On 06/09/2012 07:42 PM, Matt Giuca wrote:
Closed source only serves one purpose, profit. That's fine, but if I'm not personally profiting, then why would I argue for that side? You could say that because of profit, people are able to develop software which they might not develop by any other means, again, true, but again, not my problem.Okay, but I think you missed the specific point of the argument, which was *pick your battles*. Your response here is a general argument about why free software is better than proprietary software, which I agree with. I was not (and ESR was not) making any kind of argument in favour of proprietary software. Rather, the argument is that we should not place all proprietary software on equal footing, because it is not. There is far more at stake when an operating system is proprietary than when a microwave or a browser game is proprietary. If given the choice between a free software thing and a proprietary thing of the same type, I'll choose the free software thing. But I like the idea of this "scale", so that I can make different choices in these scenarios: 1. I am offered proprietary encryption technology to send an important document, and no free software alternative is available. I choose not to send the document at all (or, if at all necessary, to build my own free software alternative), because it is very important that I can trust the encryption technology. 2. I am offered a proprietary microwave to heat my food, and no free software alternative is available. I choose to use the microwave, because why would I even want the source code to my microwave anyway? You might argue that I'm "disempowering" myself by choosing an unhackable microwave, but at this level of triviality on the scale, I honestly don't care. The point of the article is to view a spectrum in between these two scenarios, and to stop caring about those at the low end, so that we can focus our efforts on the high end (and not come off as unrealistic preachers who will eat cold meals because they are unable to customise their appliances). _______________________________________________ Free-software-melb mailing list [email protected] http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb
I don't think its a matter of choosing battles. It's a matter of defining what you want. Or more accurately, what you are entitled to.
If you buy a piece of hardware or software, you are, I believe, entitled to have freedom and control to use its base functionality any way that you see fit. For instance, a graphics cards base functionality is to allow a computer to display graphical images, and these days, process graphical data. So you as a customer are entitled to use the hardware, and have the knowledge and power, to use the graphics card in that matter. It should enable you to, by manipulating the computer at ITS base functional level, to make use of its hardware to do what its designed to do. If you think about it, when you buy a card, which is closed, and only operates through drivers, you are denied this. You are buying a graphics card where you cannot freely use its base functions. You are getting ripped off because you are denied its base functionality. If you bought a car, but you had to have a chauffeur drive you around, you would again, be ripped off.
For a microwave, its base function would be to microwave food, to control time, wattage, etc. Being able to program it is not part of that, and therefore its not an issue. I'm not saying its a battle not worth fighting, I'm saying there is no battle there and microwaves are not sold as programmable units. Same for a pacemaker.
Industry seems to thrive on customers not demanding their rights, or not knowing or believing they have such entitlements. This is a typical attitude of the day unfortunately. These companies take away our freedom because we don't think we deserve better and most people are shockingly docile and oversocialised.
No one is demanding to be able to program their microwave, so I think Eric is attacking a straw man here.
A lot of people don't like Stallmans hard line approach. I think a lot of people don't like Stallmans approach, because it appears boorish, simplistic, perhaps not intellectual and conciliatory enough. But this is exactly what you need to do to actually push your point.
_______________________________________________ Free-software-melb mailing list [email protected] http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb
