no dismay
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Libervis Mar 05, 2006 11:26 PM EDT |
"Paraphrasing Richard Stallman, and without doubt much to his dismay, we could say the word “free” in “free software” is not referring to getting something for nothing, but to “market freedom.”" Why would paraphrasing this be much to Stallman's dismay? Stallman himself says that Free Software is not against capitalism and what the author "paraphrases" here is infact exactly what Stallman is saying, it is about freedom and that does include "market freedom". Without this freedom, a market isn't a true *free market*. Considering that free market is one of the key elements to capitalism, we could even say that the proprietary software development is more anti-capitalistic than the Free Software. And really, what else would "free" in the term "free market" represent than freedom? Thanks Daniel |
| salparadise Mar 06, 2006 12:08 AM EDT |
"Free market" can mean free as in the way Microsoft regard the market - free from competitors or free market can mean free as in "Mr Jones from down the road" can come and set up his stall and sell his handmade computers along side Microsoft's stall without fear of underhandedness or abuse of state influence.
The bigger the company asking for a "free market" the more closely they should be regarded to make sure they're not after a rigged market. My understanding of what Mr Stallman says is that the right to be a community outweighs the right to earn money. Though I may not have got the entirety of what he says. |
| Bob_Robertson Mar 06, 2006 12:06 PM EDT |
Unfortunately, RMS doesn't want to allow any software to be proprietary. So he uses the word "free" to be freedom in terms of users, but not for producers. I tend to want "free as in freedom" to be literal. Produce what you want, licensed how you want, and watch as GPL licensed software beats the poop out of you over time because liberty and voluntary interaction is the most powerful way for human beings to interact. |
| dcparris Mar 06, 2006 12:31 PM EDT |
Libervis, you're dead on in your point. A free market is exactly what RMS offers. Unfortunately, proprietary software just doesn't offer the level of freedom that free software offers. As to Sal's point, RMS would more likely agree with the idea that the love of money is the root of all evil. His real issue with proprietary software is that it tends towards greediness, and leads us into an un-ending process of robbing our neighbors of their freedom. Microsoft's trend of adding further restrictions to their license agreements is all the example we need for this point. While RMS is an atheist, his view that we do have a responsibility to look out for others aligns almost perfectly with the Biblical world-view. This is, in fact, one of the key points that makes free software a moral imperative, from my own perspective. I recognize that others disagree with my viewpoint, but there it is. ;-) |
| Libervis Mar 06, 2006 1:32 PM EDT |
Bob_Robertson said: "Unfortunately, RMS doesn't want to allow any software to be proprietary. So he uses the word "free" to be freedom in terms of users, but not for producers." First of all, "producers" is a bad term. People don't produce as soulless bots and machines. They create and they ought to be respectively called authors, creators, programmers or developers. That said, these developers (in case of software) are the users at the same time because they use software to make software. So when Stallman talks about users rights and freedoms he inevitably talks about programmers and developers rights and freedoms as well. Exactly because the code is Free Software can developers reuse existing code and build their new program on it, cutting their costs and efforts and being able to focus on better software instead. To many programmers, I'm sure, this also means being able to create something that they could ultimately build a business with, in shorter amount of time. Since they already have a reusable pool of Free Software code all they need is a good idea on how to use what is available to produce something even better than already exists and then build a community and set a support business model monetizing their effort. Since they are the author of this final software program, they are the best ones to offer support and they'll be most wanted to provide this support. Services business is the new software business model and it is showing us that it works. Not only that proprietary licensing is unethical, but it is also unnecessary. It deserves no space on the market because it is the free market killer. dcparris: I also think it largely aligns with biblical principles. I come from a christian family though I've been tending more towards agnosticism lately (partly encouraged by church's ignorance toward exactly those aligning Free Software principles) and I've already tried to bring the point of Free Software to our church's pastor when he visited, though with not much success. The church's main policy is not to involve which they push so far to apparently refuse to officially endorse Free Software which is in my opinion contradictory to their very religion. Thanks Daniel |
| salparadise Mar 06, 2006 10:31 PM EDT |
God isn't responsible for what people do (or don't do) in His Name. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!