On 11/12/2015 4:57 PM, Greg Rundlett (freephile) wrote: > Using terms like rights, freedoms, ethics and morals describes how it IS > socialism. You are caught up in a world view where "Socialism" = bad and > rabid capitalism = ideal. Socialism is sharing. In this country, they USED > TO teach that sharing is good (in kindergarten no less). Not so much > anymore. Some things are innately meant to be shared... especially things > which when shared produce more total benefit. Especially things that are > intangible and have a zero cost of reproduction. Things like math, and > law, and knowledge.
There's a difference between generosity and socialism. Generosity is sharing because it is what you want to do. Socialism is sharing because it is required and enforced by some authority such as a government or a software license. Generosity is freedom; socialism is tyranny. Calling socialism "freedom" is a bald-faced lie. As a point, I don't believe that capitalism, rabid or otherwise, is the ideal. I'm a libertarian. Personal liberty is the ideal. I'm enough of a realist to understand that a balance between personal liberty and the common good needs to be maintained for society to function. This is why I don't believe in perpetual copyright. I believe in the original intent of copyright in the Constitution: an exclusive but time-limited right to control one's works. I consider this to be a reasonable balance between individual liberty and the common good. > The thing that confuses me about software developers who espouse licenses > other than GPL is that they specifically grant others (companies) the right > to take from them, without any benefit whatsoever. The BSD, MIT and Apache > style licenses are a corporate/hoarder's dream come true. It confuses you because you believe that the free as in FSF ideology takes precedence over the quality of the software that users receive. -- Rich P. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
