Re: [libreplanet-discuss] FSF's communication, ethical discussion in consumerism, why software freedom matters

[Kip Warner]

On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 16:37 +0100, Pen-Yuan Hsing wrote:
> There are two things: The message, and how you communicate it. 
> Unfortunately some people think they have the right message, and if 
> someone suggests a better way of communicating the message, they just
> say: "Well that's your problem because my message is right and
> just!".
> 
> Like it or not, I really think both are important and rely on each 
> other. You can present a message really well but don't really say 
> anything, or you might be the embodiment of justice but ruin the 
> communication.
> 
> As for the word "monetization", I agree with hk's response that it is
> "a 
> symbol of something else". But that's exactly my point: "monetize"
> has 
> *more than one* meaning, and some meanings don't automatically say
> the 
> asker of that Slashdot question is a "parasite" who assumes
> "everything" 
> has to be turned into money, and that turning things into money is
> the 
> only goal in life. Unfortunately RMS's response assumes that that was
> the case, and spends most of the response on sharing his contempt at
> a 
> particular meaning of "monetize" that he doesn't like, without
> answering 
> what can be a fair (and very important) question of how to
> sustainably 
> fund (and even make a profit) out of making Free Software.
> 
> I've been reading many blogs and websites with articles advocating
> Free 
> Software, which is great. But unfortunately many of them seem very 
> sensitive to certain topics such as making money (and others). The 
> common response is usually composed of (1) making money (or some
> other 
> practical benefit) is "not the point" of Free Software, freedom is
> the 
> only important thing, and (2) anyone who asks about making money (or 
> some other practical consideration) is bad.
> 
> Frankly, to me some of those articles look like rants and diatribes,
> and 
> will not serve to promote Free Software. YES, freedom is of course
> the 
> most important point of Free Software and why "open source" is 
> insufficient and why proprietary is bad. But I really don't think 
> practical benefits like making money (or, again, some other things)
> have 
> to be deliberately excluded/avoided. In fact, I think as part of the 
> promotion of Free Software, practical benefits should be advertised 
> along with it! Maybe something like: "Look!!! Gaining/defending
> freedom 
> doesn't mean you have to live in poverty, here are some very
> successful 
> business models that respect freedom".

Well said, Pen-Yuan. Thank you for sharing.

-- 
Kip Warner -- Senior Software Engineer
OpenPGP encrypted/signed mail preferred
http://www.thevertigo.com

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part