1 |
> -----Original Message----- |
2 |
> From: richard.j.fish@×××××.com [mailto:richard.j.fish@×××××.com]On |
3 |
> Behalf Of Richard Fish |
4 |
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 2:27 PM |
5 |
> To: gentoo-amd64@l.g.o |
6 |
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: How To Play WMV (thread drift - |
7 |
> slaveryware) |
8 |
> |
9 |
> |
10 |
> On 9/29/06, Bob Young <BYoung@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
11 |
> > That's a very shallow definition of the "essence of freedom," from the |
12 |
> > perspective of most end users, your scenario doesn't really |
13 |
> change anything. |
14 |
> > From the end users perspective s/he is still dependent on |
15 |
> someone else to |
16 |
> > make the changes. I wouldn't say having a choice of who to be |
17 |
> dependent upon |
18 |
> > actually qualifies as "freedom." |
19 |
> |
20 |
> But the user can also choose to not be dependant upon anybody. They |
21 |
> can choose to learn about programming and languages and fix it |
22 |
> themselves. If you say you have no interest in doing that, then you |
23 |
> are *choosing* to be dependant upon somebody, and now you have to pick |
24 |
> who to become dependant on. But that doesn't change the fact that you |
25 |
> can still choose to not be dependant on anybody. Sounds like |
26 |
> "freedom" to me... |
27 |
|
28 |
Technically yes, I've said that all along. However, in real world practical |
29 |
terms, how truly *valuable* is this "freedom"...? |
30 |
|
31 |
Would you go to war, or be willing to die for the "freedom" that open source |
32 |
provides? If not, then equating it with the freedoms that real mean and |
33 |
women have fought and died for is to marginalize the importance the word is |
34 |
meant to convey. |
35 |
|
36 |
I'm not saying that open source should be outlawed, or even that it |
37 |
shouldn't be advocated for, as it does have some advantages. I'm just saying |
38 |
that the quote unquote "freedom," that it provides, doesn't really justify |
39 |
the use of words like freedomware and slaveryware. |
40 |
|
41 |
|
42 |
> > > It absolutely is just like a car, or a house, or anything else. If my |
43 |
> > > house could only be modified by the original builder, it would never |
44 |
> > > be modified -- I'd never even get a picture hung for want of being |
45 |
> > > able to put a nail in a stud. Now maybe I can't add a drawbridge to |
46 |
> > > my house myself, I can't do the welding or design, but my friend |
47 |
> > > could, and did. |
48 |
> > |
49 |
> > Analogies suck, software isn't a car, or a house, or anything else, it's |
50 |
> > software. If you can't make you're point without analogies, maybe you |
51 |
> > haven't thought it through clearly enough. |
52 |
> |
53 |
> Yes, all analogies are imperfect by definition. But many people find |
54 |
> that creating analogies to other industries and products helps them |
55 |
> understand the issues. |
56 |
|
57 |
I should have been more specific and said that *software* analogies suck. |
58 |
The problem is that almost invariably the analogies are to three dimensional |
59 |
objects in the physical world, and software isn't even one dimensional, and |
60 |
thus, rarely do such analogies actually add any real clarity to the picture. |
61 |
|
62 |
> > I consider the facts, and look at the reality of the situation, |
63 |
> and decide |
64 |
> > for myself what opinion to take. |
65 |
> |
66 |
> Fine. But why should someone who believes that the terms |
67 |
> "slaveryware" and "freedomware" are the most accurate reflection of |
68 |
> *their* opinion stop using the terms? |
69 |
|
70 |
For one, there isn't any good, factual, logical, basis to justify their use. |
71 |
Secondly, the use of such words in relation to something as trivial as open |
72 |
source, (trivial least in comparison to other things that freedom is |
73 |
justifiably used in relation to), tends trivialize the meaning of the word |
74 |
freedom. |
75 |
|
76 |
-- |
77 |
Regards |
78 |
Bob Young |
79 |
|
80 |
|
81 |
-- |
82 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |