Linux World domination (was Re: [NCLUG] PC for Linux (Ubuntu))

Rob Bayerl verigoth at gmail.com
Fri Sep 19 14:13:13 MDT 2008


On 9/19/08, Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com> wrote:
> It sounds to me like you would prefer to bar non-programmers from using
> open source software.  I suspect that is not what you intended to
> suggest, but it is what your words seem to convey as your position on the
> issue.  Please clarify so we can clear up this misunderstanding (or
> establish that it is not a misunderstanding).

I wrote it phrased that way for emphasis on the ideology that a person
who is capable of contributing to free software but does not, and
still uses free software is, essentially, leaching.  The concept that
it is acceptable to freely benefit from the hard work of others and
not allow anyone to freely benefit from your work is fundamentally
wrong.  Not to say that such an act in any way violates any laws or
breaks any agreement.

I am a non-programmer.  I am capable of programming, but I do not do
it (regularly).  I also use free software.  Were I to write any
program it would most assuredly be free.

> I don't agree that software differs in any essential manner.  The fact
> that software is used to gain value from your hardware does not
> substantively differentiate the ethical status of software "ownership"
> (for some definition of ownership) from that of, say, a painting.  In
> fact, by analogy, one might consider a frame and canvas the oil painter's
> equivalent of the programmer's hardware platform.

To me (as a non-gamer), software is a utility.  A painting or the
lyrics of a song serve no purpose other than to inspire, or capture a
particular human emotion.  I do not disagree with you on terms of
ownership, more on terms of use.  If I buy a painting and do not like
it (or part of it), I am free to modify it in any way I choose.  I
think we agree more than is clear in our posts (or at least in mine).

> I don't believe that software or music should necessarily be free, in the
> commercial sense of the term, but I do believe that once one has paid to
> acquire possession of a software or music recording, one should then have
> proprietary rights to that recording, as the default state of things.

Once again I agree if we consider music will stay commercially free.

I know I will never change your mind on this issue, but in my eyes
commercializing human expression is harmful to the wellbeing of
ourselves as a species.  I am unsure of the origin of music (we
haven't gotten to that chapter in Anthropology 101 yet ;)), but I
would be willing to bet it is older than spoken language.  Although
music exists freely in many non-commercial forms, I believe it is
beneficial to all and thus should belong to us collectively.  Not to
mention if the music industry were de-commercialized we would see many
"artists" and genres that are just out to make a buck disappear and
perhaps a whole new revolution would occur; inspiring growth in
humanity.  Perhaps this is slightly ideological (or idiotic), but it
is my own personal view.



More information about the NCLUG mailing list