-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
____/ Homer on Monday 27 Jun 2011 15:05 : \____
> Verily I say unto thee, that Kari Laine spake thusly:
>>
>> Title: The Danger of Sharing
>> Author: An Anonymous Microsoft Executive
>> Date: November 18, 2003
>>
>> A dangerous plague is sweeping the land... a plague of sharing. It
>> hides under the the seductive name of 'Free Software' or sometimes
>> 'Open Source', but underneath it is just plain and simple sharing.
>> I've warned the world of this threat on many occasions, but I've
>> discovered my warnings were not broad enough. You see, this evil
>> called sharing is not limited to just software.
>>
>> You can find signs of it everywhere, along with the economic ruin that
>> follows it. Why just the other day I discovered this place called a
>> 'soup kitchen'. It was providing meals... for free! Just image the
>> damage that would be inflicted on the restaurant industry if this soup
>> kitchen thing catches on. The effects could already be seen in that
>> neighborhood; all the other people in the soup line seemed very poor,
>> and there was not a five star restaurant to be found anywhere nearby.
>
> I realise he's just being sarcastic, but even so he's still got the
> wrong end of the stick. Free Software is not charity, it's symbiosis.
> It's not in contradiction to economics, it's orthogonal to it. Free
> Software can be and is sold, just like proprietary software licenses.
>
> The problem is morally bankrupt businessmen who believe the only way to
> monetise knowledge is by fraudulently claiming it as "IP", then
> extorting money for "licenses", like some kind of racketeering
> operation, as if "IP" law were any real guarantee of income. But that
> isn't the case at all, as the industry's own figures on so-called
> "piracy" confirms. Ultimately there's nothing more to compel people to
> pay for proprietary software licenses than there is compelling them to
> pay for Free Software, and closed sources are not even much protection
> against the loss of "trade secrets" either, since they can simply be
> reverse engineered.
>
> Published knowledge cannot be contained. It's like King Cnut trying to
> hold back the tide. Moreover, it's morally questionable to attempt to do
> so, since that presumes a right to control others' minds, like some sort
> of Orwellian Thought Crime. Even the claim to exclusive ownership of
> knowledge itself is morally dubious, given its derivative nature.
>
> That doesn't mean the results of that knowledge can't be sold though.
> Free Software isn't charity, it's merely the liberation of that which
> should never have been restricted in the first place: common knowledge.
It's not just Microsoft. The West in general is devising this strategy of using intl' 'treaties'
to limit the free exchange of idea, as that's the only way of impeding social
justice, i.e. in/equality among people, perpetuated in part due to lack of
access to knowledge. Uneducated people are easier to turn into peasants and the West
needs to ensure someone makes bananas, opium, coffee etc. on the cheap, at the expense
of their welfare. Remember what was done to OLPC, whose goals were opposite
to the above?
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
Non-profit search engine proposal @ http://iuron.com
Contact E-mail address (direct): s at schestowitz dot com
Contact Internet phone (SIP): schestowitz@xxxxxxxxx (24/7)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk4KYPYACgkQU4xAY3RXLo75dwCghc7ndnVcI5ai4Mju1hqBsEpF
H44AnRtHa9lLafdiQkBDOMoIogLtV0H9
=38Bz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
