Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Open Source
In defense of Free Software, community, and cooperation
Share
Print
CommentsIn one of the most telling criticisms of his position, one Slashdot poster commented that, to paraphrase, until Stallman realises that people don't expect cooperation and community to be products of, nor aspects of, a software industry, he won't ever succeed. Stallman, the poster implied, is talking only to a select group of people, and will never "meet the needs of the masses" until he accepts that their expectations of software are significantly different than his own.
This apparently pragmatic approach to software can be found in a lot of documents advocating the use of the term "Open Source" in place of "Free Software" (though I am by no means implying that this applies to all Open Source advocates). To many, the development models best described by Eric Raymond in The Cathedral and the Bazaar are what is most significant about GNU/Linux, along with the technologies and associated benefits of Open Source software, like stability, security, and speed. And it is these development models and their benefits that we ought to preach to potential customers and convertees. In the words of Raymond himself, the original push for Open Source "was a sustained effort to argue for 'free software' on pragmatic grounds of reliability, cost, and strategic business risk."
It is undoubtedly upon these grounds that Free Software has seen such huge success in the business world, for the most part in the server market and increasingly in the desktop market. The founders of the Open Source Initiative were no doubt correct in thinking that the term "Open Source" would be easier to sell to commercial entities than the term "Free Software." But this is only half the story. Where Open Source software has taken the business world by storm, Free Software is increasingly making a difference in governments, developing countries, areas of cultural minority and many others upon more grounds than "reliability, cost and strategic business risk."
I should note, before I get indignant responses from Open Source advocates, that the confusion of terminology does highlight the fact that we shouldn't think of Free Software and Open Source as meaning different kinds of software, since generally they are synonyms describing software under licenses like the GPL. Rather, they are different philosophies, different reasons for using and promoting the licenses and values that they share, and their key difference lies in the omission of community in the Open Source philosophy.
Free Software as a community toolWhen announcing a move to Open Source software, the Venezuelan government outlined "a new Internet access program where all machines would be Linux-based and held under community franchise." Venezuela's announcement made clear that the health of the communities who use information technology, and of the wider community of developers in Venezuela, depended upon their adopting Free Software.
In an infamous letter to Microsoft Peru, a Peruvian Congressman outlined his reasons for mandating the use of Free Software in government. In response to the question of whether the market should decide, he said that "the state archives, handles, and transmits information which does not belong to it, but which is entrusted to it by citizens... the State must take extreme measures to safeguard the integrity, confidentiality, and accessibility of this information." He makes it clear the importance of community in Peru, distinguishing between the conception of software as a product for consumers and the conception of software as a tool for citizens and communities.
Though most government decisions cite economic and technical reasons for switching to Free Software, there is almost always a mention of the damage that proprietary software has done to communities in their countries. By its very nature, proprietary software stops people from sharing technology and provides no guarantee that citizens will be able to share information through open standards. In Venezuela, the government felt that proprietary software had subjugated its development community under the arm of foreign developers, and had not enabled established communities to benefit from information technology in the way that Free Software might. These sentiments are echoed in many government statements, particularly those from developing countries where large proportions of their citizens are further excluded from information technology by proprietary restrictions.
These countries, we hope, will in time develop to such a point that they will be able to nurture nascent software industries capable of competing locally, nationally, and globally, where Free Software can make such a difference. It is precisely because of considerations of community and cooperation that they will be able to enjoy the apparently more "pragmatic" considerations of reliability, cost, etc.
Central to the development of information technology in any region is the accessibility of that software for particular cultures, with their own languages, scripts, and approaches to software. With the proprietary software model, consumers are dependent upon the producers to supply sufficiently customised or internationalised products. With the Free Software model, on the other hand, individuals and communities are free to internationalise software, and often receive considerable support from the parent projects in doing this. One only needs to look at the recent localisation of GNOME into Bengali or of KDE into Farsi to see how Free Software enables communities to cooperate and better themselves and their fellow citizens.
Whether FS or OSS, community mattersIn fact, it is not only in governments and developing countries that the importance of community is apparent. Every nation is composed of communities formed around religious beliefs, shared hobbies and interests, political necessity, and all kind of other grounds. In these communities, the benefits of being able to share software, to customise or have customised software for their particular needs, and to be free as a community from the influence of any particular software producers is a great opportunity.
Associated with Free Software is also the ability to influence, contribute to, or join the communities that produce the software you can use. Not only can entire communities, as in the internationalisation cases, link up with communities that they benefit from, but individuals and companies, should they want to, can do so too. Whilst the idea of your average Web-browsing, document-writing computer user contributing to the Linux kernel may sound absurd, simply providing the ability for such a person to file a feature request or ask a community of developers and supporters for help is enormously empowering. It humanises software, and takes the user from being a passive consumer who must put up with what he is given to being a potentially active user who can exercise a degree of power over what he is given, both in terms of actually changing particular features, and in terms of influencing the development agenda.
The freedoms ensured by Free Software also enable new communities to form, for example locally based cooperative volunteer support groups, or Linux User Groups (LUGs) for short. The more the public is able to share and cooperate without destroying the software "industry" entirely, the more citizens will gain in terms of participation in communities, increased opportunities with information technology, and of course all of the "pragmatic" benefits. So long as Free Software doesn't undermine the ability of the public, including business, to make software and make it usable for everyone, it is morally superior to proprietary software, and leaves us with no reason to keep proprietary software. Where proprietary software is necessary, that may not be the case, but I don't want to get into a discussion as to where it might be necessary.
In highlighting these cases, I am not trying to suggest that Open Source as a philosophy denies the importance of community, but that those who attack Free Software advocates like Richard Stallman for talking about cooperation and community are quite wrong. Community matters, more in fact than considerations of stability and cost, because in the long term, whilst Free Software will enable communities and deliver the quality of products citizen-consumers require, proprietary software will further divide and polarise communities and inhibit the potential of information technology for the public. Considerations of cost and stability will continue for as long as software is produced, but considerations of community are central to the direction of information technology in society.
Whether or not you can sell this vision to the average consumer over a shop desk, it matters. If the community behind Free Software forgets this in its rush to spread the software, and we confuse the goal of freedom with the goal of popularity and market share, it fails. Until those who disagree with Free Software advocates understand that this is our position, criticisms will fall on deaf ears.
Copyright 2004 Tom ChanceComments
on In defense of Free Software, community, and cooperationNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
Get a life, get some culture, taste some real bread, cheese, and meet some real people. After all, what makes you guyes so distastful to the rest of the planet is not some type of imagined DNA-based deficiency which you cannot overcome, but your endless, bottomless IGNORANCE combined with LOUD MEANINGLESS WORDS (in ONE language only, of course)
besides - the country he was referring to was probably Buthan<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-))
First of all, it was spontaneus. No goverment ever decided it should exist. If Mr. Stallman started the FSF he did it as an individual, with no more power than anyone else. The thinking behind the FSF is against software pattents and copyrights, which are actually State-mandated monopolies (artificial monopolies), which are today's remanents of merchantilism.
In no part does the GPL says you have to do something for free. In fact, it says you may charge a fee for distribution, a fee for giving the source code (limited to distribution costs) or you may charge for giving support or a warranty. In other words, what the GPL is actually doing is promoting loyal competition, where everyone has access to the source code of whatever program they are supporting.
Why are there people programming for "free"?
The are actually not programming for free, they are getting from the community something they value more than what they are giving in. (theory of the subjective value of goods)
They give time and knowledge after fulfilling their basic needs (usually as programmers for propietary software, or as tech support, or something similar), and they get
- personal satisfaction (same reason people give money to charities)
- right to use source code they do not have necessary skills-resources to produce
Reason # 2 is incresingly more important. It might be too expensive to produce some technology, that someone else already produced, so by using the GPL they can produce and sell derivative work. Obviously, in exchange that derivative work is also GPLd. Still, they can sell it, and make a profit from it, specially, giving warranties, support, etc. So the GPL promotes work division...
Also, the GPL is about freedom. No one is forced into it. You may use a GPL program, modify it, and use the modified version without releasing it. You are only bounded to the GPL when distributing. Certainly, if you create derivative work you then want to make proprietary, then you are in trouble. It is not the GPL stealing your IP, it is you, that based your creation on code which was provided by a copyleft license. In the same way, if you did derivative work based on someone else's proprietary software you have to pay him/her a license fee. The owner can impose any restriction he wants. He can charge you a per copy royaly, or decide he will not license his creation to you. Owners who decide to put their work under the GPL ask you for the right to re-distribute your work based on theirs... it is up to you to decide if you accept this or not. (as you decide if you pay or not a royalty).
As for the comment of the majority of users wanting free software, because it is free as in free beer I would think there is a misunderstanding. Most of the Total Cost of Ownership is not the license, but the support that comes aftewards. This is not gratis with free software. Certainly, a skilled user migth use free software for free and be his own support staff. He would be saving money in the same way an electrician saves money by doing his own electrical repair. Corporate users would have to hire tech support staff, or sign contracts with experts to maintain their free software systems, in the same way the do with their propietary ones. A higher level of tech support at a lower cost is possible with free software, as there is no need to pay a large softwar firm for a software enhacement, but this is a result only of fair competition, where no monopolies are allowed.
...and re-advocate Stallman's assertion that the right to form a community is more important than the ability to use particular software.
Fine. It's merely a disagreement between pragmatics and philosophy.
It's great to advocate for 'rights', but most people don't see software development as a political process. Some developers do. Users typically don't.
.It's fine if a group of authors want to demand the ability to take any work of fiction, change a couple of sentences, and re-publish: They can avocate any cause they want. But, most readers don't care that much.
Your article is fine, if not a little soft. Be careful of making statements suggesting a product's usefulness, or effectiveness, is secondary to the political or philosophical movement surrounding it. Many users don't want the extra baggage.
In the end, most software is merely a product. Its 'success' is based on its usefulness. Everybody sees the usefulness of gcc, Perl, Python, and the Linux kernal (hence their success). Not everybody sees the usefulness of many projects languishing on SourceForge, despite the obvious market justification for their existence.
Strong principles are a sign of character, but they don't fill the belly. Developers may have strong character (and I think it's good that they *do*), but businesses exist to fill their own belly. We don't always agree with that, and aren't always happy with that, but it's not 'wrong'.
Most users see a software product's intrinsic value derived from its usefulness. If you want to suggest that its intrinsic value is based on what it represents (i.e., manifestation of cooperation within a community), that's fine, but most people searching for a software package to solve real needs want a tool, not an evangelist telling them how to think.
The silliest assertion by the FSF is the constant drone that business users should 'settle' for software that is not as good as commercial counterparts, simply because of a philosophical assertion, rather than business justification. Or, it's the assertion that these same business users should be more interested in advancing this cause than running their business. Many businesses have no need nor interest (nor resource luxury) to become political activists in addition to their core purpose, which is to run their business and provide products and services to their users.
Re:Real products v. Philosophical byproducts
Posted by: Taran Rampersad on January 08, 2004 10:34 PM The silliest assertion by the FSF is the constant drone that business users should 'settle' for software that is not as good as commercial counterparts, simply because of a philosophical assertion, rather than business justification. Or, it's the assertion that these same business users should be more interested in advancing this cause than running their business. Many businesses have no need nor interest (nor resource luxury) to become political activists in addition to their core purpose, which is to run their business and provide products and services to their users.
Honestly, this is the first I have heard of said 'assertion'. Is there a reference you have, or is this normative?
Honestly, this is the first I have heard of said 'assertion'. Is there a reference you have, or is this normative?
By, 'constant drone', I suggest 'common' and 'prevolent'. For example, let's merely refer to RMS himself and the article that started this thread:
from RMS:If you take as your goal the increased popularity of certain free software, if you seek to convince more people to use some free programs some of the time, you might think those non-free program are helpful contributions to that goal.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
But if our goal is freedom, that changes everything. Users cannot be free while using a non-free program. To free the citizens of cyberspace, we have to replace those non-free programs, not accept them. They are not contributions to our community, they are temptations to settle for continuing non-freedom.
Right. Non-FSF approved software is a temptation that must be resisted (because of a philosophical cause, not business justification).
Developing free replacements for them will be a big job; it may take years. The work may need the help of future hackers, young people today, people yet to be inspired to join the work on free software.
Um, excuse me? Resist the temptation of commercial software when no replacement may be around for *years*? And, it may even require people that aren't even *starting* work yet? What are businesses supposed to do in the meantime?
I'm not against causes, nor even tilting at windmills. I'll even do that myself. But, the words, 'unworkable' and 'unrealistic' come to mind regarding his evangelism to real people with real problems to be solved *today*. There's another term, according to Webster: zealot.
Let's just jump to the RMS conclusion:
The most effective way to strengthen our community for the future is to spread understanding of the value of freedom--to teach more people to recognize the moral unacceptability of non-free software.
This is indoctrination. That's fine: Anyone is welcome to push their own personal morals and justification (the power of self-righteousness is strong indeed). However, other models can be good too: What's wrong with the BSD assertion that BSD is "more free" than the GPL because you're allowed to do whatever you want?
No, of course, that's evil because RMS says so.
Re:Real products v. Philosophical byproducts
Posted by: Taran Rampersad on January 09, 2004 12:13 AMPeople who use Free Software need to assure that their software remains free. That's part of the GPL, part of the responsibility that comes with the freedoms.
People who don't use Free Software should be encouraged to use Free Software. RMS makes what many would concede to be philosophical points, but they are very realist. Users have a choice. If they choose software that does not give them the liberties that Free Software provides, that too is a choice.
At no time did RMS say 'Use inferior software because of the Freedoms'. It's up to Free Software projects to create usable software. And the people who *can* be involved in these Free Software projects are the same people who may be using proprietary products.
Consider the money spent on these Commercial Off the Shelf proprietary packages over a period of time - the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) which Microsoft has been using ostentiously. The truth is that the TCO of Windows 95 is lower than GNU/Linux. But the TCO of running a proprietary OS is substantially higher because of having to upgrade to a new OS all the time.
The *true* TCO isn't comparing Windows XP to GNU/Linux. The *true* cost of ownership will be known when Microsoft says "Ok, everyone, if you don't upgrade you'll be left out. You can buy an upgrade for $xxx, you can train your people on it for $yyy, and you will have to upgrade your hardware for $zzz".
So, with using Free Software the money saved from that - which is uncertain except, perhaps, to the Microsoft Business Team - could be paid to Free Software folks who will make usable software, or make software more usable. After all, what's usable for one group may be unusable for another.
No, I don't think there have been any assertions. Perhaps you read an implied assertion into it, but I am certain that nobody in the Free Software Foundation or any of the affiliated organizations has ever made an assertion that 'people have to use inferior software'.
If Free Software is considered 'inferior' for an application, there's nothing holding people back from changing the application, except perhaps misunderstanding Free Software. If there's any assertion that has been made, it's that Free Software permits people more Freedom.
At no time did RMS say 'Use inferior software because of the Freedoms'.
Methinks you misread RMS: He says don't use any software at all.
To free the citizens of cyberspace, we have to replace those non-free programs, not accept them.
RMS explicitly states that we should not accept, not install, and not run non-free software alongside our free software. And, that's just in this article. Another interview with him earlier this year has him saying it's better to do without entirely, or to start your own project, rather than install any commercial software. All of this is because of the, "moral unacceptability" of non-free software. Perhaps you see a business cost/benefit analysis based on his unsupported assertion of "moral unacceptability". I don't.
He admits that non-free software doesn't even exist in many cases to serve the business need. Instead of businesses attending to their business, he wants them developing free software.
The original response, and the purpose for this thread, is to merely say that users are not fixated on his philosophical bent as some developers might be; and that RMS is an ineffective advocate for an untenable (and perhaps unneccessarily religeous) position.
I don't see a response to that.
Re:Real products v. Philosophical byproducts
Posted by: Taran Rampersad on January 09, 2004 01:48 AMHe stated REPLACE those NON-FREE programs, not accept them.
That's pretty simple and straightforward to me. Does that really need further explanation?
Re:Real products v. Philosophical byproducts
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 08, 2004 11:06 PMYou wouldn't be American, by any chance?
You've missed the point. For a lot of people (particularly outside the US) openness in government (the ability of citizens to participate without being required to pay, and to hold their goverments accountable) is indeed more important than the effectiveness of a particular product.
Re:Real products v. Philosophical byproducts
Posted by: Taran Rampersad on January 09, 2004 12:15 AMRe:Real products v. Philosophical byproducts
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 09, 2004 02:43 AMYou are saying that ethical, political, social-type considerations should only be the worry of government, and on the other hand that the market out to control the way the software industry developers. Free market capitalism is fundamentally incompatable with your depoliticised corporate environment, as cases like Enron and ExxonMobil show.
Too many people say that at the moment, most people take no notice of the social, political and spiritual considerations when consuming, and so Free Software's vision is flawed because it doesn't cater to this vision of people as consumers, leaving it all to Government. At the same time they complain about government legislation like the DMCA and EUCD.
You must understand that central to Free Software is the idea that software ought to be, nay needs to be rehumanised. Your software decisions *do* have political, social and even spiritual considerations, and you ought to recognise that. The same goes for all consumer choices you make. If we don't, we stand a very good chance of letting a handful of corporations run roughshod over our rights, and of letting society disintegrate into a morass of disconnected, disenfranchised consumers.
Re:Real products v. Philosophical byproducts
Posted by: Taran Rampersad on January 09, 2004 05:22 AMRe:Real products v. Philosophical byproducts
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 10, 2004 12:59 AMYou got that totally wrong, and this is not socialist principals or anything - kust plain good sence.
A business is created not so that it feeds itself, but so that it generates more income and maximises resources in the commercial space for the benefit of the people working for the business and the community that the business works in. A business is not a stand-alone entity. And when that becomes the case where a business is only for the justification of itself, we get a world where corporate (read business) interests looks after itself and not the community.
As a small example, why are most people in the US so concerned (and against) businesses sending jobs overseas ? After all the business is trying to fend for itself (by maximising its profits and minimising expenses). But no, the collective chagrin is because teh business is not firstly catering to the community itself. Note : I am not debating the outsourcing model here, but just trying to show why a business is for. For all that it may matter, outsourcing may be a way to serve the community - a very warped on though.
your quote - "It's great to advocate for 'rights', but most people don't see software development as a political process. Some developers do. Users typically don't."
Thats because we have been shown only one way of doing it - by businesses so that they can feed themselves.
Why is it that your civic rights (to use normal tools in your day to day life in any way you want) are "rights" that you accept as a politically granted right to you but now rights to use software that you buy in any way you want not accepted as a "right" to be granted to you ?
Thats because while civic rights were inbuilt into the fabric of society when we thought up governments (which were meant to work FOR US) and constitutions, software wasn't so since its inception only came into existamnce in the last few hundred years AFTER businesses were formed to work FOR US, but later got abbrogated to become entities which were unto themselves. Hence the "software rights" were not inbuilt into this fabric of commerce, unlike the others "rights" that you so take for granted.
Hence this user perception taht software is not meat to be free is just that - a perception.
Software neednt be that way and that what RMS is trying to make it to be - a free right just like any of your other freedoms for which you stand up for when the government wants to take it away from you politically.
And allways RMS has given the freedom to choose his model of software or NOT.
With Stallman it is "My way, or the highway". Although his viewpoints do have some truth to them, they are not even close to being Universal truths. This would be fine, but then he insinuates that only his way of looking at things is correct. Does that sound like freedom to you?
The Free Software movement is most definitely a valid one, but Stallman is building a religion that many of us find repulsive.
Re:Free Software -- the way it should be sold
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 09, 2004 12:20 AMRe:Free Software -- the way it should be sold
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 09, 2004 01:02 AMBreak out the Kool-Aide someone.
Re:Free Software -- the way it should be sold
Posted by: Taran Rampersad on January 09, 2004 04:01 AM* It's great Richard is out there in the Vangard of the free software free society movement.
* It's great OSI was able to create a brand that mainstream people and companies can understand.
* It's great that Open Source can stand on it's own -- it's simply more economically efficient -- and its more free market than any of the alternatives.
* Open Source has the high ground from the social, economic, free market, and technical point of view<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... that's what makes it so strong and so much of a threat to the various monopolistic enterprises that have grown up around software due to government protectionism.
Me personally, regarding FSF. I support the FSF as a member because I believe in their mission and their message...though not always how it is delivered. I do however also believe that there is a disconnect there -- Open Source is a far better term -- and a term I would use over free software and if I was too describe it to someone, I would taylor my presentation to the recipient. The social/economic aspect to me personally is as important as the other aspect--but this is not the case for everyone.
It's also pretty clear to me that either the FSF does not understand mainstream America or businesses (and why should they--Richard has probably never worked in the business world) -- or they simply choose to challange people -- by delivering a difficult message -- I don't know which it is -- but I still support their general mission.
Rob
Perhaps. The world, though, is larger than the United States. At least, that's what many 'intellectual property' organizations are finding out.
Rob
In my opinion, non-entertainment software (entertainment software should entertain, and is more like a novel or song in that respect) is nothing more than a fancy hammer, screw-driver, pick, or shovel: it is a tool to do something for the user. When I buy a tool, it's the best one I can afford for the job at hand. It doesn't matter to me why it was made, or whether the manufacturer donates to the Republic Party, the Boy Scouts, or Greenpeace. It does matter to some people, but most don't care. That's the way the world is, and if Open Source software is to replace existing proprietary tools, it has to give us better, cheaper hammers, not a better philosophy.
Many people don't care, and perhaps one of the points is that they should care, especially because of the negative consequences non-Free Software has. A lot of it probably has to do with the way these things are communicated.
RMS wrote as someone involved with Free Software for 20 years, and he was speaking to other Free Software people. I don't think it was a 'recruitment' speech. It was more a 'State of Free Software' speech.
People need to understand what rights they have, and need to understand the importance of these rights. File sharing is not to dissimilar in this regard, which is why it was good to hear that both Lessig and RMS attended the <A HREF="http://www.itu.int/wsis/" TITLE="itu.int">WSIS</a itu.int>.
Examples:
1) The latest version of Adobe Photoshop apparently recognizes American currency by its image and refuses to load files with this image (taken from an Adobe message board). Reproducing American currency is legal in some cases, yet the software doesn't know this. Also, the recognition pattern may be triggered by something that has nothing to do with currency.
2) Quite a few programs use licensing schemes that presume you shouldn't be using the software and require some variety of activation, node locking, license servers, etc. that can go wrong, leaving you with something useless (and perhaps locking you out of your own data).
With closed-source software you're at the mercy of the manufacturer, and have to hope that there's nothing nasty in the code, because if there is you can't fix it. With free-source software, even if the initial tool isn't quite perfect, you at least have the option of fixing the software or finding someone to fix it for you.
Pure philosophy aside, the freedom issue *is* important for businesses, whether they recognize it or not in those terms.
talking anout Photoshop-taking away freedoms
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 10, 2004 02:13 AMPhotoshop rips heavy cultural symbols out of artists' phrasebook
Photoshop CS automatically detects images of US currency and prevents the manipulation, copying and pasting of same. When my grandfather was in hospital with Alzheimer's, one of his major causes of anxiety was money, but we could soothe him by giving him $20 "bills" we ran off an inkjet (fakes easily detected by anyone not suffering from senile dementia). The images on the US dollar, being a product of the US government, are not copyrightable.
The images on US currency are among the most ubiquitous in our society. They are freighted with heavy symbolism, and have constituted part of the artistic vocabulary of visual artists for generations. Thanks to Adobe's decision to exercise prior restraint over its customers -- to punish the innocent to get at the guilty -- currency images have been ripped out of the photoshopper's artistic phrasebook.
If we ever needed an example of the idea that "architecture is politics" and that "code is law," here it is.
And as if that wasn't enough, the scanning of all images for content reportedly creates a massive performance hit in Photoshop, as your CPU's cycles are hijacked to police your lawful activity
History shows that most other counties have tried(some succeeded in history) to rule the world. Most would rule more of it if they could now. The only reason it is the U.S. that is prominant is the time in history. In another 200 years maybe it will be another country. Previously, most of the European countries were workd powers. If your country is not the world power now, it is not because of its moral high ground, it is because it can't. So quit complaining about the U.S.
Second, people act like the only country in the world with proprietary business practices is the U.S. It is not. It happens that the thing many of you are most passionate about, software, finds it current biggest company based in the U.S. I do not care for MS (RMS either), but nearly all countries (maybe all) have proprietary business models. So quit attributing this to the U.S. like it is a disease only found in U.S. businesses.
Thanks,
Gary
it's more because, when we hear what happens in America, we cannot believe our ears/eyes sometimes...
Wow. I mean, really - Wow. It's not about the United States, it's not about Mugabe, and it's not about Saddam swallowing all of his WMDs.
It's about Freedom. It's about Free Software. If you feel that the United States is being picked on, perhaps it's because the United States presently serves as a great example of what software without freedom looks like - the majority of software is SOLD from the United States (and developed offshore). As more outsourcing continues to other countries, people will become more interested in Free Software in the United States because programmers make bad pizza boys.
And I'm telling you that AS an American.
the US of RMS, of civil rights, of Malcolm X, of the anti-war movement and, last but not least, of the First Amendment Rights we respect and admire (-: well, that's only my list - others will have another one:-)
Anyway - thanks for your understanding of our (sometimes too heated) reactions!
Cheers!
Sadly, some of them have access to computers.
"Sadly, some of them have access to computers."
Now let us take away the computers of those that disagree with us, or complain, or whine, etc. That is open thinking for sure.
Yes, and there are many people who think that what the "media" in this country show about the rest of the world is somehow representative of the rest of the world. Is the U.S. news organizations' coverage of the rest of the world "anti-rest of the world"? Or are they just showing what they think their audience is interested in? The people I'm writing about, like the OP of this thread, are people who somehow think that opinions about America that run counter to their own, or are mistaken, are anti-American.
Among grownups, these differences of opinion are considered unfortunate and sometimes unavoidable. Among the infantile whiners who seem to be the principal spokesmen for the "blame America last" crowd, they are an attack on some fundamental right to not have to listen to things that upset them.
"Your narrow views of the U.S. is no different than the narrow view Americans have to the rest of the world."
My narrow view of the U.S. is that many of us could use lessons in english composition. I have come to this narrow view of the U.S., by the way, by living in it for most of my life.
"Now let us take away the computers of those that disagree with us, or complain, or whine, etc. That is open thinking for sure."
Take an observation about the sadness of a particular situation and turn it into a wish to ban that situation. That is a strawman argument, for sure.
To me, being free means that I'm able to make my own choices. If I CHOOSE to use free software (and I do in many cases); fine. If I choose a proprietary product in others, well, that's still my decision.
It's great to wax philosophical about what's the best way of providing a service. But best to whom? For the casual user, a relatively simple, free-software word processor might fit all their needs. On the other hand, for the professional publisher, it might not. Is the professional supposed to wait (and starve, since he can't do his work) until someone, somewhere, decides that they want to spend the time and effort to come up with a free software product that serves his needs?
If EVERYONE were an accomplished coder, maybe things would be different. But an unsophisticated end user, with no coding skills, is just as much at the mercy of the 'developers' using a free software product as a proprietary one. There is no guarantee that he'll manage to find someone interested enough (in the product itself or for the money he's willing to spend) to add/fix whatever it is that he needs. Saying that he can always 'fix it himself' just because he has the code is ludicrous.
Different people, different goals.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 08, 2004 08:56 PMSome people want free software because they don't want to pay for stuff. This is the majority of free software users, without doubt.
Stallman often complain that people uses free software for non-political reasons. Most of all the dislike the term open source, witch exists as a concept of free software but without politics.
#