stallman's speech
I am a translator!
Really enjoyed this speec the last night - I didn't see it before on minitube so I guess is quite recent..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8mOIAY_Jmw
cheers
Thanks!
Of course if you want all the file options (including WebM) for download, there's http://www.ssyoutube.com/watch?v=U8mOIAY_Jmw
That speech was a bit dull with his Cajun french. He needs to work better in his comedy act to be able to catch others attention. Away from that opinion, I had heard him speak the same stuff with a normal parle and he is good and informative. Comprend Monsieur Barbu!
name at domain wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8mOIAY_Jmw
I hope this is being distributed under the license he usually requests
and in a format that favors Free Software (again, as he usually
requests). YouTube, used in the way most people will use the site, will
use Adobe Flash (nonfree software) and distribute MPEG files
(patent-encumbered video/audio formats). He usually specifically says
that YouTube won't meet the terms for distribution that favor Free
Software and don't require nonfree software to use YouTube in the
typical fashion. I'd be surprised if he didn't point all of this out in
this talk as well.
If this talk is the talk he gave about "A Free Digital Society" you can
find other instances of this talk on http://audio-video.gnu.org/video/
in formats that favor Free Software which are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 license, as he has
been requesting in the start of the talk for some time now.
I am a translator!
dude use minitube
simple as that
sudo apt-get install minitube
yes?
name at domain wrote:
> dude use minitube
> simple as that
I'm aware of how to get to YouTube videos without visiting the site in
the typical fashion. That's not the point.
Such workarounds ignore the speaker's request, the reasons for that
request, and how most people will use YouTube. Most people get a YouTube
link and visit the site by clicking the link. Those users will end up
visiting the site and taking on nonfree Javascript programs, being asked
to install nonfree software (and probably installing it), and needlessly
working with patent-encumbered file formats for which there are formats
that favor Free Software.
I think it would be better for people to upload their videos to their
own websites and/or sites that will help transcode to formats that favor
Free Software such as archive.org. This would abide by the speaker's
request and simultaneously allow us to break dependency on sites that
don't treat users well.
"Those users will end up
visiting the site and taking on nonfree Javascript programs, being asked
to install nonfree software"
Yeah, and those are exactly the users that don't know about the issue and have to be informed about it - precisely the right audience.
It's important that people don't *have to* use non-free software in order to watch the video, and that it's available in an free format, but uploading a video on a non-ethical website which tells people to stop using that website is no problem in my view.
"I think it would be better for people to upload their videos to their
own websites and/or sites that will help transcode to formats that favor
Free Software such as archive.org."
Why not just bury them in the garden?
Do you honestly think anybody who needs to be taught about the issues of non-free software is looking for videos at archive.org?
name at domain wrote:
> Yeah, and those are exactly the users that don't know about the issue
> and have to be informed about it - precisely the right audience.
> It's important that people don't *have to* use non-free software in
> order to watch the video, and that it's available in an free format.
Not having to use nonfree software isn't good enough here. I'll assume
Stallman gave his usual clear and sensible request at the start of his
talk by saying something to the effect of "please don't host this video
on YouTube" along with an explanation of why he does not want copies of
his talks hosted there.
When those who claim to endorse his message don't choose to follow his
request, viewers are naturally confused -- they're watching a copy of
the video hosted on a site he said he didn't want posted there. So if
those who ostensibly favor Free Software can't or won't follow his
justifiable request, nobody else watching that video on YouTube has
reason to take Stallman seriously.
It's important that you behave in a manner consistent with what you
endorse or else you undermine your own endorsement effort. Your own
actions serve as a clear instruction that you can get what you want in
this instance (online video) hosted in a practical way that meets with
your ethics and the speaker's request.
> Why not just bury them in the garden?
> Do you honestly think anybody who needs to be taught about the issues of
> non-free software is looking for videos at archive.org?
I think people will get to the video by receiving a link to that video,
which means one could just as easily link to a copy hosted at
archive.org or hosted on their own website. Either link can easily point
to a copy of the video in a format that favors Free Software instead of
using Google's service. And there's no need to choose just one source
for the video.
You seem to be arguing from convenience; it was more convenient for
someone to upload the video to YouTube, and here you're trying to
justify that choice by saying that's where other users look. Such
argument reinforces the behavior you say is bad which creates confusion.
You can avoid this confusion by behaving in line with what you say
people need to be taught.
People need to be taught that Facebook is a monstrous surveillance
engine. Yet Facebook is quite popular. Facebook would be a far less
monstrous service if it were less popular. But the FSF would seriously
undermine their own work tacitly endorsing Facebook if they chose to
host something there. So instead the FSF publishes
https://www.fsf.org/facebook explaining why "You won't find me on Facebook".
YouTube can and should be avoided. People had to learn to use it and
therefore people can learn to use something else that treats them better
and they can learn why they should not use websites that treat them
badly. If they're not bold enough to do the right thing on their own,
they need examples of good behavior to serve as a model for their own
behavior which means seeing people point to copies of videos in formats
favoring Free Software hosted on sites such as archive.org and many
other individual user's websites. So while you can't control what other
people choose, you can control what you choose and I urge you to not
choose to host videos at YouTube or endorse such videos.
"It's important that you behave in a manner consistent with what you
endorse"
I don't see any reason why it's not perfectly possible to agree on some points of a speech and disagree on others;
I think that it's legit to publish a video on youtube in order to steer people away from youtube - just as legit as writing free software for a proprietary operating system so people can easier make the transition.
On youtube, all kinds of media appear from completely unknown sources. *nobody* is wondering why this video has been uploaded though stallman requests not to do so;
sure it has been uploaded by some random dude who doesn't care.
If they watch it on youtube, chances are good that they understand the message. If they don't watch it at all, chances are zero.
"
You seem to be arguing from convenience"
Clearly not; in this context, this term makes no sense whatsoever.
Talking about convenience would be: "It is easier for me to upload the video on youtube; all the other alternatives make this process less convenient".
What i'm talking about is impact; there's no point in uploading speeches if nobody will ever see them. The goal is to free as many people as possible - did you forget?
"I think people will get to the video by receiving a link to that video"
Well, that's some statement - of course they will get to the video by receiving a link, but how will they GET this link?
On some unpopular sites, they won't at all.
"But the FSF would seriously
undermine their own work tacitly endorsing Facebook if they chose to
host something there."
That's a false analogy: I never proposed that the fsf should create an account on youtube and upload the video officially. And if some guy posts on facebook why it is bad right before leaving, maybe posts some rms quotes as well - I don't see any problem with that.
*That* is the proper analogy.
name at domain wrote:
> I think that it's legit to publish a video on youtube in order to steer
> people away from youtube - just as legit as writing free software for a
> proprietary operating system so people can easier make the transition.
Substituting another program or some other service isn't the same as
running that particular program. But one can watch a video in a variety
of formats and see the same video, one can use different hosting
services for the video data and see the same video. In cases where an
oppressive system is unavoidable (like Stallman faced when first writing
Free Software for the GNU Project), I think using the oppressive system
to obtain liberation is fine to do. But we're not in that situation with
video hosting. There are plenty of hosting and file format options.
With regard to Free Software running on nonfree OSes: I think there's a
need for some good research as to whether Free Software on nonfree OSes
eases a transition to running Free Software on a Free Software OS, keeps
people using a nonfree OS, or something else.
> What i'm talking about is impact; there's no point in uploading speeches
> if nobody will ever see them. The goal is to free as many people as
> possible - did you forget?
Saying "nobody will ever see them" strikes me as exaggeration. There's
no evidence to show that videos hosted outside YouTube will be seen by
nobody. I think the other points you've raised are points I've already
addressed.
"Substituting another program or some other service isn't the same as
running that particular program. But one can watch a video in a variety
of formats and see the same video, one can use different hosting
services for the video data and see the same video. In cases where an
oppressive system is unavoidable (like Stallman faced when first writing
Free Software for the GNU Project), I think using the oppressive system
to obtain liberation is fine to do. "
That was _not at all_ what I was referring to. There are plenty of free software projects out there which don't replace any kind of proprietary software and still are available for proprietary operating systems such as windows. It's new software, providing new functionality, and it's for people who compromise their freedom in order to steer them away from doing so - which is perfectly fine.
You dodged my facebook analogy btw; it made my point perfectly clear;
"With regard to Free Software running on nonfree OSes: I think there's a
need for some good research as to whether Free Software on nonfree OSes
eases a transition to running Free Software on a Free Software OS"
No, there is no need for this kind of research; here in this forum, the majority of 100% free-software users is gathered together and there are plenty of threads about how they switched to free software. Everybody made the transition gradually and started using free software on a partially free system.
"There's
no evidence to show that videos hosted outside YouTube will be seen by
nobody."
No, there is no evidence, but it's plain obvious. I don't know a single person which is not already educated about the issues of non-free software who watches videos on platforms other than youtube or daily motion.
"I think the other points you've raised are points I've already
addressed."
You didn't, but I guess we both agree that the discussion is neither fruitful nor pleasant for us, so maybe we conclude that we disagree.
(wrong place)
I am a translator!
for me gnu means having all the applications and running anything I want using only free software and we are on a trisquel forum
"Most people get a YouTube
link and visit the site by clicking the link."
see, here there's no "most people" but I agree with the fact that it is indeed much better to post free software friendly links like ogg or html5.
;-)
Outstanding video. As always, well worth watching several times. Amazing the amount of info. he can pack into a short time!
I am a translator!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUJtMlEwd6Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ4maOru7Ks
use minitube or any of many free software tools to view these links :)
Great interviews, but both hosts are terrible;
intellectual far inferior to rms.
I actually even prefer the first one because she doesn't pretend to be something she isn't.
Sorry, but can't the second one just shut up for a second and let rms talk?
We already got that she has some degree in politics and thinks she's the big boss, it's so annoying...
I think this host is a little worse than her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFMMXRoSxnA
I am a translator!
jadedctrl - i call him "mr. laugh and don't get it" :)
I saw that a week ago and thought the man is really not getting it..
cheerzzz