Interesting. I find it interesting that the interviewer doesn't understand 'free,' control of the operations of the program.
7 Likes
English doesnt have the best words when you consider their multiple meanings.
Its good how they didnt mind being corrected, but then he still doesnt get it later on at all. Still thinking free means free price.
Also the complete u-turn to surveillance..
Mr giggly guys a bit.. But RMS seems to get the point across, maybe some people who watched it sees the point.
also gas.. controlled by Russians.. whats that to do with free software xD
That was frustrating to watch.
1 Like
Stallman made key points in that video, although the presenter wasn't grasping the concept nor understanding the differences between Free & Free, I saw this video 4 months ago, and the Presenter kept "sniffling" kind of annoying really.
1 Like
maybe it's all the cocaine that he's doing
4 Likes
If I were Stallman, I would not have had that much patience.
3 Likes
I really appreciate where Stallman is coming from, but I think he's making a big mistake relying on common words used in uncommon ways (particularly "free" and "hacker"). Even if he's technically correct, it's unnecessarily complicating his argument, especially for people who aren't tech savvy, making the slope of his uphill battle even steeper. Despite a lengthy explanation by Stallman, the interviewer clearly didn't grasp that when he was saying "free software" he wasn't talking about price. Why not just coin a new word to describe "free as in freedom" software?
1 Like
Because society has convinced many that these words have a negative connotation to them, and the "common" folk associate that with the word, and so they believe it... A kind of brainwashing
1 Like
This wasn't the case though. Hacker never meant cracker, the place where its commonly misused is media. It originated from a model rail way club.
Free also isn't uncommon in English, just because it has multiple meanings. They don't mean cost when they say you have free speech, but your argument is to change it because its the uncommon meaning? If anything shouldn't free in price be changed?
English isnt ideal, theres no word for freedom except free or using a non-english work like libre which has a very specific meaning.
I think OPEN software seems more logical.
Then the antithesis would be CLOSED software.
Not open source, but just open.
free as in rights, doesn't make sense from a software point of view, because software is not a person, it's a system.
The whole purpose of language is to accurately convey your thoughts, so it doesn't make sense to use language that will likely be misinterpreted.
Outside of our relatively small tech community, when someone says "hacker", they're usually referring to a person who does malicious things with computers. Since language evolves, the original definition of a word is largely irrelevant. If I tell someone I'm a gay hacker, they'll probably assume I'm a homosexual who uses computers maliciously, not that I'm a cheerful and carefree person who loves finding clever solutions.
When you say "free _______" the general assumption is that you're talking about price unless the blank is something that can't be bought or sold. If I say free chicken, the first thought that comes to mind is food you don't have to pay for, not a bird that's freely roaming the farm, so there's a specific term for that kind of chicken (free range) for clarity.
When you're speaking to the masses it doesn't make sense to use words in ways they are likely to misinterpret.
Then English is not a good choice at all.
Free society
free choice
free movement
free speech
free software
free reign
free liberty
Non mean free in price.
English is littered with words that have multiple meanings.
@cam.bankord's thought may be decent. use open instead of free. open society? how does that sound? But then should free be used for no cost? When i hear free i hear it more often in reference to libery/freedom than cost.
You can't buy or sell society, choice, movement, speech, reign, or liberty.
The problem isn't multiple meanings, it's context. In the context of something that can be bought and sold, free is usually interpreted to mean no cost.
Free candy
Free book
Free phone
Free software
Free hamburger
Free music
I just read the article about the difference between open source and free software.
https://gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html
Of course I support this idea, but tell me. How are you supposed to make money (without donations) when developing entirely free software? If anybody can use it and modify it?
1 Like
You do what canonical and redhat do: paid support.
Stallman isn't the best representive of anything
A couple of examples
Red Hat. 1.5 Billion in 2014
Canonical 65 Million in 2013
Another example.
Discorse (this forum software) creates revenue through offering support and hosting of their forums. Not sure how much they make.
The linux kernel is developed by hundreds (maybe thousands) of developers, many/most paid by other companies to work on the kernel. This is done for a number of projects.
KDE has developers paid by Blue Systems
GNOME > redhat
Krita has money through donations, kickstarter, merchandice, and likely other funding.
Theres lots of ways of making money, it depends on what it is and how you do it.
OK, that are some pretty good examples. However I doubt that the forum's software is free software, but rather open source. Or am I wrong about that?
Besides how can you protect your ideas, if no one knows you yet? Any bigger company or organization can simply take it for itself.
Also Ubuntu for example lost a ton of market share to distros like mint. Because they were allowed to copy Ubuntu. That would not have happened, if Ubuntu had been only open source instead of free software.
1 Like
I see your point, but isn't this exactly what should happen? In the eyes of some users, Ubuntu wasn't quite good enough, so they made Mint. If they weren't allowed to do that, then they would be being controlled by Canonical, which is what Stallman is against. Plus, if Ubuntu wanted to try and get the market back, they could always add in whatever it is people like about Mint.
This seems like a much more competitive market place where the user wins, and additionally it makes it harder for money and power to concentrate in one place.
2 Likes