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

161–170 of 207 posts

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#161

Post by loup-vaillant »

teekert wrote: post #143
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…

BTW, ask yourself, if Freedom conflicts, are you really using the correct definition of Freedom? I strongly believe the definition of Freedom should be applicable to all human without creating any paradoxes. Check all your premises, carefully.

> La liberté des uns s'arrête là où commence celle des autres.

Few French people don't know this proverb. It surprised me when I noticed US citizens were much less cognizant of it. Maybe because Freedom is praised so highly we cannot even acknowledge its fundamental limitations?

If someone is at liberty to kill you, your freedom to live peacefully might be severely limited. If someone has the freedom to spread lies about you, your freedom to preserve your own reputation might be severely limited. And so on.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#162

Post by teekert »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #134
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

Because anyone who ever changes his principles always only exchanges them for better principles?

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#163

Post by loup-vaillant »

teekert wrote: post #153
teekert wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree! And I use Gimp for that very reason! However, my Photoshop inclined friends would experience the absence of the liquify and Refine Edge tool as an inhibition of their desire to reach their goal (the image they have in mind). In that sense, Photoshop is an enabler for their wishes, Photoshop gives them the freedom to make what they want.

Not sure why I can't reply to you loup-vaillant but here it is: Do you mean the "funding" (more like "income") that Adobe generates by selling their software instead of giving the source code away?

> Not sure why I can't reply to you

Replies are rate-limited. The deeper the thread, the longer the down time. There might be other criteria.

I mean the income that Adobe extracts from their customers. The only thing they generated in this case is Photoshop itself. This nitpicking aside, yes, that's what I was talking about.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#164

Post by teekert »

dijit wrote: post #61
tequila_shot wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well RMS has nothing to do with Open Source. Open Source is different from FSF. But I generally agree with your comments. I have seen in a number of videos that RMS tends to always fall back on the "Proprietary software is evil".

To be fair, he's clarified why he feels this way many times. Repeating the same arguments has got to be frustrating and people might pick up on it. (assuming that RMS has very little to say but says it often). FWIW his reasons of proprietary software being evil are[0]: * Proprietary software obstructs the use of its programs * Proprietary software obstructs social cohesion, fragments communities. * Proprietary softwa…

I agree with all of them. But please don't try to interfere with my freedom to ignore them as I please, which is what RMS would do if he got his way.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#165

Post by loup-vaillant »

sokoloff wrote: post #157
loup-vaillant wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was just saying that if capitalism requires proprietary software, then capitalism has a problem. The unstated (yet obvious) assumption was that proprietary software is evil. I'm not sure food trade is evil. Forbidding it doesn't make much sense to me. Regulating it however makes a whole lot of sense. But we already do. Isn't the cold war finished by now? Surely there could be viable alternatives to the current corp…

Capitalism doesn't require proprietary software, but it enables it.

A little good faith, will you?

The idea was that capitalism gives you a choice between proprietary, shitty, or non-existent software. Not much of a choice. Photoshop is often showed as an example where free alternatives aren't up to snuff (I personally don't have an opinion on this one).

Hence the short "requires".

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#166

Post by teekert »

csydas wrote: post #155
teekert wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BTW, ask yourself, if Freedom conflicts, are you really using the correct definition of Freedom? I strongly believe the definition of Freedom should be applicable to all human without creating any paradoxes. Check all your premises, carefully.

Well, to a degree Freedoms compete. As the old adage often misattributed adage goes, "Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins." Sometimes our freedoms encroach on other people's own freedoms; despite the notion of an unalienable right, such freedoms are only available via force of some means; monetary compensation, organized violence (state or otherwise), and so on. As rights need some external force…

The nose hit is a transaction, you supply, I "enjoy". However, I do not agree on the terms of this nose hitting, it only leaves me with a lot of pain. If you would offer me 1 million BTC I might be inclined to agree to the nose hitting, I'm free to do so. I can not be forced into a transaction but I can choose to accept all consequences. No freedom is lost in this case. You should not engage in nose hitting without negotiating the terms of such a transaction, as your should never. You don't know yet if this is a consensual transaction and you should thus withhold from taking an action which clearly involves me.

Yes this is a ridiculous example and yes there are many examples where explicitly negotiating terms is not necessary. When this is, and when it not, is a cultural thing. I mean I shake hands with a woman without second thought, an Islamic Imam may need some special compensation before agreeing to it.

I'm pushing this discussion to the edge because it feels extremely significant to me. Pushing it over my own boundaries also is a way of testing my premises. I'm certainly willing to change my mind.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#167

Post by sokoloff »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #165
sokoloff wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism doesn't require proprietary software, but it enables it.

A little good faith, will you? The idea was that capitalism gives you a choice between proprietary, shitty, or non-existent software. Not much of a choice. Photoshop is often showed as an example where free alternatives aren't up to snuff (I personally don't have an opinion on this one). Hence the short "requires".

It's not for a lack of good faith in interpreting your words (IMO), but a genuine difference of opinion on a critical point.

I don't view software on a spectrum from proprietary through shitty to non-existent. I view it more as a two-by-two matrix of high quality/shitty on one axis and FOSS/proprietary on the other. All four quadrants are populated.

The economic incentives that capitalism and proprietary software provide allow for the massive investments that Adobe is able to make in Photoshop/CSuite, by providing a clear path to financial returns on those investments.

In the 22 years since GIMP started, it hasn't caught Photoshop. (There are many other examples where free or open source software has caught and surpassed the proprietary alternatives/previous market leaders.)

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#168

Post by teekert »

cyphar wrote: post #154
syshum wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lunduke has also done another interview with Stallman recently as well on his own channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0y0oXU8YNk

Which is what my first link was to. ;)

Thanx I only read your comment later.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#169

Post by mikegerwitz »

na85 wrote: post #31
mikegerwitz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really something you can observe well from the outside, but in working with Richard on many things, I was surprised early on how much respect he gives to those he trusts, and how appreciative he is of help. So "servants" is far from how he views volunteers. And after working closely with him for a few years within GNU, I don't feel at all like a servant---there is mutual respect, and we're not afraid to stat…

This seems incompatible with what I read recently in an emacs discussion on HN, wherein they were unable to merge a popular package into emacs without Stallman's rubber stamp despite him being essentially uninvolved since 2008.

Are you referring to Magit? All code that is part of Emacs requires copyright assignment to the FSF; it's that simple. If Jonas Bernoulli can make that happen, then the issue is resolved.

Jonas' original response: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2017-07/msg00...

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#170

Post by chriswarbo »

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…

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

Nobody is stopping anyone. If you create some software, you're free to share it (or not) under whatever terms you like. RMS would not stop you, and would not want to stop you (although he may try to persuade you to favour FOSS terms if you were to discuss it). What RMS would do is avoid your software if your terms aren't FOSS, and perhaps he'd encourage others to make a FOSS alternative if it looks like that might be useful.

Of course, this is assuming that the software in question really was made by that "creator". If it actually contains a bunch of other people's work (e.g. FOSS components) then it's not "his" to dictate the terms of. It's this latter situation where the GPL/BSD debate takes place, and it would be a strawman to claim that the GPL restricts a "creator" from doing what they want with "their own work" (since it's precisely the bits which they didn't create and aren't theirs that are the point of the discussion).

> I'm afraid, but correct me if I'm wrong, that if RMS would be dictator of the world, he would rob people of the freedom to offer their products under their conditions. To me, the RMS world is less free.

No, in RMS's ideal world everyone is free to use whatever terms they like, but most users would shun anything that denies them the '4 freedoms' they've come to expect from everything else.

Whilst "freedom of speech" is important, it doesn't imply we should have "freedom of having-people-agree-with-you". Likewise, "freedom to license however you want" doesn't imply "freedom to have-people-use-your-stuff".

Post reply on HN