Richard Stallman Guest Speaker in Dublin

wheybags

Much as it would pain him to see it announced in a place dubbed "open source", I think this is probably the best spot, seeing as there is no "free software" category.

Anyway, the TCD internet society (netsoc.ie) is hosting rms as a guest speaker, and the public is free and encouraged to come along.

The talk is on the 4th of February at 7PM in the Edmund Burke Theatre in the Arts Block in Trinity College Dublin.
For more info + updates, see http://www.fsf.org/events/20130204-dublin.

ToadVine

Damn! I wish I could attend this, but I'll be out if the country that week.

Is Stallman doing any other talks in Feb?

wheybags

No, unfortunately, he's flying in the day before and out the day after.

croo

wheybags wrote: »

Much as it would pain him to see it announced in a place dubbed "open source"

lol...

As you say given the forum name it is extremely unlikely rms wpuld read this so let me add... After what skylops had to say re rms on the discussion in the unix forum I'd be hesitant about shaking hands!
http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2056849152?page=2#post_82612569

Thanks for the notice!

Johnboy1951

croo wrote: »

lol...

As you say given the forum name it is extremely unlikely rms wpuld read this so let me add... After what skylops had to say re rms on the discussion in the unix forum I'd be hesitant about shaking hands!
http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2056849152?page=2#post_82612569

Thanks for the notice!

I would love to attend but cannot ....... hopefully I will get to see a video of it soon after ....

wheybags

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I would love to attend but cannot ....... hopefully I will get to see a video of it soon after ....

There will be a video, yes.

SebBerkovich

I went along to see it yesterday, interesting philosophy but i wasn't really all that convinced that there's no middle ground between Free and Non-Free software.

Johnboy1951

I'm looking forward to seeing the video

Amirani

I was present also. It was an interesting talk and I found myself agreeing with a lot of Stallman's views. I don't think that giving up some "freedom" in a software sense is as bad as living in the bubble that he does. I think open-source is a much more pragmatic approach to things and is much more likely to succeed than the Free Software Movement. Human nature is likely to ensure as much.

SebBerkovich

NiallSparky wrote: »

I was present also. It was an interesting talk and I found myself agreeing with a lot of Stallman's views. I don't think that giving up some "freedom" in a software sense is as bad as living in the bubble that he does. I think open-source is a much more pragmatic approach to things and is much more likely to succeed than the Free Software Movement. Human nature is likely to ensure as much.

I agree with that, although i wasn't won over by his argument that Free Software is s a moral imperative.
and all non-Free software is inherently evil.

I was with him for a long time, but i parted ways when it came to Ubuntu and other systems that implement non-Free components in order to help greater distribution. I feel that scarifying the purity of a Free Software system in order ensure it's ease of use and propagation is fine. Besides, it'll be easy to make a little side step from an almost Free Software OS to a completely Free Software OS once more users learn to take up GNU/Linux.

wheybags

Here are videos: https://www.netsoc.tcd.ie/news/2013/02/richard-stallman-talk-videos-included/

Johnboy1951

Thanks for the video link

***

In principle I agree almost entirely with RS.

Unfortunately I have to live and ensure my family is able to live also.

So, practical matters come to the fore.
This is particularly relevant where hardware devices/peripherals are concerned.

Because there are no alternatives presently available for a lot of such devices, in order to operate in the 'real world' I must use non-free software.

That does not mean I am not aware of what I am doing.
It does not mean that I am completely comfortable with what I am doing.
All it means is that out of necessity I must do this.

If free software becomes available as replacements for the non-free software I use, with the same or better functionality, then of course I will use it.

This is where RS and I part company.
He would have me be unemployed, rather than sully myself with non-free software.

Sorry RS .... but I have other commitments too ..... which mean more to me than a (hopefully temporary) moral dilemma.

I am willing to become 'morally corrupt' and use non-free software in order to support my family.

That does not mean I cannot work at and promote the goals of the FSF.

irishdude11

I'm unsure of the context of the word 'free' in this situation, does Stallman believe that you shouldn't have to pay for software? I know he thinks you should be free to modify software but does he believe you shouldn't even have to pay for it in the first place?

Because that is the greatest load of sh!te I ever heard if that is the case.

SebBerkovich

irishdude11 wrote: »

I'm unsure of the context of the word 'free' in this situation, does Stallman believe that you shouldn't have to pay for software? I know he thinks you should be free to modify software but does he believe you shouldn't even have to pay for it in the first place?

Because that is the greatest load of sh!te I ever heard if that is the case.

to quote the man himself

Think free as in free speech not free beer.

irishdude11

SebBerkovich wrote: »

to quote the man himself

Well what about this then -

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so.

That certainly seems to me like he believes you shouldn't have to pay for software.

ToadVine

irishdude11 wrote: »

I'm unsure of the context of the word 'free' in this situation, does Stallman believe that you shouldn't have to pay for software? I know he thinks you should be free to modify software but does he believe you shouldn't even have to pay for it in the first place?

Because that is the greatest load of sh!te I ever heard if that is the case.

Why?

Do you pay to use boards?

irishdude11

ToadVine wrote: »

Why?

Do you pay to use boards?

Because every other profession in the world gets paid for their labour. Whereas software developers should be giving away the produce of their labour for free going on Stallman's logic, ie. software developers should be working for free in his view.

And in the case of boards.ie software developers from Jelsoft were paid for their time writing the vBulletin 3.x software, vBulletin is neither free nor open source.

croo

irishdude11 wrote: »

I'm unsure of the context of the word 'free' in this situation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre

SebBerkovich

irishdude11 wrote: »

Because every other profession in the world gets paid for their labour. Whereas software developers should be giving away the produce of their labour for free going on Stallman's logic, ie. software developers should be working for free in his view.

And in the case of boards.ie software developers from Jelsoft were paid for their time writing the vBulletin 3.x software, vBulletin is neither free nor open source.

We can be very certain the Stallman doesn't use boards.

It breaks ever one of the Free Software rules. I do think how ever that these worlds can coexist peacefully... Stallman, wouldn't agree with me on that one though

IRWolfie-

irishdude11 wrote: »

That certainly seems to me like he believes you shouldn't have to pay for software.

It says right in the text you quoted that you can charge a fee for distribution.

IRWolfie-

irishdude11 wrote: »

Because every other profession in the world gets paid for their labour.

This is often the case with free software. Look at the people who make up the Linux Kernel. The majority are paid for the work they do http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/announcements/2012/04/linux-foundation-releases-annual-linux-development-report "Seventy-five percent of all kernel development is done by developers who are being paid for their work.".

[-0-]

IRWolfie- wrote: »

"Seventy-five percent of all kernel development is done by developers who are being paid for their work.".

They work for companies who have a vested interest, though. There's a difference.

IRWolfie-

[-0-] wrote: »

They work for companies who have a vested interest, though. There's a difference.

And what difference is that? They get paid to do what they do. Just like any other developer.

Amirani

Stallman was asked this very question at the lecture. He said he doesn't believe there's anything wrong with charging for software.