On Tuesday 21 Feb 2006 22:30, Dave Robillard wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-21-02 at 20:36 +0000, Chris Cannam wrote:
> > On Tuesday 21 Feb 2006 20:12, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2006-21-02 at 15:05 +0000, Chris Cannam wrote:
> > > > If my free software work puts a company or its developers out of
> > > > work, then that's a problem for my conscience. It's not a victory
> > > > for free software.
> > >
> > > Yes it is.
> >
> > No, the fact of people having been put out of work is not itself a
> > victory for anyone.
>
> Straw man. I never said it was an overall win, just a win for free
> software.
Right, and I said it wasn't. That's what you replied to. No straw man.
Note though that I'm specifically talking about the failure of the
proprietary company, not the success or popularity or quality of the free
software alternative -- those good things, sure, celebrate them.
It is subjective though, I admit. You could believe anything from "every
time a proprietary software company goes out of business for any reason,
that's a victory for free software" down. You can naturally argue that its
being a victory doesn't depend on whether the people who caused it think that
it is. But for my part, I think there is only victory if you think you're
participating in competition.
What's interesting is that I used this line of argument to explain my
preference for "free software" over "open source" (because I think the term
emphasises the positive, constructive and human nature of the work rather
than an irrelevant businesslike cost/benefit angle) but the people arguing
against me also appear to be on the "free software" side.
Anyway, I've said more than enough.
Chris
Received on Sun Feb 26 20:19:02 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 26 2006 - 20:19:03 EET