Re: Writing for Free Software Magazine
On Saturday 26 March 2005 22:13, Michael Z Daryabeygi wrote:
> 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.
No, you have misunderstood the scope of the issue I am discussing. I'm not
saying that it's purely a matter of responding to virus threats. That is
certainly one aspect of it, but it is one example.
The much more fundamental issue of having information withheld while others
have access to it is, *in and of itself* a huge disadvantage. It may
influence their own choices, their choices in a software purchase for their
local school that educates many children, their decision on which party to
vote for in an upcoming election. Knowledge is power, as I'm sure we'll all
agree. By giving power to some, and withholding it from others, you create a
social gap.
If you think about it, this is obvious: even though it is probably
subconscious in this case, that very social gap is what is being utilised to
encourage payment this sales system. In essence, it is blackmail: "You want
this; you can use this; everyone else has it... but you can only have it if
you can pay, like they did." "Then, you'll know what they know. Then, you
can do what they can do. But only if you can afford it, like they can."
>Your original objection was purely conjectural. I don't think you can
>argue otherwise.
Of course I can. There's nothing conjectural about it, unless you just don't
get the logic behind my argument and imagine it to be something else.
>>Six weeks is a long time in computing, when viruses and patents can change
the landscape overnight.
Fact.
>> Hell, that's the lifetime of some software versions in Free Software.
Fact.
>> What use is news about an issue six weeks after it happened to someone who
might want to help campaign against something, or just to comment on an
article before the next article in the series is already printed? If
everyone is limited to six weeks, then the pace of all related communication
will slow to compensate,
Fact. A simple consideration of how often penpals communicate via snail-mail
vs. email, and how often email correspondents communicate vs. those using
instant messaging will make this clear if it does not seem clear at the
moment.
>> but if some can communicate immediately whilst others must wait to hear
what was said never mind replying
We have all seen popular Open Source/Free Software websites disseminate
information that leads to new work being launched almost immediately. I,
personally, have had people join projects of mine based on articles
published. I've seen articles published on other sites based on an article I
wrote elsewhere, and I've had people approach me both with questions, advice,
and invitations to join projects based on articles published. All of these
things are examples of this point I'm making, and I'm sure, if you honestly
think about it, you know of many cases yourself where information about Free
Software has led to new developments that would have been slowed or hampered
by slower communication.
>> then they are second class citizens, by definition.
Basic principles of wealth and poverty, as used by governments and many NGOs.
If we understand that receiving information is a useful tool, then not
receiving it makes us people with less tools than others. No rocket science
here either.
There is nothing here that should even require additional explanation, if you
sincerely and deeply think it through. I can only assume this debate has
arisen because of that old bugbear: simple resistance to new ideas, because
they are difficult to integrate into old ways of thinking and may force us to
re-evaluate who we are and what we do.
> 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.
Since you asked: I have made no absolute demands, of course. I *have* pointed
out the absolute existence of an ethical problem with the approach of
withholding knowledge. Again, from the above, I think there is nothing to
debate here: the issue *does* exist, and *is* real. So yes, I am absolutely
stating *that*. I am not stating, in any way, that you need to care.
Anyway, I've explained this a few times now in a few different ways. People
either get this sort of ethical issue and care deeply about it, or they
resist it as negativity by naysayers. And, like yourself of course, I too am
getting really bored with this now: I simply wanted to raise a point for the
original poster, so that he could either take it on board or ignore it at his
own wish. There is no need for this ongoing debate on such a basic concept,
so I'll drop it here.
--
Lee.
Reply to: