|
>Once we realize how easy it is to co-own the Means of Production
for
>hosting Free Software, it will be obvious the same can be done for
the
>more important issues of food and housing and health-care.
This leads me to confusion on the interpretation of
what FREEDOM means to FSF. I also gather from other posts that there is
confusion in the organization itself. If that is the case, then how is a clear
message ever going to be sent to the masses? Speaking for myself this is how I
interpret Freedom as it applies to software and things I purchase.
First freedom <> free. Freedom is rooted in
choice. My choices. Hopefully, I have the 'best' of a line of products to choose
from. In a totally free market the best will survive, and the inferior will fade
away. Where the problem lies is in the rigging of the market. Where the best is
kept off the market, and our choices are limited to only what is offered by
controlling parties. Our store shelves are full of crap/junk appliances, and our
legislatures are fill with crap/junk politicians. All because the process of
allowing the best to the marketplace has been subverted and corrupted.
More important than your vote at the ballot box,
is the votes you cast everyday with your money. Each purchase is a vote. You
vote what business stays or which one goes. Your money has more power than
anyone considers. If you don't like TSA.... quit flying. You don't like
Wal-Mart... quit spending your money there. Opting-out has more power that all
the marches on Washington D.C. Your money is your power.
When you put others in control of your spending
(taxes, investments) then you have relinquished your power, your vote is no
longer accounted for. If our government had to go door-to-door asking each of us
for a money contribution to go and fight a war.... guess what? Instant peace.
There are tonnes of great companies out there that
have a better mouse-trap and would do very well if allowed to come to market and
compete fairly in a true 'free' market. Money is not bad.... it is a vote of
confidence in a open and free market, and people have no problem spending
(voting) for the best of the best.
There may be business that would jump on the idea
and venue to show off their wares, and want the chance to let the public decide
who has the better mouse-trap. They may even throw some cash in the pot.
Freedom is choice... not free. I don't want my
choices or money messed with. That is my voice and power.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Free
as in Freedom Network Services [was: Tackling Network Effect]
Usenet and irc may be good models in terms of figuring out how to share
costs/ownership?
We can use the charity model and build it up into a federated model. For
example, statusnet is federated and so is xmpp but there's no simple guide
available for setting that up. There's no support group, there's no
infrastructure basically.
On May 14, 2012 12:06 PM, "Patrick Anderson" < agnucius@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am willing to pay for domain registration and
hosting if nobody else
> volunteers, or no organisation can donate it,
if there is a good design. (Of
> course, donations would be welcome to
help spread the cost!)
Sharing the costs, control and ownership of
hosting is a fundamental
and inescapable part of drawing users away from
proprietary offerings.
Our lack of understanding on this subject must
not stop us from tackling
this most important issue.
We must
design a GNU Mode of Production that allows us to cover the
real costs of
production (purchasing hardware, supplying electricity,
repairing and
operating those machines, etc.) while preserving freedom
for every
user.
We cannot leave these details to corporations that intend to
subjugate
and overcharge us (where 'overcharge' also includes spying for
the
purpose of receiving more advertisement revenue).
We cannot
leave this to the charity of a few of us to fund and maintain
a small set
of servers.
Charity cannot scale to compete with Google, Skype,
Amazon, etc.
We need a rigorous business plan that will allow us to
cover the real
costs of hosting Free Software while preserving User
Freedom.
This can certainly be done.
Google, Skype, Amazon,
and others charge *more* than the costs of
production, and yet their
users do not pay in any 'direct' manner.
The FSF is already large
enough to begin this.
The FSF already hosts email (@fsf.org and @gnu.org) that could compete
with
Gmail.
The FSF already hosts software projects (Savannah.GNU.org) that
could
compete with github.com
We could compete with Facebook
immediately (the Free Software is
already written) if we understood how
to cover the costs of *HOST* that
software in such a way that those costs
continue to be covered, even
as those hardware requirements increase in
scale.
We are so weak on the 'business' side that we cannot even
cover the
basic costs of those operations, whereas our proprietary
competitors
cover all of their costs and *more* (in that they also
receive Profit).
We must devise a solution to sharing hardware or we
will forever be in
bondage to those corporations that know how to share
(as in shareholders)
hardware for the purpose of subjugating
users.
I have been working on this issue for a while now, and have
discovered
some of the parts of the solution.
Once we realize how
easy it is to co-own the Means of Production for
hosting Free Software,
it will be obvious the same can be done for the
more important issues of
food and housing and health-care.
Sincerely,
Patrick
Anderson
http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com
http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com
http://SocialSufficiencyCoalition.BlogSpot.com
|