Message 00016 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT00014 Message: 3/3 L1 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] Fwd: Re: Transition into the GPL society



Hi again,


I stated on the Oekonux list that this may be a good example of what I call a 
"{Free {material product}}", because design and manufacturing are seperate, 
and the "construction papers" (meaning the ISO CD images and the PS file of 
the textbook, including their source code) are Free software. So, creating a 
Free car would mean to Free or even to copyleft the construction papers of a 
car.

I think this agrees with my attempt at definitions for electronic
designs:
 http://www.opencollector.org/Whyfree/definitions.html
 
However, nobody seems to understand me (see below). Could it be that this is 
a philosophical problem that only exists in the German language?

I think the root of the problem is that people forget that their
Debian or other programs require a computer to run on, as the Oscar design
will require a car-making factory to be produced in. The illusion is
created that software is a completely new and ideal phenomenon which
involves no material element, whereas in fact it requires real
physical computers to run on. It is only the development of industry
to the point where production costs of computers are small enough that
a segment of the world's population can afford to buy their own without
making major sacrifices that allows this illusion. In the 1950s or 60s,
when only mainframes existed (forgetting minis, also beyond the reach
of individuals) a free program had as much (or little)
meaning as a free car design now.

Graham





_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/



Thread: oxenT00014 Message: 3/3 L1 [In index]
Message 00016 [Homepage] [Navigation]