Re: Documentation Standards was Re: [ox-en] UserLinux
- From: august <august alien.mur.at>
- Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:06:42 +0100 (CET)
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
In my quote, you've clipped the context and the reference.
did I ?
you write:
<mako>You're free to guess what you want. I don't think RMS is too
concerned with the objects of trade. His position, or at least that of the
FSF, is that software freedom is an ethical and philosophical issue:
software needs to be free because people need freedom. How the
software gets produced isn't really the important bit.</mako>
and I reply:
<august>
You're free to guess what you want.
yes, I know. In the GNU world, everyone is 'free' to do whatever the hell
pleases them, no matter if they step on someone else's tits or not.
I don't think RMS is too concerned
with the objects of trade.
the GNU manifesto is almost entirely about commerce.
His position, or at least that of the FSF,
is that software freedom is an ethical and philosophical issue:
I certainly don't have a problem with this. my position is also more
ideological than pragmatic.
software needs to be free because people need freedom. How the
software gets produced isn't really the important bit.
people need freedom? huh? what does that mean?
sounds a bit like a certain world leader talking.
</august>
where did I miss a word?
I was
referencing the FSF and their definition of free software so with the
context you'd understand that I was talking about freedom as the
*specific* and *limited* freedoms enumerated in the free software
definition.
this is confusing: how is freedom limited? Are we talking about
totalitarian freedom? huh?
I DO understand and appreciate what (I think) it means: that the GPL
'freedom' (for lack of a better word) gaurantees the rights to use and
modify the code in all successive versions of that particular software
and all other software that implements it.
This is clearly not the "freedom" discussed by the certain
world leader as he has and does have serious problems with the former.
I don't think it is so clear. the "information wants to be free" slogan
is a good example of the absolute ambiguity of the GNU/FSF motive. What
the f&*k does that mean, information wanting to be free?
freedom wants to be free?
food wants to be free?
women want to be free? (this one could mean lots of things)
beer wants to be free?
I don't think the GNU/FSF motive in itself is wrong. I just think we need
to dispell some of our own myths and make an even stronger argument.
Freedom in terms of Free Software means something in particular and
it's never been unambiguously obvious --
yes, I also think it is not obvious. I also think that is a problem.
the terms has always been
contested and any new term will probably be equally contested as
well. Call that a limitations in the terms (you wouldn't be the first)
but allusions to George Bush may get you shock points but (IMHO) they
aren't going to win you any arguments.
I don't want to win any arguments. I'm just a farmer boy who sometimes
calls himself an artist and sometimes a programmer. I do have more shock
terms though regarding freedom.
Free as in speach, but also free as in trade.
The whole talk af freedom is freedom within the confines of the
American dream.
What do you mean by "the whole talk of freedom is freedom?" Freedom in
terms of free software is broadly defined and *explicitly* apolitical
how can freedom be apolitical?
(too much so in many opinions). You have people on the far left, far
right, and all kinds of spaces in between working together on this.
thats true. If I were a company (small or large) my mouth would be
drooling over the free labor involved in programming free software. If I
were a company, I would be free to exploit those programmers hard work and
just use or even redistrubute their free software with my name in BIG
letters on it.
To tie Floss to American freedom is to tie it to Imperial capital. I
am glad some people here are staring to question these high priests
and their rhetoric and seeing Floss (we will have to find a new name
sometime) as a form of community knowledge production.
As I alluded to above, I'm not sure the term "Free" is so diluted that
we need to choose another name (or that doing so doesn't hurt us more
than it helps us). You're free to disagree in this regards.
yes, we are all free. whenever, I spot someone not being free, I yell
out "Hey, dude, like what's your problem dude, why aren't you being
free."
I don't think we can change the term now even if we wanted to. the damage
has been done.
best -august.
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/