[pp.int.general] free software video streaming

[David van Deijk]

Richard Stallman schreef op 19.02.2013 00:55:
> I will refuse to accept implantation of a pacemaker or other medical
> device containing nonfree software that others can change.
>
> However, if the software is buried inside the device and practically
> speaking not modifiable, then it might as well be a circuit, and I
> would not be concerned about it.
This fact about changable makes it something different from
what i have heard, so like i said in my previous mail:
i offer my apologies.



> Maybe those are equivalent issues for you, but I
> see a big difference between them.
I fully agree those are different.

>
> * Identifying my own use of a machine for an hour
> with someone else's use of it.
I dont get how that follows from what i said, see end


> You heard a report of my refusal to permanently use a device with
> replaceable nonfree software.  You distorted that three times and
> pretend that I demand nobody run nonfree programs for an hour near 
> me.

I wrote two emails before you responded to me and you are responding to
the third that is screaming at you that i am asking you to clarify,
clearly marked as not representing your opinion but inquiring about 
your
opinion.

Let me make myself clear. I personally wish all camera's,
firealarms, everything that runs software including websites
or webbrowsers whether changeble or not
would run free software and thus have their sourcecode
available to their customers. For progress' sake

You dont have to be able to program yourself as long as you can
hire someone from the free market to do it for you.

The question is how do we pirates promote that. So we look around to 
see
what means we have to this end. In some areas we have more success than
others, and in some areas progress will contribute more toward personal
freedom than others. To me it is a valid point to raise in which
areas we want to be activist and in which areas we want to be
pragmatists.

You may be the reason for this conversation but in the end this is
a question each pirate must answer for himself.

>
> So you are attacking views that are not mine.
> Why attack first and ask questions later?

If you read the first and second email back you'll see that i
have never claimed any of these were your ideas. I am asking out
aloud: "Where do you draw the line?" and gave some hypotheticals
Since you already gave the speech, the answers to the
hypotheticals are clear. You don't object to the camera nor to
the firealarm. I don't think anybody will have thought
for a single second you actually would/had opposed those.

I informed you what was throwing me off (the pacemaker)
and you clarified (only pacemakers with changeable code)

> If you're not sure where I really stand, you should ask.
> Then at least you will know what to disagree with.

1. Since the topic of this thread was video streaming, do you feel i
have misrepresented your view with regards to youtube?

2. Do the organisers have to request something from the recipients that
they distribute the film of you speech to. (e.g. to not redistribute 
the film
in a nonfree manner)

3. Do you consider every person on this list to be part of the
organisers, since most of us are from the pirateparty, the people
you made the speaking engagement the representatives of the
entire pirateparty, or is it just the few pirates that you spoke
to about distribution?

4. Maxime posed that your stance was in order to not help google
grow/earn extra. My feeling was the nonfree software part was
most important to you.
Are both true?

Hope i did not misrepresent any of your views in this mail.

sincerely,
David van Deijk.