[linux-audio-user] Finale for Linux

[ricktaylor at speakeasy.net]

> From: tim hall [mailto:tech at glastonburymusic.org.uk]
> 
> Last Tuesday 13 July 2004 01:33, RickTaylor at speakeasy.net was like:
> >  To me... the variety of choices available on linux is much more important
> > than the open source thing... The copyleft idea strikes me as a really
> > usable and actually somewhat noble alternative to a traditional corporate
> > structure... 
> 
> Yeah, I like copyleft too.
> 
> > The idea of an entirely open source strikes me as a bit 
> > dillettante and maybe a bit too high minded and idealistic to be practical.
> > It's simply too open to politics, cliquishness and similar sorts of abuse
> > {even racism... see Elvis} to be practical. {:} 'Course I sometimes feel
> > this way about the internet itself. I'm probably wrong in those feelings. I
> > don't think I am in my feelings about "open source".}
> 
> I don't think there's anything wrong in your feelings, it's not the same thing 
> as objective reality (whatever _that_ is ;-), but I think you're talking 
> about the problems of 'freedom' itself here. Let's remember that the term 
> 'Open Source' is a spin on 'Free' for people who suffer from fear of freedom. 
> I use Debian, the idea of entirely free is practically realised on my desktop 
> everyday :-) I don't think it's impractical or too idealistic. It is, 
> however, an interesting tightrope walk - Freedom doesn't necessarily mean 
> opening all the valves and removing all the safety mechanisms. Yeah I get 
> heartily sick of having to share this beautiful planet with bullies, racists, 
> abusers and exploiters, but I fully recognise that feeling like that isn't 
> going to change a damn thing.

 I'm seeing "open source" and copylefted "free" stuff as two different creatures. When I think of "open source" I think of a totally open source... no licenses whatsoever. "Free" is a different matter entirely.

> > }  the whole thing tick and even worth using at all (ignoring the wonderful
> > }  unix-y benefits that Macs now have too) is that it's free.  I think the
> > }  reaction, "Everyone else is releasing free stuff, you can bloody well
> > }  release free stuff too!" isn't entirely unjustified.  As for music
> >
> >  I think it's totally unjustified and that it's that very attitude that is
> > at the heart of the problem I described above.
> 
> We're all going to have to agree to differ on this one. Anyone who has spent 
> long hours in font of a monitor developing free software _is_ perfectly 
> entitled to expect others to do the same. The fact that having any kind of 

 You choose to do something one way so everyone else has to do things the same way? 

 We do differ on that. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.

> expectation is likely to lead to disappointment is something for that 
> individual to deal with. How we decide to pay them back is also a matter for 
> our self-assessed consciences. Any rule we may make will limit freedom, so we 

 We have no perfect freedoms. All freedoms are matter of balances. That's life.

> can only attempt to agree on best practice. Personally, I believe that there 
> is a certain magic in not quantifying this transaction, suggesting a level of 
> contribution only seems to serve to put an upward limit on things - Do you 
> ever give more than the 'suggested donation' - do you ever tip _more_ than 10 
> percent? I know I generally feel like I can't afford to, which is an entirely 
> subjective position.

 Usually closer to %20. It depends on the service and the servers apparent need. I have tipped up to 30-40 percent. I'm really not sure what this has to do with anything though.

> Most of my life I've been a drongo musician, that is people are very keen to 
> hear me play and tell me they like it, which is all well appreciated, 
> however, the financial remuneration seems to have got lost in the post. After 
> 20 years of hand to mouth existence I discover the existence of a vast 
> repository of free tools. I have the ability to develop what non-music lovers 
> can recognise as a useful set of skills and make my own products. Anyone who 
> has ever heard of Marx will understand the importance of 'ownership of the 
> means of production', so I have a double onus, to actually support myself by 
> earning a living and also to pay back those who have helped me along the way.

 I'm familiar with Marx. I'm familiar with the concept of the "ownership of the means of production." I'm not quite sure what this has to do with life in a capitalist society. It does make for lovely discussion fodder... I think it's probably important to be able to distinguish between the rhetoric and reality.

> I don't think my position is terribly different from most others on this list 
> in terms of my relationship to free software. Obviously I got to eat & pay my 
> bills and so do the people who have developed all this lovely software I'm 
> using, we all do. Actually I think this is a really good example of a 
> community built on gift transactions. I take a 'render unto Caesar' approach, 
> my work is fairly clearly defined between commercial (all rights reserved) 
> work and communal (some rights reserved). Again, it's up to us as individuals 
> to decide how we license our work.

 That freedom of choice is what I'm thinking to preserve. ...And what you say above that you want to deny others.

 How do you justify denying others the same rights that you have?

> It's an interesting discussion point, but fundamentally I don't think anything 
> is actually broken. Your mileage may differ from what the clock says ;-).