I love the soap boxes people find to lecture the world from. Drop me a line when capitalist society starts living up to these idealistic standards. Until then, I'm going to play by the same rules as other people do - holding yourself to a higher standard just to take the moral high ground is the very reason the phrase "cutting your nose off to spite your face" was coined.
Luke > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland > Sent: 05 December 2006 18:25 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [backstage] Mozilla interview and Backstage > Schwag preview > > > > Interesting.... > > > > I think this is one of the problems with the Free Software movement. > > > > "any tool that is not free-as-in-freedom is unethical" > > Its kind of paradoxical to say thats one of its problems, as > its the basis of it. > > > This must have got quite a few people backs up? > > Sometime it does, even though I (believe I) am speaking in a > friendly tone. > > I think this is because it is a bold assertion, that causes > cognitive dissonance in people who believe they are behaving > ethically, and are in a way 'shocked' to hear that they may not be. > > Its like the 'fight' dynamic as described in > > "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they > fight you, then you win." > - http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi > > But I also get people mailing me off list saying 'thanks for > explaining the free software movement in a friendly way, next > time you are in my part of the world please let me know and > I'll buy you a beer'. So I know I'm not getting everyone's > backs up :-) > > > I'm not saying its wrong, just in the language you can see > why people > > object without even understanding the principle. > > Yes. What alternate language do you suggest? > > Richard Stallman often says that non-free software is > 'subjugating people into being divided and helpless'. This is > negative vibe can put people off, to I tend to express 'no > sharing' as 'unethical' instead of 'divided' and 'no > independent improvement' as 'unsustainable' instead of > 'helpless'. Negated positives create a better vibe than negatives. > > > I understand the differences between open source and free > software but > > the fact people are at least willing to try an alternative > licence to > > the "all right reserved" is a good thing in my book. Maybe > with a less > > in your face delivery, free software will win over even more people > > > and become the poster child of a generation like open > > source currently is. > > "Open source" has passed its apex, and the ground has shifted, imo. > > The "Open Source" perspective won't help you with Digital > Restrictions Management, or Treacherous Computing, because > its diluted - you'll accept some "closed source" DRM/TC crap, > if you don't believe its wrong to not be 'open source', > which, by definition, you don't. > > (Relating to the above, Richard says 'weak', but this is also > a negative vibe, so I tend to say 'diluted') > > Here's some background references: > > -- 8< -- > Y'see, when [Open Source people] say the goal is to have > powerful, reliable, convenient software and get it cheap, > then it becomes possible for the representatives of > proprietary software to say "We claim that we'll deliver you > more powerful, reliable software, we claim that our total > cost of ownership will be cheaper", and I think it's usually bullshit. > > When Microsoft says this, it's based on distorted facts. It's > weak, but when we say the goal is to live in in freedom and > to be allowed to cooperate with other people in a community, > they can't say they're going to offer us more of that, cheaper. > > They don't offer that at all, they're not even competing with > us. They're out of the running. Once you decide you want to > live in freedom, they are out of the running. > > So, we are trying to help you reach freedom in a community. > They are trying to subjugate you, but they say that they'll > get you there faster. And maybe they would. > -- 8< -- > - > http://www.fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_n > otes/transcript_of_rms_at_wsis_on_is_free_open_source_software > _the_answer > > > -- 8< -- > The Novell-Microsoft deal certainly shows Redmond's desire to > draw a line between the "free"and "open" communities. In an > interview on Friday, Bill Gates was effusive in his praise > for the "purity" of Richard Stallman, the original author of the GPL. > > Did the term "Open Source" mean anything, any longer? > > "They're going to have to co-opt a new vocabulary," thought > Moglen, "because the old vocabulary just died on them." > > "I agree with you. This was the week 'Open Source' ceased to > be a useful phrase because it denoted everything up to and > including Microsoft's attempts to destroy free. Language is > subject to this problem. Since the beginning of time uprising > movements have taken pleasure in perverting the language of > criticism used against them by the ancien regime - the 'brave > beggars' of the Netherlands, and Yankee Doodle, and the Whigs > and the Tories - it's all the same terms of dis-endearment > turned into a weapon. But the game is also played by modern > propaganda in the other direction - by turning language into > the property of the guy on top: Fox News "Fair & Balanced (tm)". > > "What Microsoft did to 'Open Source' was what Stallman always > said could be done to it: first you take the politics out, > and when the veal has been bleached absolutely white, you can > cover it with any sauce you like. And that's what Microsoft > did, and 'Open Source' became the sauce on top of Microsoft > proprietarianism. And once that process has been completed > they have to go after the next vocabulary." > > And now? > > "So now they're going to try the hard work of cracking > 'Freedom'. Free, well that means stuff you don't pay for..." > > Microsoft had always been very astute in its analysis, we > suggested. While the press focused on the open, or > distributed nature of the production process, Redmond > identified the fact that the GPL was viral as the real > attack. "That's right. They understood the copyleft problem > well - and understood the GPL well. But they didn't want to > talk about the enemy because of the rule in American > political campaigns that you don't say the name of your > opponent in case people remember it. They don't do that > anymore. They've dropped the mask," he suggested. > > "What's happened is that "Open Source" has died as a useful > phrase - Free Software, the GPL, the FSF - all have become > major stakeholders in the industry in Microsoft's verbiage." > > "Once you're a major stakeholder you don't go back to being a > minor stakeholder unless you go bankrupt - and we can never > go bankrupt because we have no business to lose. > > "So if we're a major stakeholder now we stay that way until > the end of the chapter, and that's a problem for Microsoft." > -- 8< -- > - > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/20/eben_moglen_on_microso ft_novell/print.html -- Regards, Dave - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.7/569 - Release Date: 05/12/2006 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
