Re: Writing for Free Software Magazine
On Saturday 26 March 2005 07:33 pm, Lee Braiden wrote:
> 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.
He's not withholding it from anybody. It's not like he's creating some
publication where you have to prove you're a member of the AMA to get the
data. ANYONE can access it, everyone is treated equally. Any of us can make
a choice to pay for it or not.
> 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."
That's so full of crap, so one-sided (as in not being able to see the forest
through the one leaf of the one branch of the one tree you're stuck in), and
such a silly straw man you've set up, it's not even worth a response. To
take that line of reasoning to it's conclusion, you're saying that if I have
congestion, A. H. Robbins is blackmailing me by making me pay for the
medication.
> >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.
And I'm sure this one magazine will make that difference. If it gets that
influential, they may even be able to change their business model. Even /.
makes money.
> >> Hell, that's the lifetime of some software versions in Free Software.
>
> Fact.
And if it lasts only 6 weeks, then it's not that relevant. If a program is
that useful, profitable, or beneficial, it won't disappear after 6 weeks.
> >> 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,
Again, so if someone really wants it, all they have to do is shell out a few
bucks. You can't draw it down to, "If everyone is limited to six weeks."
This is one magazine. When I was in college, I published my own magazine,
and asked for distribution space next to the college newspaper. It was
denied, so (with a lawyer's backing), I asked for it again, and was told, "If
9,000 students want to start their own magazine..." (the enrollment at the
time was 9,000). The point was 1) 9,000 students WON'T do it, and 2) It
didn't matter, the law was on our side (two of us with our own mags had
partnered on this).
In this case, it's one magazine. It's not EVERY magazine. There are many
business models on the web, including private sites and/or advertising. They
aren't even an exclusive source of information. There are still thousands
out there and you know as well as I do that they won't all suddenly change to
the same business model.
> 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.
And that has to do with this how?
> >> 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.
I've seen that same point of yours several times -- "if you think about it."
Perhaps, if you were to allow yourself to see other points of view, and THINK
about them, instead of immediately dismissing them as wrong, you might change
your mind -- if you think about it, that is.
> >> 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.
Again, why don't you think it through from other points of view. By your
arguments, anytime anyone asks for money, they're creating poverty -- or
blackmailing.
> > 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.
It depends on your point of view. Perhaps we also care deeply, but consider
you a naysayer. I'm not attacking, I'm intentionally showing that there is a
different point of view that is being ignored.
Hal
> 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: