I know you guys have interesting analogies, but cloning plants is not the same as copying source code.
On 1/6/08, L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > -- Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk "This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity." -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation. "Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted." -- Gene Spafford learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0&feature=related
