Re: [tlug] Tux is now in Tokyo ! who wants to get it ?

["Joshua B." <juggins@example.com>]

On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull<stephen@example.com> wrote:

> No, of course not.[1]  I'm dissing spammers, but even more so I'm dissing
> illegitimate self-appointed guardians of privilege in the name of
> freedom.  Only a truly tiny elite cares about "software freedom", and

I don't consider myself very elite, but I am think "free software" is
a valuable movement in much the same way I believe the Mennonite
Brethren do a lot of good in the world.

> AFAICS *proprietary* software has none of the social and political
> implications of *government suppression* of speech.  So all of the

I agree, I'm a big fan of many pieces of proprietary software, many of
which are useful tools for empowerment and grass roots etc. However
intuitively I believe that monopolistic software is probably similar
to monopolistic food, energy or communications services... all of
which are nutritious (I mean toxic)  parts of our oppressive
breakfast.

> arguments for software freedom that apply to the general population
> are purely economic,

Not quite, my mother for instance is even less 1337 than me, and yet
she was quite sold on free software for much the same reason she's
sold on fair trade coffee, (which by the way is proprietary and much
more costly per pound than the GIMP). However, I don't distinguish
social/moral implications from economic ones. It's all economic. A
fair trade chocolate bar has all the flavour of a regular bar plus
added conscience soothing sweetness. Cf. VIM not quite as flashy as
WordPerfect[1] but those orphans in Uganda justify more than my left
margin.  These are all things I'm willing to pay for, so they must be
economic considerations.

> and that general population is quite clearly
> unwilling to pay the cost of open source[sic] in many many markets.

I would like to distinguish what the "general population" is willing
to do if a free and fair market exists from what a "general
population" which is subject to the coersion of government supported
monopolies.  People still like free stuff.  I absolutely depend on it.

> N.B.  Those costs would be huge.  Just look at Senator Proxmire's Hall
> of Shame list of "Golden Fleece" research projects, and that's on the
> NSF budget alone.  Can you imagine the cost in useless projects and
> generally unusable design if say Richard Stallman were responsible
> for allocating the entire budget of the (currently proprietary)
> software industry?  I wouldn't mind a billion-dollar budget for
> development of Emacs (even though I would get none of it).

I don't know the good senator but I'm sure I'd agree with you.  I
simply want to stand up for the grass roots aspects of the free
software movement. Even the most outrageous paranoid preaching of you
know who is valuable (gadflies sting bulls, spreading the shit around,
fertilizing a wider field). On the other hand, I never suggested
adovate giving them big budgets.  I think a fast flow of cash into a
grass roots movement has much the same effect as a fast flow of cat
piss onto some real grass roots. [2]


[1] I know Word Perfect isn't the best example but I didn't want to
set up a Bram vs. Bill & Melinda pissing match.

[2] A better analogy would be the flow of industrial fertilizer into a
lake... but I couldn't resist bringing cat urine into the
conversation.