Please don't use phrases like "I think we'd all agree" when you start talking about things like evolution and fundamentalism. I think there are a number of people on the list who have would have different opinions (now that we have gone even further off-topic)
> I think we'd all agree that fundamentalism (absolute anything) runs > counter to natural science (eg there's no complete vacuum). So why are > we allowing fundamentalism to govern our lives? Historical accident > precedes collective conscience, in evolution. That is, should we try, a > healthy world can be (re)built when we consciously replace competition > with cooperation, around all our productive capacities. 3,000+ years of > scarcity, deprivation, war and profiteering are then transcended, by > humanity organising a world of plenty - including free software. > > Starting point? Recognise the fundamentalist currents dictating > "scarcity, deprivation, war and profiteering" around the world, and > start speaking out for "a world of plenty - including free software". > Dispensing with the patents and legalism entirely would accelerate this, > but we have to live in the present and find ways to cooperate (deflect > the push towards individualised, disempowered consumerism), where 95% of > our PC equals have yet to learn how to care about it (free software) at > all. So concrete licensing resolution is unavoidable. But the numbers > are against FOSS, until its general significance is made clear, known > and adoptable. Until then, it's a sitting duck. > > As when GNU/Linux got started, I'd argue that the GPL still has the > longest legs (for socio-economic reasons). > > > > Carl Cerecke wrote: > > > Rik Tindall wrote: > > > >> Our biggest challenge is to finally and bravely claim back material > >> causation from the idealist mystifyiers of fear (superstitious / > >> deferential innaction). Science is humanity's liberator - hone your > >> thoughts. > > > > My biggest challenge is to understand some of your posts. > > Fair comment. I appreciate the criticism - that completes the > dialectical process of historical analysis. Hth. > > > Cheers, > > Carl. > > One further observation dating back a few months, around the GNU/Linux > debate, without ascription: > > Whereas discussion of Free Software issues is most definitely > Linux-related (On-Topic and political), insinuation that it is not - > thereby to shut the discussion down - is Off-Topic and simply political > (freedom neutralised for consumeability). Debate is necessary. > > Regards, Rik > >
