I do see GNU, Linux, and all those great projects that share the same vision (read license, although there may be some differences) has a great gift given to the world. The ability of having an operating system full of applications that are indeed ours, in which we can modify, distribute and learn with them, are one of the most precious things a human being can have, as precious as the whole knowledge brought to our days by all those books written before our times.
Wouldn't the world be perfect if all the software produced were GNU GPL (or under a similar license)? Wouldn't it be great for the development of men kind, since we would have all the great enterprises focusing all their attention in a free (as 0 cost) and free (as a seagull) operating system that the whole world could afford? The companies would be making money out of services related to software, so the software itself would be 0 cost, and everyone could have in their home everything, regardless of the amount on the bank account. It would be great.
But I spoke above in the knowledge brought by books to these days. Wouldn't it be also great if all those books were also available to all? If someone needed a book to improve his knowledge in some subject and could have it straight away? Some call it communism, but it would be more like a perfect society, for everyone could have direct access to knowledge, the poor wouldn't have to be dumb, they would have the choice, like the rich, to choose between being dumb and being smart. And the world would develop twice, third times, or who knows, faster.
But do the books are free? Do we have the permission to learn all we want without committing crimes? No, we haven't.
Society is build under the logic of money. Those who don't have it can't equal those who have in opportunities. So, the analogy here is that the world of software today is like our own society. If you want to learn, you pay, but you have libraries, where indeed you can learn a lot, depending of the quality of the one nearby. Software also has to be paid for (if you don't want to commit crimes), but you have GNU, Linux and many other Free Software, which can be great and may fit all your needs, but may also don't.
The world would be great if everything we needed to develop it were free of charge, or at lest gave us the freedom to use it and know anybody else could use, and no one was left behind.
But the world won't change, and this is nothing but a great Utopia.
So what is the midterm? What should we be seeking for our society? In my opinion, the best is where lies the liberty, liberty for everyone to use what it likes, but having always in mind that some technologies, although great inside our four walls, may be incompatible with others, and none should support them, because solidarity is also needed.
But how can you ask people to boycott great technologies that work in their environment just because some guys can't use them? Does the world care if the technologies it uses are also enslaving it? Men kind can nearly extinguish itself by using technologies that seem to be positive in the way we analyze them but are also destroying us, and we're asking them to don't use something which is completely positive just because some say it's not? Who will care?
Who cares?
Wouldn't the world be perfect if all the software produced were GNU GPL (or under a similar license)? Wouldn't it be great for the development of men kind, since we would have all the great enterprises focusing all their attention in a free (as 0 cost) and free (as a seagull) operating system that the whole world could afford? The companies would be making money out of services related to software, so the software itself would be 0 cost, and everyone could have in their home everything, regardless of the amount on the bank account. It would be great.
But I spoke above in the knowledge brought by books to these days. Wouldn't it be also great if all those books were also available to all? If someone needed a book to improve his knowledge in some subject and could have it straight away? Some call it communism, but it would be more like a perfect society, for everyone could have direct access to knowledge, the poor wouldn't have to be dumb, they would have the choice, like the rich, to choose between being dumb and being smart. And the world would develop twice, third times, or who knows, faster.
But do the books are free? Do we have the permission to learn all we want without committing crimes? No, we haven't.
Society is build under the logic of money. Those who don't have it can't equal those who have in opportunities. So, the analogy here is that the world of software today is like our own society. If you want to learn, you pay, but you have libraries, where indeed you can learn a lot, depending of the quality of the one nearby. Software also has to be paid for (if you don't want to commit crimes), but you have GNU, Linux and many other Free Software, which can be great and may fit all your needs, but may also don't.
The world would be great if everything we needed to develop it were free of charge, or at lest gave us the freedom to use it and know anybody else could use, and no one was left behind.
But the world won't change, and this is nothing but a great Utopia.
So what is the midterm? What should we be seeking for our society? In my opinion, the best is where lies the liberty, liberty for everyone to use what it likes, but having always in mind that some technologies, although great inside our four walls, may be incompatible with others, and none should support them, because solidarity is also needed.
But how can you ask people to boycott great technologies that work in their environment just because some guys can't use them? Does the world care if the technologies it uses are also enslaving it? Men kind can nearly extinguish itself by using technologies that seem to be positive in the way we analyze them but are also destroying us, and we're asking them to don't use something which is completely positive just because some say it's not? Who will care?
Who cares?
