Re: Writing for Free Software Magazine
On Saturday 26 March 2005 06:01 pm, Michael Z Daryabeygi wrote:
> Hal Vaughan wrote:
> >>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.)
>
> Well, I certainly did not questions Lee's dedication to FOSS.
> I don't think I really did launch an ad hominem but merely poorly worded
> my rebuttal. I didn't intend to call Lee silly, merely his complaints.
I'd agree, his complaints are silly.
> There is a difference. But I apologized because he took offense.
You shouldn't apologize for his inability to separate the two. It's not your
fault he took offense. I know when I read the comments, I didn't think you
were calling him silly. Just because he overreacted is no reason to put
fault on you.
> We
> all have transgressions and if I had known his position was so dearly
> held I would have come from a different angle.
> I don't really agree with your statement above Hal.
> We are debating the applicability of ideals to a specific instance and
> not the ideals themselves. So I don't really care what Lee's or your
> background is unless it is knowledge of the publication being discussed.
> And I think we three are all speculating.
I'll respond with my thoughts on that in the next paragraph, but I'll agree to
leave it out of any more discussion, since your points do indicate that, in
this particular discussion, it is not significant to the topic.
I can see your reasoning, but I think it still matters. For example, I've
gotten spoiled by FOSS. I have three copies of Windows (98, 2k, XP) that I
use for testing. I've bought these over the past year or so, other than
that, the only software I paid for in the past four years has been Taxcut
(each year) and Libranet. (Oops -- forgot Exile and another Myst sequal.)
I've started to expect software for free. It bothers me if I have to pay for
a program. If one has gotten used to not having to pay, and suddenly someone
asks for money, it makes a big difference in the reasoning, and, ultimately,
the grounds for their stand. If they feel all information and everything
should always be available for all (like a pure communist state -- and I'm
NOT making any political attacks here, I'm referring to the original intended
definition of communism, which is something we've never yet seen in practice
on Earth), that's one thing. If they feel it's unethical because they're
used to getting it for free and don't want to pay, that's another. In other
words, are their ethics based on what is right for all, or what they want for
themselves?
However, considering what you say, as I said, we can certainly leave it out.
I just felt I should include some clarification.
> <snip>
>
> > 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.
>
> thanks for saying this
>
> >>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
>
> This appears contradictory to me. Did you mean to state it thus?
> You provide a perfect example of how six weeks could be harmful.
> I don't have the impression that this instance is such a case.
Yes, and no. (How's that for clarification.) Yes, it is contradictory, but
it's several points. The first is that it does seem silly to complain about
a six week wait for info that isn't "critical." On the other hand, even if
the information is critical, usually those who need it immediately can afford
it -- at least in the IT field. And it is still based on choice. ANYONE can
get it, as long as they make a choice to pay for it. For most people, it's
not worth the price to get it early. For those to whom it is, they make the
choice and pay the money.
Hal
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.3 - Release Date: 3/25/2005
Reply to: