Message 01639 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT01623 Message: 6/129 L4 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: Documentation Standards was Re: [ox-en] UserLinux

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Niall Douglas wrote:

On 6 Dec 2003 at 9:01, Martin Hardie wrote:

This strikes me as a very interesting point. For some time I have had
in the back of mind that all the talk about free and the source is
fine if you belong to the technically elite - the new class that along
with its allies in legal academia are fast becoming one layer of
law/control within the net.

To be fair, computer software nowadays is much easier to write than 
it was in the 1970's. Partially that's because of improved hardware, 
but a lot comes from improved methodology and use of common standards 
eg; C.

  I find it interesting that one type of creative work is considered only 
malleable by an elite, but others are not.   We should not allow that 
suggestion that something is currently beyond the average literacy to be 
allowed to be an excuse to not fight for the longer-term freedom.  Some 
may be more skilled than others, but that does not make them an elite.

  At one time reading, writing (words) or playing music only applied to a
very small subset of a world elite.  We as a society have tried to deal
with problem not through regulation of these activities, but by increasing
accessibility to 'instruments' (pens/paper, guitars, whatever) and
increasing literacy.  We have not achieved 100% literacy worldwide, but we 
are in far better shape than we ever were in the past.

  Software is no different, and FLOSS (and peer production methodologies
generally) is really the movement that is dealing both with accessibility
of the instruments of participation as well as increasing literacy!

However, I do not think information wants to be free. Nor do I think 
it /should/ be free because those who put in effort to create it must 
be rewarded.

  Please don't confuse free/gratis with free/libre.  Those who say that
information is free are talking about information being a non-rivalrous
intangible good.  They are not talking about a price or about any
rejection of the moral and material rights most societies believe that
creators should receive.

  I happen to be one of those people who recognize that information is
naturally free, but still strongly believe that we should protect the
moral and material rights of creators as expressed in the UN UDHR article
27b (balanced with other important rights such as communications right sin
article 19 and the rights of society to gain from creativity in article

 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <> 
 Governance software that controls ICT, automates government policy, or
 electronically counts votes, shouldn't be bought any more than 
 politicians should be bought.  --


Thread: oxenT01623 Message: 6/129 L4 [In index]
Message 01639 [Homepage] [Navigation]