- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Stallman: Students Should Be Taught to Share With The Class
|
|
|
Comments (60)
contradicting himself?
33 earlier comments in the full thread.
>There is actually nothing inherently antagonistic about Socialism to a Free Market
Until, that is, your industry becomes one that the government decides must be nationalized.
Until, that is, your industry becomes one that the government decides must be nationalized.
> Free Software is very Socialist, it's about share according to your ability and using according to your need.
But why is sharing software so particularly Communist or Socialist? Don't Capitalists teach sharing too? Most people here in the US brag about how much food/money/clothes/etc. they share with others. But sharing software is somehow Communist/Socialist? I don't buy that. Not for one second.
I still say Free Software is eco-socio-politically neutral.
But why is sharing software so particularly Communist or Socialist? Don't Capitalists teach sharing too? Most people here in the US brag about how much food/money/clothes/etc. they share with others. But sharing software is somehow Communist/Socialist? I don't buy that. Not for one second.
I still say Free Software is eco-socio-politically neutral.
>But why is sharing software so particularly Communist or Socialist?
It's not, but it's informed by the same ideals. Fortunately, without the power of government, those ideals can remain ideals and not become the iron fist of oppression.
It's not, but it's informed by the same ideals. Fortunately, without the power of government, those ideals can remain ideals and not become the iron fist of oppression.
> it's informed by the same ideals
Maybe for some, but definitely not all. Companies like Novell, Red Hat, and Sun treat sharing as a business model.
Maybe for some, but definitely not all. Companies like Novell, Red Hat, and Sun treat sharing as a business model.
>Companies like Novell, Red Hat, and Sun treat sharing as a business model.
Companies are businesses. A business built on sharing is not at all a bad thing, but still a business.
If you don't like to have businesses touch free software, you should take it up with RMS, who believes that free software is for businesses, too.
Companies are businesses. A business built on sharing is not at all a bad thing, but still a business.
If you don't like to have businesses touch free software, you should take it up with RMS, who believes that free software is for businesses, too.
> If you don't like to have businesses touch free software, you should take it up with RMS, who believes that free software is for businesses, too.
Which is exactly why I think the "Communist" label is more than a bit of a stretch - and why Free Software is neutral towards the currently held beliefs and systems.
Which is exactly why I think the "Communist" label is more than a bit of a stretch - and why Free Software is neutral towards the currently held beliefs and systems.
>why I think the "Communist" label
It is, in general, the problem with labels. If you start snipping away some ingredients and/or adding others, the label becomes a lie.
It is, in general, the problem with labels. If you start snipping away some ingredients and/or adding others, the label becomes a lie.
> ...genuinely free, as opposed to what the monopolistic corporations and the US tout as the free market...
You're painting with too broad a brush, Tracyanne. Both Bob and I (and possibly even Dino) will admit that what the US has is NOT a free market. There's far too much government interference and control.
You're painting with too broad a brush, Tracyanne. Both Bob and I (and possibly even Dino) will admit that what the US has is NOT a free market. There's far too much government interference and control.
jdixon -
I believe that the US has one of the world's freest markets. I find "free market" to be a bit of an oxymoron. Just as Stallman believes that GPL'd software is freer than public domain, even though the latter is completely free and the former highly restrictive, I believe a free market needs cops the same way that people walking down city streets at night need cops.
I believe that the US has one of the world's freest markets. I find "free market" to be a bit of an oxymoron. Just as Stallman believes that GPL'd software is freer than public domain, even though the latter is completely free and the former highly restrictive, I believe a free market needs cops the same way that people walking down city streets at night need cops.
Quoting:Until, that is, your industry becomes one that the government decides must be nationalized.
Industries have in the past been nationalised by Socialist governments to protect them, usually from US corporations that are Quasi nationalised (by virtue of the fact that the US Government subsidises those Industries to make them competitive) in the first place. It, nationalisation of industries, like the subsidising of corporations by the US, is a symptom of 19th century Top down thinking.
>to protect them
Yeah, of course. And, before you know it, the government will take our homes to protect us because we are probably lousy landlords who have taken unfair advantage of the intimate knowledge we have of ourselves as tenants.
Yeah, of course. And, before you know it, the government will take our homes to protect us because we are probably lousy landlords who have taken unfair advantage of the intimate knowledge we have of ourselves as tenants.
> I believe that the US has one of the world's freest markets.
While likely true, that doesn't make it a true free market. The two statements aren't contradictory. As to whether a cop on the beat is required, we'd have to try it without one to find out. I can understand why folks might be reluctant to do so.
> Industries have in the past been nationalised by Socialist governments to protect them...
I don't think that's true for the current raft of nationalizations by Hugo Chavez, who appears to be the current poster boy for socialism.
While likely true, that doesn't make it a true free market. The two statements aren't contradictory. As to whether a cop on the beat is required, we'd have to try it without one to find out. I can understand why folks might be reluctant to do so.
> Industries have in the past been nationalised by Socialist governments to protect them...
I don't think that's true for the current raft of nationalizations by Hugo Chavez, who appears to be the current poster boy for socialism.
Quoting:Yeah, of course. And, before you know it, the government will take our homes to protect us because we are probably lousy landlords who have taken unfair advantage of the intimate knowledge we have of ourselves as tenants.
Well we did once have excellent government sponsored public housing, though which low income families could rent - at very low rates - good quality housing, but that was under the last labor government. Since then the current Liberal (read right wing conservative) government has sold off the public housing properties and low income families are forced (for their own good of course) to pay market rates, which work out to about on average 50% of the family income, often for quite poor quality housing.
Tracyanne, unfortunately that does not help your argument all that much if you think things through. If you have government subsidized housing, or in your case government owned housing then the market value of properties is artificially biased. This will allow properties in the affected areas to either increase or decrease in value at a rate that is not dictated by market pressure.
Once the government decides to get out of the tremendously expensive role of landlord there must of course be a rebalancing of the market. This market adjustment will fluctuate wildly at first due to the vagaries of locational market demand, however as things progress there WILL be a real and true market adjustment. That adjustment is usually called a recession.
It is fairly easy to see that the government through its own actions, in the name of helping a subset of the population, was the actual instigator of the current market rise and instability. This affects not just the subsidized but the entire nation and other nations as well. The initial action point was not in the terminating of the program, but the inception of it in the first place. Had they left well enough alone the market would have adjusted to a more reasonable level much sooner, as I suspect yours has not yet.
Once the government decides to get out of the tremendously expensive role of landlord there must of course be a rebalancing of the market. This market adjustment will fluctuate wildly at first due to the vagaries of locational market demand, however as things progress there WILL be a real and true market adjustment. That adjustment is usually called a recession.
It is fairly easy to see that the government through its own actions, in the name of helping a subset of the population, was the actual instigator of the current market rise and instability. This affects not just the subsidized but the entire nation and other nations as well. The initial action point was not in the terminating of the program, but the inception of it in the first place. Had they left well enough alone the market would have adjusted to a more reasonable level much sooner, as I suspect yours has not yet.
> Industries have in the past been nationalised by Socialist governments to protect them
This seems to have become a political discussion now. Nonetheless, I don't understand how nationalizing an industry "protects" it. Maybe you mean they won't run out of money, so they won't go bankrupt under any circumstances. A better choice would be to impose trade barriers. An even better choice would be to compensate the workers in those industries a bit and help them to move to a new industry, where they will be more productive.
This seems to have become a political discussion now. Nonetheless, I don't understand how nationalizing an industry "protects" it. Maybe you mean they won't run out of money, so they won't go bankrupt under any circumstances. A better choice would be to impose trade barriers. An even better choice would be to compensate the workers in those industries a bit and help them to move to a new industry, where they will be more productive.
bigg -
In this case, protecting industry means consolidating and increasing the wealth and power of those running the government. The thing a nationalized industry is mostly likely to be protected from is efficiency.
In this case, protecting industry means consolidating and increasing the wealth and power of those running the government. The thing a nationalized industry is mostly likely to be protected from is efficiency.
> protecting industry means consolidating and increasing the wealth and power of those running the government
Must be the differences between Australian and US English, I guess.
Must be the differences between Australian and US English, I guess.
>Must be the differences between Australian and US English, I guess.
POV, more likely.
POV, more likely.
Quoting:Had they left well enough alone the market would have adjusted to a more reasonable level much sooner, as I suspect yours has not yet.
It was introduced because the market was too expensive for the low income families, all that removing it did was reinstate what it fixed.
Probably a larger issue as well.
Quoting:"So every school should bring only Free Software to class, and set an example with its software of the practice of disseminating human knowledge while building a strong, capable, independent and free society. And encouraging the spirit of good will, of helping other people."
Besides creating and using Free Software, the larger issue here is that of "disseminating human knowledge". Communication. The issue of what must be, what should be, and what should not be communicated.
In the U.S. at least, free and open communication can be effectively limited by patent and other laws, libelous speech/writing, outright censorship, and a seeming host of other reasons. A blatant case of censorship outside of the U.S. is occurring even as dcparris's post has been reviewed here. China's censorship of Google, as seen at Bruce Einhorn's BusinessWeek piece 'China's Internet Censors Strike Again' at http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/blog/eyeonasia/archive...
This Internet censorship story does not seem to have been picked up as have other larger stories, yet this clearly shows that bottling up communication certainly reduces "building a strong, capable, independent and free society. And encouraging the spirit of good will, of helping other people".
>free and open communication can be effectively limited by patent
How does patent law limit free and open communication? It certainly can limit innovation productivity, but communication?
At its roots, the patent system is a way of ensuring that information gets disseminated by remove or, at least, reducing, the incentive for individuals and organizations to keep secrets.
All patents are public documents. You may not be able to use the technology without a license until the patent expires, but you get to know about the innovations covered. When the patent expires, you are free to use what might otherwise have been kept secret.
How does patent law limit free and open communication? It certainly can limit innovation productivity, but communication?
At its roots, the patent system is a way of ensuring that information gets disseminated by remove or, at least, reducing, the incentive for individuals and organizations to keep secrets.
All patents are public documents. You may not be able to use the technology without a license until the patent expires, but you get to know about the innovations covered. When the patent expires, you are free to use what might otherwise have been kept secret.
> ...libelous speech/writing, outright censorship, ...
In the US, if what you are writing is true, that's an absolute defense against libel. The same is not true in Great Britain. Outright censorship, while it does occur, is comparatively rare and usually fairly easily worked around.
Copyright and trademark are severe limitations on free and open speech. Whether that is a good thing or not is a debatable matter. I could easily argue both sides of the issue, and probably be equally convincing (or not :) ) on both.
In the US, if what you are writing is true, that's an absolute defense against libel. The same is not true in Great Britain. Outright censorship, while it does occur, is comparatively rare and usually fairly easily worked around.
Copyright and trademark are severe limitations on free and open speech. Whether that is a good thing or not is a debatable matter. I could easily argue both sides of the issue, and probably be equally convincing (or not :) ) on both.
> "At its roots, the patent system is a way of ensuring that information gets disseminated by remove or, at least, reducing, the incentive for individuals and organizations to keep secrets.
Not anymore.
Access to the detailed information which the patent system is supposed to allow dissemination of, effectively gets throttled REGARDLESS of intent. We all certainly DO NOT get to always know about innovations covered. Ergo, Free and Open Ccommunication becomes effectively stifled and Stallman's points are definitely well-taken.
Read (or re-read more carefullly) dcaparris's Blu-GNU blog.
Not anymore.
Access to the detailed information which the patent system is supposed to allow dissemination of, effectively gets throttled REGARDLESS of intent. We all certainly DO NOT get to always know about innovations covered. Ergo, Free and Open Ccommunication becomes effectively stifled and Stallman's points are definitely well-taken.
Read (or re-read more carefullly) dcaparris's Blu-GNU blog.
Sorry, but it's not a blog. I might be running a (mostly) one-man show, but I distinctly separate the blogs from the news and editorials. I might be picking nits, but I consider the difference to be of some importance.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled program. :-)
I now return you to your regularly scheduled program. :-)
>We all certainly DO NOT get to always know about innovations covered.
You'll have to enlighten me on that because I don't know what you're talking about. In the bad old days, there was the concept of the "submarine" patent. It wasn't anything official, just a reference to the fact that patent applications are secret -- IOW, the patent isn't disclosed until it's granted.
That is, technically speaking, still the case, but, as a practical matter, is not the problem it once was, because...
the law changed, and the term of patents now runs from the date a patent is applied for instead of the date it is granted. That removes or greatly reduces any incentive to stretch out the application process because it will reduce the time available to exploit your patent.
You'll have to enlighten me on that because I don't know what you're talking about. In the bad old days, there was the concept of the "submarine" patent. It wasn't anything official, just a reference to the fact that patent applications are secret -- IOW, the patent isn't disclosed until it's granted.
That is, technically speaking, still the case, but, as a practical matter, is not the problem it once was, because...
the law changed, and the term of patents now runs from the date a patent is applied for instead of the date it is granted. That removes or greatly reduces any incentive to stretch out the application process because it will reduce the time available to exploit your patent.
GoodMorning or perhaps BonApresMidi dcparris
""
I might be running a (mostly) one-man show, but I distinctly separate the blogs from the news and editorials. I might be picking nits, but I consider the difference to be of some importance.
""
A capitol idea as apropos your communicating your desire for more absolute precisi0n! Never a man who Stalls the issue now, not you, what? But how now pray tell....your ventures into the news journalism weblog as well as your other blue-gnu.biz weblog endeavours? Well, we must simply wait and find out what else is in store for us in your regularly scheduled written programme communications, now won't we? :)
ottawalonndon
ottawalonndon
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Free Software is very Socialist, it's about share according to your ability and using according to your need. There is actually nothing inherently antagonistic about Socialism to a Free Market, in fact a Free market (genuinely free, as opposed to what the monopolistic corporations and the US tout as the free market), fits in well with Socialist philosophy - don't confuse the 19th Century top down thinking, that informed 20th Century Socialist and Communist governments, with the Philosophy, which is about obtaining Socially just outcomes for the majority of society's members.