Richard stallman speaking abouth opensource

Uploaded by: darkapitude
Video Stream Description:
Richard Stallman is a notable programmer whose major accomplishments include GNU Emacs, the GNU C Compiler, and the GNU Debugger. GNU ? In 1985, he published the GNU Manifesto, which outlined his motivation for creating a free operating system called GNU.
www.go-opensource.org creative commons by-nc-sa 2.5

stream video tags: copyleft free gnu gpl linux open opensource software source

Find more videos in the "People" category
See more video streams uploaded by darkapitude

Related Stream Videos

Richard Stallman - Free Software,Free Society 1/3	Richard Stallman at UCSD: Free software jobs	Stallman interview on free software

Richard Stallman at UCSD: Must use GNU/Linux name	Linux in Hollywood	Richard Stallman at UCSD: Free software benefits

Share This Video Stream:

Comments for this video stream: Show || Hide

Comments for this video stream

maybe it's just me, ... ( 1 year ago by Natasha26)

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

People often don't ... ( 8 months ago by 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.

I'm guessing then ... ( 8 months ago by 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.

It's alright, but I ... ( 8 months ago by 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

Is it true that if ... ( 8 months ago by 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. ?!?

(1) No,but it's ... ( 7 months ago by 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.

But yes, source ... ( 7 months ago by 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).

The difference is: ... ( 7 months ago by 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

Thanks for the ... ( 7 months ago by 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).

There are lots of " ... ( 7 months ago by 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).

MIT's and BSD ... ( 7 months ago by 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.

Now, to get to GPL ... ( 7 months ago by 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)

the gpl freedom you ... ( 2 months ago by 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

I bet he gets layed ... ( 1 month ago by woofwoofbone)

I bet he gets layed a lot.