3 ms·
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
by cyphar 9y ago
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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0y0oXU8YNk
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn9WWVmINGg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn9WWVmINGg
- syshum 9y agoLunduke has also done another interview with Stallman recently as well on his own channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0y0oXU8YNk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0y0oXU8YNk
- cyphar 9y agoWhich is what my first link was to. ;)
- teekert 9y agoThanx I only read your comment later.
- teekert 9y agoOh, that is a must watch for me, thanx. I remember Lunduke being vigilant because he was trying to sell his software on Linux without the risk of it immediately going into a repo for free (if I remember correctly). And why shouldn't he? I still think Linux would benefit from a strong offering of closed source software, as Lunduke did back in the day as well.
- teekert 9y agoIf the vendor is a user or at least, a person. Making one more important than the other creates a paradox, doesn't it? It's not important who benefits, it's import that one should have the right to offer ones own creation under their own terms.