[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Subject Index][Thread Index]
Re: free software
- To: "Naksi Ink" <naksink@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: free software
- From: Supreet Sethi <supreet@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 27 Feb 2001 16:18:43 +0530
- Cc: "Monica Narula" <monica@xxxxxxxxx>, "Jeebesh bagchi" <jeebesh@xxxxxxxxx>, "Shuddhabrata Sengupta" <shuddha@xxxxxxxxx>, "Ravi Sundaram" <ravis@xxxxxxxxx>, "Ravi Vasudevan" <raviv@xxxxxxxxx>, "Saumya Gupta" <sgupta@xxxxxxxxx>, "Pankaj Kaushal" <pankaj@xxxxxxxxx>, "Ruchika Agarwal" <ruchika@xxxxxxxxx>, "Ravikant" <ravikant@xxxxxxxxx>, "Deepu Sharan" <sharan@xxxxxxxxx>, "Aditya Nigam" <aditya@xxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <MABBKGNDBNPDFNAPAPANGEIBCAAA.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <MABBKGNDBNPDFNAPAPANGEIBCAAA.email@example.com>
- Resent-date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:04:44 +0000
- Resent-from: pankaj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-message-id: <20010228080444.761C81990@localhost>
- Resent-sender: apenguinhead@xxxxxxxxx
- Resent-to: linux-delhi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7
Whenever I think all the theories and principles that have accumlated in my brain are settling in a organised fashion, some body sends a new wave raising new questions demanding new answers. I think we should have a debate on free software. May be we could give a better theory about software in particular.
No pun intended!
"Naksi Ink" <naksink@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>|I have some problem regarding the argument raised against the proprietary
>|model of software. The argument is, information or knowledge never
>|diminishes as it is shared. So it can be shared freely and should be
>|non-proprietary. It means this argument establishes the argument for the
>|proprietary model of such commodities, which are perished with usage and
>|consumption. It provides legitimation to the whole model of market economy,
>|which is based on proprietorship. The argument of non-proprietary software
>|movement basically establishes the supremacy of proprietary model and
>|defines itself as an exception rather than upholding a holistic attitude
>|towards all the commodities used by mankind.
>|This argument raised by custodian of free-software community tries to single
>|out themselves from the rest of the society as a special case. It doesn?t
>|challenge the accumulation and protection of wealth. Rather exploits the
>|material limitation of other commodities for its expansion and growth.
>|Indirectly it actually opposes the free availability and distribution of
>|perishable commodities and justifies the exploitive nature of market
>|economy. I find that theory very selfish theory. It actually means if
>|knowledge diminishes by sharing they will never share it!!
>|Their theory doesn?t guarantee against the blockage of knowledge to protect
>|the power acquired through control over knowledge. Because according to the
>|theory if anything diminishes as a result of sharing they are not going to
>|do it. I am raising this point because certain kind of knowledge requires
>|certain kind of access, which is dependent on wealth and power. Knowledge is
>|not only matter of information but also matter of infrastructure.
>|Infrastructure is a perishable commodity. In many cases just availability of
>|books or CD does not help, instruments and hardware are extremely important
>|which they think should be proprietary because those things are perishable.
>|This means they want and at the same time they don?t want free distribution
>|of knowledge!! It looks as if it demands respectable status of non-criminal
>|act within the value system of market economy.
>|Rather I recommend that argument might be, every commodity ideally should be
>|freely available and non-proprietary but in market economy something like
>|certain form of information can only be circulated freely because it does
>|not require accumulation of wealth to reproduce.
>|My concern is free software movement should not be seen and identified as
>|isolated event with which larger section of the community can not
>|communicate. Rather it should be seen as a part of larger social
>|One more important point I would like to discuss. If we condemn cracking it
>|means we are condemning stealing. Though stealing might not be a justifiable
>|act and as I am not elaborating but I would like to put some light on the
>|fact that we have lots of facts and fictions which try to examine the act of
>|stealing. Some time they even end up justifying it! We have seen lots of
>|Hindi films and some stories and novels on this subject. I just want to say
>|we can see the word and act of cracking more critically rather than
>|condemning it just by saying ?hacking is not cracking?. As sometime we try
>|to see software piracy critically.