[BadVista Advocate] "Free" software

[Jacob Maynard]

I do some of my own automobile repairs. Those that I can't, I hire a
mechanic, which is still okay for my example because HE DOESN'T OWN ANY
RIGHTS TO THAT VEHICLE. But he has knowledge of the systems in your
vehicle. Does that mean he's infringing on a copyright? No.

Bluprints for houses are public domain. You can go to the courthouse and
get blueprints on any house you want. Then, you can build your own house
like that, repair faulty wiring and repair plumbing. Is this infringement?
No.

You misinterpreted "Free-Software." Think free as in freedom/rights. No
cost has nothing to do with our argument. In fact, we understand that
people have to make a living, and software is no exception.

True, many companies don't support those of us who want the freedoms to
use our computer any way we choose, versus what a corporation tells us we
must use it for.

With the free-software title, the developers of games would be required to
release the source code for their games with the purchase of the game. Not
okay it for free distribution after that.

See, each person would have to buy a copy of this piece of software. If
another company stole the code for the game, (and what are they going to
steal? An "if then" statement? Tutorials for this are on the internet.
Direct3D code? Also on the internet and even available from the giant
themselves. OpenGL? Stress the word "OPEN." tutorials are all over the
internet. It just matters how hard a person wants to work at programming.)
they would be liable and would be infringing the
copyright/copyleft/license agreement. They could be sued. Anyone releasing
the code for no-cost would also be infringing the license agreement.
Therefore, programmers can still feed their kids.

Intellectual property is a ridiculous statement. If they sell you a car,
you can do whatever you want to that car, right? You can trash it, take it
apart, give it away, blow it up or whatever you wanted. The same goes with
a house or recipe. What it boils down to is that you paid a company for
something. For them to say that you don't own something that you paid for
is a ridiculous thing. Otherwise, wouldn't you just be giving your money
away for nothing at all?

By the way, cell phones, digital cameras, routers, switches, PDA's, DVD
players, video game consoles, handheld media players, etc. all can run
GNU/Linux. Therefore, the software is free (as in freedom.) Cars can be
reprogrammed with a computer.

So, though you don't want to be any other occupation than what you are,
many of us here like to be a "jack-of-all-trades." We have the right to do
this, just as you have the right to do what you do. In computing, your
rights are taken away to become a "jack-of-all-trades" with proprietary
software. And then you can't control YOUR OWN computer.

Now, Intel and AMD do release their controlling code. It's called
assembly, and it's based on a type of standard for the x86 platform. The
processor itself doesn't require a driver. It makes decisions based on
patterns of ones and zeroes. But this is not the point I want to make.

The point I want to make is that we are trying to convince vendors to
release the code for their drivers to the hardware. That way, it can be
"bug-checked" and fixed at home or tweaked. What's wrong with that? We
paid for a card on our computer, right? That means that we own it.

Thank you for taking the time to join our group discussion. We hope to
have more thinkers like you on our team.

Jacob

> "I, personally, don't support non-Free software."
>
> Well, then you're missing out on a lot of great stuff.  How about games?
> I
> enjoy computer games, as do millions of other people.   Those companies
> invest millions in them, do you expect them to give everything away?
>
> "With cars and houses, I'm free to take them apart, do my own repairs or
> modifications (or pay someone else to do it for me), sell them, give them
> away, whatever. So why would I have a problem with cars or houses?"
>
> Do you really do your own car repairs and modifications?  Modern cars are
> very complex and you need specialized training to work on each model.
> Plus
> they now come with a lot of proprietary hardware, and yes, software.  So I
> am betting you do actually pay for non-free software in devices like your
> car and cell phone.
>
> "But I do have a problem with non-Free software, because its users are
> prevented from studying/fixing/modifying the source code (or hiring
> someone
> else to do it for them). And there are obvious security and privacy
> implications, when you run software you're intentionally prevented from
> fully understanding."
>
> There are many proprietary products in the world.  Companies invest a lot
> in
> creating them, of course they need to protect their intellectual property.
> In many cases, giving away the source code would allow competitors to
> steal
> your ideas.  Don't you think competition is a good thing?
>
> Obviously we have a big difference in philosophy.  I don't want to be a
> chef, mechanic, electrician, cook, etc., etc.  Have you heard of division
> of
> labor?  I specialize in one thing, and trade my efforts for those of other
> experts.  I pay people to do my taxes, car work, lawn mowing, house
> cleaning, etc., thus leaving time for me to enjoy my life.  Even though I
> am
> a programmer, I don't want to recompile my O/S!  I had to specialize in
> one
> area of programming to become an expert, I can't also know about video
> drivers, security, media players, etc.  I can't imagine that more than a
> handful of people really do that.  How many Windows users can we convert
> by
> saying "Hey, you can modify and recompile your operating system!"  I think
> most people just want to buy something that works.
>
> "The world will always need new software and people to write, maintain and
> improve it. Those are services for which people/businesses are willing to
> pay."
>
> Ok, so are you just saying that software should be freely distributable
> and
> include all source code, but companies can still charge for it?  That's
> better, but there is still the problem of intellectual property.  I don't
> see why just the software industry is being singled out for this
> treatment.
> The computer you're using has lots of chips in it with proprietary and
> non-free software.  I don't think Intel and AMD are going to give you
> their
> code and trade secrets.
>
> I don't see the appeal of your message to 99% of the population who use
> computers.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Advocate mailing list
> Advocate at badvista.org
> http://badvista.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/advocate
>