[pp.int.general] free software video streaming
rms at gnu.org
Tue Feb 19 00:56:44 CET 2013
1. Operating within the scope of content, licensing must be used which
does not place restrictions on accessing, using or distributing the
content if it is to be considered ?open content?.
This is an important distinction to make. However, I suggest
we use a different name, avoiding the words "opem" and "content".
1. Referring to a published work of authorship as "content" disparages
the work. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Content.
Let's call it a "work".
2. The word "open" suggests a different meaning, so it is not the
right word for this. I suggest we call it "freely redistributable".
So the question is whether any given work is freely redistributable or
2. Operating within the scope of media, the audience must be able to
access content without using non-free software to consider the medium
to be ?free?.
I'd suggest a stronger criterion for a free digital format:
* The specs should be published.
* Everyone should be free to implement the format.
Thus, a format is free if it is not secret or patented.
3. ?Open information? is data that functions as completely open and
freely accessible within the scope of both content licensing and
I pretty much agree with you on the substance, but I suggest saying it
differently: a work (not for practical use) is distributed ethically
if (1) it is freely redistributable and (2) its format is free.
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call
More information about the pp.international.general