Choice is not the goal
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| wind0wsr3fund Jun 09, 2006 8:37 AM EDT |
Users of Microsoft's OS have plenty of choice and yet still, they are prevented from sharing, inspecting, and improving their software (or hiring someone to do so). The goal of the Free Software movement is to first provide, then protect these freedoms. It is dangerous to campaign for something as trivial as choice compared to freedom since, at the end of the day, Microsoft can (and often does) come back with the exact argument. "Choice" alone appeals to nothing but selfishness and instant gratification. This is exactly the kind of language companies like Microsoft want us to be using. |
| dinotrac Jun 09, 2006 9:03 AM EDT |
w3f - Choice is trivial? Glad you're not in a position to act on that. Choice is the very essence of freedom. Without choice, it doesn't exist. The thing that grinds you, as I recall, is that others have the choice to act in ways that you don't like. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jun 09, 2006 9:23 AM EDT |
There is nothing respectable about protecting and advocating your "choice" to participate in a model that is out to destroy my freedom. Dino, you really need to start from the beginning again if you're ever going to realize it's about freedoms 0-3. I'm growing very tired of your attempts to confuse the VERY clear message. Let me say it again in case it hasn't sunk in yet.... The Free Software campain is NOT about choice for the sake of choice. It is about freedoms 0-3. |
| Inhibit Jun 09, 2006 9:28 AM EDT |
English semantics suck (see: we don't want choice, we want freedom). Nebulous difference, no? I can understand some frustration as to why "the ability to choose" and "freedom" would be nit-picked into having separate meanings. Anyway. Freedom would be the ability to release what software you write under what license you like. You might not like said license, but that doesn't make it less of a personal freedom. Of course, others are perfectly free not to purchase/license/use it as well. Having something enshrined in law to be the way *you* would like does not "freedom" make. But there you have it. Free software is generally thought of as something specific, re: Richard Stallman and the GNU folk. When that doesn't work out is when there are artificial barricades erected to people writing that software. Such as the OS maker deciding they want to only allow some drivers, only allow some hardware, etc. In a free society Microsoft has every right to publish there software as they see fit. My problem (and I believe that of the author) is that they don't have the right to monopolize the market and prevent others from publishing similar software. Thereby preventing my ability to "choose" (which is an appropriate word IMO) Linux, BSD, or AmigaOS. |
| dinotrac Jun 09, 2006 9:34 AM EDT |
>The Free Software campain is NOT about choice for the sake of choice. It is about freedoms 0-3. 'campain' Appropriate spelling. As to starting over again, no thanks. Growth seems a better option. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jun 09, 2006 9:56 AM EDT |
quite pathetic, as expected.... |
| jimf Jun 09, 2006 10:02 AM EDT |
You're right Dino, people have a right in this society to choose... even if that choice is somewhat less than ethical. I don't like that, but denying that choice is an even more egregious infringement of freedom. |
| theboomboomcars Jun 09, 2006 10:16 AM EDT |
Those freedoms you are talking about were implemented to guarantee the choice of the user. So I can use the software how I like, when I like, on whatever computer I like. I can choose to use linux which will limit some of my other choices, like I can't play one of those newfangled games everyone is raving about, I am not interested in playing one of those games so it's not a bad limitation, or I could choose to use windows and not be able to do anything MS doesn't want me to do, and since my computer will report home every day and tell them, they'll find out if I do rather quickly. If I read the article correctly what Carla was complaining about is that I have the limitation of my choices when I choose to use linux because of MS' monopoly status the software/hardware developers do it for windows exclusively most of the time. |
| tuxchick2 Jun 09, 2006 10:18 AM EDT |
wind0wsr3fund, I can't decide if you're a troll, a Microsoftie, or just plain dim. The entire piece is rant on the struggle to retain the freedom to choose Free Software. Maybe you should try actually reading it, even though that would interfere with your trolling. |
| grouch Jun 09, 2006 11:29 AM EDT |
In a fair and level playing field, people have choices. Microsoft has used many illegal tactics to eliminate choices for the average customer. The author states: "[...] I shouldn't have to care what computing platform other people elect to use, what type of hardware they buy, or what software applications they think are teh hawt. I shouldn't have to care about converting users to Linux, or taking market share away from Windows." Those statements ring true even out of context; they stand on their own merits. If not for the destructive tactics of Microsoft (and others) in pursuit of goals to severely restrict of eliminate choice by "consumers", each individual could choose without fear or concern that the choice made would damage the freedoms of others. |
| alc Jun 09, 2006 12:52 PM EDT |
"In a fair and level playing field, people have choices. Microsoft has used many illegal tactics to eliminate choices for the average customer." The real shame of that is that alot of the "average customer's" don't even know that they have a choice. |
| Libervis Jun 09, 2006 2:34 PM EDT |
To dinotrac and others who don't appear to be getting the wind0wsr3fund's argument: Yes, choice is one of the fundamentals of freedom. However it is not necessarily a single characteristic of freedom as many may think. If you would consider choice to be above all else then you would easily let someone choose to take away your freedom, right? How's that leading to more freedom in the world. No, freedom is not *just* choice. Freedom is the balance. It is being able and allowed to do what you wish *as long as others are allowed to do as they wish*. The second part of that definition sentence places certain restrictions on the first part, restrictions that are meant to preserve freedom for everyone, rather than have anyone's freedom grow into power above someone else. Proprietary software leads to less choice, as we can see for ourselves. It is in itself a small monopoly (over the licensed program). What else is a monopoly than a restriction of choice and what else is restricting choice than a restriction of freedom. So you can't just say that when someone chooses to license software as proprietary he excercises freedom. No, what he is excercising is power over others, power that he should not have, powers taken by him *on the expense of the others*. Freedom is reciprocal and reciprocity implies restrictions that keep it being such. There is a big misunderstanding here regarding the concept of choice and I think many just miss to see its right place in the bigger concept of freedom as such. Choice does not always equal to freedom, not when choosing to kill freedom. True freedom is self preserving. Thank you Danijel |
| Libervis Jun 09, 2006 2:40 PM EDT |
I'd just like to add one other thought to this: A free man is one that respects others' freedom and never chooses to impair them. He does so because he expects others to respect his freedom. A man of power is different. A man of power believes he can choose to do whatever he wishes NO MATTER how will that affect others' freedom. That is not a man of freedom. Thank you |
| rht Jun 09, 2006 3:00 PM EDT |
"Yes, choice is one of the fundamentals of freedom. However it is not necessarily a single characteristic of freedom as many may think. If you would consider choice to be above all else then you would easily let someone choose to take away your freedom, right?" Come, now. That is a logical non sequitur. The very existence of the right to choose denies the existence of the power to remove that right. Were it not so, answer this one: Q.: Daddy, can God do anything? A.: Of course He can, son. Q.: Daddy, can He build a rock so big He can't lift it? |
| Libervis Jun 09, 2006 3:14 PM EDT |
@rht: "Come, now. That is a logical non sequitur. The very existence of the right to choose denies the existence of the power to remove that right." You may have not realized it yet, but you just proved my point. Freedom of choice is therefore not infinite. "Choosing" to not give freedom is not an excercise of freedom, but an unfair excercise of power. Thank you :) Danijel |
| dcparris Jun 09, 2006 3:22 PM EDT |
Libervis:
> No, freedom is not *just* choice. True. However, I don't think that Carla was meaning that choice was the "end all" in her article, or that she intended to equate it with freedom. I am assuming that freedom of choice was simply her focal point. Microsoft limits choice, and she wants more than their limited choice(s). Most in this thread have not missed the point that freedoms 0-3 are the goal. Some also are leary of wind0ws_r3fund due to his consistent harping and nitpicking. He tends to treat the editorial team as members of Radio Hanoi. He has made statements that are, to say the least, absurd. Nitpicking on the difference between freedom and choice in an article such as Carla's is, for some, more of the same. I suspect he'll have to work pretty hard to earn the respect of more than a few here. |
| Libervis Jun 09, 2006 3:39 PM EDT |
dcparris: I understand. My response was actually not directly to the article, but about clarifying the point that I think wind0wsr3fund tried to make. Maybe this thread is out of place in the context of this particular article, but generally it is a valid discussion regarding the meaning of freedom of choice. Thanks |
| jimf Jun 09, 2006 3:50 PM EDT |
Honestly Danijel your concept is more than a bit Utopian. True freedom has to have that element of choice 'even if' that involves bad choices, and some of those choices choices are unethical (as long as they aren't illegal). The only exceptions are when others are going to be harmed by that choice. That's a legal as well as an ethical dilemma. This means that freedom has to exist within the limitations of the current legal framework, at least until that framework can be modified to accommodate it. Currently, our laws don't recognize proprietary software and the Corporations peddling it as doing harm... quite the opposite. As individuals we can ethically adhere to FOSS concepts, but until that framework is changed, we must deal with what exists. Is FOSS a ethically superior way of looking at things? Totally! Should we work toward that ideal? Absolutely. > then you would easily let someone choose to take away your freedom, right? Quite so, and some people do make that choice, stupid as it is. > True freedom is self preserving. No way jack!!! Freedom is a constant struggle. Take your eye off the ball and someone will run off with it. |
| tuxchick2 Jun 09, 2006 4:08 PM EDT |
I disagree that the mere existence of proprietary software damages anyone's freedom. It's a big world with plenty of room for all kinds of software. Software is not business tactics. This particular argument goes in circles - developers shouldn't create proprietary software, because it harms your freedom, but preventing them from doing it harms their freedom. It doesn't even make sense. It's like going all crazy over "gay marriage harms the moral fiber of amurrica." A grandiose claim with nothing to support it. Most problems could easily be solved by just leaving folks alone. You don't like something, don't do it. Don't have abortions, don't marry someone of the same gender, don't kill Bambi, don't eat meat, don't use proprietary software. Very simple. Real freedom comes from making educated choices- for yourself, not for someone else. |
| grouch Jun 09, 2006 4:25 PM EDT |
tuxchick2: >"This particular argument goes in circles - developers shouldn't create proprietary software, because it harms your freedom, but preventing them from doing it harms their freedom." You almost have the crux of the matter in that statement. Developers *shouldn't release* closed, secretive software. Developers should, of course, be free to *create* such software. Users should be free to choose even software that shouldn't have been released. |
| Libervis Jun 09, 2006 5:47 PM EDT |
@jimfQuoting: Honestly Danijel your concept is more than a bit Utopian. True freedom has to have that element of choice 'even if' that involves bad choices, Freedom doesn't harm freedom. If you choose to do something with that result, you are not excercising freedom as freedom has nothing to do with your act. You are instead excercising mere power, the ability to do so, and we all know that just because you can do something doesn't make it right. That's my point. That said, unethical bad choice does not come out of excercising freedom, but out of failing to value and respect it for everyone else as much as for yourself (the basic principle of freedom). Btw, that reminds me of the saying "love thy neighbour as thy love yourself". (Bible?) :) We should at least respect each other and each others freedom as much as we respect ourselves. Such a state of things does not include choice that may harm anothers freedom (and licensing software as proprietary is one such choice). Quoting: > True freedom is self preserving. What I meant was that true freedom involves not only grants, but restrictions that are meant to preserve it. Those who understand that and value freedom will know those restrictions and respect them (they wont be out to unfarily restrict someone elses freedom or impose their power to them in any way, because they don't want others to do that to themselves). That freedom is a constant struggle I wholeheartedly agree. That is why it is so important to know what it is and then value and respect it. Otherwise you'll loose it very easily. I just think that people tend to misunderstand the freedom of choice as some sort of a wildcard that justifies absolutely every choice. Well, I don't think that is so. So sure, you can choose to do something that harms anothers freedom, but don't justify this act by calling it an excercise of freedom of choice, because that ain't what it is. And I think that's pretty much the core of my point. @tuxchick2 Quoting: This particular argument goes in circles - developers shouldn't create proprietary software, because it harms your freedom, but preventing them from doing it harms their freedom. It doesn't even make sense. It's like going all crazy over "gay marriage harms the moral fiber of amurrica." A grandiose claim with nothing to support it. I don't think proprietary software has much to do with gay marriage. Being gay indeed doesn't appear to restrict anyone elses freedom to be straight. It is different with proprietary software though as it directly affects those who use it and restricts what they are free to do with it. You may say that user is free to choose not to use proprietary software and hence be unaffected. Sure, but only if they are aware about the issue of freedom enough to care about it. Otherwise their freedom WILL be harmed, and they wont even grasp that it is so. The software proprietor's choice to make it proprietary therefore will have negative consequences on anothers freedom. And this happens all the time. How many Windows users are out there paying large bucks for it, enduring pains of security problems and soon DRM restrictions, without actually realizing that there is a better way or EVEN that they have the right not to be treated like that? Sure they have choice, on the paper I suppose, but they're still not free and wont be until someone teaches them about their right to freedom. Harm is done. Someone's choice to disrespect others freedom took their toll (and continues to every day). Do you really think that this choice can be justified under the guise of "freedom of choice"? Again, I don't think so. EDIT: This article nicely explains the issue: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html Thank you |
| jdixon Jun 09, 2006 6:19 PM EDT |
> So you can't just say that when someone chooses to license software as proprietary he excercises freedom. No, what he is excercising is power over others, power that he should not have, powers taken by him *on the expense of the others*. Well, here I'll have to disagree. This is somewhat disjointed. I apologize for that in advance. When someone writes code, it's his code. It doesn't belong to anyone else. He can choose to release it under any license he wants, or even not to release it: It's his property. Yes, that gives him power over others. But it's not power he should not have. It's power that he gains by creating something new, something that no one else has done. Taking it away from him would be far worse than taking a normal possession which existed before he owned it and can be replaced. You would be taking away something that has never existed before, and would not (possibly never) exist without his efforts. He owns it in a way he could never own something he purchased which was created by someone else. You would take away his options and demand that he release it in a manner that is suitable to you. Even if that were moral, which it's not, it's a self defeating proposal. Rather than release code under your license, if he disagrees with you he will simply not release the code or (in the worst case) not write the code at all. You cannot force someone to create for you on your terms. They will only do so on terms they find acceptable. If you want them to create on your terms, it's your job to convince them that your terms are the best ones. In the end, it comes down to the fact that you can force someone to labor for you at the point of a gun; but you cannot force them to think the way you want them to, no matter how large a gun you have. The battle for free software must be won by persuasion. It cannot be won by force. |
| jimf Jun 09, 2006 6:46 PM EDT |
We are all assuming that the ethics of free software, the ethics of honest business practice, the law, human nature, and a host of other factors don't ever intersect. In the real world, we are all constantly making decisions based on a combination of factors. If we were dealing with pure ethical concerns, there is no doubt that Danijel has the high ground. If business would behave, then Tuxchick would be correct in saying live and let live. grouch is probably the closest to 'understanding' the situation... If that's even possible. In my experience that pure ethical 'true freedom' that Danijel talks about is only valid in a Utopian sense, never in the real world. Thinking otherwise is... well.. simplistic. |
| Libervis Jun 09, 2006 8:20 PM EDT |
@jdixon A coder is of course free not to release the code. Noone is advocating that he should just hand his work over to the public. If you wrote the code, you have the code and you are free to use and improve it and if you wish copy and share it as well. However if you do decide to release it to the flow, do you ethically have the right to monopolize on it, that is control what everyone who gets the copy does with it? Sorry, but I don't think so. I can't agree that this is justifiable under the "freedom of choice" principle. You are talking about the rights of the software coder, but as long as he releases this code to others, those others become affected as well and it is their rights that must be considered as well. A coder doesn't loose his code by giving others freedom to use, share and modify it freely. In fact a coder benefits by becoming part of the community of cooperation. This said, I still firmly believe that it is wrong and dangerous to claim that choosing terms that don't respect this freedom of others is something that a software coder has some kind of a moral or ethical justifiable right to, that so many like to put under the tasty "freedom of choice" label. Quoting:Yes, that gives him power over others. But it's not power he should not have. It's power that he gains by creating something new, something that no one else has done. Taking it away from him would be far worse than taking a normal possession which existed before he owned it and can be replaced. You would be taking away something that has never existed before, and would not (possibly never) exist without his efforts. He owns it in a way he could never own something he purchased which was created by someone else. What you are basically saying is that someone who has created something new has the right to totally and completely control what happens to it even when he releases it to the public. You are advocating a creators monopoly. Man, if you write the code you wont somehow loose it by respecting others freedoms with it. You are not loosing your basic rights by respecting the rights of others. It is about balance and balance is what keeps the flow of creativity and progress going, not monopolies. Quoting: You cannot force someone to create for you on your terms. They will only do so on terms they find acceptable. If you want them to create on your terms, it's your job to convince them that your terms are the best ones. Noone talked about coercion of any kind. What I am talking about is that the concept of "freedom of choice" does not justify absolutely all choices as ones coming out of the *freedom to choose*. Choices that aren't made by excercising freedom of choice are made by merely excercising power to choose and again, power doesn't make it right. @jimf Quoting:In my experience that pure ethical 'true freedom' that Danijel talks about is only valid in a Utopian sense, never in the real world. Thinking otherwise is... well.. simplistic. You know, it's easy to call something utopic. It is also pretty easy to call on the current not-so-great state of things in the world and call it a "real world" making us who talk the talk of how the better world should be appear like dreamy utopists who don't get reality. What's your point anyway? I know that the current real world situation doesn't reflect a perfect ethical world. But I also know that if we were to just accept such state of things we'd never move forward - infact we'd move backward and the "real world" would become even more worse. My take is that instead of just accepting the current state of things we are not too happy with, we should try to change it. And I don't think we'll change a thing by confusing ourselves and the ideals that guide us by making things more complicated then they are. Simplistic? You bet it's simplistic! Otherwise neither you or me would know what we're talking about. That said, I think you're just relativizing the issue rather than approaching its core. That's what I think. ;) Thanks Danijel |
| jimf Jun 09, 2006 8:34 PM EDT |
Danijel, My point is that you need to deal with that real world if you ever want to make any progress toward your goal. This is not one of those things that is going to appear fully formed and magically accepted... look around you, it's going to be a long haul. You don't appear to want to acknowledge or deal with that. |
| grouch Jun 09, 2006 9:20 PM EDT |
Libervis: >'This said, I still firmly believe that it is wrong and dangerous to claim that choosing terms that don't respect this freedom of others is something that a software coder has some kind of a moral or ethical justifiable right to, that so many like to put under the tasty "freedom of choice" label.' Huh? Of course a coder has the right to choose the terms under which his or her code may be used, copied or distributed. Anyone who does not like those terms is free to stay away from that code. The problem, as rightly pointed out by Ms. Schroder, is, "Ballmergates have devoted their lives and incredible resources to taking away my choices." Given a level playing field, I have no doubt that software released on ethical terms would be the overwhelming choice of people. Forcing coders to release their work under free software terms or forcing people to accept only free software would be as unethical as the disinformation campaigns and destruction of choices which Microsoft uses. |
| dinotrac Jun 09, 2006 10:10 PM EDT |
>However if you do decide to release it to the flow, do you ethically have the right to monopolize on it, that is control what everyone who gets the copy does with it? Sorry, but I don't think so. What an incredibly strange and logically inconsistent position. Somehow, it doesn't hurt freedom to write code that you keep to yourself, hence preventing others from using it. However, should you have the audacity to make your program available for use by others -- but not the source code -- then you are harming freedom. I'm sorry, but there's no way to sugar coat it: that's just plain stupid. |
| jdixon Jun 10, 2006 6:05 AM EDT |
> What you are basically saying is that someone who has created something new has the right to totally and completely control what happens to it even when he releases it to the public. You are advocating a creators monopoly. Not quite. I am saying that prior to releasing the code, a creators monoply exists naturally. I think this is a self evident point and needs no further proof. The rest follows from human nature. If the creator is not allowed to release the code on terms acceptable to him, he will not do so. If you want creators to release the code under under the license of your choice, you have to convince them to do so, you can't force them. I am also, somewhat tangetally, arguing that it is wrong to even attempt to use force to do so, but that's really another argument; as is the fact that the terms of release are never fully enforcable. As I said, it was somewhat disjointed. |
| dinotrac Jun 10, 2006 8:27 AM EDT |
jdixon: >I am also, somewhat tangetally, arguing that it is wrong to even attempt to use force to do so Free societies have a built-in contradition: they cannot exist without something that could be considered force. That is in the nature of freedom: With freedom, you have different viewpoints, different claims of right. Different viewpoints tend to lead to disputes. Most, one hopes are settled amicably, but, in a world with human beings, some will not be. At that point, force (court, guns, threat of being shunned, whatever) comes into play. Without force, the weaker and/or less confrontational souls will always have less freedom that the stronger and more assertive ones. |
| tuxtom Jun 10, 2006 10:12 AM EDT |
Freedom is pulling the plug out of the power strip and going to the beach. |
| Libervis Jun 10, 2006 5:14 PM EDT |
@jimfQuoting:My point is that you need to deal with that real world if you ever want to make any progress toward your goal. This is not one of those things that is going to appear fully formed and magically accepted... look around you, it's going to be a long haul. You don't appear to want to acknowledge or deal with that. My posts weren't about presenting a plan of action on how to achieve a certain state of the world. It was rather about my views on what "freedom of choice" means and what it does not mean. I think it is first necessary to establish understanding of what freedom really is if we are to ever start working towards it. Otherwise we're tapping in the dark and working toward a goal that isn't even defined yet. I don't know how is that leading you to conclude that I fail to acknowledge that it is going to be a struggle to get to that goal in the real world. @grouch Quoting:Huh? Of course a coder has the right to choose the terms under which his or her code may be used, copied or distributed. Do you think it is moraly right for a coder to choose terms that take away his users freedom? Under the current law he indeed has the legal right to release it under such terms, but just because law allows him to do so doesn't mean that it is morally right to choose such terms. I am NOT arguing that the law should be changed to force a certain set of terms for software. I am merely trying to point out that certain terms are not ethical and therefore choosing to release software under those terms is not an ethical choice and cannot therefore be called an excercise of "freedom of choice" because calling it that way justifies the act as ethical, while it isn't. I don't want to force ethical choices neither though as I do want to leave everyone the freedom to decide wether to choose to excercise freedom or to excercise mere power. Once the choice of power has been made, freedom steps of the room and power is all that is left. Consider this example. I write a piece of program and now I have the ability to do the following with it: 1) Keep it to myself and use it "inhouse" 2) Release it under terms that respect freedom of users to which it was released (Free Software) 3) Release it under terms that don't respect freedom of users to which it was released (proprietary software). To choose 1 would not affect anyone because noone has any contact with the program but myself. To choose 2 would affect other people because the program is released, but since the terms respect freedom of users noone is affected in a negative way and freedom is preserved. To choose 3 would again affect other people because the program is released, but since the terms do not respect freedom of users, they will be negatively affected. Now, I am told to look at the real world and I am also told that in this case users are free to stay away from the code under these terms. Well, let us indeed look at this real world; what we see is that alot of people do use proprietary software and alot of those people *do not* like these terms. How come that they use software under terms they don't like (because their freedoms aren't respected) when they were free to choose? Well, the circumstances practically forced them to - that is what monopoly and lock ins do and that's what happens. Choosing proprietary terms is exactly what contributes to less choice in the world of software, and now you want me to think that this choice is an ethical one? I just can't accept that. Quoting:Given a level playing field, I have no doubt that software released on ethical terms would be the overwhelming choice of people. That's probably true, but the thing is that proprietary software actually works against this level playing field. How then can we advocate a choice of releasing software as proprietary as an ethical choice? What many seem to think here is that all choices are ethical, that all choices are the right ones. I am however trying to say that not all choices are ethical and that those which are not cannot be justified by just saying it's "freedom of choice", hence it's right. I am starting to run out of ways to explain this point. @dinotrac Quoting:Somehow, it doesn't hurt freedom to write code that you keep to yourself, hence preventing others from using it. If you wrote something from scratch and kept it to yourself it doesn't affect anyone else but yourself. Quoting: However, should you have the audacity to make your program available for use by others -- but not the source code -- then you are harming freedom. Once you released the code you did something that affects others. Terms which you choose for this release dictate in what ways will it affect others. Choosing proprietary terms takes away freedom and is hence the choice that cannot be called an ethical one. @jdixon Quoting:Not quite. I am saying that prior to releasing the code, a creators monoply exists naturally. Well yeah you could say that, but that monopoly doesn't reach farther than creators own privacy hence it doesn't affect anyone neither negatively nor positively. :) Quoting:If the creator is not allowed to release the code on terms acceptable to him, he will not do so. If you want creators to release the code under under the license of your choice, you have to convince them to do so, you can't force them. Again, I am not advocating forcing them to choose the right terms. I am merely advocating the right labeling of choices. Not all choices get justified by the existance of freedom of choice, as ethical choices. Guys, that is all I am saying! Choices that cannot be justified by the existance of freedom of choice are therefore not excercises of this freedom neither, but rather excercises of mere ability (or power) to do so. You could say that such choices just don't fit the ecosystem of freedom. :) They are outside of it. I am sorry for the big post this time. I was away today and just got in. I hope I have clarified myself a bit better now. I think that most of us here actually agree more than not. The only possible point of disagreement that this discussion might be coming down to is wether some choices can be considered unethical ones or not. My stance is that some choices indeed cannot be considered ethical and hence should not be presented as such by calling them the product of freedom. They're then a product of power. Thank you Danijel |
| jimf Jun 10, 2006 5:22 PM EDT |
> My posts weren't about presenting a plan of action on how to achieve a certain state of the world. It was rather about my views on what "freedom of choice" means and what it does not mean. Gee that is really useful. As I said, just another utopian theory. |
| dinotrac Jun 10, 2006 5:24 PM EDT |
>Once you released the code you did something that affects others. Terms which you choose for this release dictate in what ways will it affect others. Choosing proprietary terms takes away freedom and is hence the choice that cannot be called an ethical one. Pure illogical claptrap. Sharing something with other does not take away one whit of their freedom. They remain completely free to not use your software, just as they weren't using it before you released. In addition, their freedom to alter the code is no less than it was prior to the release because they had no freedom to alter your unreleased code. It's like arguing against daytime because the sun robs you of the freedom to be dark and cold. You are determined to find an insult to freedom no matter the facts. You have the freedom to do that, presuming, of course, that the freedom to express such nonsense doesn't deprive you of the freedom to be persecuted and suppressed. |
| Libervis Jun 10, 2006 6:01 PM EDT |
@jimfQuoting:Gee that is really useful. As I said, just another utopian theory. I guess we should just cease to think then. I mean, it isn't useful, right? You simply refuse to try to understand what I am trying to say. Well, goodbye then.. @dinotrac Quoting:Sharing something with other does not take away one whit of their freedom. They remain completely free to not use your software, just as they weren't using it before you released. So, what do you say about all the people who use proprietary software today while not being happy with it's oppressive terms, but still use it because they don't see the way out or are forced by the circumstances? Tell me it doesn't happen! Quoting:In addition, their freedom to alter the code is no less than it was prior to the release because they had no freedom to alter your unreleased code. I think you are actually the one falling into a (il)logical trap now. That's like saying that I don't have freedom to drive a warp starship because it doesn't exist. You're evading my arguments. |
| jimf Jun 10, 2006 6:14 PM EDT |
> Oh we understand what you are saying, and, none of us have stopped thinking, but, repetition of 'your' interpretation of it doesn't make it any more effective. kind of like chanting a litany I guess. Really Danijel, I begin to see this as an insult to our intelligence. Give us some credit here, we all want to see freedom in open software, just don't ask us to count the angels on the pin. |
| Libervis Jun 10, 2006 6:26 PM EDT |
Okay Jimf. Should I then just stop responding? I continued with my responses simply because none of the following occured: - I've been convinced I am wrong - I knew everyone got what I am trying to say. If I haven't been convinced then what's left is that I just may be bad at explaining my opinions clearly enough. In any case I didn't mean to insult anyone. I rather think of it as a debate. Thanks |
| dinotrac Jun 10, 2006 6:34 PM EDT |
>You're evading my arguments. You have no arguments. You are satisfied that you are right. |
| jimf Jun 10, 2006 6:51 PM EDT |
We 'get' the philosophy of open software. That isn't a problem, certainly not in this forum, and I doubt that anyone is going to be converted here. I can't speak for the others, but, as an Engineer, I need to see how to make your Ethical theory work in a real context, or it is essentially useless. The world is full of nice theories that go nowhere. It is important that we spread the ideals of free and open software, but unless we can show people how to use these concepts to replace the old regime, it's a meaningless exercise. My respect for people like RMS is because he and others have managed to link theory to social and economic realities. Eventually that may lead to significant and positive change. Now that is what we all want. Right? |
| Libervis Jun 10, 2006 6:53 PM EDT |
Quoting: You have no arguments. You are satisfied that you are right. Oh everyone can say that. You try to invalidate my arguments as stupid, illogical and unworthy of response rather than tackle them directly. That's not a way to have a discussion. |
| Libervis Jun 10, 2006 6:57 PM EDT |
@JimfQuoting:It is important that we spread the ideals of free and open software, but unless we can show people how to use these concepts to replace the old regime, it's a meaningless exercise. My respect for people like RMS is because he and others have managed to link theory to social and economic realities. Eventually that may lead to significant and positive change. Now that is what we all want. Right? Right. But RMS has managed to link exactly this Free Software theory to social and economic realities. I mean what else is he advocating than Free Software? I am actually advocating the same thing as he does. |
| dinotrac Jun 10, 2006 6:58 PM EDT |
> You try to invalidate my arguments as stupid, illogical and unworthy of response rather than tackle them directly. That's not a way to have a discussion. Oh contraire. I very explicitly and directly addressed your argument. I see no point in doing so repeatedly. Those to whom logic and reason matter will read and understand. They will agree or disagree, accept or reject what I have said. That's ok. No need to beat a dead horse. |
| jdixon Jun 10, 2006 7:02 PM EDT |
> Again, I am not advocating forcing them to choose the right terms. I am merely advocating the right labeling of choices. Not all choices get justified by the existance of freedom of choice, as ethical choices. Guys, that is all I am saying! Libervis, this may go without saying, but you're preaching to the choir. We're not the ones you need to convince. We agree that FOSS licensing is better. Most of us even agree that it's more ethical, since it provides more benefits to more people than the alternatives (I suspect that you consider the alternatives unethical. I don't. I merely agree that FOSS is better). The people you need to convince are those releasing their software under proprietary licenses. They undoubtably have what they consider good reasons for doing so. You should also be open to the possibility that in some small percentage of the cases, they may even be correct. |
| jimf Jun 10, 2006 7:07 PM EDT |
> I am actually advocating the same thing as he does. Well yes, but in this case, you're preaching to the choir :) |
| dinotrac Jun 10, 2006 7:13 PM EDT |
lv: Against my better judgment: >I think you are actually the one falling into a (il)logical trap now. That's like saying that I don't have freedom to drive a warp starship because it doesn't exist. No. It's like saying you don't have the freedom to drive a warp starship because you don't know it exists. Then, when the owner makes the starship known, the owner lets you drive it, but won't let you work on the engines. You have gained freedom, not lost it. |
| jimf Jun 10, 2006 7:16 PM EDT |
And, perhaps been saved from radiation poisioning.... sorry couldn't resist that :) |
| dinotrac Jun 10, 2006 7:19 PM EDT |
jimf -- Resist!!!! |
| Libervis Jun 10, 2006 7:34 PM EDT |
@dinotracQuoting:I see no point in doing so repeatedly. Those to whom logic and reason matter will read and understand. They will agree or disagree, accept or reject what I have said. Alright. I disagree and I have said why I disagree in my responses. I suppose we indeed don't have to continue on with that, if you choose so. :) @jdixon: Quoting:The people you need to convince are those releasing their software under proprietary licenses. True. But if I fail to convince them and they still choose to release it under terms that disrespect users freedom, I will consider that choice a step out from the realm of freedom into the realm of mere power. I simply wont see it as an ethically justifiable choice (or choice of freedom). Alot of people will though and that's the problem I'm trying to address. But I suppose I've already expressed this enough times and in enough ways. Quoting: They undoubtably have what they consider good reasons for doing so. You should also be open to the possibility that in some small percentage of the cases, they may even be correct. Maybe, at least for the sake of knowing that I am not the all foreseeable, I can be open to the possibility that in some cases a choice of proprietary software licensing would be the correct one and even one I wouldn't consider unethical. In some of those cases someone may even be forced by the circumstances into such a choice. However, from where I stand today, I don't see how would choosing proprietary terms be ethical in whatever situation in which users are restricted from excercising their basic rights with software they use on their computers. |
| jimf Jun 10, 2006 7:36 PM EDT |
OK, OK, the positive side of freedom... You won't need a night light. |
| Libervis Jun 10, 2006 7:49 PM EDT |
@dinotrac Sorry I didn't see your next post before writing my previous. Quoting:No. It's like saying you don't have the freedom to drive a warp starship because you don't know it exists. I would rather put it this way. Before you knew the starship existed there was no freedom to have about it. There was no restriction whatsoever as how could there be a restriction with something that you don't even know exists.. It doesn't make sense. Once the owner made the starship known it was not freedom that was gained, but merely the knowledge of the starships existance. This may be equivalent to the point where you know software has been released, but don't know under which terms it was released. If you are simply not interested in driving a starship you'll walk away (as you'd walk away from a program that does something you simply aren't interested in). This is where the starship analogy starts to fail applied to the realm of software, because starship is a physical item. I mean, freedom to share a starship with your neighbour doesn't exactly ring right. :) However, with software such freedom is indeed important and if you are by the circumstances forced to use software that is released under terms which do not allow you this freedom, then you are being harmed. Maybe in cases where you actually do have a different choice and the ability to make it the damage isn't evident, but as mentioned before, this is simply not always the case. Sometimes people are indeed locked out of alternative choices and hence hurt by the software proprietors freedom-disrespecting choice of terms. Thanks |
| jdixon Jun 10, 2006 10:13 PM EDT |
> ...I can be open to the possibility that in some cases a choice of proprietary software licensing would be the correct one and even one I wouldn't consider unethical. See, we do agree. :) Our disagreements are largely a matter of degree, not of kind. I think that's true for the others here too. The major disagreement you seem to have with myself and some of the others here is that we view software freedom as one aspect of a larger whole. For us, freedom as a whole is more important that just software freedom. After all, having all software be free means little to me if I'm in chains at the time. Thus, we feel it's important to clearly deliniate the points at which other freedoms override those of software freedom. You appear to be arguing solely from the view of software freedom and ignoring what we view as the larger reality. |
| dinotrac Jun 11, 2006 3:56 AM EDT |
jdixon: I think you're right about context and viewing software freedom as a part of freedom writ large. The whole "you are taking away my freedom" argument makes sense only if the release or proprietary software prevents the release of equivalent free software that people would/could happily choose to use. This might happen in some cases, but the realistic answer is that the assortment of desirable software available to users would likely decrease, reducing freedom overall. RMS implicitly acknowledges that when he says that he would rather protect his freedom by using inferior (as in fewer features, harder to use, etc) free software in preference to proprietary alternatives. |
| dcparris Jun 11, 2006 9:03 AM EDT |
> The whole "you are taking away my freedom" argument makes sense only if the release or proprietary software prevents the release of equivalent free software that people would/could happily choose to use. Developers of non-free software tend to entice users into giving up freedom in order to use the software. The user must be willing to give up their freedoms (0-3), but the developer promises to maintain and support the software. Frankly, I feel the promises are broken more often than not. So the user actually gives up some of value for something of less value than anticipated. In that regard, non-free software is essentially a scam. |
| dinotrac Jun 11, 2006 10:17 AM EDT |
>So the user actually gives up some of value for something of less value than anticipated. In that regard, non-free software is essentially a scam. You say that, but what has the user given up? To give something up, you have to have had it in the first place. If, for example, you decide to use MS Office, you are not required to delete your WordPerfect, OpenOffice, StarOffice, Abiword, Gnumeric, etc. As to freedom to much with MS Office internals, you never had it so you never lost it. You could make a reasonable argument that the software world doesn't support competition...that dominant applications kill of the competition. In that sense, a proprietary application wielding monopoly power could indeed reduce freedom. That, however, has yet to be demonstrated as a long-term fact. As to proprietary software being a scam. Seems to work out that way, doesn't it? |
| jimf Jun 11, 2006 11:26 AM EDT |
> That, however, has yet to be demonstrated as a long-term fact. I would argue that for a number of years, MS Office did exactly that. Even now a .doc is pretty much the accepted standard and before relatively recent versions of OO nothing else could produce good .doc copies. |
| dinotrac Jun 11, 2006 12:47 PM EDT |
jimf - I know that the IT world seems to move at ten times the speed of everything else, but MS Office hasn't even been around long enough to be long-term. Besides, MS Office is not merely a dominant application, it is the product of a monopoly that has abused and exploited its monopoly status. That makes MS Office a poor example -- it is not a dominant app on its own merits (though Excel is very good). Apache and sendmail might be better examples. For that matter, Quicken. |
| Libervis Jun 11, 2006 2:13 PM EDT |
I think I don't have much more to add without repeating what I already said. I still don't entirely agree with everything said, but there is also such a thing as freedom to disagree so I can leave it at that. My views pretty much come from my tendency and attempts to make clearer distinctions between what I consider ethical and what I consider unethical. I believe in freedom of choice, but I also believe that this freedom can be abused in a way that negates freedom. When that happens it is no longer freedom that defines the state of things and it is no longer, I believe, possible to justify the abuse of freedom as ethical just because one had the freedom of choice at the beginning. I agree that it is good to view at the whole thing in a larger context though and I think that point actually wasn't the main point of debate or disagreement here, as already acknowledged. The point of disagreement is seeminlgly a more minor one though still in my opinion important; wether unethical choices can be justified by the existance of freedom of choice or not. I say no. We also all seem to be more or less in agreement that proprietary software ultimately leads to less choice. Microsoft's monopoly should be a very clear testament to that. Microsoft is a natural development in a world where proprietary software dominates. That said, every time soneone chooses to license software as proprietary he contributes to creating a world with less choice. We can at least agree on that, even if we don't exactly agree about what to call such a choice individually. |
| jimf Jun 11, 2006 4:05 PM EDT |
> but MS Office hasn't even been around long enough to be long-term. Besides, MS Office is not merely a dominant application, it is the product of a monopoly that has abused and exploited its monopoly status. That makes MS Office a poor example -- it is not a dominant app on its own merits In the Engineering small business enviorment that iI worked in, MS Word had a lock on pretty much everything from about 95 through 03. Thak's a pretty long streach of time. Now I know that it didn't gain that advantage fairly, but, I'm also not sure how much it maters how the competition and our freedom get eliminated. It's still gone. |
| helios Jun 11, 2006 6:27 PM EDT |
This is without a doubt the most profound debate on this issue I have had the privilege
of viewing. Don, with all sincerity, I ask you to preserve this thread for future reference and enjoyment. I will do the same. This is a treasure that cannot be lost amidst the silt and salt at the bottom of the philosophical sea. Carla's article (I refuse to refer to it as a rant) has not only inspired this flow of thought...it has brought out the issues and layed them bare for all to understand. My fear is that the majority of computer users have neither the capacity nor the will to comprehend the importance of this exchange. The irony is that in order for the Greed Machine to break down, understand this they must. "Ballmergates have devoted their lives and incredible resources to taking away my choices." This is key. And the motive for this massive expenditure of resources? $$$ It seems that the FOSS community and the almighty dollar find themselves at odds again, or still...depending on your experience cycle and point of view. In most cases, I would put my money on...uh, the money, but not in this case. I believe that the virtues and strength FOSS is built upon will prevail. This is not a goal I seek from emotional and philosophical bindings, It is an outcome that, after the smoke of battle is cleared, will be triumphant. Argue all day the semantics of "freedom" if we must. Eventually the Greed Machine will grind to a halt because one by one, those who fed it via their wallets will stop providing it sustenance. That act will come from the soul of man...not his bank account. THAT is what keeps BallmerGates awake at night...they know it to be true. |
| grouch Jun 11, 2006 9:46 PM EDT |
Opening statement of this thread: "Users of Microsoft's OS have plenty of choice and yet still, they are prevented from sharing, inspecting, and improving their software (or hiring someone to do so)." Such users are like prisoners who are offered a choice of meals and bedding. The jailer expends a great deal of money and time to create real or perceived barriers to choices that lead outside the jail. Closing of the article: "So the next time someone crabs at you for dissing poor old defenseless Microsoft, and I shall go to my grave wondering at these losers who defend giant corporations for no good reason, just remember two things: they started it, and all we want are choices." Real choice means freedom. You can't have one without the other. The power to artificially raise the cost of certain choices is the power to effectively quash those choices. Microsoft uses many means to artificially increase the costs of choices they do not want computer users to make. |
| Libervis Jun 12, 2006 5:24 AM EDT |
Helios and grouch: well said guys! :) |
| Teron Jun 13, 2006 8:02 AM EDT |
Not all non-libre software is bad, though: That very much depends on the provider. I have little problem using Opera, for example, as I feel I can trust the company. Same goes for freeware devs who do the program just for fun and/or to simply help people as a gesture of goodwill. That kind of closed software (though less preferable than FOSS from an ethical standpoint) I simply refuse to group along with M$'s and then call evil. They mean no harm, and just provide the program in the hope that it is useful to someone. It may be preferable to licence such software under an open source/free software licence, but releasing it under a closed one is hardly an evil act. It's what you do with the code: The above are well-intentioned. What Microsoft does with the control that the licence gives it? Nothing too nice. FOSS licences force people to be nice because the code is available to all. To me, it doesn't matter if the provider is nice out of necessity or choice, (or both), to me it is simply enough that they are nice to me and trustworthy in general. Opera Software ASA is a prime example of a good closed soft company. Sorry, began to ramble. Will stop now. |
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!