> -----Original Message----- > From: Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 1:31 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: How To Play WMV (thread drift - > slaveryware) > > > On Thursday 28 September 2006 13:16, "Bob Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote about 'RE: [gentoo-amd64] Re: How To Play WMV (thread drift - > slaveryware)': > > Not really, *most* people will be, just as "enslaved" even if they do > > use a GPLed version of the software. > > Not true. The freedom to modify the code is important even if the user > cannot directly exert it, because it allows the user to pay > someone *other > than the copyright holder* to do the modifications for them.
So...? instead of being dependent upon the original vendor, the user is dependent upon the contractor s/he hires to do the modifications. I don't consider the option of transferring dependence from one entity to another entity as being real freedom. I will grant you that in instances where the original vendor no longer wishes to maintain/fix/update a piece of software, I believe that the source should be released, either GPLed, or just pure public domain, but that's not what we're talking about in this debate. > Also, anyone is allowed to give their friend free software and to use free > software for any purpose. Those freedoms are not provided to users of > non-free software. Now you're muddying the waters between libre and gratis, I can give you hundreds of examples of freeware or shareware that I can *legally* give to my friends without charge, but that don't have source code available. So in the sentence above what exactly is "free software" and what differentiates it from "non-free software?" > > > when the lack of ATI and NVidia > > > drivers is the only reason xorg-7.1 is not yet stable on x86 or amd64, > > > and it's the same thing with other distributions -- their actions are > > > holding a large segment of the would-be free software world hostage. > > > Call it what you like, I call choosing to be a hostage to the whims of > > > a software overlord choosing to be enslaved, and I both refuse to do > > > it, and refuse to have my money go toward funding the slave-masters! > > > > How is that different from people who can't read code being at the whims > > of Linux kernel developers? > > No one is at the whims of the kernel developers. Even if you can't read > code, you can communicate with people *other than the kernel developers* > who can read code. Okay, but since you can't read code, you have to *trust* whomever you do contact, they could just as easily be mistaken, or make an error without you knowing it. Why is being dependent upon someone else instead of <fill in the blank>, but still dependent nonetheless, considered freedom? > You aren't forced to trust the kernel developers word > that patch X is "better" for linux. Sure, it may improve performance in > 90% of the cases -- but what if you are in the other 10%? Even if you > don't understand code, it's simple enough to reverse a patch. Uhhhh....and binary patches can't be reversed, that doesn't require source code to be available. > > I fail to see that it really makes much of a difference whether Jane > > Avgusr is dependent on a Linux kernel developer or on an engineer > > working at nVidia. > > Because *no one* is dependent on the linux kernel developers. You can make > the needed changes. If you don't have the ability to, As is the case for 99.99 percent of the population. > you can get someone > else to using other resources available to you. So instead of depending on a kernel developer, I'm depending on a contractor I hire, I just don't see that as dramatically different. > E.g. I really need my > lawn mowed and I hate doing it; I'll trade you a mowed lawn for a kernel > patch. LOL..nice in theory, but I seriously doubt that many people are actually bartering for kernel patches. > Someone *has* to pay for the cost of maintaining and improving software. > That's economic fact. NVidia says you have to pay *them* to improve their > software. Linux kernel developers says you can pay *anyone with the > skills* (or use your own time) to improve the software. Clearly, > you have more options (and are thus more free) with free software. If I'm not doing it myself, I see little difference whether I pay one entity, or pay another. > > There really is no such thing as "slaveryware" or "freedomware" it's all > > Yes, there very well is. I want software I'm free to distribute (I need > freedomware). That's fine for you, but it isn't important to most users, and in the grand scheme of things it doesn't need to be. > I want software I'm free to use how I see fit (I need > freedom ware). Depends on what how you define "see fit." For most users there is nothing specifically provided by open source that they absolutely require. > I want software I can profile and audit myself That's fine for you, but it isn't important to most users, and in the grand scheme of things it doesn't need to be. > Analogy: > improving and maintaining software = food > software companies and individual developers = farms and farmers Software is not food, software is software, and developers are not farmers, they are developers. > So, you are saying it "doesn't make much different" whether I'm forced to > buy all my food from one particular farm or if I'm allowed to buy food > from any farmer (probably on the free market)? I'm saying that end users are free to buy or not buy hardware/software from any vendor based on the capabilities, features, reputation, and reviews of that hardware/software. The availability/nonavailability of source code doesn't add/subtract freedom from the transaction at all, at least in real world practical terms for most users. > The fact is that is DOES matter. And anyone that doesn't understand that > is simplifying things to much. It is simple, very simple, you're just over intellectualizing it and romanticizing it. -- Regards Bob Young -- [email protected] mailing list
