Re: Major interview

[bickiia@earlham.edu]

"malonowa" <malonowa@wanadoo.fr> wrote [with much cut]:
>This is not true for everyone. Whilst I appreciate your 
>passionately held views you mustn't fall into the trap of making such 

>sweeping generalisations with regards to the "Edusoft companies". They

>don't all follow the same business model. Take Topologika for example,

>as far as I can see they would port software simply because "we asked 

>them to". I will port software because "you ask me to". There are 
>people out there who will do things simply because they believe it's 
>right to do it and if they can avoid going bankrupt in the process 
>then  that's a good thing. Please don't de-humanize all companies, 
>there are people behind these companies who have genuine beliefs and 
>share much  of the good will and intention for young people as you 
>do - but they do need to earn a living in the process.

I think things are different in Europe/Britain than the US.  There has
been a big consolidation in the US, so that most edusoft stuff is made
by three companies (I think -- Knowledge Adventure, The Learning
Company, and somebody else?)  These are big, publically traded
companies.  They are inhuman -- they are driven by profit, and even if
somebody at the top wanted to do otherwise, it would be illegal for them
to consider other motives!  They pretend to be human to seduce us --
giving to charities, putting out price-leaders, having websites with
lots of primary colors, but it's all a carefully made illusion created
by marketers.

There have been small, privately-held, compassionate software companies.
 But they are mostly gone in the US, and I worry about their future
elsewhere.  I have nothing against such companies, but I'm not sure they
offer any more viable a solution than free software does -- both have
confusing and unsure futures.


>You mentioned in a previous e-mail that too much commercial software 
>would limit freedom. This simply isn't so. Whilst this may be true 
>if the operating system isn't free, I fail to see how a piece of 
>edsoft. could effect the community's freedom. 

Something which underlies a lot of the GNU philosophy -- though not
explicitly said -- is a shift in power.  Under the proprietary model the
power is with the authors (or those who control them).  Under the free
software model, the power is with the user.  Operating system or paint
program, the power shift is the same.

Of course, Microsoft could never have built an empire around a paint
program.  But in defining free software as a reaction to Microsoft, the
deeper moral issue is missed.  If the freedom is valuable for the entire
system, isn't it as valuable for each piece?


>I'm all for co-existance with all philosophies in life. Remember that 

>wars have been started simply because people didn't share the same 
>philosophy or religion. If we go to far with either model then we 
>risk destroying our own arguments - we cannot argue for freedom if 
>we wish to eliminate the others, that would inevitably lead to the 
>removal of choice for those who don't agree with us and therefore
>defeats the purpose of it all.

I'm don't much like tolerance and co-existance as basic principles.  I
guess I believe there really is a moral imperative.  But everyone on
this list shares far more values than we disagree on, and here in the
belly of the monster I hope we all see this as discussion, not arguing.
 Or at least friendly arguments :-)

  -- Ian