| |||||||||||||
anti-somethinganti-somethingPosted Nov 29, 2006 20:12 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)In reply to: anti-something by nhippi Parent article: Who is being divisive? Still, we, free software people, *constantly* manage to portray ourself as rather as anti-something rather than pro-something. And thats horrible marketing. If your goal is to sell a product, feel free to project as sunny a disposition as you can. That's marketing. Our goal is bigger than selling a product. Should Martin Luther King have marketed the "new, cooperative, hard-working, fully-interoperable Negroes"? Or should he have protested the way Blacks were oppressed? There are situations where you have to be anti-something. Also, I actually reject the premise that being anti is bad marketing. Conflict sells stories in the press and gets eyes on an issue. Bruce
(Log in to post comments)
anti-something Posted Nov 30, 2006 8:37 UTC (Thu) by jhellan (subscriber, #17103) [Link] > Should Martin Luther King have marketed the "new, cooperative,> hard-working, fully-interoperable Negroes"?
Oh come on! This is only software. The civil rights movement was about much more important matters.
anti-something Posted Nov 30, 2006 12:33 UTC (Thu) by nettings (subscriber, #429) [Link] while i feel that the open source culture does indeed have the potential to change the world for the better, i wholeheartedly agree with your comment :-D
(an ardent open-source partisan
anti-something Posted Nov 30, 2006 12:46 UTC (Thu) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link] “In a world where speech depends on software, free speech depends on freesoftware.” — Don Marti jr.
anti-something Posted Nov 30, 2006 15:51 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] Oh come on! This is only software.King's work was vastly important. But it was important that King's message was communicated. Today, computer software is the conduit for communication of political discourse. Before Gutenberg, copyists, using pen and ink, duplicated written political dialogue laboriously. Only the wealthy and the church could afford to employ copyists, and during this period the paucity of communications limited the exercise of democracy to small groups. The advent of Gutenberg's press made the mass distribution of written political dialogue possible. People vote based on what they hear and read, and the improvement in communications brought by the press made egalitarian mass democracy possible. It is thus no surprise that the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of the press. Within the last century, electronic communications have increasingly become the vehicle of democratic discourse. Because radio and television broadcasting are expensive with limited frequencies available, the wealthy have dominated broadcasting. The Internet and World Wide Web place into the common man's hands the capability of global electronic broadcasting. Clearly, the Internet is the most important tool of democracy since Gutenberg developed movable type. In order to protect democratic discourse in the future, the Internet must remain a fair and level playing field for the distribution of political speech. The full capability of the Internet must remain available to all, without restriction by religious, business, or political interests. A number of "Internet radio" devices have become available today. Most of those devices only receive stations that have been enabled through the gateway site of the device's manufacturer. This means that the manufacturer of an Internet radio can control what stations the device provides access to, and thus what political viewpoints are available via the device. One day in the future, most of us will receive text, audio, and video programming via the Internet, either wired or wireless. Imagine the problem for democracy if, when that day dawns, the manufacturers of our access devices are a few companies that have attained a market lock on Internet broadcasting, thus determining what political viewpoints the electorate can receive. That's one of the reasons that Open Source software is important to democracy. By remaining an tool for communications that individuals can control, it can help us get a political message through when the commercial infrastructure may be stopping that message. Bruce
anti-something Posted Nov 30, 2006 20:05 UTC (Thu) by JohnNilsson (guest, #41242) [Link] For anyone interested in the full scope of this battle I can highly recommend The Wealth of Networks[1] by Yochai Benkler. (Available under a CC license for online reading).
[1] http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=0300110561
anti-something Posted Nov 30, 2006 16:33 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] > Oh come on! This is only software.
No. No, it's not "only software". The issues being addressed by the free software movement strike at the very heart of our freedoms - to build, to own, even to imagine. There *are* no more important matters - software is just the battleground.
|
|||||||||||||