> On 15 Jun 2015, at 17:42, Tom Blecher <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Micheal, > > > 09.06.2015, 21:05, "Michael Kesper" <[email protected]>: >> Hi Tom, >> >> Am 07.06.2015 um 01:36 schrieb Tom Blecher: >>> Hello Scott, Nico, Michael, and others reading, >>> >>> I studied now your previous statements, thank you for your points first. I >>> think I understood it all very well. No doubt. >>> >>> So straight forward for the finding on the head: >>> So the propagandist story goes: Some talked of fs as a virus. You know >>> that. For the virus the nature has some remedy. This strategy in loosely >>> words is: alcohol. It kills all virus, even the last one. Be sure! So DIN >>> is for example a master of hygiene. >>> How does it do that? Simply by charging a fee for each specification >>> document. The point that you and might be the rest on this planet do not >>> acknowledge or probably accept the lethal effect on free software, just >>> proves how good this alcohol is or less figuratively how evidently >>> efficient the propaganda is. - Hey are we dealing with propaganda, yes? So >>> may it matter that they are deemed damn powerful imho? >>> Furthermore: So lets leave the picture of disease which it in not. Cause >>> in the end it donates life and not how it is defamed that it devastated >>> whole regions. What hygiene in this means can be fitter denominated as what >>> I would call: free software deserts. That dramatic is the situation we face. >>> And not randomly everywhere DIN has its fingers in >>> >>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Institut_f%C3%BCr_Normung#Liste_von_Normenaussch.C3.BCssen_.28Auswahl.29 >>> nice all free software free. So back to the topic. I said desert: How is >>> that any relevant to us, one might ask in the words of Micheal: >>> > The issue of money for the paper really seems very small against all the >>> possible pitfalls for implementing them. >>> Relevant is first that it is lethal for the free software, what could be >>> worse? All pitfalls together? No! Nothing! Second: Have you once put into >>> account how much human beings had to spend a whole work live far from free >>> software. I mean considering the above list? Millions? Is that an argument >>> for relevance? And might for each of them govern: what Mr. Stallman said on >>> that there is no excuse for using no free software? So in result we gain a >>> heavy duty to help our fellows, we who we are supposed to as "promoters of >>> free software". >>> What keeps seeming odd, that you and other experts have a strong contrary >>> opinion on it. >> >> Let me just specify one well-known example: OfficeOpen XML [0] >> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML >> ISO was tricked by illegal moves of Microsoft [1] to accept it as a >> standard. >> Even if you can get the standard without cost, you will never be able to >> comply with it, because of its sheer whopping 6000 (!) pages. > There is nothing said about that there could be applied other indefinitely > many tricks over more, hindrances for free software. > We will not and do not want to treat all of them here. Here we focus on the > fee, as the first and sufficient hindrance. I call it lethal.
To write and compile code you need to buy a computer. Software written using a non-gratis computer can still be Free Software, right? Likewise nobody insists on developers only reading gratis books when learning to program. If you buy “Java For Dummies” from a bookstore this doesn’t enforce any restrictions on the users of software you create, so its completely irrelevant when considering whether something is Free Software. The restrictions we should be concerned about are those that affect the freedoms of the users of the software, typically patented methods, that may be present as encumbrances in standards - in some cases deliberately injected by patent owners. The fee for buying a standards document to read is to me the least problematic aspect of standardisation; in one case I persuaded a national agency to buy a soft copy of a particular standard for every university library in the UK to avoid the whole problem. I think it cost around £3,000 in total :) > Let me state it clearly: Fees for standard papers (and certification) >> may be a problem but that would be solvable. > Says you, says me: Never. Give an example! > >> Always remember: Free Software does not mean gratis and there is always >> money involved to create software professionally, about 75% of Linux >> code is developed in professional context [2]. > > So what does that prove here exactly? > Can not recognize the point in here, and over more do not believe, not to say > pretty sure, that there is none. > Developing a driver for linux is free of fee, offering it, too. Anyway. As > practically no other free software, I know of, is charged. > And the fact that there is always money involved these days, is not even to > be touched. > Regards > > > >> Bye >> Michael >> >> [0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML >> [1] http://blogs.fsfe.org/greve/?p=127 >> [2] >> http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/04/linux-kernel-in-2011-15-million-total-lines-of-code-and-microsoft-is-a-top-contributor/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Discussion mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion > _______________________________________________ > Discussion mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion OSS Watch - supporting open source in education and research http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk [email protected] [email protected] http://scottbw.wordpress.com @scottbw
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
