[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: Pankaj Kaushal <pankaj@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:17:04 +0000
- 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>, Supreet Sethi <supreet@xxxxxxxxx>, Pankaj Kaushal <pankaj@xxxxxxxxx>, Ruchika Agarwal <ruchika@xxxxxxxxx>, Ravikant <ravikant@xxxxxxxxx>, Deepu Sharan <sharan@xxxxxxxxx>, Aditya Nigam <aditya@xxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <MABBKGNDBNPDFNAPAPANGEIBCAAA.email@example.com>; from firstname.lastname@example.org on Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 01:45:22AM +0530
- References: <MABBKGNDBNPDFNAPAPANGEIBCAAA.email@example.com>
- Resent-date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:04:51 +0000
- Resent-from: pankaj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-message-id: <20010228080451.76AAC198F@localhost>
- Resent-sender: apenguinhead@xxxxxxxxx
- Resent-to: linux-delhi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mutt/1.0.1i
- User-agent: Mutt/1.0.1i
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 01:45:22AM +0530, Naksi Ink wrote:
> 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 is what I belive.
> 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.
No it does not The Market and the commodities, which are based on One
Rule - Work - <- and payment of work done. I am myself seriously against
anyform of copyright or patents. If We have to reach to free XXX beer's
Source I think I should start with my software code
and you with your paintings And If We free our work from us. many just
might follow our league and may be straus will free the source of its beer
and we all will have cheap beer. If we hope for a utopian world a start needs
to be made. And when Free Software is the only software avaliable. Then I can
question anyone using it why not share what you create with it.
> 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!!
Free software and wealth are two different things
In a socity we live Talking about a utopican world
with free (as in beer) access to everything just can't work
because it works on Work and payment for workdone purpose
I agree That no one can ask pepsi to give cola drinks free
but asking to free the source(recipe) of pepsi can definately
happen and that is actully it free software tries to do.
> 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.
Thats not certainly the free software theory. You make free (as in free beer)
equipment (from where) and I will provide free stuff. thats basically
qhat is wrong with the world right now. $$$$$$$$ <---- this is the problem
Free access to everything and the Utopian world will never happen, again
not because the free s/w guys don't want it but because
This is a tried tested and trusted way that Most Powerfull/Powerless
Rich/Poor people belive in and think that the world should run by it.
Information Has a quality the quality that no one can possibly restrict
information from flowing If once it has. This makes it possibly very easy to
> I am raising this point because certain kind of knowledge requires
> certain kind of access, which is dependent on wealth and power. Knowledge is
> not only matter of information but also matter of infrastructure.
Access to information definately requires a lot more then infrastructure
which knowledge of being able to understand,read,write. which are indirectly
dependent on power and money.
> Infrastructure is a perishable commodity. In many cases just availability of
> books or CD does not help, instruments and hardware are extremely important
> which they think should be proprietary because those things are perishable.
Work on free(as in freedome ) Hardware that will run linux
and simputers are an example is already started.
> This means they want and at the same time they don?t want free distribution
> of knowledge!! It looks as if it demands respectable status of non-criminal
> act within the value system of market economy.
No you are mistaken. Information whether be about human DNA or
Motorola RISK architecture or Lyrics to pink floyd songs or
the source to pepsi.should be free and available to all.
but you cant give anyone the right to have free (as in $$$) pepsi.
> 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
Cracking and stealing are definatly justifable
but Hacking and Cracking are not the same thing.
They are not even close to bee the same thing.
> condemning it just by saying ?hacking is not cracking?. As sometime we try
> to see software piracy critically.
The Only "intuitive" interface is the nipple.
After that, it's all learned.