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 12:47 PM
> To: gentoo-amd64@l.g.o
> Subject: [gentoo-amd64] Re: How To Play WMV (thread drift - slaveryware)
>
>
> "Bob Young" <BYoung@××××××××××.com> posted
> FAEEIJPAOFEMBBLKPMJEOEGGHKAA.BYoung@××××××××××.com, excerpted below, on
> Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:16:29 -0700:
>
> > Not really, *most* people will be, just as "enslaved" even if
> they do use
> > a GPLed version of the software.
>
> Keepin' this one brief.  "Not really" back at you, too, as the often used
> car with a welded shut hood analogy makes clear.  Not everyone is a
> mechanic either, and many haven't the faintest urge to touch stuff under
> the hood, yet even those appreciate the value of a hood that opens,

Appreciating the value of something, and having freedom, or being enslaved are very different things.

> and
> being able to take their car to someone besides the dealer for service.

That's not freedom, they are still completely dependent on the mechanic they take the car to. I don't really see how moving the dependency from one entity to another could be called freedom.

My issue here is with the terms being used ( i.e. slaveryware,, and freedomware), and what they infer about the relationship between a vendor, and end users.  IOW why are the end users who are dependent upon developers of XYZ open source driver/app, less "enslaved" than other users who are dependent on developers who work at ABC company ...?


> Just because I don't understand C/C++ myself doesn't mean I want the
> software source hood welded shut on anything /I/ choose to run!  As I said
> in a parallel post, the fact that Sun was significantly later to the AMD64
> party than most FLOSS projects of similarly common use in the community is
> definitely significant.  Had Java been open source, it's a pretty good bet
> it would have been ported far sooner than it was, particularly given the
> number of folks with funds or employees to invest in the project that run
> java as one component on their server infrastructure.

I agree, and that is a perfectly valid argument (faster porting), as one of the merits of open source. However, it doesn't actually provide any greater *freedom* to most end users. You can argue that they *benefit* from something being ported more quickly, but that's very different from suggesting that open source provides "freedom" to end users and that close source is "enslaving" them.
 
> Of course, something that needs said that often gets overlooked in all
> this is that I do *NOT* expect or demand that everyone else hold the
> same viewpoint I do.  I have a pretty strong personal belief system in
> this area and recognize it as such.

I certainly want you to have the freedom to choose OSS only, and I applaud your conviction for standing up for what you believe in. From my viewpoint as a software engineer, I dislike seeing inflammatory terms such as slaveryware and freedomware thrown about when they don't actually represent the true reality of the situation. I'd rather see the debate take place without the need to resort to inaccurate and inflammatory words.

> My tough standards are my own to
> live by, if I can, nobody else's unless they want to adopt them as well.

I'm not suggesting you should change your opinion or views in any way. I'm only suggesting that "slaveryware" and "freedomware" are not accurate terms. I'm suggesting that the more general "open source" "GPLed" "CSS" "OSS" "closed source" etc, are descriptive enough to make the point, and they do so  without being somewhat condescending and mildly insulting to others who may not share your strong views of open source. 

> Just because I have strong views on a subject and am not afraid to
> voice/type them, doesn't mean I can't respect other viewpoints as well --
> they just aren't /my/ viewpoints.  Sometimes that point gets lost in the
> debate and folks seem to think I'm demanding they have the same standards.
> Far from it!

No, I've never thought you were saying that, I just find that the term "freedomware" insinuates a "righteousness" that isn't justified by the actual dynamics of the vendor/user relationship, and "slaveryware" denotes a negative that isn't very well supported by reality either.

> One must come to such a realization on one's own, and
> forcing it (1) won't work, (2) is actively counterproductive, and (3)
> would be counter to the very values I hold so dear, to the point that the
> very idea is anathema (yes, that's a strong word, but chosen deliberately
> as precisely what I mean) to me!

I've never thought you were trying to force anything on anybody, I'm just saying I think the terms you've chosen, overstate your case, and are a bit disrespectful to anyone who might be on the other side of the question.

-- 
Regards
Bob Young



-- 
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list