Message 01706 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT01623 Message: 64/129 L15 [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 Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 05:06:42PM [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED], august wrote:
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.

I challenge you to find a place I've used the term "information wants
to be free" in a serious manner since I was 15. Every time I hear this
phrase I reply, "information wants to be anthropormophized." I don't
think information wants anything -- I think *we* want information to
be and do certain things and I think we create structures, software
even, to realize our vision of what and how we think information
should be. The diversity of visions is visible in the diversity of
software and in many other facets of the free software community and
its products.

You are putting words into the mouths of free software developers and
the GNU project. Freedom in terms of free software has *always* meant
the four freedoms defined in the free software definition, the
freedoms enumerated in the DFSG, etc. It's never been connected (or
even connectible) to a particular motivation or reason and this is the
reason I have been able to engage in productive collaborations with
those on radically different ends of the political spectrum to both
our benefits.

Free as in speach, but also free as in trade. 

True enough. Non-commercial use clauses have always been outside of
the definition of free software. This is what I mean by limited. It
can also be equally applied to or used in anti-free trade
work. Blocking this other type of use by individuals or fields of
endeavor would also be non-free.

If you think this is a bad thing and choose not to use it for your
software, that's fine -- but then you're not doing "Free Software"
under any respected definition I've read.

(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 redistribute their free software with
my name in BIG letters on it.

Maintaining attribution has also been acceptable in Free Software
licenses like the four clause BSD if that is what you are worried
about.

Regards,
Mako

-- 
Benjamin Mako Hill
mako debian.org
http://mako.yukidoke.org/



Thread: oxenT01623 Message: 64/129 L15 [In index]
Message 01706 [Homepage] [Navigation]