Subscribe to our weekly newsletter: www.tfir.io/dnl Become a patron of this channel: / tfir Follow us on Twitter: / tfir_io Like us on Facebook: / tfirmedia
This is the man who started GNU, which he did by writing GCC to get the project off the ground. His greatest accomplishment of this McArthur Genius grant recipient is the GNU License. Yes, he is one irascible SOB. He also is one of the greatest programmers and benefactors in computer history.
Frederick Wrigley of course he is! His philanthropic and scientifically driven movement has been shunned by major corporations in the interest of greed for years.
So your saying not to use GNU than, because Richard Stallmans OS/Operating System is one big vulnerability; Yes I'm a programmer, and yes I could do something about these problems, but normal people, that dont use VPNs and that dont know how to read the source code, in GNU, that anyone can access, and change/add malware,adware, track-ware/who knows what; anyone such as the Government,Google/RUclips/Android,Apple,Amazon,Facebook,Hackers/Who knows who; This is the issue with Richard Stallmans ideas, he doesn't want to use certain programs/firmware/java script/phones, because hes afraid to be tracked/data mined by the government/Facebook,Google/android/youtube,Apple,Amazon and so on, but yet hes basically saying to all of these organizations to please alter my source code, I dont mind. His ideas are conflicting/they make no sense, and their basically pointless, he doesn't want to be tracked/mined, so he should get a VPN, and take other security measures, anyway none of what he says means anything/theres no point.
matt matthew You are obviously lying about being a programmer or are a beginner. The FOSS isn't just about "spies". Educate yourself before speaking on topics you know nothing about.
matt matthew, you're making no sense at all. How about you break your confused claims down to individual points, then I can show you where and how you're wrong.
In the altering of any code Stallman has written (or anything released under the GPL actually), the people modifying the code can ONLY re-release the software under the GPL, again making it entirely transparent. You'd be able to see what nasty additions somebody made to a piece of software, and thus avoid it.
So far as I know Sphere OS requires Visual Studio when writing and deploying software. Visual Studio only runs on Windows. So what Microsoft have delivered is an OS that requires another proprietary OS and a proprietary development suit, using proprietary libraries to develop and distribute software as a service. In that respect Sphere OS has effectively been Tivoised.
"Linux the Kernel"? Thank goodness RMS was very clear about which Linux they're referring to. Before he cleared that up, I thought he was referring to Linux the flamethrower.
+kefsound Thank you, Watson, for illustrating that so elegantly. Besides the fact that RMS is known far and wide to reject the usage of the term "Linux the OS", or even Linux distribution without prefixing it with GNU/. The RUclips comments needs more people like you to keep us informed. ;-)
Everything Richard says is licensed by the GPLv3, therefore any video recording, audio recording and documents containing his words are to be compliant with the rules established by the GPL license.
By default, GNU/rms releases opinion pieces such as what he said here under a clause of "Copyright (c) X-X Richard Stallman Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire page are permitted provided this notice is preserved."
That isn't correct you are allowed to charge a fee when distributing the binaries you are not allowed to charge a fee for the source code, nor are you allowed to limit access to the source code with fees or any other restrictions.
I keep thinking is this really a bad man. He made some unfortunate comments but I think he got pushed. People like him are incredibly rare. If you look at what he actually achieved to give us free software it's truly amazing.
I am glad that Richard Stallman is so intelligent that he figured out that engineering in general is not detached from politics or ethic. He is a great leader for people that love engineering but hate anti politics ideology so widespread among engineers.
Open Source did not do Free Software a lot of harm. Free Software did itself a lot of harm, especially under Stallman's preaching. Open Source was just a better way to make a similar concept more attractive to businesses and corporations, sure it might sacrifice some of the ethics that Stallman wants us all to be adhering to, but Stallman's zero tolerance, no compromises anywhere, ever, policies have just made the whole Free Software thing look like a hippie commune.
Clickbait much? Stallman acknowledged Microsoft for applying the GPL, but then launched into the usual rant of Open VS Free. The title of this video is very misleading.
TFiR I did not blow my lid. I was just commenting on the fact that Stallman does not say much about azure sphere. It's hardly even mentioned. 3 seconds in 3 minutes of video. s/clickbait/misleading
You must be joking. What do you want him to say, spiel about it? He didn't even know about it and he commented on it. Simple. Why is it misleading? This is the ONLY interview where Richard talked about it.
The problem with RMS is that instead of talking about what's asked he quickly switches to talk about open source vs free software. It was a VERY heated interview, with all hot parts removed from the full length one :)
it's true what he says. he holds no grudge. he says it plain and simple. it's just a SMALL positive step. it can mean the beginning of a good direction to take, but it can also mean nothing at all.
He's probably reiterated his points a million times, but I appreciate that; now, I don't need to dig to understand the history behind some of his comments. the explanation's in the open
You may be surprised, unless you are a purist like him he is quite an asshole. Plus he keeps talking about Linux vs GNU/Linux, Libre rather than Open Source, he doesn't like Ubuntu, like, who in the world thinks those are important issues when we have so many more important things to talk about when it comes to open source vs proprietary software? Yet he spends so much time on petty definition/naming disputes it's ridiculous. As long as the FSF does nothing but try to make people use different words nothing is going to change.
As a free tip: Never adore anyone. Just listen and decide what is good. Follow their examples when you see fit but never think about a human being being flawless, or you'll end up burned up. Burned up people tend to end being the opposite of what they really believe.
So my software is "open source" and I let anyone do whatever they want with it. But I'm an enemy of the "free software" movement because I don't force users of my software to follow certain rules. I hate that twisted logic.
I'm a programmer, and yes I could do something about these problems, but normal people, that dont use VPNs and that dont know how to read the source code, in GNU, that anyone can access, and change/add malware,adware, track-ware/who knows what; anyone such as the Government,Google/RUclips/Android,Apple,Amazon,Facebook,Hackers/Who knows who; This is the issue with Richard Stallmans ideas, he doesn't want to use certain programs/firmware/java script/phones, because hes afraid to be tracked/data mined by the government/Facebook,Google/android/youtube,Apple,Amazon and so on, but yet hes basically saying to all of these organizations to please alter my source code, I dont mind. His ideas are conflicting/they make no sense, and their basically pointless, he doesn't want to be tracked/mined, so he should get a VPN, and take other security measures, anyway none of what he says means anything/theres no point.
Problem I have with this guy, is that his idea of freedom is that I am not free to hide how bad programmer I am by not giving the source code for my program.
Yup, off the deep-end like usual... I really don't think "open source" was made with "malicious intent" to segregate freedom from software which is released with the source open. It's simply that the world isn't as arrogant & semantically as exact as he is. You think in a world where we call self balancing boards "hoverboards" and people refer to their loved ones as "bae", people are going to automatically adopt the most specific of licensing categories into their vernacular? Ah, such a hypocrite he is: People deserve true freedom - ALWAYS. ....unless that is the freedom to use software which is not released under a free license, in which case it's "malicious" and "needs to be cut out of society." Go back to your text driven email client **rolls eyes*
i hope you deliver this message to Mr R.Stallman, do you know about microsoft EEE strategy, because i feel bad about microsoft entering the free software domain
I agree, when I heard this my heart sank, I don't think we can trust Microsoft. I'm sure they're not doing it out of altruism! Engulf and devour is more their motto! There are going to be some nasty suprises in store for us along the line, I fear.
List of mergers and acquisitions by Microsoft: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Microsoft You're very naive to think Microsoft is doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. Do some research fanboy, before you insult people.
There are some very difficult software problems that only companies with dedicated teams have solved. So, I appreciate both free software and software you have to pay for. We need both. I did not inherit a large sum of money. I have to work. If I didn't get paid to write software, I wouldn't be able to create software for nearly as much time as I get to now.
Nothing has a cost to produce, you can live off the government and everything should be free, as in free beer!!! Also _real_ communism has _never_ been tried before.
I am not sure if you are being sarcastic. My guess is that you are. It has been tried. Without incentives, economic systems result in economic collapse, usually followed by tyranny, because people who feel they are being taken advantage of are willing to do horrible things to their neighbors who they feel are freeloading.
Open source is fine. If i can't use free software, i'd rather have the source of the proprietary crap i am forced to use. Software is the source code. Everything should be open source.
The only thing i'm wondering is how can i make money out of free software only, i mean i gotta pay my rent other than that, stallman is truly one of the greatest things that happened to the computer industry :)
A software maker can release the code (open source) and still place certain prohibitions on its use (not free). So, no, I don't think FOSS is an oxymoron. Slim Fat is an oxymoron, free and oss speak to two different, connected, but different things
Well I agree with Stallman. But still what happens to software developers if what they make with such hard efforts has to be released for free???? I partially support closed source but not spying. I mean money is important too you know. And if everything is given for free then how will software developers thrive??? I know business models of Red Hat and stuff. But let's be serious, The real money is made by Companies like Google, MS and co. And these companies donate large funds to Linux foundation and stuff. So in a way a new business model has to be framed for free software.
One problem with free software is that, well its free. A huge proportion of people will gladly take free software and not pay a dime and it could easily hurt the software developer in the long run. Also does he really think companies like Adobe should give their software for free? Er no. Linux is still a good for what its is, but dude make some money too. The story of that huge security hole in open SSL showed us something as well, that this really important piece of software, that is used by so many companies, was also very poorly funded, and therefore didn't even get the chance to be properly audited, people took and took and didn't seem to give back as much, sad.
The problem with 'free software' is that people automatically think stolen, pirated and even closed but free (you can still have free software that is closed source) At least open source states open, which actually means freedom, but in a better context.
But if someone hacks the source code of Windows and publish it (illegally), wouldn't Windows be then technically open source, because everyone could see the source code?
Well technically, yes, but there's something to be said about the intent. The term "OSS" implies that intent exists for it to be OSS, so even if you illegally publish source code as "open", the intent was never there, so I wouldn't call it OSS.
A illegally published Windows-Code would neither technically turn Windows in to OSS, because it would be still illegal to publish it. Microsofts EULA would be the same as before. Studying the Windows-Code would still be illegall, publishing some Windows-Code in a book would still be illegal in a lot of countries... To be brief: That's not what OSS means.
What, how confused are you? You cannot have free software that is closed source! Freedom number one: "The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish. Access to the source code is a precondition for this." See gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Read before you speak.
free software projects stagnate because difficult to make money from your contributions. PHP should have javascript style syntax. But why put in large effort to accomplish that when cannot profit from your work?
Hear that linux gamers? The main ideology associated with linux is against non free games, if you want games that have non free code or art or any assets at all you are using the wrong os. Also if you believe usability is more important than un necessary freedom.
everything free is free , until it makes extremely large amounts of money, then the owners sue people for everything it can or cant be used for, IE KODI media center.
I think it's better to have non free closed source software. As a developer you and others invest your time to make a good product, your efforts and time should be paid before others make use of your code. On the other hand, free software makes sense to make open source.
Because windows is not FOSS. He says he wants more people to use free software. Azure Sphere OS encourages the opposite. Not to mention the whole EEE strategy that's most likely still at at play here.
1) It's a positive step that Microsoft is *using* Linux in their commercial product. The Linux community is rejoicing that. 2) Developer need Windows to write for that product is irrelevant as Microsoft may extends support for Linux, depending on how much demand comes from developers. If there are developers using Linux desktop to write for Edge, MS will do that. Simple. 3) I don't see EEE anymore as Linux is becoming core of Microsoft, they can't extinguish something that's their foundation. Also if you understand how 'Open Source' really works, you won't talk about EEE. Open Source CAN'T be extinguished. It's can't. That's the very heart of this beast :)
Wow... that's some very optimistic views you have there. I'd go so far as to say blindly so. But I do hope you're right, and that this ends up being a good thing.
It's not optimistic or blind. It's based on facts around how Open Source works. Can you explain *how* Microsoft will *extinguish* Linux? I am open to discussion, please explain.
Once I attended to a RMS conference and he said he prohibited his conference to be recorded in a non-free video codec ("don't use mp-nothing", he said then). Now I'm watching this on RUclips...
TFiR I know something that is free, the air is free! Please stop breathing our free air that no one will be selling you (as air is free and not sold) as you die of suffocation. Enjoy your video that no one will watch all by your lonesome.
Milos Djeric what’s your problem? Why you think everything should be free of cost. I had talked to Richard and he has always been OK with charging for work. In fact FSF itself endorses charging for free software and these are creative work which ar different form software. So please calm down and educate yourself.
Milos Djeric that said you sound totally clueless as the video was made available free of cost. So once again, educate yourself before you open your mouth. I have done much mote to promote free software that you ever would and as an active open source advocate I despise people like you who give open source bad name bu equating free software with free of cost stuff. I wish there were more well educated people in open source world and less like you.
So your saying not to use GNU than, because Richard Stallmans OS/Operating System is one big vulnerability; Yes I'm a programmer, and yes I could do something about these problems, but normal people, that dont use VPNs and that dont know how to read the source code, in GNU, that anyone can access, and change/add malware,adware, track-ware/who knows what; anyone such as the Government,Google/RUclips/Android,Apple,Amazon,Facebook,Hackers/Who knows who; This is the issue with Richard Stallmans ideas, he doesn't want to use certain programs/firmware/java script/phones, because hes afraid to be tracked/data mined by the government/Facebook,Google/android/youtube,Apple,Amazon and so on, but yet hes basically saying to all of these organizations to please alter my source code, I dont mind. His ideas are conflicting/they make no sense, and their basically pointless, he doesn't want to be tracked/mined, so he should get a VPN, and take other security measures, anyway none of what he says means anything/theres no point.
Re-watch, the interviewer said "mmhmm" but Stallman didn't stop talking, it's 1 coherent sentence. He just said that the people who coined the term "OSS" have done the free software movement a lot of harm.
MrSlowestD16 ..."the people who coin the term open source, as a reaction against right free software movement"... thats what I hear but its difficult to tell cause the mike of the interviewer is too loud
There's loads of 'free' software that is opaque (ie no source provided) and riddled with malware. Open Source is a far better term because it means you actually get the source code and can check its integrity for yourself. Therefore it is not clear to me why Stallman wants to use the word 'free'.
>"free as in freedom not free beer" >thinks video and messages are software >>thinks nothing has a cost to produce >>>thinks everything should be free >okay goo.fy
> Doesn't realize free as in freedom is also free as in free beer >> Hasn't researched FSF enough to know they support all useful information being free
Is the interviewer not aware that Microsoft has been one of the largest open source contributors now for a few years? He's acting like Microsoft open sourcing something is this brand new idea..
I am very well aware as I write about Open Source. That said Richard didn't know and this is the FIRST time Microsoft is releasing any product, real shipping product, that's running on Linux. So it made sense to ask Richard. Please Google before accusing someone of not being informed. :)
TBH, I love the work Microsoft is doing. I am here at KubeCon and interviewed two awesome folks from Microsoft. I like them now because they have started doing a lot of good work in this space. But most of their open source work is in Azure space.
Swapnil Bhartiya It can only be a good thing. Happy to have more competition in the Kubernetes space. I love the direction that Satya Nadella has taken Microsoft.
He's talking about freedom not about money, free as in freedom, Libre Software, such software can be sold, there's nothing that says that you should not get paid for writing Libre Software........
He thinks if people really like the software they will buy it from you, irrespective of whether or not you have the software available for them to build it yourself. Of course he's wrong, but 'meh', what can ya say.
I don't get it either. Who's gonna pay for something that can be downloaded or compiled from source for free. Is this some kind of communism or something 🙄
How the hell do you expect people to pay for software that they can just build for themselves? RMS lives in a fucking fantasy world. Free software doesn't work apart from the rare case. It's all well and good being able to read the source behind a piece of software but at the end of the day I still need to put food on the table and Free Software doesn't provide that.
Linux is and has always been a kernel, not an operating system. The very really vast majority of people (meaning more than 99% of people, which is a lot of people) who have heard of Linux, believe that it is an operating system, or even a collection of operating systems. I believe it's even marketed as such out of convenience. While in reality, it only comprises a small, albeit very important software component of a computer, namely the one that talks to the hardware. Therefore, against all presumption, I believe it is only fair that Richard imposes the title as he does here. (I actually remember asking my dad back in the day for the original linux operating system. The selection of distros we had in the early 2000s, even, was overwhelming to a ten year old. Imagine how it is now.)
No, it's not fair to call it GNU/Linux at all. First of all, there are many components that you need to run a Linux-based operating system ... and none of them appear in front of Linux as X/Y/Z/..Linux. Secondly, in some distributions there's hardly any GNU software left. There's much more other software. They don't demand their prefixes either, so why should Stallman be entitled to do so? Other than that, I greatly respect Stallman for his stances on free software, privacy, religion ...
This is the man who started GNU, which he did by writing GCC to get the project off the ground. His greatest accomplishment of this McArthur Genius grant recipient is the GNU License.
Yes, he is one irascible SOB. He also is one of the greatest programmers and benefactors in computer history.
Frederick Wrigley of course he is! His philanthropic and scientifically driven movement has been shunned by major corporations in the interest of greed for years.
So your saying not to use GNU than, because Richard Stallmans OS/Operating System is one big vulnerability; Yes I'm a programmer, and yes I could do something about these problems, but normal people, that dont use VPNs and that dont know how to read the source code, in GNU, that anyone can access, and change/add malware,adware, track-ware/who knows what; anyone such as the Government,Google/RUclips/Android,Apple,Amazon,Facebook,Hackers/Who knows who; This is the issue with Richard Stallmans ideas, he doesn't want to use certain programs/firmware/java script/phones, because hes afraid to be tracked/data mined by the government/Facebook,Google/android/youtube,Apple,Amazon and so on, but yet hes basically saying to all of these organizations to please alter my source code, I dont mind. His ideas are conflicting/they make no sense, and their basically pointless, he doesn't want to be tracked/mined, so he should get a VPN, and take other security measures, anyway none of what he says means anything/theres no point.
matt matthew You are obviously lying about being a programmer or are a beginner. The FOSS isn't just about "spies". Educate yourself before speaking on topics you know nothing about.
matt matthew, you're making no sense at all.
How about you break your confused claims down to individual points, then I can show you where and how you're wrong.
In the altering of any code Stallman has written (or anything released under the GPL actually), the people modifying the code can ONLY re-release the software under the GPL, again making it entirely transparent. You'd be able to see what nasty additions somebody made to a piece of software, and thus avoid it.
4K Stallman - OHH YEEEAAAH
he looks like more softened, wish you good health always ...
Seems like TFiR has added the full interview: ruclips.net/video/VMM6D9vuHkY/видео.html
and we want an OS we can run on phones which is gnu license compliant.. Everything currently out there is a nightmare
I wonder if RS is a libertarian politically speaking...
_*libretarian_
david esktorp 👏💯😁
Ga-nu-slash-linox (tm) Richard Stallman
Ga-nu-plas-linoox
lol slash the head of linux
Seriously, is it necessary to say the word "slash".
gnu/linox, he pronounced gnu right
@@cosmeFulanito32123 YES IT IS SLASH ALWAYS WILL BE
So far as I know Sphere OS requires Visual Studio when writing and deploying software. Visual Studio only runs on Windows. So what Microsoft have delivered is an OS that requires another proprietary OS and a proprietary development suit, using proprietary libraries to develop and distribute software as a service. In that respect Sphere OS has effectively been Tivoised.
"Linux the Kernel"? Thank goodness RMS was very clear about which Linux they're referring to. Before he cleared that up, I thought he was referring to Linux the flamethrower.
Subtle interjecting for a moment
Linux the Kernel VS "Linux the OS" e.g. a Linux distribution, Sherlock
+kefsound Thank you, Watson, for illustrating that so elegantly. Besides the fact that RMS is known far and wide to reject the usage of the term "Linux the OS", or even Linux distribution without prefixing it with GNU/. The RUclips comments needs more people like you to keep us informed. ;-)
Stallman is an idiot in that respect.
Funny. I thought he was referring to Linux the lunchbox.
Everything Richard says is licensed by the GPLv3, therefore any video recording, audio recording and documents containing his words are to be compliant with the rules established by the GPL license.
They never understand bro. don't even waste your time mentioning it.
By default, GNU/rms releases opinion pieces such as what he said here under a clause of "Copyright (c) X-X Richard Stallman Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire page are permitted provided this notice is preserved."
Stallman, the king of libreware!
I love Richard, we need more people like him in our world!
An interview with Stallman behind a paywall really?
There's nothing in the free software movement that objects to charging for software.. So what's your complaint?
That isn't correct you are allowed to charge a fee when distributing the binaries you are not allowed to charge a fee for the source code, nor are you allowed to limit access to the source code with fees or any other restrictions.
The legendary Richard Stallman!
I keep thinking is this really a bad man. He made some unfortunate comments but I think he got pushed. People like him are incredibly rare. If you look at what he actually achieved to give us free software it's truly amazing.
I am glad that Richard Stallman is so intelligent that he figured out that engineering in general is not detached from politics or ethic. He is a great leader for people that love engineering but hate anti politics ideology so widespread among engineers.
Open Source did not do Free Software a lot of harm. Free Software did itself a lot of harm, especially under Stallman's preaching. Open Source was just a better way to make a similar concept more attractive to businesses and corporations, sure it might sacrifice some of the ethics that Stallman wants us all to be adhering to, but Stallman's zero tolerance, no compromises anywhere, ever, policies have just made the whole Free Software thing look like a hippie commune.
Clickbait much? Stallman acknowledged Microsoft for applying the GPL, but then launched into the usual rant of Open VS Free.
The title of this video is very misleading.
TFiR I did not blow my lid. I was just commenting on the fact that Stallman does not say much about azure sphere. It's hardly even mentioned. 3 seconds in 3 minutes of video.
s/clickbait/misleading
You must be joking. What do you want him to say, spiel about it? He didn't even know about it and he commented on it. Simple. Why is it misleading? This is the ONLY interview where Richard talked about it.
Swapnil Bhartiya "hey RMS, how are you?" "fine. Let me tell you about free VS open"
"RMS talks about his health"
c'mon. Ok. I get it now. You succeeded in trolling me. Have a great day.
(Note to self: never read comments. )
The problem with RMS is that instead of talking about what's asked he quickly switches to talk about open source vs free software. It was a VERY heated interview, with all hot parts removed from the full length one :)
I love you Mr. Stallman :)
it's true what he says. he holds no grudge. he says it plain and simple.
it's just a SMALL positive step. it can mean the beginning of a good direction to take, but it can also mean nothing at all.
Talk about Free Software instead of Open Source around Stallman. It really rustles his Jimmies otherwise.
;) Yep-we know what buttons to press! Agree or not, gotta give it to him though, he sticks to his principles.
As it should be. Free
@@Legate-Jon3s Can you understand the concept of 'free software'? And why software should be free?
one of the men who changed world :)
He's probably reiterated his points a million times, but I appreciate that; now, I don't need to dig to understand the history behind some of his comments. the explanation's in the open
RMS makes every interview a history lesson :D
@John Rokes owo
I want to meet this man he's my Idol my hero oh maaannn
Mamadou Diallo you wanna meet a paranoid man?
David G is he for u ? This man is the computer science Stéphane Hawkins
some people just wanna get to the hate ban... let him be
You may be surprised, unless you are a purist like him he is quite an asshole. Plus he keeps talking about Linux vs GNU/Linux, Libre rather than Open Source, he doesn't like Ubuntu, like, who in the world thinks those are important issues when we have so many more important things to talk about when it comes to open source vs proprietary software? Yet he spends so much time on petty definition/naming disputes it's ridiculous. As long as the FSF does nothing but try to make people use different words nothing is going to change.
As a free tip: Never adore anyone. Just listen and decide what is good. Follow their examples when you see fit but never think about a human being being flawless, or you'll end up burned up. Burned up people tend to end being the opposite of what they really believe.
So my software is "open source" and I let anyone do whatever they want with it. But I'm an enemy of the "free software" movement because I don't force users of my software to follow certain rules. I hate that twisted logic.
Can I use parts of this video in my own video? I am making a documentary on Richard Stallman, and want to use his input on Microsoft.
I'm a programmer, and yes I could do something about these problems, but normal people, that dont use VPNs and that dont know how to read the source code, in GNU, that anyone can access, and change/add malware,adware, track-ware/who knows what; anyone such as the Government,Google/RUclips/Android,Apple,Amazon,Facebook,Hackers/Who knows who; This is the issue with Richard Stallmans ideas, he doesn't want to use certain programs/firmware/java script/phones, because hes afraid to be tracked/data mined by the government/Facebook,Google/android/youtube,Apple,Amazon and so on, but yet hes basically saying to all of these organizations to please alter my source code, I dont mind. His ideas are conflicting/they make no sense, and their basically pointless, he doesn't want to be tracked/mined, so he should get a VPN, and take other security measures, anyway none of what he says means anything/theres no point.
Richard stall man doesn’t seem like the type to sue over copyright.
@@pspvita99 where do you get your glue from
Problem I have with this guy, is that his idea of freedom is that I am not free to hide how bad programmer I am by not giving the source code for my program.
Stallman: "Which Linux do you mean?"
Me: "I mean the same Linux as you mean the Motorola 68000 GCC Compiler!"
We should start calling free software "freedom" software. That would clear up allot of confusion.
Yup, off the deep-end like usual...
I really don't think "open source" was made with "malicious intent" to segregate freedom from software which is released with the source open. It's simply that the world isn't as arrogant & semantically as exact as he is. You think in a world where we call self balancing boards "hoverboards" and people refer to their loved ones as "bae", people are going to automatically adopt the most specific of licensing categories into their vernacular?
Ah, such a hypocrite he is:
People deserve true freedom - ALWAYS. ....unless that is the freedom to use software which is not released under a free license, in which case it's "malicious" and "needs to be cut out of society." Go back to your text driven email client **rolls eyes*
that's because you are mistaking people with companies. But it is hard to see when doctrine is embedded in you.
Hd stallman woah boy
Free Software vs Open Source? He makes it sound like some internal battle within the central committee between Leninists and Trotskyists.
His message gets more relevant as the world gets more software dependent
Exactly. Richard is ahead of his (our) time... Way ahead.
i hope you deliver this message to Mr R.Stallman, do you know about microsoft EEE strategy, because i feel bad about microsoft entering the free software domain
I agree, when I heard this my heart sank, I don't think we can trust Microsoft. I'm sure they're not doing it out of altruism! Engulf and devour is more their motto! There are going to be some nasty suprises in store for us along the line, I fear.
Art McTeagle don't be an idiot. Ms heavily invests in linux since the desktop platform is rapidly shrinking.
List of mergers and acquisitions by Microsoft: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Microsoft
You're very naive to think Microsoft is doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. Do some research fanboy, before you insult people.
Art McTeagle even stallman said this is a first step, wouldn't call him a naive ms fanboy
@Henrik dude have you read about EEE Strategy ??
but.. RICHARUDO U-USERS HAVE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE TO BE FREE OR NOT WHEN USING N-NON FREE STUFF
Stallman comb your mustache it's going up your nose to your brain
There are some very difficult software problems that only companies with dedicated teams have solved. So, I appreciate both free software and software you have to pay for. We need both.
I did not inherit a large sum of money. I have to work. If I didn't get paid to write software, I wouldn't be able to create software for nearly as much time as I get to now.
Nothing has a cost to produce, you can live off the government and everything should be free, as in free beer!!!
Also _real_ communism has _never_ been tried before.
I am not sure if you are being sarcastic. My guess is that you are.
It has been tried. Without incentives, economic systems result in economic collapse, usually followed by tyranny, because people who feel they are being taken advantage of are willing to do horrible things to their neighbors who they feel are freeloading.
I want to see the video of the meme man but I hate it when I have to listen to the people of the poo.
Open source is fine. If i can't use free software, i'd rather have the source of the proprietary crap i am forced to use. Software is the source code. Everything should be open source.
praised be the Stallman!! "join us now and share the software, we'll be free hackers we'll be free..."
He physically can't talk about anything without trying to absorb all the credit.
0:16 this again means its GNU/Linux :))
I never think that RMS has been given the respect he deserved.
Good to hear Stallman's a fan of MS Azure.
The only thing i'm wondering is how can i make money out of free software only, i mean i gotta pay my rent
other than that, stallman is truly one of the greatest things that happened to the computer industry :)
free as in freedom not money. it is totally okay to make paid software but respect the user's freedom.
@@Abdo-bm4jx i know that...
I know what i said, my point was that it is hard to monetize foss software and can't be done at all in a lot of cases.
"free + open source software (foss)" is an oxymoron
A software maker can release the code (open source) and still place certain prohibitions on its use (not free). So, no, I don't think FOSS is an oxymoron. Slim Fat is an oxymoron, free and oss speak to two different, connected, but different things
Richard Stallman is the legend of opensource
How do the 2 communities feel about the term FOSS?
FLOSS = Free (gratis) , Libre (freedom) , OS (Open Source) , S (Software)
Richard actually has the nicest eyes
Dang he probably
Well I agree with Stallman. But still what happens to software developers if what they make with such hard efforts has to be released for free???? I partially support closed source but not spying. I mean money is important too you know. And if everything is given for free then how will software developers thrive??? I know business models of Red Hat and stuff. But let's be serious, The real money is made by Companies like Google, MS and co. And these companies donate large funds to Linux foundation and stuff. So in a way a new business model has to be framed for free software.
One problem with free software is that, well its free. A huge proportion of people will gladly take free software and not pay a dime and it could easily hurt the software developer in the long run. Also does he really think companies like Adobe should give their software for free? Er no. Linux is still a good for what its is, but dude make some money too.
The story of that huge security hole in open SSL showed us something as well, that this really important piece of software, that is used by so many companies, was also very poorly funded, and therefore didn't even get the chance to be properly audited, people took and took and didn't seem to give back as much, sad.
The problem with 'free software' is that people automatically think stolen, pirated and even closed but free (you can still have free software that is closed source) At least open source states open, which actually means freedom, but in a better context.
But if someone hacks the source code of Windows and publish it (illegally), wouldn't Windows be then technically open source, because everyone could see the source code?
No.
Well technically, yes, but there's something to be said about the intent. The term "OSS" implies that intent exists for it to be OSS, so even if you illegally publish source code as "open", the intent was never there, so I wouldn't call it OSS.
A illegally published Windows-Code would neither technically turn Windows in to OSS, because it would be still illegal to publish it. Microsofts EULA would be the same as before. Studying the Windows-Code would still be illegall, publishing some Windows-Code in a book would still be illegal in a lot of countries...
To be brief: That's not what OSS means.
What, how confused are you? You cannot have free software that is closed source! Freedom number one: "The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish. Access to the source code is a precondition for this." See gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Read before you speak.
free software projects stagnate because difficult to make money from your contributions. PHP should have javascript style syntax. But why put in large effort to accomplish that when cannot profit from your work?
Hear that linux gamers? The main ideology associated with linux is against non free games, if you want games that have non free code or art or any assets at all you are using the wrong os. Also if you believe usability is more important than un necessary freedom.
Open source wanted to corporatize free software just to get more popular. Not sure open source is entirely good if not worse than proprietary.
everything free is free , until it makes extremely large amounts of money,
then the owners sue people for everything it can or cant be used for,
IE KODI media center.
I think it's better to have non free closed source software. As a developer you and others invest your time to make a good product, your efforts and time should be paid before others make use of your code. On the other hand, free software makes sense to make open source.
he is for freedom to copy software, but silent on FB, Twitter, RUclips silencing political and social speech.
Great interview.
Just call it Gnulix - much more ear catching.
Just Gnu-Lix...... Not hard to say, like Gnu and Lix
Gnulix is better then GNU + Linux.
I'm sorry I find it too distracting to watch his mustache hair move in and out of his nostril when his lips move. wtf
This video is the perfect example of what Azure Sphere is: IT has stallman in it, the topic is free software, but Mr Pajeet wants you to pay for it.
Convenience frees time.... Free time is the ultimate currency.... Money rewards work in a convenient manner...
People who watch this video don't understand the difference between "Free as in speech" and "Free as in beer"
Stallman know that this video is on youtube? Because he doesn't like youtube at all
Two words about Microsoft and Open Source/Free Software: REMEMBER TROY.
He seems to be ignoring the fact that development for Azure Sphere OS will actually require the use of windows.
And how does that matter?
Because windows is not FOSS. He says he wants more people to use free software. Azure Sphere OS encourages the opposite. Not to mention the whole EEE strategy that's most likely still at at play here.
1) It's a positive step that Microsoft is *using* Linux in their commercial product. The Linux community is rejoicing that.
2) Developer need Windows to write for that product is irrelevant as Microsoft may extends support for Linux, depending on how much demand comes from developers. If there are developers using Linux desktop to write for Edge, MS will do that. Simple.
3) I don't see EEE anymore as Linux is becoming core of Microsoft, they can't extinguish something that's their foundation. Also if you understand how 'Open Source' really works, you won't talk about EEE. Open Source CAN'T be extinguished. It's can't. That's the very heart of this beast :)
Wow... that's some very optimistic views you have there. I'd go so far as to say blindly so. But I do hope you're right, and that this ends up being a good thing.
It's not optimistic or blind. It's based on facts around how Open Source works. Can you explain *how* Microsoft will *extinguish* Linux? I am open to discussion, please explain.
Based rms
Thank you for this interview!
Thousandth like. Lets work towards free software for everything.
the interviewer should at least wear a collar shirt..to be respected...
This guy should talk a little slower, It's hard to understand him.
I don't know who this guy is but he's got great eyes.
Somebody buy him a can of mustache wax please
Once I attended to a RMS conference and he said he prohibited his conference to be recorded in a non-free video codec ("don't use mp-nothing", he said then). Now I'm watching this on RUclips...
@@mari2. Encoders can be open source, but h264 itself is neither and open nor free standard
Subtitles?
Way to go our beloved GNU/Pastaman
I thought that was Fareed Zahkar for a second
Moon Doggie that is you, how's the family.
Somebody ban this guy from RUclips for releasing payware videos.
TFiR I know something that is free, the air is free! Please stop breathing our free air that no one will be selling you (as air is free and not sold) as you die of suffocation. Enjoy your video that no one will watch all by your lonesome.
Milos Djeric what’s your problem? Why you think everything should be free of cost. I had talked to Richard and he has always been OK with charging for work. In fact FSF itself endorses charging for free software and these are creative work which ar different form software. So please calm down and educate yourself.
Milos Djeric that said you sound totally clueless as the video was made available free of cost. So once again, educate yourself before you open your mouth. I have done much mote to promote free software that you ever would and as an active open source advocate I despise people like you who give open source bad name bu equating free software with free of cost stuff. I wish there were more well educated people in open source world and less like you.
Stallman is the #WokeMasterBranch #RMS
This guy's wabi Sabi beard is on point
it's a little bit unrealistic ...there will always be two kinds of software Free and non free and both of these can be open source.
or closed source
So your saying not to use GNU than, because Richard Stallmans OS/Operating System is one big vulnerability; Yes I'm a programmer, and yes I could do something about these problems, but normal people, that dont use VPNs and that dont know how to read the source code, in GNU, that anyone can access, and change/add malware,adware, track-ware/who knows what; anyone such as the Government,Google/RUclips/Android,Apple,Amazon,Facebook,Hackers/Who knows who; This is the issue with Richard Stallmans ideas, he doesn't want to use certain programs/firmware/java script/phones, because hes afraid to be tracked/data mined by the government/Facebook,Google/android/youtube,Apple,Amazon and so on, but yet hes basically saying to all of these organizations to please alter my source code, I dont mind. His ideas are conflicting/they make no sense, and their basically pointless, he doesn't want to be tracked/mined, so he should get a VPN, and take other security measures, anyway none of what he says means anything/theres no point.
Lástima que no está en español :(
4k is very good.
You have git gud guests
Turey we will be rooking at
install gentoo
Great product.
What did Stallman say at minute 1:00? he got half interrupted
Re-watch, the interviewer said "mmhmm" but Stallman didn't stop talking, it's 1 coherent sentence.
He just said that the people who coined the term "OSS" have done the free software movement a lot of harm.
MrSlowestD16 ..."the people who coin the term open source, as a reaction against right free software movement"... thats what I hear but its difficult to tell cause the mike of the interviewer is too loud
There's loads of 'free' software that is opaque (ie no source provided) and riddled with malware. Open Source is a far better term because it means you actually get the source code and can check its integrity for yourself. Therefore it is not clear to me why Stallman wants to use the word 'free'.
>Interview with Richard Stallman
>Demands watching it after paying for your patreon
>okay goo.fy
>"free as in freedom not free beer"
>thinks video and messages are software
>>thinks nothing has a cost to produce
>>>thinks everything should be free
>okay goo.fy
> Doesn't realize free as in freedom is also free as in free beer
>> Hasn't researched FSF enough to know they support all useful information being free
There's nothing non-free about charging for software.... Your definitions are broken, update your definitions :-P
Is the interviewer not aware that Microsoft has been one of the largest open source contributors now for a few years? He's acting like Microsoft open sourcing something is this brand new idea..
I am very well aware as I write about Open Source. That said Richard didn't know and this is the FIRST time Microsoft is releasing any product, real shipping product, that's running on Linux. So it made sense to ask Richard. Please Google before accusing someone of not being informed. :)
Swapnil Bhartiya I stand corrected. Apologies, makes sense now.
TBH, I love the work Microsoft is doing. I am here at KubeCon and interviewed two awesome folks from Microsoft. I like them now because they have started doing a lot of good work in this space. But most of their open source work is in Azure space.
Swapnil Bhartiya It can only be a good thing. Happy to have more competition in the Kubernetes space. I love the direction that Satya Nadella has taken Microsoft.
Yes, I met and interviewed Brandan Burns, one of the co-founders of Kubernetes. ruclips.net/video/47MJxt7DCy8/видео.html
I respect this man so much!
Stallman
As a developer myself. I don't understand how he expects anyone to make a living writing software. What am I missing?
He's talking about freedom not about money, free as in freedom, Libre Software, such software can be sold, there's nothing that says that you should not get paid for writing Libre Software........
He thinks if people really like the software they will buy it from you, irrespective of whether or not you have the software available for them to build it yourself.
Of course he's wrong, but 'meh', what can ya say.
I don't get it either. Who's gonna pay for something that can be downloaded or compiled from source for free. Is this some kind of communism or something 🙄
How the hell do you expect people to pay for software that they can just build for themselves? RMS lives in a fucking fantasy world. Free software doesn't work apart from the rare case. It's all well and good being able to read the source behind a piece of software but at the end of the day I still need to put food on the table and Free Software doesn't provide that.
0:17 The kernel...
Linux is and has always been a kernel, not an operating system. The very really vast majority of people (meaning more than 99% of people, which is a lot of people) who have heard of Linux, believe that it is an operating system, or even a collection of operating systems. I believe it's even marketed as such out of convenience. While in reality, it only comprises a small, albeit very important software component of a computer, namely the one that talks to the hardware. Therefore, against all presumption, I believe it is only fair that Richard imposes the title as he does here.
(I actually remember asking my dad back in the day for the original linux operating system. The selection of distros we had in the early 2000s, even, was overwhelming to a ten year old. Imagine how it is now.)
No, it's not fair to call it GNU/Linux at all. First of all, there are many components that you need to run a Linux-based operating system ... and none of them appear in front of Linux as X/Y/Z/..Linux.
Secondly, in some distributions there's hardly any GNU software left. There's much more other software. They don't demand their prefixes either, so why should Stallman be entitled to do so?
Other than that, I greatly respect Stallman for his stances on free software, privacy, religion ...
I stick with FOSS ✊🏼
FLOSS seems more convenient