> Would you go to war, or be willing to die for the "freedom" that open
> source
> provides? If not, then equating it with the freedoms that real mean
> and
> women have fought and died for is to marginalize the importance the
> word is
> meant to convey.
Uh oh; we're going to talk about Iraq now, aren't we? Let's keep this in
perspective. We tend to drift towards the idea that computers are
invincible, and that our data will survive forever, but one massive EM
pulse, and all data our data is buried for the rest of time. I don't
think that we can equate war to open source software. If someone held a
gun to my head and told me to install Windows, I wouldn't say, "No, I'm
going to stand here with my Linux and you can't make me do otherwise"...
BAM!
This is not to say that I like fascism. I am not pleased with
dictatorship or the current regime in America, but I don't think that
open-source software is worth dieing for. The principle, however, of
freedom of choice may be, but that has nothing to do with the present
discussion of playing WMV files on your computer.
-Peter
On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 15:42 -0700, Bob Young wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Behalf Of Richard Fish
> > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 2:27 PM
> > To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org
> > Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: How To Play WMV (thread drift -
> > slaveryware)
> >
> >
> > 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...
>
> Technically yes, I've said that all along. However, in real world practical
> terms, how truly *valuable* is this "freedom"...?
>
> Would you go to war, or be willing to die for the "freedom" that open source
> provides? If not, then equating it with the freedoms that real mean and
> women have fought and died for is to marginalize the importance the word is
> meant to convey.
>
> I'm not saying that open source should be outlawed, or even that it
> shouldn't be advocated for, as it does have some advantages. I'm just saying
> that the quote unquote "freedom," that it provides, doesn't really justify
> the use of words like freedomware and slaveryware.
>
>
> > > > 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 should have been more specific and said that *software* analogies suck.
> The problem is that almost invariably the analogies are to three dimensional
> objects in the physical world, and software isn't even one dimensional, and
> thus, rarely do such analogies actually add any real clarity to the picture.
>
> > > 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?
>
> For one, there isn't any good, factual, logical, basis to justify their use.
> Secondly, the use of such words in relation to something as trivial as open
> source, (trivial least in comparison to other things that freedom is
> justifiably used in relation to), tends trivialize the meaning of the word
> freedom.
>
> --
> Regards
> Bob Young
>
>
--
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
