[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Subject Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: free software
- To: linux-delhi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Naksi Ink <naksink@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Re: free software
- From: Prashant Verma <prashantverma@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 01:13:42 -0800 (PST)
- 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: <20010227111704.A1115@black-satan>
First of all, 'Hi' from a new member. I just joined a
day ago, and would love to join the occasional
meeting. I myself am a linux newbie, and not at all an
experimenter (so far) but I am learning fast :-)
Regarding the current thread, here are some of my
opinions (I support the Selfishness Theory):
i)Knowledge does not diminish(on sharing), but the
amount of money that a business can make from any
knowledge is limited. Why invite unnecessary
ii)A business establishment invests money in research.
If they don't get anything out of it, the investors
would be quite disappointed(and stop investing in that
iii)If there's no money at the end of the tunnel
(after the hard work/research is done), what is the
motivation for working. (Noble motives are quite rare
and impractical I believe).
iv)Supporting Open Software means exposing your
business secrets to the scrutiny of everyone including
v)As a result of (iii) above, sharing the knowledge
that you acquired after investing in it for free is
actually detrimental to society at large, because it
will lead to a situation where not enough
people/businesses find it worth their while to invest
Well, actually the day I can figure out how I would
earn my salary despite not being able to sell my
software, I will become an ardent supporter of open
--- Pankaj Kaushal <pankaj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 01:45:22AM +0530, Naksi Ink
> > 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
> I agree That no one can ask pepsi to give cola
> drinks free
> but asking to free the source(recipe) of pepsi can
> happen and that is actully it free software tries to
> > 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. $$$$$$$$
> <---- this is the problem
> Free access to everything and the Utopian world will
> never happen, again
> not because the free s/w guys don't want it but
> This is a tried tested and trusted way that Most
> Rich/Poor people belive in and think that the world
> should run by it.
> Information Has a quality the quality that no one
> can possibly restrict
> information from flowing If once it has. This makes
> it possibly very easy to
> free information.
> > I am raising this point because certain kind of
> knowledge requires
> > certain kind of access, which is dependent on
> wealth and power. Knowledge is
> > not only matter of information but also matter of
> Access to information definately requires a lot more
> then infrastructure
> which knowledge of being able to
> understand,read,write. which are indirectly
> dependent on power and money.
> > Infrastructure is a perishable commodity. In many
> cases just availability of
> > books or CD does not help, instruments and
> hardware are extremely important
> > which they think should be proprietary because
> those things are perishable.
> Work on free(as in freedome ) Hardware that will run
> and simputers are an example is already started.
> > This means they want and at the same time they
> don?t want free distribution
> > of knowledge!! It looks as if it demands
> respectable status of non-criminal
> > act within the value system of market economy.
> No you are mistaken. Information whether be about
> human DNA or
> Motorola RISK architecture or Lyrics to pink floyd
> songs or
> the source to pepsi.should be free and available to
> but you cant give anyone the right to have free (as
> in $$$) 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
> > consciousness.
> > 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.
> > Joy
> > 27.02.2001,1.37A.M.
> Pankaj Kaushal
> The Only "intuitive" interface is the nipple.
> After that, it's all learned.
> An alpha version of a web based tool to manage
> your subscription with this mailing list is at
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.