RE: [Fsuk-manchester] freedoms analogy

[Pete Morris]

The problem with Richard's argument is that it relies on the presupposition 
that people don't want to be handcuffed. If, for whatever reason, people DO 
want to be handcuffed (or more specifically, *don't mind* being handcuffed), 
then the argument falls flat.

In the software world, it is much less black and white, as whereas the 
handcuffs are a clear and obvious 'negative' to most people, the restrictions 
of closed-source or proprietary software are less so. So it starts to become a 
balance of cost-benefit rather than a clear "no".

To give a ridiculous but explanatory example, suppose I say...

Here is a stack of cotton and some buttons; go make yourself a shirt ... 
alternatively, if you are prepared to wear these handcuffs for me, I'll give 
you this luxury designer shirt that I made ... plus did I forget to mention 
that wearing handcuffs is now very fashionable, and everyone else in the room 
is already doing so?

It's a silly example obviously, but it exposes some of the complexity behind 
why many people may choose to be restricted because of alternative perceived 
benefits.

Pete


-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of Llewyn
Sent: 13 January 2011 14:21
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Fsuk-manchester] freedoms analogy

I like it.

I think its important to have various analogies on hand as many people
respond to different things/have different cultural/personal contexts
that help them understand new concepts.

If you haven't read it check this cheeky, yet accurate, bit from Richard
Stallman:
____________________________________________________________

People outside the free software movement frequently ask about the
practical advantages of free software. It is a curious question.

Nonfree software is bad because it denies your freedom. Thus, asking
about the practical advantages of free software is like asking about the
practical advantages of not being handcuffed. Indeed, it has advantages:

    * You can wear an ordinary shirt.
    * You can get through metal detectors without triggering them.
    * You can keep a hand on the steering wheel while you shift gears.
    * You can pitch a baseball.
    * You can carry a backpack.

We could find more, but do you need these advantages to convince you to
reject handcuffs? Probably not, because you understand that your freedom
is what's at stake.

Once you realize that that's what's at stake with nonfree software, you
won't need to ask what practical advantages free software has.


/|\

On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 13:10 +0000, Anna Morris wrote:
> Hi, thanks for all your replies, its really great and very helpfull : )
> 
> I had an idea about explaining the studying freedom and I wonder what
> you thought...
> 
> without a free licence, trying to learn about the software is like
> trying to learn about a sum when your teacher refuses to show you the
> workings out... so all you can see is the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _____
> 16
> _____
> 
> In free software, the workings out will always be available to study
> 
>    1
> +15
> ___
> 16
> ___
> 
> So even if you don't aren't sure if companies should be obliged to
> show their workings out (its a novel idea for many) you must surely
> agree that when the workings out are shown, students will learn
> quicker, society will produce more and better at a faster rate.
> 
> I wondered what you thought of this? Do you think its a good analogy
> of is it wrong?
> 
> Anna
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Fsuk-manchester mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsuk-manchester


_______________________________________________
Fsuk-manchester mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsuk-manchester