Richard stallman speaking abouth opensource

[ZenCartEasyHelp]

Great video! Set up your ecommerce business for free with our Easy Help Zen Cart Tutorials:

[KillaHaakon]

RMS Matthew Stallman: 0% Compromise, 100% Freedom.

Don't have to agree with him, but if politicians were as principled and honest as he was, we would be a lot better of.

[Mathijsweb]

Free Software doesn imply that one doesn't get paid. Mozilla gets hugiley paid by Google for their searchbar. That's how they can run.

[ecconz]

WTF ... What is this shit, and who is this weird guy! Who gives a fuck about computer software ethics, it's just a virtual tool.

Go for a jog and get a hair cut you freak....

[nickrohn93]

@ecconz Fuck off you idiot. Jesus christ you ignorant fuck .

[ecconz]

@nickrohn93 Go back to your basement, virgin.

[aarsho]

@ecconz Troll harder.

[ecconz]

@aarsho fuck does that mean?

[aarsho]

@ecconz A simple google search would resolve both your question of who Stallman is and what the phrase I used means. Quit being a moron and go find something out for yourself instead of posting disparaging comments about someone/something you clearly know nothing about just because you don't understand it.

[ecconz]

@aarsho Yeah but i didn't really care enough to bother searching. Anyhow, i'm going outside. Please do your dick a flavor and get out of your basement dude.

[magicponyrides]

@ecconz Yeah, who gives a fuck about anything? Trolling youtube comments is the only shit worth doing, bruh. 

[jeroeniskoning]

Respect !

"The future will be open."

[Sunoco]

People often don't realize that you can make money with free software. Red Hat is free and opensource for example, yet it is more expensive than Windows or Mac OSX. Most of the scripts and addons for Joomla and other CMS's are licensed under the GPL, and are free and opensource, but you do have to pay for them.

[isacfwp]

Almost all Open Source sucks, it's mostly good for servers and people who can't afford great tools like Photoshop Elements or CS4 and are forced to use inferior products like Gimp...sigh

[snakenetadmin]

GIMP is extremely superior to Photoshop imo. I can afford to buy the whole adobe creative suit right now and I wouldn't. Partly due to GIMP being better but mostly due to it being Free

[drpou]

To call Stallman a "notable programmer" is like calling Aristotle a "well known philosopher".

[woofwoofbone]

I bet he gets layed a lot.

[someman7]

Few corrections: MIT's license is older than GPL it seems (1 yr), so GPL isn't the oldest. Next, I used Free Software (FS) and Open Source (OS) to describe the movements & development models (let's say). But the code itself is GPLed. Stallman himself said, the code is free either way. Then, Mac OS X is based on MIT licensed Mach (I should've been more exact).

...I think that's about it.

[GodofPubs]

Mac OS X is based on the FreeBSD kernel.

[someman7]

Wikipedia explains why we appear to disagree.

[bsdcortex]

the gpl freedom you have introduced is like the freedom that communist countries provide

people who know about gpl can understand this

my opinion get serious get openbsd

[Natasha26]

maybe it's just me, but i felt he hasn't answered the questions properly. am still confused.

[dodopod]

People often don't entirely answer questions in an interview, because it will reveal weaknesses in their argument. Jack Thompson does it all the time. But in this case he probably should have answered them fully, it wouldn't have changed his correctness.

[Natasha26]

I'm guessing then that "free software as in free speech" means the following:

(1) is automatically free of charge (as in free beer);

(2) is inevitably open-source;

(3) is subject to no constraint of distribution (sharing, copying etc..);

(4) is open to "be viewed by the world" and open to "be criticised/praised by the world."

(hmmm... maybe i should have reversed the order of that list... but u ppl get it ;)) BTW, any comments most welcomed.

[omegatux1]

It's alright, but I don't agree with your first item of the list. It's not automatically free of charge, THE RMS himself stated that one could charge for free software in the GNU manifesto.

Of course there is still the dilemma of wether it is ethically correct or not

[Natasha26]

Is it true that if u charge for (sell?) open source software, then u'd have to share that money with the creators and contributors. My thought is that this is way too complicated, so better let it be free.

But i think, you can charge for (labour): installing/customising the software on a client's site. ?!?

[someman7]

(1) No,but it's hard to charge for Free software,because someone else can use your source,compile it again (without the protected parts like logos),and give it gratis.But you can charge for distribution(CDs and preparing it),support,or ads(like with Firefox's built-in search engines)

(2) Mistaking the terms here.The original term is free(libre).Open was invented to "present it to businessmen".And now there's two movements-Free software movement and Open source movement.Each with different views.

[someman7]

But yes, source must be available to everyone.

(3) Yes

(4) That's inevitable, don't you think? But if you wanted to say "accepting feature requests", then not always, it's up to project leader. But most often yes. And you can "fork" it (using it as a base) if you don't like project leader's ideas (ie be a project leader to your own project).

[someman7]

The difference is: Open Source is primarily pro-development, while Free Software is primarily pro-community.

People work on "Linus'" kernel (although maybe 1% is his code by now), and on Firefox (although they don't get paid, and Mozilla does).

In FS, probably noone get's paid, and it's fair that way XD

[Natasha26]

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't aware of that pro-dev difference between Free Software and Open Source. I'm guessing that's why there're various versions of the GPL...

I think it's not just me but many graduates and professionals wonder how to earn a living from FSF/OS (every now and then there's smthing on SlashDot).

[someman7]

There are lots of "free" licenses. Mozilla has one, Apache has it's own, BSD operating systems, MIT etc.

Some are not "compatible" with GPL, which is the oldest and most used one. GPL, although copyleft (you can change code), forces you to distribute product under GPL again (which makes sense if you think about it).

[someman7]

MIT's and BSD licenses don't say that, you can use their code free or comercially, chosing your own license when you do (like Apple did, made his Mac OS X commercial operating system from BSD's kernel). Ie compatible with GPL, because you can GPL it. But that's how lots of BSD code got lost, became unavailable under BSD, because it was relicensed as GPL, or even some proprietary license. They still got their code, but their code can be used in absolutely any way, including being closed.

[someman7]

Now, to get to GPL finally. GPL has developed, thus many versions. But there was a catch. Each time it evolves, it's incompatible with the previous version. All GPL 1 code must remain such. Only an author can relicense it to GPL 2. Whole Linux Kernel is GPL2. Now Stallman (FS) made GPL3, but how can you make that many contributors to agree that they should all relicense their code? Linus Torvalds doesn't care about it either, even though GPL3 is better in ways(remember, he is part of OS, not FS)

[Ferkiwi]

The GPL has a statement that says that it can be distributed "as this version or as any later version" ...so GPLv2 can be relicensed as GPLv3.

The problem is that Linus Torvalds licensed the Linux kernel under the GPLv2 but he removed the "or any later version" sentence from the licese just because he didn't liked it.

So... that's why the kernel is now not able to upgrade to a more modern license

[someman7]

Wow. I didn't know that. When did he do that?

Also, question is how much code is licensed under Linus' modification, and how much under the original. Does Linux project requre all to be licensed under the modified GPL?

Thanks for your info.