[oclug] Re: Fwd: Re: Why we have Source code

[Dave Edwards]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Francis Pinteric wrote:
>    That's very true and that is one of the reasons behind my philosophy.
>    However, inherent in any position (i.e. programmibus populi) is the
>    reverse danger. The old axiom "a little knowledge can be dangerous"
>    applies.
<snip>

Francis, the problem with your argument here (reconfigured below), is that
you are arguing both sides:  you, and I, and the rest of us, are the 
Zwinglis and Cauvins.  And Stallman = Luther.  The GPL = the Theses. 
Redmond = Rome.  Extending your example, you are arguing *in favour* of
restriction of a technology.  But it cannot work that way:  freedom is
not qualified; freedom is freedom is freedom.  You cannot say, "software
should be free, but not for the untrained."  Perhaps 500 years from today,
your post could be re-interpreted as: 

 " 
That's very true and that is one of the reasons behind my philosophy.
However, inherent in any position (i.e. programmibus populi) is the
reverse danger. The old axiom "a little knowledge can be dangerous"
applies.   
Going back to the time after Torvalds in the 21st century we have
the Free Software Revolution. Here, the sudden availability of the
source code  in the hands of ill trained people lead erroneous
interpretations of  it's meaning. Such illogical and impossible
propositions such as "the source code alone" and "my programming alone"
based on an incorrect (unorthodox) application of the technology (the
ability to read the code) lead to wholesale technological heresy.     
<snip>
This is a classic example of a little knowledge in the hands of
    untrained or ill trained (as in the case of Richard Stallman and
Random J. Hacker) being dangerous. The results of this is still with us to 
   this day.  
"  

Dave. 
 -- 
PGP Public Key http://www3.sympatico.ca/amoamasam/public-key.txt