1 |
> Would you go to war, or be willing to die for the "freedom" that open |
2 |
> source |
3 |
> provides? If not, then equating it with the freedoms that real mean |
4 |
> and |
5 |
> women have fought and died for is to marginalize the importance the |
6 |
> word is |
7 |
> meant to convey. |
8 |
Uh oh; we're going to talk about Iraq now, aren't we? Let's keep this in |
9 |
perspective. We tend to drift towards the idea that computers are |
10 |
invincible, and that our data will survive forever, but one massive EM |
11 |
pulse, and all data our data is buried for the rest of time. I don't |
12 |
think that we can equate war to open source software. If someone held a |
13 |
gun to my head and told me to install Windows, I wouldn't say, "No, I'm |
14 |
going to stand here with my Linux and you can't make me do otherwise"... |
15 |
BAM! |
16 |
This is not to say that I like fascism. I am not pleased with |
17 |
dictatorship or the current regime in America, but I don't think that |
18 |
open-source software is worth dieing for. The principle, however, of |
19 |
freedom of choice may be, but that has nothing to do with the present |
20 |
discussion of playing WMV files on your computer. |
21 |
|
22 |
|
23 |
-Peter |
24 |
On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 15:42 -0700, Bob Young wrote: |
25 |
> |
26 |
> > -----Original Message----- |
27 |
> > From: richard.j.fish@×××××.com [mailto:richard.j.fish@×××××.com]On |
28 |
> > Behalf Of Richard Fish |
29 |
> > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 2:27 PM |
30 |
> > To: gentoo-amd64@l.g.o |
31 |
> > Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: How To Play WMV (thread drift - |
32 |
> > slaveryware) |
33 |
> > |
34 |
> > |
35 |
> > On 9/29/06, Bob Young <BYoung@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
36 |
> > > That's a very shallow definition of the "essence of freedom," from the |
37 |
> > > perspective of most end users, your scenario doesn't really |
38 |
> > change anything. |
39 |
> > > From the end users perspective s/he is still dependent on |
40 |
> > someone else to |
41 |
> > > make the changes. I wouldn't say having a choice of who to be |
42 |
> > dependent upon |
43 |
> > > actually qualifies as "freedom." |
44 |
> > |
45 |
> > But the user can also choose to not be dependant upon anybody. They |
46 |
> > can choose to learn about programming and languages and fix it |
47 |
> > themselves. If you say you have no interest in doing that, then you |
48 |
> > are *choosing* to be dependant upon somebody, and now you have to pick |
49 |
> > who to become dependant on. But that doesn't change the fact that you |
50 |
> > can still choose to not be dependant on anybody. Sounds like |
51 |
> > "freedom" to me... |
52 |
> |
53 |
> Technically yes, I've said that all along. However, in real world practical |
54 |
> terms, how truly *valuable* is this "freedom"...? |
55 |
> |
56 |
> Would you go to war, or be willing to die for the "freedom" that open source |
57 |
> provides? If not, then equating it with the freedoms that real mean and |
58 |
> women have fought and died for is to marginalize the importance the word is |
59 |
> meant to convey. |
60 |
> |
61 |
> I'm not saying that open source should be outlawed, or even that it |
62 |
> shouldn't be advocated for, as it does have some advantages. I'm just saying |
63 |
> that the quote unquote "freedom," that it provides, doesn't really justify |
64 |
> the use of words like freedomware and slaveryware. |
65 |
> |
66 |
> |
67 |
> > > > It absolutely is just like a car, or a house, or anything else. If my |
68 |
> > > > house could only be modified by the original builder, it would never |
69 |
> > > > be modified -- I'd never even get a picture hung for want of being |
70 |
> > > > able to put a nail in a stud. Now maybe I can't add a drawbridge to |
71 |
> > > > my house myself, I can't do the welding or design, but my friend |
72 |
> > > > could, and did. |
73 |
> > > |
74 |
> > > Analogies suck, software isn't a car, or a house, or anything else, it's |
75 |
> > > software. If you can't make you're point without analogies, maybe you |
76 |
> > > haven't thought it through clearly enough. |
77 |
> > |
78 |
> > Yes, all analogies are imperfect by definition. But many people find |
79 |
> > that creating analogies to other industries and products helps them |
80 |
> > understand the issues. |
81 |
> |
82 |
> I should have been more specific and said that *software* analogies suck. |
83 |
> The problem is that almost invariably the analogies are to three dimensional |
84 |
> objects in the physical world, and software isn't even one dimensional, and |
85 |
> thus, rarely do such analogies actually add any real clarity to the picture. |
86 |
> |
87 |
> > > I consider the facts, and look at the reality of the situation, |
88 |
> > and decide |
89 |
> > > for myself what opinion to take. |
90 |
> > |
91 |
> > Fine. But why should someone who believes that the terms |
92 |
> > "slaveryware" and "freedomware" are the most accurate reflection of |
93 |
> > *their* opinion stop using the terms? |
94 |
> |
95 |
> For one, there isn't any good, factual, logical, basis to justify their use. |
96 |
> Secondly, the use of such words in relation to something as trivial as open |
97 |
> source, (trivial least in comparison to other things that freedom is |
98 |
> justifiably used in relation to), tends trivialize the meaning of the word |
99 |
> freedom. |
100 |
> |
101 |
> -- |
102 |
> Regards |
103 |
> Bob Young |
104 |
> |
105 |
> |
106 |
|
107 |
-- |
108 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |