3 ms·

Lot of comments on what exactly constitutes free software (and the snarky insinuation that somehow only the FSF can determine what exactly that means). Let's l

by eksith 13y ago

Lot of comments on what exactly constitutes free software (and the snarky insinuation that somehow only the FSF can determine what exactly that means). Let's let Richard explain it : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPPikY3uLIQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPPikY3uLIQ

mwcampbell 13y ago
I wonder if we can get that video in a format that doesn't require Flash Player.
- eksith 13y ago
  1) In Firefox get the "DownloadHelper" helper plugin. 2) Visit the page (hopefully you still don't have Flash plugin in the first place or have completely extricated it from your system) 3) DownloadHelper icon will start animating. From the dropdown select your resolution and download. 4) The video format you have downloaded is patented and must be erased quickly. Therefore, download Handbrake ( http://handbrake.fr http://handbrake.fr ) which is open source and convert it to a free format. 5) Run a disk eraser program to ensure that the deleted offending technologies are in fact deleted off your hard drive.
- catmanjan 13y ago
  I think Richard refuses to do interviews unless there is an .OGG formatted copy available, if there was one it would be at RMS.org
catmanjan 13y ago
Look software either is or isn't free. The four laws were created by Richard himself for the FSF! What this blog talks about isn't free software. It is open source software. It's like saying that you're a vegetarian but you eat meat every third meal. You're just not a vegetarian. For the record I don't even like free software but I find people who use it is a buzz word as annoying as kids who claim to 420 blaze everyday.
- eksith 13y ago
  You have it backwards. Free with provisions (I.E. "You can do all of the above, except deprive X") is not free. Open isn't just what the blog talks about. The title of the thing is "Returning to Free Software". BTW. I'm not a fan of GPL because I feel that too is restrictive.
  - catmanjan 13y ago
    Even the distro he suggests is not free. They bundle drivers and codecs which have proprietary licenses. By doing that they exclude themselves completely from the "Free Software" category. Bottom line, if the distro you want to use is not on this list: http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html Chances are it is not free according to the four laws.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Don't knock "Free with provisions" so easily. The license is dual-hatted as a license for the end-user and a license for the software distributor. To keep freedom for the end user it is required to place restrictions on the distributor. To keep freedom for the distributor/author it is required to place restrictions on the end user. So "Freedom" is in the eye of the beholder, and people forget that FSF and RMS are on a political, not an engineering mission, which requires licenses like GPL. If you're just trying to do an open development process because such software "works better" then your view of freedom will never be the same as FSF's, and then licenses like BSD or even MsPL might be just fine.

by eksith 13y ago

mwcampbell 13y ago

I wonder if we can get that video in a format that doesn't require Flash Player.

eksith 13y ago
1) In Firefox get the "DownloadHelper" helper plugin. 2) Visit the page (hopefully you still don't have Flash plugin in the first place or have completely extricated it from your system) 3) DownloadHelper icon will start animating. From the dropdown select your resolution and download. 4) The video format you have downloaded is patented and must be erased quickly. Therefore, download Handbrake ( http://handbrake.fr http://handbrake.fr ) which is open source and convert it to a free format. 5) Run a disk eraser program to ensure that the deleted offending technologies are in fact deleted off your hard drive.
catmanjan 13y ago
I think Richard refuses to do interviews unless there is an .OGG formatted copy available, if there was one it would be at RMS.org

catmanjan 13y ago

Look software either is or isn't free. The four laws were created by Richard himself for the FSF! What this blog talks about isn't free software. It is open source software. It's like saying that you're a vegetarian but you eat meat every third meal. You're just not a vegetarian. For the record I don't even like free software but I find people who use it is a buzz word as annoying as kids who claim to 420 blaze everyday.

eksith 13y ago
You have it backwards. Free with provisions (I.E. "You can do all of the above, except deprive X") is not free. Open isn't just what the blog talks about. The title of the thing is "Returning to Free Software". BTW. I'm not a fan of GPL because I feel that too is restrictive.
- catmanjan 13y ago
  Even the distro he suggests is not free. They bundle drivers and codecs which have proprietary licenses. By doing that they exclude themselves completely from the "Free Software" category. Bottom line, if the distro you want to use is not on this list: http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html Chances are it is not free according to the four laws.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Don't knock "Free with provisions" so easily. The license is dual-hatted as a license for the end-user and a license for the software distributor. To keep freedom for the end user it is required to place restrictions on the distributor. To keep freedom for the distributor/author it is required to place restrictions on the end user. So "Freedom" is in the eye of the beholder, and people forget that FSF and RMS are on a political, not an engineering mission, which requires licenses like GPL. If you're just trying to do an open development process because such software "works better" then your view of freedom will never be the same as FSF's, and then licenses like BSD or even MsPL might be just fine.