Hi Manny,
On 12/9/06, manny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> The point was that the communist edict of everyone owning everything
> therefore owning nothing, that the state provides and what the state
> owns is owned by the people, that there is a commune that owns
> everything and includes everyone disallows the people for deciding for
> themselves what they want. This is what the mentality of "Software
> should be available to everyone, and that everyone should be able to
> do whatever one wants with it, just so long as it is available to
> everyone too" is all about.
Uh, no. You totally misunderstand both communist philosophy and that of
free software.
Oh, okay... So can you educate me please for my amusement and personal learning?
The commies were talking about both real property and means of production
being owned by the STATE (their euphemism for "the people). Centralized
control and social aggregation of power into the state are the hallmarks
of communism. The Free Software ideal, in stark contrast, does not take
away the means of production or the ownership of software from anyone. In
fact, it is the very idea of private property and private enterprise that
actually protects free software. Without it, FOSS could not continue to
exist.
Real property and means of production being owned by the state and
therefore the people -- and therefore everybody owns everything,
therefore not owning anything at all. Centralized control and
aggregation of power in the state _IS WHAT THE FOSS BILL IS TRYING TO
DO BY MANDATING THAT ONLY FOSS BE CONSIDERED UNLESS THERE ISN'T FOSS
THAT CAN DO THE JOB_.
If you think about why Copyleft makes use of the rules of Copyright is
such that the thought of "ownership" of code becomes a misnomer --
where nobody would really *own* the code, and that everybody would
have the right to use it because everybody effectively "owns" it. The
point of copyleft is to use the rules of copyright against itself --
which I admit is clever, but is no more "right" than the converse.
> I was pointing out that if you think FOSS will be cheaper in the long
> run, then think again: you need to pay people to administer, at least
> reward the people who will modify monetarily, and "foster the growth
> of the local software industry" thus means putting money to the
> effort.
You have to do the same with proprietary software in addition to the
outrageous license fees. Windows systems, for example, need far more
maintenance and even more administrators than Linux systems. So you will
have to pay more for upkeep too.
You need more maintenance with Windows systems than Linux systems? And
you need even more administrators for Windows systems than Linux
systems? Really? Now isn't this FUD...
Come off it, Dean, that's plain FUD
you're spreading.
FUD = Fear Uncertainty and Doubt
I have none of the above -- I love FOSS, and I would love for FOSS to
get into government. However, I wouldn't want it to get in through the
FOSS bill. There has got to be a better way than mandating the use of
FOSS in government systems -- and apparently I'm alone with this
cause, except maybe for a few others who have also made their stands
known.
I only have Disgust, Disdain, and Disappointment in the FOSS bill.
Time and again it has been shown that using open source
results in dramatically far lower maintenance costs and TCO.
Sorry, but now you're the one spreading the FUD against proprietary software.
> I was suggesting that if it's alright for someone to be under a
> dictatorial communist rule, that the person was a communist and
> presumably would agree with what the "mandatory FOSS" and "FOSS in the
> long run will be cheaper" proposition.
You were making a baselss suggestion then. It's the other way around. The
communists would hate FOSS and the very idea of mandating FOSS in
government because it empowers users in government!
Sorry, but because of the "nobody owns anything because everybody owns
everything" nature of FOSS, communists will love it -- because they
can use it for free and make sure that every other software made
didn't have to be for profit, leaving the benefits to the "state" and
the cost to the people.
Really, these scare tactics about the "communist" leranings of FOSS have
been debunked so many times one would truly have to uninformed or a liar
to use them.
Debunked so many times? Really now... Can you actually think of a
reason why Red China loves the fact that they got an OS kernel for
free, and wouldn't release their changes past the great firewall of
China? Or how NoKor is already benefiting from behind their iron
curtain?
I would like to think you're the former. Please try to
educate yourself about the philosophical basis of FOSS before makign
statements about it. Please. This is a serious request, not a polemical
one.
Read the GNU GPL in whole, and think long and hard why Stallman et al.
would like the changes to be made available to the public upon
redistribution. Think long and hard why some of the most successful
software projects are not in the GNU GPL, but rather in more relaxed
licenses. And think long and hard why you really support the FOSS
bill: is it because you're just all for promoting FOSS and not about
building a fair playing government, or is it because you stand to gain
from having FOSS mandatory in government? Of course I don't care what
you think, but I respect the fact that you choose to give me
unsolicited advice about being "a better FOSS advocate and not a
proprietary FUD spreading fool".
God Bless you too Manny.
--
Dean Michael C. Berris
http://cplusplus-soup.blogspot.com/
mikhailberis AT gmail DOT com
+63 928 7291459
_________________________________________________
Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List
[email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph)
Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists
Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
