On Tuesday 03 January 2006 19:43, you wrote:
Luke-Jr wrote:
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 00:19, Richard Piper wrote:
Just curious Luke, how far do you take this belief? Do you only run computers which work with a free-as-in-freedom BIOs as well?
If I had that choice, I certainly would. Ditto for firmware and hardware.
I'm sorry, but at this point, you fall off the edge of your own world. You claim it's immoral for an entity, be it personal or corporate,
"corporate entities" is a bug in certain legal systems, not a real thing.
to distribute *their* creation as they see fit,
The problem is only when "they see fit" involved artificially restricting the rights of others.
yet you find it reasonable to continue to use that same software/hardware?
Not when I have a choice. If I am forced to use something licensed/distributed immorally, well... I'm forced to use it. Not much I can do there. The new open-design PPC system looks promising, though.
You *do* have that choice.
Nope.
You could fabricate your own hardware, and then program it yourself.
I could not, as I lack the skills to design the hardware or to fabricate it.
You *choose* to skip that step and use someone else's piece's and parts, all the while espousing how immoral it all is.
I have no choice but to use the parts someone else has designed due to above limitations of practicality.
The way I see it: the drivers aren't immoral; the company's decision to not open source the drivers was immoral.
And your decision to buy the device and use the drivers is an act of support. Now, obviously if you were given it or had already bought it, that doesn't apply, but you're still sacrificing your rights and piece-of-mind (who knows what backdoors these drivers might have?) by using them.
Are you not, according to your first paragraph, also supporting them? You're obviously using a computer, yet every computer that runs on non free-as-in-beer hardware/software is immoral?
I can only make a choice when a choice is given. If someone pushes you off a tower, are you at fault because you chose to continue falling?
Luke-Jr wrote:
I'm sorry, but at this point, you fall off the edge of your own world. You claim it's immoral for an entity, be it personal or corporate,
"corporate entities" is a bug in certain legal systems, not a real thing.
"corporate entities" in my context is that entity which has a legal presence.
to distribute *their* creation as they see fit,
The problem is only when "they see fit" involved artificially restricting the rights of others.
What perceived rights do you assert to *my* belongings?
yet you find it reasonable to continue to use that same software/hardware?
Not when I have a choice. If I am forced to use something licensed/distributed immorally, well... I'm forced to use it. Not much I can do there. The new open-design PPC system looks promising, though.
Someone is forcing you to post to this list? You should contact the authorities immediately.
You *do* have that choice.
Nope.
Yes, you do. To say otherwise is to state that you are being forced to do something that is obviously voluntary. Computer access is not even on the order of food, air, or water for survival.
You could fabricate your own hardware, and then program it yourself.
I could not, as I lack the skills to design the hardware or to fabricate it.
And here we identify your core rationalization. You *chose* not to learn how to do these things, perhaps for perfectly good reason. However, you mask this *choice* as your reason for not building your own system.
You *choose* to skip that step and use someone else's piece's and parts, all the while espousing how immoral it all is.
I have no choice but to use the parts someone else has designed due to above limitations of practicality.
Practicality is not a bound of immorality. To state otherwise is a rationalization. If you want to be an idealist, don't half-ass it.
The way I see it: the drivers aren't immoral; the company's decision to not open source the drivers was immoral.
And your decision to buy the device and use the drivers is an act of support. Now, obviously if you were given it or had already bought it, that doesn't apply, but you're still sacrificing your rights and piece-of-mind (who knows what backdoors these drivers might have?) by using them.
Are you not, according to your first paragraph, also supporting them? You're obviously using a computer, yet every computer that runs on non free-as-in-beer hardware/software is immoral?
I can only make a choice when a choice is given. If someone pushes you off a tower, are you at fault because you chose to continue falling?
If you do not choose, you have still made a choice. You *choose* not to learn how to do all these things, and therefore you *choose* to use *other's* ideas, sweat, time, and money.
An example: I spend a year carefully building a really nifty widget, spending nights away from my family, my money to buy systems to test it, etc. When I'm done, *I* get to decide how my widget should be used because it's *mine*. If I decide to open source my widget, great. I've donated *my* efforts to the community. To imply that you have some innate rights to my blood, sweat, and tears is to give weight to MS's argument that F/OSS should dump the GPL in favor of the BSD license.
The philosophy you're espousing utilizes the absolute worst parts of communism, by claiming right to my work without requiring any investment on your part. It is parasitic and worse than useless in the real world.
Rick B
-
Luke-Jr -
Rick