1 |
> -----Original Message----- |
2 |
> From: Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [mailto:bss03@××××××××××.net] |
3 |
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 1:31 PM |
4 |
> To: gentoo-amd64@l.g.o |
5 |
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: How To Play WMV (thread drift - |
6 |
> slaveryware) |
7 |
> |
8 |
> |
9 |
> On Thursday 28 September 2006 13:16, "Bob Young" <BYoung@××××××××××.com> |
10 |
> wrote about 'RE: [gentoo-amd64] Re: How To Play WMV (thread drift - |
11 |
> slaveryware)': |
12 |
> > Not really, *most* people will be, just as "enslaved" even if they do |
13 |
> > use a GPLed version of the software. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Not true. The freedom to modify the code is important even if the user |
16 |
> cannot directly exert it, because it allows the user to pay |
17 |
> someone *other |
18 |
> than the copyright holder* to do the modifications for them. |
19 |
|
20 |
So...? instead of being dependent upon the original vendor, the user is dependent upon the contractor s/he hires to do the modifications. I don't consider the option of transferring dependence from one entity to another entity as being real freedom. |
21 |
|
22 |
I will grant you that in instances where the original vendor no longer wishes to maintain/fix/update a piece of software, I believe that the source should be released, either GPLed, or just pure public domain, but that's not what we're talking about in this debate. |
23 |
|
24 |
> Also, anyone is allowed to give their friend free software and to use free |
25 |
> software for any purpose. Those freedoms are not provided to users of |
26 |
> non-free software. |
27 |
|
28 |
Now you're muddying the waters between libre and gratis, I can give you hundreds of examples of freeware or shareware that I can *legally* give to my friends without charge, but that don't have source code available. So in the sentence above what exactly is "free software" and what differentiates it from "non-free software?" |
29 |
|
30 |
|
31 |
> > > when the lack of ATI and NVidia |
32 |
> > > drivers is the only reason xorg-7.1 is not yet stable on x86 or amd64, |
33 |
> > > and it's the same thing with other distributions -- their actions are |
34 |
> > > holding a large segment of the would-be free software world hostage. |
35 |
> > > Call it what you like, I call choosing to be a hostage to the whims of |
36 |
> > > a software overlord choosing to be enslaved, and I both refuse to do |
37 |
> > > it, and refuse to have my money go toward funding the slave-masters! |
38 |
> > |
39 |
> > How is that different from people who can't read code being at the whims |
40 |
> > of Linux kernel developers? |
41 |
> |
42 |
> No one is at the whims of the kernel developers. Even if you can't read |
43 |
> code, you can communicate with people *other than the kernel developers* |
44 |
> who can read code. |
45 |
|
46 |
Okay, but since you can't read code, you have to *trust* whomever you do contact, they could just as easily be mistaken, or make an error without you knowing it. Why is being dependent upon someone else instead of <fill in the blank>, but still dependent nonetheless, considered freedom? |
47 |
|
48 |
|
49 |
> You aren't forced to trust the kernel developers word |
50 |
> that patch X is "better" for linux. Sure, it may improve performance in |
51 |
> 90% of the cases -- but what if you are in the other 10%? Even if you |
52 |
> don't understand code, it's simple enough to reverse a patch. |
53 |
|
54 |
Uhhhh....and binary patches can't be reversed, that doesn't require source code to be available. |
55 |
|
56 |
> > I fail to see that it really makes much of a difference whether Jane |
57 |
> > Avgusr is dependent on a Linux kernel developer or on an engineer |
58 |
> > working at nVidia. |
59 |
> |
60 |
> Because *no one* is dependent on the linux kernel developers. You can make |
61 |
> the needed changes. If you don't have the ability to, |
62 |
|
63 |
As is the case for 99.99 percent of the population. |
64 |
|
65 |
> you can get someone |
66 |
> else to using other resources available to you. |
67 |
|
68 |
So instead of depending on a kernel developer, I'm depending on a contractor I hire, I just don't see that as dramatically different. |
69 |
|
70 |
> E.g. I really need my |
71 |
> lawn mowed and I hate doing it; I'll trade you a mowed lawn for a kernel |
72 |
> patch. |
73 |
|
74 |
LOL..nice in theory, but I seriously doubt that many people are actually bartering for kernel patches. |
75 |
|
76 |
|
77 |
> Someone *has* to pay for the cost of maintaining and improving software. |
78 |
> That's economic fact. NVidia says you have to pay *them* to improve their |
79 |
> software. Linux kernel developers says you can pay *anyone with the |
80 |
> skills* (or use your own time) to improve the software. Clearly, |
81 |
> you have more options (and are thus more free) with free software. |
82 |
|
83 |
If I'm not doing it myself, I see little difference whether I pay one entity, or pay another. |
84 |
|
85 |
> > There really is no such thing as "slaveryware" or "freedomware" it's all |
86 |
> |
87 |
> Yes, there very well is. I want software I'm free to distribute (I need |
88 |
> freedomware). |
89 |
|
90 |
That's fine for you, but it isn't important to most users, and in the grand scheme of things it doesn't need to be. |
91 |
|
92 |
> I want software I'm free to use how I see fit (I need |
93 |
> freedom ware). |
94 |
|
95 |
Depends on what how you define "see fit." For most users there is nothing specifically provided by open source that they absolutely require. |
96 |
|
97 |
> I want software I can profile and audit myself |
98 |
|
99 |
That's fine for you, but it isn't important to most users, and in the grand scheme of things it doesn't need to be. |
100 |
|
101 |
> Analogy: |
102 |
> improving and maintaining software = food |
103 |
> software companies and individual developers = farms and farmers |
104 |
|
105 |
Software is not food, software is software, and developers are not farmers, they are developers. |
106 |
|
107 |
> So, you are saying it "doesn't make much different" whether I'm forced to |
108 |
> buy all my food from one particular farm or if I'm allowed to buy food |
109 |
> from any farmer (probably on the free market)? |
110 |
|
111 |
I'm saying that end users are free to buy or not buy hardware/software from any vendor based on the capabilities, features, reputation, and reviews of that hardware/software. The availability/nonavailability of source code doesn't add/subtract freedom from the transaction at all, at least in real world practical terms for most users. |
112 |
|
113 |
> The fact is that is DOES matter. And anyone that doesn't understand that |
114 |
> is simplifying things to much. |
115 |
|
116 |
It is simple, very simple, you're just over intellectualizing it and romanticizing it. |
117 |
|
118 |
-- |
119 |
Regards |
120 |
Bob Young |
121 |
|
122 |
|
123 |
|
124 |
-- |
125 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |