El 21/05/13 05:37, [email protected] escribió: > "Perhaps most people think that the job they have is barely enough to > cover their basic needs. The reality is different. You don't have to be > caught in a consumer way of life." > > This is perfectly true, if and only if you make decisions about your > own life. > Whenever you're head of a family with children, things are different. > Why? First of all, you have to make more money compared to living > alone. And: > living a very very simple life will make you different, and at least > in germany, separate you from what is called "normal" society.. > I don't want my children suffer hostilities because I made an egoistic > decision concerning their life. > If you want to: I would give away _a little bit_ of freedom to protect > them from harm. I wouldn't give away more freedom because I want to be > a good example for them. But here you have to find a balance, and this > behaviour would be my way of balancing.
That sounds as the argument made by the people in the Linux action show to Richard Stallman about developing non-free software to feed their kids. Sure it is not the same to develop non-free software to using non-free software because one is the victimizer and the other is the victim. It has nothing to do with feeding children but with personal desire to earn more money. It is hard for me to believe that having less money is more dangerous than having more money. I would say they are directly proportional, not inversely proportional. I do not criticize your decision. But the arguments you give sound very partial. Perhaps a lot of people live a much better and healthier life with much less money. That is true in Ecuador, Germany and any other country that has enough food supply. > > "But if I was in the same > situation I would press the university until they let me use free > software even with the risk of loosing my degree. I would do this even > if I though that a university degree would get me a better job (which I > don't)." > > Well, if this is "just a degree", perhaps I would agree with you. > But think of someone who wanted to become a scientist his whole life, > who has a vocation, a passion and a dream. > Actually this is the case for me. As a scientist, I can not only live > my dream but also contribute to society. Not having a university degree does not prevent you from being a scientist. Just apply the scientific method and you become a scientist. > No one has forced me to use non-free software, but if things would > have been different, I would have agreed to make this small exception. > Being a scientist I gained my personal freedom and can do good for > society, which is much more than I did harm to society and giving away > freedom using the proprietary software once. > So, this is of course not "good", but it's the lesser of two evils. Possibly it is the other way around. Possibly using the most free software in your capacity helps society much more than contributing to science. Perhaps it is your preference and your decision. That does not mean it is a better contribution or even that it is not better for you. > And a scientific university degree means in germany an extreme > difference for your economic initial position. That I could believe. Perhaps being a plummer would pay better. That usually happens. It is better payed to do phisically tough jobs or commerce jobs or mining jobs. But getting a better pay is a question of minor importance because it is superficial. It is better to concentrate on more profound aspects so the superficial part will solve by itself. -- Saludos libres, Quiliro Ordóñez Presidente (en conjunto con el resto de socios) Asociación de Software Libre del Ecuador - ASLE Av de la Prensa N58-219 y Cristóbal Vaca de Castro Quito, Ecuador (02)-600 8579 IRC: http://webchat.freenode.net?channels=asle&uio=OT10cnVlJjEwPXRydWU3a Todo correo que reciba será tratado como información pública, de libre copia y modificación, sin importar cualquier nota de confidencialidad.
