5 ms·

I'm assuming that on speaker's request there won't be an hd mp4? EDIT: Yes. He starts with that.

by blfr 12y ago

noinsight 12y ago
I was glad to see they honored his request.
teamhappy 12y ago
That is what it looks like when you choose an ideology over people. // Feel free to comment if you disagree.
- Intermernet 12y ago
  You haven't actually stated a position, but merely made an ambiguous observation, so I can't disagree with it. You may want to parse your comment again. By the way, I think you're being DV'd for not adding substance to the discussion. I'm now guilty of the same thing, so feel free to hit that upside-down triangle :-)
  - teamhappy 12y ago
    My bad, I thought my position was clear. To paraphrase Nick Fury: When Stallman says freedom, I kind of think he means the other thing. Taking away one choice of video format is not freedom. Telling people to upload photos of him only to specific websites is not freedom. Telling people who own a specific device not to take pictures of him at all is not freedom. Choosing a free software license that forces others to release changes they make is not freedom. Forcing "freedom" onto people is not freedom.
    - edwintorok 12y ago
      Its more about freedom of using rather than creating. You want to create something that can be used by anyone without restrictions from patents, etc. -- so necessarily that imposes limits on what you can create (in this case no mp4). I think you can look at GPL in a similar way: it is more about protecting the user than the developer: it imposes restrictions on the developer that are necesasry to ensure the freedom of the user(s).
      - teamhappy 12y ago
        > [...] so necessarily that imposes limits on what you can create (in this case no mp4). This is a bad example. I guess you could just encode the video twice, no? Your GPL example I like a lot though; I never heard that argument before. One problem I have with it is that the line between users and developers can be a little blurry, or, in my case doesn't exist at all. I'm also not sure why you'd need the GPL license to ensure the users' freedom. Say OpenOffice is MIT licensed. I'm a developer, I fork it and make changes that I don't publish because I don't have to. How does that relate to your (the user's) freedom? I can take OpenOffice away from you, or un-MIT-license it, or whatever.
        edwintorok 12y ago
        You are right about the video, demanding to have it available in at least one free codec would suffice. About the software: Lets say you stop updating your fork after some time, and it fails to run on a newer system, but it is something that someone really wants to use. If he has the source code available he can rebuild it / port it / fix bugs in it and continue to use it even after the original developer abandons it. A somewhat similar idea: I can still run, change, apply security updates for Linux software on a very old laptop (until the hardware eventually breaks) that runs mostly FOSS. But I can't do that on an Android phone that uses proprietary camera/phone/gps/etc. libraries because after some point the vendor stops supporting it and without the source code it is hard to make it run on newer versions of the OS. Had the license been GPL I could've asked for the source code and keep using it. An MIT license would allow more freedom for the vendor (to link/modify use in proprietary applications), but it doesn't require distributing source code so it provides less freedom for the end-user. I think in the end what matters to me are the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline... and the GPL is just one way to ensure freedom #2.
        sparkie 12y ago
        > I'm a developer, I fork it and make changes that I don't publish because I don't have to. That's all fine, because you're only exercising Freedoms 0 and 1. The MIT/BSD licenses and many others are sufficient for these. As soon as you come to exercising Freedom 2 and 3 though, users of the code are susceptible to losing all 4 freedoms for that software. It's at the whim of any of the middle-men distributing or modifying it as to whether any of the freedoms are preserved for all users.
    - fit2rule 12y ago
      I think the point is, freedom is also not free unless you have the right to restrict yourself, with or without option. Freedom includes the right to impose ones own personal restrictions, and not have it imposed upon you from external agency.
      - shit_parade 12y ago
        Absolutely, freedom must include the right to dissent or disagree.
    - 1ris 12y ago
      He is not taking away any choices. He just makes choices. A result of freedom. He is not forcing it onto anybody. He's just practising it. Freedom is not a zero-sum game, but a optimisation problem. Take some people the right to parasite other peoples work is somehow lowering their freedom, but it gives much more freedom to the end user. It's up to you to decide what is more important. But this debate already happened a millions times and I don't think this is going to be fruitful.
      - teamhappy 12y ago
        > He is not taking away any choices. He just makes choices. Well, he literally made the choice to take away once of our choices. But you're right, that is a result of his personal freedom (and I don't mind that). > [...] it gives much more freedom to the end user. I couldn't disagree more, but that's okay I guess. > But this debate already happened a millions times and I don't think this is going to be fruitful. That depends or your definition of fruitful. I never head your opinion on it before, and now I did. I also think it's a good idea to remind the next generation of developers that we don't have all the answers yet.
    - chippy 12y ago
      You aren't wrong, but there are different conceptions of the word "freedom". Stallman explains the specific values of the word "freedom" related to Free Software at the beginning of the talk. So he is advocating not using things that restrict people's freedom (in the Free Software sense). It is similar to the bit about licenses near the end of the talk - Stallman says that an MIT/BSD license allows some people to alter the source and transform it into proprietary code and therefore they would reduce the (Free Software) freedoms of a user.
    - holri 12y ago
      is anarchy freedom? is a society without laws and rules a free one?
- kordless 12y ago
  This comment contains cognitive dissonance in the form of a blaming statement, which is probably why you are being DV'd. Stallman's ideologies can be viewed as political ideologies, which by definition are about people wanting to live their lives with certain types of freedom, mostly attributed to information they generate. Your statement puts itself into conflict with those who choose this ideology because you claim it's a radio-button decision that forces choice between 'people' and 'personal information ownership'. It's not.
- crististm 12y ago
  Freedom is for the people, not for its own sake. Don't take ideology out of context
tedunangst 12y ago
So if I wanted to watch this on my iPad, would I be permitted to transcode it to mp4 myself?
- teddyh 12y ago
  1. Yes, Stallman would most certainly permit you transcoding the video – this would be your personal choice. 2. I believe transcoding the video to watch it would fall under fair use, and so not covered by copyright, so nobody would be able to deny you this anyway, but I am not a lawyer.
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    It's weird that the ccc isn't permitted to transcode it for me, though.
    - teddyh 12y ago
      That’s a private deal that Stallman made with CCC. You are not a party to that deal – i.e. you did not agree to it, therefore you are not bound by it.
  - TD-Linux 12y ago
    Fair use is only a concept in copyright. The problem with MPEG-4 is patents. You would need to look at the MPEG-LA's licensing to determine if you can encode it yourself.
- aw3c2 12y ago
  Yes of course.

I'm assuming that on speaker's request there won't be an hd mp4? EDIT: Yes. He starts with that.

by blfr 12y ago

I'm assuming that on speaker's request there won't be an hd mp4? EDIT: Yes. He starts with that.

noinsight 12y ago

I was glad to see they honored his request.

teamhappy 12y ago

That is what it looks like when you choose an ideology over people. // Feel free to comment if you disagree.

Intermernet 12y ago
You haven't actually stated a position, but merely made an ambiguous observation, so I can't disagree with it. You may want to parse your comment again. By the way, I think you're being DV'd for not adding substance to the discussion. I'm now guilty of the same thing, so feel free to hit that upside-down triangle :-)
- teamhappy 12y ago
  My bad, I thought my position was clear. To paraphrase Nick Fury: When Stallman says freedom, I kind of think he means the other thing. Taking away one choice of video format is not freedom. Telling people to upload photos of him only to specific websites is not freedom. Telling people who own a specific device not to take pictures of him at all is not freedom. Choosing a free software license that forces others to release changes they make is not freedom. Forcing "freedom" onto people is not freedom.
  - edwintorok 12y ago
    Its more about freedom of using rather than creating. You want to create something that can be used by anyone without restrictions from patents, etc. -- so necessarily that imposes limits on what you can create (in this case no mp4). I think you can look at GPL in a similar way: it is more about protecting the user than the developer: it imposes restrictions on the developer that are necesasry to ensure the freedom of the user(s).
    - teamhappy 12y ago
      > [...] so necessarily that imposes limits on what you can create (in this case no mp4). This is a bad example. I guess you could just encode the video twice, no? Your GPL example I like a lot though; I never heard that argument before. One problem I have with it is that the line between users and developers can be a little blurry, or, in my case doesn't exist at all. I'm also not sure why you'd need the GPL license to ensure the users' freedom. Say OpenOffice is MIT licensed. I'm a developer, I fork it and make changes that I don't publish because I don't have to. How does that relate to your (the user's) freedom? I can take OpenOffice away from you, or un-MIT-license it, or whatever.
      - edwintorok 12y ago
        You are right about the video, demanding to have it available in at least one free codec would suffice. About the software: Lets say you stop updating your fork after some time, and it fails to run on a newer system, but it is something that someone really wants to use. If he has the source code available he can rebuild it / port it / fix bugs in it and continue to use it even after the original developer abandons it. A somewhat similar idea: I can still run, change, apply security updates for Linux software on a very old laptop (until the hardware eventually breaks) that runs mostly FOSS. But I can't do that on an Android phone that uses proprietary camera/phone/gps/etc. libraries because after some point the vendor stops supporting it and without the source code it is hard to make it run on newer versions of the OS. Had the license been GPL I could've asked for the source code and keep using it. An MIT license would allow more freedom for the vendor (to link/modify use in proprietary applications), but it doesn't require distributing source code so it provides less freedom for the end-user. I think in the end what matters to me are the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline... and the GPL is just one way to ensure freedom #2.
      - sparkie 12y ago
        > I'm a developer, I fork it and make changes that I don't publish because I don't have to. That's all fine, because you're only exercising Freedoms 0 and 1. The MIT/BSD licenses and many others are sufficient for these. As soon as you come to exercising Freedom 2 and 3 though, users of the code are susceptible to losing all 4 freedoms for that software. It's at the whim of any of the middle-men distributing or modifying it as to whether any of the freedoms are preserved for all users.
  - fit2rule 12y ago
    I think the point is, freedom is also not free unless you have the right to restrict yourself, with or without option. Freedom includes the right to impose ones own personal restrictions, and not have it imposed upon you from external agency.
    - shit_parade 12y ago
      Absolutely, freedom must include the right to dissent or disagree.
  - 1ris 12y ago
    He is not taking away any choices. He just makes choices. A result of freedom. He is not forcing it onto anybody. He's just practising it. Freedom is not a zero-sum game, but a optimisation problem. Take some people the right to parasite other peoples work is somehow lowering their freedom, but it gives much more freedom to the end user. It's up to you to decide what is more important. But this debate already happened a millions times and I don't think this is going to be fruitful.
    - teamhappy 12y ago
      > He is not taking away any choices. He just makes choices. Well, he literally made the choice to take away once of our choices. But you're right, that is a result of his personal freedom (and I don't mind that). > [...] it gives much more freedom to the end user. I couldn't disagree more, but that's okay I guess. > But this debate already happened a millions times and I don't think this is going to be fruitful. That depends or your definition of fruitful. I never head your opinion on it before, and now I did. I also think it's a good idea to remind the next generation of developers that we don't have all the answers yet.
  - chippy 12y ago
    You aren't wrong, but there are different conceptions of the word "freedom". Stallman explains the specific values of the word "freedom" related to Free Software at the beginning of the talk. So he is advocating not using things that restrict people's freedom (in the Free Software sense). It is similar to the bit about licenses near the end of the talk - Stallman says that an MIT/BSD license allows some people to alter the source and transform it into proprietary code and therefore they would reduce the (Free Software) freedoms of a user.
  - holri 12y ago
    is anarchy freedom? is a society without laws and rules a free one?
kordless 12y ago
This comment contains cognitive dissonance in the form of a blaming statement, which is probably why you are being DV'd. Stallman's ideologies can be viewed as political ideologies, which by definition are about people wanting to live their lives with certain types of freedom, mostly attributed to information they generate. Your statement puts itself into conflict with those who choose this ideology because you claim it's a radio-button decision that forces choice between 'people' and 'personal information ownership'. It's not.
crististm 12y ago
Freedom is for the people, not for its own sake. Don't take ideology out of context

tedunangst 12y ago

So if I wanted to watch this on my iPad, would I be permitted to transcode it to mp4 myself?

teddyh 12y ago
1. Yes, Stallman would most certainly permit you transcoding the video – this would be your personal choice. 2. I believe transcoding the video to watch it would fall under fair use, and so not covered by copyright, so nobody would be able to deny you this anyway, but I am not a lawyer.
- tedunangst 12y ago
  It's weird that the ccc isn't permitted to transcode it for me, though.
  - teddyh 12y ago
    That’s a private deal that Stallman made with CCC. You are not a party to that deal – i.e. you did not agree to it, therefore you are not bound by it.
- TD-Linux 12y ago
  Fair use is only a concept in copyright. The problem with MPEG-4 is patents. You would need to look at the MPEG-LA's licensing to determine if you can encode it yourself.
aw3c2 12y ago
Yes of course.