Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Gitlab and Gitorious (was Re: support me)

[Robinson Tryon]

On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune@riseup.net> wrote:
> Anyway, today, the best ethical tractor is this actual open-source
> tractor: http://opensourceecology.org/portfolio/tractor/

Yep -- that's the LifeTrac machine I was referencing.

> And otherwise, no, you cannot just easily adapt other tractors because,
> like cars, they are today all complex computers running proprietary
> software.

I'd be interested in know to what extent tractors have changed over
the last couple decades. Tractors and farm gear are an interesting
case, as (unlike cars) their operators often rebuild and repair them
year after year. I'm assuming that computers and non-user-serviceable
parts are intruding into them more and more, but I haven't done my
homework on that yet, and only hang out around older tractors most of
the time. Perhaps there's future talk fodder buried in the details ;-)

> I don't see any real justification for the view that mandating source
> release for mass-distributed products could be a bad thing.

Well one piece to decide is what qualifies as mass-distribution.

> Products distributed over the
> internet publicly are necessarily mass-distributed, but if you
> distribute a few copies of something or productions of something more
> privately, mandated-source-release wouldn't apply.

So for example, this kind of model might mandate source/blueprint
release for Craftsman tools sold in a Sears store, but not to Snap-on
tools that were only sold directly to professionals and not available
to the general public ?

> See, I'm not proposing utopia here. All laws and situations are
> imperfect. But measures that protect the public interest, openness, and
> freedom combined with abolition of copyright law would be a dramatic
> improvement for society over the status quo.

Without more information about how this might be implemented in a
reasonably fair manner to designers and manufacturers of all sizes,
I'm undecided on whether there would be an improvement for society,
dramatic or otherwise.

> I'm not concerned or
> interested in discussing hypothetical minor downsides to the policy
> details of something we don't see realistically happening any time soon.

I didn't propose mandatory source release as an alternative to
copyleft -- I'm just taking the proposed change and extending it to
(what I believe are) its logical conclusions. If the nuances of the
proposal do not capture your interest, then perhaps we can discuss a
smaller step forward, such as appealing to people at schools,
governments, and companies to prefer free/open formats over closed
ones... :-)

Best,
--R

-- 
Robinson Tryon
QA Engineer - The Document Foundation
LibreOffice Community Outreach Herald
qubit@libreoffice.org
802-379-9482