Slashdot Mirror
Stallman Does Slides -- and Brevity -- For TEDx
New submitter ciaran2014 writes Richard Stallman's long-format talks are well-known — there are videos going back to 2001 and transcripts dating back to 1986 — but he recently condensed his free software talk down to 14 minutes and set it to hand-drawn slides for TEDxGeneva (video link). He introduces with the four freedoms, as always, and then moves on to spyware, surveillance, non-free drivers, free software in schools, non-free javascript, Service as a Software Substitute and how free software is today necessary for a strong democracy. As usual, the talk is suitable for non-technical audiences.
I'm confused by your confusion. Stallman's been pretty consistent, unambiguous, and what irritates a lot of people about him, uncompromising. Since you mentioned the distros the FSF endorsed, then perhaps comparing them to the ones they don't endorse would help clear your confusion. http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html
For those who want something more useful than webm:
http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video...
A LOT of (embedded) appliances. VxWorks, Cisco, Juniper, McAfee, Check Point, NetApp...
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
A BSD license may as well be proprietary because eventually it will become proprietary if it is of any use at all.
Is a horrendous POS. It is factually wrong. If you can't see or accept that then you really do need to grow up a little, both politically and intellectually.
Ok, so please explain this one.
Take OpenBSD, there's a reason why much of Apple Mac OS X is based upon OpenBSD. Apple needed a new OS, they looked about and saw an already written base operating system with a nice licensing agreement that states that if you make any modifications to the source code you are under no legal requirement release said changes back to the community from which the original code came from. That is essentially what the BSD license states.
However, the GPL states that if you make changes to the source code you are legally required to release said changes back to the community.
That's why Apple OS X is largely based upon OpenBSD. Apple can make changes all they want and they can keep those changes to themselves and the OpenBSD community doesn't have a legal leg to stand on to prevent that from happening.
What are we being asked to explain? Has Apple somehow robbed the world of the original BSD-licensed software they based their OS on?
Or have they simply said "We'll use this as a starting point, but we decline to release our own code to the rest of the world?"
The worst you can argue is that they're being poor citizens - using a "public" good for themselves without contributing back. If the OpenBSD community cared about "preventing that from happening," well... they probably would've chosen a different license - don't ya think?