Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 27th Sep 2005 22:40 UTC, submitted by Danijel Orsolic
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu "This follow-up to the previously published article 'Ubuntu: Derivative or Fork?' takes into account most of everything that has been posted as a reaction to the first article to present a general opinion and compare them with facts derived from various resouces. You'll see that peace can be achieved between these two, and ultimately any GNU/Linux group out there."
Thread beginning with comment 37331
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[15]: "Freedom"
by on Wed 28th Sep 2005 08:30 UTC in reply to "RE[14]: "Freedom""

Member since:

"But you guy are now starting to confuse me by saying that you are not against freedom, but are against the way FSF uses the word freedom.. How should they be using it then?"

Not as an adjective for software. Freedom can stand for freedom of thought, of speech or of movement. Software can't think, speak or move. So how can software have freedom? Talk about free developers instead, because they are the ones who can enjoy freedom or not, not their software

Because they try to anthropomorphize software which is strange since it's just bits. It's an unhealthy worship of the feeling of free software rather than what the software can actually accomplish.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[16]: "Freedom"
by on Wed 28th Sep 2005 10:28 in reply to "RE[15]: "Freedom""
Member since:

And what are these "rights" and "restrictions". Does someone have a "right" to have source code. Do these restrictions include the ability of companies to control the sale of software they produce? What you people are trying to do is put software at a higher level than any other tool and most people don't. You guys want to get "philosophical" about it.

We are certainly not *trying* to get philosophical about it. As a matter of fact I don't think Free Software advocacy is something many of us consider the fun part of computing in freedom, but it is a responsibility that we feel towards others to promote this way of computing in contrast to the one where companies have monopoly over their software even when user paid a good deal of money to get it. Software under proprietary licenses is never really yours, how much you pay for it. You have merely rented it for use under the terms of this monopoly holder and why? Just so that he can gain as much of profit from you as possible. This is a terrible imbalance of rights between rights of a proprietary software owner and software user which comes from treating software, a digital product that has more similarities to plain information than a physicall product to be treated as if it was physicall property instead of information that can be shared for absolutely no cost.

So in this way, software proprietor not only gets payed for the first copy that he sells, but for every single copy of his software that has ever been made anywhere in the world, according to the copyright law. Compare this to the real physicall world where one invests time and money to create a physicall product, say a chair, and sells it. He will no longer have that first copy, that first chair he made. He's gonna have to invest some more time and money to create another one if he is gonna sell a second chair. This does not and cannot happen with software as once you make first copy of software you can instantly make thousands of copies. Does it seem fair to you that a software proprietor must be paid for every single of those thousand copies even if he didn't invest thousand as much into creating it?

Software is indeed a tool, and it is only you who is somehow trying to pervert us by saying we consider software to be as a person that should have rights and freedoms, even though software isn't a person. We call it "free software" in much the same sense that you'd call anything else you get for free, except that by "free" we mean not merely freedom of cost alone, but four freedoms and rights we represented as essential for a developer - user relationship to be balanced.

Free Software "model" of ensuring freedoms for all computer users is called "copyleft" (as in copyright flipped over to instead of restricting rights and freedoms, grant them).

Software may be a tool, but using and creating it is an action. Depending on how are you gonna regulate these activities you can have a freer society in an information age or you can have a monopolized society for the benefit of only those that managed to become the monopolizer.

Once again a ridiculous hypothetical based on an imaginary world that wouldn't happen in a capitalist society. Microsoft can't "control" everything. There would always be others in the software market, whether it be proprietary or open source.

I thought you were calling me naive? How more naive can you get? Come to the real world. MS already has a nearly 100% monopoly and Free Software just happens to be the greatest competing force on its radar that's keeping it from reaching that 100%.

Capitalism as we know it has one major flaw. It encourages monopolies as every company within a capitalist so called "free market" (nowadays far from it) are having monopoly as their ultimate goal. And antitrust laws can do too much in that regard. Tell me how much did it do in Microsofts case. Microsoft got burned *after* netscape was practically killed off already - mission acomplished for them. Now the competitor is coming back in form of a *Free Software* web browser, Mozilla Firefox.

Because they try to anthropomorphize software which is strange since it's just bits. It's an unhealthy worship of the feeling of free software rather than what the software can actually accomplish.

It is you who is trying to anthropomorphize software in this discussion to pervert both your own and other people's understanding.

Thank you

Reply Parent Score: 0