Is Linux the high moral ground?

[smaker]

Well software at any level whether its the operating system or a software package that you use is really only coded thought set of instructions to do a particular task you set out to do in the first place. The only time that it is tangible is on the medium in question that you need to transfer from into your computer, like diskettes, cd roms, tape back ups as examples. Now with the internet iva, DSL, Cable modem, 56k ancient internal and external.

If a particular software that I would need desperately that I would pay for it. But if I should find it under linux for free be it what ever it is. I would rather take free instead of paying for it personally.

Compucore

I def. agree that if a software/service is available for free and is a very good product, then sure Ill consider that strongly , as while I'm def. NOT against good proprietary software I do think having freely available software is a huge benefit to people that dont have the means otherwise.


cy
smaker

[Jadd]

Back to the subject of piracy and how it harms open source and free of charge software.

Piracy does harm libre software, because it allows propiritary software to become the standard. What annoys me the most in this is that propiertary software companies are delibrately applying a double standard in this. Microsoft turns a blind eye to all the pirated copies of windows in the third world, because it doesn't want the third world to turn to open source software. The music industry turns a blind eye to all the illegal music videos on youtube, because they want to ensure that their artists remain the most popular, rather than those who use creative commons licences or who publish on magnatune. These companies are delibrately not sueing.

So my question is, could I sue instead? Could I press charges for copyright infringement even if I don't own the copyright? If this were possible, the people could get rid of stupid copyright laws by enforcing them.

[lancest]

Bill Gates even said at some point they want to collect from those highest piracy rate countries. I just don't see how this is possible since people are very used to not paying for software. Yes MS must be aware of that. I really believe Vista is a problem for MS to continue that dominance because of it's poor performance and DRM stuff. XP will be around for a while longer but Linux brilliance is making XP look very outdated. Some kind of change is in the air, but not the kind measured in sales units.

[Dimitriid]

weblordpepe Is right in saying selling software its illogical and cannot be sustained. However if he is not able to effectively marry that concept with the follow through concept of "Software designed is an specialized task" its because you have to dig deeper:Software is information, and information its a right for people, it serves a basic human need. Therefore it cannot be subject to capitalist tribulations and the free market.

Now it cannot be subject to said tribulations because capitalism will only ever serve the interests of the bourgeouisie, of the ruling class. As more essencial human needs are comertialized they in part become a luxury only for those able to afford them. This is why software, ideas, knowledge, art and many other things should NEVER be comercialized at all under any circumstances.

But of course in this modern globalized world most people will continue to be drones and will always have to deal with End of Users agreements to their souls.

[Frak]

Only at least the core of the system should be open. Then people get their choice.

I really don't care about proprietary software in general, as long as its not integrated in my system by default. If I want Binary blobs in my system, that is my choice.

[HermanAB]

In a market where the main competition is lower than shark-****, it is easy to hold the moral high ground...

(Hah, did I fool the forum nicety filter?)

[user481516]

I am currently researching a paper on Marx and Open Source. I really think there is something to all this and here is the proposal I have so far. What Linux does is create an environment where the producer gets to maintain possession and access to the product that he/she produces. Marx would be proud!

The current Open Source movement fulfills many of Karl Marx’s suggestions in the Estranged Labour section of the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Marx expresses the need for a great change in the capitalist frame of mind. He claims that in a capitalist economy, the worker “sinks to the level of… the most wretched of commodities,” and through their production they become alienated from themselves. The objects they labor upon become private property of the capitalist. The worker becomes a slave to the capitalist and the more they produce, the more alienated they become.

In the Open Source movement, great production can occur with absolutely no monetary incentive and no alienation from one’s labor. Groups of skilled professionals, in which all members have a common goal, produce a common product and all their goods, labor, and knowledge are intentionally licensed to the public. Marx's explanation of how true communism would function and manifest itself is lacking and ambiguous. No attempt to completely overturn a complex capitalist society, impose communism, and fulfill Marxist ideals, has succeeded. The Open Source movement provides us, on a smaller scale, with a concrete example of a functioning communist model.

[LaRoza]