Paul Greidanus wrote:
Richard Stallman wrote:
In the case of hardware, it would mean it is too expensive to
copy...
which it could be... so does that mean freedom to copy something
became irrelevant as the cost of copying becomes relatively
expensive?
When something is impractical to copy, then the question of whether we
are free to do so is purely academic, and I see no reason to fight
about it. When something is feasible to copy, then the question of
whether we are free to do so makes a real difference.
This is an academic issue for now, and it is not easy, or possibly
even possible to have open hardware at this point, however, right and
wrong should never be tempered by this.
If it's wrong to have closed software, it should be wrong to have
closed hardware. (especially since the line between hardware and
software is very blurred these days)
Should you do more then say that, maybe put a webpage encouraging open
hardware development? Probably not, you're right, your time is too
valuable to push it.
Or yeast, and trees, which can replicated - and plants, and anything
with a stencil or a template, such as a tool like a socket, or clothing
fabric.
Since plants can be easily replicated, why are we buying food from farmers?
Answer: because farmers need to make a living and they happen to charge
us for the plants... they COULD charge us for something else, like their
fuel.. but that is a loop hole.
Someone may say that farming food is much harder than farming software -
but vegetables require no system administration, and are therefore
superior - as they are automatic growing/replication machines without
any salaries required to mess with the system administration and coding.
Furthermore, software cannot be eaten - and food freedom is more
important than software since the entire world is nearly hungry.
Someone may say that selling food is ethical... as food doesn't contain
source code. But food could or should contain "source seeds" and "soil
instructions" and other important data if we need to replicate the food.
That is, it should contain those things if we apply GPL/GNU style
philosophy. The cross breeding abilities of the food is also important -
and clear instructions could/should be shipped with the food as to how
the person crosbred so and so plants to get this particular breed of
food. We are not given instructions how to plant the seeds or the best
growing conditions and soil to use today, though. Why? because most food
eaters do not care about the food source code. Yes a few of them care..
but not many.
As with software.. the same thing happens - there are only a tiny small
percentage of people that care about the source code of the software.
Yes it is nice to have the source.. but it is not UNETHICAL to ship
someone a banana without the seeds, especially if the person eating the
banana did not need the seeds. Grapes, are a better example.... Grapes
do not require seeds since they get between are teeth. Shipping GNU
sources and long licenses with code gets in people's teeth too. That big
annoying license that pops up.. and the big download of the sources..
can annoy 90 percent of people that don't care to see such stuff.
Shareware.. is like a grape without seeds and without a big list of
instructions and history of the seeds and soil. Shareware, is still
edible and ethical as a seedless grape is. As long as the grape will not
kill me or harm me.. of course. And many many shareware programs do not
harm us.. just as seedless grapes do not. (I do not want to get into a
conversation about Monsanto.. though).
Hardware is also superior to software in other ways - than just
replicative abilities. I don't quite understand why everyone is so
obsessed with replicative abilities. No matter how replicative software
is, that does not make it as powerful as a table.. which lasts 20 years
without any software maintenance. Therefore one could argue that a
table, made of trees, should be free because of its superior power to
hold up objects in thin air.. which software cannot do. Since software
cannot hold objects up in thin air, it is lacking this magical quality.
Just like how tables are lacking the magical quality of replicative
power. Why is there so much focus on replicative power.. when freedom
could be related to not just replicative power? No matter how
replicative software is.. it will not ever be able to feed a physical
person or hold up an object in thin air.
It's hard to see where I am coming from, because many people are so
focused and set on this idea that the software is free because it is
replicative. But if we turn the tables and say that the tables are free
because the table holds objects in thin air.. a magical quality that
software does not have... we can then start charging for software, but
demand tables be given away free in cost and speech....
L505
