lh@lutz-horn.de said:
This can be only a derived freedom. First has to come the freedom for the individual to live a good and comfortable life free of danger. It may be possible to achieve this freedom by means of selling your time and power for money. But this does not mean that making money is the only or the preferd way to reach this freedom. I'd dare to say that there are better ways to reach it and that one is shown by the removal of Free Software from the sphere of capitalistic utilization.
freedom and "free of danger" exclude each other. Freedom means risk. If you want safety, you have to give up freedom.
And to state it again: the GPL allows making money off free software, but does not force it. This indifference gives you the FREEDOM to charge money, or not, and in any case you get the benefit of the software, because anyone is allowed to copy it for money, or not.
This gives the widest possible availability of free software. This allows some people to work on free softare during working hours, not after. This allows companies to be distribute free software for a fee.
How many on this mailing list use Debian? I would bet that many more use RedHat, SuSE or another commercial distribution. And even if you use Debian, did you get it for free? I for example paid for my Debian distribution (not much). I have no problem that the provider makes a couple of $ on the CDs, because otherwise I would probably have to pay even more $$ to get a DSL connection in order to download the thing in a reasonable time.
If we look at the practical aspects, free software a la GPL seems to work. Forcing it to be free as in "free beer" would actually be a restriction, not a freedom.
- Josef
Hi all,
many thanx for re's addressing really different aspects. I try to move back to my point, from which my thinking starts, and this is scarcity as a precondition of economy. I accidentally pick Josef's state:
freedom and "free of danger" exclude each other. Freedom means risk. If you want safety, you have to give up freedom.
You compare apples and pears. You can combine freedom, risk and safety in a carthesian product. Freedom means freedom - and nothing more.
However the essential question is: how to extend freedom? There are two paradigmatic answers.
a) the economic answer: you extend freedom on one side at the cost of another side. This has nothing to do with immorality or stuff. It is how market economy works: You can only bring you forward if others are not brought forward. You only get a job, if others not; you only get a costumer if others not etc. Here scarcity (sometimes hidden) is a precondition of economic success.
b) the free software answer: you extend freedom on all sides. This has nothing to do with higher morality or stuff. It is how free software works: You can only bring you forward if others are going forward, too. You only get success if others get the success with you. Here richness (here in human sense of creativity etc.) is a precondition of free software success.
Ok, all schemes are too schematic;-) - but this is roughly how it works. In reality you'll find a lot of a/b-mixtures. And again this is not "bad", it is just like it is in a society where beside free software we need money for something to eat etc. - well, sometimes;-) [I for myself decided to reduce my goodpaid job to two days, because I want to develop free software and free theories. Nobody must do it like this, others have a business or drive taxi]
However, we should clearly face the dynamic of these two different logics, because it is important what messages are send by FSFE for example. And the general message of FSF is: extending freedom through extending b-logics. And the message of FSFE is: extending freedom through extending a-logics? This cannot be true.
Well, I know these textes about commercial free software etc. There are really _not_ main parts of FSF-philosophy. Or some statements from some programs. I only want to say: Don't put them in the middle and change the b-message into an a-message. Roughly said.
One more word to scarcity: Natural scarcity does not exist, because everything, what we have is produced. So richness and scarcity and the way we live is produced (this includes the inherently limited earth and its substances - but this is not my point here).
MJ Ray writes:
Stefan Meretz stefan.meretz@hbv.org writes:
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/homesteading/magic-cauldron/x227.html All these models base on making things (or services etc.) scarce. And scarcity and freedom are a contradiction.
A lot of those things are naturally scarce. Models 9.1 (loss leader), 9.2 (widget frosting) and 9.5 (expiration) are artificial restraints, though, and are not really based around Free software, merely Open Source.
This is my point: making things to be an "economic value" implies making them scarce. And ESR proposals are combining free software with scarcity.
9.3 is on programmer performance, 9.4 on physical products, and 9.7 on content performance, which are naturally scarce items. There is no need to artificially restrain the liberty of the code to create that scarcity.
9.3 is on support, e.g. selling specially adapted free software and giving support to this special adaption. The counter model is having the support from the fs community. 9.4 is on physical products, right, this is a problem for GPL-society;-) [see Interview with Stefan Merten (not me!) with NetTime http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/wilma_hiliter/nettime/200104/msg00127.html]
9.5 and 9.6.? These are ugly tricks to extend scarcity directly into free software (via giving software free only in future or using a brand).
The point is not whether those tricks base on artificial restraints or not. The point is how to deal with scarcity? Software is always scarce (especially good one). But it is a difference to go in a-logic the redmond way or to go the free software way in b-logic. This is the point.
Therefore, having shown cases where scarcity and freedom co-exist and allow non-zero valuations, I reject your assertion.
Rereading it I find them confirmed.
But what does your defense mean??? Do you support ESR's trial to extend a-logic into the field of free software? I am confused.
Bye, Stefan
Hi Josef,
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 10:57:13AM +0200, Josef Dalcolmo wrote:
lh@lutz-horn.de said:
This can be only a derived freedom. First has to come the freedom for the individual to live a good and comfortable life free of danger. It may be possible to achieve this freedom by means of selling your time and power for money. But this does not mean that making money is the only or the preferd way to reach this freedom. I'd dare to say that there are better ways to reach it and that one is shown by the removal of Free Software from the sphere of capitalistic utilization.
freedom and "free of danger" exclude each other. Freedom means risk. If you want safety, you have to give up freedom.
Why do you think this is the case? We have the means to provide everybody with a comfortable and enjoyable life which is, yes, free of danger. We only put ourselves under so called unavoidable conditions, which force us to compete, to use our neighbour only as a tool for our own ends. The risks and dangers which according to you form the basis of freedom are not natural.
And to state it again: the GPL allows making money off free software, but does not force it. This indifference gives you the FREEDOM to charge money, or not, and in any case you get the benefit of the software, because anyone is allowed to copy it for money, or not.
And again we argue about the meaning of the word freedom. Clearly there are diffrent ways of using it and that the both of us use it in different ways.
How many on this mailing list use Debian? I would bet that many more use RedHat, SuSE or another commercial distribution. And even if you use Debian, did you get it for free? I for example paid for my Debian distribution (not much). I have no problem that the provider makes a couple of $ on the CDs, because otherwise I would probably have to pay even more $$ to get a DSL connection in order to download the thing in a reasonable time.
Actualy I downloaded the ISO image of Debian 2.2r2 using my employes leased line. So it cost me, but of course not my employe, zero $$. But of course that's not the difference between the Debian Project and commercial Linux distributors. I could easily have downloaded the Red Hat ISO image instead of the Debian one. Why didn't I do this? Because the Debian project is the work of people work for their own enjoyment, to reach their very personal goals of building a free GNU/Linux distribution. The goals of Red Hat or SuSE or all the other commercial distributors is different. They want to make money out of GNU/Linux. If they can make more money out of it by paying some hackers, fine. But if they couldn't, they wouldn't.
If we look at the practical aspects, free software a la GPL seems to work.
Right.
Forcing it to be free as in "free beer" would actually be a restriction, not a freedom.
We shouldn't force anything. But we should discuss things under political, economical, and, yes, moral aspects, too.
- Josef
Regards Lutz