On 09/14/2011 06:28 PM, Rasmus Wikman wrote:
You can't be too extreme; it's social rules and you decide those.
My point is that in the current climate we see corporations as "future-
proof" solutions because they market them as such and it's a part of
our culture to try to find "future-proof" solutions.
The error that we do is that we forget that all corporate initiatives
were built on other initiatives. Google would be nothing without
webpages, they've built their business on placing ads on top of
information they do not own. Webpages would be nothing without HTML.
HTML would be nothing without CERN. CERN would be nothing without
European cooperation. And so on.
So it's just societal evolution. FLOSS is a foregone conclusion of the
current rat race, not an alternative. Sticking to FLOSS is "future-
proof", at least for now. :)
I can see where you are coming from, though I don't know if you are part
of Qi in the sense that you contribute financially or are financially
dependent on Qi, or so. Talking is always easy with a full stomach and a
roof over one's head.
What is, what would be the point and the impact one can have on mankind
when one comes out with a 100% Free and all and anything thingy that
doesn't pay for its costs, doesn't pay for ads, doesn't make it into /.
and finally sees the shop of its manufacturers closing down after
producing a dozen of thingys, of which only three sold?
Then better, and at a higher impact, you sold 1 million, and attached
the tag 'I tried to free myself - though didn't succeed fully, yet. Help
me to be better next time!' I am confident, that many more woke up,
discussed, became aware and supported the next round of production of
thingy.
Richard Stallman has the liberty of following the strict path and
avoiding all non-free software totally. Software is 'gratuit' in this
sense of the word; except of his own expenditures, no cost involved.
When one does Free Hardware, there is expenditure and in the end boxes
have to be shipped. Only software can be downloaded. We should keep this
in mind and not raise the bar for those who actually invested their
money and have to kind of live on a Free Hardware project too high. I am
in agreement with Stallman, when he said something like he doesn't want
Free Software as means and ends; he wants to change the society. I am
not for Free Hardware to sit in my cave and be proud of having it. Free
Hardware as such is meaningless to me, please don't get me wrong here.
Uwe
_______________________________________________
Qi Hardware Discussion List
Mail to list (members only): [email protected]
Subscribe or Unsubscribe:
http://lists.en.qi-hardware.com/mailman/listinfo/discussion
