On 14/02/07, Daniel Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Pat wrote: > OK Richard Stallman, I'm sure you're not so insensitive as to compare > the civil rights struggle and suffrage to your preference for Open > Source software! In what way would that be insensitive? It would be insensitive to claim that we were on an equal footing. We're in the same ballpark, we're not near to playing on the same team.
No, we really aren't. On the one hand we have people's rights to be treated as human beings, to be able to live in safety and earn a living for their familes. Then, over here, we have a preference for a certain type of software licensing... GPL if you please, not merely Open Source... Not the same ballpark - not even close, (and suggesting that it is is pretty offensive, I might add).
Another way of describing your attempt to "attain freedom of software > for all" is as begging some company to "please give me some software for > free." No, it isn't. You have clearly misunderstood what Free software is.
If you want to GPL your software, or even use an actual Free licence, that is your business. Whatever your motivations for doing so are, I doubt that they would be a factor in Kodak's decision making process. Kodak's legal obligation is to maximise shareholder value. Nothing else. Perhaps you should buy one of these printers and reverse engineer the drivers - that would be much more meaningful in your struggle against the oppression of the masses by those evil proprietary software companies.
Bit of a different scale from the civil rights movement there. You have > no rights at all to driver support from a printer company., Why do you > think people should just give you stuff? This coming from "I hate software patents" guy?! I'm not saying people should give us any more than free access to drivers for hardware, free access to software we've paid for. We deserve that.
Software patents assert ownership over my code. Code that I wrote independently. They assert ownership over an idea rather than an implementation. That's why I object to them. I don't see how that compares to your demanding that Kodak write you some special software for your special OS. You didn't pay for that - you paid for whatever came in the box. You deserve whatever is detailed on the specification, nothing more. Nobody is forcing you to buy the product. If you don't like the specification, don't buy it.
Trust me - the manufacturers know pretty accurately what the open source > market is worth. I'm not sure that you do. Now you're arguing against yourself. First you say that we're too insignificant for hardware companies to spend any time or money catering for us and yet, all of a sudden, they have accurate market info on us to gain which they would have to spend, wait for it, time _and_ money on us.
You seem to be getting tired. Let me try it in simpler terms. Yes, the market info is pretty accurate - it describes the market for the field of hardware in which each type of manufacturer operates. If they don't have accurate market data, they don't last long. I didn't really venture an opinion as to whether "we" were too insignificant to be catered to. Regarding printers, it would appear that, yes, quite often it is worth these companies putting in the development time to support your favourite OS. In which case, they put the work in and release a driver - sometimes even an open source one, (sometimes they pull a nvidia). They do it because it benefits their bottom line - i.e. they sell more printers. Either way, it is a cold, unemotional, business decision. It has nothing to do with ideals of "freedom of software to all". Anyway, I doubt that we are going to change each others' minds, and we seem to be having an unfortunate effect on Baza - I'm going to bed. Got to be fresh for the morning - that proprietary software doesn't write itself, you know...
-- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
