5 ms·

But this idea of having dominion over any computational object (or really any object) is a fantasy. Are you going generate your own electricity riding your gene

by b1daly 15y ago

But this idea of having dominion over any computational object (or really any object) is a fantasy. Are you going generate your own electricity riding your generator bike (powered by veggies from your garden) as you code? That's where I think his ideals go off the rails, their totality beyond common sense. FOSS of various flavors is cool. Of course it's not really free though. It's created by people in the context of an advanced technological society which has numerous components, many necessary, for it's existence.

knewter 15y ago
You could...use solar power. Your idea of 'beyond common sense' seems pretty limited in scope. And the F in FOSS isn't about price, it's about liberty. This is the very first thing anyone involving themselves in a discussion on FOSS should be aware of, and I feel sure that you knew that. What was the point of this comment?
- b1daly 15y ago
  I was refering to the concept of "total dominion" over our computing devices, and trying to illustrate that this a hopeless goal. Yes, you could generate your own power, live in total isolation off the grid, attempt to make everything in your life yourself. You would fail, but you could try. But even in this, you are not free from being subject to the laws that govern where you live. This is an old debate: where should peoples freedom of behavior be controlled to the extent that it impinges on others' "freedom." This is where RMS loses me. His concept of freedom does not seem to include the concept that people should be free to conduct business in accordance with the laws of the land. In the US we are currently free to create and distribute FOSS if we want. Isn't that enough freedom? It's not totally free (in the liberty sense) but there is still a lot of freedom to do as one please with anything that you create (if its "original"). I happen to think that there are real problems with copyright now. The concepts behind the laws were derived before digital technology, and were always intended to address the commercial exploitation of original works. Not what individuals did. We have a situation now where the copyright laws are being enforced against individuals making copies of works for personal, non-commercial reasons, which feels unjust to me. I think part of the intensity behind the MPAA's legal attacks is the perception that if they give an inch, people will take a mile. And the legal foundation of copyright would be undermined by "facts on the ground." Changing the copyright laws to reflect current technology seems like a good idea.
slowpoke 15y ago
Electricity is a service, and you're free to use electricity however you want. Nobody can (physically) stop you from using electricity in a way that is not "approved" by the provider of your electricity. Granted, there are other issues with the generation of electricity, such as the issues with nuclear power, and the environmental effects of coal etc. However, electricity itself is Free (as in speech). Also, you can't interact with electricity on a higher level. You can't really change its behavior, and the way it works is "open source" (physics). Software and, to a lesser degree, hardware, are things which we can deeply interact with, and are a fundamental part of today's society. This is why they need to be completely Free.
- ricardobeat 15y ago
  Just like electricity is completely free. Right? I think I get it.
  - jiggy2011 15y ago
    It means free as in speech not beer.
    - ricardobeat 15y ago
      Mind fart. The analogy is so bad I don't even know where to begin. It's comparing an intellectually intensive, almost craft-like, infinitely complex piece of work to a physical resource that can be routed around. [snip paragraph about capitalism/FOSS] I also think open hardware and standards are much more important than software. They mean you can build anything you'd like yourself, while allowing developers to live off their work. Also: Nobody can (physically) stop you from using electricity in a way that is not "approved" by the provider of your electricity. Of course they can. You can't rig a 330v outlet in your house without permission from your provider. Can't build a tesla coil in your garage either. Draw too much power and they will cut you off unless you switch to a commercial contract, if you're allowed. If I were into bad analogies I'd say here that it's like having a data cap. There is an intricate fabric of things related to economy, work, engineering, politics and society in general, the combination of those what makes electricity available in our homes. Same goes for software - you can't take how society works out of the equation.
ktizo 15y ago
Are you going generate your own electricity riding your generator bike (powered by veggies from your garden) as you code? You should meet some of my mates who live in caravans. They have a solar cinema.
notatoad 15y ago
a lot more people live off-grid, generating all their own power, than do computering like RMS.

by b1daly 15y ago

knewter 15y ago

You could...use solar power. Your idea of 'beyond common sense' seems pretty limited in scope. And the F in FOSS isn't about price, it's about liberty. This is the very first thing anyone involving themselves in a discussion on FOSS should be aware of, and I feel sure that you knew that. What was the point of this comment?

b1daly 15y ago
I was refering to the concept of "total dominion" over our computing devices, and trying to illustrate that this a hopeless goal. Yes, you could generate your own power, live in total isolation off the grid, attempt to make everything in your life yourself. You would fail, but you could try. But even in this, you are not free from being subject to the laws that govern where you live. This is an old debate: where should peoples freedom of behavior be controlled to the extent that it impinges on others' "freedom." This is where RMS loses me. His concept of freedom does not seem to include the concept that people should be free to conduct business in accordance with the laws of the land. In the US we are currently free to create and distribute FOSS if we want. Isn't that enough freedom? It's not totally free (in the liberty sense) but there is still a lot of freedom to do as one please with anything that you create (if its "original"). I happen to think that there are real problems with copyright now. The concepts behind the laws were derived before digital technology, and were always intended to address the commercial exploitation of original works. Not what individuals did. We have a situation now where the copyright laws are being enforced against individuals making copies of works for personal, non-commercial reasons, which feels unjust to me. I think part of the intensity behind the MPAA's legal attacks is the perception that if they give an inch, people will take a mile. And the legal foundation of copyright would be undermined by "facts on the ground." Changing the copyright laws to reflect current technology seems like a good idea.

slowpoke 15y ago

Electricity is a service, and you're free to use electricity however you want. Nobody can (physically) stop you from using electricity in a way that is not "approved" by the provider of your electricity. Granted, there are other issues with the generation of electricity, such as the issues with nuclear power, and the environmental effects of coal etc. However, electricity itself is Free (as in speech). Also, you can't interact with electricity on a higher level. You can't really change its behavior, and the way it works is "open source" (physics). Software and, to a lesser degree, hardware, are things which we can deeply interact with, and are a fundamental part of today's society. This is why they need to be completely Free.

ricardobeat 15y ago
Just like electricity is completely free. Right? I think I get it.
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  It means free as in speech not beer.
  - ricardobeat 15y ago
    Mind fart. The analogy is so bad I don't even know where to begin. It's comparing an intellectually intensive, almost craft-like, infinitely complex piece of work to a physical resource that can be routed around. [snip paragraph about capitalism/FOSS] I also think open hardware and standards are much more important than software. They mean you can build anything you'd like yourself, while allowing developers to live off their work. Also: Nobody can (physically) stop you from using electricity in a way that is not "approved" by the provider of your electricity. Of course they can. You can't rig a 330v outlet in your house without permission from your provider. Can't build a tesla coil in your garage either. Draw too much power and they will cut you off unless you switch to a commercial contract, if you're allowed. If I were into bad analogies I'd say here that it's like having a data cap. There is an intricate fabric of things related to economy, work, engineering, politics and society in general, the combination of those what makes electricity available in our homes. Same goes for software - you can't take how society works out of the equation.

ktizo 15y ago

Are you going generate your own electricity riding your generator bike (powered by veggies from your garden) as you code? You should meet some of my mates who live in caravans. They have a solar cinema.

notatoad 15y ago

a lot more people live off-grid, generating all their own power, than do computering like RMS.