellow artist, and he shows you how to effortlessly create new art with Photoshop. You might be impressed and enthused and say: "This is great! I want to be part of this," but your artist-friend would have to say: "I'm sorry, but I can't give you a copy, I promised I wouldn't do that" or, more likely, he would have to break laws to support you in your enthusiasm.

Now, had your friend be using GIMP he would gladly have given you a copy. Not only because he's your friend and wants to support you creatively, but also because more users generally leads to more development and a better program. He's not just helping you, he's helping himself as part of a greater creative community.

So no, Photoshop doesn't completely free you. Someone would have to break the law, or you would have to submit yourself to an arbiter to ask them if you can be part of their community. Usually they just ask for money and a promise not to let anyone else be part of that community without referring those people to them.

Free Software lets you share your ambitions without breaking laws or referring to an arbiter. It's a decision you have to make for yourself, but one choice does not free more people to express themselves by default, even if it might feel more free towards your own person at a particular time, but that freedom is not transitive.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#132

Post by [deleted] »

afarrell wrote: post #127
reacweb wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best metaphor I have ever seen to understand why proprietary software is evil.

But the metaphor does not actually succeed at doing the heavy lifting required to demonstrate that the licence for photoshop falls into the category of "contracts which are unjust and ought be prohibited".

[deleted]

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#133

Post by bobstaples »

reacweb wrote: post #85
legulere wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument: Not giving away what you wrote for free under the terms dictated by Richard Stallman is literally slavery.

Yes, because you becomes dependent of the good will of the seller if you encounter bugs, limitations, incompatible hardware or if the OS updates in incompatible ways.

Isn't that comparable to going to a restaurant where they don't give away their recipes? If you encounter a problem with one of their meals you are dependent on their good will to change it for you. Isnt it that you are just using a service someone provides? Or are you enslaving yourself the moment you walk in a restaurant where they keep their recipes secret?

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#134

Post by AsyncAwait »

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…

Well, the funny thing is that Bryan[0] has since pretty much defected to RMS's side, so clearly it wasn't as bad as you seem to suggest.

[0] - https://www.youtube.com/user/BryanLunduke/videos

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#135

Post by teekert »

mseebach wrote: post #123
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

> It literally goes back to Plato and arguments about how you can be free if you're not free to make other people slaves. He may have been the first (recorded) philosopher to make that point. But he's not exactly the last to think about this, and the enlightenment was largely about finding a good answer to it. Basically (hyper-abridged version), the answer is self-ownership, and self-ownership precludes selling yours…

In short: A definition of Freedom is wrong (or at least sub-optimal, bigoted, biased) if it can not pertain to all humans at the same time without creating a paradox.

At the risk of being down-voted (but less so due to this very sentence), the quote below can be true for everyone and I believe it to be very important Interpreting it I would say that a creator is free to choose a license, any attempt to try and force the use of another license upon a creator than that of his choosing will lead to paradoxes in freedom. I.e., such a definition can not be applied to all humans (for example: I can force conditions upon you by which you should share your work, you can do so to me and you can they force me to not share my work or at least under arbitrary conditions):

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

-John Galt (Ayn Rand; Atlas Shrugged, which is a nice book if you like the philosophy of freedom)

With regards to forcing "a mind" I love this piece of literature: [0]

[0] http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/physical_force.html

An excerpt:

Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason—as no advocate of contradictions can claim it. There can be no “right” to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#136

Post by teekert »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #78
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.

Exactly, by forcing a license (you made up) onto my creation, you are basically taking my property and enslaving me.

You are saying to me: "Nice work you got there, now, I am going to use it under my conditions. Oh you don't want me to share the software? Too bad, not sharing is evil! I'm sharing it anyway."

Yes, you are free to say this but then I can choose not to share my software with you. I will only give you my software if you agree to MY conditions. I made the software hoping to share it with people on my terms, so that I can earn a living from it.

Am I evil for expecting you to honor the terms we agreed upon when we made the exchange of your money for my software product? Am I evil for setting terms that I like for the trade that we are making?

Imo any party can have any terms in a trade, if you agree to mine and I agree to yours we have a deal, otherwise: go find another solution to your problem.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#137

Post by qplex »

oblio wrote: post #80
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Fa…

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

I guess by this definition any open sourced library that an "end user app" uses doesn't count either.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#138

Post by [deleted] »

sokoloff wrote: post #130
loup-vaillant wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a capitalistic society where proprietary software were forbidden, we may not have Photoshop. To me, that indicates a problem with capitalism itself.

In a capitalist world where food could not be sold or traded for consideration, I believe we would obviously not have restaurants/supermarkets and it seems very likely either more people would need to be farmers and/or more people would starve. Is that also a problem with capitalism, or a problem with "not capitalism"?

[deleted]

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#139

Post by jrimbault »

rand98765 wrote: post #11
Boothroid wrote: post #2

I was amazed to see that Stallman doesn't install his OS himself - hasn't for years. He seemed diminished in my eyes after I learnt this.

This is just a practical thing afaik. fsf sysadmins are more knowledgeable about it and they do it for the rest of fsf computers already, so why not let them do it? What does diminished mean? I mean, like as a person he's not impressive? When I remember I'm reading a comment that's hiding behind a pseudonym, they are also diminished in my eyes.

I think I agree with you, buuuut "rand98765" is your current username.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#140

Post by jrimbault »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #34
taneq wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A beginner shouldn't be installing operating systems"? If a moderately-intelligent, moderately-literate beginner can't install your operating system, then your operating system (or at least, its user interface) is crap. Edit: Just to be clear, I'm responding to the quote, not calling Linux crap. I run a combination of Linux and Windows machines and VMs and they're both very straightforward to install, a complete beg…

No one installs Windows, and frankly it isn't a ton easier than installing free operating systems. It's only easier because you rarely run into driver issues, the computer was probably built to run Windows, and you're rarely trying to install it as a second operating system.

Last week I installed Windows on my laptop (which was, is, running linux).

Sidenote: I was really happy to successfully install it on the same disk as linux and not crap up my bootloader.

Post reply on HN