[pp.int.general] free software video streaming

[David van Deijk]

Richard Stallman schreef op 18.02.2013 00:24:
> So the question boils down to supporting nonfree platforms, rather 
> than
>     forcing nonfree platforms. Which is perfectly legitimate to 
> protest in
>     itself. But if it is about supporting/using nonfree, where do you 
> draw
>     the line? At the software running on the camera? Will you give 
> the
>     speech
>     in a building that has proprietary software on its firealarm?
>
> If there is any uncertainty about this, it did not come from me.

So please clear this up for me. I heard something about you refusing
to wear medical equipment inside your body if it ran nonfree software.
A pacemaker was the example.
Please tell me the person that told me this is a troll. That story is
the only reason i was mentioning the camera and the firealarm. If the
pacemaker story was a lie, i was indeed strawmanning. please kindly
accept my apologies in that case. because the software on the
pacemake/camera/firealarm could just as well have been a logical 
circuit.

Your argumentation seems to be about "not wanting to normalise
nonfree/wanting to normalise free". But it feels like you are
going in the direction of ethical fallacy. Adding shackles to
a chain.
You only agree to give a speech

1. you yourself wont be required to use nonfree software
2. you wont have to require anybody to use nonfree software
3. the organizer wont require anybody to use nonfree software
4. the organizers only use services (for your speech) that
wont require anybody to use nonfree software

So if we add one shackle to the chain, the organisers can
(in regards to your speech) only use services that themselves
only use services that wont require anybody to use nonfree.
(yes i know that is not what you said, but it would logically
be the next step)

We can arbitrarily add shackles, and if the chain gets long enough,
either the world will have to be entirely free, or you wont give
any more speeches (that can be spread)

> My reason for rejecting patented formats is simple.  The patents on
> these formats are a real practical problem because people use those
> formats.  Thus, by promoting those formats with our own actions, we
> push people onto the thorns of the patents.

A nonfree javascript is not a patent.

>
> Pirate Parties share my opposition to computing patents, and 
> therefore
> has a reason to reject those formats as I do.
>
> My reason for rejecting the ways that require the user to run nonfree
> software is that distributing in those ways makes a visible statement
> that nonfree software is a good thing.

Having multiple platforms negates the requirement.

>
> Many Pirate Parties promote free software, and nearly all Pirate
> Parties condemn DRM, which is commonly found in nonfree software.
> They have a reason to reject these formats as I do.

a nonfree javascript is not DRM. I dont understand how you got DRM
into this discussion? where are you going with this? No pirate is
suggesting to spread your speech on a DRM platform?

"If there is any uncertainty about this, it did not come from me."

On another note, how feasible would it be to replace the harmful js 
with
a free js?

>
> See also http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html.

from that page: "Compromises are ruinous if they would work against our 
aims in the long term. That can occur either at the level of ideas or at 
the level of actions."

I respectfully disagree with you on the case of youtube. Not 
compromising here is ruinous because it works against our aims in the 
long term. Its about freeing the world, not freeing the free. Big chunks 
of the world live excusively in the nonfree. Protesting that organisers 
reach out to those people on their own platforms means we will not be 
able to free them, as they never wander into the free by themselves.

On a sidenote:
In the other mail you were talking about how easy it was to embed an 
Ogg in HTML5. Well i had to build a video website for a customer about a 
year ago. I started with Ogg and html5 but i only got it working in one 
browser. worked for weeks on it to get more browsers, but had to switch 
to flash+h264 in the end. got it working in a day. But this was a year 
ago so i cant say with certainty it is still that bad today.

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my emails and i look forward on 
the eventual blogpost about how Al Gore's case differs from yours (or 
why Al Gore is wrong, either would be fine)

Met vriendelijke groeten,
David van Deijk.