[OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
David Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Free software somehow has to interact with the "real world", which - > sadly - is dominated by proprietary software and file formats. A lot of > people switched to free software after free office software became > reliable in reading M$ office files. I think the case with mplayer is > similar. No one forces you to use the binary only codecs, mplayer > already does a pretty good job w/o them (except for listening to BBC > radio but hopefully the BBC comes to its sense...). > > And when it comes to patents or restriction circumventions: the legal > status is different from country to country. I don't think this makes > mplayer "non free", it's the laws in some countries which restrict the > freedom here. While I can appreciate what your saying, I think you may be missing some of the subtlety of Richard's point. Its not sufficient to protect our freedoms to just switch to using free software unless that software is really free and actively protects our freedom. While mplay itself may be free, the fact it supports non-free codecs encourages the continued support of those codecs or at the very least reduces any potential pressure that might exist to convince content produces to use free rather than proprietary codecs. The difference between Richard's and your perspective is that your approach is possibly focusing more on the usability issues and allowing users to benefit from a free platform while still being able to access proprietary content as easily as users of closed proprietary systems. I think Richard's perspective would be that this has the danger of giving up some of our freedoms without really realising what we may be sacrificing in the long term for a short term gain (i.e. access to the proprietary content). Richar's perspective is likely that if you believe your freedom is important enough, you will sacrifice short term access to the content in favor of protecting your long-term freedom. Furthermore, he is likely to argue that most people aren't really aware of the value/importance of such freedoms until they have been lost and once lost, are very difficult to get back. I think Richard's point is very important and completely missed by some groups. for example, some GNU Linux distributions and some free software have made it very easy to obtain, install and use proprietary codecs. this is often justified by arguing that it makes GNU Linux more accessible and popular. However, this totally overlooks the potential danger this has in weakening our freedoms. If it is as easy to use proprietary codecs as truely free ones, then there is little encouragement for producers to change to free alternatives. I guess the basic difference in perspectives depends largely on your values and to what extent you are prepared to sacrifice material satisfaction for moral/ethical values. regards, Tim P.S. I also don't think you can claim FSF supports the use of non-free codecs because EMMS is under the GPL. As far as I'm aware EMMS is not an official GNU project and therefore is not officially supported by the FSF. Software released under the GPL doesn't also mean it is supported by or in any way approved by the FSF. -- tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
Tim X <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > P.S. I also don't think you can claim FSF supports the use of non-free codecs > because EMMS is under the GPL. As far as I'm aware EMMS is not an official GNU > project and therefore is not officially supported by the FSF. Software > released > under the GPL doesn't also mean it is supported by or in any way approved by > the FSF. > -- > tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au A non-gnu software can be hosted on gnu.org ? http://www.gnu.org/software/emms/ -- Camille "Mesmento" Bourgoin jabber : [EMAIL PROTECTED] web : http://jbbourgoin.free.fr ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
Tim X <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > P.S. I also don't think you can claim FSF supports the use of non-free > codecs because EMMS is under the GPL. As far as I'm aware EMMS is not > an official GNU project and therefore is not officially supported by > the FSF. Software released under the GPL doesn't also mean it is > supported by or in any way approved by the FSF. You're wrong, EMMS is indeed a GNU project. Regards, -- Lucas EMMS contributor ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:18:18 +1000 Tim X. wrote: > David Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> >> Free software somehow has to interact with the "real world", which - >> sadly - is dominated by proprietary software and file formats. A lot of >> people switched to free software after free office software became >> reliable in reading M$ office files. I think the case with mplayer is >> similar. No one forces you to use the binary only codecs, mplayer >> already does a pretty good job w/o them (except for listening to BBC >> radio but hopefully the BBC comes to its sense...). >> >> And when it comes to patents or restriction circumventions: the legal >> status is different from country to country. I don't think this makes >> mplayer "non free", it's the laws in some countries which restrict the >> freedom here. > > While I can appreciate what your saying, I think you may be missing some of > the > subtlety of Richard's point. Its not sufficient to protect our freedoms to > just > switch to using free software unless that software is really free and actively > protects our freedom. While mplay itself may be free, the fact it supports > non-free codecs encourages the continued support of those codecs or at the > very > least reduces any potential pressure that might exist to convince content > produces to use free rather than proprietary codecs. Maybe we should clarify what a "free codec" is. Is xvid free? Or libavcodec? If not, is there any video codec that can be called "free"? If they do count as free, I think there is no problem with mplayer. Just don't install or distribute any binary codecs. When it comes to freedom restricting laws (e.g. patents or media access restriction), which country should be the reference? The US? Or the least or most restricting laws in the EU? China? If you think obeying such laws is important, a lot of GNU software is non free in a lot of countries. Just one (extremely silly example): In Germany distributing non rated video games is illegal. This makes Emacs (tetris, snake) non free in Germany. Font rendering or cryptographic software is a more serious issue. A lot of GNU software links against freetype (you can compile it with -DFUCK_PATENTS) and cryptography is heavily restricted in a lot of countries. Frankly, as long as the risk of getting seriously punished is very low i don't give a fuck about these laws. That's like waiting as a pedestrian for a traffic light if there's no car in sight, or not smoking weed because some authority thinks it should decide what's good for you. I think before I reply to the rest of your post we should first define "free codec" (free implementation available sufficient, or does it has to be patent free and legal (and which countries should be the reference here)). David ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
Lucas Bonnet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tim X <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> P.S. I also don't think you can claim FSF supports the use of non-free >> codecs because EMMS is under the GPL. As far as I'm aware EMMS is not >> an official GNU project and therefore is not officially supported by >> the FSF. Software released under the GPL doesn't also mean it is >> supported by or in any way approved by the FSF. > > You're wrong, EMMS is indeed a GNU project. > My apologies for being misleading. I thought I'd seen it under the non-gnu section, but was obviously mistaken. Tim -- tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
Joost Kremers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tim X wrote: >> David Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [...] >> While I can appreciate what your saying, I think you may be missing some of >> the >> subtlety of Richard's point. > > and perhaps you're missing some of the subtlety of david's point: if > mplayer did not support non-free codecs, some (many) people wouldn't even > consider giving GNU/Linux a try. > > now, even if you should agree with the FSF that all software should be free > in their sense, i.e. licensed under GPLv3, (a point i personally don't > subscribe to, btw), you may still argue that the chances of reaching that > ideal are better when some non-free content and/or software is supported: > it enhances the spread of GNU/Linux, which it turn makes free software more > visible, which in turn may convince more people to release their software > (and entertainment content, etc.) under free licenses. if there had been no > support for proprietary formats in GNU/Linux, it might well have been that > so few people would have started to use it that it would never have gained > the momentum it has now. > > No, I'm afraid you totally missed my point. I appreciate what David was saying and said as much and in fact summarised what I thought was the argument pretty much exactly as you put it when I wrote about some GNU Linux distros and software making it easier to use non-free codecs to encourage increased take-up of GNU Linux. I'm not subscribing to any specific school of thought/arguement and in fact had the exact same perspective as you outlined at one time. However, after reading a lot of what Richard has written and listening to a number of his interviews, I began to appreciate what he was trying to get across. My response to David was an attempt to explain this perspective a bit further because I don't think Richard's point is self evident - there are subtleties here that are easily overlooked. My personal view is still evolving as I consider the issues and to some extent, they are quite heavily influenced by what I observe occuring in the industry, society and on the political and legal fronts. I will admit though that over the last few years, I'm beginning to lean further and further towards Richard's perspective. The point I think you miss is that bringing people over to a free OS is pointless if in doing so we sacrifice those freedoms in order to do it. The objective isn't to make GNU Linux the most popular OS or even increase the size of its user base - the objective is to protect our freedoms. If we sacrifice those freedoms for the sake of popularity, then we have possibly won a battle, but lost the war. If the objective is to foster a social belief in free software, how is that advanced by facilitating the use of non-free codecs (even if that does expose more people to free software?).. The alternative argument that believes attracting more people to free software, you increase its exposure and increase the likelihood of creating more demand for a free software model and content that is based on such a model. However, this comes at a high cost if you believe that the freedoms the GPL attempts to protect are what is important. I also suspect that there may be a flaw in this argument in that it assumes that if enough people support free software through their use of GNU Linux et. al, content providers will begin to provide content based on free codecs. I'm not convinced this does actualy follow and wonder what the incentive would be for content providers to switch anything if they know that users of free software are still able to access their content. A part of the reason for my skepticism is that I don't believe the majority of GNU Linux and other free software users are doing so because they are concerned about the potential loss of freedm associated with proprietary closed systems. I think the vast majority use it because it is free in the sense of free beer. I regularly see people posting from GPL based software stating they don't support the GPL or agree with its philosophy, yet they are quite willing to take advantage of it. I regularly see people moaning that free software is destroying their livelihood, yet they themselves use it. I often see people using GNU Linux, gcc and other free software to develop their own applications which they will not release under a free software license because they want to sell it and prevent others from possibly using it without paying or using it as a basis for something they intent to sell etc. These are not people who understand or appreciate the freedoms the GPL attempts to protect. These are people who want to pay little, but dream of selling for a lot. Essentially, these are people who care more about their own individual short term situation than about the long term outcomes or impact to society over time. As I'm not Richard and I'm not an FSF representative, I want to be clear that this is my interpretation of what Richard's a
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
David Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:18:18 +1000 Tim X. wrote:
>
>> David Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>>
>>> Free software somehow has to interact with the "real world", which -
>>> sadly - is dominated by proprietary software and file formats. A lot of
>>> people switched to free software after free office software became
>>> reliable in reading M$ office files. I think the case with mplayer is
>>> similar. No one forces you to use the binary only codecs, mplayer
>>> already does a pretty good job w/o them (except for listening to BBC
>>> radio but hopefully the BBC comes to its sense...).
>>>
>>> And when it comes to patents or restriction circumventions: the legal
>>> status is different from country to country. I don't think this makes
>>> mplayer "non free", it's the laws in some countries which restrict the
>>> freedom here.
>>
>> While I can appreciate what your saying, I think you may be missing some of
>> the
>> subtlety of Richard's point. Its not sufficient to protect our freedoms to
>> just
>> switch to using free software unless that software is really free and
>> actively
>> protects our freedom. While mplay itself may be free, the fact it supports
>> non-free codecs encourages the continued support of those codecs or at the
>> very
>> least reduces any potential pressure that might exist to convince content
>> produces to use free rather than proprietary codecs.
>
> Maybe we should clarify what a "free codec" is. Is xvid free? Or
> libavcodec? If not, is there any video codec that can be called "free"?
> If they do count as free, I think there is no problem with mplayer.
> Just don't install or distribute any binary codecs.
>
I think a reasonable definition of a free codec would be one that is licensed
under a license that aims to protect the four freedoms i.e. GPL
The possible problem with mplayer is that it may make it too easy for end-users
to use non-free codecs, in which case it is implicitly undermining the
protection of our freedoms.
> When it comes to freedom restricting laws (e.g. patents or media access
> restriction), which country should be the reference? The US? Or the
> least or most restricting laws in the EU? China?
>
Is freedom relative to any particular country? I guess things depend on how you
look at freedom. For me, you either have it or you don't. Its a very difficult
issue (which is partly why I wanted to put another perspective to Richard's
point). to some extent, there is some conflict between individual freedom and
social freedom. However, for me, one of the biggest threats to freedom is the
growth of corporate capitalism and the misdirection of terms like economic
freedom, which is increasingly used to justify and protect profits at the cost
of individual freedom by locking us out of access to technology while making us
more dependent on it.
> If you think obeying such laws is important, a lot of GNU software is
> non free in a lot of countries. Just one (extremely silly example): In
> Germany distributing non rated video games is illegal. This makes Emacs
> (tetris, snake) non free in Germany. Font rendering or cryptographic
> software is a more serious issue. A lot of GNU software links against
> freetype (you can compile it with -DFUCK_PATENTS) and cryptography is
> heavily restricted in a lot of countries.
>
I don't quite understand why requiring a rating for emacs games makes them
non-free. I also don't see anything in the GPL which would prevent games
authors from adding a rating or if doing so would be in conflict with the GPL
I also don't believe the legal system and freedom are necessarily the same
thing. Often the legal system is used to restrict freedom to protect
corporate/economic profit. Current software patent law for example is the
antithesis of freedom - it is the mechanism used to 'justify' the attempts
of mainly large coorporations to restrict our freedoms in order to maximise
their profits.
> Frankly, as long as the risk of getting seriously punished is very low i
> don't give a fuck about these laws. That's like waiting as a pedestrian
> for a traffic light if there's no car in sight, or not smoking weed
> because some authority thinks it should decide what's good for you.
>
To some extent I agree. There are laws I don't agree with and there are some I
do. For example, I agree with laws that protect our rights to free speech,
freedom of association, freedom of religious belief etc. Other laws, such as
those that attempt to impose somebody elses idea of morality, or laws that
prevent me from doing something that doesn't impact on others ("Big Brother
laws) or laws that have been created to keep the established 'status quo' and
power hierarchies or protect big business interests are less likely to get my
support. Of course, its not a black
and white world, so its difficult to draw clear devisions. On one hand I agree
with laws that protect against having your physical or intel
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
Tim X wrote: > David Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > While I can appreciate what your saying, I think you may be missing some of > the > subtlety of Richard's point. and perhaps you're missing some of the subtlety of david's point: if mplayer did not support non-free codecs, some (many) people wouldn't even consider giving GNU/Linux a try. now, even if you should agree with the FSF that all software should be free in their sense, i.e. licensed under GPLv3, (a point i personally don't subscribe to, btw), you may still argue that the chances of reaching that ideal are better when some non-free content and/or software is supported: it enhances the spread of GNU/Linux, which it turn makes free software more visible, which in turn may convince more people to release their software (and entertainment content, etc.) under free licenses. if there had been no support for proprietary formats in GNU/Linux, it might well have been that so few people would have started to use it that it would never have gained the momentum it has now. -- Joost Kremers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht EN:SiS(9) ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
You're wrong, EMMS is indeed a GNU project. It seems that EMMS is a GNU package--a separate one. I will look at the situation with EMMS and mplayer. ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You're wrong, EMMS is indeed a GNU project. > > It seems that EMMS is a GNU package--a separate one. > I will look at the situation with EMMS and mplayer. What do you mean by "situation"? EMMS supports several command-line players; by default they are, in this order : - mpg321 - ogg123 - mplayer Which means that EMMS tries mpg321 (for mp3s), ogg123 (for ogg vorbis) and then mplayer (for pretty much everything else). EMMS does not recommend the use of mplayer. Does the simple fact of allowing users to use mplayer means "encouraging"? Regards, -- Lucas ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:20:35 -0400 Richard Stallman wrote: > You're wrong, EMMS is indeed a GNU project. > > It seems that EMMS is a GNU package--a separate one. > I will look at the situation with EMMS and mplayer. Removing mplayer support would imply removing support for the widely used *free* musepack and *free* flac codecs. I don't see how this can be in the interest of the GNU project. David ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
[as one poster remarked, this does indeed not seem the right place for this discussion. i have no idea where to take it, however, so i'll just post here. if there are suggestions for more appropriate groups, i'd be happy to follow up there.] Tim X wrote: > No, I'm afraid you totally missed my point. I appreciate what David was saying > and said as much and in fact summarised what I thought was the argument pretty > much exactly as you put it when I wrote about some GNU Linux distros and > software making it easier to use non-free codecs to encourage increased > take-up > of GNU Linux. ok, perhaps i've read your post too quickly, if so, i apologise for jumping to conclusions. i got the impression, however, that you mainly saw a "people want it, so let's be practical and include it" kind of argument. > I'm not subscribing to any specific school of thought/arguement and in > fact had the exact same perspective as you outlined at one time. the phrase "at one time" implies that you see it differently now, which (to me) implies that you *do* subscribe to a specific school of thought/argument. (which is perfectly ok, of course.) > The point I think you miss is that bringing people over to a free OS is > pointless if in doing so we sacrifice those freedoms in order to do it. The > objective isn't to make GNU Linux the most popular OS or even increase the > size > of its user base - the objective is to protect our freedoms. yes, i realise that. the question in the end is what is the best strategy. making some compromises along the way to enhance the spread of one's ideas, or sticking strictly to one's ideals, even if that means that your message won't be heard by as many people. > If we sacrifice > those freedoms for the sake of popularity, then we have possibly won a battle, > but lost the war. not necessarily. the war is won by winning the key battles, and the bigger and stronger you are, the better your chances of winning those. > If the objective is to foster a social belief in free > software, how is that advanced by facilitating the use of non-free codecs > (even > if that does expose more people to free software?).. that social belief is advanced exactly by the fact that more people are exposed to it. if you identify along the way very clearly the parts that you believe are really free, and the parts that you only accept for the time being for practical reasons, to encourage the adoption of free software, no-one can claim you're being a hypocryte, and people may in general be more inclined to listen to what you have to say. (people generally don't like strict points of view not open to compromise.) > The alternative argument that believes attracting more people to free > software, > you increase its exposure and increase the likelihood of creating more demand > for a free software model and content that is based on such a model. However, > this comes at a high cost if you believe that the freedoms the GPL attempts to > protect are what is important. again, not necessarily. it really depends on how you deal with it. if you make it clear from the onset that you only accept certain non-free software for practical reasons and have the aim to replace them as soon as possible with free alternatives, i do not believe the cost is too high. sure, there is a cost, but the gains may outweigh the costs. > I also suspect that there may be a flaw in this > argument in that it assumes that if enough people support free software > through > their use of GNU Linux et. al, content providers will begin to provide content > based on free codecs. I'm not convinced this does actualy follow and > wonder what the incentive would be for content providers to switch anything if > they know that users of free software are still able to access their content. that, however, is a simplistic presentation of the argument. (i admit, though, i wasn't very explicit about it myself.) schematically, the argument is this: the more people that use free software, the louder the message behind it; the louder the message, the more people hear it; the more people hear it, the more people may be convinced by it; the more people convinced by it, the bigger the social pressure on content providers and software makers to use free licenses. it all comes down to this: i believe that if you want to change the world, you're not gonna do it by being a niche. you're gonna need to be big. and if you need to make some compromises in order to become big, one must at least consider making those compromises. as long as you clearly deliniate them, and keep the final goal in sight, those compromises can be beneficial. (my actual belief is that the software world is never going to be completely free in the FSF's sense anyway, which means that making compromises becomes even more important. free software would not be able to exist if it didn't make a few compromises here and there.) > A part of the reason for my skepticism is that I don't believ
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
Joost Kremers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [as one poster remarked, this does indeed not seem the right place for this > discussion. i have no idea where to take it, however, so i'll just post > here. if there are suggestions for more appropriate groups, i'd be happy to > follow up there.] > Agreed, so I will refraim from further posts and will restrict my response to responding to the points you raise (and not bring in any new ones). > Tim X wrote: >> No, I'm afraid you totally missed my point. I appreciate what David was >> saying >> and said as much and in fact summarised what I thought was the argument >> pretty >> much exactly as you put it when I wrote about some GNU Linux distros and >> software making it easier to use non-free codecs to encourage increased >> take-up >> of GNU Linux. > > ok, perhaps i've read your post too quickly, if so, i apologise for jumping > to conclusions. i got the impression, however, that you mainly saw a > "people want it, so let's be practical and include it" kind of argument. > >> I'm not subscribing to any specific school of thought/arguement and in >> fact had the exact same perspective as you outlined at one time. > > the phrase "at one time" implies that you see it differently now, which (to > me) implies that you *do* subscribe to a specific school of > thought/argument. (which is perfectly ok, of course.) > As I think I said in another post, I'm beginning to lean more towards Richard's perspective, but to be honest, the jury isn't in yet. Thats why I said I'm not subscribing to a specific point of view (yet). >> The point I think you miss is that bringing people over to a free OS is >> pointless if in doing so we sacrifice those freedoms in order to do it. The >> objective isn't to make GNU Linux the most popular OS or even increase the >> size >> of its user base - the objective is to protect our freedoms. > > yes, i realise that. the question in the end is what is the best > strategy. making some compromises along the way to enhance the > spread of one's ideas, or sticking strictly to one's ideals, even if that > means that your message won't be heard by as many people. > I agree that compromise is an important part of making change. However, I'm not convinced that compromising the core/fundamental principals is the right way to go because I suspect that once you do, you won't be able to go back later, despite any justification or statement to the contrary that is made initially. >> If we sacrifice >> those freedoms for the sake of popularity, then we have possibly won a >> battle, >> but lost the war. > > not necessarily. the war is won by winning the key battles, and the bigger > and stronger you are, the better your chances of winning those. > >> If the objective is to foster a social belief in free >> software, how is that advanced by facilitating the use of non-free codecs >> (even >> if that does expose more people to free software?).. > > that social belief is advanced exactly by the fact that more people are > exposed to it. if you identify along the way very clearly the parts that > you believe are really free, and the parts that you only accept for the > time being for practical reasons, to encourage the adoption of free > software, no-one can claim you're being a hypocryte, and people may in > general be more inclined to listen to what you have to say. (people > generally don't like strict points of view not open to compromise.) > I sort of agree in part, but something still disturbs me with this in that I suspect this is a double edged sword. Once you openly accept the more pragmatic position of accepting non-free software, I suspect yo will have an even harder battle to reverse that perspective in the future. Note however that I do think there may be some justification in implicitly or unofficially accepting it, but officially denouncing it (recognising of course the possible claims of being a hypocrite). >> The alternative argument that believes attracting more people to free >> software, >> you increase its exposure and increase the likelihood of creating more demand >> for a free software model and content that is based on such a model. However, >> this comes at a high cost if you believe that the freedoms the GPL attempts >> to >> protect are what is important. > > again, not necessarily. it really depends on how you deal with it. if you > make it clear from the onset that you only accept certain non-free software > for practical reasons and have the aim to replace them as soon as possible > with free alternatives, i do not believe the cost is too high. sure, there > is a cost, but the gains may outweigh the costs. > I guess that is possibly the basis for the difference in ideological perspective. >> I also suspect that there may be a flaw in this >> argument in that it assumes that if enough people support free software >> through >> their use of GNU Linux et. al, content providers will begin to provide >> content >>
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
Lucas Bonnet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> You're wrong, EMMS is indeed a GNU project. >> >> It seems that EMMS is a GNU package--a separate one. >> I will look at the situation with EMMS and mplayer. > > What do you mean by "situation"? EMMS supports several command-line > players; by default they are, in this order : > - mpg321 > - ogg123 > - mplayer > > Which means that EMMS tries mpg321 (for mp3s), ogg123 (for ogg vorbis) > and then mplayer (for pretty much everything else). EMMS does not > recommend the use of mplayer. > > Does the simple fact of allowing users to use mplayer means "encouraging"? No, I don't beleive that is what Richard or anyone else is arguing. I think there are two issues that Richard is concerned about. 1. Free software that actively encourages the use of non-free software/codecs etc. (I don't believe mplayer does this). 2. Free software which, through the way it is configured/setup implicitly encourages the use of non-free software. This one is possibly the more common and perhaps incidious of the two because people may not realise what they are doing. An example would be if mplayer had a button that allowed you to "easily" download and install non-free codecs by simply clicking on that button. I've not seen this, but I've not looked at mplayer very closely or even read its documentation. The fact a piece of free software allows you to use non-free software/codecs in itself is not an issue. Rather its the extent to which it facilitates doing so that is of concern. the FSF isn't so ideological as to try and ban the use of free software - if they were, you wouldn't have distributions like Red Hat or companies like Oracle doing a GNu Linux distribution and the ability to run non-free packages. Rather, they don't want to implicitly or explicitly encourage the use of non-free software and they want people to be aware they are using non-free softtware when they do. this original debate started when Richard asked that an elisp package not encourage the use of realplayer by promoting as one of its benefits that it provided an easy interface to that bit of non-free software. He didn't say it couldn't do that or in any way indicate that it was or should be barred from doing so. I suspect he would prefer that the package promoted itself as providing a convenient interface to other free software and left the fact that it could be used to interface to realplayer as an available option for those wanting it bad enough (assuming there isn't a free alternative of course). regards, Tim -- tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
and perhaps you're missing some of the subtlety of david's point: if mplayer did not support non-free codecs, some (many) people wouldn't even consider giving GNU/Linux a try. This is exactly what I mentioned in my previous message. The mplayer approach sacrifices the appreciation of freedom to make today's free software more popular. In the short term, the results are good. In the long term, it is harmful, because it teaches people to aim for popularity rather than freedom. ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
The difference between Richard's and your perspective is that your approach is possibly focusing more on the usability issues and allowing users to benefit from a free platform while still being able to access proprietary content as easily as users of closed proprietary systems. I think Richard's perspective would be that this has the danger of giving up some of our freedoms without really realising what we may be sacrificing in the long term for a short term gain (i.e. access to the proprietary content). Richar's perspective is likely that if you believe your freedom is important enough, you will sacrifice short term access to the content in favor of protecting your long-term freedom. You have it exactly right. ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
yes, i realise that. the question in the end is what is the best strategy. making some compromises along the way to enhance the spread of one's ideas, or sticking strictly to one's ideals, even if that means that your message won't be heard by as many people. It is sensible to make compromises to enhance the spread of our ideas. The issue here is about other compromises that distort the ideas instead. Our message is that non-free software is unjust and illegitimate. But our actions speak too. If we treat non-free software as legitimate, that becomes a part of our message. Then it isn't the right message any more. Consider for instance "open source", started in 1998 as a way of talking about free software while not aiming ethical criticism at non-free software. Some of the people who started open source sought to bring the free software message to more people, by presenting it in a different way. Their manner of presentation was to take the easier course, not confronting the central ethical issue. They made the usual arguments that "to change the world, you have to be big." They thought they could present the same issue to more people using their presentation. Their actions did bring a message to a lot more people, but it wasn't the free software movement's message. It had changed into a message of "it's ok for you to use any non-free software if you want to." What they considered a mere change in presentation of the message had gutted its heart and soul. In a world where proprietary software is widely used, it is easy to drift into treating it as normal and legitimate. In many situations, that is the easiest way out. But it is also disastrous, because it would enfeeble our message to the point were it becomes useless. We have to put limits on this, and I've chosen GNU Project policies to do so. I am not sure if these limits are in the right place. I sometimes worry that they are too permissive, and that our message is already weakened by our support for widely used non-free operating systems. However, we are at least trying to confront this problem. We will not neglect it, because we know what that leads to. There is another reason to be skeptical of your advice: you disagree with the message you are trying to help us present. I am sure you are sincere in trying to think about it from our point of view, but your real views will have an effect. You're not the first person to have offered that advice. I've probably heard it dozens of times. And often it seems to come from people that don't really want what we are aiming for. ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
> It seems that EMMS is a GNU package--a separate one. > I will look at the situation with EMMS and mplayer. What do you mean by "situation"? It means, the relevant facts. I don't want to reach a premature conclusion. Which means that EMMS tries mpg321 (for mp3s), ogg123 (for ogg vorbis) and then mplayer (for pretty much everything else). EMMS does not recommend the use of mplayer. Does the simple fact of allowing users to use mplayer means "encouraging"? No. There is a difference between invoking mplayer if it is installed, and recommending it. This suggests that there is no real problem regarding EMMS. ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
The fact a piece of free software allows you to use non-free software/codecs in itself is not an issue. Rather its the extent to which it facilitates doing so that is of concern. the FSF isn't so ideological as to try and ban the use of free software - if they were, you wouldn't have distributions like Red Hat or companies like Oracle doing a GNu Linux distribution and the ability to run non-free packages. Rather, they don't want to implicitly or explicitly encourage the use of non-free software and they want people to be aware they are using non-free softtware when they do. You have stated it very well. ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
[Followup-To: set to gnu.misc.discuss] Tim X wrote: > Agreed, so I will refraim from further posts and will restrict my response to > responding to the points you raise (and not bring in any new ones). since you write a few things that i would like to respond to, i set the Followup-To: to gnu.misc.discuss. (someone suggested in a private mail that that would be a better place.] > I agree that compromise is an important part of making change. However, I'm > not > convinced that compromising the core/fundamental principals is the right way > to > go because I suspect that once you do, you won't be able to go back later, > despite any justification or statement to the contrary that is made initially. that's a valid point, i admit. >> that, however, is a simplistic presentation of the argument. (i admit, >> though, i wasn't very explicit about it myself.) schematically, the >> argument is this: the more people that use free software, the louder the >> message behind it; the louder the message, the more people hear it; the >> more people hear it, the more people may be convinced by it; the more >> people convinced by it, the bigger the social pressure on content providers >> and software makers to use free licenses. >> > But that last part is my point of concern. Why would there be greater pressure > on content providers if they know people can access and do access their > content > anyway? this argument assumes consumers preferences have a lot of influence on > suppliers - while I don't deny there is some influence, I'm not convinced it > would be sufficient enough for the suppliers to change. What really changes > suppliers is when they feel they are losing customers or where there is a > market they are not reaching. If they know free software supporters are able > to > access and do access their product, the noise they make about formats is more > likely just seen as moaning - its only when it really affects sales they take > notice. i agree that most content providers would only be convinced by dropping sales. (a few may be convinced by the philosophical argument, but i doubt that will be a substantial part.) my argument is based on the assumption (and it really isn't much more than an assumption) that a larger install base of open source and free software spreads the message further, and may bring more consumers to the point where they think "hmm, i don't like this non-free crap anymore, they can keep it. from now on, i'll only buy stuff that adheres to certain principles of freedom." people that might've come to use GNU/Linux not so much for philosophical reasons, but because it's free as in beer, or because it's not Microsoft, or for some other reason. such people may not have switched if they aren't able to use things like flash, view certain movie types, use their whizz-bang graphics card, etc. > The FSF doesn't do that unless you have benefited from the use of GPL'd > software in your efforts - in which case, I think it is perfectly > resonable because you chose to use the GPL's software in the first > place. The FSF encourages people to use a free license, but they don't > force you to unless you have used free software to create your own > software. well, i was talking about the hypothetical situation in which all software in the world is licensed under the GPL. in such a situation, a developer *is* forced to use the GPL for his own software, or either reinvent all the wheels needed to make his software run, including libraries and OS, which is not a practical possibility. given that it is the stated goal of the FSF to create a world in which all software is free, and given that "free" is defined by the FSF in terms of the GPL, it follows logically that the ultimate goal of the FSF is to create a world in which software developers are forced -- in practice -- to use the GPL. of course the FSF is not gonna put a gun to anyone's head and tell them to use the GPL. (i have no idea how they would feel about legistalation that mandates the use of the GPL, though. personally, i'd be dead against it.) i will never dispute anyone's *right* to use the GPL for his software. i can understand the sentiment that you'd want people who use your software to build software themselves to give their users the same rights that you give yours. but although i understand the sentiment, i personally subscribe to it only in a very limited way. if i were the developer/maintainer of some library that i distribute under a free license, i would *not* feel that people who build software that uses that library have any kind of moral obligation to release their own software as free software. of course, the existence of this library would have saved them much work, but at the same time they invested a lot of work themselves, and they have the right to decide for themselves how they distribute the fruits of their work. > Now this is a very important issue and I think one which people tend not to > fully understand. The
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
[Followup-To: set to gnu.misc.discuss] Richard Stallman wrote: > Consider for instance "open source", started in 1998 as a way of > talking about free software while not aiming ethical criticism at > non-free software. Some of the people who started open source sought > to bring the free software message to more people, by presenting it in > a different way. Their manner of presentation was to take the easier > course, not confronting the central ethical issue. They made the > usual arguments that "to change the world, you have to be big." They > thought they could present the same issue to more people using their > presentation. > > Their actions did bring a message to a lot more people, but it wasn't > the free software movement's message. It had changed into a message > of "it's ok for you to use any non-free software if you want to." > What they considered a mere change in presentation of the message had > gutted its heart and soul. i'm not familiar enough with the start of the open source movement, but the way i've always understood it is that those who started it did not have the goal of bringing the message of free software to the larger public, but rather the message of open source (which, as you probably know better than anyone, is not the same thing). > There is another reason to be skeptical of your advice: you disagree > with the message you are trying to help us present. I am sure you are > sincere in trying to think about it from our point of view, but your > real views will have an effect. this may of course be the case. perhaps i should stress that my advice, as you put it, was mainly intended as a theoretical exercise, an attempt at understanding the issues better myself, and at explaining them to Tim (who, as it turned out, understood them more than well enough already...) -- Joost Kremers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht EN:SiS(9) ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > No. There is a difference between invoking mplayer if it is > installed, and recommending it. > > This suggests that there is no real problem regarding EMMS. Ok, I'm glad to hear that :) Regards, -- Lucas ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
i'm not familiar enough with the start of the open source movement, but the way i've always understood it is that those who started it did not have the goal of bringing the message of free software to the larger public, but rather the message of open source (which, as you probably know better than anyone, is not the same thing). Some of them did have that different goal; others thought of it as a "marketing campaign for free software". It turned out to be the former. ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Our message is that non-free software is unjust and illegitimate. Hi Richard, I'm an Oracle professional. I don't see any free software close to as good as their database software. Its a fairly easy argument to make that if all software were free, Oracle wouldn't be in business, therefore nobody would be able to use a database as good as Oracle's is today. Isn't it a bit of an illegitimate charter to try and get people to not use the best software available just because it does not have the "freedoms" GNU expouses? If GNU got it way, all the world, in some cases, would have to be subjected to substandard software just because all of software had to be free. In some cases, the world would have to go without their software needs being fulfilled because there were no free software to support those needs, at all. My argument for free software has always been how great the software is that is free. For example, I can't praise Emacs enough amongst my colleagues. But, at the same time, I've never argued that all software should be free. That seems unfair to those using commercial software that is better than the free alternatives. -- Galen Boyer ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
Galen Boyer wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jul 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Our message is that non-free software is unjust and illegitimate. > > Hi Richard, > > I'm an Oracle professional. I don't see any free software close to as > good as their database software. Its a fairly easy argument to make > that if all software were free, Oracle wouldn't be in business, > therefore nobody would be able to use a database as good as Oracle's is > today. actually, there are two non-sequiturs in your reasoning here. there are businesses making money with free and/or open source software, so there is no a priori reason to assume oracle wouldn't be in business if all software were free. and even if that did happen, it still does not follow that no-one would be able to use a database as good as oracle's: there is no a priori reason to assume that in a world where all software is free, there couldn't be a high-quality database. -- Joost Kremers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht EN:SiS(9) ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
Joost Kremers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > actually, there are two non-sequiturs in your reasoning here. there > are businesses making money with free and/or open source software, > so there is no a priori reason to assume oracle wouldn't be in > business if all software were free. > > and even if that did happen, it still does not follow that no-one > would be able to use a database as good as oracle's: there is no a > priori reason to assume that in a world where all software is free, > there couldn't be a high-quality database. Agree, thanks for putting it so clearly! Who knows what would happen if Oracle did not exist, maybe some of their developers, with a knack for doing database applications, would work on free software... /Mathias ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'm an Oracle professional. I don't see any free software close > to as good as their database software. > > By using Oracle, you're giving up your freedom. It may be convenient, > or even profitable, but it isn't right. > > Its a fairly easy argument to make that if all software were > free, Oracle wouldn't be in business, therefore nobody would be > able to use a database as good as Oracle's is today. > > Someone else pointed out that you can't be sure of that conclusion. > In that other world What other world? Today, as we speak, in the world we are living in right now, GNU software is being produced much better than its commercial equivalents. That does not mean all software produced under GNU license is better than their commercial equivalents. > , users could have made other arrangements to develop a free data base > that is as good or better. The lack of today's easy-way-out could > have motivated them to do so. They are not doing so with database software. What you are saying is hypothetical. Just because there are examples of it elsewhere does not mean the same motivations exist in the database industry. You cannot project some success on all situations. Just look at the success of free software today. If free software could actually support such an undertaking of a database to rival Oracle's it would have. Instead, the free software model has failed in the database industry and the commercial vendors have won in that arena. > That is not inevitable. Perhaps there would not be such a powerful > data base system. If so, so what? Well, people could easily say, "You have your license on your software and you have your freedom. So what? Why should I care about you having achieved your freedom? We don't care about your freedom and plan on buying our software and locking ourselves into a licensing model. " > Freedom is more important than technical progress. Freedom of what? Someone having the freedom of choice and agreeing to a licensing structure. Someone having the freedom of choice and agreeing to not have access to the source? What is so wrong with somebody not having to subject themselves to the self motivation and discipline it takes to commit to free software? Just because a group believes it should be free does not make it fair to those that don't care or want to know about their freedom. > In that world, I would tell those users, "If you care enough about > having a more powerful data base system, get together and fund > improvements in free data bases. Or, if you don't think it's really > so important, then don't." > > My argument for free software has always been how great the > software is that is free. > > That's a side issue. The argument for free software is that we must > have freedom. In some areas, free software is technically better than > proprietary software, but not always. However, free software is > always ethically better, and that is what really matters anyway. There are plenty of people who pay for cable service instead of funding their own cable lines, yet, your argument could be turned on them and be stated, "If you really think media is important, get together and fund the directors, producers and actors. We hear at the GNU free media foundation believe free media is ethically better than commercial media." -- Galen Boyer ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
On 26 Jul 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Galen Boyer wrote: >> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> Our message is that non-free software is unjust and illegitimate. >> >> Hi Richard, >> >> I'm an Oracle professional. I don't see any free software close to >> as good as their database software. Its a fairly easy argument to >> make that if all software were free, Oracle wouldn't be in business, >> therefore nobody would be able to use a database as good as Oracle's >> is today. > > actually, there are two non-sequiturs in your reasoning here. there > are businesses making money with free and/or open source software, so > there is no a priori reason to assume oracle wouldn't be in business > if all software were free. But you are talking in hypotheticals. There is currently no database software that is free that is anywhere close to as good as the software from Oracle. The existence of commercial does not preclude the loss of free software. On the other hand, it is precisely the commercial software that GNU software is beating hands down. But, the GNU organization is not producing software that is better than all commercial versions of software. > and even if that did happen, it still does not follow that no-one > would be able to use a database as good as oracle's: there is no a > priori reason to assume that in a world where all software is free, > there couldn't be a high-quality database. But there is none today, so your argument has no weight. -- Galen Boyer ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
I'm an Oracle professional. I don't see any free software close to as good as their database software. By using Oracle, you're giving up your freedom. It may be convenient, or even profitable, but it isn't right. Its a fairly easy argument to make that if all software were free, Oracle wouldn't be in business, therefore nobody would be able to use a database as good as Oracle's is today. Someone else pointed out that you can't be sure of that conclusion. In that other world, users could have made other arrangements to develop a free data base that is as good or better. The lack of today's easy-way-out could have motivated them to do so. That is not inevitable. Perhaps there would not be such a powerful data base system. If so, so what? Freedom is more important than technical progress. In that world, I would tell those users, "If you care enough about having a more powerful data base system, get together and fund improvements in free data bases. Or, if you don't think it's really so important, then don't." My argument for free software has always been how great the software is that is free. That's a side issue. The argument for free software is that we must have freedom. In some areas, free software is technically better than proprietary software, but not always. However, free software is always ethically better, and that is what really matters anyway. ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
Richard Stallman wrote: > By using Oracle, you're giving up your freedom. It may be convenient, > or even profitable, but it isn't right. that, i believe, is a debatable issue. we all believe in the freedom of speech, but yet society accepts the fact that this right is restricted in certain ways. for example, if i start working for a certain company, i accept that there are limits to what i can publically say about that company. if i publically present that company in a negative way, it would generally be considered acceptable if my employer were to fire me. now, one might argue that it is therefore immoral to enter into an employer-employee relationship. however, such relationships are inevitable in our society (and generally considered to be more moral than one alternative, slavery.) my point is, giving up certain freedoms in a limited manner may be a valid choice from a pragmatic point of view. and that is how i tend to see proprietary software: as a valid choice that can be made on practical grounds. i agree that in principle, unfreeness is not good, and should be restricted as much as possible. therefore mechanisms should be in place to ensure that the unfreeness doesn't spread beyond a certain level of (practical) acceptability. for example, no-one should be forced to use proprietary software. (again, the employer-employee-relationship can, in my view, be an exception to this rule.) this means, for example, that data storage and data transfer should be handled with unpatented, open standards for data formats and communications protocols, so that it is possible to develop free software that understands these formats and protocols. only in this way can it be prevented that someone is not *forced* to use, say, MS-Word to write and submit a job application. but the right to choose to use MS-Word (and thereby by his own choice give up some of the freedoms that he is entitled to), should not be taken away. -- Joost Kremers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht EN:SiS(9) ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
Galen Boyer wrote: > On 26 Jul 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > But you are talking in hypotheticals. so are you. > There is currently no database > software that is free that is anywhere close to as good as the software > from Oracle. since i'm not a database expert, i'll take your word on that. my point is that if all software were to be free in the FSF sense, there would *still* be a need for a database of the same quality as oracle's, and the sheer existence of that need would mean it probably will get developed. as free software, probably, because a world with only free software would make it very impractical to do anything else. >> and even if that did happen, it still does not follow that no-one >> would be able to use a database as good as oracle's: there is no a >> priori reason to assume that in a world where all software is free, >> there couldn't be a high-quality database. > > But there is none today, so your argument has no weight. my argument doesn't depend on whether such software exists today or not. -- Joost Kremers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht EN:SiS(9) ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
> Someone else pointed out that you can't be sure of that conclusion. > In that other world What other world? The hypothetical world in which proprietary software does not exist and therefore the company Oracle with its actual business model does not exist either. Someone else asserted that in this hypothetical world there would be no data base equally good. I and another explained how that assumption is not valid. In that hypothetical world, there might or might not be an equally good free data base. There is no need to go further down that tangent. > , users could have made other arrangements to develop a free data base > that is as good or better. The lack of today's easy-way-out could > have motivated them to do so. They are not doing so with database software. What you are saying is hypothetical. It is about a hypothetical alternate world, so of course it is hypothetical. ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
> Someone else pointed out that you can't be sure of that conclusion. > In that other world What other world? The hypothetical world in which proprietary software does not exist and therefore the company Oracle with its actual business model does not exist either. Someone else asserted that in this hypothetical world there would be no data base equally good. I and another explained how that assumption is not valid. In that hypothetical world, there might or might not be an equally good free data base. Unless you believe you can prove positive statements about that hypothetical world, there is no need to go further down that tangent. > , users could have made other arrangements to develop a free data base > that is as good or better. The lack of today's easy-way-out could > have motivated them to do so. They are not doing so with database software. What you are saying is hypothetical. Whatever we say about a hypothetical alternate world is inevitably hypothetical ;-). Well, people could easily say, "You have your license on your software and you have your freedom. So what? Why should I care about you having achieved your freedom? We don't care about your freedom and plan on buying our software and locking ourselves into a licensing model. " People exist who do say that. They are people who do not value their freedom. Their existence is what makes the GNU project necessary, and what makes this discussion necessary. We must be careful not to drift into thoughtlessly "helping" them get what they want. Freedom of what? Someone having the freedom of choice and agreeing to a licensing structure. The "freedom" to subject oneself to someone else's dominion is not really freedom. Calling it that is an abuse of language. Our mission is to give users freedom in using software. Since there are fools who do not appreciate freedom and are willing to surrender it, achieving our mission entails refusing to do what they ask us to do. They have a right to their opinions, but we don't heed their opinions. ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
There are plenty of people who pay for cable service instead of funding their own cable lines, yet, your argument could be turned on them and be stated, Perhaps you have misunderstood what our arguments are. Cables and software are very different. You can copy software with your computer, but you can't copy cables with it. You can also edit software with your computer, but you can't edit cables. Our arguments about the freedom to copy and change software are based on the nature of what can be done with software. They don't apply to cables at all. ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
Galen Boyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Someone else pointed out that you can't be sure of that conclusion. In that other world What other world? Today, as we speak, in the world we are living in right now You mentioned it yourself in your first post: "Its a fairly easy argument to make that if all software were free..." That's the "other world". They are not doing so with database software. In the other world they might. What you are saying is hypothetical. Yes, and so is this other world, which we don't know squat about. Just because there are examples of it elsewhere does not mean the same motivations exist in the database industry. We cannot know if that is true or not. However, I would guess that in that other world there would be enough incentive to do produce a RDBMS on par with Oracle, or that would be good enough for people's needs. If free software could actually support such an undertaking of a database to rival Oracle's it would have. If the incentive existed, why shouldn't it be able to do that? Instead, the free software model has failed in the database industry and the commercial vendors have won in that arena. Come on, are you deliberately trolling here? Have you never heard of programs such as MySQL and PostgreSQL? Before you argue that those systems cannot compare with Oracle or not (I'm not saying either), let me say that I have worked with Oracle systems since 1996 (as DBA, and as developer of Forms, Reports, PL/SQL etc) and know what it can do, how "rich" it is on features. But that's not the point. The point is that saying that "the free software model has *failed* in the database industry" is a bit uninformed, don't you think? There are plenty of people who pay for cable service instead of funding their own cable lines, yet, your argument could be turned on them and be stated, "If you really think media is important, get together and fund the directors, producers and actors. We hear at the GNU free media foundation believe free media is ethically better than commercial media." I think you should surf over to fsf.org and read about what FSF and the GNU-community stands for and what is meant by free software, you clearly seem to have missed the point, at least considering the attempted joke above. Peace, Mathias ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
Re: [OT] Re: realplay.el interface with Real Player v. 1879
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: What you are saying is hypothetical. It is about a hypothetical alternate world, so of course it is hypothetical. Should we maybe move this to alt.talk.hypothetical [1]? :) /Mathias --- [1] http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.hypothetical/topics?lnk=srg ___ gnu-emacs-sources mailing list gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
