[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html rms...
|
From: |
rsiddharth |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html rms... |
|
Date: |
Tue, 22 Nov 2016 00:58:41 +0000 (UTC) |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: rsiddharth <rsd> 16/11/22 00:58:41
Modified files:
philosophy : rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html
rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt
Log message:
[#1166013] Fix typos. Thanks Ineiev.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.7&r2=1.8
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=1.2
Patches:
Index: rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html,v
retrieving revision 1.7
retrieving revision 1.8
diff -u -b -r1.7 -r1.8
--- rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html 18 Nov 2016 06:31:39 -0000 1.7
+++ rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html 22 Nov 2016 00:58:41 -0000 1.8
@@ -447,7 +447,7 @@
<p>So I had to work out the details of distribution. Of course, I put
a copy in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people
-who were on the net They could then just pull over a tar file, but a
+who were on the net. They could then just pull over a tar file, but a
lot of programmers then even were not on the net in 1985. They were
sending me emails saying “How can I get a copy?” I had to
decide what I would answer them. Well, I could have said, I want to
@@ -458,7 +458,7 @@
But I had no job. In fact, I've never had a job since quitting MIT in
January 1984. So, I was looking for some way I could make money
through my work on free software, and therefore I started a free
-software business. I announced, “Send me $150 dollars, and I'll
+software business. I announced, “Send me $150, and I'll
mail you a tape of Emacs.” And the orders began dribbling in.
By the middle of the year they were trickling in.</p>
@@ -473,8 +473,7 @@
won't be able to do what's really important to you.</p>
<p>So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, “What do you
-mean it's free software if it costs $150
-dollars?” <i>[Laughter]</i> Well, the reason they asked this was
+mean it's free software if it costs $150?” <i>[Laughter]</i> Well, the
reason they asked this was
that they were confused by the multiple meanings of the English word
“free”. One meaning refers to price, and another meaning
refers to freedom. When I speak of free software, I'm referring to
@@ -693,7 +692,7 @@
<p>Eventually, people noted this phenomenon. You see, in the 1980's a
lot of us thought that maybe free software wouldn't be as good as the
-non-free software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay
+nonfree software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay
people. And, of course, people like me, who value freedom and
community said, “Well, we'll use the free software
anyway.” It's worth making a little sacrifice in some mere
@@ -831,7 +830,7 @@
<p>So, why do I define it in terms of whether it's free software for
<em>you</em>? The reason is that sometimes the same program can be
-free software for some people, and non-free for others. Now, that
+free software for some people, and nonfree for others. Now, that
might seem like a paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example
to show you how it happens. A very big example — maybe the
biggest ever — of this problem was the X Window System which was
@@ -866,7 +865,7 @@
cooperation, to permit people to cooperate. Remember, never force
anyone to cooperate with any other person, but make sure that
everybody's allowed to cooperate, everyone has the freedom to do so,
-if he or she wishes. If millions of people were running non-free
+if he or she wishes. If millions of people were running nonfree
versions of GNU, that wouldn't be success at all. The whole thing
would have been perverted into nothing like the goal.</p>
@@ -905,7 +904,7 @@
<p>There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of
freedom. And they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done,
-and use it to get a head start in distributing a non-free program and
+and use it to get a head start in distributing a nonfree program and
tempting people to give up their freedom. And the result would be
— you know, if we let people do that — that we would be
developing these free programs, and we'd constantly have to compete
@@ -919,7 +918,7 @@
do that. I, personally, would rather not do it at all.</p>
<p>But both of these groups of people — both the ones like me
-who say, “I don't want to help that non-free program to get a
+who say, “I don't want to help that nonfree program to get a
foothold in our community” and the ones that say, “Sure,
I'd work for them, but then they better pay me” — both of
us have a good reason to use the GNU General Public License. Because
@@ -931,14 +930,14 @@
software — license-wise. There are the programs that are
copylefted so that the license defends the freedom of the software for
every user. And there are the non-copylefted programs for which
-non-free versions are allowed. Somebody <em>can</em> take those
+nonfree versions are allowed. Somebody <em>can</em> take those
programs and strip off the freedom. You may get that program in a
-non-free version.</p>
+nonfree version.</p>
-<p>And that problem exists today. There are still non-free versions
+<p>And that problem exists today. There are still nonfree versions
of X Windows being used on our free operating systems. There is even
hardware — which is not really supported — except by a
-non-free version of X Windows. And that's a major problem in our
+nonfree version of X Windows. And that's a major problem in our
community. Nonetheless, I wouldn't say that X Windows is a bad thing,
you know. I'd say that the developers did not do the best possible
thing that they could have done. But they <em>did</em> release a lot
@@ -1097,7 +1096,7 @@
didn't get done by somebody else, we did it. Because we knew that we
wouldn't have a complete system without it. And even if it was
totally boring and unromantic, like <code>tar</code>
-or <code>mv</code>. <i>[Laughter]</i> We did it. Or ld, you know
+or <code>mv</code>. <i>[Laughter]</i> We did it. Or <code>ld</code>, you know
there's nothing very exciting in <code>ld</code> — but I wrote
one. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I did make efforts to have it do a minimal
amount of disk I/O so that it would be faster and handle bigger
@@ -1188,7 +1187,7 @@
succeed more or less, which is really a fairly minor question for
society. And, if you look at the companies that package the GNU/Linux
system for people to use, well, most of them call it Linux. And they
-<em>all</em> add non-free software to it.</p>
+<em>all</em> add nonfree software to it.</p>
<p>See, the GNU GPL says that if you take code, and some code out of a
GPL-covered program, and add some more code to make a bigger program,
@@ -1204,17 +1203,17 @@
are two separate programs that communicate with each other at arm's
length — like by sending messages to each other — then,
they're legally separate, in general. So, these companies, by adding
-non-free software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically
+nonfree software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically
and politically, a very bad idea. They're telling the users,
-“It is OK to use non-free software. We're even putting it on
+“It is OK to use nonfree software. We're even putting it on
this as a bonus.”</p>
<p>If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system,
most of them have a title like “Linux-something or other”.
So they're calling the system Linux most of the time. And they're
-filled with ads for non-free software that you could run on top of the
+filled with ads for nonfree software that you could run on top of the
GNU/Linux system. Now those ads have a common message. They say:
-Non-free Software Is Good For You. It's So Good That You Might Even
+Nonfree Software Is Good For You. It's So Good That You Might Even
<em>Pay</em> To Get It. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
<p>And they call these things “value-added packages”,
@@ -1229,10 +1228,10 @@
<p>And then if you look at the trade shows — about the use of
the, dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call
themselves “Linux” shows. And they're filled with booths
-exhibiting non-free software, essentially putting the seal of approval
-on the non-free software. So, almost everywhere you look in our
-community, the institutions are endorsing the non-free software,
-totalling negating the idea of freedom that GNU was developed for.
+exhibiting nonfree software, essentially putting the seal of approval
+on the nonfree software. So, almost everywhere you look in our
+community, the institutions are endorsing the nonfree software,
+totally negating the idea of freedom that GNU was developed for.
And the only place that people are likely to come across the idea of
freedom is in connection with GNU, and in connection with free
software, the term, free software. So this is why I ask you: please
@@ -1401,7 +1400,7 @@
run. And those things would not, those records would not be lost,
would not be inaccessible. They were even complaining about this on
NPR recently in citing free software as a solution. And so, in
-effect, by using a non-free program to store your own data, you are
+effect, by using a nonfree program to store your own data, you are
putting your head in a noose.</p>
<p>So, I've talked about how free software affects most business. But
@@ -1456,7 +1455,7 @@
could have worked for them, if I had needed to do that. Since I
didn't need to, I felt it was good for the movement if I remained
independent of any one company. That way, I could say good and bad
-things about the various free software and non-free software
+things about the various free software and nonfree software
companies, without a conflict of interest. I felt that I could serve
the movement more. But, if I had needed that to make a living, sure,
I would have worked for them. It's an ethical business to be in. No
@@ -1477,7 +1476,7 @@
one of the reasons it's important for the world to switch to free
software. And it also belies what Microsoft says when they say the
GNU GPL is bad, because it makes it harder for them to raise capital
-to develop non-free software and take our free software and put our
+to develop nonfree software and take our free software and put our
code into their programs that they won't share with us. Basically, we
don't need to have them raising capital that way. We'll get the job
done anyway. We are getting the job done.</p>
@@ -1586,7 +1585,7 @@
program, so it's all tied together. That's their plan.</p>
<p>Now, the interesting thing is that selling those services doesn't
-raise the ethical issue of free software or non-free software. It
+raise the ethical issue of free software or nonfree software. It
might be perfectly fine for them to have the business for those
businesses selling those services over the net to exist. However,
what Microsoft is planning to do is to use them to achieve an even
@@ -1757,7 +1756,7 @@
public information in proprietary formats?</p>
<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, it shouldn't be. I mean, the
-government should never require citizens to use a non-free program to
+government should never require citizens to use a nonfree program to
access, to communicate with the government in any way, in either
direction.</p>
@@ -1786,7 +1785,7 @@
system, and now, if you go to the store, and you can find versions of
GNU/Linux there, most of them are called Linux, and they're not free.
Oh, well, part of them is. But then, there's Netscape Navigator, and
-maybe other non-free programs as well. So, it's very hard to actually
+maybe other nonfree programs as well. So, it's very hard to actually
find a free system, unless you know what you're doing. Or, of course,
you can not install Netscape Navigator.</p>
@@ -1864,7 +1863,7 @@
oversimplification.</p>
<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk a little bit more about the
-thinking that went into the general public license?</p>
+thinking that went into the General Public License?</p>
<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, here's the — I'm sorry, I'm
answering his question now. <i>[Laughter]</i></p>
@@ -1894,9 +1893,9 @@
copyleft, you are essentially saying: <i>[speaking meekly]</i>
“Take my code. Do what you want. I don't say no.” So,
anybody can come along and say: <i>[speaking very firmly]</i>
-“Ah, I want to make a non-free version of this. I'll just take
+“Ah, I want to make a nonfree version of this. I'll just take
it.” And, then, of course, they probably make some improvements,
-those non-free versions might appeal to users, and replace the free
+those nonfree versions might appeal to users, and replace the free
versions. And then, what have you accomplished? You've only made a
donation to some proprietary software project.</p>
@@ -1970,7 +1969,7 @@
of free software. It's good for us to cooperate with them.</p>
<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Except, considering X, in particular,
-about two years ago, the X Consortium that was far into the non-free
+about two years ago, the X Consortium that was far into the nonfree
open source…</p>
<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually it <em>wasn't</em> open
@@ -2032,7 +2031,7 @@
<p>But yes, I think all published software should be free software.
And remember, when it's not free software, that's because of
government intervention. The government is intervening to make it
-non-free. The government is creating special legal powers to hand out
+nonfree. The government is creating special legal powers to hand out
to the owners of the programs, so that they can have the police stop
us from using the programs in certain ways. So I would certainly like
to end that. </p>
@@ -2118,7 +2117,7 @@
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2016/11/18 06:31:39 $
+$Date: 2016/11/22 00:58:41 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -b -r1.1 -r1.2
--- rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt 15 Sep 2015 05:45:31 -0000 1.1
+++ rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt 22 Nov 2016 00:58:41 -0000 1.2
@@ -403,7 +403,7 @@
So I had to work out the details of distribution. Of course, I put a copy
in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people who were on
-the net They could then just pull over a tar file, but a lot of
+the net. They could then just pull over a tar file, but a lot of
programmers then even were not on the net in 1985. They were sending me
emails saying "How can I get a copy?" I had to decide what I would
answer them. Well, I could have said, I want to spend my time writing
@@ -414,7 +414,7 @@
never had a job since quitting MIT in January 1984. So, I was looking
for some way I could make money through my work on free software,
and therefore I started a free software business. I announced, "Send me
-$150 dollars, and I'll mail you a tape of Emacs." And the orders began
+$150, and I'll mail you a tape of Emacs." And the orders began
dribbling in. By the middle of the year they were trickling in.
I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month. And, if necessary, I could have
@@ -428,7 +428,7 @@
important to you.
So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, "What do you mean it's
-free software if it costs $150 dollars?" [Laughter] Well, the reason
+free software if it costs $150?" [Laughter] Well, the reason
they asked this was that they were confused by the multiple
meanings of the English word "free". One meaning refers to price,
and another meaning refers to freedom. When I speak of free software,
@@ -854,7 +854,7 @@
license defends the freedom of the software for every user. And there are
the non-copylefted programs for which nonfree versions are allowed.
Somebody *can* take those programs and strip off the freedom. You may get
-that program in a non-free version.
+that program in a nonfree version.
And that problem exists today. There are still nonfree versions of X Windows
being used on our free operating systems. There is even hardware --
@@ -1127,7 +1127,7 @@
"Linux" shows. And they're filled with booths exhibiting nonfree
software, essentially putting the seal of approval on the nonfree
software. So, almost everywhere you look in our community, the
-institutions are endorsing the nonfree software, totalling negating
+institutions are endorsing the nonfree software, totally negating
the idea of freedom that GNU was developed for. And the only place that
people are likely to come across the idea of freedom is in connection with
GNU, and in connection with free software, the term, free software. So
@@ -1715,7 +1715,7 @@
billion dollars from IBM. [Laughter] That's oversimplification.
QUESTION: Can you talk a little bit more about the thinking that went into
-the general public license?
+the General Public License?
STALLMAN: Well, here's the -- I'm sorry, I'm answering his question now.
[Laughter]
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html rms...,
rsiddharth <=