4 ms·

Sussman means free as in freedom, not free as in beer :) (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software)

by logane 6y ago

md5person 6y ago
> "Sussman means free as in freedom, not free as in beer :) (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software)" Sure, but conveniently enough, the software listed in the parent article [0] all happens to be "free as in beer". What examples of "free as in freedom, but we had to pay for it before we could use it" software was used during the course? [0] https://www.gnu.org/education/teaching-my-mit-classes-with-only-free-libre-software.html https://www.gnu.org/education/teaching-my-mit-classes-with-o...
- gspr 6y ago
  I'm struggling to understand your reasoning. If the author had said "I only drink fair-trade coffee" would you also object if it happens to be the case that the fair-trade coffee is the cheapest type at his local supermarket?
  - md5person 6y ago
    This isn't an accurate analogy, is it? We're discussing an educational institution with power and authority (MIT), which promotes drinking "free coffee", whilst simultaneously portraying it as somehow morally superior to "coffee one has to pay for" to consume. Growing and selling coffee takes time, labour and effort - yet none of that is being reflected or accounted for when we choose to not pay for the coffee we consume. Is this a sustainable approach? Does it promote "choosing the right tool for the job", or does it promote blind idealism ("free is better")? And why does a university, which takes exorbitant tuition fees, not prioritize the best software for the course (over the one that's merely free)?
    - fsflover 6y ago
      >whilst simultaneously portraying it as somehow morally superior Free software is morally superior, see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-impor.... It provides specific rights to the user so that the user is in control of their computing and not the developers. > Is this a sustainable approach? Does it promote "choosing the right tool for the job", or does it promote blind idealism ("free is better")? How to decide what is "blind idealism" and what is "normal idealism"?
    - berkes 6y ago
      You seem to fail to grasp the difference between "free as in beer" (gratis) and "free as in freedom" (libre). Your coffee-response is all wrong: this is not about "free" coffee, about (not) having to pay for coffee, but about a moral stance on coffee: e.g. demanding the cafetaria only serves Fair Trade coffee, regardless of the price. This is not about "having to pay for it" at all. The opposite really: running your own jitsi or BigBlueButton is probably more expensive than using the free tier of Teams, Zoom or Hangouts. I run a large-ish jitsi instance: approx €50/month just for the VPS, my hours probably add another €2000/month to that.
      - md5person 6y ago
        > "You seem to fail to grasp the difference between "free as in beer" (gratis) and "free as in freedom" (libre)." Why are we going back-and-forth about this again? I previously asked whether there were concrete examples of software used during the course that were "free as in freedom" but NOT "free as in beer", and the response to my question was that no such examples were available. It's the actions that matter here, and the bottom line is that they weren't intending to pay for anything to begin with. And by that, they were abdicating the "it's not about the money" argument, in my honest opinion.
        berkes 6y ago
        I gave you an example by quoting how expensive it is to run a "free" jitsi service.
- kleiba 6y ago
  > What examples of "free as in freedom, but we had to pay for it before we could use it" software was used during the course? None. But I really don't get your point.
- woofie11 6y ago
  Your question is missing the point, but to give an answer: Sussman taught the first edX course, 6.002x. Agarwal took credit for it (since he shot the videos and was the face), but Sussman did the plurality of the work, followed by Terman, by Mitros, and then by Agarwal. Open edX is free-as-in-beer but not free-as-in-price.

Sussman means free as in freedom, not free as in beer :) (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software)

by logane 6y ago

Sussman means free as in freedom, not free as in beer :) (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software)

md5person 6y ago

> "Sussman means free as in freedom, not free as in beer :) (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software)" Sure, but conveniently enough, the software listed in the parent article [0] all happens to be "free as in beer". What examples of "free as in freedom, but we had to pay for it before we could use it" software was used during the course? [0] https://www.gnu.org/education/teaching-my-mit-classes-with-only-free-libre-software.html https://www.gnu.org/education/teaching-my-mit-classes-with-o...

gspr 6y ago
I'm struggling to understand your reasoning. If the author had said "I only drink fair-trade coffee" would you also object if it happens to be the case that the fair-trade coffee is the cheapest type at his local supermarket?
- md5person 6y ago
  This isn't an accurate analogy, is it? We're discussing an educational institution with power and authority (MIT), which promotes drinking "free coffee", whilst simultaneously portraying it as somehow morally superior to "coffee one has to pay for" to consume. Growing and selling coffee takes time, labour and effort - yet none of that is being reflected or accounted for when we choose to not pay for the coffee we consume. Is this a sustainable approach? Does it promote "choosing the right tool for the job", or does it promote blind idealism ("free is better")? And why does a university, which takes exorbitant tuition fees, not prioritize the best software for the course (over the one that's merely free)?
  - fsflover 6y ago
    >whilst simultaneously portraying it as somehow morally superior Free software is morally superior, see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-impor.... It provides specific rights to the user so that the user is in control of their computing and not the developers. > Is this a sustainable approach? Does it promote "choosing the right tool for the job", or does it promote blind idealism ("free is better")? How to decide what is "blind idealism" and what is "normal idealism"?
  - berkes 6y ago
    You seem to fail to grasp the difference between "free as in beer" (gratis) and "free as in freedom" (libre). Your coffee-response is all wrong: this is not about "free" coffee, about (not) having to pay for coffee, but about a moral stance on coffee: e.g. demanding the cafetaria only serves Fair Trade coffee, regardless of the price. This is not about "having to pay for it" at all. The opposite really: running your own jitsi or BigBlueButton is probably more expensive than using the free tier of Teams, Zoom or Hangouts. I run a large-ish jitsi instance: approx €50/month just for the VPS, my hours probably add another €2000/month to that.
    - md5person 6y ago
      > "You seem to fail to grasp the difference between "free as in beer" (gratis) and "free as in freedom" (libre)." Why are we going back-and-forth about this again? I previously asked whether there were concrete examples of software used during the course that were "free as in freedom" but NOT "free as in beer", and the response to my question was that no such examples were available. It's the actions that matter here, and the bottom line is that they weren't intending to pay for anything to begin with. And by that, they were abdicating the "it's not about the money" argument, in my honest opinion.
      - berkes 6y ago
        I gave you an example by quoting how expensive it is to run a "free" jitsi service.
kleiba 6y ago
> What examples of "free as in freedom, but we had to pay for it before we could use it" software was used during the course? None. But I really don't get your point.
woofie11 6y ago
Your question is missing the point, but to give an answer: Sussman taught the first edX course, 6.002x. Agarwal took credit for it (since he shot the videos and was the face), but Sussman did the plurality of the work, followed by Terman, by Mitros, and then by Agarwal. Open edX is free-as-in-beer but not free-as-in-price.