
Richard Stallman Explains [video] - brudgers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUibaPTXSHk
======
lsh
Hats off to the interviewer, I thought he did a good job of curbing Stallman
and keeping him on topic. He does have this fantastic meandering style that
would undermine his agenda if his audience has a short attention span. Like so
many of us these days.

I first read about RMS in 1999 in an Australian PC Authority magazine, it also
featured an interview with Linux Torvalds. The distinction between the two
personalities was felt keenly at the time as well. RMS really hasn't changed
in those 18 years.

------
chauhankiran
People do not like RMS's "extremeness" for "free" software. But, I personally
thing that - if this level of "extremeness" was/is not given by RMS then
"free" movement might died within couple of years with loosely couple
definition and then more loosely definition of free software by organizations
(supported by "evil" companies).

------
teekert
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 own terms? He comes back to "Proprietary
software is evil" in the end. He is incapable of defending beyond that point.
I think Bryan makes some very good points in the podcast below [0] that RMS
fails to answer properly to.

I love open source, I love the philosophy, I want to use as much FOSS as
possible and I see how it ultimately will protect our society, I get that. But
I see no evil whatsoever in someone making a software tool and selling only
the binaries to someone who is happy to use said binaries under the terms the
seller and buyer agree upon. That to me is freedom, nobody is forced in that
scenario.

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=radmjL5OIaA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=radmjL5OIaA)

~~~
ZeroGravitas
_" When you argue: But aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a
creator from sharing his software under his own terms?"_

I hope you're aware that this is the oldest argument in the book.

It literally goes back to Plato and arguments about how you can be free if
you're not free to make other people slaves.

~~~
legulere
Your argument: Not giving away what you wrote for free under the terms
dictated by Richard Stallman is literally slavery.

~~~
reacweb
Yes, because you becomes dependent of the good will of the seller if you
encounter bugs, limitations, incompatible hardware or if the OS updates in
incompatible ways.

~~~
cJ0th
If you use FOSS only, you still remain dependent on the maintainers of your
stack since realistically speaking you don't have the time to understand and
hack every piece of software you rely on.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
Just because you yourself cannot be competent in everything, does not mean
that being dependent on a monopoly is the same as having to buy certain things
from people who are more competent at producing or maintaining them than you
are.

Noone guarantees you that a year from now you will be able to find anyone who
is willing to fix your plumbing. That does not mean you might as well have
proprietary Microplumb products installed in your house that noone can repair
or extend without permission from Microplumb Inc.

------
missbit
He is obviously brilliant. The interviewer wants to steer him into being a
crazy nut corner. Pepsi vs. Coke.

I realize historically there was only low level software that existed. These
days we've got much higher level services which really could benefit from free
software.

He hits on these ideas. Maybe he'd be open to working on these sorts of
things.

Services have gotten to the level where they are taking a piece of people's
livelihoods. Uber & Airbnb takes 20-30%. why?

Amazon is a system of warehousing & distribution... could something like that
be run in a distributed / cooperative way which provides as much opportunity
to 3rd party retailers as it does Amazon? A level playing field.

These are the sorts of things that the free software movement could move
towards now.

~~~
fwdpropaganda
> The interviewer wants to steer him into being a crazy nut corner. Pepsi vs.
> Coke.

Absolutely wrong. The interviewer even said at one point "The things you're
describing I believe should be of a concern to many more people than they
are." You're totally off.

------
firefoxd
Ok, 2 seconds in and I'm shocked. All my life I pronounced gnu as new, like
Nutella.

~~~
lsh
Do you pronounce Nutella "Nu-tella" or "Nut-ella" ?

FWIW, I pronounce 'GNU' as 'nu'.

~~~
champagnepapi
The only reason as to why I pronounce "GNU" with a 'g' sound is because of
Richard Stallman. Otherwise, I use the silent 'g'.

------
Boothroid
I was amazed to see that Stallman doesn't install his OS himself - hasn't for
years. He seemed diminished in my eyes after I learnt this.

~~~
wmf
Stallman reminds me of a king who has everything done by servants and knows
only what his courtiers tell him. Being free of menial tasks like installing
software leaves him more time to tackle serious issues. But it also insulates
him from the problems that real people face.

~~~
mikegerwitz
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 state our opinions or
disagree with one-another. Much of the time he makes me feel like I work
beside him, not below him. It's quite constructive.

And this is typical with others as well.

~~~
na85
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.

~~~
mikegerwitz
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...](https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-
devel/2017-07/msg00516.html)

------
unityByFreedom
Stallman argues that free software enables users to control programs, whereas
paid software is controlled by corporations. I see two problems with that.

(1) Isn't knowledge also power? In this context, developers have the
knowledge. Users who aren't programmers don't control free software any more
than they do paid software. Further, training more users to become developers
requires money.

(2) Corporations don't exist unless they serve users in some way. There's an
interdependency that I think Stallman ignores.

That said, free software is important, and a useful way to challenge the paid
model.

------
etiam
Anyone have an idea what's the project raising funds mentioned at 5:32? The
"new computer that will be manufactured specifically for free software".

------
11thEarlOfMar
I suppose it's a philosophy. Are there enough who share Stallman's view to
advance computing technology at a pace that can match what we see with
commercial sector? For sure, I am amazed at the power and scope of open source
software and it's a highly influential movement. But at some point in the food
chain, software developers need to put food on the table and send their kids
to school. How does that happen if all software is free?

~~~
Ace17
> But at some point in the food chain, software developers need to put food on
> the table and send their kids to school. How does that happen if all
> software is free?

Please note "free" has nothing to do with price, but with end-user freedom (to
use/study/modify/share).

(example answer to your question: custom/internal software).

~~~
lloydde
It actually does have to do with price. All free software is one user away
from the possibility (likelihood) it is free as in beer.

The parent comment is correct that free software has put magnitudes less food
on kids bellies.

~~~
icebraining
_All free software is one user away from the possibility (likelihood) it is
free as in beer._

And yet, my and others' salaries have been paid for over six years writing
free software without it ever being published publicly by its users, despite
being GPL licensed.

~~~
lloydde
That's a fantastic! I don't mean to insult, but the likelihood of the software
being shared freely by a user increases with success. Your situation is an
exception. And likely contributing factors are the specific field and
sophisticated, like minded customers.

~~~
icebraining
Thanks. But actually, no, we write software for many fields and most of our
customers are certainly not sophisticated, nor do they care about our
philosophy (to most of them, open source means roughly "not as good but
cheaper").

It's true that our customer base is not very large, though.

------
shp0ngle
YouTube is proprietary and not a free software.

~~~
snakeanus
If you have mpv with youtube-dl installed then you can watch the video without
using anything non-free.

------
nannal
Kind of funny you're all in here posting youtube links, I didn't know they
were GNU friendly and I can only imagine how RMS feels given his zealotry.

~~~
cyphar
You can use youtube-dl[1] to download videos from YouTube (and transcode them
to free formats) without runnning their proprietary JavaScript. There's even a
free software Android project[2] that lets you stream videos without running
their proprietary JavaScript -- and in my opinion it's much better than the
proprietary YouTube app.

RMS's concern with YouTube is that they use proprietary JavaScript and they
use patented media formats. However, RMS has always made it clear that if you
have the ability "at hand" to rip DVDs then purchasing a DVD is not unethical.
Both of the pieces of software I mentioned allow you to avoid running
proprietary software.

His other concern is that RMS wants people to publish things he appears in in
a way that is much easier to access with only free software. The Internet
Archive and CCC provide video hosting that is completely free software, with
non-patented formats like VP9, and is easy to use. The idea is to make those
forms of publishing more widely known about.

[1]: [https://github.com/rg3/youtube-dl](https://github.com/rg3/youtube-dl)
[2]:
[https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe](https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe)

~~~
mikojan
You can also just pass the url as an argument to mplayer or one of it's
derivatives (all of which use youtube-dl under the hood, I believe). Not even
concerned with freedom here. It's just a better user experience when the video
is longer, IMO.

------
trestletech
I feel like we're not far off from a digital version of the Amish. "Technology
was perfected by the FSF in 2003; everything developed since is evil."

~~~
amelius
Everything developed by big companies that deals with our data on their
premises is evil.

We should simply not allow that, and let big companies just develop the
hardware.

~~~
teekert
""We" should not allow that"... Yeah that sounds like freedom to me.

You are free to deal with these companies or not. Whether you agree with these
companies and their ways is irrelevant. This is same as not agreeing with
another persons' religion, you are free do choose a way to lead your life,
don't try to force your way upon others. Others happily share their data with
Google and reap the benefits of a very helpful Google Home assistant.

Direct your efforts towards educating these people about the potential
downsides, yes, but don't try to use law or other forms of powers to change
their ways. That is not freedom.

~~~
icebraining
Worrying about free software advocates using the law against others is
hilarious. It's like worrying about Walmart cashiers demanding to make more
money than software developers.

~~~
the_cyber_pass
I see someone hasn't had GPL conflicts in their code base before. There is a
reason companies specifically look for them and it's because the FSF and it's
communities will make your life hell.

~~~
icebraining
Try using proprietary libraries in your software without complying with their
licenses and you'll see what having your life made hell means. GPL license
holders barely ever sued anyone, and when they do (like FSF v Cisco), it's
usually after _years_ of trying to get them to comply. That they (rightly)
complain about your practices is not _using the law_.

------
missbit
Geez. I just realized a problem here.

If he doesn't want to use any commercial software. This includes IntelliJ or
other IDEs? Good luck writing software! Then again, the time he saves from not
dealing with iOS provisioning might give him a couple extra years to write
other software.

Man that interviewer is dumb. Says he is surprised he didn't vote Trump? Eh?

~~~
number6
Use emacs?

