RE: [gentoo-amd64] Re: How To Play WMV (thread drift - slaveryware)

[Bob Young]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: news [mailto:news@×××××××××.org]On Behalf Of Duncan
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 10:36 PM
> To: gentoo-amd64@l.g.o
> Subject: [gentoo-amd64] Re: How To Play WMV (thread drift - slaveryware)
>
>
> "Bob Young" <BYoung@××××××××××.com> posted
> FAEEIJPAOFEMBBLKPMJEGEIDHKAA.BYoung@××××××××××.com, excerpted below, on
> Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:55:31 -0700:
>
> > Now we're getting off in to other discussions, companies
> purchase the CSS
> > IP of other companies all the time, such developement "polination" is
> > certaintly not dependent on OSS. This particular discussion however, was
> > about "slaveryware" vs "freedomware" from the viewpoint of the end user,
> > not corporations. To the vast majority of end users, OSS, while a nice
> > "feel good" thing, doesn't actually make them any more free in any real
> > practical way.
>
> Well, when a fair segment of end users /are/ corporations, and they are
> the ones funding the development and responsible for the fact that it's
> not just a hobby for many any more... I'd say excluding them from the
> picture is itself unrealistic.  In fact, there are many disturbed by that
> trend, and I see their point, but find the trend an inevitable result of
> the mass popularization of what was once the few-hour-a-week-at-best hobby
> of a handful of very geeky developers.

The discussion was centered around the terms freedomware and slaveryware, and thus by extension freedom and enslavement. I'd like to know how, in a capitalistic society, a corporation is "enslaved."

>
> Another analogy can be made to voting.  Even the majority of folks
> choosing to sit out a vote, many who may never have registered to vote at
> all and don't really intend to, would have serious problems with a
> suggestion that this right/freedom they have been choosing not to exercise
> be taken away.  Just because you don't exercise it doesn't mean it's not a
> freedom.

I believe I've already admitted that technically you're correct, I'm just saying that the absence of such a choice doesn't justify the term enslavement.

> There's another aspect as well.  Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying "The
> tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
> patriots and tyrants."  (I recognize the name may not mean much to an
> international audience, but those who wish to can of course look it up,
> now that it's cited.)  While one hopes this particular liberty won't come
> to that literally, there was a time a few years ago when I thought those
> who refused to surrender such freedoms of the mind might end up imprisoned
> -- and it could still happen, particularly in the areas of the arts as
> opposed to computer sciences, where we have a head start.  After a bit of
> self-examination, I realized I couldn't honestly say I was committed to
> death, tho I believe in the freedom strongly enough that I /believe/ one
> /should/ be that committed.  However, the reality is that some have
> already been imprisoned over it -- even reaching across other nations'
> laws to do it (xref Dmitry Sklyarov).  I realized that those believing
> must certainly be prepared for that possibility, and that I felt it a
> tradeoff worth the cost.

I find many aspects of the DMCA abhorrent, and I'd agree that a number of our freedoms are being restricted, curtailed, or even outright taken away, especially in the digital realm. However, legislation, such as the DMCA, apply to actions that are either allowed or not allowed. If everything were open source, things that are illegal under the DMCA would still be illegal, it would just be easier to break the law. For example, there would be no need to reverse engineer CSS in order to produce DeCSS, but defeating CSS would still be illegal. IOW, open sourcing everything is not the solution, the solution is to abolish or at least correct bad law. 

In this particular example I believe society is better served by letting the technology battle between content providers and hackers continue, without the heavy arm of the law unfairly protecting one side. I don't believe content providers should be forced to open source their protection methods, but neither should it be illegal for the hackers to try and crack that protection. Let the two sides do their best, and society will benefit as new and better technology results.

> OTOH, it's foolish to needlessly tempt the legal fates, thus my insistence
> that I literally /cannot/ at this point legally run most unfree software,
> due to the EULAs, and therefore that I /will/ not do so.  For someone
> considering the possibility of that level of sacrifice, telling that
> friend mentioned earlier that I cannot legally view his clip in the format
> it's currently in, merely foregoing that tiny bit of convenience while
> creating a slightly awkward situation, is a foregone conclusion.

The vast majority of users, don't care about having source code available, and even the users who do have source code available for their apps utilities, and drivers *never* actually have some third party modify it for them. So again I will ask, is the term "enslaved" really justified when referring to users who don't have this choice?


> Yes, that /does/ make me a radical to many, I realize that.  However,
> that's the degree to which I hold the beliefs of slaveryware vs
> freedomware, and why it's /going/ to come up from time to time in my
> posts, as it's a rather large part of my world-view.  The only other
> alternative would be to stop posting to whatever public forum (in the
> generic/broad sense, so mailing list included) entirely.

Okay, I'm done, I think I've laid out a pretty good case demonstrating that the terms "slaveryware" and "freedomware" aren't justified and don't reflect reality. I've tried to keep the discussion focused on these two words and whether or not they accurately reflect the true relationship between vendors and users in the context of closed source versus open source. In response you've been all over the map, bringing up the DMCA, corporate development, prescription drug purchases, etc. You're going to continue to justify the use of these two terms with the "that's the way I see it" defense, and you will do so regardless of all logic and reason, so I'm done, there seems little point in continuing.



-- 
Regards
Bob Young



-- 
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list