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.
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.
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
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
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
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]
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
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
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
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
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
Then please have a look at the *long* list of supported codecs by the
free libavcodec. They did a lot for your goals.
Maybe they did -- I don't know. But even if that is true, it is just
one factor in the decision about mplayer. The most important factor
is that we must not act as if
[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
[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
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:51:59 -0400 Richard Stallman wrote:
Does the mplayer site include a list of non-free codecs? Does it say
where to get them? That would encourage people to install them.
Yes.
That's the problem I thought there was.
These people have done a lot for
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
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
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
The non-free codecs that I'm talking about are the ones that are
binary-only (or those that have non-free licenses; but I am not sure
that case occurs). I don't see any ethical problem in distributing
programs that are patented or illegal in certain countries, as long
as
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
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
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
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
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)
Shouldn't this discussion be taking place somewhere else? I thought
this was a sources-only newsgroup.
___
gnu-emacs-sources mailing list
gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-emacs-sources
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
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,
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*
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:20:49 -0400 Richard Stallman wrote:
Well, OK: mplayer supports some proprietary codecs but I don't see how
this encourage it's use.
To encourage their use means to take steps likely to lead more people
to use them. For instance, to publicize their existence
[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
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,
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:41:30 -0400 Richard Stallman wrote:
mplayer does not encourage the use of proprietary codecs.
What are the facts on which you base that conclusion?
For a lot of people it is important that they can watch DVDs or listen
to their favorite radio on the computer (just
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
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
You (the GNU project) already does so with EMMS.
What is EMMS, and how does EMMS relate to mplayer?
It's an Emacs interface to various command line media players. It also
has a lot of features you would expect from a full blown GUI media
player, like playlists,
Many others aim to convince people to migrate to GNU/Linux, often by
forgetting about freedom as a goal. That may be what you are doing
here.
Free software somehow has to interact with the real world,
I am just as aware of that as you are. Where we may disagree is in
the
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 00:25:04 -0400 Richard Stallman wrote:
You (the GNU project) already does so with EMMS.
What is EMMS, and how does EMMS relate to mplayer?
It's an Emacs interface to various command line media players. It also
has a lot of features you would
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 00:25:05 -0400 Richard Stallman wrote:
You have made a series of true statements which don't relate to the
point. I think we are not talking about the same thing.
mplayer does not encourage the use of proprietary codecs.
What are the facts on which
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since RealPlayer is non-free software, not respecting users' freedom,
we don't want to legitimize its use.
RealPlayer is very well known, probably having more users than Emacs.
So it is ok to have a package for using Emacs with RealPlayer; I think
Yes there is the Helix Player which is GPL if I recall properly.
Helix is the top level of RealPlayer. I recall that its license is
something unusual, not the GNU GPL, and I do not recall whether it is
a free license. But I am sure that it only handles the container
level. It has to call
My understanding is that RealPlayer uses secret codecs.
Only reverse-engineering makes it possible to write free
decoders. And I think they change the codecs frequently.
Thus, we need to pressure sites that use RealPlayer format
to stop using it and switch to a public standard format.
One more before I go on holiday ;) This code interface with Real
Player. It need X to run. It interface with emacs-w3m so that you can
listen to radio. You can bind keys to pause, fast forward, rewind
stream.
You can even embed the player in a frame if emacs is compiled with
GTK, I am not using
42 matches
Mail list logo
