On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Ilias K. <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks again for the replies. > > Timothy, your reaction is understandable as we do not know each other.Let me > clarify to everyone that I never suggested anything; If I decide to suggest > something to you, or ask something of you, I will do this in a direct > manner. I shared that I have a project in mind only because you asked what I > had in mind-otherwise, I would have kept the discussion on a strictly > theoretical basis.
By "suggest", I meant "postulate" or "assert" or "state as a logical proposition". I did not mean it in the sense of "I propose that you do something". > As I said before, I'd like the opinions of people experienced in open > hardware projects like you. I am not trolling and If I have offended you in > some way, I also meant no disrespect. > If you still can't trust me, we can forget about the "project" and "plan" > things I said. > > Well, I am certain that we share the same concepts of hardware and software. > The costs are "perceived" in the manner that I explained earlier, that > software is not really "free"-only perceived as being. Perceptions very well > grounded, yes, but perceptions nevertheless.I only used the word because I > like to be exact in what I am saying, not because I believe that your > perceptions are out of touch with reality. Again, If I suggested something > like that, I'd speak it out openly (but politely). I am no stranger to the idea that reality is really only a construct of our perceptions, and that reality is completely arbitrary and made-up. Therefore, the idea that something has a particular value is true only because we have decided so and have come to an agreement about it. I regularly engage in philosophical discussions, and I find it very interesting. I also don't think it's a waste of time, and I believe that philosophies not only have direct bearing on reality, but they fundamentally DEFINE reality. However, I started this project for practical reasons (or, perhaps, reasons that I perceived to be practical). We can discuss philosophy all day, but unless we come up with something practical to implement, all we're doing is talking and not actually accomplishing anything. At some point, we need to end up with lots of chunks of matter in our hands that perform some electronic function, and we all need to be able to agree that they exist. While I realize that "accomplishment" is another perceptual illusion, I nevertheless get a certain amount of satisfaction out of doing things that I and others perceive as accomplishments. > > It is clearer to me now that the cost of copying hardware is the main, and > sole, reason for the difference between the two movements. And yes, I am > actually getting somewhere with this, but it's not easy to articulate. This is something you need to work on. As an academic, as an engineer, and as a leader, I succeed or fail on the basis of my ability to concisely articulate difficult concepts in textual form. You seem to be beating around the bush about something. It might be better if you were to be more specific about things you have in mind. > A software developer may have bought his computer for reasons other than > FOSS development, the cost of copying software may be zero, but these don't > justify his spending enormous amounts of time developing products that he'd > actually give away. If his incentive does not stem from the donations the > project receives, then surely the motivations must be non-material. What is material and non-material? They too are just perceptions. When we contribute to FOSS projects, we earn respect, notoriety, mindshare, a sense of personal accomplishment, the feeling that we have made the world a better place, etc. Also, plenty of us make money from what we contribute, either by salary from a company that uses the FOSS product or by dual-licensing or any number of other ways. > In this > case, an interesting question to ask would be what is the cause of his > motivations, and whether motivations of this kind can be cultivated some > levels before in the production chain, for example in the producers of the > hardware "raw" materials, in order to achieve truly free hardware. Actually, the topic of people's motivation to contribute to FOSS projects has been studied extensively. You might benefit from googling it. One cost that you're dancing around is "time". When people write code, it takes TIME, and time is money, as they say. But we're not earning money when playing video games at home with the kids. Our time only has monetary value when we decide that it does. If someone contributes code to a FOSS project without expecting money, it's because they have decided that the time is not worth money but has some other benefit instead. When I was a pre-teen and hacking on my Atari, I didn't do it because I had money in mind. I did it for the pure joy of it, like other kids playing basketball. > > What I am saying may sound irrational-but I am sure that anyone that spoke > of free-as-in-beer software before 1983 would sound crazy.I hope that it > will serve as food for thought for you as well and not be a total waste of > your time. Not really. Bill Gates wrote a now-famous letter to computer users groups in the late 70's (IIRC) complaining about them freely sharing his copyrighted software. Software has always been perceived as something that's easy to copy, unless it's inconveniently tied up in some hardware, like a game cartridge, or cryptographically signed, etc. > > Regarding the more realistic, down-to-earth solutions and suggestions you > made, I've done some research myself on dealing with the costs-but I'd like > to share tomorrow, as right now it's getting very late here. > > Thanks once more! -- Timothy Normand Miller http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~millerti Open Graphics Project _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
