Re: [Somewhat More OT] Closed source software Was [Re: Hmmm. A question. Was [Re: Debian is losing its users]]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Paul Johnson wrote:
| On Friday 04 April 2008 08:45:14 pm Chris Walters wrote:
|
|> This would mean the end of modern economic theory (i.e. capitalism -
|> socialism spectrum). It would require a completely new paradigm of
|> economics, where everyone's basic needs are met, and they can work on other
|> pursuits (for what motivation, I do not know). For the record, I, as a
|> programmer and user of software signed the petition in opposition to
|> software patents. Back to my point, we would have to live in a Star Trek
|> like world (i.e. no money) for this to come true.
|
| I'm a little stunned that we're not even 20 years out since the end of the
| Cold War and already we forget Karl Marx and The Communist Manifesto.
No, I have not forgotten Karl Marx or the Communist Manifesto - they are still
being practiced today. Capitalism and Socialism are not mutually exclusive, if
you'll pardon my little foray into economic theory. One of my economics
professors stated that no country is or was either 100% Capitalist or 100%
Socialist - that all countries have some Capitalism and some Socialism. He
proceeded to point out the socialist programs that exist in the USA (food
stamps, welfare, etc.) He also pointed out that Communism is a POLITICAL
system that applies some level of the economic system of Socialism. (What a
debate that was.) Back to the point. He also pointed out that, Cold War
notwithstanding, Sweden is and has been the most Socialist country in the
world, and is a democracy (I would hope they provided *something* for that 70+%
tax rate).
|> If RMS is basing his ideals on the GNU charter, I don't think he read it
|> clearly enough. "Free: As in freedom". This should apply whether a person
|> wants to use pure open source software, closed source software, or a mix of
|> both. This is freedom.
|
| You can't choose for the Bill of Rights to not apply to you: You can't choose
| not to be free. The GNU ideal works the same way.
Apples and oranges. I am having a little difficulty understanding your point.
The GNU ideal is not the Bill of Rights and does NOT work the same way. If it
were, it would only apply in the United States, for one thing. For another,
this appears to be a straw man argument. The essence of freedom is the right
to CHOOSE what you want for yourself, without coercion from governments or
others. This means that one would have the freedom to use open source and
non-open source software together. If you are suggesting that such a thing is
wrong, and opposed to freedom, you are using a variation of the same argument
that opponents of open source software use. By making the two mutually
exclusive, you would limit the freedom of choice (a freedom guaranteed in the
Bill of Rights, I may add).
A final note on the straw man. People can choose not to be free, and many do
so. As for choosing for the Bill of Rights not to apply to a person - doing
this is not really hard. All one has to do is move out of the USA. However,
that has nothing to do with the open source vs. closed source debate. Of
course, I could sum it up like this: non sequitur, straw man argument.
Regards,
Chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=By92
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: