Paul de Weerd wrote:
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 03:54:47PM -0600, Jack J. Woehr wrote:
| > Free and open software is a means to an end, rather than the
| > sole end unto itself for OLPC.
| >
| > I was totally stunned by this admission. "morally bankrupt", as Bob
| > says, is exactly what is going on.
|
| Hmm, sounds like you are saying that abstract goal of unlimited
| software freedom is
| a higher goal than providing access to modern technology to
| disadvantaged children in
| 3rd-world countries. I don't wish to argue that point, but it is
| certainly a point
| that could be debated. Why *would* the OLPC people wish to get their
| dicks caught
| in the struggle between the free-and-open software community and the
| greedheads?
This is a perfect opportunity to stand up, speak up about this issue.
Why would the Intels and Marvells of this world withhold developers
the documentation they need if they are unwilling to sign an NDA ?
They are writing software that provides 'disadvantaged children in
3rd-world countries' access to modern technology.
Reverse your argument and bring it to Marvell. Imagine the bad press
Marvell would have gotten had they declined OLPC/Red Hat access to the
documentation without NDA when asked. "This company will not allow
'disadvantaged children in 3rd-world countries' to gain access to
modern technology, because they feel the documentation to their
hardware is to secret." (or whatever their false reasoning is)
What these companies need is bad press. Bad press is bad for their
business and shareholders will start to complain. It seems that this
is the only way to make changes in big corporations, and changes are
exactly what we need.
Amen!!!
Well said!
