intro’d to him in Vinay’s dec 2015 talk/lecture on – 10% of humans are made by machine match..
49 min – in future … stallman will be the ghandi that worked…. people discount his work because he’s autistic and difficult… read freedom to read…
so begins taking him in
recommended free as in freedom (?) to overdrive
Free software, free society: Richard Stallman at TEDxGeneva 2014
It is the first TEDx talk of the founder of Free Software movement. Stallman, RMS for short, has changed the world with his vision of freedom for the digital age. He launched the GNU operating system, used with Linux as a component, and inspired the development of Creative Commons licences and Wikipedia
free software is the first battle in the liberation of cyber space
a computer is a universal machine.. it will do what you want.. only knows how to get out an instruction and do it.. the program has the instruction.. so.. who gives instructions to computer..
w software.. either user controls program or program controls user
freedom 0 – to run it however you wish
freedom 1 – to study code and can change it so it does what you want
need both individual and collective control… w/in group.. programmers writes changes…
freedom 2 – to redistribute exact copies
freedom 3 – to redistribute changed copies
if any of those freedoms missing.. and instrument of unjust power of developers over users
proprietary software… sometimes tracks/restricts/deletes/compels/etc… owners have power over users… for money.. they can profit from this power
6 min – no shame about it.. they have conferences where they talk about how they can leash lead users..
how to stop being victim… formerly… had to stop using computers.. but not today…
gnu plus linux.. having freedom at one point doesn’t mean you’ll keep it.. ie: maintained by people who aren’t concerned about freedom…
8 min – on not knowing what’s happening in the cloud.. taking control of your computing
9 min – above all – people.. not companies.. that deserve freedom…
main stream media – term to bury idea.. says open source instead… they say let the users change and redistribute.. and they control bugs/codes….. if we want freedom we’ve got to talk about it.. say rather … free software…
another obstacle.. schools teach non-free software.. which is like teaching to use tobacco..
10 min – for education… knowledge in non-free program witheld/denied.. schools should teach good will… sharing… only free software
11 min – on wanting to sell software on hardware we don’t know how to use..
12 min – on human rights: speech; association; press; assembly; free software; privacy…
if you lose one.. hard to maintain others… freedoms of free software are among human rights we must establish/protect
open source misses the point:
The two terms describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values. Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement. For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, essential respect for the users’ freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software “better”—in a practical sense only. It says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical problem at hand. Most discussion of “open source” pays no attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here’s a typical example.
For the free software movement, however, nonfree software is a social problem, and the solution is to stop using it and move to free software.
“Free software.” “Open source.” If it’s the same software (or nearly so), does it matter which name you use? Yes, because different words convey different ideas. While a free program by any other name would give you the same freedom today, establishing freedom in a lasting way depends above all on teaching people to value freedom. If you want to help do this, it is essential to speak of “free software.”
In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than those of free software. As far as we know, all existing released free software source code would qualify as open source. Nearly all open source software is free software, but there are exceptions. First, some open source licenses are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses. For example, “Open Watcom” is nonfree because its license does not allow making a modified version and using it privately. Fortunately, few programs use such licenses.
Second, and more important in practice, many products containing computers check signatures on their executable programs to block users from installing different executables; only one privileged company can make executables that can run in the device or can access its full capabilities. We call these devices “tyrants”, and the practice is called “tivoization” after the product (Tivo) where we first saw it. Even if the executable is made from free source code, the users cannot run modified versions of it, so the executable is nonfree.
The term “free software” is prone to misinterpretation: an unintended meaning, “software you can get for zero price,” fits the term just as well as the intended meaning, “software which gives the user certain freedoms.” We address this problem by publishing the definition of free software, and by saying “Think of ‘free speech,’ not ‘free beer.’” This is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely eliminate the problem. An unambiguous and correct term would be better, if it didn’t present other problems.
Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their own. We’ve looked at many that people have suggested, but none is so clearly “right” that switching to it would be a good idea. (For instance, in some contexts the French and Spanish word “libre” works well, but people in India do not recognize it at all.) Every proposed replacement for “free software” has some kind of semantic problem—and this includes “open source software.”
Richard Matthew Stallman (born March 16, 1953), often known by his initials, rms, is a software freedom activist and computer programmer. He campaigns for software to be distributed in a manner such that its users receive the freedoms to use, study, distribute and modify that software. Software that ensures these freedoms is termed free software. Stallman launched the GNU Project, founded the Free Software Foundation, developed the GNU Compiler Collection and GNU Emacs, and wrote the GNU General Public License.
.. With this, he also launched the free software movement. …. In October 1985 he founded the Free Software Foundation.
Stallman pioneered the concept of copyleft, which uses the principles of copyright law to preserve the right to use, modify and distribute free software, and is the main author of free software licenses which describe those terms, most notably the GNU General Public License (GPL), the most widely used free software license.
In 1989 he co-founded the League for Programming Freedom. Since the mid-1990s, Stallman has spent most of his time advocating for free software, as well as campaigning against software patents, digital rights management, and other legal and technical systems which he sees as taking away users’ freedoms, including software license agreements, non-disclosure agreements, activation keys, dongles, copy restriction,proprietary formats and binary executables without source code.
april 2016 – on singularity w Nikola
Attila Szabó (@atilathesfguy) tweeted at 5:00 AM on Sun, Apr 03, 2016:
Richard Stallman: Freedom is Worth the Inconvenience https://t.co/XTYfRHUaAU via @singularityblog
free software – respects users freedom/community – gives user four essential freedoms 0: use any way you wish 1: change to way you wish 2: make exact copies and give/sell 3: free to give/sell modified versions…
if user don’t have full control.. then non free
mean libre (free speech) not gratis (free beer)
6 min – what matters is not whether or not you pay to get the program.. but what you get when you get the program.. if it facilitates your freedom
8 min – os is a collection of many programs.. today.. usually thousands..
gnu was a replacement for unix
9 min – the kernel – base on which other systems are run – in 90 gnu had everything but the kernel..
12 min – our goal is not to advance tech.. secondary to liberating…
22 min – the idea that software should be free.. is the political idea..
26 min – dream would be – all software is free… we have a long way to go to get to that.. i’d say on a log scale we’re half way..
27 min – reverse engineering – studying some device to figure out how it works… we need it when they sell software and don’t tell how to use it ie: specs… if no specs then have to reverse engineer
28 min – i recommend look at fsf.org resources… computers loaded w free software and resold..
36 min – ai – singularity… if we get there very soon.. it will be in an unplanned way… we haven’t figured out a way yet to not let singularity be dangerous..
gershenfeld ness – because then people would be listening to their hearts more – to me.. that’s the only thing that will save us
39 min – on wiping out humanity vs some people
40 min – hacking is playful cleverness…. research isn’t necessarily playful..
47 min – free software is only possible basis for computer security.. proprietary program gives zero security against its developer… any apple os gives you zero security against apple… ie: only apple can change the software… and.. many … will only run on apple.. so user forced to put all trust in apple.. that’s why it matters if apple goes along with fbi.. in the free world.. that wouldn’t matter…
49 min – hardware with many secret specs… it’s a giant reverse engineering job that’s needed..
50 min -replicant – modernized version of android wit all non free taken off… we can replace proprietary software… good at that.. figuring out specs of camera.. that’s what’s hard…
51 min – govt exists for the people, people exist for selves.. as a source of value.. each human deserves things… if using
52 min – when people use non free software the people are the victims… when govt loses control.. govt not victim.. but rather irresponsible… making decisions that are continuing to do harm.. to the people…
on gnu site: govt policy – we have list of suggested govt policies.. to systematically move state toward free software…
1:03 – have to keep after freedom..
@ethanz: “MIT does not deserve its women.” medium.com/@selamie/remov…
thread – and astra’s interrupted interview et al
The fact that people like RMS think it is remotely OK to speak up and defend Epstein in any way or fashion is indicative of the wider problem that sustains assault. It is infuriating. https://t.co/nH8NdAGcSd
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/BiellaColeman/status/1172881753809260544