Re: Does it do that?

[mike3]

On May 21, 8:00 am, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <a...@gnu.org> wrote:
>    > People should also have the freedom to use, study, improve and
>    > distribute the software they have.  Earning a living by subjugating
>    > the rights of ones users is not a honest one.
>
>    So you can get reasonably rich then without subjugating?
>
> You can earn a living without subjugating the rights of others, yes.
>
>    Why, then, do the Software Corps like to take away as much freedom
>    as possible then?
>
> Greed, power trips.
>
>    The toy companies get along quite well (and some are HUGE,
>    multi-BILLION dollar businesses -- how much more "successful" can
>    you get?) without prohibiting people from modifying or sharing the
>    toys bought from them!
>
> People are allowed to modify and share the toys they buy, compared to
> most software.  You can't even give your friend a copy of a non-free
> program, let alone help him fix it.  With a toy you can do all those
> things.  But toys are physical objects, so they aren't as easy to
> duplicate as software, so a direct comparison between the two is not
> useful.
>
>    >    If not, then does the reluctance to accept free software
>    >    indicate a want to be as greedy (as opposed to honest) as
>    >    possible on the part of the software industry?
>    >
>    > Seeing the many attempts of companies to pass through laws like
>    > IPRED2, Software patents, DMCA/EUCD, one should be quite
>    > convinced that part of the software industry is blinded by greed.
>
>    What if you want to make a huge amount of money to use for _good_,
>    world-benefitting purposes?
>
> What if I enslave millions of people so I can have them work on
> solving the issues of poverty, our energy needs, polution?  The
> question is meaningless since the `what if' bit is to big.
>

So then how do you solve said issues?

>    Like say I wanted to make $400 mill.  to fund developing, say,
>    renewable energy technologies or pursuing unorthodox lines of
>    scientific research into, say, curing disease, that other
>    scientists may not be interested in funding. Would using
>    proprietary software for that purpose still be too greedy?
>
> Using non-free software is always wrong, it doesn't bring any good to
> the world.  Nor do you need non-free software to do any of those, you
> need it as much as child labour.  Again, the `what if' is to big, and
> it makes the question meaningless.
>

But is there any way to make said money *without* software AND
with a LOW starting capital? I mean, I can't just go off and start a
car company unless I'm pretty darned wealthy to start with. I'd
need manufacturing plants, etc. Can I go off and start my own
renewable energy company even though I have nowhere near
the cash to build even the smallest of manufacturing plants?

>    Could "free" software get one said world-benefitting money?
>
> That implies that money is the solution to all problems, which it is
> not.
>

Not even *spending* a lot of money? Is it possible to make the same
impact on the world that one makes by investing say, 10 billion
dollars
in renewable energy development through some alternative path,
while at the same time starting out poor? If so, why then do people
need money in the first place?

> Cheers.