🚀 go-pugleaf

jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>>> The real problem with the word "free" is that there is an
>>> ideology shared by conservatives and Libertarians which
>>> holds "the freedom to maximize profit" above just about
>>> everything else.  (Many netfolk come from rather privileged
>>> backgrounds and never had to worry about the everything else;
>>> thus we see this ideology held and advocated by dispropor-
>>> tionate numbers of netfolk.)
>> What a penetrating analysis.  And with such well-documented
>> assumption [sic].
>
>=o= Which assumption are you saying lacks documentation?

Actually, I meant to impugn all of them; I typo'ed "assumptions"
into "assumption."

You blandly assert that people dislike FSF's use of the word
"free" because of their political beliefs.  Let's pretend,
briefly, that you're right about many netfolk holding the beliefs
you assume.  So then, apparently you think these people are
misled by FSF's use of "free" into thinking there's some way
for them to make money from FSF code, and then when they
find out they can't, they get upset?

(I'm really reaching here, trying to find *any* connection
between your political assumption, and any objection to the
FSF's use of "free."  Maybe you had some more obvious connection
in mind?  I can't see one, but speak up if it's there.)

*My* dislike of FSF's use of "free" is much simpler:  I view
software like most other products, as something you buy,
build, or otherwise obtain, when and as it's needed.  I don't
view it as a political issue, in normal circumstances.	Hence the
FSF's assertion that "`liberty' is the normal meaning of `free',
so why does our name confuse people?" looks to me like mere
disingenuousness.  "Liberty" certainly is *not* the normal
meaning of "free" in connection with things which are commonly
bought and sold, such as software.

>I will admit that no adequate demographic analysis of the net
>exists, though it doesn't really take rocket science to figure
>out that access to the net varies with class.

I am quite sure I do not come from the privileged background
you envision.  Nonetheless, I do hold the view you disagree
with.  I was insulted by the broad brush you used to paint
those who disagree with you, quite aside from my belief that
your explanation is also wrong.

>> Now see what you can tell us about the definition of "ad
>> hominem argument."
>
>=o= Actually, your article brings to mind the definition of
>_non_sequitur_.

In other words, you don't know what "ad hominem" means?  It
describes an argument based on portraying the opposition in
a bad way, which is precisely what your article did.  My
pointing that out was far from a non sequitur.

>The point of my article is that I've observed that a
>disproportionate number of netfolk hold use [sic] a definition
>of "free" that derives itself from that ideology.

If you mean the definition "no-cost," I think I've explained
above why people assume that meaning, without any need to look
to assumed political motivations.  If you have some other
definition in mind, let's hear exactly what it is.

Jesse Perry   jesse@franklin.com   uunet!frnkmth!jesse