On 26/02/2008, Alia Sheikh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > Since Air is proprietary, that it runs on GNU+Linux is not good. > >> For a certain value judgement of 'good' that is? > > It tramples users' freedom and their friendships since we can't know > > how it works or redistribute it. That's not good. > > With regards to "friendship", haven't we been here before?:) > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg06204.html
Andy wrote, "And yet even I disagree with the statement that friendship is based on file sharing." Again, this exaggerates my position; friendship isn't based entirely on file sharing, but partially; anyone who shares files understands this. I've only ever met one person who said they honestly never shared files, and that was a senior Adobe employee. File sharing is an aspect of friendship in network society; I value it, everyone else I know values it too, and I object to the minority of powerful people who act to disrupt it. > >> I like Linux > > > > Please consider calling the system GNU+Linux or GNU/Linux. > > http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html explains :-) > > I've read the page and I will consider it. Cheers :-) > >> Call me crazy but I think that the fact that companies now have to > >> seriously consider building Linux support into their software products, > >> is a good thing. At the end of the day its an extra thing that your > >> platform can do, its not a reduction in functionality. > > > > But it is a reduction in freedom! :-) > > Is it a reduction in freedom if you do not have a bicycle and I give you > a bicycle on the condition that you do not take it apart? Software freedom is very tightly defined - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html - and it is important not to talk about "freedom" in the abstract because its so over-used and vague as to be defacto meaningless; George Orwell famously essayed this, on the web at http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit Your comments about the "freedom" of the Tube and underwater swimming and lighting in a film are obviously absurd, and unrelated to software freedom. > I am not free to know the inner workings of Adobe Air. But I am free to > build something that does the same sort of thing. As long as DRM law or patent law doesn't restrict you - and its likely that both obstruct free implementations of Air. > I am free to use it > to build something using Air and then let people access it to assess if > they want a service that behaves in a particular way. I disagree; your ability to grant others access to your work depends on Adobe's conditions which you agreed to. > The freedom I care about having > trampled is the freedom to investigate and assess a product Can I investigate and assess Air? Only in a "very simplified" way :-) > and the > freedom to find the best solution for a problem, where the definition of > 'best' takes into account more than just a single opinion (and I do > think that your viewpoint is an opinion Dave, Should the definition of best take into account the ethical implications of the solutions? In my opinion, they should. It seems in your opinion they should not. > even though I suspect I agree with more of it than you think). Great :-) This is typical of people who support open source and those who support software freedom, right? :-) Its a kind of inverted schism, where we agree on methods but not motivations :-) > I would like to take into > account what the majority of the licence fee paying public care about > and which freedoms matter to them - even if I might not agree with it. The BBC creates serious and thoughtful documentaries that don't pander to popular taste, because it is by nature a paternal and undemocratic institution; it got spanked last year for pandering to popular taste too much and not doing enough stuff the advertising supported channels won't do because they wouldn't have mass appeal, right? > > If someone running GNU+Linux uses more proprietary software tomorrow > > than they use today, that is not good. > > That is a value judgement, and is, I'm afraid an opinion. That is a value judgment, and is, also, an opinion. ;-) > This fictional person who we are talking about may disagree with you > entirely. That piece of software may add something that had been > missing their whole life. Whether you or like it or not, it would be > their fundamental right to think that is *is* in fact 'good'. You have > every right to think it isn't 'good' for you :) Valuing software convenience above software freedom isn't good because it effects everyone else as well as them. Its nowhere near as bad as someone who wrote the proprietary software, or the person who recommended it to them, but the users of proprietary software are basically victims, and they are responsible for their complicity in the social problem. > >> >> The BBC is also building prototype applications with AIR. > >>> The BBC should not require the British public to use proprietry > >>> software, so developing these prototypes is misguided. > >> Now this is a bit hairy - would you be happier if the BBC required that > >> the public could use only non-proprietary software to access any of its > >> work? > > > > You are exaggerating my position :-) > > Apologies if it came across that way, I was asking you a question that > I'm genuinely interested in your reply to and I'm glad I did since your > reply clarified your position for me. I'm happy to hear you are finding this discussion worthwhile - I am too :-) > > I advocate the BBC requires that the public could use non-proprietary > > software to access any of its work. > > I agree actually. As long as that software exists. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the purpose of R&D departments is to make things that don't exist :-) > I don't think we > should fail to take advantage of advances in technology simply *because* > something is proprietary though. I believe the BBC ought to commit to not requiring the public to use proprietary software to access any of its work. The consequences of that include that the BBC would not adopt technologies that do not have free software equivalents, or would work to write free software equivalents, or improve free software alternatives so that they are equivalents. If the BBC treats free formats as a poor relation to proprietary ones, it is supporting them poorly. Other institutions that offer free formats often do this, either by reconverting lossy proprietary formats to free ones, or by not giving free formats equal prominence on the download page. > Or to put it another way, I wouldn't > tell my engineers they weren't allowed to investigate that bit of > software. I think we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we took no > notice of interesting things, whether done by Adobe, Apple, Microsoft > (God help me) or the open source community. I agree you ought not to ignore R&D by other organizations. I kindly suggest you tell your engineers they aren't allowed to investigate a bit of software without including an analysis of the free software alternatives and how much work it is to bring them up to equivalence in their report about their investigations. > > That is very different to advocating the BBC requires that the public > > could ONLY use non-proprietary software to access any of its work. > >> It feels uncomfortably like you're making a moral judgement about > >> the nature of 'good' and 'bad' software and asking the BBC to enforce > >> this. > > I feel uncomfortably like you're avoiding thinking about ethical > > aspects of your profession. > > Not at all. I'm sorry if it comes across that way. I would like to > reassure you that I think very carefully about the ethical aspects of my > profession. Thanks for your reassurances you consider this issue; this is a good thread and I trust you on this, and I'm interested to know why you think it is ethical to require users not to share software :-) > >> What you suggest might make content harder to access > > > > I don't think so; software freedom increases content accessibility. > > To clarify: it might make content harder to access if we don't take > advantage of proprietary advancements because the open source world has > not caught up yet. Do you know of any examples of this? I don't know any. > The opposite holds true also - there are numerous > cases of companies being uncomfortable with open source solutions that > may be clearly better at a job, because they are percieved to come with > less support. Is the BBC such a corporation? > We should investigate and use whatever is fit for purpose > and work towards making everything open and accessible and lovely. If the BBC uses more proprietary software tomorrow than today, I question if the BBC is working towards making everything open and accessible and lovely. > I would consider it to be an omission on the > BBC's part if it didn't investigate the proprietary route alongside the > open source one, if it improved accessibility for many of its users. Sure, as long as the proprietary route doesn't discriminate against users of the free software route. > >> > John O'Donovan sounds like he must be a good engineer; sadly he seems > >> > unaware of the social problems he is leading the BBC into when he > >> > praises this proprietary technology. > >> > >> You know 'social problems' might be over egging the lily. A bit:) > > > > When we cannot understand how our computers work we are faced with a > > grave social problem. > > I can see your point and if you were to remove the words 'grave' and > 'social' from the above then I would be in 100% in agreement with you:) It is a grave social problem as well as a technical problem because security, privacy, energy consumption, and so on are social issues as well as technical ones. > Hey, is this being talked about in the developer list at all? I should > look at the archive:) The developers' list is for problem-solving discussions only, and ethical discussions are not allowed there, so I'm not on that list. -- Regards, Dave Personal views only, not those of any employers past or present. - 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]/
