On 9/29/06, Bob Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's a very shallow definition of the "essence of freedom," from the perspective of most end users, your scenario doesn't really change anything. From the end users perspective s/he is still dependent on someone else to make the changes. I wouldn't say having a choice of who to be dependent upon actually qualifies as "freedom."
But the user can also choose to not be dependant upon anybody. They can choose to learn about programming and languages and fix it themselves. If you say you have no interest in doing that, then you are *choosing* to be dependant upon somebody, and now you have to pick who to become dependant on. But that doesn't change the fact that you can still choose to not be dependant on anybody. Sounds like "freedom" to me...
> It absolutely is just like a car, or a house, or anything else. If my > house could only be modified by the original builder, it would never > be modified -- I'd never even get a picture hung for want of being > able to put a nail in a stud. Now maybe I can't add a drawbridge to > my house myself, I can't do the welding or design, but my friend > could, and did. Analogies suck, software isn't a car, or a house, or anything else, it's software. If you can't make you're point without analogies, maybe you haven't thought it through clearly enough.
Yes, all analogies are imperfect by definition. But many people find that creating analogies to other industries and products helps them understand the issues.
I consider the facts, and look at the reality of the situation, and decide for myself what opinion to take.
Fine. But why should someone who believes that the terms "slaveryware" and "freedomware" are the most accurate reflection of *their* opinion stop using the terms? -Richard -- gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
