On 27/02/2008, ST <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dave Crossland wrote: > >> > >> For a certain value judgement of 'good' that is? > > > > It tramples users' freedom and their friendships since we can't know > > how it works or redistribute it. That's not good. > > Conversely, it allows SMEs to enter market places with the knowledge > that their intellectual property can gain them an income.
You can gain a lucrative income with free software. The first free software business, Cygnus, was founded in 1987 and www.o-hand.com is a London (Bromley) based free software company today, and its www.clutter-project.org among others earns them _a lot_ of money. Also, please consider not using the term "intellectual property," because it is so ambiguous that it is meaningless (government-granted monopolies like copyrights, trademarks, or patents have nothing in common apart from being government-granted monopolies) and because it implies you can and ought to treat intangible information like physical property. > > But it is a reduction in freedom! :-) > > Is it? You're perfectly free to choose not to install a certain > software package. You're free to find an alternative consumption > method. You're free to gain employment by the BBC and change it from > within. You are mistaking the kind of freedom we are talking about; software freedom is tightly defined - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html - and is not about those things. But for what its worth, I do all those things. > > If someone running GNU+Linux uses more proprietary software tomorrow > > than they use today, that is not good. > > Why? Because you say so? Because they are giving up their freedom to understand how their computers work, which is mostly bad for them (although as Alia says, they may not care) and agreeing not to share digital information with us, which is mostly bad for us. > Are all commercial software products inherently bad? Certainly not, but all proprietary software programs are. > I take it you don't use any patent-encumbered > software, like MPEG encoders for instance then? No, and I object to the use of encumbered formats when unencumbered formats are not used equally. > > I feel uncomfortably like you're avoiding thinking about ethical > > aspects of your profession. > > I don't think that an ad hominem argument helps your case. It's a > very unfair comment based on your personal, biased viewpoint and should be > retracted. I decline your invitation to retract it because I think in its context it is fair; Alias wrote, >> It feels uncomfortably like you're making a moral judgement about >> the nature of 'good' and 'bad' software and asking the BBC to enforce >> this. This too is making a moral judgement about the nature of 'good' and 'bad' software, a judgment which appears to avoiding the ethical aspects of computing. > For the record, I don't think that it's unethical to pay a > company for a product that they have spent time creating and I don't > believe we have an automatic right to do as we will with their product. Sure - I totally agree. You seem to think I'm anti-commercial or advocate breaking agreements; quite the opposite - I believe free software is better business and such agreements should not be entered into. > > I don't think so; software freedom increases content accessibility. > > In a way in which rights holders would agree for the data to be > disseminated via the internet? Presumably they want it to be as > ephemeral as possible, with a clause for time-shifting c.f. UHF > Transmission. What rights holders agree to is a matter of negotiation, and your presumption is just that - presumptuous :-) The US music industry did not agree to distribute its works online, then abandoned that idea and agreed to distribute them only with DRM, and then abandoned that idea and agreed to distribute them without DRM. > > If a proprietary thing lets you do something in a way that meets your > > requirements better, then to argue that it should be used seems very > > over simplistic, since it ignores the ethical implications. > > Then is your argument not over simplistic too? In that it ignores > such delicacies as service level agreements with third party companies > who have control over technology provisions, support arrangements There are many free software support companies in the UK. The obvious ones are the big technology companies like IBM and HP, and the GNU+Linux distribution companies - Red Hat, Canonical, Novell - also have large UK offices. There is everything between them and the one-man-band support companies that blanket the UK. > (presumably the developers of Gnash don't have a 24hr support > service?) As I understand it, the Open Media Now! Foundation will offer a 24hr support service for Cygnal, the Gnash media server that they sponsor - as soon they are approached for providing such a service; there is nothing on their website or the Gnash website yet because the foundation has only just been set up, but I expect something will be there this year. Please contact <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> if you are interested in that kind of service. > > When we cannot understand how our computers work we are faced with a > > grave social problem. > > You sure Yes. > most of the population neither knows nor cares about how > their PCs work? But they care that they can hire anyone they like to service and improve their software in a free market, and don't like software monopolies. All proprietary software developers are monopolists for their software. > Some of the most brilliant user interaction and > interface designers I've met don't know what's happening beyond their > high-level code. It's why the world has engineers. As developers of the software, they have software freedom. > When was the last time you had the feeler guage out to > re-tappet your car? This is a poor analogy; last time I had my car serviced, I took it to an independent mechanic on the free market because the bonnet isn't welded shut. All the users who report bugs in free software without ever touching a line of code participate actively in the development of the software. -- Regards, Dave - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
