Re: [Fsuk-manchester] Fsuk-manchester Digest, Vol 70, Issue 3

[CCE]

Hi all,

I just came across this interesting article on the free software/culture
movement which I would like to share.

http://links.org.au/node/2094

 It suggests that the Linux Project, the free software/culture movement
is the beginning of a new mode of production.

Thoughts?

Chris


On 09/04/2013 17:00, address@hidden wrote:
> Send Fsuk-manchester mailing list submissions to
>       address@hidden
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>       https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsuk-manchester
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>       address@hidden
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>       address@hidden
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Fsuk-manchester digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Next meeting(s)? (Dan Dart)
>    2. Re: Talking about non-free software on the list (Quiliro Ord??ez)
>    3. Re: Next meeting(s)? (Bob Ham)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 21:09:00 +0100
> From: Dan Dart <address@hidden>
> To: man-lug <address@hidden>,
>       address@hidden
> Subject: [Fsuk-manchester] Next meeting(s)?
> Message-ID:
>       <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Ahoy all,
>
> When are the next meetings and what do they cover?
>
> Cheers
> Dan
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/fsuk-manchester/attachments/20130408/1027d3f9/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 00:18:49 -0500
> From: Quiliro Ord??ez <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Fsuk-manchester] Talking about non-free software on the
>       list
> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> El 08/04/13 08:57, Bob Ham escribi?:
>> On 2013-03-21 19:10, Simon Ward wrote:
>>> Bob Ham <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Suppose there are two pieces of software, A and B.  If A depends on B
>>>> and B is non-free then A is not free.
>>> Ish. As pointed out in another post, A itself could be considered to
>>> be free. However, the dependency on non-free software presents a
>>> problem. You cannot have a free system with that dependency.
>> Precisely.  Here, I'm describing A as "not free" meaning its users
>> have their freedom curtailed, as opposed to the licensing of A not
>> allowing the four freedoms.  I specifically avoided describing A as
>> "non-free".
>>
>> Perhaps a better phrasing would be "the users of A are not free".
>>
>>
> How can a software be free (as in freedom) and the users not be free?
>