Re: Writing for Free Software Magazine
On Saturday 26 March 2005 05:13 pm, Michael Z Daryabeygi wrote:
> Lee Braiden wrote:
> > On Saturday 26 March 2005 20:59, Michael Z Daryabeygi wrote:
> >>actually it is defined both ways. absolute and relative.
> >>http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/alphabetic.cfm?LETTER=P#POVER
> >>TY
> >
> > Well, when it comes to poverty, I will not choose the definition that
> > means least work. In this country at least, it is generally defined in
> > terms of average resources.
> >
> >>again I said I agree with your ideals. But your absolutism is silly
> >>We are talking about a luxury here.
> >
> > What you consider to be silly is irrelevant to my argument. In fact,
> > your statement is an ad hominem attack, and therefore a fallacy. If you
> > do not like my argument, you can disprove it, or ignore it and go about
> > your day. I simply made a comment, with the original poster of this
> > thread can take on board or forget too. But your personal dislike of
> > what I have said has nothing to do with this.
> >
> >>A printed copy and advanced viewing.
> >>You are only speculating that that time period is unreasonable for the
> >>content.
> >
> > No, if you read my post again, you will find that I have said something
> > quite different.
> >
> >>I guess I am in the open and free as in freedom camp and not
> >>the free as in beer camp.
> >
> > As am I.
> >
> >>Are you against all pay for service business
> >>models that leverage Free as in Freedom intellectual property?
> >
> > No, and I have already said so on this very topic.
>
> I did not attack your logic before, but now I will.
> But I won't go beyond saying that you are illogical because I'm bored
> with this now.
>
> I am sorry for making an "ad hominem" attack as I was merely looking for
> intellectual discussion.
I have to mention that I've come close, in this case, to an ad hominem attack.
While, in most cases, I don't think the person making an argument makes a
difference, in the case of something like this I think it plays a part in the
discussion. For instance, if Bill Gates is saying it is immoral to give away
software for free, we have to be aware of who is saying it. On the other
hand, if Billy said, "It's immoral to charge for software, I see the light,
and I'm giving my fortune away to charity," (and before anyone mentions his
foundation, his father and wife have said it was VERY hard for them to
convince Bill to start it), then it gives the argument a certain credibility
it never had before.
I don't know Lee. I do know he contributes to at least one FOSS project,
which I commend him for. If, however, (and I'm not saying this is true, Lee,
so it's not intended as a statement or too offend), it turns out that Lee is
so chincy he uses coupons when he takes a date out, then that enters into a
discussion, since his position on morality may be based solely on his
unwillingness to pay for the results of another person's efforts. If he is,
for example, a college student who has never held a full time job, and who
has benefited from wealthy parents, he may be speaking completely from a
theoretical viewpoint, and does not have the world experience to see there is
a lot more to this than what he knows. On the other hand, if he has to pay
the bills on his own and found out the only things he did really well were
programming, or writing, or performing, then I'd say at least he is not only
standing by his principles, but is willing to pay the price they require. On
the other hand, if he is that college student, or a chincy scrooge, then I'd
say he has a right to his opinion (as do we all), but that it is an opinion
based on ignorance and lack of willingness or experience in facing the
consequences of his beliefs.
(Just to be clear, Lee, I am NOT saying you are any of these, I'm just making
a point that in a discussion like this, someone's experience makes a lot of
difference in the strength of their position.)
> I don't have the energy to "disprove" your argument but I am satisfied
> that I have made arguments that do threaten your stance.
>
> I don't need to read your post again to know that you are speculating
> about whether 6 weeks is too long for the given content. I am pretty
> sure you have not reviewed the content. I'm not saying I have.
> I think you misunderstood my comment.
>
> I went back and read your prior posts.
> Your original objection was purely conjectural. I don't think you can
> argue otherwise.
> I wish you would address my charge of absolutism and defend your stance
> that this is not an appropriate exception to our commonly held ideals.
>
> Hal's post came in while I was writing this.
> Well said Hal.
Thank you. I bought it up because, after seeing the absolutism of his posts,
I could only wonder if this situation and all the ramifications had been
explored. Life is full of not just grey shades, but myriads of rainbows of
color, and whenever I see someone presenting everything in black and white, I
always wonder how they can see only one point of view.
> Lee what is the problem with six weeks?
> Do you really think that, as in your first post,
> " withholding that information might put free software
> projects/communities at risk, if it's something to do with the
> proprietary world's aggressive actions, for example." this magazine
> would be the only source that would have such information?
> This is why I think you are being silly.
I'd have to agree that the idea of a six week delay being harmful for those
who don't want to pay is harmful. It might be different if the magazine were
a publication about security threats and viruses, but even there, most of the
people with the most to lose and in danger are more likely to afford to be
able to subscribe.
Hal
> I use that word again only for consistency, and apologize for using it
> initially as I see you are sensitive to it.
>
> Cordially,
> MZD
Reply to: