Tim Dobson wrote: > ========== > RMS Video: > ========== > > The video of last week's Manchester Free Software, (in collaboration > with the BCS and IET) talk by Richard Stallman has been released, thanks > to Andrew John Hughes. > > You can find a torrent and http mirrors for the video on the Manchester > Free Software Website. > Where possible, please use the torrent. :) > > For more information please visit: > > http://manchester.fsuk.org/blog/2008/05/06/free-software-in-ethics-and-society-richard-stallman-manchester-1st-may/ > > Please forward this to any other lists where you think it might be of > interest. > > ============= > Next Meeting: > ============= > > The next Manchester Free Software Meeting is on the 20th of May at > Manchester Digital Development Agency. > > See you there! > > ================================ > | Manchester Free Software Group | > | http://manchester.fsuk.org | > ================================ > > Thanks for this. I've finally had the time to watch it, I found it very entertaining and interesting. I've never heard a talk by Richard Stallman, he clearly does that sort of thing a lot and has some very well laid out and convincing arguments.
I am interested in particular in the relationship between software freedom, copyright and patenting. There seems to be a problem here in a clash between the rights of the users and the rights of the creators/inventors. I agree that it is right for users to be in control of the software that they own, and that a part of that is the requirement that they should be able to obtain the help of others in getting that control by providing copies of the code both modified and not to allow others to help them modify it to do what they want (if it doesn't already!). However, I am also in favour of credit being given where it's due, and allowing creators/inventors to profit from their work. If someone has put in the time and effort to create or improve something that other people would like to use, surely they should be allowed to profit from it. Now I know free software does not mean "free as in beer", so it is perfectly possible for creators/inventors to profit from their work by charging a fee for it initially. However once it has been bought by one person, who is then free to distribute it and modify it, there is no guarantee that the original creator can obtain anything further. So, in order for the effort to be worthwhile for the original creator and consequently to encourage other people to try and create/invent things that other people want to use/enjoy there has to be some mechanism for them to profit from their work. In his talk Richard mentions several ways that this could be achieved for free software. He mentions the fact that developers could provide support, at cost, for the software, much like canonical do for ubuntu. However this is not rewarding the original work, this is rewarding the additional effort of supporting the software, expended above and beyond the original effort to develop the software in the first place. So copyright and patenting has been developed to ensure that creators/inventors can profit from their work. I agree that this has probably gone too far, in that it is restricting users' freedoms in the case of software. So Richard's solution to ensure people's freedom is to reject the idea of copyright, but that leaves us in a situation that prevents us from being able to ensure that creators get what they deserve. I have no solution for this, I have a dilemma in that I agree in the 4 freedoms Richard defines in his talk, they are based on good fundamental principles, but I also can see that those freedoms could prevent the creators from duly profiting from their work, which I also think is important. I believe that useful work should not go unrewarded, it allows the originator to go on and produce more good work and provides an incentive for others to attempt to produce good work. So, if any of you got this far, what are people's opinions on this? Should I just accept that creators/inventors need to find other ways of earning money and only work on these things as a hobby as Richard seems to suggest? Or should the apparent conflict between the freedoms and my view that the creator should profit from their work cause me to reject some/all of them? Is there a solution I have missed? Is there a reasonable compromise? Tom -- [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.org/UKTeam/
