On receiving an interview request from Uber
ccosse at gmail.com
Sun Dec 18 19:03:19 UTC 2016
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 7:35 AM, mray <mail at mray.de> wrote:
> On 17.12.2016 18:46, Charles Cossé wrote:
> > What would that matter?
> The question is "why would it not matter?"
> Free Software seems like a sensible default.
> Why would I ever *prefer* trusting my body/life with software that is a
> secret to everybody but the manufacturer?
> (Same with all kinds of transportation like cars, buses, planes,...)
Only you can answer questions of personal preference. But I'm not trying
to abandon the question, and I want to have this discussion. I get the
feeling that the FSF communities hold an underlying belief that the freedom
being espoused is somehow fundamental, as in a universal truth or moral
oblication. But regardless of how hard-line of a stance each individual
takes, isn't there some irony there? After all, "freedom" should also mean
"freedom to license ones software however one pleases"?
Another point which I'd like to discuss is: Where does FSF draw the line?
Are there not some instances where not revealing everything is alright? We
put our faith in closed systems every day, and software is just one type.
It oseems like this same notion of freedom would/should apply everywhere,
if it is real or universal, and not just to software.
Several years ago I read Utopia, by Thomas Moore. It was very satisfying
to read ... until I got to the part at which it was revealed that even
Utopia has slaves! As I recall, it was argued that having slaves was the
only way to realize Utopia, in the end. When I picked-up that book I
thought I was going to finally read a perfect recipe for society, but no.
Earlier in this discussion it was pointed out that models for FOSS
development which compensate the developer can and do exist. Taking the
case of elevator software, the elevator company would pay the developer
then give-away their intellectual property. Okay, if that's what the
elevator company wants to do. But the FSF position sounds to me like one
of moral obligation somehow, and I'd like clarification on that.
An alternative would be to not attempt to dictate and criticize people for
not using open licensing, but to find ways to make it attractive and
workable. I believe in free software -- it's been a cornerstone of my
career and I contribute because I love my country and my planet -- but I'm
not sure that the elevator company benefits from giving-away their
intellectual property like that. But I do certainly believe that there are
creative and synergistic ways to create livelihoods and FOSS at the same
time, just not in every context. And when this discussion finds closure I
would like to share one such plan that I, personally, have spent years
working on, but which requires a community (two communities, actually) to
realize it. (It is a FOSS eco-system that can generate education software,
provide FOSS jobs and help parents, in case you are curious. I'm just
re-working the presentation of the idea in an effort to avoid past mistakes
Thank you all for this discussion!
> Other concerns about maintenance sound sensible as well.
> > On Dec 17, 2016 8:55 AM, "mray" <mail at mray.de> wrote:
> >> On 17.12.2016 07:56, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> >>> Elevators used to have drivers before computers were invented
> >> Very good point.
> >> I'd love to know that even elevators run free software, though.
Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/in/charles-cosse> | E-Learning
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Discussion