If free doesn't work, try Free.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Libervis Aug 17, 2007 4:19 PM EDT |
This is one of the best articles I've read in a while and I find it very important for the Free Software and GNU/Linux communities to realize what his points actually entail and what is in fact expected from us if we really care about bringing GNU/Linux and Free Software to the masses. First, the fact that unauthorized sharing of software (AKA "piracy") is so common yet obviously illegal leaves me only with one conclusion: something smells really odd here. If so many people just share between each other despite the legal constrain and all the effort to stop this sharing failed I simply think it is time for capitulation. This really underscores the point that it is in human nature to share what is in abundance anyway, what they can't really lose no matter how much they give. Objectively, it is utterly absurd that we still have licenses which make this sharing illegal, to be completely honest, but hey.. that's the world we're living in. Second point I want to make is the most important one. The author of the article didn't offer exact solutions to the problem of not being able to attract enough following with the fact that GNU/Linux is "free and good enough". However he provided food for thought in which I am finding a subtle yet extremely important notion: Quoting:In closing, I'd like to just leave you with something to think about. If you're using a cracked copy of Windows, you have at least one less reason to feel guilty. After all, you may be keeping Microsoft in business in a roundabout, unintended way. You can't admit to them that's what you're doing, though, which makes it a strange position to be in. And at the same time, another thing you might be doing in a roundabout way is slowing down the development of software that you could use both for free and without any moral or legal ambiguities. How you justify all that in your mind is up to you. This last sentence is where he in fact appeals to the morals of the unauthorized Windows users, but from a different perspective. It actually turns out that by using Windows they should not feel guilty for "robbing" Microsoft of their money as much as they should be guilty of robbing GNU/Linux of needed following. Why should this be morally troubling? Because with GNU/Linux they can be both on the legal, moral and "good enough" side of things. So what is my point? Well, this seems to be a subtle (though perhaps unintended) hint by the author that if the "free of cost" argument doesn't work we should further emphasize the other meaning of "free", the "freedom" argument - one actually appealing to the morals of users. Isn't it interesting that after all this time it may be exactly the freedom argument, one for which so many thought would actually hurt the adoption of GNU/Linux, be the one thing which actually makes most of the difference? What do you think? |
| tracyanne Aug 17, 2007 4:37 PM EDT |
I use the term legal. I tell people that I can legally give them copies of Free Software, and they can legally make copies and pass it around, whereas the only way to get a legal copy of MS Windows, and proprietary software, is to buy it from a store that stocks it. |
| Libervis Aug 17, 2007 4:42 PM EDT |
Well that's a good way to go about it. But really, isn't the fact that it is legal really bound to the fact that it respects users freedom? If the license didn't grant such freedoms it wouldn't be legal. :) It is legal exactly because of that other aspect of "free" being true. |
| tracyanne Aug 17, 2007 4:57 PM EDT |
Quoting:It is legal exactly because of that other aspect of "free" being true. Yes. I just think my way of stating the case is more understandable to people who don't get Free as in freedom. |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 17, 2007 5:15 PM EDT |
Quoting:I tell people that I can legally give them copies of Free Software, and they can legally make copies and pass it around Do what I do. Put a box on your desk at work, stack it full with various Linux CDs and Windows CDs with Free Software (like The Open CD) and put a note on it, saying that anyone can take as many CDs as they want, and legally copy as much as they want. It works, especially if you're the geek that anyone goes to with computer problems. And it costs you maybe $10 for a spindle of CDs and a evening burning CDs. |
| Libervis Aug 17, 2007 5:25 PM EDT |
Quoting:Yes. I just think my way of stating the case is more understandable to people who don't get Free and in freedom. Of course, if nothing else works, I agree. The end result I'm getting at, though, is to get people to make the move to an alternative OS not just because it is an alternative OS or because it is better in some way, but because they really care about their rights being respected. There are people, and I'd count myself among them, who believe that what we're in it for here is not to push just another operating system over some others. That's what Mac users are about. :P We do have a larger issue at hand. You can get GNU/Linux at 90% of market share in some way, but if they don't care about their rights they may still end up in a situation where they'd have to justify something to themselves - perhaps more proprietary software - unauthorized - used on GNU/Linux - so what's the difference then? With the OS switch should come a mentality switch, and as we may be seeing now - with the mentality switch comes the OS switch too, but in the latter case it doesn't matter which if it's Free Software. :) |
| Libervis Aug 17, 2007 5:36 PM EDT |
Sorry for another comment in a row, but I was just thinking after I wrote the above, what the end results of recommending someone GNU/Linux on the basis that it is legal would be and will that include valuing ones freedom. And you know what? It just might work. The user starts using GNU/Linux solely because it is legal and free at the same time and after that point he would never accept anything less again. All software he would use should then again be both legal and free because he may now be convinced that it is his right to have this. But the latter might still require a bit of nudging because some people may think this legal free stuff is just a "freebie", not necessarily a deserved norm. So it's up to us to also tell them: "you deserve this, this is the way it's supposed to be". But now I'm beginning to spiral a bit... what about other freedoms? I think once we get them using the new OS, we should mention that it gets even better in case they may ever wish to go to the next level: freedom to modify, freedom to share modified software and freedom to sell support, introducing them to the commercial aspect of free (as in freedom). So, starting with the "it's legal" argument, but then gradually let them know it's not just a freebie, let them naturally start appreciating it and believing that they do deserve these rights and benefits they entail. Because.. the bottom line of all is to make people actually value their freedom, but we *can* do it in a way that will both help the adoption of Free Software (including increases in market share) and switch people's mentality about their software related rights. :) EDIT: As long as it's not about advocating on the sole basis of technical benefits. As long as we tell the whole story, not just a part of it (which is my main criticism against OSI and their way of pushing GNU/Linux btw.) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!